"If Apple tries to harrass Soghoian or anyone else, or closes the source, I'll take that as a sign that they're more interested in PR than fixing problems, and OSX will be ranked lower in my future purchase decisions."
I believe Soghoian is the chap with the printing out of NW airlines boarding passes, not with the computer hacking skills.
Uh, so should they arrest Tom Clancy too? He wrote a book detailing how easily a single person could fly a plane into an important building (the capitol building during a presidential address to a joint session of congress, but whatever). So, if the litmus test has become, "Using mass media to point out ways that terrorists might strike = terrorism," then Mr. Clancy, as well as any number of Whitehouse Spokespeople are terrorists and should be put in Guantanamo right now. I mean, come on, they got up there at the briefings and said that people could smuggle bomb supplies on in component form in water bottles... and we can bring water bottles on board again... so... THEY'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS!!!!!
Since this is patently absurd, maybe Mr. Windbag might want to slow his roll a bit, and consider using his brain before he opens his fucking hole.
Actually, I'd *hate* to be walking around any hipster enclave with one of these. I live on Capitol Hill in Seattle, and I can just see retarted hipster indie-rocker wannabe's walking around trying so upload their "band's" single on to any/everyone's Zune. It'll be the next venue for that annoying asshat who hangs around the bar w/ cheap PBR pushing cheaply made cd's onto passersby. If for no other reason, this should dissuade you from picking one up. Just my $0.02
Um... is that one of the features of the zune? I was pretty sure that one of the many things people were bitching about was included wifi w/out the ability to do something so completely intuitive.
BAH! inflatible air pouches? who the fuck are they kidding? Until theyre driven by armor shielded engines or pneumatic piston drivers, I'm not interested. POWER SUIT?! jesus, that thing couldnt even help you fend off a regular alien, let alone the queen. post somehting once its got missle launchers on it.
you know, I find it interesting how outright rudeness, as in my earlier posts, gets modded flamebait, and yet pedantically explaining the common knowledge history and implications of a commonly used term, as if to a six year-old, is somehow considered polite dialogue.
Well, thank you for that explanation of how podcasting came to be a generally used term.
Unfortunately, I'm not linguistically nitpicking, I'm irritated by a social trend.
I dont care that its a new word in the language, I care that it gets used the way it does. Its the linguistic equivalent of flashing your iPod around so people can see you have the newest one. Or people who put their cellphones on the table when they sit down at a restaurant or bar. Are there good reasons to do so? conceivably yes. But that doesnt mean that most people have those reasons in mind, rather than just wanting everyone to see their shiny new toy.
When I have somethign i want to show someone, I generally like to tell them what it is, rather than the simple fact that it was sent to me via rss. I personally think saying, "hey check out this podcast" is a fucking idiotic way of saying, "hey, check out this (song, news report, video, etc.) If you think thats a nitpick and an unreasonable criticism, fine. We disagree.
Oh, and it interesting how my original post was not just modded 50% flamebait, but 50% insightful. It would seem that disagreement is fairly commonplace.
silly rabbit yourself. some podcasts are studio recorded songs, some are recordings of live performances, some are indy news presentations, some are poetry readings. If its about the content, then why are they not called such?
well, obviously thats stupid. And not the argument I was making. I was responding to the assertion that blogs are not personal websites, which in your analogy would be akin to saying sedans are not automobiles, and thats why they deserve a special name. Of course if I refered to someone's car and was huffily corrected that its not a car, its a sedan, or an suv, I'd probably begin feeling the same way about those labels as I do about podcast and blog. And it would be about as appropriate correction to make as saying 'oof, its a blog, not a personal website.' or I suppose corporate website, in the case of corporate weblogs.
How is a blog not a site where a person, or corporate entity, is able to opine on any topic they choose, post pictures, or links to any other sites they choose. How, in short, is a blog simply not a particular type of personal website. One which, has admittedly become a very lucrative business model for some, but nevertheless is, in essence, just some jackoff writing his/her/their opinions about things. yes, some blogs are very informative. Product review blogs in particular. But still, its not journalism, and its not special. Following a particular format of website doesnt give you the mandate to create a label for yourself. Yes, thats right, i said its not journalism. It isnt. Journalism has standards, journalists have ethical criteria to which they must adhere. A blogger is some jackoff with a website. Does that mean that society derives no value from people operating outside the sphere of journalism? of course not. We always need people critiquing and offering alternatives to any established structure of power. But its kinof hard to be set up at an alternative to something if you're also claiming to be a part of that something.
I realize i got a little off topic there, we'd just been arguing about this very thing in the office 15 min ago.
to continue with the time magazine analogy, We call it a magazine whether it was delivered to us in the mail through a subscription, or we picked it up ourselves at a news stand. Is milk a different thing just because it was delivered by a milkman rather than bought at a grocery? I really dont think so. Do we have different names for mp3's that are downloaded via torrent, kazaa, ripped from a CD, or bought from an online store like iTunes? NO. Why should an rss fed mp3 be any different?
well, its simple really, because the self-important jackoffs who record them want to be special. Just like the self-important jackoffs who write blogs want to be special by having a blog instead of a weblog, or, *gasp* a website.
Oh, and to the people talking about how younger tech-savvy generations spawn lingo to separate themselves from the fogies? then how come my 78 year-old tech illiterate father knows what a podcast is? certainly not because he knows how it works or could set one up itself. its because its a term which has entered the general parlance, and hence is no longer a badge of separation between young and old. now, rss feed on the other hand, is still greek to him.... so if you want to keep the fogies out, why not just use the proper fucking term for it and stop being such fucking wankers?
Uh, I never managed to find a working hack for cd-key authentication for online gaming with blizzard. But online is a different situation than you seem to have considered. If a significant portion of the gaming experience is happening on the Seller's servers, chances are you're not going to be doing a lot of authentication hacking. Goldminers on WoW dont give a fuck about buying new cd-keys every week, they're making thousands of dollars a day.
The point of this story is that Sony is trying to take console gaming into that lame world of online pc gaming, where you have to be hooked into the internet in order to play, period. I love being able to download funky little games on the 360, and geometry wars is thus far my favorite game of the past 6 months. I'm going to get a Wii and will be downloading frequently. But the second its a prerequisite for normal gameplay of store bought games, they can all fuck off. and since sony hasnt exactly been going out of its way to be nice lately, I'll just go head and give it a preemptory FUCK YOU. that is all
My point was that musicians dont have the option of retaining their intellectual property in the same way that say authors or painters do.
The recording house *owns* the music, not the artist. Some people become rock stars, most dont. Those that dont are royally fucked over
I happen to think that the system is fucked up, and you can see the inherrent nature of the exploitative impulse play out on the consumer when the RIAA goes off suing their consumers.
Yes, it was a damn joke. Parent was talking out of his ass, chastizing his comment's parent for rhetorical selectivity. I was criticizing him for doing the same and did the same myself. because talking like an ass is funny. You clearly share that philosophy.
And sillier you for wilfully and disingenuously choosing to ignore that its only "voluntary" on paper. If said musicians are being exploited by a bullshit system that is predicated on the notion of removing ownership of the art from the artist, then I really dont give a flying fuck how "voluntary" the contract says its, its not. If its the only choice, its not a choice. In order to *actually* be a rock star, you have to sign with a major label. The RIAA can shove their whole business model up whatever orifice is the least comfortable. I see the artists i like in concert whenever possible. you know, supporting Artists and businesses that facilitate bringing me live music, instead of Suits and businesses that bring me rootkits and lawsuits.
"When we do get strong enough carbon fiber filaments (or diamondoid nanotech or whatever) to produce a space elevator, then we can start building it."
Call me crazy, but I think thats the whole fucking point or R&D. We dont have the tech now, so we go and try to invent it. How amazing boring would human society be if we simply waited around for new technologies to fall from the heavens instead of actively searching them out?
When we do get a strong enough carbon nanotube rope to build the elevator, we will. And there's nothing like trying to build something to ensure that your materials are up to the task
...well, I wouldnt. Circuit city saying, 'Hey, backup is fair use, and we're gonna create ourselves a market where before there was only individuals engaging in illegal sharing,' is WAAAAY different than Walmart saying 'Hey, backup is fair use, but instead of just doing backup, we're gonna edit out all the violence, sex, profanity, and fun, because We're a bunch of puritanical fucks.'
slight disadvantage is obviously what I was talking about. poor eyesight is obviously nowhere near negatively selected trait as cystic fibrosis, or that condition, whose name i cannot remember where kids age to like 100 before they turn 10. My point was merely that we have removed the negative-feedback cycle which contributed to whatever equilibrium point poor eyesight existed in the population.
but we're also talking about the survival rate of a given allele over competitor alleles for a given trait, which means that we're speaking about individuals. yes, individuals agregated over a mating population as whole, but individuals nonetheless. One given allele may make individuals with it more societally valuable, but that does not really inform their status of biological fitness. So the presyobic would make better guards for the fort than the myopic. That in no way aids them in avoiding life-threatening dangers that require near-distance focus. I realize that humans are social animals, and we do things like, making sure blind johnny has someone with him to keep him from walking off the ramparts, but that does not undo blind johnny's predisposition to walking off the ramparts. Even if you think that the negative pressure on selection was outweighed by other social factors (I'm neutral on this judgment, btw) removing whatever negative pressure there was *will* have the effect of shifting the balance away from negative selection toward positive selection on a that given allele.
Natural selection is, of course never easy to figure out. I maintain, however, that it is in no way specious reasoning to say that over the whole population, higher % with perfect vision through correction, will avoid a higher percentage of mortality that can be attributed to poor vision, and increase the % of the breeding population that is sensitive, in terms of survivorship, to poor vision. Given my assumption that the parts of the breeding population sensitive to mortality as a result of poor vision are those with poor vision, i.e. that people with poor vision get themselves killed more than they get people with perfect vision killed, this will lead to a larger presence in the resulting generations of alleles responsible for poor vision. Obviously this assumption could be debated, thats why its an assumption, not a "fact."
I know you would like to argue societal roles of people manifesting poor vision vs perfect vision, I am, however more concerned with the genetics of it. There are plenty of ways to blind yourself in childhood and still pass on genes for 20/15 vision.
Um, I'm not entirely sure what you're really saying. I was not advocating creationism, nor attempting to weaken evolution. I was merely pointing an area in which i believe we have eliminated a mechanism of negative selection. Namely: if you cant see the bison about to run you over, you dont progress to passing on the genes that caused you to be unable to see said bison. I was not "making fun" of evolution, I was personifying evolutin to join me in making fun of humanity. and yes, bad eyesight has been around for a long time, i was commenting on the prevalence of really bad eyesight, like my friends literally are not allowed to drive without glasses, or literally cannot tell brown from green, etc. so yeah... not really a creationist troll... not really sure what you were responding to...
Uh... care to support your claim that it *is* a fallacy? we could just play the "no the burden of proof is on *you*" game back and forth, wouldnt that be fun. Do I have proof? obviously not. Nor do you, or you'd have included it rather than just being a trumped up negative nancy. but... I am, however, equiped with powers of reasoning, so I'll just work them a bit. If you're basically blind, you're more likely to trip and fall, and therefore more likely to be injured walking around. You're less likely to see the sabre-tooth tiger crouching behind that bush, or the poisonous snake or spider siddling up next to you. I'd say that increased risk of accident and predation might constitute pressures capable of negatively selecting the trait of bad vision in human populations before modern times.
Also, way to go, demanding statistical proof for the contrary notion, while supporting your own theory with "I'm pretty sure that..." You're pretty sure are you? Well, fanFUCKINtastic. I'm equally sure that 'they just coped with it' is the lamest explanation of anything ever. They could 'just cope with it' and still not see well enough to get killed before procreating.
Now, if there were somethign that showed a genetic correlation between bad eyesight and say, hotness, which is clearly selected for evolutionarily, this would be a different thing. but all other things being equal, an allele that makes it more difficult to reach procreation age and so procreate, than a different allele for said trait, will, to some extent be selected against. If you would like to explain how bad eyesight is survival neutral with good eyesight, I'm all ears. Tho, as hinted at earlier, the "they'll just cope with it" argument is flawed at best.
Slashdot Mirror
"If Apple tries to harrass Soghoian or anyone else, or closes the source, I'll take that as a sign that they're more interested in PR than fixing problems, and OSX will be ranked lower in my future purchase decisions."
I believe Soghoian is the chap with the printing out of NW airlines boarding passes, not with the computer hacking skills.
Uh, so should they arrest Tom Clancy too? He wrote a book detailing how easily a single person could fly a plane into an important building (the capitol building during a presidential address to a joint session of congress, but whatever).
So, if the litmus test has become, "Using mass media to point out ways that terrorists might strike = terrorism," then Mr. Clancy, as well as any number of Whitehouse Spokespeople are terrorists and should be put in Guantanamo right now. I mean, come on, they got up there at the briefings and said that people could smuggle bomb supplies on in component form in water bottles... and we can bring water bottles on board again... so... THEY'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS!!!!!
Since this is patently absurd, maybe Mr. Windbag might want to slow his roll a bit, and consider using his brain before he opens his fucking hole.
...that I speak for a lot of people, based on the low response to this particular gem of posting, when i say:
*blinkblink*
WTF, mate?
Actually, I'd *hate* to be walking around any hipster enclave with one of these.
I live on Capitol Hill in Seattle, and I can just see retarted hipster indie-rocker wannabe's walking around trying so upload their "band's" single on to any/everyone's Zune.
It'll be the next venue for that annoying asshat who hangs around the bar w/ cheap PBR pushing cheaply made cd's onto passersby.
If for no other reason, this should dissuade you from picking one up.
Just my $0.02
Why does Apple need to sober up?
only if they hate freedom and/or America will they be vulnerable to the traditional risks involved in monoculture.
Um... is that one of the features of the zune?
I was pretty sure that one of the many things people were bitching about was included wifi w/out the ability to do something so completely intuitive.
...so what you're saying is you hate freedom, right?
BAH!
inflatible air pouches?
who the fuck are they kidding?
Until theyre driven by armor shielded engines or pneumatic piston drivers, I'm not interested.
POWER SUIT?!
jesus, that thing couldnt even help you fend off a regular alien, let alone the queen.
post somehting once its got missle launchers on it.
...but how does nasa protect Freedom?
you know, I find it interesting how outright rudeness, as in my earlier posts, gets modded flamebait, and yet pedantically explaining the common knowledge history and implications of a commonly used term, as if to a six year-old, is somehow considered polite dialogue.
Well, thank you for that explanation of how podcasting came to be a generally used term.
Unfortunately, I'm not linguistically nitpicking, I'm irritated by a social trend.
I dont care that its a new word in the language, I care that it gets used the way it does. Its the linguistic equivalent of flashing your iPod around so people can see you have the newest one. Or people who put their cellphones on the table when they sit down at a restaurant or bar. Are there good reasons to do so? conceivably yes. But that doesnt mean that most people have those reasons in mind, rather than just wanting everyone to see their shiny new toy.
When I have somethign i want to show someone, I generally like to tell them what it is, rather than the simple fact that it was sent to me via rss.
I personally think saying, "hey check out this podcast" is a fucking idiotic way of saying, "hey, check out this (song, news report, video, etc.)
If you think thats a nitpick and an unreasonable criticism, fine.
We disagree.
Oh, and it interesting how my original post was not just modded 50% flamebait, but 50% insightful. It would seem that disagreement is fairly commonplace.
silly rabbit yourself.
some podcasts are studio recorded songs, some are recordings of live performances, some are indy news presentations, some are poetry readings.
If its about the content, then why are they not called such?
well, obviously thats stupid.
And not the argument I was making.
I was responding to the assertion that blogs are not personal websites, which in your analogy would be akin to saying sedans are not automobiles, and thats why they deserve a special name.
Of course if I refered to someone's car and was huffily corrected that its not a car, its a sedan, or an suv, I'd probably begin feeling the same way about those labels as I do about podcast and blog.
And it would be about as appropriate correction to make as saying 'oof, its a blog, not a personal website.' or I suppose corporate website, in the case of corporate weblogs.
How is a blog not a site where a person, or corporate entity, is able to opine on any topic they choose, post pictures, or links to any other sites they choose. How, in short, is a blog simply not a particular type of personal website.
One which, has admittedly become a very lucrative business model for some, but nevertheless is, in essence, just some jackoff writing his/her/their opinions about things.
yes, some blogs are very informative. Product review blogs in particular.
But still, its not journalism, and its not special. Following a particular format of website doesnt give you the mandate to create a label for yourself.
Yes, thats right, i said its not journalism. It isnt.
Journalism has standards, journalists have ethical criteria to which they must adhere. A blogger is some jackoff with a website. Does that mean that society derives no value from people operating outside the sphere of journalism? of course not. We always need people critiquing and offering alternatives to any established structure of power. But its kinof hard to be set up at an alternative to something if you're also claiming to be a part of that something.
I realize i got a little off topic there, we'd just been arguing about this very thing in the office 15 min ago.
to continue with the time magazine analogy,
We call it a magazine whether it was delivered to us in the mail through a subscription, or we picked it up ourselves at a news stand.
Is milk a different thing just because it was delivered by a milkman rather than bought at a grocery?
I really dont think so.
Do we have different names for mp3's that are downloaded via torrent, kazaa, ripped from a CD, or bought from an online store like iTunes?
NO.
Why should an rss fed mp3 be any different?
well, its simple really, because the self-important jackoffs who record them want to be special. Just like the self-important jackoffs who write blogs want to be special by having a blog instead of a weblog, or, *gasp* a website.
Oh, and to the people talking about how younger tech-savvy generations spawn lingo to separate themselves from the fogies? then how come my 78 year-old tech illiterate father knows what a podcast is? certainly not because he knows how it works or could set one up itself. its because its a term which has entered the general parlance, and hence is no longer a badge of separation between young and old.
now, rss feed on the other hand, is still greek to him....
so if you want to keep the fogies out, why not just use the proper fucking term for it and stop being such fucking wankers?
yeah, but once the microwave hits 1.21 gigawatts, momentum conserves itself.
Uh, I never managed to find a working hack for cd-key authentication for online gaming with blizzard.
But online is a different situation than you seem to have considered. If a significant portion of the gaming experience is happening on the Seller's servers, chances are you're not going to be doing a lot of authentication hacking.
Goldminers on WoW dont give a fuck about buying new cd-keys every week, they're making thousands of dollars a day.
The point of this story is that Sony is trying to take console gaming into that lame world of online pc gaming, where you have to be hooked into the internet in order to play, period. I love being able to download funky little games on the 360, and geometry wars is thus far my favorite game of the past 6 months. I'm going to get a Wii and will be downloading frequently. But the second its a prerequisite for normal gameplay of store bought games, they can all fuck off.
and since sony hasnt exactly been going out of its way to be nice lately, I'll just go head and give it a preemptory FUCK YOU.
that is all
*sigh*
clearly hyperbole is lost on some people
My point was that musicians dont have the option of retaining their intellectual property in the same way that say authors or painters do.
The recording house *owns* the music, not the artist.
Some people become rock stars, most dont.
Those that dont are royally fucked over
I happen to think that the system is fucked up, and you can see the inherrent nature of the exploitative impulse play out on the consumer when the RIAA goes off suing their consumers.
Yes, it was a damn joke. Parent was talking out of his ass, chastizing his comment's parent for rhetorical selectivity. I was criticizing him for doing the same and did the same myself. because talking like an ass is funny.
You clearly share that philosophy.
And sillier you for wilfully and disingenuously choosing to ignore that its only "voluntary" on paper.
If said musicians are being exploited by a bullshit system that is predicated on the notion of removing ownership of the art from the artist, then I really dont give a flying fuck how "voluntary" the contract says its, its not. If its the only choice, its not a choice. In order to *actually* be a rock star, you have to sign with a major label.
The RIAA can shove their whole business model up whatever orifice is the least comfortable.
I see the artists i like in concert whenever possible. you know, supporting Artists and businesses that facilitate bringing me live music, instead of Suits and businesses that bring me rootkits and lawsuits.
"When we do get strong enough carbon fiber filaments (or diamondoid nanotech or whatever) to produce a space elevator, then we can start building it."
Call me crazy, but I think thats the whole fucking point or R&D.
We dont have the tech now, so we go and try to invent it.
How amazing boring would human society be if we simply waited around for new technologies to fall from the heavens instead of actively searching them out?
When we do get a strong enough carbon nanotube rope to build the elevator, we will. And there's nothing like trying to build something to ensure that your materials are up to the task
...well, I wouldnt.
Circuit city saying, 'Hey, backup is fair use, and we're gonna create ourselves a market where before there was only individuals engaging in illegal sharing,' is WAAAAY different than Walmart saying 'Hey, backup is fair use, but instead of just doing backup, we're gonna edit out all the violence, sex, profanity, and fun, because We're a bunch of puritanical fucks.'
dont compare the two, its bad argument.
slight disadvantage is obviously what I was talking about.
poor eyesight is obviously nowhere near negatively selected trait as cystic fibrosis, or that condition, whose name i cannot remember where kids age to like 100 before they turn 10.
My point was merely that we have removed the negative-feedback cycle which contributed to whatever equilibrium point poor eyesight existed in the population.
but we're also talking about the survival rate of a given allele over competitor alleles for a given trait, which means that we're speaking about individuals. yes, individuals agregated over a mating population as whole, but individuals nonetheless. One given allele may make individuals with it more societally valuable, but that does not really inform their status of biological fitness. So the presyobic would make better guards for the fort than the myopic. That in no way aids them in avoiding life-threatening dangers that require near-distance focus. I realize that humans are social animals, and we do things like, making sure blind johnny has someone with him to keep him from walking off the ramparts, but that does not undo blind johnny's predisposition to walking off the ramparts.
Even if you think that the negative pressure on selection was outweighed by other social factors (I'm neutral on this judgment, btw) removing whatever negative pressure there was *will* have the effect of shifting the balance away from negative selection toward positive selection on a that given allele.
Natural selection is, of course never easy to figure out. I maintain, however, that it is in no way specious reasoning to say that over the whole population, higher % with perfect vision through correction, will avoid a higher percentage of mortality that can be attributed to poor vision, and increase the % of the breeding population that is sensitive, in terms of survivorship, to poor vision. Given my assumption that the parts of the breeding population sensitive to mortality as a result of poor vision are those with poor vision, i.e. that people with poor vision get themselves killed more than they get people with perfect vision killed, this will lead to a larger presence in the resulting generations of alleles responsible for poor vision. Obviously this assumption could be debated, thats why its an assumption, not a "fact."
I know you would like to argue societal roles of people manifesting poor vision vs perfect vision, I am, however more concerned with the genetics of it. There are plenty of ways to blind yourself in childhood and still pass on genes for 20/15 vision.
Um, I'm not entirely sure what you're really saying. I was not advocating creationism, nor attempting to weaken evolution. I was merely pointing an area in which i believe we have eliminated a mechanism of negative selection. Namely: if you cant see the bison about to run you over, you dont progress to passing on the genes that caused you to be unable to see said bison.
I was not "making fun" of evolution, I was personifying evolutin to join me in making fun of humanity.
and yes, bad eyesight has been around for a long time, i was commenting on the prevalence of really bad eyesight, like my friends literally are not allowed to drive without glasses, or literally cannot tell brown from green, etc.
so yeah... not really a creationist troll... not really sure what you were responding to...
Uh... care to support your claim that it *is* a fallacy?
we could just play the "no the burden of proof is on *you*" game back and forth, wouldnt that be fun.
Do I have proof? obviously not. Nor do you, or you'd have included it rather than just being a trumped up negative nancy.
but...
I am, however, equiped with powers of reasoning, so I'll just work them a bit. If you're basically blind, you're more likely to trip and fall, and therefore more likely to be injured walking around. You're less likely to see the sabre-tooth tiger crouching behind that bush, or the poisonous snake or spider siddling up next to you.
I'd say that increased risk of accident and predation might constitute pressures capable of negatively selecting the trait of bad vision in human populations before modern times.
Also, way to go, demanding statistical proof for the contrary notion, while supporting your own theory with "I'm pretty sure that..."
You're pretty sure are you? Well, fanFUCKINtastic. I'm equally sure that 'they just coped with it' is the lamest explanation of anything ever. They could 'just cope with it' and still not see well enough to get killed before procreating.
Now, if there were somethign that showed a genetic correlation between bad eyesight and say, hotness, which is clearly selected for evolutionarily, this would be a different thing. but all other things being equal, an allele that makes it more difficult to reach procreation age and so procreate, than a different allele for said trait, will, to some extent be selected against.
If you would like to explain how bad eyesight is survival neutral with good eyesight, I'm all ears. Tho, as hinted at earlier, the "they'll just cope with it" argument is flawed at best.