User talk:Amw

From InfoAnarchy
Jump to: navigation, search

If music is created for profit, then why should I care if the artist is reimbursed?. - ABliss

You should care because part of being a Good person is respecting other people's wishes. If a person creates something and wishes to sell it instead of give it away, then i consider the ethical thing to do to be to respect that and pay, or ignore the product altogether. -- Amw
The only wish from another person that I think is ethically and morally just is not to harm another. I think its always best to share and to take that which is shared. You should think about the ethics of intellectual property and the fight against disease and the suffering of a painful AIDS death. Imagine the lives that would be saved if the drug companies were not able to Maintain the Drug Pricing Monopoly. But does the world really need a thriving healthy Africa? They would need energy for their economies, wouldn't they? - ABliss
Put simply, a society that doesn't support its artists is doomed. There have been arguements about this stretching back a loooong time. I'll dig up some if you need. Webfork
It wouldn't matter what historical account you dig up, we now have a pretty good information system, where the artists right's arguement becomes very weak. I'd never ever consider paying for bits and pieces of content, once. - ABliss.
Twice in one thread! Dudes, get it right - it's "argument" ;-) -- Amw

I liked your definition of Xenophobic better than the one I came up with. Webfork

Thanks. Wikis are cool in that you can just put up a thought and have someone else flesh it out a bit, come back to it, tweak... It's nifty. -- Amw

Thanks for the /Talk link =) crtn

One day i'm going to move out of the USA...

Early today I was thinking of an automated spelling error detection and notification system. Instead of checking each document or file for checking it would be good to turn a program on a bunch of stuff written by one person to detect their common spelling and even grammar mistakes and then summarize the analysis for systematic mistakes where the user could then be correctly with an explanation, hyperlink to dictionary or wikipedia entries etc. I wonder if someone has made something like this already?

Bad spelling has never really bothered me much. Ambigouty is more of a pain. - ABliss

Spelling mistakes always bother me. I'm not sure why, but they really ruin the flow of something i'm reading. My overanalytical brain getting in the way of a good time again :) I agree that what you're thinking about is a cool idea. I've had some other ideas about the Wiki too, such as having it automatically suggest words in your entry to wiki-fy by running a search when you preview... All kinds of stuff. But Erik has been a bit vague about the situation of the source code. He wants to move it over to Wikipedia and doesn't want any more custom extensions... Which pretty much keeps my hands tied. This sort of stuff shouldn't be client-side, it should be processed on the server directly when you enter stuff. -- Amw
Yeah, I wish Eric was more involved. Its a great site and a good wiki but when the owner/administrator is busy elsewhere, it is a little discouraging. - ABliss

Okay, I had to back out of that Censorship talk session to make this statement:

  1. Something that is fair and ballanced is something that is fair and ballanced. I don't know how people can say "we're fair and ballanced (in relation to the rest of the media)" That's like "we are not against the gay community (but we sure do think they're evil)." If you want to support that, then please allow me to make statements that work when you consider it in relation to all the other discussions out there. That'll sure advance discourse here on iA and everywhere else! I'm a butterfly!
  2. The media does not have a Liberal bias and, quite the contrary: it has a conservative bias. I need to find a few links to support this (and because of physical limitations, I'm not in a position to do so at the moment) but a non-partisan watch-group found that the way journalist's opinions versus the average person are slanted very conservative. And, in the last election, that Gore had a huge media bias against him with far more negative stories done on him than Bush. How else could we have elected an AWOL former cocaine user? I also understand conservatives are always really hard on liberals who cheat on their wives or who exhibit have some type of conflict of interest but they're really forgiving of their own. At least their hearts are in the right place, I imagine they say to themselves.
  3. The "liberal media" pounded Bill Clinton for having extramarital sex but didn't give him credit for having a fantastic anti-terror policy and for creating the largest surpluss in the US treasury since 1960. (Which, in 2 years, Bush transformed that into the largest deficit.)
  4. The media is big business (Viacom, Disney, GE, etc.) continually consolidating since the 50s so it is inherantly going to support things that are good for themselves. Republicans are pro-big business. Now picture: your editor-in-chief's boss calls him on the phone and talks to him about a given subject currently being reported on - is he biased towards giving the green light to pro-business stories? Obviously. Maybe a few journalists are keen enough to stay ballanced and not let that fact affect them but I seriously doubt the vast majority have that kind of stamina.

Disclaimer: I may be pounding these points a little hard and answering a little louder than was originally sounded. After all, you might not have an opinion on a few of these issues - but I really need someone who's a conservative to debate with. If you don't feel particularly strong one way or the other or just don't care, then nevermind. Its also important that I don't scare people away from publishing to iA by making firey arguements. Webfork

Sometimes you frustrate me Webfork :) But you don't often piss me off. To be honest most of those points you mentioned are the usual conspiracy theory points that i find to be pretty uninteresting. Living in Australia for the past five years i've had to put up with it every day from the news and most of the rest of the country, not to mention the zillions of bloggers online who continue to regurgitate the same tired tenuous links.
Put it this way. I think Clinton was a better president than Bush. I am liberal insofar as i support legalization, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, gay marriage - all the issues related to true liberty. But i am emphatically NOT "liberal" in the sense that the word has now come to cover the leftist big government movement. Most so-called "liberals" today (and this includes a large section of the press, including the supposedly non-partisan "FAIR" (anything but)) are more interested in tearing down the president, being anti-war as an excuse for tearing down the president, being mindlessly anti-capitalism, being pro-environment as an excuse for being mindlessly anti-capitalist... It's ridiculous. That sort of stuff irritates me way more than anything George Bush has done. -- Amw
A wholesale character attack as a method to advance one's own cause will always feel ingenuine. After all, the USA's Federal Communications Commission Michael Powell's very bad decision to try and let big media consolidate contrasts with his good ideas to allow cell phone-number portability and a nation-wide no-call list. Yet, with Bush, I have yet to find a single one of his policies so far - save for his drug benefits aid to Africa - that I agree with. And he really is anti-environment, holding information from his own Evironmental Protection Agency cabinet, ignoring numbers on Global Warming, dumping the Kyoto treaty, and inviting deforestation in the name of wild fire prevention. I'm not attacking Bush to advance my own version of Tha Way It Should Be, I think he's a powerful man who's making bad decisions. Moreover, I think many Republicans out there are good, moral people who should have as little tolerance for some of this as I do (hence, trying to start a debate/discussion with you). What ever happened to the moderates? Some of it is just so over-the-top. Webfork

OK...but I don't see anything in webfork's last edit here that smacks even remotely of a conspiracy theory. It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that Republicans are pro-big business, for example. It's a fact. I can understand your frustration with people posting unfounded, unthought-out, half(if that)-baked ideas. But criticising a conservative system with facts and intelligently put arguments is not the same as spouting a conspiracy theory. It's the mark of a good debate. TheDarkShirt

Conservatives just want to forget facts that don't fit into their visions. What else could they do? Of course Webfork wasn't discussing any theories. You got to remember that Amw have previously declared that she thinks GWB has done nothing more wrong than people who create a civil protest (that get in her way, once a week on her way home from work). Discussing politics with someone who is thinking so irrationally about a topic only indicates your willing to play games or that you can't determine what is logic. - ABliss
I agree with Amw in the sense that I am putting across a sense of "they're out to get ya" and implying a subversive conservative power-grab - and I am. However, I will always stand by one very relevant and constantly unchecked issue that is always held as a "conspiracy theory" ... greed. That whole Enron scam taught the stock trading companies not to have spokesmen with a financial stake telling their shareholders what to do but I really feel no one else learned from this mistake. We need to pay attention to a financial incentive both when politicians do it, as both Democrats and Republicans alike were contributed to by Enron but also individual cases like Clinton when he pardoned the husband of a campain contributor and Bush when he deals with the Saudis. We need to have more resources like the Open Government Information Awareness tool. We need more of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill.
Why does this greed go under the radar so much? Its is easy to pass off when you talk about "economic well-being" because that involves some amount of greed. Additionally, elections are won and lost by a nation's current economic status. But if there is a conspiracy, I think it has to do with everybody wanting to whet their noodles and retire early. That's my only real beef and I think a legitimate one. Right now, I have this beef with the Bush Jr. administration. If a Democrat is elected next term and he behaves similarly, I will be against that guy too.
I'll put it simply: if enough money is involved, a group of people will stand by and act doumb in order to let something highly immoral happen. A conspiracy of folks who want money. THAT is not unresonable. Webfork