Just a reminder to those who might want to look it up in the dictionary:
extortn. To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.
The threat and coercion being: Expensive legal fees or expensive settlement. For a person of limited resources, this is legal extortion. That's why some forms of torte reform are unreasonable and unworkable.
And if the fee isn't paid the RIAA gets to file liens or even get the defendant thrown in jail. Also as a reminder liens affect credit ratings which affect loan rates which affect future income... the snowball effect of this really is huge.
I would contend that the REAL piracy is a social piracy on the part of the RIAA. In my opinion, they're plundering our society for short-term monetary gains on what amounts to be bad business processes practices by the RIAA's members. I understand they want to make a buck (who doesn't?), but at what cost to society?
My apologies to the Pastafarians out there for putting the RIAA in the same ball field as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His wrath will be mighty and oregano flavored.
Utopia is a project in Utah that looks at web service like a utility rather than a corporate-controlled entity. I personally like the idea and I think we should take the future of the net this way rather than a business oriented way. At least for household access.
In all honesty, it sounds like he's just running through a list of comparisons between WoW and EQ vs. DDO. (Obviously favoring the EQ-type model).
I do applaud the makers of DDO for not going the easy route by making a clone of EQ with a D&D label slapped on it. He does have some valid points, but DDO is not EQ or WoW. Stick with those games if that's what you like to play and let this one be decided on its own merits.
What's that saying about making assume "making an ASS out of U and ME"?
Cultural bias aside, the Chinese really do things like this often so how could people interpret it differently? This is not an indictment of the news media; it's an indictment of cultural differences being exploited for notoriety. Chinese media does have a very real history of being repressed by Chinese authorities and intentionally making fools of people doesn't really point out anything in this context. The Chinese government (and if some congresspersons and senators here in the U.S. have their way, the U.S. government - see the recent stories about requiring bloggers and posters to register with real user information) will continue to repress expression on the web and their point proves nothing.
It's a kind of reverse "cry wolf" effect the bloggers pointed out, but to what ends does it serve excepting gaining notoriety for those sites/persons?
To be fair, if you call Korea a stalemate then The War of 1812 wasn't lost, it wasn't won either. The Treaty of Ghent put everything back the way it was before the war, more or less. The U.S. didn't get what it originally was trying to gain by going to war with the U.K.
Hmm... Parent wouldn't happen to be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly would it? I love the whole "Conspiracy/War On Christmas" stuff. Belongs right up there with the "9/11 was a plot by Israel" stuff. Because, as we all know, us atheists and agnostics in the world are just heartless bastards looking to destroy lifestyles and make everyone gay or lesbian. (rolls eyes)
This is good entertainment... I wish some people would realize this is entertainment, not reality... either that or install earplugs in their tinfoil hats.
"A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur."
Note there's observation and testing cycles involved, as well as accurate predictions of behavior based on the testing/observation/revision of the hypothesis graduation process. It's not a simple matter of consensus or grouped hypothesis. You make it sound like "Because a bunch of us have the same hypothesis, it can now be called a theory." That is blatantly untrue and entirely contrary to the scientific method.
I really do get tired of posters insinuating that scientists are some kind of priest class that pulls all of this stuff out of their ass. Just because you read a Popular Science magazine article about it or you have your doubts about the way some random slashdot-linked article doesn't make you a student of that field. I only say this because of the cursory nature of understanding that these articles present. They've been overviewed in common parlance because of their complex nature, and the situation here is analogous to someone here walking barefoot through a small puddle and claiming they have the ability to compete with an Olympic swimmer based on that puddle experience. The reason we have the ideas of how things work is not arbitrary conjecture, but really hard work and a LOT of failure. It's generally not a matter of pride or authority because there are many scientists that have different ideas about the same subject, and these ideas are subject to criticisms by their peers as well as the practical universe as a whole.
There have been MANY proposed explanations of gravity by "scientists" and "non-scientists". (The reason I put the word scientist in quotations above is because we're all really scientists to a degree) Most of those explanations have fallen by the wayside because they fail to work in real-life cases of testing and observation. If that wasn't true then technology as it is today wouldn't work at all.
That's not to imply that all the "answers" have been found, but it does mean that we're obviously doing something correct because we can make your hair-dryer work, or your computer, or fly to the Moon, or any number of examples you could cite. There is much progress to be made, and some of it (like quantum mechanics) might seem counter-intuitive and fantastical but come up with a better, testable, verifiable explanation (rather than just blatant criticism) as to why it works and your explanation will be accepted as the baseline.
I guess the point of my ramblings here is: The scientific community is not some amorphous blob of single-minded authority, and it shouldn't be treated as such.
Possibly, but I'm pretty sure DirecTV was aware of the calls just by all the money they paid for all the million + calls made. If they're like any other firm that outsources their call center work, they do quality assurance assessments. The telemarketing firm could just bring up the QA sessions as evidence DirecTV was aware of and approved of the calls.
On a side note, I believe a company (one call center located in West Valley City, Utah) called Convergys http://www.convergys.com/ does a good deal of telemarketing and technical support for DirecTV.
I have to agree. When you say "Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act" in regards to this article, there's an agenda. I know slashdot is full of politics (both ways, both annoying) but realistically, that's similar to the rhetoric surrounding The Patriot Act. There's so much more to it than what the bill title and proponent summary is.
Why do people keep falling for political dog-and-pony shows like this? There are obvious reasons they voted against this, not because "Dems hate free speech!" crap. I'm absolutely sure that most people (Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, etc.) would like to keep free speech, so just give that part a rest.
In a related question, when did people start believing that politicians were altruistic and truthful, and that being uncompromising was a sign of validity and truth?
"If, of the many truths, you select only one and follow it blindly, it will become a falsehood, and you a fanatic."
A truth unto itself, but don't follow it blindly;)
I think it'll be really hard for the government to prove the following point against The Onion from the title:
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title..."
So where is this not the case? I don't see anyone excepting a single reporter in China a few years back taking The Onion seriously... And the commercial clauses would have to show that The Onion purposely used the seal to gain profit. Not a lawyer, but I think that'd be hard to prove in most cases of use of the presidential (etc.) seals. I think they'd have a better case against book publishers and movie makers who seem to use the seal often on political thrillers because the medium the seals are conveyed on are specifically on items that are not free access. You have to buy your ticket, book, whatever.
I get your point, but unless The Onion can't defend itself in court somehow I don't see this lawsuit going very far. Especially with the negative repercussions in an already poor public opinion atmosphere at the White House. It's not enough of a smoke-screen issue to distract the public from the current scandals there, so this is really a puzzling move. Carl Rove must be slipping.:D
Batman and Robin was bad
Waterworld was bad
Showgirls had boobies, but was bad
For true horror in badness, check out Battlefield Earth sometime...
"To err is human, to really mess things up takes a computer, and to make mind-numbing, nausea-inducing, cancer-causing vitriolic prose it takes a Scientologist."
The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!
Sorry, secret societies are just too much fun to not parody. Apologies to whomever gets offended, but don't you think you need something better to do in life than get offended at something _I_ say?
Yes, I agree... 'nuff said... from Anonymous posters who don't bother looking at the articles they're criticizing.
The first source is not U.S. Women's Bureau etc... it's Robert Longley quoting Census Bureau information, and here's the quote: "Women make only 75.5 cents for every dollar that men earn, according to a new release by the U.S. Census Bureau. Between 2002 and 2003, median annual earnings for full-time year-round women workers shrank by 0.6 percent, to $30,724, while men's earnings remained unchanged, at $40,668. The 1.4 percent decrease in the gender wage ratio is the largest backslide in 12 years (since 1991). The 2003 Census data also show the first decline in women's real earnings since 1995."
I'd challenge you to find more up-to-date wage and census data than 2003 (note, it even states a statistic for 2002 to 2003, if you didn't notice).
First, I fail to see how the Census Bureau is inherently bias towards females as their directorial staff has 8 males and 1 female:
Director - Charles Louis KinCannon (Male)
Deputy Director - Hermann Habermann (Male)
Assoc. Dir. for Communications - Jefferson Taylor (Male)
Assoc. Dir. for Administration and CFO - Ted A. Johnson (Male)
etc...
I do believe, however, that you do have a bias viewpoint and agenda regarding this point by your ham-handed approach to this topic, and not having information to back up your contentious viewpoint.
Secondly, the infoplease article I quoted from is as reputable as the Information Please Almanac can be. If you dispute the almanac, take it up with them but they're pretty good at checking facts and gathering information from reputable sources considering they've been in the almanac business since about World War II.
Thirdly, you AGAIN quote allegory and generalized personal observation to prove your point with Bill Gates and manager/secretaries. One instance does not a case make in any argument that deals with a large group of statistics. The reason I liken the approach to Rush Limbaugh is because this is exactly the kind of approach he uses. Had it been an Alfred E. Newman approach, I would have labeled it so.
Finally, statistical analysis is not only for lying despite what you may think. I think the case for women being paid inherently less than men has been made in society already and over the course of many years it's been re-examined and tested by more reputable sources than "Anonymous Coward" on slashdot.
Feel free to analyze the information and correct myself, Robert Longley, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. women's Bureau as you please, but I believe they've made a compelling argument.
Slashdot Mirror
[[grumbles]] Damn spell check. Hehe. Thanks ;)
Just a reminder to those who might want to look it up in the dictionary:
extort n. To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.
The threat and coercion being: Expensive legal fees or expensive settlement. For a person of limited resources, this is legal extortion. That's why some forms of torte reform are unreasonable and unworkable.
And if the fee isn't paid the RIAA gets to file liens or even get the defendant thrown in jail. Also as a reminder liens affect credit ratings which affect loan rates which affect future income... the snowball effect of this really is huge.
I would contend that the REAL piracy is a social piracy on the part of the RIAA. In my opinion, they're plundering our society for short-term monetary gains on what amounts to be bad business processes practices by the RIAA's members. I understand they want to make a buck (who doesn't?), but at what cost to society?
My apologies to the Pastafarians out there for putting the RIAA in the same ball field as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His wrath will be mighty and oregano flavored.
The future of GIS:
Yar! Ye be lookin' mighty fine in those genes, there!
http://www.utopianet.org/corporate.htm
Utopia is a project in Utah that looks at web service like a utility rather than a corporate-controlled entity. I personally like the idea and I think we should take the future of the net this way rather than a business oriented way. At least for household access.
Here's the link from last week: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/13/fbi.computers.a p/
Hell, I'll put up a secure e-mail system for half that! ;)
I do applaud the makers of DDO for not going the easy route by making a clone of EQ with a D&D label slapped on it. He does have some valid points, but DDO is not EQ or WoW. Stick with those games if that's what you like to play and let this one be decided on its own merits.
Cultural bias aside, the Chinese really do things like this often so how could people interpret it differently? This is not an indictment of the news media; it's an indictment of cultural differences being exploited for notoriety. Chinese media does have a very real history of being repressed by Chinese authorities and intentionally making fools of people doesn't really point out anything in this context. The Chinese government (and if some congresspersons and senators here in the U.S. have their way, the U.S. government - see the recent stories about requiring bloggers and posters to register with real user information) will continue to repress expression on the web and their point proves nothing.
It's a kind of reverse "cry wolf" effect the bloggers pointed out, but to what ends does it serve excepting gaining notoriety for those sites/persons?
To be fair, if you call Korea a stalemate then The War of 1812 wasn't lost, it wasn't won either. The Treaty of Ghent put everything back the way it was before the war, more or less. The U.S. didn't get what it originally was trying to gain by going to war with the U.K.
I can't fault them for wanting money 'cause I want it too, but I do believe buckling under China's rules made me lose respect for their judgement.
Another victim of the all-mighty greenback. >sigh
It had to be done, sorry to the people I nauseated in attempting humor.
This is good entertainment... I wish some people would realize this is entertainment, not reality... either that or install earplugs in their tinfoil hats.
"Dood, that raver chick gave me the KSW last night and it's been itching all day!"
I guess the Kama Sutra Worm STD might have more positions, but the Tantric Worm lasts longer.
"We now return you to your regular slashdot blather"
(Leaves to go watch Wapner)
"A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur."
Note there's observation and testing cycles involved, as well as accurate predictions of behavior based on the testing/observation/revision of the hypothesis graduation process. It's not a simple matter of consensus or grouped hypothesis. You make it sound like "Because a bunch of us have the same hypothesis, it can now be called a theory." That is blatantly untrue and entirely contrary to the scientific method.
I really do get tired of posters insinuating that scientists are some kind of priest class that pulls all of this stuff out of their ass. Just because you read a Popular Science magazine article about it or you have your doubts about the way some random slashdot-linked article doesn't make you a student of that field. I only say this because of the cursory nature of understanding that these articles present. They've been overviewed in common parlance because of their complex nature, and the situation here is analogous to someone here walking barefoot through a small puddle and claiming they have the ability to compete with an Olympic swimmer based on that puddle experience. The reason we have the ideas of how things work is not arbitrary conjecture, but really hard work and a LOT of failure. It's generally not a matter of pride or authority because there are many scientists that have different ideas about the same subject, and these ideas are subject to criticisms by their peers as well as the practical universe as a whole.
There have been MANY proposed explanations of gravity by "scientists" and "non-scientists". (The reason I put the word scientist in quotations above is because we're all really scientists to a degree) Most of those explanations have fallen by the wayside because they fail to work in real-life cases of testing and observation. If that wasn't true then technology as it is today wouldn't work at all.
That's not to imply that all the "answers" have been found, but it does mean that we're obviously doing something correct because we can make your hair-dryer work, or your computer, or fly to the Moon, or any number of examples you could cite. There is much progress to be made, and some of it (like quantum mechanics) might seem counter-intuitive and fantastical but come up with a better, testable, verifiable explanation (rather than just blatant criticism) as to why it works and your explanation will be accepted as the baseline.
I guess the point of my ramblings here is: The scientific community is not some amorphous blob of single-minded authority, and it shouldn't be treated as such.
On a side note, I believe a company (one call center located in West Valley City, Utah) called Convergys http://www.convergys.com/ does a good deal of telemarketing and technical support for DirecTV.
I was hoping someone would say something like that. :D
(groans heard throughout the land)
My apologies to those who get that...
Why do people keep falling for political dog-and-pony shows like this? There are obvious reasons they voted against this, not because "Dems hate free speech!" crap. I'm absolutely sure that most people (Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, etc.) would like to keep free speech, so just give that part a rest.
In a related question, when did people start believing that politicians were altruistic and truthful, and that being uncompromising was a sign of validity and truth?
"If, of the many truths, you select only one and follow it blindly, it will become a falsehood, and you a fanatic."
A truth unto itself, but don't follow it blindly ;)
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title..."
So where is this not the case? I don't see anyone excepting a single reporter in China a few years back taking The Onion seriously... And the commercial clauses would have to show that The Onion purposely used the seal to gain profit. Not a lawyer, but I think that'd be hard to prove in most cases of use of the presidential (etc.) seals. I think they'd have a better case against book publishers and movie makers who seem to use the seal often on political thrillers because the medium the seals are conveyed on are specifically on items that are not free access. You have to buy your ticket, book, whatever.
I get your point, but unless The Onion can't defend itself in court somehow I don't see this lawsuit going very far. Especially with the negative repercussions in an already poor public opinion atmosphere at the White House. It's not enough of a smoke-screen issue to distract the public from the current scandals there, so this is really a puzzling move. Carl Rove must be slipping. :D
Waterworld was bad
Showgirls had boobies, but was bad
For true horror in badness, check out Battlefield Earth sometime...
"To err is human, to really mess things up takes a computer, and to make mind-numbing, nausea-inducing, cancer-causing vitriolic prose it takes a Scientologist."
Sorry, secret societies are just too much fun to not parody. Apologies to whomever gets offended, but don't you think you need something better to do in life than get offended at something _I_ say?
Depravity, here I come!
My apologies, the Bill Gates quote was from a differing article below. The point does stand, however.
The first source is not U.S. Women's Bureau etc... it's Robert Longley quoting Census Bureau information, and here's the quote: "Women make only 75.5 cents for every dollar that men earn, according to a new release by the U.S. Census Bureau. Between 2002 and 2003, median annual earnings for full-time year-round women workers shrank by 0.6 percent, to $30,724, while men's earnings remained unchanged, at $40,668. The 1.4 percent decrease in the gender wage ratio is the largest backslide in 12 years (since 1991). The 2003 Census data also show the first decline in women's real earnings since 1995."
I'd challenge you to find more up-to-date wage and census data than 2003 (note, it even states a statistic for 2002 to 2003, if you didn't notice).
First, I fail to see how the Census Bureau is inherently bias towards females as their directorial staff has 8 males and 1 female:
Director - Charles Louis KinCannon (Male)
Deputy Director - Hermann Habermann (Male)
Assoc. Dir. for Communications - Jefferson Taylor (Male)
Assoc. Dir. for Administration and CFO - Ted A. Johnson (Male)
etc...
I do believe, however, that you do have a bias viewpoint and agenda regarding this point by your ham-handed approach to this topic, and not having information to back up your contentious viewpoint.
Secondly, the infoplease article I quoted from is as reputable as the Information Please Almanac can be. If you dispute the almanac, take it up with them but they're pretty good at checking facts and gathering information from reputable sources considering they've been in the almanac business since about World War II.
Thirdly, you AGAIN quote allegory and generalized personal observation to prove your point with Bill Gates and manager/secretaries. One instance does not a case make in any argument that deals with a large group of statistics. The reason I liken the approach to Rush Limbaugh is because this is exactly the kind of approach he uses. Had it been an Alfred E. Newman approach, I would have labeled it so.
Finally, statistical analysis is not only for lying despite what you may think. I think the case for women being paid inherently less than men has been made in society already and over the course of many years it's been re-examined and tested by more reputable sources than "Anonymous Coward" on slashdot.
Feel free to analyze the information and correct myself, Robert Longley, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. women's Bureau as you please, but I believe they've made a compelling argument.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/ a/paygapgrows.htm Pretty recent US Gov't info on this subject
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193820.html Info please stats on women's wages in general
And there are many other studies to back the validity of the claim that women get paid quite a bit less than men in most areas.
I just thought this might be more informative than the "Rush Limbaugh" approach of the above post.
Note to parent poster: Personal observation and allegorical arguments aren't anywhere close to being valid representations of statistics.