I started watching Adult Swim because of the two aforementioned shows, but I'd advise sticking around and watching some of the other shows. They're quite good.
Home Movies: Canceled, but now in re-runs on late Sunday nights. Brilliant show about a kid who makes movies. Low key and self aware (you can actually see characters grow from season to season). Often side-splittingly funny (mostly due to Jason and Coach McGuirk).
Aqua Teen Hunger Force: Its hard to explain, but it's quite possibly the funniest cartoon currently in production.
Harvey Birdman: the best of Adult Swim's "reusing/retooling old Hanna Barbara cartoons in sick and twisted ways."
At least half of my TiVo recording comes from Adult Swim.
WHAT WAS THE POINT OF BUYING THEM OUT????? Was it to get more stations?
I suspect that was it. TechTV was on DirecTV, but G4 wasn't. I'll bet that buying them also got them on Echostar and non Comcast cable systems as well. Comcast were just buying eyeballs (or, potential eyeballs).
I'll go with Fridgets. I don't know if they're considered "classic" in terms of age (I'd never seen them before a few years ago), but I think of them as "classic" in the sense that they're simple, creative, low-tech and a lot of fun to play with. And all the rug-rats in my neighborhood love 'em.
You're a few years late on your predictions of Doom and Gloom. Would have been more believable a couple of years ago when MS launched their first version of UltimateTV (whatever it was called then). So far it hasn't exactly been a stunning success.
As for the new service? Well, from what I can tell every non TiVo/ReplayTV licensed DVR box put out by the cable companies has been woefully short on features. About the only thing cable DVRs have going for them are video on demand. I'm not exactly holding my breath, or selling my TiVo for that matter, expecting this situation to change.
Don't run the site, but ran across this tonight (via Wizbang). Its being run by a blogger, so how quickly things get updated I have no idea, but it looks pretty promising.
I've never found the iPod earbuds to be comfortable at all (they feel to big). I've been using bog standard Sony ear buds since day one. Side benifits include not advertising the fact you are carrying an iPod to your local mugger.
If citizens can't be trusted to make the "correct" decision come election time in the middle of a sea of misinformation, why are we even bothering to let them vote at all?
B*I*N*G*O
Or as I put it: "Gee, the world is full of stupid people. Thank god there are smart individuals like myself who can lead the sheeple in the right direction," which is only a few logical steps away from Orwellian like ideas such as "Ignorance is power," "submission is freedom," and "In this case, the FEC helps provide a level playing field to *protect* our democracy from people yielding undue influence based on the size of their pockets." (i.e. by restricing your rights we're making you *more* free).
Its an unfortunate side effect of human nature to assume most people are dumber/more ignorant than yourself. Unfortunatly there are people like AJS who then want to base law upon that assumption.
Again, you're not going to find any disagreement from me about what you say. Are the statutory damages high? I think so (but then again I don't make my living from the sale of copyrighted material) but this is an issue with law, not the RIAA. Most people/companies/entities are going to use the law to its greatest extent to protect itself / promote its interests, including the RIAA. Its the statute that needs to be changed. Is the RIAA abusing their legal power? I don't think so. They're simply looking for the largest punishment available under the law. This is not the same as, say, those wacky bastards the Church of Scientology and their abuse of the legal system.
I'm not arguing that their tactics, which I agree have at times been drastic. However, this isn't the argument I'm making.
*IF* someone gets sued on the flimsiest of grounds (i.e. the RIAA sees you're hosting a file called "brittney" which is a picture of your cat but they think is some Spears tune) then they have set themselves up for a huge counter-suit by the defendant for things such as barratry, but...
Not to mention all the suits against people who have free software
As far as I know no-one's actually been sued for such things. In such cases the RIAA sends out a take down notice, defendant replys back "hey, douche bags, this ain't a music file..." and that's that; no further action has taken place. Pain in the ass? Yes. But as far as I know the only folks who have gone to court / settlement are ones who have actually uploaded/downloaded files they weren't supposed to.
When the RIAA went after P2P software we all screamed "don't attack software that has legitimate uses, go after the people actually breaking the law." Now that they're doing just that everyone's still pitching a fit.
Don't think you can buy them new (at least cheaply) but look for an old Netwinder. I got one on eBay a couple of years ago for abougt $150. Low power, two ethernet ports, easy to manage and small. Not a barn burner by any means, but for a firewall / file server / print server it works perfect.
Is it "censored" if it never happened (i.e. the draft)
Not to mention the reason that coverage of the whole "oil crisis" may be low since everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (including the oil industry) have been crying wolf for the last 80 or so years about the end of oil.
Funny how there wasn't much coverage about the Saudis (who are notoriously conservative when it comes to reserves estimates) have revised their exploitable reserves upward by quite a bit.
I'm still waiting for the "population bomb" to hit... and the impending ice-age we've brought upon ourselves.
I'd agree. In fact, I'd even say that this has been in the best interest of the law firm, to the detriment of SCO. I suspect that Boise realized a long time ago that the chances for settlement / successful lawsuit were somewhere between very slim and none. They looked at the pile of cash SCO were sitting on and said "add to those billable hours, boys." $31 million in the bank, win or lose. What's not to love?
Actually, my impression is that the poison pill measure is simply a way for them to "look good." The fact that Canopy, the Board of Directors and various employees own a substancial chunk of the company to begin with even without the poison pill measures anyone who would be interested in buying SCO would have to negotiate with Canopy, et al.
Basically, its like putting spinning rims on a 1995 Hundai: it does nothing to add to the value of the car, but the owner hopes desperately it will make it look like he's not driving such a POS.
Go ask anyone who's been Joe Jobbed (I haven't, but there are those who have and are not happy about it).
Or think in terms of eBay/PayPal. There's a lot of fraud on eBay/PayPal. PayPal has been especially "tough" when it comes to dealing with it. According to you this is a good thing. Of course, innocent folks who have had hundreds or thousands of dollars of dollars frozen with little to no recourse / no help from PayPal aren't so happy.
No one bemoans losing their personal e-mail address because they were targeted by a spammer using e-mail rewriting.
RIIIIIIIGGHHHTT! Because getting everyone you know to use a new account is such fun.
Either somebody does *something*, however imperfect or flawed, or they do nothing. The whining and the complaining and the doing of nothing adds up to exactly nothing but noise.
It wasn't a whine nor a complaint. And it can have very serious reprocussions. How happy would you be if your legitimate, non-spamming online business was blacklisted because someone else forged fake spam?
I want actions taken, and I want them taken *now*. Collateral damage? Unavoidable -- any solution strong enough to work is going to cause collateral damage.
Wonderful attitude. "Fuck the innocent as long as I'm happy (and it doesn't happen to me)"
This system could be useful, but considering there was no detailed mention of how they're going to deal with this potential problem its a valid question.
Sterling use of that dizzying intellect of yours, apparently your noggin busted a fuze halfway down the article and you just gave up reading.
The point of the electronic demonstrations isn't to take down a site, according to Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, or EDT, which is releasing a FloodNet program of its own. Unlike hackers' denial-of-service attacks, which often hijack computers against their users' will, EDT's JavaScript-based software depends on how many people use the program. "It's a way to let people around the world gather and let their presence be felt," Dominguez said.
Not that he would mind if a Republican server just happened to crash along the way. In 2002, at the EDT's direction, 43,000 people flooded the site of the World Economic Forum during its meeting in New York. The organization's website went offline for several hours following the demonstration.
Now I suspect Wired got 43K people mixed up with 43K individual IP addresses/machines, but I also highly doubt that this was the work of one lone nut.
Silly conservative trapped in a corner ignoring all parts of the message but the literal terminology used?....
Here it comes...
Until you can provide me with proof that "the left" or, at least a large majority of "the left" engages in this, you are wrong..
Bingo... oh, wait a minute... you're just being absurd again, right? But I digress...
You're right, No-oneon theleftevertriedtoquellopposingviews. (here's an especially egregious list). And that was five minutes of Googling. Sure, I could just as easily have come up with a list as long as your arm of pinheads on the right partaking in similar activities, but this wasn't about the GRWC and their nefarious doings (que spooky laughter), and it wasn't about Anna Nichole Smith's ass either, which is why my post was devoid of that topic too. Its also not the VRWC who have been bleating the last four years about the "crushing of dissent" in this country (which hit a fever pitch when Ashcroft became the AG). So let's recap: Left bleating about censorship, left trying to stifle opposing views. Hypocrisy.
'm still leaning towards Rall... but there's still a Janeane-esque quality to it.
Yes, yes. You're very clever. I don't know hardly anything about either of them, but I know Garafolo is annoying. You're very very clever, congratulations.
They both love to babble on about "equality" and how evil/racist people on the right are, but have no problem calling a black person "Nigger" or "House Slave" if they don't like their politics.
"Remember kids, the 'N word' is a bad, bad word... unless I'm using it to make my point."
You misspelled a word. It should be spelled 'thugs', not 'left'. They come in all flavors: 'left', 'right', 'communist', 'fascist', 'patriots', 'democrats', 'republicans', 'greens', etc.
I agree with you on this. My pot shot at the left doesn't imply that I think the right (or the greens, the pinkos or any other political bent out there) aren't just as guilty. But the article wasn't about "Hackers for Bush" trying to disrupt the DNC. And most of the moaning these days about censorship (most of which isn't censorship) has been coming from the left (not that they hold a monopoly on that).
Please don't buy into the whole 'left - right' dichotomy
I don't. Please don't assume that everyone else does.
The extensive use of modern marketing (eg creative lying) techniques has hi-jacked political discourse and turned it into the capitalist version of '1984'.
No, 'lying' for power (be it military, political or cooperate) is as old as humanity. Nothing has changed. Contrary to popular belief things aren't getting worse, its always been 'this bad' and we've survived pretty well so far.
Whatever your beliefs, I suggest you visit spinsanity.com.
Been going there for quite a while. Believe it or not the 'unwashed masses' (of which I happily include myself) in this country aren't sheep. We're a hell of a lot more savvy than most people (advertisers, politicians, annoying hipsters) give us credit.
Your amazing ability to deftly dodge the point of the entire post is truly a sight to behold
Oh no, I understood perfectly the point you were trying to make, though ham fisted it was. Interesting how you snuck the phrase "every single" into your summation of my post, a phrase I didn't use and one that changes the meaning of my post. Its that little mis characterization from which you launch your "oh, look how clever I am with my 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'" riposte.
But lets continue.
The assumption here was that you would understand that you implicated the entire body of "the left" in the actions of a few stupid little brats using a ridiculous stereotype.
Ridiculous stereotype? So you're saying the left isn't concerned about censorship? All those MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Media Matters, etc posts about the Patriot Act, Cooperate media, Fox News, etc are a figment of my imagination? Interesting.
Also interesting about how you're so damn sure the 'hacking' will only be comprised by a few stupid little brats. I must have missed that part of the article. Is it 10 people or 50? 5000? One pimply guy with a gmail account?
To drive the point home, I followed up with this sarcastic remark, unfairly implicating you in a ridiculous stereotype:
And this was the point of my reply in the first place. Because I take pot shots at the left I must be on the right. Hmm.. now where did you put your petard.
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
I'm still leaning towards Rall... but there's still a Janeane-esque quality to it.
I suggest trying classical music. I hear it can raise your IQ a few points.
Apparently it didn't work on your particular data point.
Hmmm... if you criticize the left you must be right. Yes, sterling world view there. Amazing ability to discern shades of grey. Pot, kettle, some darkish colour.
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
So, Ted Rall has a slashdot account... or are you Janeane Garofalo?
Slashdot Mirror
0. Lack of support for programs I use (Firefox support? Pretty please?)
What do you mean by lack of support? I use google search on firefox all of the time. Just enter the appropriate URL into it (then bookmark it).
I started watching Adult Swim because of the two aforementioned shows, but I'd advise sticking around and watching some of the other shows. They're quite good.
Home Movies: Canceled, but now in re-runs on late Sunday nights. Brilliant show about a kid who makes movies. Low key and self aware (you can actually see characters grow from season to season). Often side-splittingly funny (mostly due to Jason and Coach McGuirk).
Aqua Teen Hunger Force: Its hard to explain, but it's quite possibly the funniest cartoon currently in production.
Harvey Birdman: the best of Adult Swim's "reusing/retooling old Hanna Barbara cartoons in sick and twisted ways."
At least half of my TiVo recording comes from Adult Swim.
WHAT WAS THE POINT OF BUYING THEM OUT????? Was it to get more stations?
I suspect that was it. TechTV was on DirecTV, but G4 wasn't. I'll bet that buying them also got them on Echostar and non Comcast cable systems as well. Comcast were just buying eyeballs (or, potential eyeballs).
I'll go with Fridgets. I don't know if they're considered "classic" in terms of age (I'd never seen them before a few years ago), but I think of them as "classic" in the sense that they're simple, creative, low-tech and a lot of fun to play with. And all the rug-rats in my neighborhood love 'em.
You're a few years late on your predictions of Doom and Gloom. Would have been more believable a couple of years ago when MS launched their first version of UltimateTV (whatever it was called then). So far it hasn't exactly been a stunning success.
As for the new service? Well, from what I can tell every non TiVo/ReplayTV licensed DVR box put out by the cable companies has been woefully short on features. About the only thing cable DVRs have going for them are video on demand. I'm not exactly holding my breath, or selling my TiVo for that matter, expecting this situation to change.
Don't run the site, but ran across this tonight (via Wizbang). Its being run by a blogger, so how quickly things get updated I have no idea, but it looks pretty promising.
I've never found the iPod earbuds to be comfortable at all (they feel to big). I've been using bog standard Sony ear buds since day one. Side benifits include not advertising the fact you are carrying an iPod to your local mugger.
If citizens can't be trusted to make the "correct" decision come election time in the middle of a sea of misinformation, why are we even bothering to let them vote at all?
B*I*N*G*O
Or as I put it: "Gee, the world is full of stupid people. Thank god there are smart individuals like myself who can lead the sheeple in the right direction," which is only a few logical steps away from Orwellian like ideas such as "Ignorance is power," "submission is freedom," and "In this case, the FEC helps provide a level playing field to *protect* our democracy from people yielding undue influence based on the size of their pockets." (i.e. by restricing your rights we're making you *more* free).
Its an unfortunate side effect of human nature to assume most people are dumber/more ignorant than yourself. Unfortunatly there are people like AJS who then want to base law upon that assumption.
Again, you're not going to find any disagreement from me about what you say. Are the statutory damages high? I think so (but then again I don't make my living from the sale of copyrighted material) but this is an issue with law, not the RIAA. Most people/companies/entities are going to use the law to its greatest extent to protect itself / promote its interests, including the RIAA. Its the statute that needs to be changed. Is the RIAA abusing their legal power? I don't think so. They're simply looking for the largest punishment available under the law. This is not the same as, say, those wacky bastards the Church of Scientology and their abuse of the legal system.
Of course, this is Slashdot. All the Slashbots must have one opinion. And they scream too. Disconcerting for someone with such a low ID number.
And so pretentiously smug for someone with such a large ID number.... er, wait a minute... no its not.
I'm not arguing that their tactics, which I agree have at times been drastic. However, this isn't the argument I'm making.
*IF* someone gets sued on the flimsiest of grounds (i.e. the RIAA sees you're hosting a file called "brittney" which is a picture of your cat but they think is some Spears tune) then they have set themselves up for a huge counter-suit by the defendant for things such as barratry, but...
Not to mention all the suits against people who have free software
As far as I know no-one's actually been sued for such things. In such cases the RIAA sends out a take down notice, defendant replys back "hey, douche bags, this ain't a music file..." and that's that; no further action has taken place. Pain in the ass? Yes. But as far as I know the only folks who have gone to court / settlement are ones who have actually uploaded/downloaded files they weren't supposed to.
When the RIAA went after P2P software we all screamed "don't attack software that has legitimate uses, go after the people actually breaking the law." Now that they're doing just that everyone's still pitching a fit.
Don't think you can buy them new (at least cheaply) but look for an old Netwinder. I got one on eBay a couple of years ago for abougt $150. Low power, two ethernet ports, easy to manage and small. Not a barn burner by any means, but for a firewall / file server / print server it works perfect.
Is it "censored" if it never happened (i.e. the draft)
Not to mention the reason that coverage of the whole "oil crisis" may be low since everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (including the oil industry) have been crying wolf for the last 80 or so years about the end of oil.
Funny how there wasn't much coverage about the Saudis (who are notoriously conservative when it comes to reserves estimates) have revised their exploitable reserves upward by quite a bit.
I'm still waiting for the "population bomb" to hit... and the impending ice-age we've brought upon ourselves.
I'd agree. In fact, I'd even say that this has been in the best interest of the law firm, to the detriment of SCO. I suspect that Boise realized a long time ago that the chances for settlement / successful lawsuit were somewhere between very slim and none. They looked at the pile of cash SCO were sitting on and said "add to those billable hours, boys." $31 million in the bank, win or lose. What's not to love?
Actually, my impression is that the poison pill measure is simply a way for them to "look good." The fact that Canopy, the Board of Directors and various employees own a substancial chunk of the company to begin with even without the poison pill measures anyone who would be interested in buying SCO would have to negotiate with Canopy, et al.
Basically, its like putting spinning rims on a 1995 Hundai: it does nothing to add to the value of the car, but the owner hopes desperately it will make it look like he's not driving such a POS.
Its called the North Slope, and there's been drilling/pumping there for years.
Ahhh... I get it. Trolled. My hat's off to ya.
Go ask anyone who's been Joe Jobbed (I haven't, but there are those who have and are not happy about it).
Or think in terms of eBay/PayPal. There's a lot of fraud on eBay/PayPal. PayPal has been especially "tough" when it comes to dealing with it. According to you this is a good thing. Of course, innocent folks who have had hundreds or thousands of dollars of dollars frozen with little to no recourse / no help from PayPal aren't so happy.
No one bemoans losing their personal e-mail address because they were targeted by a spammer using e-mail rewriting.
RIIIIIIIGGHHHTT! Because getting everyone you know to use a new account is such fun.
Either somebody does *something*, however imperfect or flawed, or they do nothing. The whining and the complaining and the doing of nothing adds up to exactly nothing but noise.
It wasn't a whine nor a complaint. And it can have very serious reprocussions. How happy would you be if your legitimate, non-spamming online business was blacklisted because someone else forged fake spam?
I want actions taken, and I want them taken *now*. Collateral damage? Unavoidable -- any solution strong enough to work is going to cause collateral damage.
Wonderful attitude. "Fuck the innocent as long as I'm happy (and it doesn't happen to me)"
This system could be useful, but considering there was no detailed mention of how they're going to deal with this potential problem its a valid question.
... until people start spamming using their competition's address to facilitate them getting thrown off their host?
Sterling use of that dizzying intellect of yours, apparently your noggin busted a fuze halfway down the article and you just gave up reading.Now I suspect Wired got 43K people mixed up with 43K individual IP addresses/machines, but I also highly doubt that this was the work of one lone nut.
Silly conservative trapped in a corner ignoring all parts of the message but the literal terminology used?
Here it comes...
Until you can provide me with proof that "the left" or, at least a large majority of "the left" engages in this, you are wrong..
Bingo... oh, wait a minute... you're just being absurd again, right? But I digress...
You're right, No-one on
the left ever tried to quell opposing views. (here's an especially egregious list). And that was five minutes of Googling. Sure, I could just as easily have come up with a list as long as your arm of pinheads on the right partaking in similar activities, but this wasn't about the GRWC and their nefarious doings (que spooky laughter), and it wasn't about Anna Nichole Smith's ass either, which is why my post was devoid of that topic too. Its also not the VRWC who have been bleating the last four years about the "crushing of dissent" in this country (which hit a fever pitch when Ashcroft became the AG). So let's recap: Left bleating about censorship, left trying to stifle opposing views. Hypocrisy.
'm still leaning towards Rall... but there's still a Janeane-esque quality to it.
Yes, yes. You're very clever. I don't know hardly anything about either of them, but I know Garafolo is annoying. You're very very clever, congratulations.
They both love to babble on about "equality" and how evil/racist people on the right are, but have no problem calling a black person "Nigger" or "House Slave" if they don't like their politics.
"Remember kids, the 'N word' is a bad, bad word... unless I'm using it to make my point."
You misspelled a word. It should be spelled 'thugs', not 'left'. They come in all flavors: 'left', 'right', 'communist', 'fascist', 'patriots', 'democrats', 'republicans', 'greens', etc.
I agree with you on this. My pot shot at the left doesn't imply that I think the right (or the greens, the pinkos or any other political bent out there) aren't just as guilty. But the article wasn't about "Hackers for Bush" trying to disrupt the DNC. And most of the moaning these days about censorship (most of which isn't censorship) has been coming from the left (not that they hold a monopoly on that).
Please don't buy into the whole 'left - right' dichotomy
I don't. Please don't assume that everyone else does.
The extensive use of modern marketing (eg creative lying) techniques has hi-jacked political discourse and turned it into the capitalist version of '1984'.
No, 'lying' for power (be it military, political or cooperate) is as old as humanity. Nothing has changed. Contrary to popular belief things aren't getting worse, its always been 'this bad' and we've survived pretty well so far.
Whatever your beliefs, I suggest you visit spinsanity.com.
Been going there for quite a while. Believe it or not the 'unwashed masses' (of which I happily include myself) in this country aren't sheep. We're a hell of a lot more savvy than most people (advertisers, politicians, annoying hipsters) give us credit.
Your amazing ability to deftly dodge the point of the entire post is truly a sight to behold
Oh no, I understood perfectly the point you were trying to make, though ham fisted it was. Interesting how you snuck the phrase "every single" into your summation of my post, a phrase I didn't use and one that changes the meaning of my post. Its that little mis characterization from which you launch your "oh, look how clever I am with my 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'" riposte.
But lets continue.
The assumption here was that you would understand that you implicated the entire body of "the left" in the actions of a few stupid little brats using a ridiculous stereotype.
Ridiculous stereotype? So you're saying the left isn't concerned about censorship? All those MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Media Matters, etc posts about the Patriot Act, Cooperate media, Fox News, etc are a figment of my imagination? Interesting.
Also interesting about how you're so damn sure the 'hacking' will only be comprised by a few stupid little brats. I must have missed that part of the article. Is it 10 people or 50? 5000? One pimply guy with a gmail account?
To drive the point home, I followed up with this sarcastic remark, unfairly implicating you in a ridiculous stereotype:
And this was the point of my reply in the first place. Because I take pot shots at the left I must be on the right. Hmm.. now where did you put your petard.
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
I'm still leaning towards Rall... but there's still a Janeane-esque quality to it.
I suggest trying classical music. I hear it can raise your IQ a few points.
Apparently it didn't work on your particular data point.
Hmmm... if you criticize the left you must be right. Yes, sterling world view there. Amazing ability to discern shades of grey. Pot, kettle, some darkish colour.
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
So, Ted Rall has a slashdot account... or are you Janeane Garofalo?