I never signed up and have never been a member of that particular site nor have I ever signed up with any other social networking sites. I have never consented under any accepted definition of consent. They're just stealing my personal information because I wasn't aware that they were collecting it from 3rd party sites back before I learned better.
This isn't like being out in public and spotted by a family friend doing something strange, I don't have the ability to readily identify who's watching me.
So? Being a hypocrite doesn't make one incapable of being a leader. This whole public has a right to know has gotten way out of line. This isn't just something that journalists dig up for family values pols, it's something they dig up about all pols where they can because it sells papers, regardless of whether there's any legitimate public interest involved and regardless of whether everybody involved was a consented adult.
At the end of the day if Sen. X wants to have a foursome with his wife, a circus clown and a midget named Mr. Pickorini, I can't imagine how that's any of my business.
If everybody was perfect and acting within social norms at all times there would be no need for privacy. Privacy is there because we don't always do things that everybody approves of.
That aspect concerns me more than anything else. I haven't consented to them storing information about me, and it's completely beyond me why the government doesn't put the smackdown on them for tracking people that haven't agreed to it.
You're being obtuse, the point of privacy rights is that you don't know why you need them until it's too late. He answered the question quite well by having my information being spread by other people there are any number of bad things which can result.
There have been many people harmed by an unexpected loss of privacy over the years from politicians that had to resign in disgrace to people that were later blackmailed to the many celebrities that now have their sex lives on the internet because somebody else released the footage.
And don't forget about that teacher that was fired because of a picture of her online drinking out of a red plastic cup, lord knows what she was actually drinking, but she was ultimately fired because of the picture.
The problem with privacy loss is that you don't know what the damage is until it's too late. I don't personally have a FB account or account on other social networking sites because I value my privacy. But, that doesn't mean that there aren't photos of me online that other people posted, I personally have no control over that and by the time I find out that I've been harmed it's too late to do anything about it.
No, the problem is that because he didn't plan you have way too much material happening all at once without any particular rhyme or reason. On top of that you have the excessively flowery language which further obscures the plot.
Now, if you're not writing for people to read then there's no reason to worry about the audience, but if you're writing for an audience then it's really your responsibility to ensure that every word in the book needs to be there that every page and every sentence is moving things along towards the conclusion. The difference between a series like The Chronicles of Narnia and the LOTR shouldn't be that the plot is completely obscured, Steinbeck did just fine writing for adults using very simple language. Hemingway would rewrite a passage dozens of times if he didn't get the words write. Books for children tend to use simpler language and simpler themes, they don't necessarily dumb down the plot that much.
In terms of the LOTR, he failed largely because he didn't spend the time to learn his craft, sure the books are considered classics, but one can only imagine what could have been had he spent a similar amount of effort on the craft of writing and plot development that he did on the lore. One of the quickest ways to kill a book is to use too many words to get where you're going. The story he was trying to tell deserved better than to be strangled by ill considered prose and a lack of evidence of progress.
Well, he was being a bit of an ass about it, but he is completely right. I've resisted the urge to make a FB page or on any other site and I had been reconsidering it lately. Not to put much information up, but to coordinate things, but it's been a couple months and I can't get over the what Moglen is on about in this article. I just can't stand the idea of being a part of the problem.
I've contemplated in the past creating a FB account with no personal information just so that I can like random things for prizes, but I don't really want to encourage that sort of thing.
The problem with that is that things like the FBI, DoD and other agencies that are particularly useless never seem to be affected by GOP cost cutting the way that useful things like the FAA, FDA and DSHS are.
Or you could do it like they did back in olden days where you figured out what the code should do in basic terms then went about writing the code. If you're not going to bother to follow a plan up until the point where you've covered the things that you need, then I'm not sure why you'd expect to ever finish.
I'm not really sure I understand why one would expect to program without a game plan and then wonder why later on it's taking so long to optimize and generally fix.
There's nothing principled about making a decision and sticking to it regardless of what the facts suggest one do. As President he would be continuously getting more and more information and some of it would turn out to be wrong. Sticking to old stances when new facts come in isn't a wise move for a leader.
Somebody that's incapable of compromise is not desirable as a leader. President Bush had a habit of never backing down and never compromising through his first term in office and ultimately he got basically nothing done his second term because he had so pissed off the opposition that when his own party turned on him he couldn't make any deals with the Democrats.
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
That was definitely a big one, another one was the debt ceiling vote where they could have had a much larger reduction in spending, but pissed it away because of a small amount of increased taxation on the richest Americans.
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical and most Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them. Most Americans do support legalization of marijuana, but they don't support legalizing drugs in general. Most Americans are opposed to the kind of isolationist foreign policy he's pushing for even the liberal voters that are more amenable to pulling out of our free trade agreements.
In short appealing to an extremely small minority isn't something that's likely to win any votes, but if you want to throw your vote away go for it, it is your right to vote for whomever you wish, just do us all a favor and don't pretend like Ron Paul's chances are the result of some sort of conspiracy, they aren't.
The establishment would be afraid of him if he wasn't appealing to such a tiny demographic and had some hope of being elected to the Presidency. I'm not sure why you would assume that a candidate that can't even win a state wide race is going to have better luck with a nationwide one.
Also, this is a false dilemma, if people would vote for the candidate that best represents their point of view we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems that we're having. Around here we solved the problem by fixing the districting system and taking the power to nominate candidates away from the parties. So far it's been working quite well for us.
Yeah, but the AC vote is definitely going to Santorum as they finally have Santorum to go with their frosty piss. Seriously just Google Santorum and you'll see why ACs prefer it.
Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate. I'm sorry to break it to you, but he's just about the last person that ought to be in charge of a country the size of the US. Excessive rigidity in thinking is just as dangerous, if not more so, than excessive malleability is. Most people want a candidate that represents them and doesn't change his or her mind without good cause. Having somebody that refuses to change his or her mind ever isn't something that's going to work well. Just look at the TEA Party morons that lost out on a big win because they weren't willing to compromise a little.
Honestly, that was my impression as well. There was a lot going on and the plot wasn't as well constructed as some other series were. In many ways it probably would have worked better if it had been split into more books with less going on at any given time. Granted it was a different audience, but I found the Chronicles of Narnia to be significantly easier to follow due in large part the planning that went into writing them and not trying to do too much in any one book
Personally, I loved the Hobbit, but there was a lot less lore and a lot less going on at any given time and it was structured in a way that was much easier to follow.
It's not a weasel word, it's a reflection that the future isn't yet known. If we already knew the answer what would be the point of speculating on it in the first place?
I realize that there are lots of people out there that have a pathological hatred of qualifiers, but they do serve a purpose and that's to inform the reader that there is uncertainty. And ideally they should give some indication about the reliability of the prediction.
Part of the problem is that JRR Tolkien used probably the least efficient method of writing ever devised. He would start writing until he hit a brick wall and then he would start over from scratch. It's not necessarily wrong to do it like that, but it does take a lot longer than doing it the more standard way.
That being said, he did write more than just the LOTR trilogy and in recent times we've had much stronger writers being passed over for what will almost certainly be even more trivial crimes against literature.
That's largely correct, but a huge amount of that traffic isn't the subscriber it's various scams. I'm not sure what the numbers are presently, but a few years back most traffic was spam and various malware communiques.
And I suppose before long people are going to expect to be able to actually get a signal. Fortunately for AT&T nobody signs up with them that actually intends to use their phone for anything other than WiFi.
Slashdot Mirror
I never signed up and have never been a member of that particular site nor have I ever signed up with any other social networking sites. I have never consented under any accepted definition of consent. They're just stealing my personal information because I wasn't aware that they were collecting it from 3rd party sites back before I learned better.
This isn't like being out in public and spotted by a family friend doing something strange, I don't have the ability to readily identify who's watching me.
So? Being a hypocrite doesn't make one incapable of being a leader. This whole public has a right to know has gotten way out of line. This isn't just something that journalists dig up for family values pols, it's something they dig up about all pols where they can because it sells papers, regardless of whether there's any legitimate public interest involved and regardless of whether everybody involved was a consented adult.
At the end of the day if Sen. X wants to have a foursome with his wife, a circus clown and a midget named Mr. Pickorini, I can't imagine how that's any of my business.
If everybody was perfect and acting within social norms at all times there would be no need for privacy. Privacy is there because we don't always do things that everybody approves of.
That aspect concerns me more than anything else. I haven't consented to them storing information about me, and it's completely beyond me why the government doesn't put the smackdown on them for tracking people that haven't agreed to it.
You're being obtuse, the point of privacy rights is that you don't know why you need them until it's too late. He answered the question quite well by having my information being spread by other people there are any number of bad things which can result.
There have been many people harmed by an unexpected loss of privacy over the years from politicians that had to resign in disgrace to people that were later blackmailed to the many celebrities that now have their sex lives on the internet because somebody else released the footage.
And don't forget about that teacher that was fired because of a picture of her online drinking out of a red plastic cup, lord knows what she was actually drinking, but she was ultimately fired because of the picture.
But, this is web 2.0 now. Completely safe.
The problem with privacy loss is that you don't know what the damage is until it's too late. I don't personally have a FB account or account on other social networking sites because I value my privacy. But, that doesn't mean that there aren't photos of me online that other people posted, I personally have no control over that and by the time I find out that I've been harmed it's too late to do anything about it.
They spelled it right, you just changed it by reading it.
No, the problem is that because he didn't plan you have way too much material happening all at once without any particular rhyme or reason. On top of that you have the excessively flowery language which further obscures the plot.
Now, if you're not writing for people to read then there's no reason to worry about the audience, but if you're writing for an audience then it's really your responsibility to ensure that every word in the book needs to be there that every page and every sentence is moving things along towards the conclusion. The difference between a series like The Chronicles of Narnia and the LOTR shouldn't be that the plot is completely obscured, Steinbeck did just fine writing for adults using very simple language. Hemingway would rewrite a passage dozens of times if he didn't get the words write. Books for children tend to use simpler language and simpler themes, they don't necessarily dumb down the plot that much.
In terms of the LOTR, he failed largely because he didn't spend the time to learn his craft, sure the books are considered classics, but one can only imagine what could have been had he spent a similar amount of effort on the craft of writing and plot development that he did on the lore. One of the quickest ways to kill a book is to use too many words to get where you're going. The story he was trying to tell deserved better than to be strangled by ill considered prose and a lack of evidence of progress.
Well, he was being a bit of an ass about it, but he is completely right. I've resisted the urge to make a FB page or on any other site and I had been reconsidering it lately. Not to put much information up, but to coordinate things, but it's been a couple months and I can't get over the what Moglen is on about in this article. I just can't stand the idea of being a part of the problem.
I've contemplated in the past creating a FB account with no personal information just so that I can like random things for prizes, but I don't really want to encourage that sort of thing.
The problem with that is that things like the FBI, DoD and other agencies that are particularly useless never seem to be affected by GOP cost cutting the way that useful things like the FAA, FDA and DSHS are.
Don't worry that money didn't come out of their budget for looking at child porn. Er, for child porn, for.
Or you could do it like they did back in olden days where you figured out what the code should do in basic terms then went about writing the code. If you're not going to bother to follow a plan up until the point where you've covered the things that you need, then I'm not sure why you'd expect to ever finish.
I'm not really sure I understand why one would expect to program without a game plan and then wonder why later on it's taking so long to optimize and generally fix.
I miss the days when moderation was done by people with half a brain, these days it's more than you can hope for.
There's nothing principled about making a decision and sticking to it regardless of what the facts suggest one do. As President he would be continuously getting more and more information and some of it would turn out to be wrong. Sticking to old stances when new facts come in isn't a wise move for a leader.
Somebody that's incapable of compromise is not desirable as a leader. President Bush had a habit of never backing down and never compromising through his first term in office and ultimately he got basically nothing done his second term because he had so pissed off the opposition that when his own party turned on him he couldn't make any deals with the Democrats.
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
That was definitely a big one, another one was the debt ceiling vote where they could have had a much larger reduction in spending, but pissed it away because of a small amount of increased taxation on the richest Americans.
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical and most Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them. Most Americans do support legalization of marijuana, but they don't support legalizing drugs in general. Most Americans are opposed to the kind of isolationist foreign policy he's pushing for even the liberal voters that are more amenable to pulling out of our free trade agreements.
In short appealing to an extremely small minority isn't something that's likely to win any votes, but if you want to throw your vote away go for it, it is your right to vote for whomever you wish, just do us all a favor and don't pretend like Ron Paul's chances are the result of some sort of conspiracy, they aren't.
The establishment would be afraid of him if he wasn't appealing to such a tiny demographic and had some hope of being elected to the Presidency. I'm not sure why you would assume that a candidate that can't even win a state wide race is going to have better luck with a nationwide one.
Also, this is a false dilemma, if people would vote for the candidate that best represents their point of view we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems that we're having. Around here we solved the problem by fixing the districting system and taking the power to nominate candidates away from the parties. So far it's been working quite well for us.
Yeah, but the AC vote is definitely going to Santorum as they finally have Santorum to go with their frosty piss. Seriously just Google Santorum and you'll see why ACs prefer it.
Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate. I'm sorry to break it to you, but he's just about the last person that ought to be in charge of a country the size of the US. Excessive rigidity in thinking is just as dangerous, if not more so, than excessive malleability is. Most people want a candidate that represents them and doesn't change his or her mind without good cause. Having somebody that refuses to change his or her mind ever isn't something that's going to work well. Just look at the TEA Party morons that lost out on a big win because they weren't willing to compromise a little.
I guess he lost me before that point. I honestly did try to read it, but I got so bored with the plot that wasn't going anywhere that I gave up.
Honestly, that was my impression as well.
There was a lot going on and the plot wasn't as well constructed as some other series were. In many ways it probably would have worked better if it had been split into more books with less going on at any given time. Granted it was a different audience, but I found the Chronicles of Narnia to be significantly easier to follow due in large part the planning that went into writing them and not trying to do too much in any one book
Personally, I loved the Hobbit, but there was a lot less lore and a lot less going on at any given time and it was structured in a way that was much easier to follow.
It's not a weasel word, it's a reflection that the future isn't yet known. If we already knew the answer what would be the point of speculating on it in the first place?
I realize that there are lots of people out there that have a pathological hatred of qualifiers, but they do serve a purpose and that's to inform the reader that there is uncertainty. And ideally they should give some indication about the reliability of the prediction.
Part of the problem is that JRR Tolkien used probably the least efficient method of writing ever devised. He would start writing until he hit a brick wall and then he would start over from scratch. It's not necessarily wrong to do it like that, but it does take a lot longer than doing it the more standard way.
That being said, he did write more than just the LOTR trilogy and in recent times we've had much stronger writers being passed over for what will almost certainly be even more trivial crimes against literature.
That's largely correct, but a huge amount of that traffic isn't the subscriber it's various scams. I'm not sure what the numbers are presently, but a few years back most traffic was spam and various malware communiques.
And I suppose before long people are going to expect to be able to actually get a signal. Fortunately for AT&T nobody signs up with them that actually intends to use their phone for anything other than WiFi.