You know, considering your plain-words stance regarding freedom of speech, you may want to consider that copyright is also in the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
As a matter of fact, i think that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. Kinda their bag, when it comes down to it. That being said, clearly the DMCA should be ruled unconstitutional, and the fact that it hasnt is a travesty. But that in no way is anything but our opinion.
Your view of constitutiuonal law is narrow and immature. The Constitution may say Congress shall "make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," but the Court has long held that common sense and the spirit of the law neccessitate exceptions. Do you think you should be able to yell fire in a crowded movie theater? How about libel and slander laws? granted, they may have become over-litigated, but it certainly makes the social sphere move more smoothly when political candidates are prevented from baselessly accusing their opponents of eating babies, or advertisements from claiming that competing products cause crotch-rot.
I agree with you that discussing the workings of copy-protection systems should be protected speech, and that the DMCA is bullshit. But when you go spouting the same bullshit argument about literal Constitutional interpretation that the gun-nuts parades around, you make the rest of us look like asshats. Scalia and Thomas are big on the Plain-Words Doctrine. Like your company?
"It's hard to debate fairly against those who are not intellectually equal."
Yes. And? Since when was the path supposed to be easy?
"Currency as a moderator of trade ceased to have any value the day the government started to counterfiet it; it just takes time for the myth to fall under it's own lies."
Wrong, currency as a moderator of trade continues to have value as long as those who participate in the game continue to accept it. We assign value through our actions. We use money as a moderator of trade, simple as that. You may feel free, obviously to believe whatever you want, but that doesnt change the fact that you participate in a system you hold to be meaningless. All the rest is empty Demagoguery.
"Well, I can, it's not strictly neccessary. My ancestors got very fat living in this valley before white man came- they may not have had clothes or personal property, but they considered themselves VERY wealthy, as the land provided all that they needed. Fish, venison, birds, eggs, vegetables, fruit- they had it all back then, before the malaria."
Far out. And my ancestors did the same in Ireland before the potato famine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the apparent fact that you subsist through means negotiated by currency, yet claim that moderation by currency is meaningless. If that is the case, then why buy into the lie? and yes, holding that its a lie but participating in the system is buying into the lie. So you're a malcontent. So what?
"Except, of course, in the music industry, where capitalism must be protected by lawsuits to still exist..."
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Legislating a business-model is different than litigating capitalism.
"But it isn't how "things as they are"- inflation shows that, as the value of the dollar continues to errode towards zero. It is in fact just one big fraudulent con game- and those at the "top" deserve nothing more than jail and execution for the lie."
You'll get no argument from me if you choose to phrase this in terms of 'the expansionist nature of capitalism as viewed through the constant inflation of world currencies, is an inherently unsustainable practice, and should be stopped.' However, again, you come with meaningless rhetoric instead of argument. It *is* the way things are. PRESENT TENSE. Last I checked use of the present tense in no way spoke to how things would be at ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE. If its a con game, its one we play on ourselves, yourself included, no matter how much you flail around deriding it, and as such labeling it fraudulent is just vapid.
" (Guess you, like so many others, have been fooled by my handle- I hack marx, I hack economic systems- I'm not a slavish follower of anybody's axiom beyond that which I need to fit into the myth of the people around me- and even then, I found a niche where my "money" supply is guaranteed by law rather than dependant upon the ever-decreasing value of the dollar.)"
No. does it make you feel good to think that you've 'tricked' me somehow? putting quote marks around money doesnt alter the fact that you have chosen a lifestyle dependent on something you claim to be fradulent and meaningless. If you want to talk about the negative social impacts of a monetary society, I'm right there with you, but i fail to see how you've said anything of meaning.
"Eventually, we'll need no labor to live; at that point, money will be obsolete for far more than just cyberspace programs and patterns of bits."
yeah, good luck with that. I'd not say that you hack anything so much as that you yourself are a hack.
You're not really debating fairly here. You clearly understand what you're talking about very well, and as such you should know that when people have been going on about money being real, they're talking about currency as a moderator of trade, not as in the coin of the realm. Its apples and oranges, and replying to apples with oranges is disingenuous debate.
Money as the moderator of exchange is very real, and in that sense you are living proof, just by using it to live... unless you're accruing the means of survival through some other channels than buying them with your debit card.
Capitalism is, in fact, the dominant economic mode of the earth, and as such, communist notions of value assignment are somewhat meaningless. I.E. it really doesnt matter that the Dollar is no longer on the Gold standard, because capitalism decided that the market no longer needed fixed monetary values. You and i may think that such a shared hallucination is retarded, but that doesnt make it any less Things As They Are.
The Marxist conception of Value is actually his weakspot, imho. It basically ignores the reality of market processes in favor of the way things "should be." Which is fine for philosophy and Macro-processes, but not for monetary issues.
Fuck that. This isnt about the poor ISPs and their tear-filled entreaties of needing financial incentive to upgrade infrastructure. Its about bullshit, and how far they can spread it. The internet may still be young, but bandwidth-intensive applications are growing very quickly. Too quickly for the resulting bottlenecks to be resolved by trying to double-charge for network access, which is bullshit anyway. This is classic corporate america: There is a demand for something, but the short and mid-term profit margin is lower for expanding into that new area (laying infrastructure to bring the network up to speed) than it is for locking together as an informal cartel and insisting on maintaining the current business model (OOOOHH, Cable internet is teh 4w3s0m3!!!)
The have "no incentive" to expand because they've arranged for themselves geographical monopolies, and that means no competition. I have 1 option for broadband. 1. How can they bitch about lack of incentives when their chosen business model precludes the very existence of such?
I am paying for *ALL* bandwidth to and from my connection point. If my ISP wants to start charging someone else for packets I've requested, I will expect a reduction in my bill. Otherwise they can fuck right off.
They go on like their lot in life is some kind of tragedy. Its not, they're just too fucking greedy to run a decent business. I've got Comcast cable. My bill has increased ahead of inflation every year I've had it, and I've not received *any* upgrades in service. That to me spells BULLSHIT. I keep hearing from friends in europe and asia how amazingly fast and simple their hookups are, and how cheap. If the French can manage to have faster, more readily accessible, cheaper internet connections, it CANNOT BE THAT HARD. Where are the fibre connections I was promised? nowhere. I'd fucking pay another $20 a month for a fibre-to-curb connection. But unfortunately my ISP would rather spend money on PR bitching about how they cant make money than offer me a service I'd like to fucking pay for. Go figure.
The Delphic Expanse is real after all. We must act quickly before the Sphere-Builders overwhelm us all. Well ok not that quickly, but maybe now that there's an immanent terrorist threat from space W will be a little more enthusiastic about funding NASA...
online shopping sites have been responsible for more new tech and ways of thinking than blogs. What buzzwords have they created? E-Commerce? Nobody talks about the E-Commerceosphere, because that would be retarded. It takes a special brand of self-important wankery to designate one's favored Type Of Website as being worthy of its own Sphere. Blog may be mainstreaming, but blogosphere is meaningless tot, and anyone concerned with language for its own sake should be concerned.
"At a basic technical level, the specifications like RSS and/or Atom are "new things". Look at them, and ask yourself, what benefit does it add to the web? From a technological standpoint, the change is pretty minor -- it adds some metadata (author, date, title, etc.) to what is basically a web page. From a sociological & interoperability standpoint, a little metadata goes a long way. That requires an eye to recognizing patterns of behaviour."
Um, basically a web page? Seems like maybe just a web page...with some added metadata might be a more accurate way of describing that there. Yes, the behavior patterns of media consumption are changing due to said changes. And?
"And you're engaging in the "troll pretending to want a meaningful discussion" practice. If you wanted a real discussion, you would have asked for one, instead of trolling the way you did."
OOOOHH, SNAP! Troll... you really showed me. Look, I had a rant. I posted said rant in agreement with GP comment. My rant was contextual, though admittedly not entirely on-topic. Now, you decided to respond to my rant with "discussion." I would characterize your implication that one loses the right to respond to proffered "discussion" simply because one's initial post was a Rant, as being utter bullshit. Nothing in my rant sought to hide its nature as such, and everyone else chose to either have the chuckle that was intended, or ignore me and move along. But you responded, and i would say that we can safely say that I disagree with your opinion, and have no respect for the bullshit manner in which you offered it. So i said so. Having ranted in no way denies me the ability and right to point out that you are not approaching the discussion even-handedly.
"Absolutely. Let's look at the impact of political blogs on news stories or on U.S. Campaign Finance, or blogs questioning journalist source protection (such as in the Apple v. O'Grady and ThinkSecret case, where Apple lost), or in the ability hold conversations via trackbacks instead of having a centralized message board."
Or Groklaw and the SCO clusterfuck... yes, these are blogs that are worthy of our attention. Yes, trackback is pretty sweet. And I would go so far as to say that it is one of the more innovative web protocols. Journalists have been involved in the stories beyond a simple reporting capacity for years. Bloggers following in the footsteps of their professional cousins is neither a surprise, nor cause for ridiculous statements like 'busting out of the browser.' Woodward didnt bust off the page with his various behind the scenes reporting and books. He was just a damn good reporter and author. So while I'm encouraged that some bloggers are stepping up to the plate and conducting themselves with some professionalism, the prime example of the medium remains that dude who chronicles his hobby, and that dude who has 4 or 5 blogs all linked and designed purely generate ad revenue without doing any work.
"This is an unfortunate aspect of reality -- hype will often outstrip it, but eventually the hype will changes the nature of what his being observed. What's the point of having such an opinion anyway? Does is somehow hurt you that blogs are popular and seem to be changing many attitudes?"
Oh, well, if its just a fact of reality, then i should clearly just lay down and accept it, right? What's the point of having any opinion? Why dont I just let (insert popular group here) determine what i think and feel? Oh, right, because I'm not a mindless automaton. Groupthink offends me on a very basic level. It is a negative aspect of humanity, and if you cant see it even in your own groups, then there's something wrong with you. Does it somehow hurt me? No, I'm perfectly comfortable with my thoughts and opinions. Does it somehow hurt you that someone is criticizing your precious bl0gs? I mean i understand that people generally dont like having their favs criticized, but you're acting like I'm saying that i hate oxygen or something. A fuckton of pe
wow. "Blogosphere" = internets?
you dont think thats just a teensy-bit over the top?
And "blogosphere" != sphere 'o blogs? first of all that seems like a pretty self-evident definition to me. Second of all you might want to redefine that if for no other reason than the multitude of internet-enabled means of communicating with strangers already in place before not only its own coining but before the advent of the worldwide web. I mean, jesus, a friend of mine's been MUDing since before i even knew what the internet was. If you were striving to actually show a way in which the "blogosphere" was really an important distinction from the rest of the internets, you've failed miserably.
Wow, well I was wondering when one of you was going to take issue.
Are you *seriously* comparing the rise of the "blogosphere" with the advent of the worldwide web? Thats absurd. First of all because the "blogosphere" is merely a subsection of the worldwide web. Second of all, its nowhere near the paradigm-shift you seem to think it is. "*OUT* of the browser,"? what does that even mean? I've had a page on a blog-site for a while, its a great interface for webdesign for idiots, and I'm fucking lazy. I'm neither some change-resistant uber-geek nor am I an ignorant neophyte. I simply reject your interpretation of the importance, nay, the relevance of blogs as a distinct Thing.
You have displayed the exact attitude I was ranting about. Starting out with a nice red herring as a solid distractor, then moving on to the wonderfully condescending "oh, you just dont get it" defense, with a solid backing of "arent you going to look the fool in 5 years when *I'm* right and you're not," really was a genius way of not engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion while still trashing on me personally. I mean, could you not have offered a stronger response to my argument than that bit about blogs are the web busting out of the browser? Or vague talk of extending the web to media types for syndication? Well, why bother, when you're sooo right? And by virtue of being destined to be vindicated in the eyes of history, that much cooler too!
Not that I'm really surprised. some of my best friends are blog-obsessed, and have also been completely unable to offer me a reasonable explanation of why blog should = teh uber awes0me instead of just another part of the awesomeness that already was, and continues to be, the internets. Its not like its a huge deal. I just think that language matters, and when the discourse about a thing is as off-kilter as i feel it is concerning Blogs, i get irriated. Like people saying climate change instead of Global Warming. So really, until i hear a decent explanation to feel otherwise, I will continue to feel completely justified in my low opinion of groups and individuals that seek, or seem to seek by their attitudes, special attention or awareness over their cohorts.
"I thought school was supposed to be about the education of students, for their benefit, that of their parents, of other citizens, and of society and democracy at large"
well, yeah... that would be nice, but this is america. if anything is worth doing it can be quantified and examined in dollar-terms... otherwise we'd be communists, right? I mean, I'm pretty sure i heard the President up there encouraging everyone to show their patriotism by spending money... so if its good enough for patriotism, shouldnt it be good enough for education?/sarcasm
I get what you were saying, but you know very well thats not what HE was saying, and choosing to cast his comments in that light is mindless polemicism. Wasting Taxpayer Money is something every governmental organization should Try Not To Do. simple as that. What he's saying is that blocking websites with no educational value is keeping in line both with not wasting taxpayer money, and with education for its own sake, which, yes, is the greater good. Neither interest is served by letting school kids waste time on myspace. Do that at home.
I'd say that as long as we keep making entertainment content in larger file sizes than can be easily transmitted through the aether, yes, physical media will endure.
and i would say that is a trend that will continue, based on the last 10 years.
you're certainly not alone. the moment i read that i sent the link to all my friends. I dont care who he is or what he has to say, but he's got the coolest motherfucking name ever.
FUCK. THE. BLOGOSPHERE. There. I said it. It had to be said.
What a self important bunch of wankers. Nothing about the concept of a blog is derserving of its own ism or sphere. Its just a website. Ever hear about what's happening in the Shoppingsiteosphere? Or the OnlineNewsosphere? No. You know why? because those particular areas of the Internets are created and staffed by professionals, who dont need to go around inventing self-aggrandizing titles for themselves. The ability so sign up for a Blogger account and blabber on about whatever the fuck you want in no way designates you as worthy of buzzword-creation rights. Fuck off and give the rest of us a break. Isnt there a coffee shop you should be posing at with your MacBook Pro or something? I think there is.
And before all you/.'ers who link to your blog in you sig mod me down, which you're going to do, clearly and deservedly. Think about it a second. You want people to read your stuff, right? thats all well and good, but is your own specialness worth elevating some inane documenting of some asshat's daily lives to the same level as decent writing, literature, or real journalism? I certainly the fuck dont think so.
So there's my.02 Now feel free to continue modding me down as flamebait or troll because i cussed at you, and because you're *really* that special.
thats fair. I'm clearly not really the fighting game type. A more accurate end to that sentence would have been, brought back communal gaming for me and my friends.
As for LAN parties... i could go either way on that. There's still something isolating about them simply given the way that everyone is still locked into their own screens. Some of the most enjoyable times i had on DII were in LAN parties with my friends. But we still spent most of the time in a room with no lights, muttering to ourselves except to coordinate attacks and distribute gear.
It just seems like the multiplayer component of types of games that i used to enjoy as party games have been increasingly focused on online play, to the detriment of their value as a multiplayer game for 4 people in the same room, or even just one person for single player. Video games are hella fun, and moreso in a group. you clearly recognize this if you organize lan parties, and have that many people in one room playing fighting games. I just think that the wii more inherently lends itself to this type of gaming than other consoles, if only because of the types of games easily adapted to the interface thus far are party games. thats all, really.
I totally understand where you're coming from, but I've had a very different experience.
Firstly, my friends and i have found ways of keeping the games interesting. No meters, No practice-swing golf stays hard and interesting. Just like Goldeneye got boring without structuring the games so that they stayed challenging, so must you adapt your wii gaming to being good at it.
I also look at things like the everbody votes channel as indicative of what's to come. I think they're clearly testing their servers for forthcoming online gaming. It certainly would have been nice if they'd had it all up and running at launch, but I'm not gonna bitch too hard. I mean, all of the next-gens were supposed to be launched what, 18 months ago? clearly there've been difficulties.
Lastly, i guess, one of the strenghths of the wii imo, is the way its brought back communal gaming. Too much focus on online multiplayer i think is causing the mainstreaming of the solitary rpg zombie. Now before anyone jumps all up my ass about that comment, I'd like to stipulate that I was there for a time, with D2. Many's the night i wasted cowing, and then baal-running before i managed to drop the habit. And yes, i really mean wasted. I made a couple friends, met one in the real world, we're still close. But hanging out with my apartment full of people playing survivor on warioware completely pwns sitting alone at my comp at 3 am mining the durance of hate. Its *social* I mean, there's games being played, philosophy being argued over, various intoxicants being ingested... its hella fun. and thats really what it should be about.
As for first person gaming, you're right... for now. Mario Galaxy and Metroid prime 3 are in the pipeline, and i have every confidence they will rock. Unlike zelda, they've been developed for wii all along, and will be much more than just a gamecube game (or gamecubesque game) with a mote-swing replacing a button.
as for revolutionize gaming... well, I think i've already stated how its changed my gaming. I'm not sure its revolutionary, but still.
I dont think I'm reading it wrong at all. He referenced a technology, and said that nobody wants it. He may have been specifically talking about a possible motion sensing 360 controller, and in that I agree, there would be little point. However, he goes on to disparage the wii-mote, and the very idea of a motion-sensing controller. In no way do i think his comments on this front are justifiable in the face of the popularity of the wii.
As for 3rd party coverage, i just think he's being disingenuous. Obviously Nintendo is making the big hits for the moment, but is that really a shocker? They innovated, and have obviously had the most time to play around with the tech. the best launch games all made by Nintendo? *GASP* Do people bitch out the 360 for Halo, Gears, etc being M$ titles? no. whyso for nintendo? because it was a marketing speech. Also, there are certainly good 3rd party games for the wii, and considering the solid console sales, i fail to see how they could do anythign but get better.
Yes, nintendo and xbox operate differently. Nintendo has survived explicitly by not *relying* on 3rd party dev. They put out a product, and they make a profit on it.
Please understand, I'm not ripping on the 360. I love the 360. I see no reason for the 360 and the wii to be mutually exclusive. But its silly for an xbox mucketymuck to be coming down on the wii the way. Clearly, the 360 is in a good position, but its not really competing with the wii as much as it now is with the PS3. A simple 'well, its an intriguing idea for gaming, but we'll be focusing on what we've already been doing so very well until we see a demand for it from us' both would have sufficed and been a much more professional way to conduct himself.
And yes, the ps3 controller looks like bs. I'm glad they did that instead of xbox. also, how can movement in 3 dimensions be construed as being more than 3 axes? is one of them smission?
Actually, this asshat saying that technology X is not desired by the public, when one of his main competitors is currently making a killing marketing technology X is disingenuous. I was not comparing the systems, but rather responding to his comment on its own terms. He was not saying that the remote-style controller was something people didnt want, he was saying that motion-sensing game controller technology was something people didnt want, and thats just asshattery. I completely agree that xbox shouldnt have a mote-copy. that would be stupid. there are plenty of applications within their current idiom for motion-sensing applications, as you point out. I happen to love the 360, its a great console, and complements the wii perfectly. I'm just bothered by the attitudes of some of the people who make it.
There's no point in building something if noone wants it. ok, that's true.
But...wait what?
Clearly people want it, and clearly people have been finding the technology to be adding to the gaming experience on the wii.
What he really should have said is, 'well, nintendo is already doing a pretty good job of locking that down, so we're not going to bother competing' Its one thing to have been all skeptical before it came out, but to claim now that nobody wants it is just plain bullshit. So you'd rather compete with the PS3, fine, its a more natural competitor anyways. Just try not to smear any more bullshit around than you have to, mmmkay?
As a conservationist/environmentalist/hippie, I can authoritatively say that you are full of shit. There certainly are people who, as you say, demonize energy consumption, and happen to identify as 'conservationists.' What they really are, is asshats. There are asshats like this in every single idealogical group on the planet. Whether they be people who demonize energy consumption, sex, drinking, different modes of thinking, or whathaveyou. If we had perfectly efficient solar collectors and fusion reactors, there'd be no need for conservation as we currently understand it. Hooray! Unfortunately thats a fucking pipe dream, or I'd have the fucking flying car I was promised 50 years ago. Any "appollo style" project for energy management that doesnt stress energy economy is doomed to failure, simply because there is always, in any given system, a finite limit to how much energy can be produced. We can tout out human capacity for technological innovation all we want, but nothing is going to change the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc. So get off your retarded horse, and join the discussion. asshat
I stopped playing san andreas because it was retarded. If i wanted to play the sims, I'd have done so. Though i guess it was more like, The Sims: Thuglife. Dont get me wrong, I'm not adverse to the character-building style of gameplay. I've dumped years down RPG's. It just has no business in a game like GTA. We're talking about a game franchise where murder and wholesale destruction are standing orders. Why the fuck would I want little "touches of reality?" Reality and charging through hordes of pedestrians with a chainsaw are mutually exclusive imho. And thats why san andreas blows.
"No, my original argument was simple. It breaks down to; bloggers can be journalists, here's a definition of journalist that agrees with me."
No. Your original "argument" was the definition you quoted from wikipedia, followed by pasting a link, and saying, cited from wikipedia.
"No. I was pointing out that bloggers can be journalists (the argument) backed up with a definition of journalist that included bloggers."
No. You quoted the wikipedia definiton of journalist, and then made a straw-man of the GrandParent comment to make your post seem like some manner of slam-dunk. In no way can this be construed as an argument so much as a citation.
"That's because you thickie that my argument is not substantive. It can be broken down into four words. Bloggers can be Journalists. This stance I've backed up with definitions of journalist from Wikipedia, OED, Meriam/Webster, etc."
Bloggers can be journalists is a fine argument to make. Why didnt you make this argument? oh right, because its sooo simple that it can just be stated and neither supported analytically nor further discussed. One need simply quote Wikipedia and the argument made! Fantastic. Also, though you sarcastically asked if I'd be happier with MerriamWebster's defintion of journalist, at no time did you actually quote or cite said source, nor the OED. Nor did you in any of your other posts on this thread. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
"What have you come up with? Nada, nothing, not a damn thing (unless we count your whining)."
Um, I believe my last two posts have raised several problems i have with inclusion of bloggers into the definition of Journalist that you have not even hinted at addressing. Until you feel up to joining the discussion please fuck off with your contention that I am somehow not contributing. Also, please come up with something original to say, as I believe I've been taking you to task for not having anything meaningful to say, and its just painfully obvious that you actually might not be capable of an original thought.
"Thanks you, so very much for being the thickest poster you could be. Its not inspiring tho'"
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I guess its either that, or you're not capable of forming an ending retort without trying to play off using mine under the guise of a parallel response.
Also, I'm already paying for both up and down bandwidth. So I'm not exactly sure who they think they're fooling with all this "free rider" bullshit. If google sends me some packets i've requested, I'm pretty sure that access of Comcast's network is already covered by the Arm and Leg I fork over to Comcast every month for the down portion of my connection. And considering how much of the theoretical down bandwidth i have but dont use, its complete bullshit for them to even be contemplating double charging for the delivery of these packets.
Now, on the other hand, if they want to stop charging me for down bandwidth, and only charge me for packets i originate... well that would be something else, wouldnt it? Of course, I'd be expecting a reduction in rate proportional to the percentage of bandwidth i was no longer responsible for. Hrm, lets think about this... 3.5 megs up... 128 k down... $60 a month. Why dont we call it $15 a month? I'm feeling generous.
Oh, but thats right, then they wouldnt be double-charging for the same service. My bad, nevermind.
"Apologies, rather than unreasonable, I should have said unreasoned."
well, it was unreasoned. you presented not a reasoned argument, but rather a quote. It wouldnt have been unreasonable had you actually chosen to make that argument, but you didnt.
"Good for you! I was disagreeing with the parent's view that blogger!=journalism as if it was all that could be said on the subject."
And good also for you. Except that you weren't so much doing that as much as you were pointing out that some other people disagreed with him. Add to that the fact that you really have yet to make a substantive reply to anything I've said on topic, and I think you've got the makings of a fantastic recipe for troll. I'm sure you've got a blog somewhere to post that on.
"God, I hope so. *yawn*"
Thank you, so very much, for being the biggest tool you could be. Its inspiring, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck That Bullshit
You know, considering your plain-words stance regarding freedom of speech, you may want to consider that copyright is also in the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
As a matter of fact, i think that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. Kinda their bag, when it comes down to it.
That being said, clearly the DMCA should be ruled unconstitutional, and the fact that it hasnt is a travesty. But that in no way is anything but our opinion.
Your view of constitutiuonal law is narrow and immature. The Constitution may say Congress shall "make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," but the Court has long held that common sense and the spirit of the law neccessitate exceptions. Do you think you should be able to yell fire in a crowded movie theater? How about libel and slander laws? granted, they may have become over-litigated, but it certainly makes the social sphere move more smoothly when political candidates are prevented from baselessly accusing their opponents of eating babies, or advertisements from claiming that competing products cause crotch-rot.
I agree with you that discussing the workings of copy-protection systems should be protected speech, and that the DMCA is bullshit. But when you go spouting the same bullshit argument about literal Constitutional interpretation that the gun-nuts parades around, you make the rest of us look like asshats. Scalia and Thomas are big on the Plain-Words Doctrine. Like your company?
"It's hard to debate fairly against those who are not intellectually equal."
Yes. And? Since when was the path supposed to be easy?
"Currency as a moderator of trade ceased to have any value the day the government started to counterfiet it; it just takes time for the myth to fall under it's own lies."
Wrong, currency as a moderator of trade continues to have value as long as those who participate in the game continue to accept it. We assign value through our actions. We use money as a moderator of trade, simple as that. You may feel free, obviously to believe whatever you want, but that doesnt change the fact that you participate in a system you hold to be meaningless. All the rest is empty Demagoguery.
"Well, I can, it's not strictly neccessary. My ancestors got very fat living in this valley before white man came- they may not have had clothes or personal property, but they considered themselves VERY wealthy, as the land provided all that they needed. Fish, venison, birds, eggs, vegetables, fruit- they had it all back then, before the malaria."
Far out. And my ancestors did the same in Ireland before the potato famine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the apparent fact that you subsist through means negotiated by currency, yet claim that moderation by currency is meaningless. If that is the case, then why buy into the lie? and yes, holding that its a lie but participating in the system is buying into the lie. So you're a malcontent. So what?
"Except, of course, in the music industry, where capitalism must be protected by lawsuits to still exist..."
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Legislating a business-model is different than litigating capitalism.
"But it isn't how "things as they are"- inflation shows that, as the value of the dollar continues to errode towards zero. It is in fact just one big fraudulent con game- and those at the "top" deserve nothing more than jail and execution for the lie."
You'll get no argument from me if you choose to phrase this in terms of 'the expansionist nature of capitalism as viewed through the constant inflation of world currencies, is an inherently unsustainable practice, and should be stopped.' However, again, you come with meaningless rhetoric instead of argument. It *is* the way things are. PRESENT TENSE. Last I checked use of the present tense in no way spoke to how things would be at ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE. If its a con game, its one we play on ourselves, yourself included, no matter how much you flail around deriding it, and as such labeling it fraudulent is just vapid.
" (Guess you, like so many others, have been fooled by my handle- I hack marx, I hack economic systems- I'm not a slavish follower of anybody's axiom beyond that which I need to fit into the myth of the people around me- and even then, I found a niche where my "money" supply is guaranteed by law rather than dependant upon the ever-decreasing value of the dollar.)"
No. does it make you feel good to think that you've 'tricked' me somehow? putting quote marks around money doesnt alter the fact that you have chosen a lifestyle dependent on something you claim to be fradulent and meaningless. If you want to talk about the negative social impacts of a monetary society, I'm right there with you, but i fail to see how you've said anything of meaning.
"Eventually, we'll need no labor to live; at that point, money will be obsolete for far more than just cyberspace programs and patterns of bits."
yeah, good luck with that. I'd not say that you hack anything so much as that you yourself are a hack.
You're not really debating fairly here.
You clearly understand what you're talking about very well, and as such you should know that when people have been going on about money being real, they're talking about currency as a moderator of trade, not as in the coin of the realm. Its apples and oranges, and replying to apples with oranges is disingenuous debate.
Money as the moderator of exchange is very real, and in that sense you are living proof, just by using it to live... unless you're accruing the means of survival through some other channels than buying them with your debit card.
Capitalism is, in fact, the dominant economic mode of the earth, and as such, communist notions of value assignment are somewhat meaningless. I.E. it really doesnt matter that the Dollar is no longer on the Gold standard, because capitalism decided that the market no longer needed fixed monetary values. You and i may think that such a shared hallucination is retarded, but that doesnt make it any less Things As They Are.
The Marxist conception of Value is actually his weakspot, imho. It basically ignores the reality of market processes in favor of the way things "should be." Which is fine for philosophy and Macro-processes, but not for monetary issues.
Fuck that.
This isnt about the poor ISPs and their tear-filled entreaties of needing financial incentive to upgrade infrastructure. Its about bullshit, and how far they can spread it. The internet may still be young, but bandwidth-intensive applications are growing very quickly. Too quickly for the resulting bottlenecks to be resolved by trying to double-charge for network access, which is bullshit anyway. This is classic corporate america: There is a demand for something, but the short and mid-term profit margin is lower for expanding into that new area (laying infrastructure to bring the network up to speed) than it is for locking together as an informal cartel and insisting on maintaining the current business model (OOOOHH, Cable internet is teh 4w3s0m3!!!)
The have "no incentive" to expand because they've arranged for themselves geographical monopolies, and that means no competition. I have 1 option for broadband. 1. How can they bitch about lack of incentives when their chosen business model precludes the very existence of such?
I am paying for *ALL* bandwidth to and from my connection point. If my ISP wants to start charging someone else for packets I've requested, I will expect a reduction in my bill. Otherwise they can fuck right off.
They go on like their lot in life is some kind of tragedy. Its not, they're just too fucking greedy to run a decent business. I've got Comcast cable. My bill has increased ahead of inflation every year I've had it, and I've not received *any* upgrades in service. That to me spells BULLSHIT. I keep hearing from friends in europe and asia how amazingly fast and simple their hookups are, and how cheap. If the French can manage to have faster, more readily accessible, cheaper internet connections, it CANNOT BE THAT HARD.
Where are the fibre connections I was promised? nowhere. I'd fucking pay another $20 a month for a fibre-to-curb connection. But unfortunately my ISP would rather spend money on PR bitching about how they cant make money than offer me a service I'd like to fucking pay for.
Go figure.
The Delphic Expanse is real after all. We must act quickly before the Sphere-Builders overwhelm us all. Well ok not that quickly, but maybe now that there's an immanent terrorist threat from space W will be a little more enthusiastic about funding NASA...
online shopping sites have been responsible for more new tech and ways of thinking than blogs. What buzzwords have they created? E-Commerce? Nobody talks about the E-Commerceosphere, because that would be retarded. It takes a special brand of self-important wankery to designate one's favored Type Of Website as being worthy of its own Sphere. Blog may be mainstreaming, but blogosphere is meaningless tot, and anyone concerned with language for its own sake should be concerned.
"At a basic technical level, the specifications like RSS and/or Atom are "new things". Look at them, and ask yourself, what benefit does it add to the web? From a technological standpoint, the change is pretty minor -- it adds some metadata (author, date, title, etc.) to what is basically a web page. From a sociological & interoperability standpoint, a little metadata goes a long way. That requires an eye to recognizing patterns of behaviour."
Um, basically a web page? Seems like maybe just a web page...with some added metadata might be a more accurate way of describing that there. Yes, the behavior patterns of media consumption are changing due to said changes. And?
"And you're engaging in the "troll pretending to want a meaningful discussion" practice. If you wanted a real discussion, you would have asked for one, instead of trolling the way you did."
OOOOHH, SNAP! Troll... you really showed me. Look, I had a rant. I posted said rant in agreement with GP comment. My rant was contextual, though admittedly not entirely on-topic. Now, you decided to respond to my rant with "discussion." I would characterize your implication that one loses the right to respond to proffered "discussion" simply because one's initial post was a Rant, as being utter bullshit. Nothing in my rant sought to hide its nature as such, and everyone else chose to either have the chuckle that was intended, or ignore me and move along. But you responded, and i would say that we can safely say that I disagree with your opinion, and have no respect for the bullshit manner in which you offered it. So i said so. Having ranted in no way denies me the ability and right to point out that you are not approaching the discussion even-handedly.
"Absolutely. Let's look at the impact of political blogs on news stories or on U.S. Campaign Finance, or blogs questioning journalist source protection (such as in the Apple v. O'Grady and ThinkSecret case, where Apple lost), or in the ability hold conversations via trackbacks instead of having a centralized message board."
Or Groklaw and the SCO clusterfuck... yes, these are blogs that are worthy of our attention. Yes, trackback is pretty sweet. And I would go so far as to say that it is one of the more innovative web protocols. Journalists have been involved in the stories beyond a simple reporting capacity for years. Bloggers following in the footsteps of their professional cousins is neither a surprise, nor cause for ridiculous statements like 'busting out of the browser.' Woodward didnt bust off the page with his various behind the scenes reporting and books. He was just a damn good reporter and author. So while I'm encouraged that some bloggers are stepping up to the plate and conducting themselves with some professionalism, the prime example of the medium remains that dude who chronicles his hobby, and that dude who has 4 or 5 blogs all linked and designed purely generate ad revenue without doing any work.
"This is an unfortunate aspect of reality -- hype will often outstrip it, but eventually the hype will changes the nature of what his being observed. What's the point of having such an opinion anyway? Does is somehow hurt you that blogs are popular and seem to be changing many attitudes?"
Oh, well, if its just a fact of reality, then i should clearly just lay down and accept it, right? What's the point of having any opinion? Why dont I just let (insert popular group here) determine what i think and feel?
Oh, right, because I'm not a mindless automaton. Groupthink offends me on a very basic level. It is a negative aspect of humanity, and if you cant see it even in your own groups, then there's something wrong with you. Does it somehow hurt me? No, I'm perfectly comfortable with my thoughts and opinions. Does it somehow hurt you that someone is criticizing your precious bl0gs? I mean i understand that people generally dont like having their favs criticized, but you're acting like I'm saying that i hate oxygen or something. A fuckton of pe
wow. "Blogosphere" = internets? you dont think thats just a teensy-bit over the top? And "blogosphere" != sphere 'o blogs? first of all that seems like a pretty self-evident definition to me. Second of all you might want to redefine that if for no other reason than the multitude of internet-enabled means of communicating with strangers already in place before not only its own coining but before the advent of the worldwide web. I mean, jesus, a friend of mine's been MUDing since before i even knew what the internet was. If you were striving to actually show a way in which the "blogosphere" was really an important distinction from the rest of the internets, you've failed miserably.
Wow, well I was wondering when one of you was going to take issue.
Are you *seriously* comparing the rise of the "blogosphere" with the advent of the worldwide web? Thats absurd. First of all because the "blogosphere" is merely a subsection of the worldwide web. Second of all, its nowhere near the paradigm-shift you seem to think it is. "*OUT* of the browser,"? what does that even mean? I've had a page on a blog-site for a while, its a great interface for webdesign for idiots, and I'm fucking lazy. I'm neither some change-resistant uber-geek nor am I an ignorant neophyte. I simply reject your interpretation of the importance, nay, the relevance of blogs as a distinct Thing.
You have displayed the exact attitude I was ranting about. Starting out with a nice red herring as a solid distractor, then moving on to the wonderfully condescending "oh, you just dont get it" defense, with a solid backing of "arent you going to look the fool in 5 years when *I'm* right and you're not," really was a genius way of not engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion while still trashing on me personally. I mean, could you not have offered a stronger response to my argument than that bit about blogs are the web busting out of the browser? Or vague talk of extending the web to media types for syndication? Well, why bother, when you're sooo right? And by virtue of being destined to be vindicated in the eyes of history, that much cooler too!
Not that I'm really surprised. some of my best friends are blog-obsessed, and have also been completely unable to offer me a reasonable explanation of why blog should = teh uber awes0me instead of just another part of the awesomeness that already was, and continues to be, the internets. Its not like its a huge deal. I just think that language matters, and when the discourse about a thing is as off-kilter as i feel it is concerning Blogs, i get irriated. Like people saying climate change instead of Global Warming.
So really, until i hear a decent explanation to feel otherwise, I will continue to feel completely justified in my low opinion of groups and individuals that seek, or seem to seek by their attitudes, special attention or awareness over their cohorts.
"I thought school was supposed to be about the education of students, for their benefit, that of their parents, of other citizens, and of society and democracy at large"
/sarcasm
well, yeah... that would be nice, but this is america. if anything is worth doing it can be quantified and examined in dollar-terms... otherwise we'd be communists, right? I mean, I'm pretty sure i heard the President up there encouraging everyone to show their patriotism by spending money... so if its good enough for patriotism, shouldnt it be good enough for education?
I get what you were saying, but you know very well thats not what HE was saying, and choosing to cast his comments in that light is mindless polemicism. Wasting Taxpayer Money is something every governmental organization should Try Not To Do. simple as that. What he's saying is that blocking websites with no educational value is keeping in line both with not wasting taxpayer money, and with education for its own sake, which, yes, is the greater good. Neither interest is served by letting school kids waste time on myspace. Do that at home.
I'd say that as long as we keep making entertainment content in larger file sizes than can be easily transmitted through the aether, yes, physical media will endure.
and i would say that is a trend that will continue, based on the last 10 years.
*shrug*
you're certainly not alone. the moment i read that i sent the link to all my friends.
I dont care who he is or what he has to say, but he's got the coolest motherfucking name ever.
FUCK. THE. BLOGOSPHERE.
/.'ers who link to your blog in you sig mod me down, which you're going to do, clearly and deservedly. Think about it a second. You want people to read your stuff, right? thats all well and good, but is your own specialness worth elevating some inane documenting of some asshat's daily lives to the same level as decent writing, literature, or real journalism? I certainly the fuck dont think so.
.02
There. I said it.
It had to be said.
What a self important bunch of wankers. Nothing about the concept of a blog is derserving of its own ism or sphere. Its just a website. Ever hear about what's happening in the Shoppingsiteosphere? Or the OnlineNewsosphere?
No.
You know why? because those particular areas of the Internets are created and staffed by professionals, who dont need to go around inventing self-aggrandizing titles for themselves.
The ability so sign up for a Blogger account and blabber on about whatever the fuck you want in no way designates you as worthy of buzzword-creation rights. Fuck off and give the rest of us a break. Isnt there a coffee shop you should be posing at with your MacBook Pro or something? I think there is.
And before all you
So there's my
Now feel free to continue modding me down as flamebait or troll because i cussed at you, and because you're *really* that special.
thats fair. I'm clearly not really the fighting game type. A more accurate end to that sentence would have been, brought back communal gaming for me and my friends.
As for LAN parties... i could go either way on that. There's still something isolating about them simply given the way that everyone is still locked into their own screens. Some of the most enjoyable times i had on DII were in LAN parties with my friends. But we still spent most of the time in a room with no lights, muttering to ourselves except to coordinate attacks and distribute gear.
It just seems like the multiplayer component of types of games that i used to enjoy as party games have been increasingly focused on online play, to the detriment of their value as a multiplayer game for 4 people in the same room, or even just one person for single player. Video games are hella fun, and moreso in a group. you clearly recognize this if you organize lan parties, and have that many people in one room playing fighting games.
I just think that the wii more inherently lends itself to this type of gaming than other consoles, if only because of the types of games easily adapted to the interface thus far are party games. thats all, really.
I totally understand where you're coming from, but I've had a very different experience.
Firstly, my friends and i have found ways of keeping the games interesting. No meters, No practice-swing golf stays hard and interesting. Just like Goldeneye got boring without structuring the games so that they stayed challenging, so must you adapt your wii gaming to being good at it.
I also look at things like the everbody votes channel as indicative of what's to come. I think they're clearly testing their servers for forthcoming online gaming. It certainly would have been nice if they'd had it all up and running at launch, but I'm not gonna bitch too hard. I mean, all of the next-gens were supposed to be launched what, 18 months ago? clearly there've been difficulties.
Lastly, i guess, one of the strenghths of the wii imo, is the way its brought back communal gaming. Too much focus on online multiplayer i think is causing the mainstreaming of the solitary rpg zombie. Now before anyone jumps all up my ass about that comment, I'd like to stipulate that I was there for a time, with D2. Many's the night i wasted cowing, and then baal-running before i managed to drop the habit. And yes, i really mean wasted. I made a couple friends, met one in the real world, we're still close. But hanging out with my apartment full of people playing survivor on warioware completely pwns sitting alone at my comp at 3 am mining the durance of hate.
Its *social* I mean, there's games being played, philosophy being argued over, various intoxicants being ingested... its hella fun. and thats really what it should be about.
As for first person gaming, you're right... for now. Mario Galaxy and Metroid prime 3 are in the pipeline, and i have every confidence they will rock. Unlike zelda, they've been developed for wii all along, and will be much more than just a gamecube game (or gamecubesque game) with a mote-swing replacing a button.
as for revolutionize gaming... well, I think i've already stated how its changed my gaming. I'm not sure its revolutionary, but still.
I dont think I'm reading it wrong at all. He referenced a technology, and said that nobody wants it. He may have been specifically talking about a possible motion sensing 360 controller, and in that I agree, there would be little point. However, he goes on to disparage the wii-mote, and the very idea of a motion-sensing controller. In no way do i think his comments on this front are justifiable in the face of the popularity of the wii.
As for 3rd party coverage, i just think he's being disingenuous. Obviously Nintendo is making the big hits for the moment, but is that really a shocker? They innovated, and have obviously had the most time to play around with the tech. the best launch games all made by Nintendo? *GASP* Do people bitch out the 360 for Halo, Gears, etc being M$ titles? no. whyso for nintendo? because it was a marketing speech. Also, there are certainly good 3rd party games for the wii, and considering the solid console sales, i fail to see how they could do anythign but get better.
Yes, nintendo and xbox operate differently. Nintendo has survived explicitly by not *relying* on 3rd party dev. They put out a product, and they make a profit on it.
Please understand, I'm not ripping on the 360. I love the 360. I see no reason for the 360 and the wii to be mutually exclusive. But its silly for an xbox mucketymuck to be coming down on the wii the way.
Clearly, the 360 is in a good position, but its not really competing with the wii as much as it now is with the PS3. A simple 'well, its an intriguing idea for gaming, but we'll be focusing on what we've already been doing so very well until we see a demand for it from us' both would have sufficed and been a much more professional way to conduct himself.
And yes, the ps3 controller looks like bs. I'm glad they did that instead of xbox.
also, how can movement in 3 dimensions be construed as being more than 3 axes? is one of them smission?
Actually, this asshat saying that technology X is not desired by the public, when one of his main competitors is currently making a killing marketing technology X is disingenuous.
I was not comparing the systems, but rather responding to his comment on its own terms. He was not saying that the remote-style controller was something people didnt want, he was saying that motion-sensing game controller technology was something people didnt want, and thats just asshattery.
I completely agree that xbox shouldnt have a mote-copy. that would be stupid. there are plenty of applications within their current idiom for motion-sensing applications, as you point out.
I happen to love the 360, its a great console, and complements the wii perfectly. I'm just bothered by the attitudes of some of the people who make it.
There's no point in building something if noone wants it.
ok, that's true.
But...wait what?
Clearly people want it, and clearly people have been finding the technology to be adding to the gaming experience on the wii.
What he really should have said is, 'well, nintendo is already doing a pretty good job of locking that down, so we're not going to bother competing'
Its one thing to have been all skeptical before it came out, but to claim now that nobody wants it is just plain bullshit. So you'd rather compete with the PS3, fine, its a more natural competitor anyways. Just try not to smear any more bullshit around than you have to, mmmkay?
As a conservationist/environmentalist/hippie, I can authoritatively say that you are full of shit.
There certainly are people who, as you say, demonize energy consumption, and happen to identify as 'conservationists.' What they really are, is asshats. There are asshats like this in every single idealogical group on the planet. Whether they be people who demonize energy consumption, sex, drinking, different modes of thinking, or whathaveyou.
If we had perfectly efficient solar collectors and fusion reactors, there'd be no need for conservation as we currently understand it. Hooray!
Unfortunately thats a fucking pipe dream, or I'd have the fucking flying car I was promised 50 years ago.
Any "appollo style" project for energy management that doesnt stress energy economy is doomed to failure, simply because there is always, in any given system, a finite limit to how much energy can be produced. We can tout out human capacity for technological innovation all we want, but nothing is going to change the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc.
So get off your retarded horse, and join the discussion.
asshat
I stopped playing san andreas because it was retarded. If i wanted to play the sims, I'd have done so. Though i guess it was more like, The Sims: Thuglife. Dont get me wrong, I'm not adverse to the character-building style of gameplay. I've dumped years down RPG's.
It just has no business in a game like GTA. We're talking about a game franchise where murder and wholesale destruction are standing orders. Why the fuck would I want little "touches of reality?" Reality and charging through hordes of pedestrians with a chainsaw are mutually exclusive imho. And thats why san andreas blows.
"No, my original argument was simple. It breaks down to; bloggers can be journalists, here's a definition of journalist that agrees with me."
No. Your original "argument" was the definition you quoted from wikipedia, followed by pasting a link, and saying, cited from wikipedia.
"No. I was pointing out that bloggers can be journalists (the argument) backed up with a definition of journalist that included bloggers."
No. You quoted the wikipedia definiton of journalist, and then made a straw-man of the GrandParent comment to make your post seem like some manner of slam-dunk. In no way can this be construed as an argument so much as a citation.
"That's because you thickie that my argument is not substantive. It can be broken down into four words. Bloggers can be Journalists. This stance I've backed up with definitions of journalist from Wikipedia, OED, Meriam/Webster, etc."
Bloggers can be journalists is a fine argument to make. Why didnt you make this argument? oh right, because its sooo simple that it can just be stated and neither supported analytically nor further discussed. One need simply quote Wikipedia and the argument made! Fantastic. Also, though you sarcastically asked if I'd be happier with MerriamWebster's defintion of journalist, at no time did you actually quote or cite said source, nor the OED. Nor did you in any of your other posts on this thread. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
"What have you come up with? Nada, nothing, not a damn thing (unless we count your whining)."
Um, I believe my last two posts have raised several problems i have with inclusion of bloggers into the definition of Journalist that you have not even hinted at addressing. Until you feel up to joining the discussion please fuck off with your contention that I am somehow not contributing. Also, please come up with something original to say, as I believe I've been taking you to task for not having anything meaningful to say, and its just painfully obvious that you actually might not be capable of an original thought.
"Thanks you, so very much for being the thickest poster you could be. Its not inspiring tho'"
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I guess its either that, or you're not capable of forming an ending retort without trying to play off using mine under the guise of a parallel response.
Also, I'm already paying for both up and down bandwidth. So I'm not exactly sure who they think they're fooling with all this "free rider" bullshit.
If google sends me some packets i've requested, I'm pretty sure that access of Comcast's network is already covered by the Arm and Leg I fork over to Comcast every month for the down portion of my connection.
And considering how much of the theoretical down bandwidth i have but dont use, its complete bullshit for them to even be contemplating double charging for the delivery of these packets.
Now, on the other hand, if they want to stop charging me for down bandwidth, and only charge me for packets i originate... well that would be something else, wouldnt it?
Of course, I'd be expecting a reduction in rate proportional to the percentage of bandwidth i was no longer responsible for. Hrm, lets think about this... 3.5 megs up... 128 k down... $60 a month. Why dont we call it $15 a month? I'm feeling generous.
Oh, but thats right, then they wouldnt be double-charging for the same service. My bad, nevermind.
"Apologies, rather than unreasonable, I should have said unreasoned."
well, it was unreasoned. you presented not a reasoned argument, but rather a quote. It wouldnt have been unreasonable had you actually chosen to make that argument, but you didnt.
"Good for you! I was disagreeing with the parent's view that blogger!=journalism as if it was all that could be said on the subject."
And good also for you. Except that you weren't so much doing that as much as you were pointing out that some other people disagreed with him. Add to that the fact that you really have yet to make a substantive reply to anything I've said on topic, and I think you've got the makings of a fantastic recipe for troll. I'm sure you've got a blog somewhere to post that on.
"God, I hope so. *yawn*"
Thank you, so very much, for being the biggest tool you could be. Its inspiring, really.