Or, in short, nobody(*) fucking cares. Not what the name of your dog is and not what you think about soccer. Twitter is Geocities, only shorter, and with even less content. (*) where "nobody" is equal, but not identical, to zero, for all practical purposes.
I think what you're shooting for is a set of measure zero, although IANAM.
I'm interested in the possibility of getting myself arrested and posssibly sent to jail for violating the proposed laws in the most asinine way possible and then drumming up some kind of media coverage in order to help the public understand just how backwards this legislation is/would be.
So: what's the most vanilla-white-bread-everybody-does-it-I-can't-believe-he-got-sent-to-jail-for-that public outrage inducing way in which I could violate these laws badly enough to get sent to the klink?
That's wrong. We only laugh when we know that the person/animated character is not seriously hurt [...] The same is true of real life. If someone falls, our first reaction is the need to know whether they are OK or not. If they are uninjured, then we may find it funny. If they are injured, then we do not find it funny.
I dunno, man. Some friends and I were taking some sweet jumps on our BMXs as a kid, and this one dude beefed pretty hard and took out a tooth on his handlebars. Blood everywhere. Tears. We definitely all laughed before going to check if he was alright. We may all be sociopaths, but I'm betting no...we're just down with the schadenfreude, like lots of others.
Terrorist used to mean someone that scared people to get their ends from the government. These days "terrorist" means someone used by the government to scare you with.
I was going to post something about that statement maybe being valid in North America and Western Europe, but not for the bulk of the world's population, but it turns out that a few minutes' Googling hasn't given me anything to back my position up with...go figure.
OK, I only read the summary, and haven't followed the whole story that closely, but if these people were arrested in February, why are they not still in jail?
You've essentially made "more" of something -- and if there's "more" of something, it's worth less than if it's scarce.
This is an interesting point, and I guess something I'd never taken the time to think about before. Now, I'm no economist, but it seems to me that with the advent of digital media and the easy reproduction of perfect copies, along with various and sundry online distribution channels, anytime a piece of music[*] is created, digitised, and makes its way to the Net, supply is for all intents and purposes instantly driven to infinity, thereby reducing the value of said piece to zero.
Now, I am of the opinion that the artists[**] who create the music I enjoy SHOULD be remunerated. So what means are available of doing this fairly?
As an aside, for those who have posted something about downloading as a form of pseudo-protest against overlong copyright terms (not the parent post), it seems to me that your argument is basically null if you're downloading anything that isn't older than whatever you consider to be "fair" copyright.
[*] In principle this applies to any digital media, but the ease with which a 5MB mp3 can be shared (cf. a 700MB movie), makes this argument particular relevant [**] This includes the knob-twiddlers and producers who get great in-studio performances out of artists.
This is the best comment I have ever read on Slashdot. A geek, showing humility, pointing out his (her?) deficiency in knowledge in a tech-related area, and asking the community for clarification. Awesome.
As they say, when you point your finger at someone, you've got 3 other fingers pointing back at you
Actually, in an archetypal "index pointing" gesture, it looks more like my non-index fingers are pointing (through my palm) somewhere off to my right...maybe around 4:00.
Oh, I should know better than to reply to an AC, especially given that a week has gone by...but what the Hell, I give it a go. The initial comment was:
Kinda like when you tell a female who is having an affair with a married man: "You know he's never going to leave his wife." The reaction is usually denial and false hope. Some day, maybe years later, they realize the truth and move on. They didn't just were not ready to acknowledge it until they are ready.
My claim of chauvinism had to do with the implication that women, but not men, are prone to denying that their lovers won't leave the person they're cuckolding (viz. that men can be just as weak as women in the portrayed scenario). Let's see what it might sound like with this implication removed:
Kinda like when you tell someone who's having an affair with a married person: "You know they're never going to leave their spouse." The reaction is usually denial and false hope. Some day, maybe years later, they realize the truth and move on. They didn't just were not ready to acknowledge it until they are ready.
Now see? That's not so bad...you're free to fill in whichever sex you think best fits the statement as you read it, or not to.
And as for the actual content of your comment:
Reading Comprehension much? You rabid little shitheads scan a paragraph and look for the word women and just throw out some bullshit "You're sexist" crap.
Standardised testing indicates that my reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Also, I don't have rabies. If you go and look at my comment history, you can assess the validity of your "scan a paragraph and look for the word women" claim.
Tell me what exactly is sexist about the poster's comment? Bet you can't tell me [...]
Oops! Looks like I did exactly that.:)
[...] but feel free to call me names [...]
Like "rabid shithead"?
[...] because not everyone subscribes to the Women Good Men Bad dogma you shit out.
If you have a look at what I wrote, I think you'll see that I subscribe more to the Everyone Bad philosophy.
This will have been pointless and you won't come back and look at it, but whatever.
Why yes, I am CAPITALIZING random WORDS this evening
Doesn't look random at all to me. Looks like fairly judicious use of capitalization to focus particular aspects of your contribution to the discussion.:0)
The New York Times ethical standards are here:[...]
Thanks!
Also, journalists do not reveal their sources.
*Cringe*...I have a tendency (character flaw?) of not taking groups of people at their collective word...so I give "journalists do not reveal their sources" about as much weight as "cops don't take kickbacks or get free blowjobs". It only takes one bad apple
We didn't know the identity of 'deep throat' for close to 40 years despite intense speculation. More recently, journalists went to jail for not revealing the identity of their sources in the Valerie Plame case.
True enough...my concern is that this kind of moral fibre/ethical uprightness is fast waning.
Umm...no...nope, if you look right back up there, I think it's pretty clear that I said a fight between a person and a deer, in which the person only used antlers strapped to its head, would be a fair fight.
(Conversely, if you could give a deer workable digits, a rifle, and basic knowledge of rifle use, then hunting might be a fair fight.)
[...] people with knowledge of the investigation who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the inquiry
This is not a leak. It's a standard way of releasing information to the public without having to make an official statement/accusation.
(1) I was not aware that this is "standard", and I submit that that's pretty fucked up. If some journalist chose to reveal these people's names, then they either have to be fired (for doing something that they were "covertly" authorized to do), or else the investigating organization has to admit that they in fact authorized the leak.
(2) I don't see the benefit of releasing this kind of information to the public, but that's likely just shortsightedness on my part.
And the New York Times doesn't pay for information, period. Don't you (and your moderators) read any newspapers?!
(3) Didn't know that for a fact, but would have guessed it to be the NYT's stance (also, I don't actually believe it, but I suppose that's immaterial to the point at hand).
I have a baby girl and am in my final semester of grad school...you can guess how much newspaper reading I do. In any event, is there an obvious section of the NYT's online edition where it says "we don't pay for information"?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, in short, nobody(*) fucking cares. Not what the name of your dog is and not what you think about soccer.
Twitter is Geocities, only shorter, and with even less content.
(*) where "nobody" is equal, but not identical, to zero, for all practical purposes.
I think what you're shooting for is a set of measure zero, although IANAM.
Any conversation with a police officer should start with you saying "Evening officer, what seems to be the trouble?"
Unless it happens to be morning. Or early afternoon.
That's when you say, "What's wrong, fuckface?"
I'm interested in the possibility of getting myself arrested and posssibly sent to jail for violating the proposed laws in the most asinine way possible and then drumming up some kind of media coverage in order to help the public understand just how backwards this legislation is/would be.
So: what's the most vanilla-white-bread-everybody-does-it-I-can't-believe-he-got-sent-to-jail-for-that public outrage inducing way in which I could violate these laws badly enough to get sent to the klink?
That's wrong. We only laugh when we know that the person/animated character is not seriously hurt [...] The same is true of real life. If someone falls, our first reaction is the need to know whether they are OK or not. If they are uninjured, then we may find it funny. If they are injured, then we do not find it funny.
I dunno, man. Some friends and I were taking some sweet jumps on our BMXs as a kid, and this one dude beefed pretty hard and took out a tooth on his handlebars. Blood everywhere. Tears. We definitely all laughed before going to check if he was alright. We may all be sociopaths, but I'm betting no...we're just down with the schadenfreude, like lots of others.
Terrorist used to mean someone that scared people to get their ends from the government. These days "terrorist" means someone used by the government to scare you with.
+$\infty$
Best quote ever.
I was going to post something about that statement maybe being valid in North America and Western Europe, but not for the bulk of the world's population, but it turns out that a few minutes' Googling hasn't given me anything to back my position up with...go figure.
OK, I only read the summary, and haven't followed the whole story that closely, but if these people were arrested in February, why are they not still in jail?
You've essentially made "more" of something -- and if there's "more" of something, it's worth less than if it's scarce.
This is an interesting point, and I guess something I'd never taken the time to think about before. Now, I'm no economist, but it seems to me that with the advent of digital media and the easy reproduction of perfect copies, along with various and sundry online distribution channels, anytime a piece of music[*] is created, digitised, and makes its way to the Net, supply is for all intents and purposes instantly driven to infinity, thereby reducing the value of said piece to zero.
Now, I am of the opinion that the artists[**] who create the music I enjoy SHOULD be remunerated. So what means are available of doing this fairly?
As an aside, for those who have posted something about downloading as a form of pseudo-protest against overlong copyright terms (not the parent post), it seems to me that your argument is basically null if you're downloading anything that isn't older than whatever you consider to be "fair" copyright.
[*] In principle this applies to any digital media, but the ease with which a 5MB mp3 can be shared (cf. a 700MB movie), makes this argument particular relevant
[**] This includes the knob-twiddlers and producers who get great in-studio performances out of artists.
+5^$\infty$
This is the best comment I have ever read on Slashdot. A geek, showing humility, pointing out his (her?) deficiency in knowledge in a tech-related area, and asking the community for clarification. Awesome.
"And because it's thinner, it feels even nicer in your pants."
Oh God I read "felch beer" the first time...(ok, it was actually kind of hot)
I see you used spaces rather than tabs... How anti-developer of you!
Somebody's clearly not a Pythonista. (oh I know, it's an awful name)
Touché, sir. Point to you.
As they say, when you point your finger at someone, you've got 3 other fingers pointing back at you
Actually, in an archetypal "index pointing" gesture, it looks more like my non-index fingers are pointing (through my palm) somewhere off to my right...maybe around 4:00.
You lived for FIVE YEARS with a hole in your diaphragm with your stomach pushed up through it and a collapsed lung?
5, Insightful? Really? REALLY?
Lots of glibness, lots of assuming, lots of erroneous "you don't need math", not so much helping. Yeesh.
(Other cutting-edge people I interact with are targeting things like OCaml -- but I'm maybe a little too pragmatic to go there just yet myself).
Some people with very practical interests do rather well with OCaml.
Oh, I should know better than to reply to an AC, especially given that a week has gone by...but what the Hell, I give it a go. The initial comment was:
Kinda like when you tell a female who is having an affair with a married man: "You know he's never going to leave his wife." The reaction is usually denial and false hope. Some day, maybe years later, they realize the truth and move on. They didn't just were not ready to acknowledge it until they are ready.
My claim of chauvinism had to do with the implication that women, but not men, are prone to denying that their lovers won't leave the person they're cuckolding (viz. that men can be just as weak as women in the portrayed scenario). Let's see what it might sound like with this implication removed:
Kinda like when you tell someone who's having an affair with a married person: "You know they're never going to leave their spouse." The reaction is usually denial and false hope. Some day, maybe years later, they realize the truth and move on. They didn't just were not ready to acknowledge it until they are ready.
Now see? That's not so bad...you're free to fill in whichever sex you think best fits the statement as you read it, or not to.
And as for the actual content of your comment:
Reading Comprehension much? You rabid little shitheads scan a paragraph and look for the word women and just throw out some bullshit "You're sexist" crap.
Standardised testing indicates that my reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Also, I don't have rabies. If you go and look at my comment history, you can assess the validity of your "scan a paragraph and look for the word women" claim.
Tell me what exactly is sexist about the poster's comment? Bet you can't tell me [...]
Oops! Looks like I did exactly that. :)
[...] but feel free to call me names [...]
Like "rabid shithead"?
[...] because not everyone subscribes to the Women Good Men Bad dogma you shit out.
If you have a look at what I wrote, I think you'll see that I subscribe more to the Everyone Bad philosophy.
This will have been pointless and you won't come back and look at it, but whatever.
Um. Chauvinist, much?
Why yes, I am CAPITALIZING random WORDS this evening
Doesn't look random at all to me. Looks like fairly judicious use of capitalization to focus particular aspects of your contribution to the discussion. :0)
Let me make an analogy we all understand. When you meet a girl [...]
YMBNH.
I think you meant...
Joss Whedon's new urban spin-off of Angel with Samuel L. Jackson as the vampire cursed with soul...
:D
The New York Times ethical standards are here:[...]
Thanks!
Also, journalists do not reveal their sources.
*Cringe*...I have a tendency (character flaw?) of not taking groups of people at their collective word...so I give "journalists do not reveal their sources" about as much weight as "cops don't take kickbacks or get free blowjobs". It only takes one bad apple
We didn't know the identity of 'deep throat' for close to 40 years despite intense speculation. More recently, journalists went to jail for not revealing the identity of their sources in the Valerie Plame case.
True enough...my concern is that this kind of moral fibre/ethical uprightness is fast waning.
Umm...no...nope, if you look right back up there, I think it's pretty clear that I said a fight between a person and a deer, in which the person only used antlers strapped to its head, would be a fair fight.
(Conversely, if you could give a deer workable digits, a rifle, and basic knowledge of rifle use, then hunting might be a fair fight.)
[...] people with knowledge of the investigation who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the inquiry
This is not a leak. It's a standard way of releasing information to the public without having to make an official statement/accusation.
(1) I was not aware that this is "standard", and I submit that that's pretty fucked up. If some journalist chose to reveal these people's names, then they either have to be fired (for doing something that they were "covertly" authorized to do), or else the investigating organization has to admit that they in fact authorized the leak.
(2) I don't see the benefit of releasing this kind of information to the public, but that's likely just shortsightedness on my part.
And the New York Times doesn't pay for information, period. Don't you (and your moderators) read any newspapers?!
(3) Didn't know that for a fact, but would have guessed it to be the NYT's stance (also, I don't actually believe it, but I suppose that's immaterial to the point at hand).
I have a baby girl and am in my final semester of grad school...you can guess how much newspaper reading I do. In any event, is there an obvious section of the NYT's online edition where it says "we don't pay for information"?