Buried as Inaccurate

There's a huge problem on digg today that needs to be addressed. Okay, actually, there's a lot of them, but I'll just focus on my current pet peeve for now. Several of the top digg users are under attack from the non-top digg users for being...Well, for being THEM. They insult some of the more popular diggers and actually end up with more diggs than those they stepped on to get there. It's nothing more than envy, and I have the evidence to prove it.

Case and point: An article submitted by #1 digger MrBabyMan was taken and subverted today by a less well-known member to reflect their own personal hatred of MrBabyMan. The sad part is, it worked. They not only managed to hit the front page first, but at the time I type this, the anti-MBM article has 821 diggs and the original has only 284 diggs. This means that now, the digg mafia is more interested in insulting their own than reading interesting articles.

MrBabyMan's article isn't even bad. It's a great picture, with a strong point, and a funny message. It's also anti-government, something that I think all diggers can agree on. The problem is, there are many people who are refusing to digg these articles simply because of the guy who found it.

Now, why are these people refusing to digg for these people? I mean, besides my conjecture of jealousy. Well, there are several arguments I've heard (read) that generally revolve around the same ideas: MrBabyMan stole an article, MrBabyMan gets his articles on (Insert Website Here), MrBabyMan gets his articles on the front page easily and I don't, MrBabyMan raped my wife and killed my pa. They are all either about jealousy or where they came from.

First of all, it shouldn't matter AT ALL where the articles came from. I don't go on Reddit. I only use stumbleupon when I'm bored shitless. Fark is foreign, and I dare not step in 4chan without protective gear. I simply don't have the time (Or the will) to browse the ENTIRE internet looking for some quality articles. So quite often when he submits from these locations, it's new to me as well as several other people. And that's probably why he submits those: He wants to share them with everyone who's not on that particular site, but is on digg. As for stealing, the only times I've seen him 'steal' is when he finds an article that someone else submitted some umpteen days ago, and it never got past 10 diggs. He then resubmits the article so that everyone has a chance to see it when it hits front page. And if anyone can get an article on the front page, he can.

As for the jealousy, just grow the fuck up. I'm all for maintaining the status quo--I hate rich people and authority as much as the next digger. But I know that I'll never get to the top by mudslinging those who are on top. Does Digg's favorite candidate, Obama, campaign by insulting those above him? No, he works his ass off and climbs his way up. If you admire Obama like I do, then be like him and take the high road. Just keep submitting, trying different methods, and build up your friend pool until you can hit that front page. Blaming your failures on someone else is childish, and I have no respect for those who fall to such lowly methods of self-promotion.

Now, I'm going to go submit this and try again. Odds are it won't make front page because it goes against the general opinion, it's self-submitted, and I simply don't have the posse to go up against upper diggers. But I will learn from the failure, and press on. Because that's what adults do.

EDIT: Apparently, now MrBabyMan is thinking about quitting Digg: Here's the relevant twitter post. If you're reading this, MrBabyMan, I don't think you should go. That's all I have to say that hasn't already been said.

Hillary's "white Americans" comment causing quick firestorm

In another bad sign for Hillary Clinton's sinking campaign, the blogosphere is all over her racially divisive comments to USA Today about her white support, & the verdict is not good. The broad consensus is that Hillary's comments are clearly deepening rifts in the Democratic party & hurting the party's chances in the fall. Are ya listening supers?------------This is ridiculous. And I've been saying it for AGES now. Hillary Clinton continually proves herself to be rude, presumtuous, stupid, and deceitful, and yet she still has supporters? How does this happen? I really want one of her supporters to explain this to me, because so far, there are only two things positive I can think of to say about Clinton: 1. She has marginally more experience than Obama, and 2. She has nothing to do with Rev. Wright. And I can strike down both those with evidence, as well as common sense. I'll focus on the common sense first.Clinton has experience. Yes, she does. But the problem with experience is that it's only useful if you know how to use it properly; to learn from your mistake experiences, and to build upon your successful experiences. Just look at current president Gee Dubya, he's got loads of experience, and he still fucks everything up. And I know what you're thinking, how do we know that Clinton will fuck up? I mean, she's not as bad as Bush, right? Wrong. She has at some point or another stated that she thinks we should bomb Iraq, that guns should not be controlled, that the war was necessary, and has managed to go in the exact opposite direction the very next day. Also, this whole current PR slip-up just screams Bush all over. And don't get me started on her incredible spending powers, or her lies about Bosnia...I'm sure some of these are taken out of context, but it can't ALL be contextual problems. Plus, she surrounds herself with incompetent people who seem to think that democratic primaries work the same way as the Republican ones. They don't.And who's to say Obama will do better? He may have the ability to use experience, but without the experience, he's useless, right? Again, wrong. Obama has less experience than Clinton. Let me repeat that: LESS experience than Clinton. This means he has experience, just not as much. And that experience alone has made his campaign one of the most powerful in years! I mean, to be not only the first black candidate, and to have that horrid middle name, and even be one of the youngest candidates in decades, yet he still manages to overcome all that and knock out the big league veteran players! If his ability to lead can do that, just imagine what it'll do for the nation. And still, there hasn't even been one successful attempt to take anything he said out of context or anything...Even the Rev. Wright issue (talk about that more in a moment) was handled masterfully. He's been touted as a 'rockstar', who's all talk and no bite, but realize, people that politics are 90% talk. And even if you disagree with that (That is technically just an opinion), talk alone won't get him this far. He's written an entire book outlining his plans to change America as the President (Including how he plans to go about initiating them), he's done work to clean up the south side of Chicago, he was one of the first people who was against the war in Iraq from the beginning (Clinton was pro-war at first), he has been one of the most powerful and consistent politicians in this country. The only reason you don't hear his name as often as Clinton's is because Clinton was banging a previous president...That does wonders for press coverage. Experience would be a boon, no doubt, but if he can go this far without it, that's reason enough to elect him. I prefer results over speculation, tyvm.And now onto the Wright issue. Come ON, people. Get over it. He has apologized for Reverend Wright, and said several times that he disagrees with it. One of the commentators on the attached digg article said "These comments are considered offensive but Rev. Wright's BS isn't?" Nobody is arguing that Reverend Wright's comments aren't offensive. They most definitely are...In fact, I agree with what he was trying to say, and I was STILL offended. Saying "God Damn America" is going way too far in my book. But Obama has done all that he honestly can to make up for it. He's said sorry, and said that he doesn't do everything his preacher tells him to. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense--Would you listen to your preacher if he started spewing (allegedly) anti-American propaganda? No, you'd say, "whatever" and either move on with your life or get a new preacher. I've got news for you, America: He won't be his preacher if he makes it to the white house. And besides, what more do you expect him to do? Pretend like he never had anything to do with the guy? Pretend like he didn't know his old preacher was like that? Those are called lies, and frankly, I'm sick of lies. Obama did everything he could to denounce Wright's comments without lying to America, and for that, I commend him.But I have digressed. These comments from Clinton are different from those of Wright's in one major point: A candidate actually said them. Wright is not a candidate, nor will he ever be (hopefully), and Clinton is. If Clinton's old preacher said this, I wouldn't give a shit because that is nothing compared to what Wright said and I don't give a shit about Wright. But it wasn't Clinton's preacher, it wasn't even one of her high-ranking cronies, it was Clinton HERSELF. And I don't think I want a president saying shit like that. It's dumb. And personally, I think dumb people need to GTFO of the country. Not uneducated people, I have no problem with undereducated people...I mean people who are too dumb to know fact from fiction. People like Bush, Clinton, and anyone who thinks the Bible is fact but science isn't. There's a reason for the phrase "scientific fact", and it's not an oxymoron.Since I'm on a pissy tirade, let me just close by saying Obama is NOT a muslim, he is NOT a terrorist, and if you think his name has anything to do with the person inside, you're a retarded douche. I'm done ranting. Seeya.

read more | digg story

Amazing Cave Castle

The following article is actually from bored-space.com. You can check out the original article here.

Amazingly built into a cave, Predjama castle is one of the most visited castles in Europe.














Predjama castle and its caves are situated about 12 km from Postojna, world famous
for its extensive karst cave. Castle was built-up into the ovehanging rock and vista to that combination of a nature and man work is really great. Walk throug the castle halls is an unique event. Very realistic man size dummies are presenting ancient life of the castle. There is also a museum collection and ancient armoury. The cave behind the castle is called Erazmova Jama, after a knight living in the castle, and has 4 levels. The deepest level is water filled, the river flowing through is called
Lovka. The castle is built into the huge entrance of the middle level. An exit from the top level to the plateau was used as secret entrance in the middle ages, today it is filled with rocks. The story goes, that the castle was besieged, but the people in the castle had the secret entrance, and so they had enough to eat. They loughed on the besieger and threw down fresh fruit, to discourage them.

Orphaned Works

So hey, I'm back in blogtown. Sorry to those zero of you reading this blog, but the truth is, I have more popular endeavors currently going on. Namely, Art and Digg. Also, now Whirled is taking some time...but I won't bore you with my life.

So Orphaned Works. This is a bit of an issue that I was introduced to one day while wandering through the internets. So far I've seen two sides to the issue, and I have to say, they're very compelling arguments.

For those of you too lazy to read the above linked articles, there is a bill currently before congress that is going to change art copyright laws to involve Orphaned Works--Orphaned Works being any art for which the original artist cannot be traced. The current law states that when an artwork is created, it automatically becomes the property of the creator, and gets a sort of mini-copyright to cover basic issues with the ownership. This orphaned works bill basically says that if you can't find the original author of a piece, then that work's copyright becomes forfeit.

Now the two sides. The pro side gives the example of finding a bunch of old photos in your grandmother's attic. Meridith L. Patterson says that without this law in place, those incredible photos can't be used (At a museum, for instance) because you don't know who photographed them. However, with this law, you can finally get this beautiful capture of a moment in history into a museum where it belongs! Historians rejoice, students sleep, everyone goes home happy.

HOWEVER, the con side worries that this bill, once and if it becomes law, will allow stealing of intellectual and artistic property via a loophole in the legislation. Mark Simon makes a powerful, if somewhat rambling, argument for the destruction of this bill. He even goes so far as to claim that if the bill passes, "YOU WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY OFF YOUR OWN CREATIONS!"

Now my stance on this issue is admittedly weak, as I've dug and dug and dug for more information on the actual bill itself (I really have no idea where to look for these things, if you have a good source, please email me) but found not much more than what these two people are saying, as well as the insult slinging that has made the internet such a fun place to live. But of all that I've seen, I think this law is one of those that needs to be filed under "Needs A Rewrite". I think the idea that spurred it is honorable, and that history books would be a lot more interesting if we could see more examples of the actual times they're talking (writing) about. But Mr. Simon has a point, that there are some glaring holes in the laws presented here. I'm sure that congress will see these holes and not allow the law to pass, but with our government, you never really know. So I will suggest as Simon does with a little twist: Write to your congressmen, and tell them you don't want this bill as it is to become law. Don't get outraged and skip points like Mark Simon (Or me at times) does. But definitely make sure to let your voice be known.

As for me, I just sent an email, and now I'm off to art class.

PC game developer has radical message: Ignore the Pirates

I just realized a moment ago that I have yet to make a post about net piracy, one of the more controversial topics that I am very VERY vocal about. Well, then I saw this article. Great starting point.

First, let me say, I'm a total pirate. I download a lot: Music, movies, TV Shows, even games and programs on occasion. But I'm not an evil asshole who expects to get everything for free. I download music when someone tells me to check something out, or if I only like one specific song off an album and it's not on iTunes. If I like more of their work after that, I go out and buy the album. I download movies, but only keep them until the movie comes out on DVD, then I buy that. I download TV Shows because I want TV to work around my schedule, not force me into theirs (Saving up for a DVR, so that may change later.) And I download games to check them out and programs when I don't have the money and need a tool right away. So I do download, but I also give money to the people who deserve it in my book.

That being said, I think that Pirates are nothing to worry about. Ben Kuchera, in the article below, makes the point very clear: "[the pirates] weren't customers, they might never be customers, so spending money to try to stop them serves no purpose." Just imagine how much richer companies like Blizzard would be if they just cut out the money spent on copy protection. All their CEOs could afford a fifth mansion with that money, or maybe even a space station.

The thing about this is that Piracy, in my opinion, is a good thing. Most people that I know do what I do...They download games, then buy them if they like them, a la Nine Inch Nails' new album. People like getting a sample before they buy items, and that applies to entertainment products as much as those food products at Costco on the weekends. You let them know what they're buying before they buy it, and if it's actually good, they'll pay you what you ask. Hell, in some cases, people paid MORE for Radiohead's album than usual...Kevin Rose, founder of Digg, has said on podcasts that he spent 20-something euros on In Rainbows. That comes to something like 40 american bucks (My math is off, I know, I'm not up-to-date with the dropping dollar).

Now, what this means for the consumer is that their market will finally get the fat cut from the edges of it. The stuff that's really not worth paying for, won't get paid for, and will eventually die away. Meanwhile, the GOOD stuff will dominate the market powerfully, leading us into an era where we don't have 'what's cool' fed to us by a corporation. The truth is, the RIAA is fighting the piracy so vehemently simply because they know that they would lose money from all the crap they put out there...There are thousands of people in this country that simply buy what's plastered in between the shows on MTV, and then pretend it's good. If the RIAA dies from endeavors like Trent Reznor's, then the advertisement costs will fall to the artists, and over time those artist who are bad will simply cease to exist. Snoop Dogg will be forced to bury his career. 50 cent's albums will cost..well, his name. And Paris Hilton...Well, nobody bought that album for her singing anyways. She doesn't count.All in all, I think piracy is the best thing to happen to the music industry, and I'm waiting for that to happen to video games too. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of Tom Clancy.

read more | digg story

Anonymous Exposed - Co$ attacks Anon with new website

For a while now, I've been supportive of Anonymous. Not only are they fighting for great justice, they have a name for their 'organization' (For lack of a better term) that is very near and dear to my heart (AManWithNoName, anyone?). Not only that, but you simply have to love their showmanship. But up until now, I've mostly stood on the sidelines, and the most I've probably done is digg the stories about their ongoing battle against this insane cult. I felt this was appropriate, since until this day, it seemed the fight was nothing more than a petty media battle.

Well, those days are over. Enclosed at the bottom of this post is a link to the new site run by Scientology, attempting to soil the name of Anonymous. This is not so much a problem, if you ignore the fact that they are accusing Anonymous of bomb threats manufactured by the Co$ themselves. This has officially escalated from 'relatively peaceful protests' to 'direct intelligence warfare' in a matter of moments.

Now, I bring this up not to shed light on the new site...Digg has already done plenty to that regard. I make this post here at 1AM simply to point out something. Lately, the courts of this fine country have been rejecting the constitution in their decisions more and more. Suppose the Co$ decides to take legal action against Anonymous. Well, they obviously can't call a leaderless, nameless group to court. But in recent cases, they've gotten their hands on the identities of various Anon protesters. They will undoubtedly manufacture supplemental evidence to link one of the unmasked Anons to one of the artificial bomb threats. They will then take that person to court, and most likely win do to the corruption of the judicial branch stated above. After that, ANYONE seen protesting under the name of Anon will be arrested. Hell, even Mark Bunker may have a little problem on his hands, despite not being linked directly to Anon.

This, my friends is the breaking point. From here on out, CoS must be handled as more of a threat than ever. And so, Anon needs our support more than ever. As soon as the next protest occurs, I'm heading to Stockton (Nearest center) to aid in the protest. I suggest you all do the same. We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

read more | digg story

My Life Update 3-16-08

Hey (Test Subject Name Here)! It's been a while. I know you don't actually read this, but I'd feel weird to just leave the blog. Besides, it's part of my super duper plan to take over the internet by making a huge network capable of taking down the Canadian Secret Intelligence. They're my biggest enemy ever since the second American Revolution...the invisible one. >.>

Anyways, speaking of my network, I'm actually adding a bit more to my network thing. Pownce has been around for a while now, sucking of the proverbial teets of larger networking sites like Facebook and Myspace, primarily used by Digg users because...I dunno. I think because Kevin knows a guy or something. :/ Anyways, I've decided to add this to my repetoire, mostly because Digg actually has one or two people on there who are in my network now. (BTW, if you're reading this, and you're from Digg, WELCOME!!!!! There's chips and punch on the side of the blog.) So I add Pownce to make myself more...marketable? I dunno, there's a word for my purpose somewhere.

So, to sum up, new network listing:
My Pownce
My Myspace
My Digg
My Deviantart Gallery (I actually do art folks)
My Facebook

Wow, that list is growing nicely. I'm thinking Twitter and Flickr are next on the path to internet domination. Updates to follow.