I was doing it fifteen years ago with WinImages and a single frame Panasonic SVHS video recorder/player. This isn't recent technology — Adobe was quite late to the table with AfterFX. The idea that it would be troublesome for anyone today is bankrupt.
I agree 100%. All the downmods in this subthread have been punitive, "I disagree" mods. There's nothing at all low-quality about those posts; the mods are merely expressing naive disagreement with the points made in them. Slashdot moderation is crap. You have to read at -1 to get the benefits of your fellow member's input.
Which is all well and good, but that's not what was implied by "picking up the clean end."
What? I used it; I know what I meant when I used it, and I just finished explaining it to you. We're not talking about a third party's words now; we're talking about what I said. You're bewildered.
The particular word in question should be removed from the lexicon particular because it is is intended to do exactly that kind of separation.
No. That's not how it is being used. It's being disenfranchised of its prior viciousness by the very slang that uses it just as we saw it here. You're not keeping up with the language on the one hand, and on the other, there's no need to censor anything. Even when we do have racism (and any other ism we don't like) we're better off if we can see it coming. Censorship is shortsighted and wrongheaded; you're in error in your entire approach to it.
It is specifically used to degrade the people it refers to.
If it is, we should hear it when people mean to do such a thing so we know how to react. But in this case - and many others - that's not how it is used. In the above context, it just means "you people", and it can mean "my friends" just as easily. The fact that you're not seeing it only measures how far out of touch you are. It doesn't justify censorship in any way.
If all the words we use to describe particular races become impolite because the 'turd' they refer to 'doesn't have a clean end' then we've got much bigger problems than we care to admit.
These concepts cannot be cleaned up by censorship. That's what that means. You're part of the problem as long as you attempt to censor, no matter how prettily you wrap up the idea (such as "the particular word in question should be removed from the lexicon") You cannot pick up a turd by its clean end; you cannot eliminate racism by censorship. It's not too difficult to understand, at least, if you're willing to see that your urge to control other people's language is inappropriate and wrong. Let them speak; let them be judged by what they mean, by the contexts they choose to speak in, by the ebb and flow of one person's remarks into the next.
That, of course, means you have an obligation to be able to distinguish between the underlying implications of "hey, my niggers, what's happenen?" spoken to a mixed race crowd and "get off my lawn, you filthy nigger" spoken to a black child fetching his ball from someone's yard. If you can't do that, you shouldn't ever entertain the notion that you have the moral and/or ethical know-how to tell other people what they can and cannot say.
One of the things that is very dangerous to this country is the tendency for some people (FCC, legislators, community leaders, pompous citizens) to decide that they have the right and the authority to tell the rest of the people what they can say. They may have the best of intentions, as you probably do here, but it's still wrong. The very foundation of liberty is free speech. Don't kick at the foundation with the idea that you know what words are OK, and what words are not. It isn't that simple, and it never will be. It's just political correctness in one of its most offensive modes.
Political correctness for politics' sake is pointless, but that doesn't mean we should just keep on using words willy nilly that are deliberately degrading.
Political correctness is politics as social coercion. Don't tell other people what words they can say in order to fulfill your own agenda. Period. It's just that easy. As for using words "willy nilly", the OP used the word normally in dialect in a non-racist manner; I live in the deep midwest, speak English like a high end radio announcer, and I understood the usage perfectly; I don't take one bit of racist intent away with my understanding. If you do, that's a problem in your perceptions, and perhaps you ought to look into that lack of perceptivity. Rather than worry about who used what word where.
Sounds like slashdot is perfect for you with all kinds of hidden content. For me, it's -1 or a waste of time. I am sure that there are others on both sides of this viewpoint; I am also sure of what I have seen over the years reading at -1. Ten posts? heck, I can give you ten posts from the same story!
Here are your ten "0" posts of perfectly good content that I would have missed, in no way of lesser value than anyone else's all from one story:
Now, you specified "great posts"; as far as I'm concerned, most stories don't have any great posts. They're pretty rare. What I'm interested in is point, counterpoint, rationale, data, references, argument over perceptions, the things that make the continuum of opinions and uses less opaque to me, especially if it is an area I'm not familiar with. My concern is that I be able to follow a conversation and not miss things. Now, in the above ten examples, many of those posts had specific information such as how packets are handled and formatted, directly on topic and germane in the sense that the issues discussed required that info to be understood and addressed properly. An editor with mod points - who was actually competent to follow the conversation - could have fixed it, but as you see, it's been a day or so and it remains unfixed. A day on slashdot means the conversation is mostly over, so those posts were wasted for many people. So this is concrete evidence (and by the way, this can be done with any slashdot story) that the threads are not well served by the way the moderation works out.
Now, as to vendettas and accountability: I try - hard - to post things I am convinced of, and to back them up with reason. I may fail, I may be wrong, but I *never* troll and I try really hard not to be rude unless someone has been rude to me. I like slashdot, and I really appreciate how much the posters here have contributed to my outlook and education. You too - we've butted heads a couple times. I think it is fair to say that if you look through my posting history, you're not going to find posts that are deserving of "troll" or downmods in general. You may very well find things you don't agree with, but they are my honest opinions, worst case you'll see a post where I misinterpreted what someone else said. With that in mind:
I watch my moderation fairly closely, only because I watch my account to see if my posts have new replies. The moderation is righ
This is something meta-moderating doesn't address, or doesn't address sufficiently?
Meta moderating doesn't address it at all. The only way to spot a mod on a crusade to hammer someone is to know which mod did what to whom. Anonymous moderation is an invitation to abuse, and abuse is regular and extensive. Some moderations - underrated, overrated - aren't even meta-moderated at all, so editors and mods can (and do) step on certain people's posts without any fear of being caught out. The excuse of the editors is that these two mods don't affect karma, so they don't need metamodding; I don't know about you, but I'm not here for karma, I'm here for good posts, and these mod types hide posts just as well as anything else does.
You say that you have an idea that mods "protect" us from crapfloods, etc. Well, they don't protect me, because I've found that reading at -1 uncovers a whole lot of very, very good posts that either never get modded up - anonymous, for instance - or have been modded down. I want to read the good posts, so I read at -1 and mods protect me from zip, nada, nothing. I have to see everything if I want to see the good stuff. If the mod system actually worked - that is, all worthwhile posts went up, and just trolls (like GNAA) and obvious FP masturbation went down, then I could actually use the system. The thing is, if it's happening to me, it's happening to everyone; just that if they do read at, say, 2, then they're missing a lot. They can't avoid it, because the system keeps a lot of good stuff down.
The underlying problem is that moderation generally really means "I agree" / "I support this member" or "I disagree" / "I dislike this member." Very few people actually evaluate posts for content, rather than tone or source.
You might consider reading the link I provided. I went into some detail there.
but the genius of the system is that it really does a good job of keeping the crap out.
No. It doesn't keep anything out. Trust me, I have to see it all. What this system does is hides things if you let it. It is far more likely to hide a good post than it is a problem post because there are a lot more of them. Most because they simply start at 0 and never get a point, others because they're unfairly knocked down. There are really very few problem posts as compared to posts that never get a fair shake, but because there are so many posts overall, and so few mod points, the 0-level posts generally contain more good stuff than the high level posts by volume. Skipping them is like shooting yourself in the foot. I have seen *tons* of literally insightful posts, interesting posts, funny posts, that were 0's. I *would* like the mod system to work, but without transparency and accountability, it never will. It is inherently broken.
Just as we don't get "Doucebag!" comments modded to +5 Insightful, I likewise don't think we would get "Amazing Photos!" submissions modded to the front page by slashdotters with mod points.
Slashdot's most disruptive moderation problem consists of punitive mods and thoughtless mods. It's always been that way, a huge number of interesting and insightful posts get modded down. Without moderation accountability - who modded what, and how - this will never change; the mod system is inherently flawed. Even some of the slashdot editors follow some of the users around and systematically mod them down, and they've got unlimited mod points to do it with - they even brag about it.
Imagine if rats have built a civilization about on par with our current civilization
"Writing of the Rat" by James Blish, first published in Galaxy magazine, July 1956. Republished in "A Dusk of Idols" by Severn House, May 1996, 0-7278-4967-0.
First we arose, then the rats, then us again. Well worth reading even today, as is so for many of his works.
...so yes this guy would still be out there, selling shitty drugs through spam under a libertarian system.
I wouldn't go laying the blame for selling of quack nostrums at the feet of the libertarians. Ever been in a GNC store? Ever really looked at the things that are on the shelves of a typical drug store? Ever watch late night TV and catch one of the "we can make your penis larger" ads? Ever read the claims of "wholesome goodness" on the side of a Hostess cakes package? Ever hear a politician claim they're going to solve your problems by doing X, yet they don't do X? Ever see the pyramid of food the government made up out of whole cloth?
And all of this has come to pass without libertarians ever getting in there and making any law. Funny thing, eh?
Ands in the meantime, the ideas that consumers should be informed, "buyer beware", and that there is (or should be) an actual element of personal responsibility for things you toss down your throat is met with ridicule. And again, this isn't coming from the libertarians. It is standard mommy-government fare.
So let's not be castigating the libertarians for situations they didn't cause.
As for "freedom of speech forever", I believe that one comes from the constitution without any caveats or limitations. Check amendment #1. You can get rid of the forever by amending the document. You might want to get after that; I suspect you're going to have quite a job ahead of you drumming up the required support.
It has always been fascinating to me that a large number of people observe calmly that society will under various conditions and n various combinations take away a person's liberty, means to earn a living, property, children, family, possessions, reputation, privacy, eligibility for a job, freedom to live in various areas, ability to vote, own a firearm, subject them to ridicule and castigate them for their sexual and chemical preferences, with all the consequences that apply to these actions — and yet, if the subject of these actions reacts, people are "surprised and shocked."
Basically, most people are happy to make essentially unlimited war on those they disagree with, either directly or in the guise of going along with society, and they think that there is no reason for the victim of said war to fight back. I never could see it that way. Every time I hear about someone getting seriously hammered for something that in a slightly different context would be perfectly legal, or which it seems to me should be legal regardless of context (such as the personal choice to use drugs) I recognize there is a potential for a strong reaction from the subject. In the case of someone who has really been hammered, I'd just assume they were my lifetime enemy if I'd had anything at all to do with it.
"...[urban slang for 'you people' or 'my friends', depending on context]..."
Do you know what you're implying by that?
Yes, I certainly do. I'm implying that by censoring words from use, you don't actually solve problems, in this case, the problem of racism. Racism, when it is actually expressed (as it it most certainly was not in the post we're talking about) is ugly as hell and conversation about it, and free speech with regard to it, is critical if the problem is actually to be solved. The problem, just so you're refreshed on it, is not one of words, it is one of putting up social walls, ostracizing people of one group or another, singling them out for harm, holding back benefits from them and so forth.
Trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug by "prettifying" the language in the case of words that could, in another context, be used in a racist manner, is shortsighted as well as ineffective. That goes for every other politically correct formulation as well.
When I say that the turd has no clean end, I am saying that political correctness doesn't actually serve as a means to solve problems. I'd go even further: Sometimes it exacerbates them by removing them from the inquisitive eye of public discourse. Political correctness itself is a purveyor of pretense, not a problem solver.
...if this constitutes abuse, it's at least much closer to the original intent than many other applications of the ICC.
Now that I'll certainly agree with. However, from other posts, it appears that TFS really had little relationship to the actual case; it seems to have been more about tax evasion. I read the summary only, mea culpa.
Then when a would-be thief walks into a Best Buy to get a plasma TV using my card and severed head, the clerk may get suspicious and ask for a second piece of ID.
Come on. You know this would only work for a few days before the crooks catch wise and cut off a finger as well.
I don't think the fact that he conducted business gives the feds any legitimate right to say what kind of business he can conduct. They can tax it, that's about it.
Lets not forget to mention, this mandatory switch to ipv6 will finally kill of all of those pesky users who find their old hardware and Win98 perfectly adequate to their needs
No, let's forget to mention it because it isn't true. A cheap off-the-shelf DSL/cable modem or router will let the Win98 machine live in peace with its IPV4 brains and do the translation to IPV6 completely transparently, with no more issues than they do straight IPV4 network address translation now.
Besides, I wouldn't knock Win98 so readily. With a router which provides a hardware firewall and a little care, a Win98 system has the advantage of running many legacy applications (as well as modern ones that don't use newer interfaces) while not phoning home to Microsoft, not giving you any trouble about how your machine is configured, not pestering you every minute about how your machine "Might Not Be Safe!", and slowing down by quite a bit because newer Windows OS's are incredibly badly designed.
Besides, with any luck, people who are dragging their feet this hard will go to linux or OSX in order to maintain that funny feeling of being able to add memory or peripherals without their computer refusing to work again until some guy - or server - at Microsoft says it can. OSX's ability to run that old Win98 in a sandbox (via Parallels) could seem mighty interesting to a die-hard Win98 user...
Political correctness: The peculiar idea that one can pick up a turd by its clean end.
It's urban dialect. Nothing to get excited about (nothing to write to dictionary manufacturers and insist it be included, either.)
From the consumer standpoint, a cable/DSL modem or router with IPV4 in the house / business to IPV6 out on the net will keep most of the pain (other than a financial hit) away until or unless IPV6 is actually needed on the local side of the hardware; the router can handle the details, such as they are.
As for the address space, the argument about number of addresses per square meter of the earth seems quite shortsighted. How many addresses per unit space are used when you add every square meter of the surface of every planet and moon? How many when you add the asteroids? How many when you add every cubic meter of open space inside the solar system? For that matter, what's the IP of a probe sent to Arcturus, as opposed to those sent to Sirius?
Might as well get it over with now. It isn't like we can't speed up the infrastructure, anyway. Especially in the US; we could actually use a little pressure to get things moving somewhat more reasonably.
Oh yes, [sarcasm] excellent. [/sarcasm] I wonder which enumerated power of the constitution gives the federal government the power to tell citizens what businesses they can and cannot run. Oh, right, there is no such power.
That means that the power to tell citizens what businesses they can run either belongs to the states, or to the citizens. You'll note that TFS says "federal judge." Welcome to imperial government coercion, example # zillion+1.
So now you're reduced to repeating what I say? Does your mom know you're still on the net? That 7th grade essay isn't going to write itself, you know...
I'm just going to keep on writing and selling real software that performs actual useful functions on actual computers. This archaic process has served me well since 1985, and I see no reason to abandon it. I have these funny ideas that investors are a bad idea, and debt is a bad idea, and that you shouldn't do anything you can't actually afford to do, and that if you can't afford to do something you want to do, you should save until you can, and that if you piss on the environment, you're pissing on yourself. I know, I know, crazy, foolish, ludicrous ideas. But there is one little advantage: The only thing I notice about stock market fluctuations, "bubbles" bursting, and the Next Big Thing are sales swings in the single-digit percentile as the latest crop of BS artists gets reaped and the next crew is sown right into their still-warm shoes.
Yep, real products for real computers. Who'd a thunk it? Crazy talk!
Slashdot Mirror
I was doing it fifteen years ago with WinImages and a single frame Panasonic SVHS video recorder/player. This isn't recent technology — Adobe was quite late to the table with AfterFX. The idea that it would be troublesome for anyone today is bankrupt.
I agree 100%. All the downmods in this subthread have been punitive, "I disagree" mods. There's nothing at all low-quality about those posts; the mods are merely expressing naive disagreement with the points made in them. Slashdot moderation is crap. You have to read at -1 to get the benefits of your fellow member's input.
What? I used it; I know what I meant when I used it, and I just finished explaining it to you. We're not talking about a third party's words now; we're talking about what I said. You're bewildered.
No. That's not how it is being used. It's being disenfranchised of its prior viciousness by the very slang that uses it just as we saw it here. You're not keeping up with the language on the one hand, and on the other, there's no need to censor anything. Even when we do have racism (and any other ism we don't like) we're better off if we can see it coming. Censorship is shortsighted and wrongheaded; you're in error in your entire approach to it.
If it is, we should hear it when people mean to do such a thing so we know how to react. But in this case - and many others - that's not how it is used. In the above context, it just means "you people", and it can mean "my friends" just as easily. The fact that you're not seeing it only measures how far out of touch you are. It doesn't justify censorship in any way.
These concepts cannot be cleaned up by censorship. That's what that means. You're part of the problem as long as you attempt to censor, no matter how prettily you wrap up the idea (such as "the particular word in question should be removed from the lexicon") You cannot pick up a turd by its clean end; you cannot eliminate racism by censorship. It's not too difficult to understand, at least, if you're willing to see that your urge to control other people's language is inappropriate and wrong. Let them speak; let them be judged by what they mean, by the contexts they choose to speak in, by the ebb and flow of one person's remarks into the next.
That, of course, means you have an obligation to be able to distinguish between the underlying implications of "hey, my niggers, what's happenen?" spoken to a mixed race crowd and "get off my lawn, you filthy nigger" spoken to a black child fetching his ball from someone's yard. If you can't do that, you shouldn't ever entertain the notion that you have the moral and/or ethical know-how to tell other people what they can and cannot say.
One of the things that is very dangerous to this country is the tendency for some people (FCC, legislators, community leaders, pompous citizens) to decide that they have the right and the authority to tell the rest of the people what they can say. They may have the best of intentions, as you probably do here, but it's still wrong. The very foundation of liberty is free speech. Don't kick at the foundation with the idea that you know what words are OK, and what words are not. It isn't that simple, and it never will be. It's just political correctness in one of its most offensive modes.
Political correctness is politics as social coercion. Don't tell other people what words they can say in order to fulfill your own agenda. Period. It's just that easy. As for using words "willy nilly", the OP used the word normally in dialect in a non-racist manner; I live in the deep midwest, speak English like a high end radio announcer, and I understood the usage perfectly; I don't take one bit of racist intent away with my understanding. If you do, that's a problem in your perceptions, and perhaps you ought to look into that lack of perceptivity. Rather than worry about who used what word where.
Sounds like slashdot is perfect for you with all kinds of hidden content. For me, it's -1 or a waste of time. I am sure that there are others on both sides of this viewpoint; I am also sure of what I have seen over the years reading at -1. Ten posts? heck, I can give you ten posts from the same story!
Here are your ten "0" posts of perfectly good content that I would have missed, in no way of lesser value than anyone else's all from one story:
Now, you specified "great posts"; as far as I'm concerned, most stories don't have any great posts. They're pretty rare. What I'm interested in is point, counterpoint, rationale, data, references, argument over perceptions, the things that make the continuum of opinions and uses less opaque to me, especially if it is an area I'm not familiar with. My concern is that I be able to follow a conversation and not miss things. Now, in the above ten examples, many of those posts had specific information such as how packets are handled and formatted, directly on topic and germane in the sense that the issues discussed required that info to be understood and addressed properly. An editor with mod points - who was actually competent to follow the conversation - could have fixed it, but as you see, it's been a day or so and it remains unfixed. A day on slashdot means the conversation is mostly over, so those posts were wasted for many people. So this is concrete evidence (and by the way, this can be done with any slashdot story) that the threads are not well served by the way the moderation works out.
Now, as to vendettas and accountability: I try - hard - to post things I am convinced of, and to back them up with reason. I may fail, I may be wrong, but I *never* troll and I try really hard not to be rude unless someone has been rude to me. I like slashdot, and I really appreciate how much the posters here have contributed to my outlook and education. You too - we've butted heads a couple times. I think it is fair to say that if you look through my posting history, you're not going to find posts that are deserving of "troll" or downmods in general. You may very well find things you don't agree with, but they are my honest opinions, worst case you'll see a post where I misinterpreted what someone else said. With that in mind:
I watch my moderation fairly closely, only because I watch my account to see if my posts have new replies. The moderation is righ
Meta moderating doesn't address it at all. The only way to spot a mod on a crusade to hammer someone is to know which mod did what to whom. Anonymous moderation is an invitation to abuse, and abuse is regular and extensive. Some moderations - underrated, overrated - aren't even meta-moderated at all, so editors and mods can (and do) step on certain people's posts without any fear of being caught out. The excuse of the editors is that these two mods don't affect karma, so they don't need metamodding; I don't know about you, but I'm not here for karma, I'm here for good posts, and these mod types hide posts just as well as anything else does.
You say that you have an idea that mods "protect" us from crapfloods, etc. Well, they don't protect me, because I've found that reading at -1 uncovers a whole lot of very, very good posts that either never get modded up - anonymous, for instance - or have been modded down. I want to read the good posts, so I read at -1 and mods protect me from zip, nada, nothing. I have to see everything if I want to see the good stuff. If the mod system actually worked - that is, all worthwhile posts went up, and just trolls (like GNAA) and obvious FP masturbation went down, then I could actually use the system. The thing is, if it's happening to me, it's happening to everyone; just that if they do read at, say, 2, then they're missing a lot. They can't avoid it, because the system keeps a lot of good stuff down.
The underlying problem is that moderation generally really means "I agree" / "I support this member" or "I disagree" / "I dislike this member." Very few people actually evaluate posts for content, rather than tone or source.
You might consider reading the link I provided. I went into some detail there.
No. It doesn't keep anything out. Trust me, I have to see it all. What this system does is hides things if you let it. It is far more likely to hide a good post than it is a problem post because there are a lot more of them. Most because they simply start at 0 and never get a point, others because they're unfairly knocked down. There are really very few problem posts as compared to posts that never get a fair shake, but because there are so many posts overall, and so few mod points, the 0-level posts generally contain more good stuff than the high level posts by volume. Skipping them is like shooting yourself in the foot. I have seen *tons* of literally insightful posts, interesting posts, funny posts, that were 0's. I *would* like the mod system to work, but without transparency and accountability, it never will. It is inherently broken.
Slashdot's most disruptive moderation problem consists of punitive mods and thoughtless mods. It's always been that way, a huge number of interesting and insightful posts get modded down. Without moderation accountability - who modded what, and how - this will never change; the mod system is inherently flawed. Even some of the slashdot editors follow some of the users around and systematically mod them down, and they've got unlimited mod points to do it with - they even brag about it.
"Writing of the Rat" by James Blish, first published in Galaxy magazine, July 1956. Republished in "A Dusk of Idols" by Severn House, May 1996, 0-7278-4967-0.
First we arose, then the rats, then us again. Well worth reading even today, as is so for many of his works.
I wouldn't go laying the blame for selling of quack nostrums at the feet of the libertarians. Ever been in a GNC store? Ever really looked at the things that are on the shelves of a typical drug store? Ever watch late night TV and catch one of the "we can make your penis larger" ads? Ever read the claims of "wholesome goodness" on the side of a Hostess cakes package? Ever hear a politician claim they're going to solve your problems by doing X, yet they don't do X? Ever see the pyramid of food the government made up out of whole cloth?
And all of this has come to pass without libertarians ever getting in there and making any law. Funny thing, eh?
Ands in the meantime, the ideas that consumers should be informed, "buyer beware", and that there is (or should be) an actual element of personal responsibility for things you toss down your throat is met with ridicule. And again, this isn't coming from the libertarians. It is standard mommy-government fare.
So let's not be castigating the libertarians for situations they didn't cause.
As for "freedom of speech forever", I believe that one comes from the constitution without any caveats or limitations. Check amendment #1. You can get rid of the forever by amending the document. You might want to get after that; I suspect you're going to have quite a job ahead of you drumming up the required support.
It has always been fascinating to me that a large number of people observe calmly that society will under various conditions and n various combinations take away a person's liberty, means to earn a living, property, children, family, possessions, reputation, privacy, eligibility for a job, freedom to live in various areas, ability to vote, own a firearm, subject them to ridicule and castigate them for their sexual and chemical preferences, with all the consequences that apply to these actions — and yet, if the subject of these actions reacts, people are "surprised and shocked."
Basically, most people are happy to make essentially unlimited war on those they disagree with, either directly or in the guise of going along with society, and they think that there is no reason for the victim of said war to fight back. I never could see it that way. Every time I hear about someone getting seriously hammered for something that in a slightly different context would be perfectly legal, or which it seems to me should be legal regardless of context (such as the personal choice to use drugs) I recognize there is a potential for a strong reaction from the subject. In the case of someone who has really been hammered, I'd just assume they were my lifetime enemy if I'd had anything at all to do with it.
Yes, I certainly do. I'm implying that by censoring words from use, you don't actually solve problems, in this case, the problem of racism. Racism, when it is actually expressed (as it it most certainly was not in the post we're talking about) is ugly as hell and conversation about it, and free speech with regard to it, is critical if the problem is actually to be solved. The problem, just so you're refreshed on it, is not one of words, it is one of putting up social walls, ostracizing people of one group or another, singling them out for harm, holding back benefits from them and so forth.
Trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug by "prettifying" the language in the case of words that could, in another context, be used in a racist manner, is shortsighted as well as ineffective. That goes for every other politically correct formulation as well.
When I say that the turd has no clean end, I am saying that political correctness doesn't actually serve as a means to solve problems. I'd go even further: Sometimes it exacerbates them by removing them from the inquisitive eye of public discourse. Political correctness itself is a purveyor of pretense, not a problem solver.
"flamebait"?
I think the mod needs a bran muffin. :-)
Now that I'll certainly agree with. However, from other posts, it appears that TFS really had little relationship to the actual case; it seems to have been more about tax evasion. I read the summary only, mea culpa.
Come on. You know this would only work for a few days before the crooks catch wise and cut off a finger as well.
No, it's "personal PIN identification number." You can't completely understand this unless you're eating a pizza pie while drinking chai tea.
On the plus side, it brings a lovely Hannibal Lecter-like meaning to the inevitable phrase "Hack your face."
The word is dialect. The issues the post brings up are debatable, and in context, pertinent. Please consider calming down.
So much for TFS. Oh well, it's slashdot.
I don't think the fact that he conducted business gives the feds any legitimate right to say what kind of business he can conduct. They can tax it, that's about it.
No, let's forget to mention it because it isn't true. A cheap off-the-shelf DSL/cable modem or router will let the Win98 machine live in peace with its IPV4 brains and do the translation to IPV6 completely transparently, with no more issues than they do straight IPV4 network address translation now.
Besides, I wouldn't knock Win98 so readily. With a router which provides a hardware firewall and a little care, a Win98 system has the advantage of running many legacy applications (as well as modern ones that don't use newer interfaces) while not phoning home to Microsoft, not giving you any trouble about how your machine is configured, not pestering you every minute about how your machine "Might Not Be Safe!", and slowing down by quite a bit because newer Windows OS's are incredibly badly designed.
Besides, with any luck, people who are dragging their feet this hard will go to linux or OSX in order to maintain that funny feeling of being able to add memory or peripherals without their computer refusing to work again until some guy - or server - at Microsoft says it can. OSX's ability to run that old Win98 in a sandbox (via Parallels) could seem mighty interesting to a die-hard Win98 user...
Ok... ok... so, you're a landlord, and your tenants have trucks inside them, and these trucks have IP addresses?
Eh? Oh no, I'm sure it's me...
"...niggers..."
Political correctness: The peculiar idea that one can pick up a turd by its clean end.
It's urban dialect. Nothing to get excited about (nothing to write to dictionary manufacturers and insist it be included, either.)
From the consumer standpoint, a cable/DSL modem or router with IPV4 in the house / business to IPV6 out on the net will keep most of the pain (other than a financial hit) away until or unless IPV6 is actually needed on the local side of the hardware; the router can handle the details, such as they are.
As for the address space, the argument about number of addresses per square meter of the earth seems quite shortsighted. How many addresses per unit space are used when you add every square meter of the surface of every planet and moon? How many when you add the asteroids? How many when you add every cubic meter of open space inside the solar system? For that matter, what's the IP of a probe sent to Arcturus, as opposed to those sent to Sirius?
Might as well get it over with now. It isn't like we can't speed up the infrastructure, anyway. Especially in the US; we could actually use a little pressure to get things moving somewhat more reasonably.
Oh yes, [sarcasm] excellent. [/sarcasm] I wonder which enumerated power of the constitution gives the federal government the power to tell citizens what businesses they can and cannot run. Oh, right, there is no such power.
That means that the power to tell citizens what businesses they can run either belongs to the states, or to the citizens. You'll note that TFS says "federal judge." Welcome to imperial government coercion, example # zillion+1.
Of course, making the top ten isn't exactly an indicator of "quality material."
Elton's never done anything even remotely of the quality of Tommy; he's an aging pop personality looking for air time, that's all.
So now you're reduced to repeating what I say? Does your mom know you're still on the net? That 7th grade essay isn't going to write itself, you know...
I'm just going to keep on writing and selling real software that performs actual useful functions on actual computers. This archaic process has served me well since 1985, and I see no reason to abandon it. I have these funny ideas that investors are a bad idea, and debt is a bad idea, and that you shouldn't do anything you can't actually afford to do, and that if you can't afford to do something you want to do, you should save until you can, and that if you piss on the environment, you're pissing on yourself. I know, I know, crazy, foolish, ludicrous ideas. But there is one little advantage: The only thing I notice about stock market fluctuations, "bubbles" bursting, and the Next Big Thing are sales swings in the single-digit percentile as the latest crop of BS artists gets reaped and the next crew is sown right into their still-warm shoes.
Yep, real products for real computers. Who'd a thunk it? Crazy talk!