MORE (third comment): I see that kind of non-sense as dangerous no matter *where* it pops-up but a particularly bad fit for politics and academia.
Delia
P.S. I lost respect for people like Lessig when I saw what having someone bankroll an "academic based advocacy center" did to academic freedom at Harvard. (I don't think this sort of thing should be allowed at all -- it's completely incompatible with academic principles) Sounds ludicrous to hear *him* talk about corruption of all things... D.
...
Seth(third comment), I meant this for your Lessig post... (the comments box appeared to be missing there)
I think you are wrong on this one and I agree with Jon re: cult-of-personality -- gives me the creeps... (Congress is just as bad a place for something like that as academia... maybe worse...)
Delia
P.S. Lessig missed his true calling (science fiction writer) D.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
help out somebody who's *not*...going to tank
Dan,
If you think it’s going to tank, why hold on to those shares? It’s not helping anybody, is it? Why not sell them and give the money away (if you really don’t care what comes of it) –> help out someone you think it’s NOT going to tank…
Delia
If you think it’s going to tank, why hold on to those shares? It’s not helping anybody, is it? Why not sell them and give the money away (if you really don’t care what comes of it) –> help out someone you think it’s NOT going to tank…
Delia
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
my advice: skip the BS!
agree with Seth…
Delia
P.S. my advice… skip the BS! if you are going to go for profit, do it straight and honest! (or find something else to do….) if you wouldn’t do it if there wasn’t money to be made, don’t insinuate you would! unless you are playing a scam artist in a movie (or you want to be regarded as one…) D.
Delia
P.S. my advice… skip the BS! if you are going to go for profit, do it straight and honest! (or find something else to do….) if you wouldn’t do it if there wasn’t money to be made, don’t insinuate you would! unless you are playing a scam artist in a movie (or you want to be regarded as one…) D.
Monday, January 7, 2008
(valleywag) Seth has arrived!
re: http://valleywag.com/341772/wikia-not-so-transparent-says-uk-hack
10th comment
You've arrived, Seth! :) (you made Valleywag) -- all your labor was not in vain...
Delia
P.S. I know, I know... it's not the New York Times. Then again, at least on one topic (craigslist) they appear to be much smarter than the NYT journalists...
P.P.S oh... and looks like Gates is talking to them (recent entry) so you are not in bad company... D.
10th comment
You've arrived, Seth! :) (you made Valleywag) -- all your labor was not in vain...
Delia
P.S. I know, I know... it's not the New York Times. Then again, at least on one topic (craigslist) they appear to be much smarter than the NYT journalists...
P.P.S oh... and looks like Gates is talking to them (recent entry) so you are not in bad company... D.
Monday, December 24, 2007
the name of the game
EVEN MORE: yeah… again, thoughtful criticism would have been refreshing… D.
MORE:
Jon,
While you are at it (well… whenever you get around to posting it) it would be good to know what you think of Seth’s position on this. Thanks!
Delia
...
re: “They can be dislodged.”
… and what would *that* solve? you’d just have new *names* but the same flawed system — alliances are formed, interests are protected and fortunes are made (in the name of “serving the people”) — *largely,* that’s the name of the game… Seth is right on this. D.
MORE:
Jon,
While you are at it (well… whenever you get around to posting it) it would be good to know what you think of Seth’s position on this. Thanks!
Delia
...
re: “They can be dislodged.”
… and what would *that* solve? you’d just have new *names* but the same flawed system — alliances are formed, interests are protected and fortunes are made (in the name of “serving the people”) — *largely,* that’s the name of the game… Seth is right on this. D.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
the better way to do it
18th comment: tqft: "Net Neutrality," in general, would serve corporate interests, agreed... (craigslist among them -- no wonder Craig is loudly praising Obama) but things like whether or not ISPs should have yet another means to annoy a large part of their customers or whether people should be concerned that the ISPs want to do something about their unwarranted right to block any site they want... these are serious issues OUTSIDE of the "Net Neutrality" interests. Do they try to USE them to justify "Net Neutrality"? yes! Seth is right on this... but not on dismissing the issues themselves. Talking about ways of dealing with the issues *without* having them be used to justify "Net Neutrality" would be the better way to go about it... I think... D.
16th comment: They *might*? Come on, Seth... you really think they WOULDN'T do it if they could get away with it? who *knows* if it would really violate those laws until expensive litigation goes through?
"In the US, ISP's already have, BY LAW, broad ability to block any site they want, and have had that ability for a DECADE. Nobody cared..." --> are you suggesting people *shouldn't* care? what side are you on, Seth?
Delia
14th comment:It seems to me that you would have to trust the ISPs not to abuse it and I see no good reason to do that... do you, Seth?:) D.
12th comment:as long as it's LIMITED to messages pertaining to the *functionality* of the service, I suppose it's not exactly "evil"... but once it's done, what would stop the ISPs from just putting ads or other things in that space? wouldn't we be better off to leave it as it is and have these people call the ISP if they have trouble and don't know what to do? most of them would end-up doing that, anyways...D.
1oth comment: oops! you said it *had* to be opt-out? I don't understand why... D.
EVEN MORE (9th comment)ok...then make it opt-in! (that would make sure people *want* it and it's not just a way to put in ads or who knows what later on without peoples' actual consent...) D.
MORE (7th comment)Seth, you don't really believe people would opt into this kind of thing, do you? (they should make it an *opt-in* if they really think some would *want* this -- I highly doubt it -- opt-outs are just taking advantage of the fact that at least some people just would NOT spend any more time reading extra stuff so ... so *technically* they haven't said "no"...but they haven't really made a CHOICE either...) D.
Seth,(5th comment)
you'd think someone would figure out how to block such ISP "messages/"ads or whatever the way you can block regular ads.
Delia
P.S. I agree with tqft, the ISPs should have the decency to take no for an answer... and stop trying to get in through the chimney and the like -- people are just going to figure out how to block the chimney so you only get the poor souls that don't know how to find this stuff to hate you
even more and for good reason... D.
16th comment: They *might*? Come on, Seth... you really think they WOULDN'T do it if they could get away with it? who *knows* if it would really violate those laws until expensive litigation goes through?
"In the US, ISP's already have, BY LAW, broad ability to block any site they want, and have had that ability for a DECADE. Nobody cared..." --> are you suggesting people *shouldn't* care? what side are you on, Seth?
Delia
14th comment:It seems to me that you would have to trust the ISPs not to abuse it and I see no good reason to do that... do you, Seth?:) D.
12th comment:as long as it's LIMITED to messages pertaining to the *functionality* of the service, I suppose it's not exactly "evil"... but once it's done, what would stop the ISPs from just putting ads or other things in that space? wouldn't we be better off to leave it as it is and have these people call the ISP if they have trouble and don't know what to do? most of them would end-up doing that, anyways...D.
1oth comment: oops! you said it *had* to be opt-out? I don't understand why... D.
EVEN MORE (9th comment)ok...then make it opt-in! (that would make sure people *want* it and it's not just a way to put in ads or who knows what later on without peoples' actual consent...) D.
MORE (7th comment)Seth, you don't really believe people would opt into this kind of thing, do you? (they should make it an *opt-in* if they really think some would *want* this -- I highly doubt it -- opt-outs are just taking advantage of the fact that at least some people just would NOT spend any more time reading extra stuff so ... so *technically* they haven't said "no"...but they haven't really made a CHOICE either...) D.
Seth,(5th comment)
you'd think someone would figure out how to block such ISP "messages/"ads or whatever the way you can block regular ads.
Delia
P.S. I agree with tqft, the ISPs should have the decency to take no for an answer... and stop trying to get in through the chimney and the like -- people are just going to figure out how to block the chimney so you only get the poor souls that don't know how to find this stuff to hate you
even more and for good reason... D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)