People keep claiming that Israel isn't winning vs. the terrorists as if their options are peace or war. From the terrorist's perspective the options are israel or no israel, the terrorists want to destroy israel, not live peacefully with it. Israel may never stop the terrorists, but they do still exist.
Yeah, I sure know that my senator, minority leader Tom Daschle would never propose bad IP laws, being the good liberal that he is.... Oh wait, hes a co-sponsor of the INCUCE act which would make any device even capable of infringing on copyright illegal.
Yep, those liberals, they never support strict IP laws.
I hate it when broad brush generalities are used like this. It always seems like the distinction is being made to justify that the person making the statement belongs to the "correct" party. In the case of IP laws if you really want to show you want fewer of them your voter registration should be Libertarian....
My point was that I give the networks the benifit of the doubt when they say they aren't biased. Sure some things are biased, but is it intentional or not.
I believe network that runs Moore's movie would be intentionally biased.
Also from the free speech angle, the networks have free speech, but they do not have the right to make me watch.
I don't want to see it. I wouldn't want to see it on TV. I have watched the preview and interviews with Moore and those are enough to tell me that I do not want to see this movie.
I have no problem with the movie theater in my town showing the movie to people who want to pay to see it.
But if the TV media (who the liberals always argue are unbiased) shows something as biased as this I have a huge problem with that. There is a definite bias in this film. The major networks claim to have no bias, and I believe that they have less bias than many conservatives think. But if a major network plays this movie, I will count them as having NO capability of having unbiased news reporting at all.
Whatever channel it would air on is one I won't be watching anymore. And there lies the reason it won't be played. At least 40 MILLION people will be voting for Bush, win or lose, this election. If you are the network that runs this so called documentary, you will piss off a large portion of your audience and potentially drive them away for a long time.
If a local affiliate in my area were to announce that it would air Moore's film there would be an enourmous backlash and protest of it.
I just want to comment about the 'regime' change part of your statement.
I sure hope those outside of the US (and in it as well) appreciate the fact that at most Bush's 'regime' will only last 4 more years, or just a few more months. Contast that with Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and many other countries where regimes last decades.
I do agree however that we need more than two parties and probably 4. The only way this will happen would be for a viable 3rd party to actually win the presidency, not just be competitive for it like Perot was. A party would build around that person and the other parties would hopefull fracture into factions after that.
Just a note in relation to your comments on Russia.
Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic. I am fully expecting an action more reminicent of Sherman's march than anything else. This is truly a global war on terror, and while Michael Moore and you can debate how its going here, you won't have any say in what the Russians do, and I think it will be a very dramatic statement.
I totally agree the last time the country was divided was the Civil War.
But why do you hate me? And to look deeper, why don't you even want to debate? You throw generalities and ephitets out there at those you dislike.
Oh and by the way, which rights should I be concerned about and from which party. I would respect your ranting more if you derided the whole of politics in america today instead of just going rah rah for your side. Clinton signed the DMCA, prominent republicans and democrats back the induce act, democrats favor taking more of my property (taxes), republicans favor social restrictions in government (which oh my, I don't, but I'm in flyover country so how can I not). Everybody voted for the patriot act.
The democrats are not the cure all, they're just a differnt set of things to lookout for.
As I said before we are dividing. I am beginning to believe that two things are likely to come of it. Either a fragmentation of the country into many different nations ala Europe (would take many many years, but could be set off by something as simple as one very large confrontation) or a total fragmenation of the political system with third parties gaining a toehold but not growing fast enough to replace one of the two parties. I think about 4-5 prominent political parties would be needed to pull the pure divisivness out of the political system.
BTW: What makes you assume that all "red-staters" like farm/ranch/mining subsidies?
Incredible post, one of the best I've ever seen here on/.
It makes me sad when the RIAA exerts so much effort to control my PC. The lost me as a customer years ago and whether p2p gets shut down or not I'm never buying another CD again.
Stopping buying DVDs will be far harder, but the day my PVR (read any PVR) can't record a show that I get over my cable, I will stop buying DVDs as well (man that will be tough, but doable).
I imagine if the horse and buggy lobby had been this powerful in the early 20th century, we'd still be driving them today instead of cars (greens, please don't start on how that would be better, its just an analogy).
Maybe, but the point still stands. Besides is it really a wise policy to try to control others decisions? Good or bad? "Hey! JWW you're making a bad decision. Here, let society set you on the correct path."
The only thing is, its not society that is trying to set the RIAA on the correct path, its the market. And by definition the market should control their actions. Of course it isn't controlling their actions, which is why their tactics seem so strange and inneffective.
Reselling/giving away your stuff is not stealing. Back a few years the RIAA DID try to stop CD stores from selling used CDs and failed miserably.
There is a rather old case about reselling books that setup this precedent. Basically the onwer of the book can resell it for any price they want. Of course, this is why computer software is LICENSED and you don't actually own it.
However, one point that is often overlooked here is that this is their decision to make, not ours.
Yes, you're correct, our only decision is whether to buy stuff from them or not. The real irony of the situation is the harder they try to protect their revenue stream the more of it they will lose.
What I love is not only did the music industry fail, they proceeded to turn the VCR into a billion dollar business.
They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They could distrubute competetively priced content over the internet (hell there are no inventory costs at all), but they won't do it.
The betamax decision forced the MPAA to be creative in how they marketed their product and they succeded big time. Now, their just to damn lasy to figure out how to make this internet thing work.
When they tried the betamax case they tried to label us all as potential criminals, then they managed to create a large market for real customers. They can do the same for digital/internet content, they just don't want too.
I already will no longer buy CDs, regardless of whether I file share or not. If the MPAA keeps at this I will stop buying DVDs (yes I admit I am hooked on buying DVDs). The results of their efforts to guaruntee their revenue stream from me will have the effect of eliminating it alltogether.
You never brought up Bush, but I took your reference to the "last four years" to tie into the current administration.
The DMCA has been around 6 years, the appropriate statement would have been "last 6 years".
My other point is that we're being sold out on this stuff by ALL politicians (however I should say that Nader would probably repeal the DMCA, but he won't be getting elected -- and hes not on the ballot in my state anyway).
Note: The DMCA is more than four years old. It isn't Bush's fault. That's not to say that he wouldn't have signed it, I believe he would have. But.. Clinton did sign it and I think Kerry would sign it too.
The scary part is that there are no politicians who care about what consumers (citizens by the way) are being forced to accept to defend the big corporation's revenue streams.
If we had the same group of scumbags in government back when the car was invented, I'd probably own a ridiculously overpriced horse and carriage today.
The question that you should ask yourself then, is: Is a the solution to the problem that "feels" best the best logical solution to the problem?
Many many many federal programs mean well and really want to help people, but become the most inefficient, bloated, corrupt unhelpful things, potentially causing more damage than if nothing had been done at all.
Substituting feeling for logic only leads to solutions that do not work. Perhaps using both would work, but current politics eschews using multiple principles to achieve solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Israel still exists doesn't it?
People keep claiming that Israel isn't winning vs. the terrorists as if their options are peace or war. From the terrorist's perspective the options are israel or no israel, the terrorists want to destroy israel, not live peacefully with it. Israel may never stop the terrorists, but they do still exist.
Yeah, I sure know that my senator, minority leader Tom Daschle would never propose bad IP laws, being the good liberal that he is. ... Oh wait, hes a co-sponsor of the INCUCE act which would make any device even capable of infringing on copyright illegal.
Yep, those liberals, they never support strict IP laws.
I hate it when broad brush generalities are used like this. It always seems like the distinction is being made to justify that the person making the statement belongs to the "correct" party. In the case of IP laws if you really want to show you want fewer of them your voter registration should be Libertarian....
Of course when I watch Star Wars with my son, he finds out anyway as his father shouts "Han shot first!!!" at the screen.
My point was that I give the networks the benifit of the doubt when they say they aren't biased. Sure some things are biased, but is it intentional or not.
I believe network that runs Moore's movie would be intentionally biased.
Also from the free speech angle, the networks have free speech, but they do not have the right to make me watch.
Hasn't it always been "Us vs. Them" throughout history?
... I know I'm really asking for the karma hit on this one! ...
Yes it has always been this way. But right now we have Repbulicans seeing Us vs. Them(terrorists) and Democrats are seeing Us vs. Them (Republicans).
I don't want to see it. I wouldn't want to see it on TV. I have watched the preview and interviews with Moore and those are enough to tell me that I do not want to see this movie.
I have no problem with the movie theater in my town showing the movie to people who want to pay to see it.
But if the TV media (who the liberals always argue are unbiased) shows something as biased as this I have a huge problem with that. There is a definite bias in this film. The major networks claim to have no bias, and I believe that they have less bias than many conservatives think. But if a major network plays this movie, I will count them as having NO capability of having unbiased news reporting at all.
Whatever channel it would air on is one I won't be watching anymore. And there lies the reason it won't be played. At least 40 MILLION people will be voting for Bush, win or lose, this election. If you are the network that runs this so called documentary, you will piss off a large portion of your audience and potentially drive them away for a long time.
If a local affiliate in my area were to announce that it would air Moore's film there would be an enourmous backlash and protest of it.
I just want to comment about the 'regime' change part of your statement.
I sure hope those outside of the US (and in it as well) appreciate the fact that at most Bush's 'regime' will only last 4 more years, or just a few more months. Contast that with Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and many other countries where regimes last decades.
I do agree however that we need more than two parties and probably 4. The only way this will happen would be for a viable 3rd party to actually win the presidency, not just be competitive for it like Perot was. A party would build around that person and the other parties would hopefull fracture into factions after that.
Just a note in relation to your comments on Russia.
Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic. I am fully expecting an action more reminicent of Sherman's march than anything else. This is truly a global war on terror, and while Michael Moore and you can debate how its going here, you won't have any say in what the Russians do, and I think it will be a very dramatic statement.
It is a great utopia of individual liberty, they just watch you all the time! ;-)
/.ers. I just thought it was funny to see this after the earlier story on survelliance in the UK.
No disrespect intended to UK
P.S. - I think loser pays is a good idea.
I totally agree the last time the country was divided was the Civil War.
But why do you hate me? And to look deeper, why don't you even want to debate? You throw generalities and ephitets out there at those you dislike.
Oh and by the way, which rights should I be concerned about and from which party. I would respect your ranting more if you derided the whole of politics in america today instead of just going rah rah for your side. Clinton signed the DMCA, prominent republicans and democrats back the induce act, democrats favor taking more of my property (taxes), republicans favor social restrictions in government (which oh my, I don't, but I'm in flyover country so how can I not). Everybody voted for the patriot act.
The democrats are not the cure all, they're just a differnt set of things to lookout for.
As I said before we are dividing. I am beginning to believe that two things are likely to come of it. Either a fragmentation of the country into many different nations ala Europe (would take many many years, but could be set off by something as simple as one very large confrontation) or a total fragmenation of the political system with third parties gaining a toehold but not growing fast enough to replace one of the two parties. I think about 4-5 prominent political parties would be needed to pull the pure divisivness out of the political system.
BTW: What makes you assume that all "red-staters" like farm/ranch/mining subsidies?
You make me sad for the future of OUR country.
...
I am so sick of your attitude. "Fly over country" -- what a snide derogatory insult from people like you.
I bet you think you're a compassionate liberal too and yet you stereotype and insult a large portion of this country, very compassionate.
The only thing I am left thinking is
Divided we fall.
We've already started the fall.
Moderators, Mod parent up!!
/.
Incredible post, one of the best I've ever seen here on
It makes me sad when the RIAA exerts so much effort to control my PC. The lost me as a customer years ago and whether p2p gets shut down or not I'm never buying another CD again.
Stopping buying DVDs will be far harder, but the day my PVR (read any PVR) can't record a show that
I get over my cable, I will stop buying DVDs as well (man that will be tough, but doable).
I imagine if the horse and buggy lobby had been this powerful in the early 20th century, we'd still be driving them today instead of cars (greens, please don't start on how that would be better, its just an analogy).
This is a great post. And the other great thing about this post is it WILL happen.
The baby bells could lower prices enough to keep it from happening, but they aren't going to.
Why wouldn't I expect the people who print phone books to list their number in the phone book as well? Your analogy fails completely.
I know they _could_ have unlisted numbers, but I actually would expect them to list their numbers in the phone book.
Maybe, but the point still stands. Besides is it really a wise policy to try to control others decisions? Good or bad? "Hey! JWW you're making a bad decision. Here, let society set you on the correct path."
The only thing is, its not society that is trying to set the RIAA on the correct path, its the market. And by definition the market should control their actions. Of course it isn't controlling their actions, which is why their tactics seem so strange and inneffective.
Reselling/giving away your stuff is not stealing. Back a few years the RIAA DID try to stop CD stores from selling used CDs and failed miserably.
There is a rather old case about reselling books that setup this precedent. Basically the onwer of the book can resell it for any price they want. Of course, this is why computer software is LICENSED and you don't actually own it.
You don't need to teach your kids not to download music. You need to teach them not to download music OR buy CDs.
However, one point that is often overlooked here is that this is their decision to make, not ours.
Yes, you're correct, our only decision is whether to buy stuff from them or not. The real irony of the situation is the harder they try to protect their revenue stream the more of it they will lose.
I'm sorry, that sounds more like Speedy Gonzales than chicken little. ;-)
What I love is not only did the music industry fail, they proceeded to turn the VCR into a billion dollar business.
They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They could distrubute competetively priced content over the internet (hell there are no inventory costs at all), but they won't do it.
The betamax decision forced the MPAA to be creative in how they marketed their product and they succeded big time. Now, their just to damn lasy to figure out how to make this internet thing work.
When they tried the betamax case they tried to label us all as potential criminals, then they managed to create a large market for real customers. They can do the same for digital/internet content, they just don't want too.
I already will no longer buy CDs, regardless of whether I file share or not. If the MPAA keeps at this I will stop buying DVDs (yes I admit I am hooked on buying DVDs). The results of their efforts to guaruntee their revenue stream from me will have the effect of eliminating it alltogether.
You never brought up Bush, but I took your reference to the "last four years" to tie into the current administration.
The DMCA has been around 6 years, the appropriate statement would have been "last 6 years".
My other point is that we're being sold out on this stuff by ALL politicians (however I should say that Nader would probably repeal the DMCA, but he won't be getting elected -- and hes not on the ballot in my state anyway).
Note: The DMCA is more than four years old. It isn't Bush's fault. That's not to say that he wouldn't have signed it, I believe he would have. But.. Clinton did sign it and I think Kerry would sign it too.
The scary part is that there are no politicians who care about what consumers (citizens by the way) are being forced to accept to defend the big corporation's revenue streams.
If we had the same group of scumbags in government back when the car was invented, I'd probably own a ridiculously overpriced horse and carriage today.
The question that you should ask yourself then, is: Is a the solution to the problem that "feels" best the best logical solution to the problem?
Many many many federal programs mean well and really want to help people, but become the most inefficient, bloated, corrupt unhelpful things, potentially causing more damage than if nothing had been done at all.
Substituting feeling for logic only leads to solutions that do not work. Perhaps using both would work, but current politics eschews using multiple principles to achieve solutions.
Doesn't hell have to freeze over before you can have curling there? ;-)