The study isn't so much talking down the internet as it is talking down the average person's work ethic. Of course people are going to get defensive. The only person who wouldn't is someone who actually spends a couple hours a day wasting time, is a manager, or isn't working.
And the point being made by many people isn't that the internet is good (which it is), but rather that sometimes its more productive not to be working 100% of your day. This is why some companies put pool tables and basketball nets in the workplace. Its not to lose money, but to "increase productivity".
Ummmm....the world was against the US going against the UN to start a war....ummm, thats why the UN was against it....
And WMDs had nothing to do with invading Iraq. Iraq was on the agenda well before september 11th. After september 11th the white house looked for evidence to say that Saddam was responsible when their closest advisors were saying it was Al Qaeda. You would probably dismiss this as liberal propaganda at your own peril, but here's the website on the Downing Street Memo investigation. There is a possibility of an impeachment vote resulting from this memo, which basically states what most free thinking people know already.
FYI about Iraq on the agenda: Read the Wolfowitz report, written by our dear friend Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank President!!!) in 1992, outlining US military strategy for the next 20 years. In the report, Wolfowitz says that Iraq could be invaded to weaken the middle east if it begins to become too powerful. Is this 'liberal propaganda'? or is this the truth that was written in Wolfowitz's own hands before he was responsible for US affairs in Iraq? Read it yourself.
This is how China gets away with human rights abuses. If the rest of the G7 and all major corporations said that they wouldn't trade or deal with China unless they allowed freedom of speech, China would be a changed place. The problem is that companies like Microsoft don't care about human rights, and are only focused on improving share value. So why make a stand and cost the company money, when they can do whatever they want and continue to blame the Chinese government for human rights abuses.
Microsoft, the US government, and many other countries/companies around the world are tacitly supporting the Chinese regime. Any opposition to human rights abuses is all talk:
Microsoft and the US: No
China: Make me
Microsoft and the US: No
I agree, firefox is still far from ousting IE from dominating the market. Here are the numbers from W3 Schools website.
W3 shows IE at 65%, Opera at 2%, Firefox at 25%, Mozilla at 3.5%, and Netscape at 1%. While this is the lowest IE has every been, its decreasing slowly.
I think the five reasons listed are bang on. What more do you need?
You also agree with the first reason which is that the cards do not solve the problem that they are designed to fix. If you agree with this statement then the real question becomes why DO we need Real ID?
I think the big difference is that when you are hunting you actually have TO GO to the animals environment and kill it. You have to crap in the bushes.
so you're crapping in the bushes and a deer comes along and you shoot it with your high powered rifle, easy right? But on some level you now understand what its like to crap in the bushes like a deer. And for understanding this, the killing process becomes very real.
over the internet it is no longer hunting. Its a video game where things actually die, there is no connect.
Reminds me the futurist painters in the 1920s and 30s. They would try and capture an object from all different angles and movements for a period of time in one image.
For instance Picasso (in his early days) did paintings of peoples faces from different angles and with different emotions all as one face.
I think this is partly true. The idea of the timelines is that nobody could look at them and say: "oh, these sources are all communist propaganda, so therefore I don't need to listen."
The beauty of the Center for Cooperative Research is that by collecting news stories from over a long period of time you can build timelines which in fact aren't based on liberal preconceptions, but on rational, critical thought. In this way, liberal contradictions are revealed by their own media.
The trend with the New York Times is to charge as much money for access to their information that they can get. It is even expensive to get access to the archives now.
This is worrying because the NYT is considered one of the 'most reputable' newspapers in the world. For example: I do a bit of work for The Center for Cooperative Research. This is an open source website that is designed to create timelines about US politics by following news stories. To make the timelines as 'legitimate' as possible, we are encouraged to use NYT articles. Now that public access is restricted, it is making it more difficult for this open source project to continue with broad 'legitimacy'.
I have a lot of trouble understanding corporate actions in this sense.
Some people can't afford access to high speed internet. Tough luck? Oh wait, municipal government is willing to take a cost to provide these people with access.
Corporations have a problem with this because it will cost their shareholders money. Should shareholder rights be held in higher regard than those who need a leg up?
This time travellers convention brings up some interesting logic situations worth exploring. Because we have never seen a time traveller in the current history of humanity (or exposed one) we can assume one of the following is true:
1. Humanity will never discover time travel
2. Time travel will never be available for public use
3. Only a few time machines will be created before they are destroyed, or humanity itself is destroyed.
One of these statements about the future of humanity is true, or else we would have exposed an almost infinite number of time travellers.
So if the United States government conducted a massacre of thousands of US citizen's, then made the documents leading up to the decision classified, and you came across those documents. It would be 'wrong' for you to download and read them?
I'll probably get trolled for this, but I think it has to be said:
This article isn't news, and it doesn't really matter. Most/. articles fall into at least one of those categories. Its not like Firefox released a new version, or was offering new services. This article is advertisement encouraging people to visit the website and brand themselves for some 'secret prizes'.
If you think that John Lennon would have become a mutual fund manager if it wasn't for George Martin, then I would guess that you are not a musician nor have any musician friends.
A side note: A band doesn't need a large record label to become popular, the most obvious example is the Grateful Dead who made a career through live concerts (and possibly weed). What happens generally is that a band develops a following from live performances and then a large record label buys them up to make a profit off their music. This creates the illusion that record companies make musicians popular, when a majority of the time they 'discover' bands with an already growing popularity.
Lets assume that musicians are musicians because they want to support themselves doing what they love (making music) and not because they want to be millionaires.
Now lets assume that the sharing and downloading of music files is free and legal.
Then lets assume that people continue to go to concerts and bars where musicians play as they have been doing.
What happens to the music industry?
The large record industries go under. What are the impllications of this? The Britanny Spears, Jessica Simpsons, and Clay whatshisnames fall off the music radar, and smaller bands gain more attention.
By making music sharing and download illegal, whose interests are we serving (big record business, or small local bands)? Can small local bands survive without selling cd at HMV?
It is currently not illegal to share music files online in Canada. So I'm wondering why the CRIA is collecting the names of people who do? This seems premature and to infringe on file sharers rights.
The principles of open source are extremely similar to those of the political system of anarchy.
Open source principles applied to our current political system (democracy, republic) would translate to something like Participatory or Direct democracy. A system where everyone can contribute.
This is possible. However, the Ameritrade privacy policy states that they can share personal information of clients with non-affiliated business to improve quality of service. The only thing preventing this from happening is an option that clients can request to not have their information trade with non-affiliates. I don't see any reason to pretend to 'lose' customer data, when you simply sell it legally.
Ancient roman and greek text were lost to the persian/ottoman empires. Western civilization (coincidentaly?) fell into the dark ages for centuries before the texts were rediscovered. This discovery let to renaissance of scientific and political thought.
I wonder what discoveries will be made that could cause a re-renaissance in our modern civilization.
Just another major corporation saying 'don't be afraid of us, look at all the generous things we do'. That scares the shit out of me.
If google is making enough money to give it away to boost their reputation, then I wonder how much tax they are paying. How much money in tax breaks to Google could have gone to building schools, money for hospitals, or even to pay down the deficit?
If they ban the internet as a whole, suddenly the line between good and evil is very clear. By simply censoring targeted websites, it still leaves the thought in the minds of the people that "maybe there's a reason that site is banned", or "the government can't be that bad if they let me use the internet".
Its a means to control the people without polarizing them and without causing a revolt.
There is no social contract with advertisers in the real world. When you walk down the street, if you are looking at the ground, you are not violating a social contract you have with the advertisers to keep your head up and keep an eye out for new products.
Interesting point. News media has been failing to report fair and balanced news in recent years. This has led to the masses of documentaries being released, because documentaries are free to probe and investigate the issues to their full extent (without media restrictions).
It seems that blogs are another offshoot of the failure of mainstream media. The blog Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ provides insight into the Iraq war that inbedded journalists have missed.
Slashdot Mirror
The study isn't so much talking down the internet as it is talking down the average person's work ethic. Of course people are going to get defensive. The only person who wouldn't is someone who actually spends a couple hours a day wasting time, is a manager, or isn't working. And the point being made by many people isn't that the internet is good (which it is), but rather that sometimes its more productive not to be working 100% of your day. This is why some companies put pool tables and basketball nets in the workplace. Its not to lose money, but to "increase productivity".
And WMDs had nothing to do with invading Iraq. Iraq was on the agenda well before september 11th. After september 11th the white house looked for evidence to say that Saddam was responsible when their closest advisors were saying it was Al Qaeda. You would probably dismiss this as liberal propaganda at your own peril, but here's the website on the Downing Street Memo investigation. There is a possibility of an impeachment vote resulting from this memo, which basically states what most free thinking people know already.
FYI about Iraq on the agenda: Read the Wolfowitz report, written by our dear friend Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank President!!!) in 1992, outlining US military strategy for the next 20 years. In the report, Wolfowitz says that Iraq could be invaded to weaken the middle east if it begins to become too powerful. Is this 'liberal propaganda'? or is this the truth that was written in Wolfowitz's own hands before he was responsible for US affairs in Iraq? Read it yourself.
This is how China gets away with human rights abuses. If the rest of the G7 and all major corporations said that they wouldn't trade or deal with China unless they allowed freedom of speech, China would be a changed place. The problem is that companies like Microsoft don't care about human rights, and are only focused on improving share value. So why make a stand and cost the company money, when they can do whatever they want and continue to blame the Chinese government for human rights abuses.
Microsoft, the US government, and many other countries/companies around the world are tacitly supporting the Chinese regime. Any opposition to human rights abuses is all talk:
Microsoft and the US: No
China: Make me
Microsoft and the US: No
W3 shows IE at 65%, Opera at 2%, Firefox at 25%, Mozilla at 3.5%, and Netscape at 1%. While this is the lowest IE has every been, its decreasing slowly.
You also agree with the first reason which is that the cards do not solve the problem that they are designed to fix. If you agree with this statement then the real question becomes why DO we need Real ID?
so you're crapping in the bushes and a deer comes along and you shoot it with your high powered rifle, easy right? But on some level you now understand what its like to crap in the bushes like a deer. And for understanding this, the killing process becomes very real.
over the internet it is no longer hunting. Its a video game where things actually die, there is no connect.
I stand corrected. And the dates I mentioned are off by...oh about two years or so. Cubism
For instance Picasso (in his early days) did paintings of peoples faces from different angles and with different emotions all as one face.
I think this is partly true. The idea of the timelines is that nobody could look at them and say: "oh, these sources are all communist propaganda, so therefore I don't need to listen."
The beauty of the Center for Cooperative Research is that by collecting news stories from over a long period of time you can build timelines which in fact aren't based on liberal preconceptions, but on rational, critical thought. In this way, liberal contradictions are revealed by their own media.
This is worrying because the NYT is considered one of the 'most reputable' newspapers in the world. For example: I do a bit of work for The Center for Cooperative Research. This is an open source website that is designed to create timelines about US politics by following news stories. To make the timelines as 'legitimate' as possible, we are encouraged to use NYT articles. Now that public access is restricted, it is making it more difficult for this open source project to continue with broad 'legitimacy'.
Some people can't afford access to high speed internet. Tough luck? Oh wait, municipal government is willing to take a cost to provide these people with access.
Corporations have a problem with this because it will cost their shareholders money. Should shareholder rights be held in higher regard than those who need a leg up?
Besides, lawsuits are good publicity. If you lose, by making such a silly attempt and reaching thousands of slashdot users, was it worth it?
1. Humanity will never discover time travel
2. Time travel will never be available for public use
3. Only a few time machines will be created before they are destroyed, or humanity itself is destroyed.
One of these statements about the future of humanity is true, or else we would have exposed an almost infinite number of time travellers.
So if the United States government conducted a massacre of thousands of US citizen's, then made the documents leading up to the decision classified, and you came across those documents. It would be 'wrong' for you to download and read them?
This article isn't news, and it doesn't really matter. Most /. articles fall into at least one of those categories. Its not like Firefox released a new version, or was offering new services. This article is advertisement encouraging people to visit the website and brand themselves for some 'secret prizes'.
A side note: A band doesn't need a large record label to become popular, the most obvious example is the Grateful Dead who made a career through live concerts (and possibly weed). What happens generally is that a band develops a following from live performances and then a large record label buys them up to make a profit off their music. This creates the illusion that record companies make musicians popular, when a majority of the time they 'discover' bands with an already growing popularity.
Now lets assume that the sharing and downloading of music files is free and legal.
Then lets assume that people continue to go to concerts and bars where musicians play as they have been doing.
What happens to the music industry?
The large record industries go under. What are the impllications of this? The Britanny Spears, Jessica Simpsons, and Clay whatshisnames fall off the music radar, and smaller bands gain more attention.
By making music sharing and download illegal, whose interests are we serving (big record business, or small local bands)? Can small local bands survive without selling cd at HMV?
It is currently not illegal to share music files online in Canada. So I'm wondering why the CRIA is collecting the names of people who do? This seems premature and to infringe on file sharers rights.
Open source principles applied to our current political system (democracy, republic) would translate to something like Participatory or Direct democracy. A system where everyone can contribute.
This is possible. However, the Ameritrade privacy policy states that they can share personal information of clients with non-affiliated business to improve quality of service. The only thing preventing this from happening is an option that clients can request to not have their information trade with non-affiliates. I don't see any reason to pretend to 'lose' customer data, when you simply sell it legally.
I wonder what discoveries will be made that could cause a re-renaissance in our modern civilization.
If google is making enough money to give it away to boost their reputation, then I wonder how much tax they are paying. How much money in tax breaks to Google could have gone to building schools, money for hospitals, or even to pay down the deficit?
Its a means to control the people without polarizing them and without causing a revolt.
Why should this be different on the internet?
It seems that blogs are another offshoot of the failure of mainstream media. The blog Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ provides insight into the Iraq war that inbedded journalists have missed.