Slashdot Mirror

Until such a time as they can put someone in a radio isolated room, and test how they feel with and without a transmitter turned on, with a positive correlation

Another Wired article linked on that page, Wireless Harmless, More or Less?, talks about research doing just what you have suggested. I didn't search around for the references to the research, but here is what the article said:

Swedish researchers found that people who claim they suffer from electrical sensitivity failed to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields in double-blind tests.

A double-blind test, properly run, should be able to eliminate any psychosomatic effects which would bias the testing of "electronic sensitives".

"I don't know if AOL distributes IE, but they still require it. I believe with version 7.0 they now also support Netscape. Nothing to do with agreements rather just convenience."

From a Wired article from 1998:

"In 1996, AOL agreed to bundle Netscape in its software package but backed away from the deal when Microsoft upped the ante, offering AOL a prime piece of Windows screen real estate. AOL's decision is a primary element of the government's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft."

There may be a more relevant article, this was one of the first that appeared in a Google search.

Normally, a company to company lawsuit over unfair competition will ask for damages due to lost sales. Just what are those damages when the price was $0.00?

Technically, there was a price for Netscape up until exactly four years ago today. You could use it for educational or non-profit use, but were expected to pay for it for personal or business use. Of course the problem was that you usually never had the same version long enough to be required to register it. Even MSIE was 'sold' to the public as part of MS Home, which was a bundle of IE, MSWorks, and I think MSMoney. IE, though available as a free download, was heavily advertised as the main value of the bundle.

Meanwhile, speaking of anti-competitive pricing, AOL also announced today that they are raising the price their BYOISP service from $9.95 to $14.95 per month. Which will likely force some small ISPs out of business, as currently you can save money by using a mom-and-POP ISP for your dial-up to connect to AOL, with the price increase, many dedicated AOL users will likely switch to a direct dialing AOL.

Wired is picking up on this rumor/story a bit late....

Mark

Although it's over five years old, this Wired article has a nice summary of the challenges that faced and face the idea.

Ccott McCloud, a prominent comics artist, shares his thoughts in comic form. He humorously addresses these issues from the point of view of an on-line comic artist.

Back in 1998, both Netscape and Intel invested in Red Hat. See this Article at wired for details. Unless AOL have since sold the shares that Netscape acquired, they already have a piece of RH. The specific details of how much was invested weren't divulged, so who knows, this could have just been a marketing exercise...

AOL buying Red Hat is merely one more sign that AOL is looking to sock it to Microsoft in the core of their business - the OS market, and with AOL's huge amount of capital/resources, perhaps they'll be able to grow RH from a minority player to something much more prevalant. Perhaps the ultimate release of the AOL/Redhat OS would be a distant version of what we know now, but like Apple's OS X, if there's a unix based kernel at the core of the OS, it will let the tech-folk play dirty while the non-geeks can still have a simple-to-operate user experience.

When these guys release their product we will all be surfing at cable modem speeds over 9,600. In fact, since"Everything in an N-member set can be expressed in an N-1 set." we wont even need a network connection, we can just reconstruct our webpages by uncompressing /dev/null!

Now you can have cows too, acording to this article on Wired

I'm not fond of Oracle. In fact, they may even be as sinister a corporation as people say. I wish they would own up to their failures. But so far at least they are not guilty of censorship.

Jamie: Of course we're not censors. We're only doing this to posters who are "off-topic".

MPAA: Of course we're not censors. We're only doing this to programmers who violate our copyright.

Wired had an article about computer & chess, computers & humans & chess, computers & humans & chess & cheating in the October 2001 issue:

This time it's personal

subheader: Humankind battles to reclaim the chess-playing championship of the world.

This article at Wired a few months back is an intriguing read on the recent history of attempts to improve chess progams and their performance versus notable humans (such as Gary Kasparov and V Kramnik).

Particularly notable (if you are a Kasparov fan) is the description of how Kasparov was, from a certain perspective, manipulated into a match setup which he could not win (wrt the Deep Blue match a few years back).

For example, he never got to view any of Deep Blue's previous games -- whereas in a human match, any world class grandmaster would certainly have studied his opponents games before hand as preparation.

Secondly, Kasparov didn't actually play the same program through the whole match -- the program was tweaked as the match went along.

This subject is quite fascinating in that some people have historically treated the 'can a computer play better than a human' question as sort of a low-level Turing test milestone.

I notice the banner of this site says "News for Nerds"...

Excuse me—you've been a registered Slashdot member for over two years, and you're only now noticing the motto?

The Eden project has been around for a couple of years and is actually a very successful tourist attraction in the UK.

We know; those of us who hadn't already heard of it read yesterday's Wired article, to which this story provides a link.

Just because it's the first time *you* heard about it doesn't make it news.

Actually, that's precisely what makes it news. Just because someone in Cornwall lives next door to the thing doesn't mean it isn't newsworthy to the rest of the world. Also, figures to be released this month will probably include the Eden Project as one of the UK's top five tourist spots. That's news to you as well.

To sum up, pipe down. If you're reading news selected primarily for an audience in another country, you have to accept that it won't be tailored for you. Just be proud that your countrymen's accomplishments are being recognized.

<flame intensity="20%">
Besides, if I lived in a country where two of the top five attractions were a greenhouse and a wax museum, I'd be grateful for any attention we could get.
</flame>

There's a nifty little website out there called Jump The Shark ... "a Chronicle of the moments a TV shows goes downhill" ...

For me, I'm not sure when that momemnt happened, but I just know I haven't been watching it for the past couple of years. To me, the show lost it's "Twilight-Zone-Like" playfulness somewhere down the line and is now just another tedious soap-opera with a monster waiting to jump out of a closet.

Then again, I liked the original Lone-Gunman, and lost interest after only a couple of episodes.

Handspring IPO Bounces Up
by Joanna Glasner

10:00 a.m. Jun. 21, 2000 PDT

A closely watched initial stock offering from Handspring Inc. got a warm reception on Wall Street Wednesday.

I used it as a TA for a lower division class at Cal and it really was quite impressive--color coding similar sections, etc. A human review is necessary or course, but there was never really any doubt that the top few catches were cheating.

See MOSS and the 1998 Wired article about it.

-- Chris

1. "I'd shoot them if they came in my door!" They come with US Marshals. If you manage to gun them down, more and more law enforcement will pile on and you will eventually go out in a blaze of glory ala Waco. Nobody will remember you as a hero for defying the BSA/SPA - you will be remembered as the jerk who killed many law officers.
   
2. "If they do FOO or BAR it's illegal and I'll sue/prosecute them!" These organizations are run by lawyers. They know the relevant law far, far better than you do. They're not doing anything illegal. However all the half-baked schemes proposed for thwarting their investigation probably contain illegal actions.
   
3. "They can't install their audit software on my computers without my permission!" Yes they can. It is part of executing a judicially authorized search.
   
4. "I'll obstruct the search through a clever hack!" This is probably a bad idea from a legal standpoint. If your clever hack is penetrated, which it probably will be, you have substantially strengthened their case if it ever goes to trial. And you are probably liable for the hours you wasted.
   

Copying software isn't a right, but it's a fact of life. It is nearly impossible to be in compliance with the terms of most software lisences. How many total copies are you allowed to be in posession of? Backups? Rotating backups? Did you expunge it from your old system completely when you got the new one? BSA is not forgiving of these "mistakes" (see the poster who's company got nailed for a missed copy of wordperfect 5.1). When a person (BSA is not "the law") uses threats (of protracted legal action against a well funded entity) to get cash ("settlements" of $100k-$500k from SMALL businesses) it is extortion; just as it is when a cop allows you to "pay your speeding ticket on the spot" rather than go to court.

The use of the Federal Marshals to enforce this is not precisely mercenary in that the Federal Marshals are not being paid by BSA, that was a bit hyperbolic. But they are enforcing the will of a private concern against people who occasionally don't even break the law. This is presumption of guilt policing, and it has dramatic costs. Consider Snap-on Tools (about half way down).

In the end I do agree with some of the posters that suggest that this is a good thing for open source. It does dramatically increase the costs associated with commercial software, but I wouldn't wish an audit on even an enemy, not even to promote open source.

When they can send the marshals through your front door, shut you down for 6 days or more, confiscate your equipment on the word of an anonymous snitch, it's pretty much the definition of a police state. Yeah, you can fight back through the usual channels but only at huge cost. (And I'd be astounded if every piece of software in even the BSA offices was being used to the letter of it's EULA). For example, I posted anonymously because I fear retribution, even though my servers are straight BSD.

This isn't fair, it isn't right, and it's the wrong way to go about the problem. Poetic Justice would be served if enough people switched completely to free software and put their supporters out of business. Or maybe to convince SPA and BSA to audit each other...

What was your reaction when you first heard about the Wired article where a Belgian designer suggests Apple copied him becase he had sketches that match the new iMac online last year?

If you look hard enough I'm sure that you can find something similar to any new idea somewhere. There are billions of people with trillions of ideas, it's not hard to imagine that two people could have a similar idea on the same topic and even have the ideas appear in similar forums.

Also, lets look at it this way. People have been talking about an LCD iMac for a long time. It's pretty standard for an LCD to have a long neck attached to a base. It is not hard to make the leap that it will be a lot easier to put the internals of the computer in a larger base, leaving the panel free to swing around. The hard part is the design and engineering of all the critical parts so that they work well together.

Making a quick sketch of what this product will be is very easy and I bet that there are many people who came up with a similar design on the back of napkins. The fact is that Apple went out, did it, and are now selling it before anyone else did so.

According to Wired, a belgian developer claims he had imagined and put on line a similar design for new iMacs some months ago.
This developer would like to know whether the new iMac is actually (deeply) inspired from his works or just a coincidence.
His query is interesting as he doesn't want to sue Apple (not his kind of sport, actually) but just to know more...

I know that the lead times of a project like this preclude apple from actually using his design, but when you saw the article, what was your reaction?

Didja think it had been leaked?

Now, Verisign the Registrar releases a lot of domains to the public right now after a certain period of time. At this time the names are released and numerous registrars attempt to snag those names when they are dropped. This practice has caused headaches to no end at Verisign the Registry.

Wired ran a story about this the other day.

Basically the gist of the article was that we can't be sure if this is safe and/or a good idea until we try it. I know some kids who started smoking for that exact same reason in junior high... Oh well, at least I don't live anywhere near the site.

Sounds like the vaporware phenomenon has extended to virii.

1. It's 'viruses'. ESR says so.

2. Concept Virus is also the name of the virus commonly known as Nimda.

The reality is slightly more murky than that. One UK litigant successfully obtained a summary judgement in the British courts against a Canadian defendant who was resident in the USA, for on line defamation in a USENET newsgroup. He used this judgement to obtain an advantageous settlement with the defendant's university.

Here are a notice about the lawsuit, a Wired article about some of Godfrey's other suits, and a notice abour Cornell University's settlement with Godfrey. Again, several other cases are mentioned.

Although there did appear to be a question over whether the plaintiff could collect on his default judgement, in fact he appears to have successfully leveraged such judgements to obtain monetary settlements.

I wonder if Ms would purposefully change them to break under Lindows

Sure. And this has already happened several times. A sample quote from here :

Caldera claims that Microsoft intentionally kept Windows 3.1 from working with DR-DOS in order to fend off the competing operating system.

The anti-microsoft trial revealed that such practices were common.

It was in the Wired Review

"You can load DOS, Linux, OS 2, Windows 2000, 95, 98, ME, XP Home and Pro, and of course OS X and Mac OS 9. You can run any combination; RAM is the only limiting factor. While this trick has other uses, the popular purpose is to impress people who have trouble running just one operating system on their PC. And it really is impressive."

There was an article in Wired in 1999 that is about the dirty little secret in corporate America. The secret? A lot of companies are still using punch cards for critical applications. It is a good read.

Personally, I will sorta miss that "thwupp!" sound when the tape drive grabbed the tape to feed it onto the take-up reel. (Okay, not really, but I wanted to somehow work in the fact that I had used 9-track.)

There was an article in Wired in 1999 that is about the dirty little secret in corporate America. The secret? A lot of companies are still using punch cards for critical applications. It is a good read.

Personally, I will sorta miss that "thwupp!" sound when the tape drive grabbed the tape to feed it onto the take-up reel. (Okay, not really, but I wanted to somehow work in the fact that I had used 9-track.)

They just threw out information theory entirely... too restrictive. They came up with their own theory... disinformation theory! Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon, too... these guys even compiled a list of the pioneers!

Here.
Has some really useful features, such as disk-safe undo that isn't available on windows.

I especially like the tagline:
With the advent of this new version, PC users have no problem crossing over to the Mac. It's one thing to tell PC users that a Mac is better, but to show them that even a PC is better when it runs on a Mac really drives the point home.

The above copy does not include links in the document.

For a better "Rundown minus advertising" that includes the links use this please.

"How long can Apple last?" Gimme a break, I was hoping for at least an "Apple/BSD is dyeing" header on /.

"Do enough people really buy these things to keep Apple afloat" Apparently, and even profitable

"Until you can play Counter-Strike on an iMac, I can't take them seriously" I guess if games are what it takes for you to take a platform seriously instead of real apps that help you get work done, you take the Xbox a lot more seriously than Linux.

Virtual PC Is Virtually Perfect
...
VPC 5 takes it one step further and will run up to 11 different operating systems on your Mac all at once --- providing you have OS X as one of those operating systems.

Under the truly amazing VPC 6, you can run Linux, Windows, &etc. I had submitted this story a few days ago, but it was rejected -- there's just too much Apple news lately. FWIW:

New for Mac OS X -- Virtual PC 6 from Connectix looks pretty incredible. As Wired says, "You can load DOS, Linux, OS 2, Windows 2000, 95, 98, ME, XP Home and Pro, and of course OS X and Mac OS 9. You can run any combination; RAM is the only limiting factor." Runs under MacOSX and MacOS9, though under MacOSX you can network different instances of VPC together, for filesharing or network programming. VPC 6 also allows you to "undo" -- revert to past sessions, including reboots (you can't do this in the real Windows). Apple and MacNet2 both review it warmly, and
CreativePro says: "I installed Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2 without difficulty, though the drag and drop functionality does not work in Linux." If you're upset because MS Access or MS FrontPage weren't included with Microsoft Office for the Mac, you can run them under VPC. Prices go from $80 to $200. It's also available for windows.

Why Slashdot Sucks
I work with a bunch of geeks. And that's okay. They do their thing and I do mine. Most of the time I'm happy for them, that they get joy and happiness out of playing with electronics. Admittedly I disagree with a lot of their thoughts about life. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, then it was the sun, but now we all know that the computer is the focal point of the universe, projecting its cathode ray goodness on our souls. You can't eat, sleep, breathe, live or run a business without one, or so we're told.


---> But if there's one thing I have no tolerance for, it's the geek phenomenon known as slashdot.org, the sorriest case for content on the web I've ever seen pawned off and gleefully accepted by the masses.

When I look at magazines, newspapers, or any other source of information, I judge them on three items: usefulness/uniqueness of content, quality of that content, and the depth of coverage regarding that content.

Slashdot has none of these things. And yet people try to convince me that the people who run that website are working hard at it.

Say what?

That's right - when Andover.net filed its IPO, making the editors of Slashdot instant wannabe millionaires, someone in the office said "Those guys put in a lot of hard work, and they deserve the success."

Now, I write code for a living, and I work hard at it, so I have a good idea of how slashdot operates. I guarantee you that the entire website is little more than leftover code from college projects and other unrelated work. At the very best, it is ill-conceived and poorly developed, which explains in part why the interface is so miserably awful, and the site is unbelievably slow.

Let's theorize what goes on in the average day of the slashdot editors:

10:42 AM - get out of bed.
10:45 AM - first Dr Pepper of the day.
10:46 AM - unglue keyboard from desk, check stock market.
10:56 AM - find a few interesting tech stories on the web. This is easy, since users send them to us all the time.
11:04 AM - post said stories to slashdot, disregarding spelling and journalistic impartiality.
11:08 AM - start playing Quake 3 (or whatever the game of the moment is).
3:15 AM - go to sleep.

If I'm wrong about anything, it's that they get up even later than that. And I couldn't figure out what time that order the pizza for dinner. But they have pepperoni on them.

Content - The content of slashdot is, admittedly, targeted towards geeks. But apparently not very smart ones. Regardless of the target audience, the content is never challenging - it never pushes the reader to think. Have we become a society where the last place you really exercise your brain is in grammar school? The average news article on slashdot is little more than a snippet from some tech rag about a new product that everyone loves, usually with an editorial comment tossed in telling everyone how they should feel about it.

I can get that same crap anywhere else. The TV tells me what to think, newspapers and magazines back them up, and slashdot does the same exact thing and is somehow worshipped as a haven for free thinking.

Quality - Why not try out that spellchecker? One word for you slashdot folks: dictionary. Try one on for size. Work on your spelling and grammar, and once those improve I'll attack the quality of your writing.

Consider this - Jon Katz is the best writer on slashdot. If you're familiar with his work, then you might appreciate that, or you might realize how lousy the writing must be if that's the case.

Katz has written some decent articles for slashdot (In particular, his Hellmouth series). But he's too wrapped up in the medium to see what he writes about. He's too busy dropping buzzwords that define his writing more than his actual content.

But the truly amazing thing about him is - almost everyone who reads slashdot hates Katz. They loathe him. The self-proclaimed geeks who read slashdot don't want to be challenged by his writing. There are people who attack every article he writes, regardless of the content.

Depth - unless its the updated release schedule for the new linux kernel or a new game, you're not going to get much repeat coverage on slashdot. And you're not likely to extract much from an article unless you already knew a certain amount of information about the topic. Once again, the exception might be Katz, who writes multi-part articles, but mostly that's because he's a hopeless wheezebag.

The thing that really scares me is that all sorts of little slashdots are popping up all over the web, popular sources of sludge pawned off on the accepting readers, and we readily accept is all as verse. Is this what 200 years of the Industrial Revolution primed us for? 50 years of television? Or was it something else? In my short lifetime I've watched the quality of information sources decline to a point where coverage is simplistic enough that it could be fictionalized and no one would notice the difference. While people ignore the WTO or slaughters in Burundi, Angola, Cambodia, anywhere else to devote coverage to wonder drugs, the newest Internet craze, the Hollywood minute, or any other sort of "News you can use."

And now, in a time when information should be even more readily available, so much of it is crap that finding the gems is rarely worth the shit you need to shovel. The sort of crap you find at slashdot instead of insightful knowledge about this increasingly impersonal, computerized world that we all blithely accept and even embrace.

And that is why slashdot sucks. That website isn't encouraging any free thought, any independent thinking, and certainly not any dissenting viewpoints on the information age. And we all accept it, even 'credible' websites like Wired frequently link to slashdot as their source of expert information and news updates.

If you're not directly connected to the information you want, you're not likely to find anything of depth nowadays. And if you have that sort of connection, then why do you need the web in the first place?

As if cars, skyscrapers, television, mini malls, supermarkets, drugs, war, and McRainForest (brought to you by the Big Mac!) weren't enough, now we have to venture out on the web with millions of other people, and not once challenge out horizons or open our minds.





Willow John

Seems like MacOS on X86 would be a big mistake, especilly when the mainstream press is praising how well Windows and Linux run on Apple hardware!

• Privacy Digest: Wednesday, August 25, 1999.

  "CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999.

  A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.

  The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.

  "FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.

• Privacy Digest: Saturday, August 28, 1999.

  Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?.

  A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.

  But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.

  The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.

• Privacy Digest: Monday, November 1, 1999.

  ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy.

  In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.

  The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.

  The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.

• Privacy Digest: Monday, June 12, 2000.

  Political News from "Wired News" - Court Sides With Telcos on Info.

  The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.

  The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.

• Privacy Digest: Wednesday, August 25, 1999.

  "CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999.

  A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.

  The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.

  "FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.

• Privacy Digest: Saturday, August 28, 1999.

  Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?.

  A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.

  But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.

  The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.

• Privacy Digest: Monday, November 1, 1999.

  ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy.

  In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.

  The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.

  The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.

• Privacy Digest: Monday, June 12, 2000.

  Political News from "Wired News" - Court Sides With Telcos on Info.

  The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.

  The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.

Speaking of which -- VA Research Buys linux.com for $5 Million

The funny thing is that Microsoft bid up the price just to help accelerate the eventual doom of our fav Linux community website company.

Or a sixth possibility - (and incidentally I am 27, with 12 years experience in IT) Work fulltime /school fulltime - same as school full time/gaming fulltime except you get paid =) By age fifteen I had already taken all the computer courses my school offered - I was teaching one of them so I could get credit (which I am not counting since for me it was a course as far as I was concerned). I had 4 spares so I could work from 2 in the afternoon and finish at nine thirty (or later on deadlines) and buy that Camaro Berlinetta I wanted in time for my 16th birthday... (which subsequently wrapped itself around a telephone pole...the nerve!) IMHO the person that started this crazy thread seems like the same kind of person that would look at trying to get me fired... old, jealous, and not Asperger's material. No offense really but you are proving the article writer's point precisely...

Check out this article in Wired Magazine about a now 16-year-old animation developer. This is someone who started in the industry at a relatively young age that by the time he is 20 will have about 5 years experience. He is currently working for a company called Tartarus Development creating plugins for CINEMA 4D. He has appeared on the TechTV series The Screen Savers and is well known throughout the industry.

Sure he may be the exception to the rule, but he proves that being young and inexperienced do not always mean the same thing.

Maybe this link will work better.

I would just like to comment on the score a moderater decided to give me for the comment above this entitled "stupid thiefs." I was rated a 0 with an Off Topic explanation in which I believe I was unfairly judged, let me explain.

If you read the referenced article, in particular this excerpt:

"Cyber criminals are like idiot Hansel and Gretels, scattering electronic breadcrumbs that lead straight to them," said retired New York City detective Pete Angonasta. "You just don't see this sort of behavior in other criminals. I've never seen a burglar leaving cute notes crediting the crime to himself. And I've never run across a burglar who puts up a self-promotional website or goes into a chat room to discuss the night's activities."

You will see I was merely expanding on this topic by offering other links where people can read about other stupid criminals, as stated in the article.

Thanks for listening.

--all the world wants is a little justice.

As someone with their own supercomputer (ACME and /. of 6/6/2000) I can say that you'll come up with a bunch of things you would like to do but haven't found the CPU time to do. This of course presumes that you have half a brain.

We run NP complete problems to completion. Our idle loop is a prime number factoring of one of the RSA challenge numbers. If we were to hit one of those numbers (even the $10k one) we'd more than pay for the machine (but not the A/C or power).

I do ponder what a typical PBS.org reader would do with their own supercomputer. Most lack the sophistication to get a return on investment on even just the air conditioning and electricity better yet the cost of the hardware and the set up. But what do you expect from someone who practices identity theft?

All that said, it is having this class of power out in the hands of the masses that could well bring the next BIG NEW IDEA. It is neat that it can be done and I hope a bunch of /.ers write the code they want to run on such a thing then build one to run it.

-- Multics

I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the boardrooms of the world there are people who would like nothing better than to have the internet regulated to the point where you need to be licensed to operate a website... The Australian government looked at doing this to anyone in Australia who wanted to stream video over the net but then backed down - for now, anyway.

I don't believe it will ever happen, I don't think anyone would ever even suggest it publicly; but the biggest thorn in these companies sides seem to be the public's unwillingness to stay in the officially sanctioned "walled gardens" they have set-up, and you can be sure that somewhere there's a few rich old white men who daydream about walling off the whole damn thing and turning the entire internet into a kind of SuperAOL...

I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the boardrooms of the world there are people who would like nothing better than to have the internet regulated to the point where you need to be licensed to operate a website... The Australian government looked at doing this to anyone in Australia who wanted to stream video over the net but then backed down - for now, anyway.

I don't believe it will ever happen, I don't think anyone would ever even suggest it publicly; but the biggest thorn in these companies sides seem to be the public's unwillingness to stay in the officially sanctioned "walled gardens" they have set-up, and you can be sure that somewhere there's a few rich old white men who daydream about walling off the whole damn thing and turning the entire internet into a kind of SuperAOL...

I heard that Harry Potter is banned. How about the Kiki's Delivery Service? "Conservative Christians" may also hate Totoro.

If you're going to do sousveillance on the Government, you might wind up like Jim Bell.

I'm not sure how seriously I would take this given that these kinds of things can be easily slanted by rabid online fan groups. And I'm sure there are a few rabid fans of Tolkien out there. There isn't a similar online fan community for The Godfather.

I'm not trying to denigrate the film. I haven't seen it yet and have no opinion on it. Just offering yet another reason to remember that these kinds of things, unless scientifically conducted, are meaningless.

--Rick