Forgot your password?

Comment: Good riddance! (Score 1, Troll) 126

by joocemann (#47795785) Attached to: Microsoft Shutting Down MSN Messenger After 15 Years of Service

ICQ/Yahoo/GTalk/Skype/IRC - were all far better than MSN garbage. MSN was always a distraction IM system that gained popularity due to microsoft forcing people into MSN e-mail accounts and buying hotmail.

I'm glad to see it going away. One less thing for pidgin/trillian to have to work with (note: the MSN accounts on the multi-messengers are the *only* ones I recall ever not really transferring files correctly)

Comment: Re:The US slides back to the caves (Score 1) 523

by joocemann (#47770651) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

What I mean is that, as is common on reddit, you could have easily deduced or understood the gist of the argument and moved forward -- but, as is on reddit, you're interested in having something to say, and so you get caught up on the minutia of the argument and go completely off track.

I find it obnoxious and decided to call you out for it. The act is almost as bad as focusing on grammar and spelling.

Comment: Re:But what of Netflix (Score 2) 335

by joocemann (#47766197) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

What competition? I have comcast. I do not want comcast. I want internet access.... I have comcast. :(

In the name of all of their nasty business practices, I have wanted to cancel service for a long time. But my government is failing at anti-trust law. My culture and society is absolutely dependent on internet access. Thus, my government is failing me and forcing me to give money to bad people that do not deserve my money.

Comment: Re:And this explains a lot about what happened... (Score 1) 71

by joocemann (#47717991) Attached to: YouTube Music Subscription Details Leak

Sorry that I didn't specify. By 'require accounts', I meant to interact. And so to make comments you are required to have an account attached. This wasn't the case in the past. Anonymity is gone. Why does this matter? Sometimes people reach out to each other anonymously about serious things that they are afraid to voice with a more obvious traceable identity.

Saying that everyone should use adblock plus doesn't address the point I made at all. What you provided was a band-aid to the issue I brought up. I use adblock plus, too. That's not the point.

As I said before, and for which most people with a memory can agree, Youtube is/was based on user generated content more than content from big business. When I was talking about Youtube's recent policies pushing independent artists off, I was *not* talking about copyright violations. That is a separate issue. Please read up. There's a lot that you're assuming isn't happening in your response. They truly are reducing access and producing a walled garden. You just haven't read enough lately to know about it.

Comment: And this explains a lot about what happened... (Score 4, Insightful) 71

by joocemann (#47708285) Attached to: YouTube Music Subscription Details Leak

... a couple months ago. Youtube made a huge push in collaboration with the major record labels to set up deals with the major labels and de-prioritize or remove videos from independent artists. This push was questioned at the time, but Google/Youtube was wise to hide the *reason* for a couple month so as to 'disconnect' the two concepts from the non-diligent news reader.

Do no evil? How about "Do profit, f*** you". Why did youtube force all users to have accounts? Why is youtube turning into one commercial after another? Why is google more interested in the interests of big money corporate business than the interests of its viewers and its original content providers? By 'original content providers', I'm talking about how Youtube got its start (and still so up until recently) from user-generated content. Youtube made widely available the videos that used to be mass e-mailed around to friends. And now? What is this? A walled garden from the very people pretending to support the open-internet and wild-west style of the internet that surfers of the 90s are trying to remember. Google/Youtube is a liar. Money trumps 'good', and thus 'evil' prevails. They need to change their motto before they start being laughed at like Fox News - Fair and Balanced.

Comment: Re:Communication? (Score 1) 70

by joocemann (#47704395) Attached to: Researchers Discover New Plant "Language"

You quoted what I said and then misinterpreted it. The word 'archaic' is about the 'contextual connotations' of the subject, the word 'communication'. And so I did not say the word 'communication' is archaic. I said that, while using the word 'communication' makes sense in describing biology, but that it thus loses its archaic contextual connotation that you and the OP seem to hold.

Again, if you remove the anthropocentrism from the word and apply a mature scientific perspective to what it means, it is a well placed word in the current discussion.

Comment: Re:DNA is not "communication" (Score 2) 70

by joocemann (#47690501) Attached to: Researchers Discover New Plant "Language"

mRNA is not DNA. DNA is the instruction set. mRNA are the messenger (message) RNA transcript that is translated so as to communicate a desired piece of information/function from instructions to actions. If a book tells you how to make brownies, and you read it -- you would say that you received a communication from the author on how to make brownies.

Comment: Re:Communication? (Score 2) 70

by joocemann (#47690481) Attached to: Researchers Discover New Plant "Language"

He found that the parasitic and the host plants were exchanging thousands of mRNA molecules between each other, thus creating a conversation.

I think this is a little bit of a misuse / misunderstanding of the term / concept "communication".

I think that if you were a cell biologist, you would get the message more clearly. And mRNA is *literally* a message written in a language. As that message is passed around and read, it's translation has effects. This is the basis of communication -- a message, received, having impact.

The more geeked out you get on biology/molecular-biology, the more obvious it becomes that each life form is a set of instructions that yield an explosion of self interested, self-replicating, adaptive and protective technologies -- all so long as the basic needs of the life form are met or available enough.

And so words like 'communication' can end up making perfect sense in a non anthropocentric way. Ultimately, the words make sense in describing biology, and lose their archaic contextual connotations.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly