The ministry of adblocking, which displays advertisements.
In all seriousness though, who thought this was a good idea? We use adblock to block advertisements. I do not want the developers deciding for me which advertisements will not be blocks; the only person who should control the whitelist is me.
So what? From a policy perspective, why should marijuana and cocaine be treated differently? People overdose on alcohol all the time, and there are a few cases each year of people overdosing on tobacco. There are plenty of cases of overdoses on pharmaceutical drugs, even over-the-counter drugs.
I was not trying to say that from a medical perspective marijuana and cocaine are the same. The question here is about legalization and how the government should deal with drugs, and the answer to that question should not be, "declare some drugs to be legal and others to be illegal!" People should be able to buy regulated cocaine from their neighborhood drug store, just like they can buy regulated alcohol and regulated tobacco.
Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet
Thus explaining why I go to so many Chinese-language websites. The truth is that there most certainly are national borders on the web and on the Internet, but the borders are not as arbitrary as the borders on a world map. Borders on the Internet are formed by the identity of groups of people, who are brought together by common cultures, common languages, common needs, etc.
Otherwise I agree, SOPA is so anti-American that any congressman who votes for it should face impeachment proceedings.
My recollection is that MTV didn't even have commercials when it first started
What do you think music videos are? The point of MTV was to advertise music to teenagers, and they gradually became a platform for advertising everything else.
Clearly the war on drugs is very successful and victory is immanent.
Actually, I think it has been successful. How else would law enforcement have been able to convince people that they need automatic weapons, panopticon surveillance capabilities, and the right to seize private property and recycle the proceeds into their own budgets? The war on drugs has been vastly successful for all the prison companies and their investors, the firearms companies and their investors, surveillance equipment makers, and all those politicians who can always vote for more war-on-drugs funding as a way to get some cheap votes.
The message of consumerism was far stronger and less diluted then than it is now.
Perhaps you should take a look at what your grandkids and their friends are watching. I have trouble believing that you could push the consumerism message much stronger than this crap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_girl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_the_city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN (no, really, this is not just about sports)
Today's methods of advertising and convincing people to buy things are less overt than they were in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but they are far more effective. Popular TV shows, and especially shows whose target audience is the 13-24 age, are designed to cultivate a desire to buy things -- clothes, soft drinks, video games, fast food, music, etc. The whole point of MTV, from its inception, was to be a 24/7 advertisement to teenagers, and there has been an effort to maximize the amount of advertising that can be squeezed into every minute.
Today's message is this: buy things. Period. You are not supposed to be a participant in a capitalist system, exchanging your skills and goods for some other person's, you are just supposed to buy things that other people made.
doesn't think there's some agenda to pour out crappy media
Crappy media is secondary to the real agenda: convincing everyone that they should keep buying things. That is why none of the big entertainment companies* were willing to advertise this:
The message of the big media companies is that you should be out buying your way to happiness. The medium is irrelevant, the old media executives will find a way to take control of everything -- already, they are finding ways to turn blogs, Facebook, and other "new media" concepts into new vehicles for their message.
Everyone in the world today has the technology to block 99.9% of all advertising
Technology that is going unused by the masses. If it is not the default, it is not going to be used by more than a minority of people.
each of us has the power to take control. The choice is ours.
If the proles knew their strength, they would have no need to conspire. Except that the proles need someone to show them their strength, and they only pay attention to the very mainstream media that will never do such a thing.
Just another corporate apologist trying to convince us that everything is fine and that we should just go on with our lives.
It is not that these companies are conspiring to make our entertainment crappy just for some lulz. They want to convey a particular message and manipulate the population in a particular way. The major media companies refused to air a commercial that encouraged people not to buy anything for just one day -- even though they were being offered the standard rate for airing commercials. The popular shows are just the cheapest possible way to mold everyone's minds, from preschool through adulthood.
The conspiracy is this: condition everyone to believe that they should buy as many things as possible, and that the ultimate goal in their lives should be to make enough money to do so. Popular entertainment exists to convey that message, with a few hints about what to buy (MacDonald's, diamonds, cars, video games, etc.).
Professors can request that libraries make copies of textbooks available to students. This is especially true in cases where the library has multiple copies of a textbook (e.g. for basic courses in calculus or physics) and where the material is not being updated with each new edition (which is essentially the case with all textbooks these days). The publishing industry has tried to pull underhanded tactics where they switch around practice problems, but professors are not obligated to assign problems from the book.
Additionally I have seen plenty of textbook sharing among students, at least when it comes to doing homework. Students are in no way obligated to buy all of their textbooks if they do not want a copy.
That is what this is really about. They want to be able to reduce management overhead by having people work from home while still allowing someone to look in on everyone to make sure everyone is working.
The those who penned the constitution understood this or else they would have just had the freedom of speach clause and not the freedom of the press clause
In 1787 printing presses -- "the press" -- were the only way to broadcast messages. There was no radio, Internet, or photocopier, just the press or the pen. That they said, "freedom of the press," and not, "freedom of the newspapers" shows that they did not merely intend to protect established media sources, but any citizens who wish to publish their ideas for masses. It would seem that copy machines, radio broadcasting systems, and Internet connections are a natural extension of "the press" and are therefore entitled to the same protections.
Yes, you can offer protection to your sources -- you can have your sources send messages to you anonymously. Use Tor, set up a hidden service and have your sources contact you via that hidden service. Part of the job of a journalist in the 21st century is to use whatever technical measures are available to protect the confidentiality of sources. It may come to the point of being imprisoned for taking such a stand, but journalists are expected to be prepared for imprisonment before they betray their sources. If bloggers are journalists, then bloggers need to start acting like journalists.
Too much potential for abuse here. The courts might have an anti-communist bent, and refuse to acknowledge that a publication by Communist Party USA is a newspaper. A few high-level criminals might take advantage of laws intended to protect journalists, but the enormous good done by protecting journalists from prosecution outweighs any potential problems with criminal abuses. Our justice system does not exist as a way to punish every guilty person, it exists as a way to protect people -- protect us from both dangerous people and from overreaching government agents.
It is hard for the US to call out other countries on their censorship when the US government itself is pushing for censorship. Here is what the conversation looks like:
US: Hey, Iran! Stop blocking foreign websites!
Iran: We are just blocking websites that break our laws. You did the same thing when it came to copyright infringement!
US: Well that was different. Copyright infringement is theft!
Iran: Yeah well those foreign websites amounted to an attempt to coerce our citizens to rebel against the government! That is even worse!
US: Well uhh you see...you are doing it for political reasons, so that is bad!
Iran: Well what is up with your copyright lobbyists and the influence they wield over your congress and executive branch?
US: herp derp.
Blocking websites like this is a bad thing; I wholeheartedly agree. Now, what was that about the Obama administration pushing for a Great Firewall of America?
Slashdot Mirror
The ministry of adblocking, which displays advertisements.
In all seriousness though, who thought this was a good idea? We use adblock to block advertisements. I do not want the developers deciding for me which advertisements will not be blocks; the only person who should control the whitelist is me.
So what? From a policy perspective, why should marijuana and cocaine be treated differently? People overdose on alcohol all the time, and there are a few cases each year of people overdosing on tobacco. There are plenty of cases of overdoses on pharmaceutical drugs, even over-the-counter drugs.
I was not trying to say that from a medical perspective marijuana and cocaine are the same. The question here is about legalization and how the government should deal with drugs, and the answer to that question should not be, "declare some drugs to be legal and others to be illegal!" People should be able to buy regulated cocaine from their neighborhood drug store, just like they can buy regulated alcohol and regulated tobacco.
Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet
Thus explaining why I go to so many Chinese-language websites. The truth is that there most certainly are national borders on the web and on the Internet, but the borders are not as arbitrary as the borders on a world map. Borders on the Internet are formed by the identity of groups of people, who are brought together by common cultures, common languages, common needs, etc.
Otherwise I agree, SOPA is so anti-American that any congressman who votes for it should face impeachment proceedings.
Although, weed is a completely different story than cocaine.
How is that, exactly?
Or just all drugs. Why are we continuing to pretend that the issue is "which drugs should be legal" as opposed to simply "let's end the war on drugs?"
My recollection is that MTV didn't even have commercials when it first started
What do you think music videos are? The point of MTV was to advertise music to teenagers, and they gradually became a platform for advertising everything else.
Clearly the war on drugs is very successful and victory is immanent.
Actually, I think it has been successful. How else would law enforcement have been able to convince people that they need automatic weapons, panopticon surveillance capabilities, and the right to seize private property and recycle the proceeds into their own budgets? The war on drugs has been vastly successful for all the prison companies and their investors, the firearms companies and their investors, surveillance equipment makers, and all those politicians who can always vote for more war-on-drugs funding as a way to get some cheap votes.
The message of consumerism was far stronger and less diluted then than it is now.
Perhaps you should take a look at what your grandkids and their friends are watching. I have trouble believing that you could push the consumerism message much stronger than this crap:
Today's methods of advertising and convincing people to buy things are less overt than they were in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, but they are far more effective. Popular TV shows, and especially shows whose target audience is the 13-24 age, are designed to cultivate a desire to buy things -- clothes, soft drinks, video games, fast food, music, etc. The whole point of MTV, from its inception, was to be a 24/7 advertisement to teenagers, and there has been an effort to maximize the amount of advertising that can be squeezed into every minute.
Today's message is this: buy things. Period. You are not supposed to be a participant in a capitalist system, exchanging your skills and goods for some other person's, you are just supposed to buy things that other people made.
doesn't think there's some agenda to pour out crappy media
Crappy media is secondary to the real agenda: convincing everyone that they should keep buying things. That is why none of the big entertainment companies* were willing to advertise this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day
* Feel free to insert remarks about news being a form of entertainment, Mr. Murdoch.
Everyone in the world today has the technology to block 99.9% of all advertising
Technology that is going unused by the masses. If it is not the default, it is not going to be used by more than a minority of people.
each of us has the power to take control. The choice is ours.
If the proles knew their strength, they would have no need to conspire. Except that the proles need someone to show them their strength, and they only pay attention to the very mainstream media that will never do such a thing.
Just another corporate apologist trying to convince us that everything is fine and that we should just go on with our lives.
It is not that these companies are conspiring to make our entertainment crappy just for some lulz. They want to convey a particular message and manipulate the population in a particular way. The major media companies refused to air a commercial that encouraged people not to buy anything for just one day -- even though they were being offered the standard rate for airing commercials. The popular shows are just the cheapest possible way to mold everyone's minds, from preschool through adulthood.
The conspiracy is this: condition everyone to believe that they should buy as many things as possible, and that the ultimate goal in their lives should be to make enough money to do so. Popular entertainment exists to convey that message, with a few hints about what to buy (MacDonald's, diamonds, cars, video games, etc.).
students (and I am talking University Students here) MUST buy them
Really? Funny how all the universities I have seen have had one of these lying around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library
Professors can request that libraries make copies of textbooks available to students. This is especially true in cases where the library has multiple copies of a textbook (e.g. for basic courses in calculus or physics) and where the material is not being updated with each new edition (which is essentially the case with all textbooks these days). The publishing industry has tried to pull underhanded tactics where they switch around practice problems, but professors are not obligated to assign problems from the book.
Additionally I have seen plenty of textbook sharing among students, at least when it comes to doing homework. Students are in no way obligated to buy all of their textbooks if they do not want a copy.
IE sucks!
Just playing my part...
they can prove you are not really working.
That is what this is really about. They want to be able to reduce management overhead by having people work from home while still allowing someone to look in on everyone to make sure everyone is working.
In every case, Big Brother is invited
Protect us from those dangerous people! Please put in surveillance equipment! Please rig the phone system for panopticon-style wiretapping!
The those who penned the constitution understood this or else they would have just had the freedom of speach clause and not the freedom of the press clause
In 1787 printing presses -- "the press" -- were the only way to broadcast messages. There was no radio, Internet, or photocopier, just the press or the pen. That they said, "freedom of the press," and not, "freedom of the newspapers" shows that they did not merely intend to protect established media sources, but any citizens who wish to publish their ideas for masses. It would seem that copy machines, radio broadcasting systems, and Internet connections are a natural extension of "the press" and are therefore entitled to the same protections.
Note that the first amendment protects your right to publish. It does not necessarily make you immune from all repercussions of what your write.
Hmm...so I have the right to say anything, but if I say the wrong thing, I could face punishment for doing so?
The first amendment applies to all of us...
Yeah, it "applies" to all of us, as long as we are not "assholes."
Translation: you are free to exercise your rights, but you might be punished for doing so.
The same way judges missed the part about "freedom of the press" including "freedom to publish anti-draft literature:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Yes, you can offer protection to your sources -- you can have your sources send messages to you anonymously. Use Tor, set up a hidden service and have your sources contact you via that hidden service. Part of the job of a journalist in the 21st century is to use whatever technical measures are available to protect the confidentiality of sources. It may come to the point of being imprisoned for taking such a stand, but journalists are expected to be prepared for imprisonment before they betray their sources. If bloggers are journalists, then bloggers need to start acting like journalists.
Too much potential for abuse here. The courts might have an anti-communist bent, and refuse to acknowledge that a publication by Communist Party USA is a newspaper. A few high-level criminals might take advantage of laws intended to protect journalists, but the enormous good done by protecting journalists from prosecution outweighs any potential problems with criminal abuses. Our justice system does not exist as a way to punish every guilty person, it exists as a way to protect people -- protect us from both dangerous people and from overreaching government agents.
Cloud service providers may be required to hand over data, but do they have the means of handing over the encryption keys along with it?
Well, it depends on what you mean by "cloud," but...
http://digital-lifestyles.info/2007/11/09/hushmail-opens-emails-to-us-dea/
It is hard for the US to call out other countries on their censorship when the US government itself is pushing for censorship. Here is what the conversation looks like:
US: Hey, Iran! Stop blocking foreign websites!
Iran: We are just blocking websites that break our laws. You did the same thing when it came to copyright infringement!
US: Well that was different. Copyright infringement is theft!
Iran: Yeah well those foreign websites amounted to an attempt to coerce our citizens to rebel against the government! That is even worse!
US: Well uhh you see...you are doing it for political reasons, so that is bad!
Iran: Well what is up with your copyright lobbyists and the influence they wield over your congress and executive branch?
US: herp derp.
Blocking websites like this is a bad thing; I wholeheartedly agree. Now, what was that about the Obama administration pushing for a Great Firewall of America?