"with every participant at the web site giving up as many legal rights as any participant in any mailing list."
So you would ask that several hundred thousand users give up their rights to their comments, just to participate?
I, for one, would not participate if I did not have that choice avaliable to me. I would also resent it if ever Rob did such a thing.
"This is a much more direct solution than writing a new GPL something or other licence"
We probably wouldn't need to write a new GPL something. In my original comment, I suggested something HTTP specific (called it the SlashComment Public License). It would appear that the open content license could be easily modified to serve this purpose.
"put web hosted forums on the same playing field as majordomo mailing lists."
I would argue that there's enough of a difference between the two to call for a different license/redistribution structure. The biggest difference, IMHO, is that web forums allow you to be totally anonymous. With a maling list, you aren't totally guaranteed anonymity by virtue of having to have an email address to participate. If I wanted to badly enough, I could probably trace your email address back to you. With Slashdot, I have no such ablility.
Therefore, I would propose a slightly different structure. Just as you have the ability to pop in and post to/. as an AC, so should you have tha ability to decide what is done with the comment you just submitted.
Combine that with an option below the Comment window (like Slashdot's) to `Include comment in SCPL (SlashComment Public License)'. That way, the poster still owns the comment *and* gives permission for others to use it in a manner consistant with the SCPL.
This would also allow people to opt in and out, legally, and at will. Make the option avaliable to all (AC and those with accounts) and, voila! Problem solved.
This would also make things easier for posters. Remember the _Jane's_ happening? There were people who were quoted and not given credit (at first. IIRC, all of those problems got sorted out). With something like the SCPL, the license writers could include a clause that made it mandatory to give due credit.
The best part about this is that it's a vouluntary system. Since it's a contract that you knowingly enter into, there's no problems with comments beig `stolen', taken out of context, or abused.
Actually, this one would probably screw you worse...
Yes kids, it is malicious...
(Actually, I could make it worse still if I could figure out a way to make/. recognize onMouseOver and onMouseOut. Put a killer javascript link in, onMouseOver="window.status='http://friendlyplace.c om'; return true" onMouseOut="window.status='Document: Done'; return true". That would be killer...)
"why hasn't some Linux developer written a driver for them?"
Kinda tough to write code for something you can't get specs to.
From the Winmodems are not Modems MiniFAQ: (third section on the page) 3. But someone must have adapted or reverse-engineered one by now! Winmodem vendors will not release the source code. Without it, creating a software modem is a non-trivial programming task.
There's a link to Deja.com on the subject. Appears the manufaturers don't want to release specs for the community until there's a demand. There isn't really a demand because people know that Winmodems don't work with Linux.
"Even though the article seem to infer it, PCCard (pcmcia) modems could still be a winmodem."
Two thoughts:
Dell has figured out a way to make Linux play with Winmodems (hw/sw). This is an immeasureably Good Thing(TM), for obvious reasons...
The PC Card (I still prefer PCMCIA; rolls off the tongue better) is actually not a Winmodem. This is what the article seems to imply (citing IBM's troubles with Winmodems).
"what needs to be done, institutionally and bureaucratically, to allow our governments to respond to things like these?"
<Asbestos_Suit state="On"> My thought has always been that we (the People(TM)) need to restructure our respective governments along the lines of businesses. Before you go a-flamin' hear me out.
I've been thinking that each `department' in a government needs to be a small business. As an example, the INS would be INS inc., the DoD would be DoD LLC, etc. Each company would have several goals in addition to their current functions:
Break even. Take in as much money as they pay out. Give each subsidiary a cap on how much can be charged for goods/services. Then bring in one good manager at the top and give 'em free reign.
Improve effeciency. Make whatever processes that need to be in place as simple and effective as possible. This saves money and makes your `customers' (the People(TM)) happier. HappyCitizens == HappyGovernment.
Compete. Compete with other government `companies' Compete with companies in the real world. Do whatever is needed to make your workers more than mere `clerks'. Give performance bonuses. Make it clear that they can loose thei job very easily if they don't perform. Give them something to work toward and be proud of. Think about it. When's the last time you saw a government employee who was proud of their position?
In short, I think that government can be improved quite a bit more than I've suggested here. Comments? <Asbestos_Suit state="Off">
Actually, (IIRC) the gyros were designed to last for a period of time x. They lasted something like x+6months. These were the water-filled gyros.
The new gyros are gel-filled and designed to last a period of time x^3.
So, as far as designs go, the gyros weren't flawed, they just lasted as long as the materials dictated that they would. Now that we have better materials, we can make better gyros. Dig?
"Offtopic: why do the & lt/gt characters get processed and displayed for preview mode, but not after the post has been submitted?"
Probably because the logic behind itwould be wierd. That's mainly due (this is a guess, here) to the fact that Rob allows html in the posts. I doubt SLASH is designed to try and figure out what you actually mean by & gt; or & lt;.
I mean, are you trying to make a tag, or illustrate a tag? Is that really html, or are you just trying to show a tag properly?
Add to this the fact that you're viewing/. in a web browser and things get kinda complex.
I just try to keep in mind the fact that SLASH is going to act this way, and that I need to respond accordingly...
"Say you and a buddy, who just happens to be wanted for an armed robbery, are talking on the sidewalk. Then the police will probably bust both of you first to get the situation under control. Then if they don't have anything on you, you will be set free. That is the way it is. The police will make sure neither your buddy or anyone else will wind up shooting them, getting everything under control, and then set free those truely not involved."
Say you and a buddy, who just happens to be wanted for possession, are talking on the sidewalk. Then the police will probably bust both of you to get things under control. Even if they don't have anything on you, you were arrested in connection with a drug-related crime. Therefore, that money in your pocket may have been drug-related income. The money in your bank may be drug-related money. You are an accessory to a drug-related crime. With mandatory minimums for drug offenses, that's good for five years. You most certainly will not be released in a coupla hours. Or days. Or years. If you are truely not involved, then be prepared to fight the court case longer than you would have been in prision. It is certainly inconvienent, but the lawmakers and the police and the public are to blame in this sort of situation.
All of your money has been taken. Goddess forbid you were talking in your house or your car. Everything would have been taken -legaly- because it may have been related to a drug-related crime.
Sorry, I should have specified drug-related in my earlier rant. Why am I so adamant if these laws apply to only drug-related crimes? Read on...
"The thing is the Supreme Court's job is interpretting the constitution. So if they say it's OK for the police to take a car used in a crime, that is then constitutional."
I must disagree with what the Court has said. Paraphrased: `It's ok for the police to take whatever they want, whenever they want for however long they want. The articles in question do not need to have been used in a crime. Suspicion of use or association with guilty parties is plenty, so long as the police say that it's `drug-related'. You have no right to unreasonable search and siezure in a drug crime. You have no right to speedy trial (speedy, not trial) in a drug crime. You have no right to be innocent in a drug crime, because (with drug crime) you are indeed guilty until proven innocent. And even then, you're still guilty as far as this standing Court is concerned.'
Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me...
"We can contact local/state/federal congressmen if we think the law is unjust; it would take them passing a bill to reverse Court decisions."
Wrong. It would take replacing the money that the federal government pays them every year to fight drugs to get them to budge on the issue.
"Like I said, if the police are making bogus accusations of a crime taking place, then yes fire those officers, get your car back, sue them, go on TV and get public opinion behind you."
Impossible. Well, very, very difficult at the least. See, the Drug War(tm) is about protecting the children. How popular would it be to support the opposite of that?
My big problem is that this country is started down a slippery slope indeed. When police no longer need us to be guilty before throwing the full force of the law at us, what good are individual rights? If we have our voice taken away in the best interest of the children, who profits. If we loose our freedom in trade for saftey from drug runners, did we ever deserve the freedom to begin with.
Sorry, I know I'm getting a bit off-topic, but this thread started with the simple statement last time I checked, the government had to compensate private citizens for confiscation of property. Which is correct, except for drug-related crimes. And maybe computer-related crimes. And soon, car-related crimes. Then child-related crimes. Then hate-related crimes.
See my point, or am I just too darned tired to be posting:\ ?
" If a restauranteur is going to put nearly $20,000 and his car in the hands of an employee, he should take certain precautions, such as drug tests and what not."
Agreed. However, this is not the point. The point is that the government, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, can take whatever it damn well pleases whenever it gets the whim and there is nothing you can do about it! You loose the right to get it back if you are innocent and you loose the right to just compensation whenever the government doesn't feel like paying.
"And it shows why it's wise to stay the hell away from people that do these things; they will drag you down with them."
So what you are essentially saying is that if you happen to be around someone who commits a crime, then it's your fault that you run the risk of loosing your constitutional rights. Yeah, that's logical.
"If you want to smoke weed, get a whore, make meth, do it on your own time and property. That way the police will seize YOUR car, and YOUR house, and YOUR cash."
Umm...DUH!!!! That's whay criminals are criminals - they have no respect for you or others.
"A person here (Canada) can go on social assistance (or whatever they call it these days so as not to hurt the feelings of the recipients) forever and have a higher standard of living than a wealthy person 100 years ago..."
I believe you've missed RuntimeError's point entirely.
Can just anyone in, say, Saigon get one Welfare (yes, I'm from the US. That's what we call it here)? How about Russia? Brazil? Russian Georgia? Calcutta? The point is that the poor now tremendously outnumber the rich (no link to back that up, sorry). Therefore, if we assume this premise to be true (increasing number of poor), then the poor have indeed become moreso.
"If you can point to a case of a group being worse off, check the political climate in the time and place it happened and it might give you a hint as to why they're worse off."
India really doesn't have all that many problems; certainly no more than the US. Yet why is their standard of living so much lower than ours? Communisim? No... War? Not really... Politics? Power-mongering? Maybe. Probably.
The point is that while our future is indeed bright, there are (to venture a guess) 3 Billion+ people who cannot echo our sentiments. Note the emphasis. It is the crux of my point.
And, OT, could you tell me why my Mom couldn't get Welfare when she was unemployable? Here in the US? Any thoughts?
"A browser should not silently render a broken page."
And anyone, ANYONE, who makes web sites for a living should be fscking smart enough to remember to add ending tags (Although, for the record, all of the table-related tags are there. The javascript is uuuuuuuugly, though!).
I'm sorry, but I do all of my development (web or otherwise) in a plain jane text editor (EditPad, to be precise) . I despise anything that changes what I wrote. Anyone making 40k+ a year ought to be smart enough to close out tags.
I for one dislike censorship in all of it's forms. However, does government demand it?
Let me explain a bit...
Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard. What this means is that it's theoretically ok for me to say "I think that Clinton is a green donkey!". It also means that no one has to hear what I just said. Whether it be a function of censorship, or just because most people think I'm nuts, my view has not been heard. Nowhere am I guaranteed this right.
The problem with this is that it makes censorchip `legal', in a way. The [insert favorite agency to pick on here] can choose not to grant my right to be heard, and that's (unjustly, IMHO) ok.
My question is: Does government, in any form, require censorship to function? Put another way, do we necessarily have to give up our right to be heard by choosing to live in any type of society? Put a third way, is the right to be heard equal to the right to privacy (unlawful search and siezure).
Sorry for the convoluted question. Haven't yet had enough caffiene.:-)
"Depression, clinical depression, when it comes back to someone who's been fighting it, when it's there it's like a warm blanket that insulates you from reality, and makes you feel like things are the way they ought to be. That depression is the way you were ment to be. It's comforting, it's addictive, and it's incredibly destructive."
That is quite possiblly the most profound and poetic way to describe what it really feels like to be depressed.
When you're this depressed, and nothing matters (except for the fact that nothing matters matters, and that's not quite right, but nothing matters, so...(yes, that's what I meant;-)), you feel...safe. It's like `Ok, I'm depressed, I know it, and it's all right. I've felt this way most of my life, and it's comfortable'.
And the warm blanket metaphor was classic...
Another point; depression can be addictive. I remember times when I was happy, and wished I was depressed. It's the familiarity that's destructive. Happiness, normality, a lack of depression; these are all foreign and to be avoided at all costs.
So, you start to sink again.
Hell, I still have trouble being happy for long periods (days). I feel like I'm doing something wrong or unfair to the rest of the world and that I will be punished. Usually, I'm right;-)
As it is, I've been not clinically depressed for about three years now. Let me tell you, it's a completely different world.
Go here. This is the moderation thread for Slashdot. We've been putting our heads together to try and make moderation better, and some good has come of it already. Join the discussion and add your points (or at least link to them...)
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
Re:I think this incident speaks for itself...
on
Guide to Slashdot
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot Mirror
"with every participant at the web site giving up as many legal rights as any participant in any mailing list."
/. as an AC, so should you have tha ability to decide what is done with the comment you just submitted.
So you would ask that several hundred thousand users give up their rights to their comments, just to participate?
I, for one, would not participate if I did not have that choice avaliable to me. I would also resent it if ever Rob did such a thing.
"This is a much more direct solution than writing a new GPL something or other licence"
We probably wouldn't need to write a new GPL something. In my original comment, I suggested something HTTP specific (called it the SlashComment Public License). It would appear that the open content license could be easily modified to serve this purpose.
"put web hosted forums on the same playing field as majordomo mailing lists."
I would argue that there's enough of a difference between the two to call for a different license/redistribution structure. The biggest difference, IMHO, is that web forums allow you to be totally anonymous. With a maling list, you aren't totally guaranteed anonymity by virtue of having to have an email address to participate. If I wanted to badly enough, I could probably trace your email address back to you. With Slashdot, I have no such ablility.
Therefore, I would propose a slightly different structure. Just as you have the ability to pop in and post to
Am I making sense here?
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
Awww jeez...
Here we go again. This guy isn't Roblimo.
He's RobLimo_ User #146994
The Roblimo we know and love is user # 357
Keep this in mind when you respond to him...
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
...those `GPL for Books' kind of licenses?
Combine that with an option below the Comment window (like Slashdot's) to `Include comment in SCPL (SlashComment Public License)'. That way, the poster still owns the comment *and* gives permission for others to use it in a manner consistant with the SCPL.
This would also allow people to opt in and out, legally, and at will. Make the option avaliable to all (AC and those with accounts) and, voila! Problem solved.
This would also make things easier for posters. Remember the _Jane's_ happening? There were people who were quoted and not given credit (at first. IIRC, all of those problems got sorted out). With something like the SCPL, the license writers could include a clause that made it mandatory to give due credit.
The best part about this is that it's a vouluntary system. Since it's a contract that you knowingly enter into, there's no problems with comments beig `stolen', taken out of context, or abused.
Comments?
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
Yeah, that's the only way to get out of it.
;-) enough to do that?
Question is, how many people are actually dexterous(is that a word?
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
Actually, this one would probably screw you worse...
/. recognize onMouseOver and onMouseOut. Put a killer javascript link in, onMouseOver="window.status='http://friendlyplace.c om'; return true" onMouseOut="window.status='Document: Done'; return true". That would be killer...)
Yes kids, it is malicious...
(Actually, I could make it worse still if I could figure out a way to make
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
"why hasn't some Linux developer written a driver for them?"
Kinda tough to write code for something you can't get specs to.
From the Winmodems are not Modems MiniFAQ: (third section on the page)
3. But someone must have adapted or reverse-engineered one by now!
Winmodem vendors will not release the source code. Without it, creating a software modem is a non-trivial programming task.
There's a link to Deja.com on the subject. Appears the manufaturers don't want to release specs for the community until there's a demand. There isn't really a demand because people know that Winmodems don't work with Linux.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions...
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
Two thoughts:
Either way, this is a Good Thing for Dell and us.
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
...Yeah, but do they run...oh nevermind... :-)
ObOt: Do those things come with real modems or Winmodems? (I seem to have misplaced the specs)
DOH! RTFA. PCMCIA. Well, great! I guess it's time to go buy a laptop...
(Score:-1 PosterIsIdiot)
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
<Asbestos_Suit state="On">
My thought has always been that we (the People(TM)) need to restructure our respective governments along the lines of businesses. Before you go a-flamin' hear me out.
I've been thinking that each `department' in a government needs to be a small business. As an example, the INS would be INS inc., the DoD would be DoD LLC, etc. Each company would have several goals in addition to their current functions:
In short, I think that government can be improved quite a bit more than I've suggested here. Comments?
<Asbestos_Suit state="Off">
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
ROFL!!
(Of course, the parent I'm replying to has been moderated (Score:1 Redundant))
Either there is a moderator that just doesn't get it, or there's a moderator with a very twisted sense of humor.
I prefer to think that the latter is the case...
:-)
Oh, and thanks Rob!!!!
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
The gyros [snip] were flawed designs however.
Actually, (IIRC) the gyros were designed to last for a period of time x. They lasted something like x+6months. These were the water-filled gyros.
The new gyros are gel-filled and designed to last a period of time x^3.
So, as far as designs go, the gyros weren't flawed, they just lasted as long as the materials dictated that they would. Now that we have better materials, we can make better gyros. Dig?
Now the mirror is a different story entirely....
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
I can see it now... An AOL/TW/EMI merger with the United States Government.
Hrmmm...Segfault is actually useful nowadays...
Look here.
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
"What's wrong with a yellow car?"
Two words...
Taxi cab.
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
"Offtopic: why do the & lt/gt characters get processed and displayed for preview mode, but not after the post has been submitted?"
/. in a web browser and things get kinda complex.
Probably because the logic behind itwould be wierd. That's mainly due (this is a guess, here) to the fact that Rob allows html in the posts. I doubt SLASH is designed to try and figure out what you actually mean by & gt; or & lt;.
I mean, are you trying to make a tag, or illustrate a tag? Is that really html, or are you just trying to show a tag properly?
Add to this the fact that you're viewing
I just try to keep in mind the fact that SLASH is going to act this way, and that I need to respond accordingly...
Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
"I have a cunning plan."
I assume that this is from Black Adder's Baldrick.
heh...
But isin't it "I have a cunning plan which cannot fail."?
(Note: I would have mailed you with this, but you don't display your email. Please don't kill me, moderators...)
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
"Say you and a buddy, who just happens to be wanted for an armed robbery, are talking on the sidewalk. Then the police will probably bust both of you first to get the situation under control. Then if they don't have anything on you, you will be set free. That is the way it is. The police will make sure neither your buddy or anyone else will wind up shooting them, getting everything under control, and then set free those truely not involved."
:\ ?
Say you and a buddy, who just happens to be wanted for possession, are talking on the sidewalk. Then the police will probably bust both of you to get things under control. Even if they don't have anything on you, you were arrested in connection with a drug-related crime. Therefore, that money in your pocket may have been drug-related income. The money in your bank may be drug-related money. You are an accessory to a drug-related crime. With mandatory minimums for drug offenses, that's good for five years. You most certainly will not be released in a coupla hours. Or days. Or years. If you are truely not involved, then be prepared to fight the court case longer than you would have been in prision. It is certainly inconvienent, but the lawmakers and the police and the public are to blame in this sort of situation.
All of your money has been taken. Goddess forbid you were talking in your house or your car. Everything would have been taken -legaly- because it may have been related to a drug-related crime.
Sorry, I should have specified drug-related in my earlier rant. Why am I so adamant if these laws apply to only drug-related crimes? Read on...
"The thing is the Supreme Court's job is interpretting the constitution. So if they say it's OK for the police to take a car used in a crime, that is then constitutional."
I must disagree with what the Court has said. Paraphrased: `It's ok for the police to take whatever they want, whenever they want for however long they want. The articles in question do not need to have been used in a crime. Suspicion of use or association with guilty parties is plenty, so long as the police say that it's `drug-related'. You have no right to unreasonable search and siezure in a drug crime. You have no right to speedy trial (speedy, not trial) in a drug crime. You have no right to be innocent in a drug crime, because (with drug crime) you are indeed guilty until proven innocent. And even then, you're still guilty as far as this standing Court is concerned.'
Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me...
"We can contact local/state/federal congressmen
if we think the law is unjust; it would take them passing a bill to reverse Court decisions."
Wrong. It would take replacing the money that the federal government pays them every year to fight drugs to get them to budge on the issue.
"Like I said, if the police are making bogus accusations of a crime taking place, then yes fire those officers, get your car back, sue them, go on TV and get public opinion behind you."
Impossible. Well, very, very difficult at the least. See, the Drug War(tm) is about protecting the children. How popular would it be to support the opposite of that?
My big problem is that this country is started down a slippery slope indeed. When police no longer need us to be guilty before throwing the full force of the law at us, what good are individual rights? If we have our voice taken away in the best interest of the children, who profits. If we loose our freedom in trade for saftey from drug runners, did we ever deserve the freedom to begin with.
Sorry, I know I'm getting a bit off-topic, but this thread started with the simple statement last time I checked, the government had to compensate private citizens for confiscation of property. Which is correct, except for drug-related crimes. And maybe computer-related crimes. And soon, car-related crimes. Then child-related crimes. Then hate-related crimes.
See my point, or am I just too darned tired to be posting
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
" If a restauranteur is going to put nearly $20,000 and his car in the hands of an employee, he should take certain precautions, such as drug tests and what not."
Agreed. However, this is not the point. The point is that the government, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, can take whatever it damn well pleases whenever it gets the whim and there is nothing you can do about it! You loose the right to get it back if you are innocent and you loose the right to just compensation whenever the government doesn't feel like paying.
"And it shows why it's wise to stay the hell away from people that do these things; they will drag you down with them."
So what you are essentially saying is that if you happen to be around someone who commits a crime, then it's your fault that you run the risk of loosing your constitutional rights . Yeah, that's logical.
"If you want to smoke weed, get a whore, make meth, do it on your own time and property. That way the police will seize YOUR car, and YOUR house, and YOUR cash."
Umm...DUH!!!! That's whay criminals are criminals - they have no respect for you or others.
*sound of thwacking with a clue stick*
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
You might be a Visual Basic Weenie.
You might be a Visual Basic Weenie.
You might be a Visual Basic Weenie.
You might be a Visual Basic Weenie.
...with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.
Interesting footnote; my last boss was the source of all of these VBWeeinie tests. I guess he should be called an ActiveVB Weenie(tm)...
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
"A person here (Canada) can go on social assistance (or whatever they call it these days so as not to hurt the feelings of the recipients) forever and have a higher standard of living than a wealthy person 100 years ago..."
I believe you've missed RuntimeError's point entirely.
Can just anyone in, say, Saigon get one Welfare (yes, I'm from the US. That's what we call it here)? How about Russia? Brazil? Russian Georgia? Calcutta? The point is that the poor now tremendously outnumber the rich (no link to back that up, sorry). Therefore, if we assume this premise to be true (increasing number of poor), then the poor have indeed become moreso.
"If you can point to a case of a group being worse off, check the political climate in the time and place it happened and it might give you a hint as to why they're worse off."
India really doesn't have all that many problems; certainly no more than the US. Yet why is their standard of living so much lower than ours?
Communisim? No...
War? Not really...
Politics? Power-mongering? Maybe. Probably.
The point is that while our future is indeed bright, there are (to venture a guess) 3 Billion+ people who cannot echo our sentiments. Note the emphasis. It is the crux of my point.
And, OT, could you tell me why my Mom couldn't get Welfare when she was unemployable? Here in the US? Any thoughts?
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
"A browser should not silently render a broken page."
And anyone, ANYONE , who makes web sites for a living should be fscking smart enough to remember to add ending tags (Although, for the record, all of the table-related tags are there. The javascript is uuuuuuuugly, though!).
I'm sorry, but I do all of my development (web or otherwise) in a plain jane text editor (EditPad, to be precise) . I despise anything that changes what I wrote. Anyone making 40k+ a year ought to be smart enough to close out tags.
Remimds me of UserFriendly.
Thoroughly, off topic, why does Google have all of those `2's around the Google logo?
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
I for one dislike censorship in all of it's forms. However, does government demand it?
:-)
Let me explain a bit...
Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard. What this means is that it's theoretically ok for me to say "I think that Clinton is a green donkey!". It also means that no one has to hear what I just said. Whether it be a function of censorship, or just because most people think I'm nuts, my view has not been heard. Nowhere am I guaranteed this right.
The problem with this is that it makes censorchip `legal', in a way. The [insert favorite agency to pick on here] can choose not to grant my right to be heard, and that's (unjustly, IMHO) ok.
My question is: Does government, in any form, require censorship to function? Put another way, do we necessarily have to give up our right to be heard by choosing to live in any type of society? Put a third way, is the right to be heard equal to the right to privacy (unlawful search and siezure).
Sorry for the convoluted question. Haven't yet had enough caffiene.
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
"Depression, clinical depression, when it comes back to someone who's been fighting it, when it's there it's like a warm blanket that insulates you from reality, and makes you feel like things are the way they ought to be. That depression is the way you were ment to be. It's comforting, it's addictive, and it's incredibly destructive."
;-)), you feel...safe. It's like `Ok, I'm depressed, I know it, and it's all right. I've felt this way most of my life, and it's comfortable'.
;-)
That is quite possiblly the most profound and poetic way to describe what it really feels like to be depressed.
When you're this depressed, and nothing matters (except for the fact that nothing matters matters, and that's not quite right, but nothing matters, so...(yes, that's what I meant
And the warm blanket metaphor was classic...
Another point; depression can be addictive. I remember times when I was happy, and wished I was depressed. It's the familiarity that's destructive. Happiness, normality, a lack of depression; these are all foreign and to be avoided at all costs.
So, you start to sink again.
Hell, I still have trouble being happy for long periods (days). I feel like I'm doing something wrong or unfair to the rest of the world and that I will be punished. Usually, I'm right
As it is, I've been not clinically depressed for about three years now. Let me tell you, it's a completely different world.
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
Go here. This is the moderation thread for Slashdot. We've been putting our heads together to try and make moderation better, and some good has come of it already. Join the discussion and add your points (or at least link to them...)
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
Dude, it's not a bug, it's a feature!
Rob even says so!
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
We (Dallas) have a KFC band spin off too.
:-)
Hellified Funk Crew
Their logo is the Colonel with a pitchfork and horns.
Kinda silly, but cool, in it's own little dimented way
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet