"Forward." The "new" slogan?

[Steelharp]

Sorry, I can't resist. It's just too easy...

[mcurrier]

[kieefer]

$10 bucks is pretty high for a bumper sticker but I may have to get one.

Here's another favorite - http://www.reclaimfreedom.org/Pages/Merchandise.aspx

[Guest cardcutter]

You do know that "Forward' has been the name of almost every communist party newspaper since Pravda right.

Where does he get these idiots?

Thats almost as good as his WTF campaign slogan.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"Forward" has different connotation than "Further" though both are popularly associated with altered states of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Further_(bus)\

Further (sometimes, Furthur) was a 1939 International Harvester school bus purchased by author Ken Kesey in 1964 for $1,500 from Andre Hobson in Atherton, California. The bus was stripped down and remodeled inside and out for a psychedelic excursion across the country with Kesey and his Merry Pranksters on board. The bus was named by artist Roy Sebern, who painted the word “Further†on the destination placard as a kind of one-word poem and inspiration to keep going whenever the bus broke down.

Beat legend Neal Cassady was the driver of the famous bus on its original trip to New York for the publication of Kesey's new book, Sometimes a Great Notion. The trip was filmed by the Merry Pranksters. Other Further trips included an anti-Vietnam war rally in 1966 and Woodstock in 1969 (without Kesey). More can be read about the adventures of the Merry Pranksters on Further in Tom Wolfe's book The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test, for which a movie directed by Gus Van Sant is in development.^[1]

The Smithsonian Institution sought to acquire the bus,^[2] but refused to pay to have the bus delivered.

Ken Kesey parked the bus in a swamp on his farm in 1989 when he acquired a new bus.

[Steelharp]

Wiki is the most useless, illegitimate source of info for anything. Did you see the news story where dozens of off handed edits were made to "forward" references in the first 24 hours after Obunghole used it??

It's as useless as a set of Britannica encyclopedia that's been scratched through by a horde of 5th graders.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wiki is the most useless, illegitimate source of info for anything. Did you see the news story where dozens of off handed edits were made to "forward" references in the first 24 hours after Obunghole used it??

It's as useless as a set of Britannica encyclopedia that's been scratched through by a horde of 5th graders.

I generally like wikipedia. It is at least worth every penny it costs me. I take any reference with a grain of salt. One might argue that overall a constantly-changing article as dueling experts over-write the other side's narrow-minded propaganda, might be more reliable than a Brittanica article written by only one biased expert then cleaned up by only one biased editor? Or maybe Brittanica has a peer review policy where numerous perfessors with identical mind-set are allowed input before an article finally goes to press? That would make it more balanced!

I don't have time to mess with it, but at least with wikipedia anyone can go "behind the scenes" and read the gruesome edit history of sometimes years of "expert feuds" over an article, which might be instructive if one were determined to "find the truth" about a topic?

Many of the science and math wikipedia articles are not quite so "confused" and can be useful, though nothing can be taken as absolute authority.

[E4 No More]

I generally like wikipedia. It is at least worth every penny it costs me. I take any reference with a grain of salt. One might argue that overall a constantly-changing article as dueling experts over-write the other side's narrow-minded propaganda, might be more reliable than a Brittanica article written by only one biased expert then cleaned up by only one biased editor? Or maybe Brittanica has a peer review policy where numerous perfessors with identical mind-set are allowed input before an article finally goes to press? That would make it more balanced!

I don't have time to mess with it, but at least with wikipedia anyone can go "behind the scenes" and read the gruesome edit history of sometimes years of "expert feuds" over an article, which might be instructive if one were determined to "find the truth" about a topic?

Many of the science and math wikipedia articles are not quite so "confused" and can be useful, though nothing can be taken as absolute authority.

That's why I scrutinize whatever comes from Wiki, and I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Edited May 4, 2012 by SWJewellTN

[Steelharp]

Sorry. I do everything I can to put nails in Wiki's coffin, ever since they came out with their "Pro creative piracy" stance (music, books, etc).

Any one that steals, and sanctions it, from me and my brethren get a not-so-kind "go phuck yourself" from me.

Same for Google. Use Bing.

[mcurrier]

[mcurrier]

[mcurrier]

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sorry. I do everything I can to put nails in Wiki's coffin, ever since they came out with their "Pro creative piracy" stance (music, books, etc).

Any one that steals, and sanctions it, from me and my brethren get a not-so-kind "go phuck yourself" from me.

Same for Google. Use Bing.

Hi Steelharp. Try this one-- It claims not to track or cache user-identifiable information-- http://duckduckgo.com/

I like it fine except honestly on at least half the searches, google returns more useful hits.

On the other hand, if I was the gov and desired to concentrate surveillance on people trying to hide their searches-- Maybe set up a front company staffed by agents pretending to be rabid libertarian privacy advocates. All the paranoid people and all the shady characters with something to hide would flock to my sham "ultra-anonymous" search engine so I could more easily track all the paranoid nuts and criminals, requiring less computing power and man power.

But to make certain I could attract the biggest percentage of nutcases, the search results would have to be at least as good as google's, or some of the nutcases would just use google instead. So as long as the duckduckgo results are not all that great, perhaps it is proof that duckduckgo is not a secret gov plot.

On the other hand, the gov may realize that the truly paranoid would view shoddy search results as proof of honesty and privacy, and therefore intentionally provide shoddy search results in order to better fool people into believing that the sham "ultra-anonymous" search really is anonymous.

====

I don't approve or participate in piracy but try to avoid getting torqued over it. As long as there is enough money to pay the rent from honest customers, ain't gonna worry about people who wouldn't buy the product anyway, even if piracy were somehow made impossible.

Copyright is somewhat related to patent issues. Long ago Don Lancaster wrote interesting ideas about the uselessness of patents (for small biz), explaining that obsessing over and enforcing patents wastes more money and creative energy than the profit which MOST small businesses will ever recover. Instead, move fast, get in, make yer money, get out, and move on to something else.

One problem is frivolous trivial patents, which are often taken out by idiots who are too ignorant to know that they spent money on a trivial patent, who think their silly patent is a stroke of genius, and who are willing to harrass other people over their silly idea that everybody else has used for years without even considering it anything special. Of course people like that may be the motivation of additional "apparently silly" patents. The company I work for has taken out a couple of patents we would not likely sue anybody over. We took out selected patents in "self defense" to prevent some idiot from patenting an obvious idea and then suing to make us stop using our own idea. Our "self defense" patents might look like the work of paranoid fools too, so maybe a lot of the stupid patents are "self defense" patents.

Those kinda guys are the same amateurs who write a C-Am-F-G song with moon and june lyrics, they think it is an immortal work of genius, and then every time a superstar releases a song containg the C-Am-F-G or the words moon and june, the idiot sues for copyright infringement.

Just sayin, given there are only so many hours in the day, would it be better for a musician to obsess over all the money he's being ripped off by his "fans", or spend that energy recording and playing gigs? Is it more productive for a programmer to spend all his time improving the program giving more people a reason to buy or update the program, or is it better for the programmer to get bummed because some russian hacker cracks every release within a few hours? Maybe rather than improve the program to benefit the appreciative honest customers, it would be better to get in a bad frame of mind entering into a copy-protection duel with people you'll never meet, each additional copy-protection feature making the program more difficult for honest customers to use. Ultimately the cracked version might become more pleasant to use than the official legit paid version. Because of copy protection, sometimes pirates have a better user experience than paying customers. Paying customers if super-honest, might decide buy the copy-protected version but then actually run the cracked version because it is less hassle.

I don't offer any solution. Would be nice if everybody was smart and honest enough to pay for intellectual property. It is interesting to note that the Grateful Dead was fabulously monetarily successful and they never worried one bit about piracy. They even set-up special privileged places right in front of the stage for people to do their own recording, and zillions of fan-recorded dead stuff is everywhere, and those guys still got wealthy. Or at least wealthy enough. Compare that to some famous rock bands with hired goons at the concerts to beat the snot out of any fan caught with a camera or pocket recorder. So maybe those fascist rock bands could make as much or more money if they follow the dead's example? Dunno. If a band wants to hire goons to sieze cameras and recorders, its the band's own biz. Ain't saying what they ought to do. Don't matter to me. I'll probably never go to another concert because I just don't like crowds.

[kieefer]

Use https://startpage.com/

[tnhawk]

obummer's new slogan should be " Flush"

[hornett22]

I believe he is officially anouncing the beginning of his re election campaign on Karl Marx's birthday.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Anyone doubt that he is not a Marxist commie now?

[Oh Shoot]

$10 bucks is pretty high for a bumper sticker but I may have to get one.

That was for the primaries. No longer good enough.

Gotta be Romney now. Period.

- OS

[hkgonra]

Anyone doubt that he is not a Marxist commie now?

Anyone that had doubts before was obviously a bonehead.

[kieefer]

That was for the primaries. No longer good enough.

Gotta be Romney now. Period.

- OS

Waiting for the Romney/Santorum sticker to come out

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Romney-Santorum/2012/05/04/id/438080

[kieefer]

[mcurrier]

Pathetic-In-Chief

[Chief07]

You do know that "Forward' has been the name of almost every communist party newspaper since Pravda right.

Where does he get these idiots?

Thats almost as good as his WTF campaign slogan.

These commiecrats are so comfortable with their commie roots, they are now out it the open.

Time to flush the crap out of Washington.

2012 real change is comming!

[Guest ThePunisher]

Has anyone seen any of these Forward slogan bumper stickers around? Haven't really heard anymore about this campaign theme slogan being shouted or discussed like we saw and heard in 2008 of Hope and Change.

[kieefer]

No, I haven't. Most "O" stickers I've seen have been from 08. Which may be a good thing.

I have seen a lot of anti-"O" stickers, which is an even better thing.