Only two kinds of fiction readers? Bull Shit. I'm option three.
3) The kind of a guy who enjoys escaping into a good story, but who is unable to escape into a cliche fantasy world written by an illiterate twit.
The book has to be good to do its job well. If it's not doing its job well, I can't enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with saying that some books are better than others.
No one will believe your crackpot idea that eating less and exercising more will make you lose weight, because it's not a product you can buy in a store. Don't you know that in today's post-modern world, if you want a solution for any problem, it comes in a cardboard box and is identified by a slick logo that you will recognize from a television advertisement?
This certainly raises questions about online rights to free speech and anonymity, especially when the line between free speech and regulated speech depends on who is speaking as much as what they are saying.
So it matters who is speaking does it? Then I assume you have found a method to confirm the identity of a poster on an online forum.
Oh wait. You don't have that method yet? Well when you find that method get back to me and we can fix this situation up perfectly. Until then, do what I've always been told to do. If you read it online, assume you don't know who posted it, because you don't.
Online personal identity doesn't exist. It never did. So it can't matter.
You might think that's true, but gas prices are at an all time high, pollution is obviously destroying the planet, and as a result, Americans are driving more than ever before and doing so in less fuel efficient vehicles.
People also "knew" that the earth was flat until better evidence came to the fore. There's nothing wrong with a little extra rigor to determine if common sense "knowledge" is actually true.
The choice to not vote is still a choice, and we are accountable for our choices.
And if enough people understood that the two party system is what is holding us back, people would work to change it. The people have formed the parties, and the people have the power to undo them. They simply choose not to.
So once again, you can't blame it on those bastards in Washington D.C. Those bastards are there because we willed it.
In the U.S.A., our government is a direct reflection of the votes of the people in the country. So what you're really saying is that your whole country sickens you.
Let's not forget who was in charge when the worst terrorist attack in world history happened. On 9/11/01, we had a Republican president and a Republican congress who utterly failed to prevent it.
My car of the future is my bike. I ride it everywhere I go. Aside from the environmentalism aspects of biking and the lack of a need to buy gasoline, it's a lot more fun than being stuck in a box on wheels for an hour a day.
Well that just goes to show that you have an large advantage if you're defending on your own land for the right to determine the present and future of your own nation. In such a situation, even a ramshackle band of farmers and illiterates can defeat the world's largest empire.
I wonder how that might be relevant to today's military strategy. Hrm...
The NCAA has more to gain if they allow live blogging, since people talking about the sport increases interest in the sport.
In my opinion, a large reason baseball isn't as popular as it used to be is because of the constrictive broadcast polices of MLB. You used to be able to watch baseball on any TV, but now it's almost all cable only and they're working hard to make even Slingboxing the ballgames illegal. I used to love baseball, but I just can't follow it anymore, mostly because of the constrictive way it's broadcast nowadays. I'd watch it every day if they only let me.
Ted Turner when he bought the Atlanta Braves turned that team from a nobody into a hugely profitable team in part by allowing nearly any TV station who wanted the privilege to broadcast the game. The more people who got to watch, the more people cared about the team.
The harder you make it for people to see your event, the more people will just get fed up and find their entertainment elsewhere.
I know. Damn those big city celebrities! And there's nothing you can possibly do to stop them. I mean, we tried, but then that pesky constitution has ruined it for everybody. Apparently even Cher is allowed to say anything she wants in this God forsaken country.
If only there were something you could to do stop your children from watching the television.
You're right. Without television children wouldn't be able to emulate our drunken and slovenly celebrities. They'd have to emulate their drunken and slovenly neighbors and family members.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
If you stop someone from being heard, you have abridged the freedom of their speech. Try and muddle the issue with tricky word parsing if you like, but the amendment is clear,
You're right about the airwaves being a public asset. We the public have a method by which we control our public assets. That method is our government, most directly our congress. Let's say that the public at large wants to control the public asset of the airwaves in such a way to as abridge the freedom of speech on the airwaves via our congress. Oh wait! There's a rule saying that the congress isn't allowed to do that! I guess that's just tough luck.
Oh no! Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want. Where do they think they live?! In a country with constitutionally protected freedom of speech?!
But the real question is: Who are Livejournal's customers? Is it the people who post to it every day, or the advertisers? Is Livejournal selling a blogging service to the masses, or selling a locked in market to advertisers?
In this case, they've decided that the advertisers are their real customers, since this whole pedophilia issue didn't bother them for years until just now when the advertisers complained. And as soon as the advertisers complained, they screwed over their bloggers.
So, Livejournal is in fact taking great care of their customers. It's just that people don't see who their customers really are. Livejournal doesn't work for you. Livejournal works for their advertisers.
Slashdot Mirror
Only two kinds of fiction readers? Bull Shit. I'm option three.
3) The kind of a guy who enjoys escaping into a good story, but who is unable to escape into a cliche fantasy world written by an illiterate twit.
The book has to be good to do its job well. If it's not doing its job well, I can't enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with saying that some books are better than others.
Maybe it means a request for a router to masquerade as the device's own MAC address?
I dunno. I got nothin'
Nothing says, "Thanks for inventing blogging!" like taking down your server with a hearty slashdotting.
No one will believe your crackpot idea that eating less and exercising more will make you lose weight, because it's not a product you can buy in a store. Don't you know that in today's post-modern world, if you want a solution for any problem, it comes in a cardboard box and is identified by a slick logo that you will recognize from a television advertisement?
Jeez. Some people don't know anything.
So it matters who is speaking does it? Then I assume you have found a method to confirm the identity of a poster on an online forum.
Oh wait. You don't have that method yet? Well when you find that method get back to me and we can fix this situation up perfectly. Until then, do what I've always been told to do. If you read it online, assume you don't know who posted it, because you don't.
Online personal identity doesn't exist. It never did. So it can't matter.
I've already found a way to beat this nonsense. I run Linux.
You might think that's true, but gas prices are at an all time high, pollution is obviously destroying the planet, and as a result, Americans are driving more than ever before and doing so in less fuel efficient vehicles.
Who needs the right to bear arms when you are in a position of power that allows you to have people killed by the U.S. Army?
People also "knew" that the earth was flat until better evidence came to the fore. There's nothing wrong with a little extra rigor to determine if common sense "knowledge" is actually true.
Hey buddy, you're giving ten dollar hookers a bad name.
The choice to not vote is still a choice, and we are accountable for our choices.
And if enough people understood that the two party system is what is holding us back, people would work to change it. The people have formed the parties, and the people have the power to undo them. They simply choose not to.
So once again, you can't blame it on those bastards in Washington D.C. Those bastards are there because we willed it.
In the U.S.A., our government is a direct reflection of the votes of the people in the country. So what you're really saying is that your whole country sickens you.
Let's not forget who was in charge when the worst terrorist attack in world history happened. On 9/11/01, we had a Republican president and a Republican congress who utterly failed to prevent it.
Held accountable? When did Dell promise you to be your Linux savior? Dell owes you nothing. But please, keep whining.
My car of the future is my bike. I ride it everywhere I go. Aside from the environmentalism aspects of biking and the lack of a need to buy gasoline, it's a lot more fun than being stuck in a box on wheels for an hour a day.
Well that just goes to show that you have an large advantage if you're defending on your own land for the right to determine the present and future of your own nation. In such a situation, even a ramshackle band of farmers and illiterates can defeat the world's largest empire.
I wonder how that might be relevant to today's military strategy. Hrm...
The NCAA has more to gain if they allow live blogging, since people talking about the sport increases interest in the sport.
In my opinion, a large reason baseball isn't as popular as it used to be is because of the constrictive broadcast polices of MLB. You used to be able to watch baseball on any TV, but now it's almost all cable only and they're working hard to make even Slingboxing the ballgames illegal. I used to love baseball, but I just can't follow it anymore, mostly because of the constrictive way it's broadcast nowadays. I'd watch it every day if they only let me.
Ted Turner when he bought the Atlanta Braves turned that team from a nobody into a hugely profitable team in part by allowing nearly any TV station who wanted the privilege to broadcast the game. The more people who got to watch, the more people cared about the team.
The harder you make it for people to see your event, the more people will just get fed up and find their entertainment elsewhere.
If you have anything better than smart assed quips to add to the conversation, please let me know.
In the mean time, I'll just be over here on my end of the tubes, making a living with open source software -- and a very comfortable living at that.
I design professionally, and I use the GIMP.
I know. Damn those big city celebrities! And there's nothing you can possibly do to stop them. I mean, we tried, but then that pesky constitution has ruined it for everybody. Apparently even Cher is allowed to say anything she wants in this God forsaken country.
If only there were something you could to do stop your children from watching the television.
You're right. Without television children wouldn't be able to emulate our drunken and slovenly celebrities. They'd have to emulate their drunken and slovenly neighbors and family members.
If you stop someone from being heard, you have abridged the freedom of their speech. Try and muddle the issue with tricky word parsing if you like, but the amendment is clear,
You're right about the airwaves being a public asset. We the public have a method by which we control our public assets. That method is our government, most directly our congress. Let's say that the public at large wants to control the public asset of the airwaves in such a way to as abridge the freedom of speech on the airwaves via our congress. Oh wait! There's a rule saying that the congress isn't allowed to do that! I guess that's just tough luck.
Oh no! Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want. Where do they think they live?! In a country with constitutionally protected freedom of speech?!
But the real question is: Who are Livejournal's customers? Is it the people who post to it every day, or the advertisers? Is Livejournal selling a blogging service to the masses, or selling a locked in market to advertisers?
In this case, they've decided that the advertisers are their real customers, since this whole pedophilia issue didn't bother them for years until just now when the advertisers complained. And as soon as the advertisers complained, they screwed over their bloggers.
So, Livejournal is in fact taking great care of their customers. It's just that people don't see who their customers really are. Livejournal doesn't work for you. Livejournal works for their advertisers.
The fact that most e-mail is spam and people still use it is a testament to how useful e-mail is.