There are very very powerful entities with vested interests in discrediting the well established evidence of climate change(cigs, cancer, and the tobacco institute anyone?).
Whether it's anthropogenic or not is besides the point, its important to err on the side of caution -- which means probable regulation -- something vested international conglomerates see as unprofitable/risky.
61 megs can be easily generated by a small staff interested in discrediting the conclusions of a debate which has long been over.
There's no coincidence about this at all, with cap and trade floating about washington. Just like the insurance lobbies with health reform, the worst polluters are pulling out all the stops to avoid being held responsible.
Odious. Simply odious. Why do you yanks have this sort of nonsense?
In the US there is this long-held myth, fed year after year by those who benefit from its proliferation, than anyone, if they work hard enough, can become as obscenely wealthy as the plutocrats which have purchased our legislature and plunder our populace in the most abusive manner their behavioral analysts have deemed is possible without eliciting armed rebellion.
This myth, that one day they can hold the whip and scream "MUSH!" at our elected representatives while unzipping their trousers to let their bounty "trickle down" upon the worthless peons, helps to keep the populace passive.
Magnet link is an URI, your browser is supposed to send it to it directly.
It's interesting that TPB takes this stance now when it has become too expensive and hard to keep their trackers working, and while having legal issues shot against them from everywhere. DHT and PEX have been around for years with no significant improvements. This isn't a change because "the technology is ready now", but because the ship is sinking.
DHT and PEX support has been very slow to creep in to clients. It makes sense from a user popularity and user access perspective to resist switching fully to these systems until external pressure forces the issue, otherwise swaths of the community will get pissed and smear your site as refusing to conform to basic standards.
This is basically how every major jump in p2p technology has been implemented. P2p is forever a reactionary technology.
I appreciate that you'd admit your belief that people should be forced to associate together. We all should respect this sort of clarity, particularly when it concerns such a heinous idea advanced for our supposed good. I would like to know whom you belive should decide where we spend our days and the company we keep, or is it only your assersion that reporters should loose their right to associate freely?
They have a public responsibility to inform our democracy. They should be required to do proper fact checking, and the best and most entertaining way to do that is to force the partisan hacks on both sides into the same room, thus compelling them to back up their arguments with more than fallacy and invective lest they be shot down by their counterpart.
When you go on the air and tell your audience it's "news" it better damn well center around the facts. Reporters should be constrained in this manner. If they want to toss out the opposition rather than face them fairly, they should be stripped of the "news" certification in the same way a meat packing plant would if they dispensed with the USDA inspectors.
But they're already both in my living room, or would be if I subscribed to a cable service. I have the option of listening to both and making judgements already. I hope you're not suggesting that we should force the commentators to be on the same station, or that we should force people to watch all stations equally.
not the same station, the same room
right now there is no motivation to fact check. This has resulted in half the nation STILL believing iraq was the source of alqueda instead of afghanistan.
Repeat a lie long enough and people will start to believe it.
You can only call the events that Fox covers contrived if you go to one and it is different than how it is portrayed on Fox. So I would like for you to specify an instance of a contrived story.
You seem to have ignored every example i've provided.
Indeed, the economic benefits abound when a huge swath of illegal and annoying activity ceases
Translated from corporatocracy-ese to english:
"once we've quashed the disruptive technological utopia people created on the web, the economic opportunity to carve it up and sell it back to only those who can pay abounds!"
Finally, They're competing against each other. If Fox (for example) imposes this requirement on all PPV releases but Warner Brothers doesn't...ah, but you see where I'm going, yes?
no, i don't, unless warner brothers produces the exact same house episodes fox does.
First off, they're competing against themselves.
you mean like the way the wall street financial giants regulated themselves?
Plasmacutter, please come back. I really do want to know who you think should be deciding on the news people consume. If there's a better option than "let people decide themselves" I want to know what that is, and why it's a better option. I'm not trying to be flippant, because I think it's a very real and important difference of view and I would like to know the other side.
How about putting oreilly or beck in the same room with olbermann?
If you put people of diametrically opposed ideology in the same room they will be HEAVILY motivated to do proper research, and their exchanges would quickly mete out the truth.
If there is no competitor "economic pressure" does not exist.
to buy or to not have at all is a false choice. You certainly would not be espousing this opinion if it was your home and not your entertainment being served in this way.
Imagine the choice of being homeless or purchasing a home from the sole distributor of homes, which insists you submit to cameras in every room, with extra cameras in your daughters room and your bathrooms, showers, and toilets.
I am a little confused. Is it really more important to you to criticize commentators on Fox News for being active participants in the political process than it is to criticize the other media for abjectly ignoring important stories? Which do you think is worse?
I think fox is worse, but only marginally. While all the MSM fails miserably to inform our public and contribute to a healthy democracy, fox is the only one which actively disinforms the public.
Are you honestly subscribing to Anita Dunn's assertion that Fox News is an active architect of Republican policy? As an active member of the Republican party, I can assure you that Fox News VERY often ignores things that the party would like covered and relentlessly pursues things that we wish they would leave alone.
political campaigns have two discrete components: promotion of one's own agenda and the demonization of the opposition. Guess which function fox serves for the republican party.
Are you saying that economic pressure is ineffective? Or that there is no such thing as economic pressure? Or is it simply that you don't believe in capitalism?
Wow - all those millions of consumers who've been misled all these years . . . thinking they could vote with their wallets.
The market for copyrighted goods is not a "free market", it's not capitalism, its a monopoly centrally controlled by the studios and publishing houses which originated the work.
This means that anyone who seeks features in that product which are not "one size fits all", such as the basic right to view it on at platform other than an HDMI tv, is shit out of luck, because the central source for this content will tell any niche firms to get bent.
What your are talking abstractly about is the Sean Hannity's, Glen Beck's and Bill O'Reily's, Mike Pappantonio's and Keith Olbermann's of the world. These people are called commentators and they make their living saying outrageous things.
This is yet another of fox's many fabrications. There is no boundary between these so-called "commentators" and the rest of the news staff.
Fox doesn't have to "manufacture support" the proof is in their ratings which they continue to dominate.
"It's not my fault that Fox News, while an out-and-out propaganda network, is also the ONLY network covering relevant issues rather than gossip."
The popularity of the network has nothing to do with its viewpoints and everything to do with the decay of the sector as a whole. Given the choice between a yugo and walking 40 miles to work, i'd choose the yugo too.
"I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest."
A protest engineered and promoted by an ultra-right propaganda network for half a year.
"The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News; funny how 'the fringe' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other, lesser outlets."
Those ratings are less indicative of the popularity of their viewpoint and more indicative of just how horrible the alternatives are. If I had a choice between a yugo and walking, i'd choose the yugo too!
please go back to your bunker, the rest of us in the real world want the government to step in to put a long overdue stop to the insurance industry's "death panels". According to the dingbat right, apparently corporations can never, ever do harm!
Yes, I often see CNN anchors calling for people to attend protests, leading those protests from podiums, sending emails to themselves to create the illusion of public support, manufacturing rumors and citing other programs on their own networks...
The problem with "vote with your wallet" is that it results in people who want greater flexibility going un-served because they simply don't show up on balance sheets.
Think economic "tyranny of the majority".
Granted this would NOT happen if copyright didn't get in the way of people serving those niche segments, but it does.
Your solution seems to be that we should get our news from Comedy Central. I submit this is, well, silly. Allow me to offer a better solution.
There are several orginizations now that produce targeted timely coverage in specific areas. Politico is an example. While all these tend to have a point of view, they are generally patronized by those interested in the field. A person could build a list of these focused coverage sites for their own consumption, adding or removing sites as appropriate to their own metrics of value. A sort of "build your own news agregator" list of web links. Some content is available only to paid subscribers, such as most of Stratfor, but paying for news information isn't a particularly new or shocking idea, much less the idea that one has to pay to get teh best of a particular product. Personally I consider Stratfor worth the full price of admision.
Cable news coverage is at a level of depth much less than I want, regardless of network. I've chosen to develop a selection of "expert sites" for my personal consumption. This is how I do it. YMMV.
yes, clearly people should not be exposed to perspectives they don't agree with.
There's something to be said for not allowing people to self-select their news coverage.
It allows them to bury their head in the sand and is deleterious to the informed society required for democracy to properly function.
What makes the know-it-alls and bone-heads that work in the news any better than know-it-alls and bone-heads who don't?
Most media people you see day-to-day have the mistaken impression that they actually know WTF they're talking about. Unfortunately, they don't.
Those know-it-alls and bone-heads have research teams backing them up.. oh wait a minute they fired those guys and either regugitate press releases or just make crap up.. carry on!
Groups representing public interest against these agendas (and lobbying for DMCA reform) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity.
"If only we could selectively disable people's engines, we could offer more innovative repair services to the public!"
Since FOX has more viewers than all other cable news outlets combined, I'm pretty sure they don't need any validation. Of course, the prevailing view is that FOX just attracts jingoistic idiots and that their ratings have nothing to do with the quality of their product being any good. There may be some issues of professionalism and qulity of product with other outlets. Then again I could have missed Shepard Smith calling the President's supporters "balls to face".
It's not my fault that Fox News, while an out-and-out propaganda network, is also the ONLY network covering relevant issues rather than gossip.
Perhaps the producers of the daily show and colbert report should launch a "fact check" network which extracts the relevant stories from all these other networks and subjects them to scathing fact checks which are, at this point, only applied in occasional 9 minutes snippets on the afore mentioned comedy shows.
I'm more concerned with them taking fox news seriously and giving them validation despite their neck-deep role engineering the 9/12 teabagger protests and deliberate manipulation of footage to mislead the public into thinking there are more americans opposed to democratic agendas than there actually are.
I don't appreciate them giving validation to a network which manufactures the news stories they cover, either through acting as a political action committe and then covering their own protest rallies, through lies of omission and quotes out of context, or through lies of manipulation.
Slanted analysis is one thing, but you never see the leftist MSNBC outright fabricating propaganda.
cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task
macos x does this
gksudo does this
This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo. Fini.
I don't think that the following, the author's only analysis of the claims of the patent, is really an air-tight disassembly of its value:
"Etc. blah, blah. Dude. It's sudo. With a gui. Sudo for Dummies. That's what it is. Software and patents need to get a divorce, before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing."
The whole point of a lawyer's interpretation of patents, contracts, or legal text is to make it understandable. That's exactly what is done.
Going through line-by-line analysis will lose most of the readership and defeat the purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
There are very very powerful entities with vested interests in discrediting the well established evidence of climate change(cigs, cancer, and the tobacco institute anyone?).
Whether it's anthropogenic or not is besides the point, its important to err on the side of caution -- which means probable regulation -- something vested international conglomerates see as unprofitable/risky.
61 megs can be easily generated by a small staff interested in discrediting the conclusions of a debate which has long been over.
There's no coincidence about this at all, with cap and trade floating about washington. Just like the insurance lobbies with health reform, the worst polluters are pulling out all the stops to avoid being held responsible.
Odious. Simply odious. Why do you yanks have this sort of nonsense?
In the US there is this long-held myth, fed year after year by those who benefit from its proliferation, than anyone, if they work hard enough, can become as obscenely wealthy as the plutocrats which have purchased our legislature and plunder our populace in the most abusive manner their behavioral analysts have deemed is possible without eliciting armed rebellion.
This myth, that one day they can hold the whip and scream "MUSH!" at our elected representatives while unzipping their trousers to let their bounty "trickle down" upon the worthless peons, helps to keep the populace passive.
Magnet link is an URI, your browser is supposed to send it to it directly.
It's interesting that TPB takes this stance now when it has become too expensive and hard to keep their trackers working, and while having legal issues shot against them from everywhere. DHT and PEX have been around for years with no significant improvements. This isn't a change because "the technology is ready now", but because the ship is sinking.
DHT and PEX support has been very slow to creep in to clients. It makes sense from a user popularity and user access perspective to resist switching fully to these systems until external pressure forces the issue, otherwise swaths of the community will get pissed and smear your site as refusing to conform to basic standards.
This is basically how every major jump in p2p technology has been implemented. P2p is forever a reactionary technology.
I appreciate that you'd admit your belief that people should be forced to associate together. We all should respect this sort of clarity, particularly when it concerns such a heinous idea advanced for our supposed good. I would like to know whom you belive should decide where we spend our days and the company we keep, or is it only your assersion that reporters should loose their right to associate freely?
They have a public responsibility to inform our democracy. They should be required to do proper fact checking, and the best and most entertaining way to do that is to force the partisan hacks on both sides into the same room, thus compelling them to back up their arguments with more than fallacy and invective lest they be shot down by their counterpart.
When you go on the air and tell your audience it's "news" it better damn well center around the facts. Reporters should be constrained in this manner. If they want to toss out the opposition rather than face them fairly, they should be stripped of the "news" certification in the same way a meat packing plant would if they dispensed with the USDA inspectors.
You have provided general allegations with no specific cases.
how about you google "fox lies" or "jon stewart fox" or "daily show fox" or "media matters"
But they're already both in my living room, or would be if I subscribed to a cable service. I have the option of listening to both and making judgements already. I hope you're not suggesting that we should force the commentators to be on the same station, or that we should force people to watch all stations equally.
not the same station, the same room
right now there is no motivation to fact check. This has resulted in half the nation STILL believing iraq was the source of alqueda instead of afghanistan.
Repeat a lie long enough and people will start to believe it.
You can only call the events that Fox covers contrived if you go to one and it is different than how it is portrayed on Fox. So I would like for you to specify an instance of a contrived story.
You seem to have ignored every example i've provided.
Indeed, the economic benefits abound when a huge swath of illegal and annoying activity ceases
Translated from corporatocracy-ese to english:
"once we've quashed the disruptive technological utopia people created on the web, the economic opportunity to carve it up and sell it back to only those who can pay abounds!"
Finally, They're competing against each other. If Fox (for example) imposes this requirement on all PPV releases but Warner Brothers doesn't...ah, but you see where I'm going, yes?
no, i don't, unless warner brothers produces the exact same house episodes fox does.
First off, they're competing against themselves.
you mean like the way the wall street financial giants regulated themselves?
Plasmacutter, please come back. I really do want to know who you think should be deciding on the news people consume. If there's a better option than "let people decide themselves" I want to know what that is, and why it's a better option. I'm not trying to be flippant, because I think it's a very real and important difference of view and I would like to know the other side.
How about putting oreilly or beck in the same room with olbermann?
If you put people of diametrically opposed ideology in the same room they will be HEAVILY motivated to do proper research, and their exchanges would quickly mete out the truth.
What "economic pressure"?
If there is no competitor "economic pressure" does not exist.
to buy or to not have at all is a false choice. You certainly would not be espousing this opinion if it was your home and not your entertainment being served in this way.
Imagine the choice of being homeless or purchasing a home from the sole distributor of homes, which insists you submit to cameras in every room, with extra cameras in your daughters room and your bathrooms, showers, and toilets.
I am a little confused. Is it really more important to you to criticize commentators on Fox News for being active participants in the political process than it is to criticize the other media for abjectly ignoring important stories? Which do you think is worse?
I think fox is worse, but only marginally. While all the MSM fails miserably to inform our public and contribute to a healthy democracy, fox is the only one which actively disinforms the public.
Are you honestly subscribing to Anita Dunn's assertion that Fox News is an active architect of Republican policy? As an active member of the Republican party, I can assure you that Fox News VERY often ignores things that the party would like covered and relentlessly pursues things that we wish they would leave alone.
political campaigns have two discrete components: promotion of one's own agenda and the demonization of the opposition. Guess which function fox serves for the republican party.
Are you saying that economic pressure is ineffective? Or that there is no such thing as economic pressure? Or is it simply that you don't believe in capitalism?
Wow - all those millions of consumers who've been misled all these years . . . thinking they could vote with their wallets.
The market for copyrighted goods is not a "free market", it's not capitalism, its a monopoly centrally controlled by the studios and publishing houses which originated the work.
This means that anyone who seeks features in that product which are not "one size fits all", such as the basic right to view it on at platform other than an HDMI tv, is shit out of luck, because the central source for this content will tell any niche firms to get bent.
What your are talking abstractly about is the Sean Hannity's, Glen Beck's and Bill O'Reily's, Mike Pappantonio's and Keith Olbermann's of the world. These people are called commentators and they make their living saying outrageous things.
This is yet another of fox's many fabrications. There is no boundary between these so-called "commentators" and the rest of the news staff.
Fox doesn't have to "manufacture support" the proof is in their ratings which they continue to dominate.
"It's not my fault that Fox News, while an out-and-out propaganda network, is also the ONLY network covering relevant issues rather than gossip."
The popularity of the network has nothing to do with its viewpoints and everything to do with the decay of the sector as a whole. Given the choice between a yugo and walking 40 miles to work, i'd choose the yugo too.
CNN siding with democrats?
"I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest."
A protest engineered and promoted by an ultra-right propaganda network for half a year.
"The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News; funny how 'the fringe' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other, lesser outlets."
Those ratings are less indicative of the popularity of their viewpoint and more indicative of just how horrible the alternatives are. If I had a choice between a yugo and walking, i'd choose the yugo too!
please go back to your bunker, the rest of us in the real world want the government to step in to put a long overdue stop to the insurance industry's "death panels". According to the dingbat right, apparently corporations can never, ever do harm!
Yes, I often see CNN anchors calling for people to attend protests, leading those protests from podiums, sending emails to themselves to create the illusion of public support, manufacturing rumors and citing other programs on their own networks...
oh wait, that only happens with ONE network.
The problem with "vote with your wallet" is that it results in people who want greater flexibility going un-served because they simply don't show up on balance sheets.
Think economic "tyranny of the majority".
Granted this would NOT happen if copyright didn't get in the way of people serving those niche segments, but it does.
Your solution seems to be that we should get our news from Comedy Central. I submit this is, well, silly. Allow me to offer a better solution.
There are several orginizations now that produce targeted timely coverage in specific areas. Politico is an example. While all these tend to have a point of view, they are generally patronized by those interested in the field. A person could build a list of these focused coverage sites for their own consumption, adding or removing sites as appropriate to their own metrics of value. A sort of "build your own news agregator" list of web links. Some content is available only to paid subscribers, such as most of Stratfor, but paying for news information isn't a particularly new or shocking idea, much less the idea that one has to pay to get teh best of a particular product. Personally I consider Stratfor worth the full price of admision.
Cable news coverage is at a level of depth much less than I want, regardless of network. I've chosen to develop a selection of "expert sites" for my personal consumption. This is how I do it. YMMV.
yes, clearly people should not be exposed to perspectives they don't agree with.
There's something to be said for not allowing people to self-select their news coverage.
It allows them to bury their head in the sand and is deleterious to the informed society required for democracy to properly function.
What makes the know-it-alls and bone-heads that work in the news any better than know-it-alls and bone-heads who don't?
Most media people you see day-to-day have the mistaken impression that they actually know WTF they're talking about. Unfortunately, they don't.
Those know-it-alls and bone-heads have research teams backing them up.. oh wait a minute they fired those guys and either regugitate press releases or just make crap up.. carry on!
Groups representing public interest against these agendas (and lobbying for DMCA reform) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity.
"If only we could selectively disable people's engines, we could offer more innovative repair services to the public!"
Since FOX has more viewers than all other cable news outlets combined, I'm pretty sure they don't need any validation. Of course, the prevailing view is that FOX just attracts jingoistic idiots and that their ratings have nothing to do with the quality of their product being any good. There may be some issues of professionalism and qulity of product with other outlets. Then again I could have missed Shepard Smith calling the President's supporters "balls to face".
It's not my fault that Fox News, while an out-and-out propaganda network, is also the ONLY network covering relevant issues rather than gossip.
Perhaps the producers of the daily show and colbert report should launch a "fact check" network which extracts the relevant stories from all these other networks and subjects them to scathing fact checks which are, at this point, only applied in occasional 9 minutes snippets on the afore mentioned comedy shows.
I'm more concerned with them taking fox news seriously and giving them validation despite their neck-deep role engineering the 9/12 teabagger protests and deliberate manipulation of footage to mislead the public into thinking there are more americans opposed to democratic agendas than there actually are.
I don't appreciate them giving validation to a network which manufactures the news stories they cover, either through acting as a political action committe and then covering their own protest rallies, through lies of omission and quotes out of context, or through lies of manipulation.
Slanted analysis is one thing, but you never see the leftist MSNBC outright fabricating propaganda.
cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task
macos x does this
gksudo does this
This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo. Fini.
and I'm telling you macos x does that already.
continually telling me the same thing over and over does not make it different.
I don't think that the following, the author's only analysis of the claims of the patent, is really an air-tight disassembly of its value:
"Etc. blah, blah. Dude. It's sudo. With a gui. Sudo for Dummies. That's what it is. Software and patents need to get a divorce, before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing."
The whole point of a lawyer's interpretation of patents, contracts, or legal text is to make it understandable. That's exactly what is done.
Going through line-by-line analysis will lose most of the readership and defeat the purpose.