That is the coolest thing I've ever seen. I'm going to look it up. I can't shake the feeling that if I play that game and get the high score that I'll get visited by a mysterious alien and recruited to save the galaxy.
I don't nececssarily disagree with you. However, it doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution or war powers. The Project for a New American Century wrote their statement of principles in 1997, way before 9/11/2001. They wanted an American Empire, Pax Americana, and that means unopposed military might. Since they drafted that document, numerous memos and addenda by neocons have been refining that idea to include a unitary executive. They'd be trying to create an American Empire with a powerful president whether we were in a state or war or not. I happen to think that 9/11 fell into their laps as the perfect opportunity to create such an empire, though there are plenty of tinfoil hat-wearing people out there who think it was engineered for that purpose.
They're not really interested in the Constitution: they are talking about policy. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents global domination by America, and certain readings of the Constitution can be construed to mean that the executive should be more equal than the judiciary or the legislative branches. Just ask John Yoo.
What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?
An American empire headed by a 'president' with near-absolute power. They've never hidden the fact that that's all they've ever wanted. Check out their Project for a New American Century mission statement. Also, pay particular attention to who signed that document.
I'm really glad to see that you were able to self-publish successfully. Not all authors have such a mind for business in addition to their more creative talents. Your point about POD is a really good one, but it still doesn't solve the editing and marketing problems. Maybe the reps visiting schools is an example of a serious fat-trimming opportunity, but there's still more to marketing than a few ads and badgering teachers. Textbooks might be a bad example for this, but don't you suppose that going with a traditional publisher might seriously increase your market share? While simple advertising isn't rocket science, for example, like most service industries to be truly successful it does require competent professionals. It's the difference between Kia ads and Volkswagen ads.
All I'm saying is that knowing all of the disciplines involved in the publishing world shouldn't be required for an author to be successful.
I've got a friend who used to work for a small boutique publisher, and I can tell you that publishers are an author's best friend. Without them the author's works would go nowhere. Fine, change the business model to distribute freely online, but as far as increasing sales of books, those books have to fome from somewhere.
I just don't get the 'cut the middleman' mentality. What exactly do you think the publishers aren't contributing that the authors could do themselves? Are you expecting authors to employ and manage editors, designers, printers, pr and marketing people, advertisers, a nation-wide system of sales reps, sales managers, shipping companies, and so on? Or are you suggesting that these roles aren't necessary? That's the same thing as saying that books should only be digital from here on out. The attitide that the authors should 'just get a loan' to fund these activities is hogwash since the only people who could get a loan of that magnitude for an unpublished manuscript are already established authors, and even then it would be iffy. Then people suggest that authors should just publish online and screw printed materials, but for most applications like textbooks that doesn't really work for the consumer--wouldn't you rather just have a book than having to print it out yourself, which could easily cost as much in ink and paper as a bound book would, while being more irritating? Also, e-book technology still sucks. Besides, the author would still need to employ the editing, pr, marketing & advertising people anyway, because if you don't know about a book, why would you buy it? The fact is, people happily pay for advertising because the return on investment is huge.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a company that had the capital to invest like a bank, but also the expertise to cull the few good manuscripts from the staggering pile of crappy ones, then print and market and distribute these works? Wait, that would be a publisher.
I acknowledge that in some specific cases self-publishing directly to the internet might be a good business plan. But to suggest that we abandon dead trees in most cases misunderstands the market. You said it yourself, "...if they don't get it into print, it can't be used in a classroom setting." Sure, good chunks of fat could be trimmed from the publishing world, but name one industry where this isn't true? I just think that the 'middle man' is necessary to the process.
Sorry, OP. I realize that most of my rant doesn't even apply to your main points. I just don't think the middle man is all that useless in most cases.
Charlie: Ray, all airlines have crashed at one time or another, that doesn't mean that they are not safe.
Raymond: QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.
Charlie: QANTAS?
Raymond: Never crashed.
Charlie: Oh that's gonna do me a lot of good because QANTAS doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles!
I understand now that you're just another troll and I wasn't going to be baited anymore, but I have to know: what did you mean by that last post? Are you saying that you were being sarcastic in response to my original ironic statement (but it's hard to see how 'Damn straight' is sarcasm; more likely you were actually agreeing with the part you quoted), or are you disputing my use of the word irony (if you're confused, see the Wikipedia article on irony, particulary the section about verbal irony and sarcasm)? Or did you already know that sarcasm is a form of verbal irony, and this was really somehow a lame attempt at humor that you'll have to explain?
Furthermore, consider the anoles commonly sold as "chameleons". Put a male one in front of a mirror and it will make an aggressive display. It thinks it is seeing _another_ anole. Do cats do this? No, they do not. Why? I suggest because they know what they are seeing isn't a threat (i.e. themselves).
I'd like to add to your hypothesis that vision isn't the only sense that animals use either: the cat looking in the mirror doesn't smell any unknown cats, so that's got to factor in its decision not to feel threatened.
You are absolutely right, you win. It was stupid of me to get into an argument with you. I apologize for wasting your time quibbling over a minor detail of some long-forgotten post, and I am humbled and honored by your dedication to correcting my error.
I didn't say that there was anything automatic about libraries and bookstores reporting your reading habits to the government. What I said was that libraries and bookstores are required to report your reading habits to the government--meaning that the government can obtain this information whenever they want, without a conventional search warrant and without any suspicion of wrongdoing on your part whatsoever. From this article:
Section 215 of the act allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.
Unlike conventional search warrants, there is no need for agents to show that the target is suspected of a crime or possesses evidence of a crime.
I found this link. I'm sure there are other ones, but I think this was the original source.
Do you remember in the wake of 9/11 how one person asked a Post Office clerk if there were any stamps without American flags on them and got detained and questioned?
Nope, but if you have a URL I would love to see it.
It seems to me that if you're going to give the guy who wants to kill his wife the benefit of the doubt, then the same benefit should extend to the child pr0n guys. Either it's protected speech or it's not. That's why the ACLU defends the neo-Nazis' right to free speech--we may not like what they say, but they have the right to say whatever they want. Not that I want to protect child pr0n guys in any way, however this is what people are talking about when they say 'slippery slope'. First it's the child pr0n, then it's the terrorism, then it's the abortionists, then it's your political opponents. Then it's you for no really good reason other than that they can.
Courts rule time and again that if a search is illegal, the fruits of that search may not be used in court. This is the same principle. If we want the expectation of privacy in our web browsing kept as private as in our homes, then we need to find some other way to get the child pr0nsters. On the other hand, if we have no expectation of privacy in our web searches and should know better than to google child pr0n, then by all means nail them and everyone else to the wall. Just be sure to extend that principle to include things we link to on web pages, check out at libraries, and purchase at bookstores. I believe that libraries and bookstores in the US are already required by legislation to report to the government. Just remember that next time you're curious about the Anarchist's Cookbook and the recipes in there. It's all just chemistry anyway, right? I mean, I don't want to blow crap up, but I find it fascinating that horse poop and fuel oil can be that explosive and I want to know why. But ask at the public library and you might find yourself being asked uncomfortable questions by the Feds.
Not to get too off topic, but do you remember in the wake of 9/11 how one person asked a Post Office clerk if there were any stamps without American flags on them and got detained and questioned? All I'm saying is, just because a web search returns illegal results doesn't mean it isn't a free speech or a privacy issue.
If the person holding the camera is that kid's parent, this is unbelievably mean--that kid was clearly traumatized. How messed up do you have to be to do that to your kid? And once you've done it, pass the video around?
This kind of underscores the link between surprise, fear, and humor. I thought it was pretty funny until the very end. Then I just felt bad for the kid, and kind of angry at the person behind the camera.
The oil companies are generating HUGE proffits due to high oil prices and our dependence on it.
Bingo. Which is exactly why we went to war instead of building efficient infrastructure at home. We're not just over there securing rights to our oil interests, we're destabilizing the region which drives the price of oil up everywhere; hence, the HUGE profits.
Christ, it's getting to the point where I don't even have to put my tinfoil hat on to believe it anymore.
From your post I deduce that you didn't go to college, and can't afford any certifications. And you might be twelve. And English is your second language. God, where to start? How about your awesome web site, www.moderngeek.com? I really like your use of 'Index of/' in the design--very avant-garde.
So if corporate America wants to trust a black box, let 'em. There's no convincing them anyway. I think differently. I think that if the debian team proves to be efficient and shows some sort of internal public retribution, that corporations will trust an honest mistake over coverups, exploits and scandals that Microsoft have proven itself.
You'd be easier to understand if you weren't translating from English to Russian and back again before posting. What are you trying to say here? Even if I pretend to understand the gist of it, you appear to be contradicting yourself.
It is time that we go to corporations and prove to them that university degrees do not prove intelligence in our field, and that a certification is not worth anything more than the paper it is worth.
I don't think your post is worth the paper it's worth. It certainly isn't your brilliant writing that will prove your intelligence. Just suck it up and get a degree, you might learn how to write a coherent thought.
Lets push the University system down and bring the Open Source system to the top. We are seen as the smartest and best of the best.
Look, open source developers aren't considered the 'best of the best' (did you watch Top Gun a lot?) just dedicated. Just because you spend your free time coding doesn't automatically make you a more competent programmer. Sure there are many good ones, but there are many more mediocre ones. Also, I think your university vs. open source paradigm is funny. It reminds me of Time Cube.
Lets train and educate our gamer friends, leet friends, geeksquad friends(mmm), and other lower tech people that will in turn teach the masses, and then corporations that open source contribution and involvement is an effective way to measure ones credibility.
Holy shit, 'train and educate...lower tech people that will in turn teach the masses'? Didn't you just finish saying that 'open source developers are almost over the arrogance that once plagued the idea of open source'?
I believe that if we band together, we can educate and push open source forward.
If only everyone on Slashdot (who I'm sure thinks just like me) would vote in elections we could elect our own Open Source Presidential Savior who will spread my Open Source ideals throughout the entire world! Rise up, my open source compatriots! Let's show Corporate America(TM) how it's done! I envision a future where everyone is paid according to their worth, and hunger and poverty will be eliminated through the power of Open Source! Hallelujah!
Fucking moron. You and the two mods who thought you were interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worse: they 'embraced and extended' the Constitution so that it's broken everywhere else.
Back to garroting your parrot.
That is the coolest thing I've ever seen. I'm going to look it up. I can't shake the feeling that if I play that game and get the high score that I'll get visited by a mysterious alien and recruited to save the galaxy.
I don't nececssarily disagree with you. However, it doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution or war powers. The Project for a New American Century wrote their statement of principles in 1997, way before 9/11/2001. They wanted an American Empire, Pax Americana, and that means unopposed military might. Since they drafted that document, numerous memos and addenda by neocons have been refining that idea to include a unitary executive. They'd be trying to create an American Empire with a powerful president whether we were in a state or war or not. I happen to think that 9/11 fell into their laps as the perfect opportunity to create such an empire, though there are plenty of tinfoil hat-wearing people out there who think it was engineered for that purpose.
They're not really interested in the Constitution: they are talking about policy. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents global domination by America, and certain readings of the Constitution can be construed to mean that the executive should be more equal than the judiciary or the legislative branches. Just ask John Yoo.
Or maybe you're over-generalizing from two recent high-profile cases that fit your sexist opinions.
I'm really glad to see that you were able to self-publish successfully. Not all authors have such a mind for business in addition to their more creative talents. Your point about POD is a really good one, but it still doesn't solve the editing and marketing problems. Maybe the reps visiting schools is an example of a serious fat-trimming opportunity, but there's still more to marketing than a few ads and badgering teachers. Textbooks might be a bad example for this, but don't you suppose that going with a traditional publisher might seriously increase your market share? While simple advertising isn't rocket science, for example, like most service industries to be truly successful it does require competent professionals. It's the difference between Kia ads and Volkswagen ads. All I'm saying is that knowing all of the disciplines involved in the publishing world shouldn't be required for an author to be successful.
I've got a friend who used to work for a small boutique publisher, and I can tell you that publishers are an author's best friend. Without them the author's works would go nowhere. Fine, change the business model to distribute freely online, but as far as increasing sales of books, those books have to fome from somewhere.
I just don't get the 'cut the middleman' mentality. What exactly do you think the publishers aren't contributing that the authors could do themselves? Are you expecting authors to employ and manage editors, designers, printers, pr and marketing people, advertisers, a nation-wide system of sales reps, sales managers, shipping companies, and so on? Or are you suggesting that these roles aren't necessary? That's the same thing as saying that books should only be digital from here on out. The attitide that the authors should 'just get a loan' to fund these activities is hogwash since the only people who could get a loan of that magnitude for an unpublished manuscript are already established authors, and even then it would be iffy. Then people suggest that authors should just publish online and screw printed materials, but for most applications like textbooks that doesn't really work for the consumer--wouldn't you rather just have a book than having to print it out yourself, which could easily cost as much in ink and paper as a bound book would, while being more irritating? Also, e-book technology still sucks. Besides, the author would still need to employ the editing, pr, marketing & advertising people anyway, because if you don't know about a book, why would you buy it? The fact is, people happily pay for advertising because the return on investment is huge.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a company that had the capital to invest like a bank, but also the expertise to cull the few good manuscripts from the staggering pile of crappy ones, then print and market and distribute these works? Wait, that would be a publisher.
I acknowledge that in some specific cases self-publishing directly to the internet might be a good business plan. But to suggest that we abandon dead trees in most cases misunderstands the market. You said it yourself, "...if they don't get it into print, it can't be used in a classroom setting." Sure, good chunks of fat could be trimmed from the publishing world, but name one industry where this isn't true? I just think that the 'middle man' is necessary to the process.
Sorry, OP. I realize that most of my rant doesn't even apply to your main points. I just don't think the middle man is all that useless in most cases.
Charlie: Ray, all airlines have crashed at one time or another, that doesn't mean that they are not safe.
Raymond: QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.
Charlie: QANTAS?
Raymond: Never crashed.
Charlie: Oh that's gonna do me a lot of good because QANTAS doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles!
OK, kiddo. Go on believing that.
Either that, or some chip manufacturer is in bed with the government.
I understand now that you're just another troll and I wasn't going to be baited anymore, but I have to know: what did you mean by that last post? Are you saying that you were being sarcastic in response to my original ironic statement (but it's hard to see how 'Damn straight' is sarcasm; more likely you were actually agreeing with the part you quoted), or are you disputing my use of the word irony (if you're confused, see the Wikipedia article on irony, particulary the section about verbal irony and sarcasm)? Or did you already know that sarcasm is a form of verbal irony, and this was really somehow a lame attempt at humor that you'll have to explain?
OTOH, Greed Day's American Idiot is much harder to listen to on random play because several of the songs blend into each other.
Look up the definition of the word irony some time, you nitwit.
You are absolutely right, you win. It was stupid of me to get into an argument with you. I apologize for wasting your time quibbling over a minor detail of some long-forgotten post, and I am humbled and honored by your dedication to correcting my error.
I found this link. I'm sure there are other ones, but I think this was the original source. http://www.progressive.org/mag_mcstamps
It seems to me that if you're going to give the guy who wants to kill his wife the benefit of the doubt, then the same benefit should extend to the child pr0n guys. Either it's protected speech or it's not. That's why the ACLU defends the neo-Nazis' right to free speech--we may not like what they say, but they have the right to say whatever they want. Not that I want to protect child pr0n guys in any way, however this is what people are talking about when they say 'slippery slope'. First it's the child pr0n, then it's the terrorism, then it's the abortionists, then it's your political opponents. Then it's you for no really good reason other than that they can.
Courts rule time and again that if a search is illegal, the fruits of that search may not be used in court. This is the same principle. If we want the expectation of privacy in our web browsing kept as private as in our homes, then we need to find some other way to get the child pr0nsters. On the other hand, if we have no expectation of privacy in our web searches and should know better than to google child pr0n, then by all means nail them and everyone else to the wall. Just be sure to extend that principle to include things we link to on web pages, check out at libraries, and purchase at bookstores. I believe that libraries and bookstores in the US are already required by legislation to report to the government. Just remember that next time you're curious about the Anarchist's Cookbook and the recipes in there. It's all just chemistry anyway, right? I mean, I don't want to blow crap up, but I find it fascinating that horse poop and fuel oil can be that explosive and I want to know why. But ask at the public library and you might find yourself being asked uncomfortable questions by the Feds.
Not to get too off topic, but do you remember in the wake of 9/11 how one person asked a Post Office clerk if there were any stamps without American flags on them and got detained and questioned? All I'm saying is, just because a web search returns illegal results doesn't mean it isn't a free speech or a privacy issue.
If the person holding the camera is that kid's parent, this is unbelievably mean--that kid was clearly traumatized. How messed up do you have to be to do that to your kid? And once you've done it, pass the video around?
This kind of underscores the link between surprise, fear, and humor. I thought it was pretty funny until the very end. Then I just felt bad for the kid, and kind of angry at the person behind the camera.
Bingo. Which is exactly why we went to war instead of building efficient infrastructure at home. We're not just over there securing rights to our oil interests, we're destabilizing the region which drives the price of oil up everywhere; hence, the HUGE profits.
Christ, it's getting to the point where I don't even have to put my tinfoil hat on to believe it anymore.
You'd be easier to understand if you weren't translating from English to Russian and back again before posting. What are you trying to say here? Even if I pretend to understand the gist of it, you appear to be contradicting yourself.
I don't think your post is worth the paper it's worth. It certainly isn't your brilliant writing that will prove your intelligence. Just suck it up and get a degree, you might learn how to write a coherent thought.
Look, open source developers aren't considered the 'best of the best' (did you watch Top Gun a lot?) just dedicated. Just because you spend your free time coding doesn't automatically make you a more competent programmer. Sure there are many good ones, but there are many more mediocre ones. Also, I think your university vs. open source paradigm is funny. It reminds me of Time Cube.
Holy shit, 'train and educate...lower tech people that will in turn teach the masses'? Didn't you just finish saying that 'open source developers are almost over the arrogance that once plagued the idea of open source'?
If only everyone on Slashdot (who I'm sure thinks just like me) would vote in elections we could elect our own Open Source Presidential Savior who will spread my Open Source ideals throughout the entire world! Rise up, my open source compatriots! Let's show Corporate America(TM) how it's done! I envision a future where everyone is paid according to their worth, and hunger and poverty will be eliminated through the power of Open Source! Hallelujah!
Fucking moron. You and the two mods who thought you were interesting.
Any way you slice it, it's still Slashdot.