Slashdot Mirror

Nice try, and I wish it were so, but it ain't. You do more harm than good when you wrongly attribute things, because one error ruins your entire argument and strengthens your opponents'.

The space program did later help push technology to integrate circuits, but such advances were already underway, and TI was the leader (IBM was doing it's tech-stifle shuffle back then). Improved radio comms helped NASA, but NASA didn't drive it. You see this in Gene Kranz' book, "Failure Is Not An Option".

NASA was created after the Bell rocket planes did their thing. All jets used by NASA came from the Air Force, who got them all from contractors like Martin, Lochheed, Marietta, Boeing and others. Advances in aviation were fueled and funded by the COld War. NASA was a recipient, not a donor.

Microwave ovens came outta WWII, when some guys noticed a few weird effects of the microwave transmittors used for radar. That's also why the first microwave ovens were called "Radar-Range", an Amana trademark.

We have a lot of technology and improvements that were developed specifically for the space program. This is a good thing. But there was a reason we spent so much money: we were scared shitless of the Soviets, who were also scared of us. Pure research is a wonderful thing, but it's expensive as hell and we have other priorities. Almost every twit here who didn't pay taxes last year was complaining that he didn't get a refund cheque -- so not even the geeks are willing to pay higher taxes in the hope that some of that money will go toward NASA and other similarly geeky and way cool programs.

I have no problem with crappy logos on the shuttle, as long as the advertisers don't start trying to control missions, requiring X amount of airtime displaying their logo, renaming of items and anything that might in some way interfere with the actual science. I wouldn't even mind if they modified the already tedious and annoying end of countdown speech: "...three, two, one, and lift-off of the Atlantis Space Shuttle on its 43rd voyage in space to blah blah blah." It's so crappy now theat adding "sponsored by Roy Rogers Restaurants" after the word "shuttle" wouldn't make it worse. Adding a 30-second radio spot would be another matter.

It would be good to get this kind of cash infusion, but it could be the start of NASA becoming another agency that is supposed to be self-sufficient and run like a business instead of a governmental agency. Look what that's done to the Patent Orifice.

woof.

This post was made possible, in part, by a grant from the Official French Fry Pages, providers of information about certain cooked potato products, and by viewers like you.

Some browsers don't support JS, and cannot download images...

Correct.

I very much believe that these users have more of a right to keep this off than an advertizer has to force you to look at an ad.

Also correct, but not in the you mean it. The page owners and creators -- as well as the advertisers -- can't force you to do anything. You go to a Web site by choice... most of the time, anyway.

However, you do not have some intrinsic or inalienable right to view the content of any site out there. Some sites you have to pay for (like Westlaw), some you just need to have a free membership, and some sites (like mine) don't care.

It galls me that so many people here piss and moan about having to register to read a NYT article. For fuck's sake, it's free! It takes a minute to do and, if you allow a cookie, you'll never have to bother with it again. In exchange for this, you get access to current stories in what is arguably one of the better US print journals (it's certainly referenced often enough here!).

Is the NYT in cahoots with the CIA, NSA and the Illuminati? Who cares?! As far as the NYT knows, my name is Mr. Potato Salad, I'm an 83 years old labourer and I live at 123 Happy-Go-Lucky Lane in East Timor. All the NYT cares about is being able to show advertisers unique visits/impressions so that the advertisers can pay instead of you and me. How fucking hard is that?

I draw the line when the ads become intrusive. Pop-unders, JavaScript, Flash, new windows, onOpen/onClose, etc., as well as any ad over 30K (if I'm on a dial-up) or more than half the data size of the page I want. This kind of crap has a tendency to crash my browser, disrupt or destroy work in another window. It also costs me a lot of money when I'm using a modem in Europe.

It's because people went ballistic at even the most innocuous of ads and started an arms race that we have the sorts of intrusive ads and methods we're now facing.

If you keep blocking the ads, then the advertisers will give up and you will get to pay for the content. It's that simple.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to hack the binaries and change a couple of spellings so that new instances can't be forced open, scrolling can't be blocked, etc. Now I just need to know how to stop the lame animated GIFs -- can anyone please tell me if there's a way to halt them in Konqueror the way I can by hitting ESC in Mozilla/Opera/IE? Maybe there's a way to display them only as static or disable the LOOP command.

My guess is that soon, content will be served only through the advertising locations, so that blocking the ads will block your receiving the content, as well. There will be a way around it, but it'll be a lot more complicated than adding a couple lines to the hosts file.

woof.

If the ad is condescending or annoying, I avoid the product. If it's informative, I pay attention.

Actually, the potatoes you are used to seeing (white to yellow) are the results of genetic "modification" done through cross-pollination and hybrid work. Purple is the color of many of the original wild potato strains. Some interesting links:

The Potato Then & Now: History
History and Origin of the Potato
Indepthinfo's "Potato! - History"

There is evidence that the potato was cultivated (i.e., selectively grown as opposed to collected from the wild) more than 4500 years ago. You will have a hard time finding any food in its original wild version, from potatoes to tomatoes to carrots to wheat to cows.

There's good and bad points to selective cultivation/breeding. The smell was "hybridded" out of roses, but they get long, straight stems, few thorns, single flowers on a stem, large buds that stay closed for a long time... just about everything that people want in cut flowers. We have nice, big heads of broccoli with lots of florets and few leaves.

I am not thrilled with GM foods, but not so much based on the "unnatural" aspect as from the lack of long-term safety studies and testing.

If you get your kicks walking through 2,000 acres looking for edible plants in their wild and natural/original state, more power to you. I have trouble looking for a few edible mushrooms on 2 acres, and there are few mushrooms that are as tasty (or as expensive) as the Steinpilz (boletus). I'll stick to supermarkets.

woof.

You wouldn't believe how serious a lot of people take potatoes. I found out once I started the Official French Fries Pages.

Maybe we can finally power a Beowulf cluster of these. (the potato-powered Web server, for those too lazy to click).

Personally, I'd like to cut up a cluster of these and fry them, then do a review on the Official French Fries Pages. And with neon green ketchup from Heinz, the page will certainly be memorable.

woof.

Maybe I should have expanded on that...

When I say that I have a right to my works, I mean the following:

1) I created a document to be viewed in toto as I created it.
2) I provide particular information, often in a scholarly fashion, which contains links. Each of these links has a specific purpose, namely, to provide further bibliographic or internally-referential information.
3) Modification of this information distorts the meaning of the information I have presented.

Consider the case of a scholarly paper on something other than French Fries, be it cold fusion, a Higgs boson, Ununoctium, or even pulse rockets. In such an article (if it is indeed scholarly), I will provide links to examples and sources. If some company comes along and modifies my treatise to include other links to something other than that which I have referenced, there is a clear and serious detrimental effect to the validity of my document.

I get a lot of hate mail from Belgians as it is, and changes to my links may generate even more hate mail. Yeah, I'll get over it sooner or later, but the point is that my carefully researched (really) content has been altered, not by the end user, but by a third-party, for-profit company. And it seems there is little I can do about it, even though I could've sued the Washington Post for defamation and character assasination for misquoting me in print.

Consider Terry Pratchett and the Discworld series. The Colour of Magic was done in Germany by a particular publisher (see lspace.org), who modified a couple pages ino order to insert a soup advertisement into the text! Imagine reading a Stephen King novel like this: "Karen, almost frozen with fear, locked the door, but simply locking a door isn't good enough. When it comes to home security, you need ADT. ADT provides 24-hour protection at the push of a button. Or at the first sign of trouble. Unfortunately, Karen doesn't have ADT home security. What's she up to now? Well, Karen, staring out the peephole..."

Why do I have no say in this matter? The changes to my site and links are not being done directly by the user. I have no problem with fair use of my site; it's been quoted and misquoted around the world. I do have a problem with theft and hijacking, which my site has also been subject to. (A number of sites have copied -- verbatim -- the page, Twenty-two Things To Do With French Fries Besides Eat Them and I have crawled up their tightly-closed orifices to protect my creative works).

As I said, my comment was only partly meant in jest. I have serious problems with both sides of the question, even when I take both arguments to the extreme. At the extremes, I tend to favour the laissez-faire approach because I don't want RIAA telling me I can't make a killer mix CD with New Model Army, King's X and The Pogues, but somebody screwing with my content really bugs the shit out of me. You just have no idea of the sacrifices involved in keeping the OFFP going.

woof.

Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Maybe I should have expanded on that...

When I say that I have a right to my works, I mean the following:

1) I created a document to be viewed in toto as I created it.
2) I provide particular information, often in a scholarly fashion, which contains links. Each of these links has a specific purpose, namely, to provide further bibliographic or internally-referential information.
3) Modification of this information distorts the meaning of the information I have presented.

Consider the case of a scholarly paper on something other than French Fries, be it cold fusion, a Higgs boson, Ununoctium, or even pulse rockets. In such an article (if it is indeed scholarly), I will provide links to examples and sources. If some company comes along and modifies my treatise to include other links to something other than that which I have referenced, there is a clear and serious detrimental effect to the validity of my document.

I get a lot of hate mail from Belgians as it is, and changes to my links may generate even more hate mail. Yeah, I'll get over it sooner or later, but the point is that my carefully researched (really) content has been altered, not by the end user, but by a third-party, for-profit company. And it seems there is little I can do about it, even though I could've sued the Washington Post for defamation and character assasination for misquoting me in print.

Consider Terry Pratchett and the Discworld series. The Colour of Magic was done in Germany by a particular publisher (see lspace.org), who modified a couple pages ino order to insert a soup advertisement into the text! Imagine reading a Stephen King novel like this: "Karen, almost frozen with fear, locked the door, but simply locking a door isn't good enough. When it comes to home security, you need ADT. ADT provides 24-hour protection at the push of a button. Or at the first sign of trouble. Unfortunately, Karen doesn't have ADT home security. What's she up to now? Well, Karen, staring out the peephole..."

Why do I have no say in this matter? The changes to my site and links are not being done directly by the user. I have no problem with fair use of my site; it's been quoted and misquoted around the world. I do have a problem with theft and hijacking, which my site has also been subject to. (A number of sites have copied -- verbatim -- the page, Twenty-two Things To Do With French Fries Besides Eat Them and I have crawled up their tightly-closed orifices to protect my creative works).

As I said, my comment was only partly meant in jest. I have serious problems with both sides of the question, even when I take both arguments to the extreme. At the extremes, I tend to favour the laissez-faire approach because I don't want RIAA telling me I can't make a killer mix CD with New Model Army, King's X and The Pogues, but somebody screwing with my content really bugs the shit out of me. You just have no idea of the sacrifices involved in keeping the OFFP going.

woof.

Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Maybe I should have expanded on that...

When I say that I have a right to my works, I mean the following:

1) I created a document to be viewed in toto as I created it.
2) I provide particular information, often in a scholarly fashion, which contains links. Each of these links has a specific purpose, namely, to provide further bibliographic or internally-referential information.
3) Modification of this information distorts the meaning of the information I have presented.

Consider the case of a scholarly paper on something other than French Fries, be it cold fusion, a Higgs boson, Ununoctium, or even pulse rockets. In such an article (if it is indeed scholarly), I will provide links to examples and sources. If some company comes along and modifies my treatise to include other links to something other than that which I have referenced, there is a clear and serious detrimental effect to the validity of my document.

I get a lot of hate mail from Belgians as it is, and changes to my links may generate even more hate mail. Yeah, I'll get over it sooner or later, but the point is that my carefully researched (really) content has been altered, not by the end user, but by a third-party, for-profit company. And it seems there is little I can do about it, even though I could've sued the Washington Post for defamation and character assasination for misquoting me in print.

Consider Terry Pratchett and the Discworld series. The Colour of Magic was done in Germany by a particular publisher (see lspace.org), who modified a couple pages ino order to insert a soup advertisement into the text! Imagine reading a Stephen King novel like this: "Karen, almost frozen with fear, locked the door, but simply locking a door isn't good enough. When it comes to home security, you need ADT. ADT provides 24-hour protection at the push of a button. Or at the first sign of trouble. Unfortunately, Karen doesn't have ADT home security. What's she up to now? Well, Karen, staring out the peephole..."

Why do I have no say in this matter? The changes to my site and links are not being done directly by the user. I have no problem with fair use of my site; it's been quoted and misquoted around the world. I do have a problem with theft and hijacking, which my site has also been subject to. (A number of sites have copied -- verbatim -- the page, Twenty-two Things To Do With French Fries Besides Eat Them and I have crawled up their tightly-closed orifices to protect my creative works).

As I said, my comment was only partly meant in jest. I have serious problems with both sides of the question, even when I take both arguments to the extreme. At the extremes, I tend to favour the laissez-faire approach because I don't want RIAA telling me I can't make a killer mix CD with New Model Army, King's X and The Pogues, but somebody screwing with my content really bugs the shit out of me. You just have no idea of the sacrifices involved in keeping the OFFP going.

woof.

Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Maybe this is more suitable as a submission to "Ask Slashdot"...

I have a site -- The Official French Fries Pages -- which I've managed to keep alive since 1996,[1] although I really need to upload a few new pages.

Do I say, "Fine. Whatever. You wanna look at my page and links the wrong way, I don't care," and just let anarchy reign supreme? I mean, I'm a "Slashdotter", right? I've been here for a few years (although I couldn't be bothered to register for a while), and I'm certainly an "0ld sk3wl Internet-doofus" (since '86). This is just more crap that I can ignore, and anyway, we all hate frivolous lawsuits and copyright bullshit... unless it hits home.

Or do I look at it like RIAA or MPAA: This is my goddamned IP . Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!

Oh how ugly reality can be.

While the above was meant, at least in part, as sarcasm, I truly am unsure what to do. I could be tempted to join a class action to prevent the modified display of my site, not for the money but for the principle.

Do I not have a right to say what can and cannot be done with my creative works? And doesn't RIAA say the same thing?

"Morals suck, Beavis."

woof.

[1] Don't give me any shit about using FrontPage. I always demand HTTP 2.0 compliance and I got tired of writing six or more versions of each and every page so that any browser could see it. And if another standard came out, I had to rewrite all the pages with a version for those browsers, too. At least I edit the FP "code" and cut the actual size down about 60%. And you can still view the site in lynx!

Maybe this is more suitable as a submission to "Ask Slashdot"...

I have a site -- The Official French Fries Pages -- which I've managed to keep alive since 1996,[1] although I really need to upload a few new pages.

Do I say, "Fine. Whatever. You wanna look at my page and links the wrong way, I don't care," and just let anarchy reign supreme? I mean, I'm a "Slashdotter", right? I've been here for a few years (although I couldn't be bothered to register for a while), and I'm certainly an "0ld sk3wl Internet-doofus" (since '86). This is just more crap that I can ignore, and anyway, we all hate frivolous lawsuits and copyright bullshit... unless it hits home.

Or do I look at it like RIAA or MPAA: This is my goddamned IP . Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!

Oh how ugly reality can be.

While the above was meant, at least in part, as sarcasm, I truly am unsure what to do. I could be tempted to join a class action to prevent the modified display of my site, not for the money but for the principle.

Do I not have a right to say what can and cannot be done with my creative works? And doesn't RIAA say the same thing?

"Morals suck, Beavis."

woof.

[1] Don't give me any shit about using FrontPage. I always demand HTTP 2.0 compliance and I got tired of writing six or more versions of each and every page so that any browser could see it. And if another standard came out, I had to rewrite all the pages with a version for those browsers, too. At least I edit the FP "code" and cut the actual size down about 60%. And you can still view the site in lynx!

Maybe you just don't get the fries & gravy thing?

It's popular in flyover country. 'Course, here it's sausage gravy, which a lot of Yankees, myself included, really don't get. Up North, we throw grease away.

(Aside: I found http://www.tx7.com/fries/docs/poutine.html this site to be handy in figuring out the difference between Canadian and don't-call-'em-Yankees versions. Alas, I don't know of a comparable version explaining ours to Canadian viewers...)