Slashback: Picnic, Sperling, Quickliness

Slashback tonight with more on the Linux anniversary (thanks to the guys from C4 Solutions for the microfeast celebration, at which we did mention that it was the anniversary), Brian K. West and the Good Samaritan story, booting really really fast, and more.

Now where can we rent giant Tux costumes for such events? You've already seen Marc Merlin's report on the Big Event, but an Anonymous Brave Guy pointed out a piece over at the BBC about people's mostly-mushy feelings about the current 10-year Linux streak, noting that "It's worth reading just for the post on airlines from 'Lee, UK'. :-)" (Oldie-but-goodie, defined.)

And Totally_Tux writes: "LAN parties are generally associated with LAN gaming. The South Australian Linux group though recently held the Linux InstallFest 2001 that aimed at introducing Linux to new users by helping them install the OS onto their notebooks and desktop PCs and holding talks last Saturday. The InstallFest was also marked by a tenth birthday celebration to Linux's Tux persona on the 25th of August. This short article includes some shots from that day. Read about InstallFest 2001 here."

So you wanna make your box jump to life? Many readers were interested in General Software's slimmed-down, quick-booting experimental system; General's Steve Jones writes: "In order to accommodate the numerous requests for more information about the General Software Quick Boot Soyo Experiment, we've set-up a web page, and also an email alias for additional direct queries. The web page contains more details about the project, and a FAQ which the company would like to update based on inquiries to the email address."

Call Occam, ask him to bring his biggest razor. gh0ul writes: "Sheldon Sperling of the DOJ has sent out his own press release regarding last week's Report Security Problems, Face The Consequences story. Brian K. West's defence team has posted their own reply to Sheldon's release here ..."

To help you laugh through the tears: A nameless reader wants you to know that the "BBC's Radio 4 is repeating all 12 episodes from the two series of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy originally broadcast in 1978 and 1980. Wednesdays, 5 September -- 21 November, 6.30pm UK time (17:30 UTC until 2001-10-28, then 18:30 UTC.) Listen here."

Comments

hello

[Anonymous Coward]

i seem to have SHIT YOUR MOUTH.

my bad

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

fp

sacre bleu

[Anonymous Coward]

is that my butt cheeks in your face?

pardon me

1st post

[Anonymous Coward]

woohoo

gay picnic

[Anonymous Coward]

you are invited on a gay picnic. the main course is dick sandwitch.

spread your cheeks and pass the mustard

Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but how do you create a hidden SID?

Oh God

[Mao Zedong]

+++++
++++++++++ +++ ++ ++++ ++++
++++ ++++ +++ ++ ++++ ++++
+++ + +++ ++ +++++ +++++
++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ++
++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++
++ +++ ++ ++ ++++++ ++
++ +++ ++ ++ ++++ ++
+++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++
++++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++
+++++++++++ +++++++++++ ++ ++
+++++++++ ++++++++ ++ ++

Posted by timothy on Tuesday August 28, @07:59PM
from the 130.49.77.223 dept.
Slashback tonight with more on the Linux anniversary (thanks to the guys from C4 Solutions for the microfeast celebration, at which we did mention that it was the anniversary), Brian K. West and the Good Samaritan story, booting really really fast, and more.

LAME

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco, your lameness filter SUCKS!!! All I did was follow a comment with an elipsis (3 dots) and then a frowny face (colon followed by left parenthesis) and your fucking filter thought it was ASCII ART!!!

What unmitigated HORSESHIT!!, especially when you consider ALL the lameass actual ASCII art that makes it through.

Talk about irony: the lamest part of Slashdot is the lameness filter.

*sheesh...*

(yes, I feel better now, thank you)

P.S. Wow! MORE BULLSHIT!! I had originally typed in 'LAME, LAME, LAME' as the subject and got this:

Your comment violated the postersubj compression filter. Comment aborted

What the fuck is that? What a bunch of crap...

Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dot com

FUKK Mr. GNU and Mr. RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

HARD.
sadfljhd sadlkjh sdlkjahf sadlkjf hsdakljf
sadfkjh lkjdshfksdlja akjdshf akjsfh
dsaflkjh

Too Loose

[Mao Zedong]

oooo ooo ooo oooo
oooooo ooooo ooooo oooooo
ooo ooo ooo ooo
oo ooo ooo oo
oo ooo ooo oo
ooo ooo ooo ooo
oooo oooo oooo oooo
ooo oooo oooo ooo
oooo ooo ooo oooo
ooo ooo ooo ooo
oo ooo ooo oo
oo ooo ooo oo
ooo ooo ooo ooo
oooooo ooooo ooooo oooooo
oooo ooo ooo oooo

Posted by timothy on Tuesday August 28, @07:59PM
from the 130.49.77.223 dept.
Slashback tonight with more on the Linux anniversary (thanks to the guys from C4 Solutions for the microfeast celebration, at which we did mention that it was the anniversary), Brian K. West and the Good Samaritan story, booting really really fast, and more.

Wow!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you create a hidden SID??????

..
.o888o.
... dF' `8
.o8888888o .8
o88888888888. .8
o8888888888888. P
o888888888888888.
.8888888"""8888888
8888888' `888888:
.88'8888 8888888
:8"o8888888888888888
:".88888888888888888
.888888888888888888
8888888"""""""""""'
.8888888. .oooooo
88888888o 888888"
888888888b__d888888
88^888888888888888'
:8" 88888888888888'
:8 888888888888'(R)
:8 `88888888'
-8 _dF""""
`8ouo8"
"^"

Re:Sad news - Stephen King dead at 54

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really sad is that people (including myself) find time to post useless crap like your pointless BS and my unread rebuttal.

Sauce for the goose and all that??

[_Mustang]

Say, since it's well know that any important links in a posted article get "slashdotted", does that mean that we should be expecting slashdot to be slashdotted because of this?

General Software, Inc.'s demonstration of a 0.8sec BIOS boot time led to many observations and questions on the technical forum Slashdot, prompting us to provide more details on this project. We?ll update this page periodically ove ..

bitchslap?

[Anonymous Coward]

your posting history is very short, were some of those comments ever above -1? Maybe it was just some overzealous moderator. But i wouldn't be surprised if Taco bitchslapped you. He is really an asshole.

Re:bitchslap?

[Anonymous Coward]

One comment was at 2. A couple were at 1. Only one was at -1. My karma dropped to -10 within one minute of making that final post. The account is now blocked for 24 hours, of course. I know a bitchslap when I see one.

--The O. P. P.

Re:bitchslap?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know a bitchslap when I see one."

No you don't.

If your posts are annoyingly offtopic enough to catch moderators' eyes, don't be surprised when one of them clicks on your username and takes it upon himself to mod down all your crappy offtopic posts. The fact that you whine about this is really, really pathetic.

-Jamie

Re:bitchslap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there, "Jamie"!

Remember that period when no users were getting moderator points? Moderation kept happening, and it was excessively negative. Any post that didn't simply agree with the opinions in the article quickly got modded to "-1, Offtopic". In fact, that also happened to a few posts that did agree with the article, but happened to be in the same thread as one that didn't. And no posts ever reached a score above 3. We know how the /. editors moderate.

Meanwhile, the first time O.P.P. posted his little essay, it got modded to "+2, Insightful". I saw it. That was no doubt the result of user moderation (the comment was later modded to "-1, Offtopic", no doubt another case of /. editor moderation). I also frequently see posts that make fun of CmdrTaco and others modded up to +5. We also know the users moderate.

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe O.P.P. when he says he was slapped down by the /. editors. Whether or not it actually used the "bitchslap" code (or whatever it's called these days) is irrelevant. It's still quite clear that it was the editors, not the users, who modded him down.

By the way, I also don't believe you're the real Jamie. Why don't you post logged in next time? Don't worry, if you are who you say you are, you can always mod yourself down to -1 (like Michael usually does) so there won't be any record of what you say, as I know that's how the /. editors like to operate.

Re:bitchslap?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember that period when no users were getting moderator points? Moderation kept happening, and it was excessively negative. Any post that didn't simply agree with the opinions in the article quickly got modded to '-1, Offtopic'. In fact, that also happened to a few posts that did agree with the article, but happened to be in the same thread as one that didn't."

Of course editors moderate. Before Slashdot's moderation system was opened up to the masses, a select group of moderators functioned quite well in fact. We prefer letting everyone moderate, but when trolls post lengthy off-topic threads, we don't insist that users waste their mod points sending them down to -1, we do it for them.

It has nothing to do with opinions we like or don't like. It's a three-question checklist. Are you offtopic? Is your comment flamebait? Are you trolling? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then of course you're going to be modded down -- by an editor, or some other user, it's really just a matter of time. (This case is a good example: users downmodded O.P.P. repeatedly before any editors noticed.)

Trolls have their own methods of illicitly gaining modpoints and karma, though not so many now as before, happily. While we tweak the system to eliminate the loopholes, you better beleive we're going to manually spend a few point's of our own to counteract. You think we should stand by and do nothing while you ruin any sense of coherent discussion for everyone else? Yeah right, that'll happen.

"Whether or not it actually used the 'bitchslap' code (or whatever it's called these days) is irrelevant. It's still quite clear that it was the editors, not the users, who modded him down."

So you now recognize that it wasn't the 'bitchslap' code at least. Well, that's progress. Next step: go take a look at O.P.P.'s posts. Are they ontopic? Not a one of them. Then is it wrong for them to sit at -1, Offtopic? No. So what's your gripe?

Just for the record -- 'bitchslap' is only used on bots.

"Don't worry, if you are who you say you are, you can always mod yourself down to -1 (like Michael usually does) so there won't be any record of what you say, as I know that's how the /. editors like to operate."

Yeah, we like it so much, we spent the last six months writing a database system that keeps all comments, permanently, regardless of their score.

That's right, all your pathetic whinging will now be archived in perpituity, just 'cause we all love you so much. What exactly were you moaning about? Your offtopic comments got modded to -1, Offtopic?

Re:bitchslap?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I to assume this is "jamie" again?

OK, I concede that I wasn't hit by the bitchslap script. I'm glad you've conceded that it was you who aggressively modded every single post I've made to -1. Pity you thought you could lie to me the first time you replied to this thread, when you made up some cock-and-bull story about a rogue moderator acting independently to eliminate my posts. The fact that you don't understand why this sort of thing is wrong, or that your own statements about it are contradictory is baffling to me.

One of the assumptions you make when taking it upon yourself to preempt the moderators is that you know better than them. Slashdot's history of falling for blatant web hoaxes is pretty clear evidence that you don't.

If my posts are precisely the sort of thing moderation was cooked up to eliminate, why didn't you let the moderation system do the job it was designed for? I made five posts. That's not going to be a drain on the pool of mod points. If my posts were so certain to be modded off-topic, that would indicate, in your eyes, that the mod system is working. Why did you step in?

I'll repeat at this point that I couldn't care less about my account being slapped down by moderation. I expected that sort of response from the normal moderators when I began this. I just find it amusing that you felt the need to overreact so viciously. No doubt you'll repeat the process next time.

Just for the record -- 'bitchslap' is only used on bots.

Lie. slashdot-terminal was not a bot. Neither is sllort. Who or what is modslap used on, by the way? Bots as well?

Yeah, we like it so much, we spent the last six months writing a database system that keeps all comments, permanently, regardless of their score.

I don't believe for a second that it took you guys six months to modify slash to archive posts at -1. If it did, then you guys are worse than I thought.

"blah blah pathetic whinging blah blah blah"

I have pinched a nerve, haven't I?

From the faq:

The vast majority of you will never encounter any of these troll filters. If you do encounter one unfairly, let us know so we can fix it. This stuff is fairly beta code, so there are bound to be problems/

So I've let you know. Fix it. What's the justification for releasing security exploits to the public? It forces the authors of the software to do something about it. Same thing applies here. If I just emailed you, you'd ignore me completely, wouldn't you?

A lot has been said on the flaws of moderation. The big problem is that you guys have tried to make moderation do far too much, and that's just sparked a lot of resentment among the more free-thinking readers of the site. Beyond that, I don't think I need to reiterate what has already been said.

--The O. P. P.

Re:bitchslap?

[egg troll]

Yeah, we like it so much, we spent the last six months writing a database system that keeps all comments, permanently, regardless of their score.

If it took you six months to write code to archive all posts regardless of their score, I think thats pretty sad. I, a shitty coder who struggles with Python, could've probably done that in a month.

There are going to be trolls on any community forum. No matter how much you try to block us out, we'll keep posting. The Slashdot editors just need to accept this and move on. By trying to clamp down, you only make us work even harder to post.

Notice all the ASCII art on here? A direct result of Taco's lame Lameness Filter. Now that links are put in brackets, people work even harder to get around it and are succeeding in ways they never had before. Previously people would look at their browser to see what the link they were clicking on lead to. Now that Slashdot is doing that for them, it makes trolling even easier.

Plus you insult everyone's intelligence by having that douchebag Jon Katz continue to post. This vapid waste of space has nothing to say and takes paragraphs to get there. He's a one-trick pony and unfortunately that pony isn't very good, like the annoying uncle who keeps playing Gotcher Nose with the children.

The more you try to keep down the trolls, the more we're going to rise up and say FUCK YOU to the bullshit editors of this site. If you wanna see a community site thats properly run, go look at fark.com. Come back when you finally understand people, "Jaimie".

BBC TV?

[shibut]

BBC has some really great shows (one of my favorites, when it got to PBS, was Jeeves and Wooster - of "ask Jeeves" fame, not to mention Monty Python). Is there a way to get the BBC in the US? Can people with DirecTV etc see it?

Crucifiction? To the left please, one cross each (Life of Brian).

crappo

[Anonymous Coward]

ascii spork

How Big Is Porn?
Dan Ackman, Forbes.com, 05.25.01, 1:45 PM ET

NEW YORK -
Is this the face of big business? Actually, no.

Recently, much attention has been lavished on the pornography industry--as a business--and many have claimed it is large and profitable, especially on the Internet. Many of the claims are cut from whole cloth, but are accepted without question by the legitimate press.

Skepticism is in order, though, because as David Klatell, associate dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism notes, "[Pornography] is an industry where they exaggerate the size of everything." The fact is pornography, or "adult entertainment," is as marginal now as it ever was.

Take for instance the New York Times Magazine: It ran a cover story on May 18 called "Naked Capitalists: There's No Business Like Porn Business." Its thesis: Pornography is big business--with $10 billion to $14 billion in annual sales. The author, Frank Rich, suggests that pornography is bigger than any of the major league sports, perhaps bigger than Hollywood. Porn is "no longer a sideshow to the mainstream...it is the mainstream," he says.

The idea that pornography is a $10 billion business is often credited to a study by Forrester Research. This figure gets repeated over and over. The only problem is that there is no such study. In 1998, Forrester did publish a report on the online "adult content" industry, which it pegged at $750 million to $1 billion in annual revenue. The $10 billion aggregate figure was unsourced and mentioned in passing.

For the $10 billion figure to be accurate, you have to add in adult video networks and pay-per-view movies on cable and satellite, Web sites, in-room hotel movies, phone sex, sex toys and magazines--and still you can't get there.

According to Adult Video News (AVN), an industry trade magazine, Americans spent just over $4 billion to buy and rent adult videos last year. This figure is baseless and wildly inflated. From there, the numbers get even more obscure.

Tossing in the Internet will add less than $1 billion to the total porn pie. The 1998 Forrester report pegs the online adult content market at $750 million to $1 billion, which was an increase from its initial estimate of $150 million. When a study admits that its initial result was off by at least 80%, it's hard to be confident in the new result. In any event, Tom Rhinelander, a Forrester research director, says they have given up trying to put a price on porn--either on the Internet or otherwise.

Its rival research outfit, Net Ratings, tracks the number of visitors to porn Web sites. It says that in April 2001, there were 22.9 million unique visitors to porn sites. This says nothing about how long each visitor stayed or whether they spent a dime. In any event, the number of visitors is less than the number who visited news sites (41.1 million), finance sites (34.2 million) or greeting card sites (25.5 million). When was the last time you heard anyone talk about how greeting card sites dominate the Net?

The Business Of Smut: What Is It Worth?
Adult Video $500 million to $1.8 billion
Internet $1 billion
Pay-Per-View $128 million
Magazines $1 billion
Total $2.6 billion to $3.9 billion

Sources: Adams Media Research, Forrester Research, Veronis Suhler Communications Industry Report, IVD
It is often said that pornographers are the only ones making money on the Internet. Certainly, there are a lot of porn sites and many assume that they wouldn't be there if they weren't profitable. But that assumption is baseless.

Playboy (nyse: PLA - news - people), which calls itself a men's magazine rather than an adult magazine, lost money last year, as did New Frontier Media (nasdaq: NOOF - news - people). There are thousands of e-commerce sites that still exist despite never having made a profit. There are millions of personal sites and fan sites whose publishers have no intention of ever profiting. Why are porn sites, of which there are an untold number competing fiercely with each other, necessarily any different?

What about pay-per-view? The entire legitimate "a la carte" movie business, including satellite and cable pay-per-view, was just $642 million last year, says Tom Adams, president of Adams Media Research, which tracks video sales for the industry. If sex movies get 20% of the legitimate movies, that adds $128 million to pornography's gross.

Adding pay-per-view to the Internet and video sales and rentals, the sum total is about $2.9 billion. Is it possible that adult magazines add another $7 billion--which would have to come in sales since they have minimal advertising? Hardly, when you consider that the entire consumer magazine market in 1999 grossed $7.8 billion (sales plus advertising), according to the Veronis Suhler Communications Industry Report.

The Times Magazine concludes there may be no other product in the entire cultural marketplace that is more explicitly American, going so far as to call it "mainstream." We have no idea how "explicitly American" it is, though we suspect men in other countries like to look at naked women, too.

What pornography lacks is cultural resonance, it also lacks in financial clout. The industry is tiny next to broadcast television ($32.3 billion in 1999 revenue, according to Veronis Suhler), cable television ($45.5 billion), the newspaper business ($27.5 billion), Hollywood ($31 billion), even to professional and educational publishing ($14.8 billion).

When one really examines the numbers, the porn industry--while a subject of fascination--is every bit as marginal as it seems at first glance.

__,,aadd880880880baa,_
,ad88088088088088088088088a,
,d88088088088088088088088088088a,
,d880880880880880880880880880880880b,
,d880880880880880880880880880880880880b
d88088088088088088088088088088088088088b
8808808808808808808808808808808808808808,
,8808808808808808808808808808808808808808b
d88088088088088088088088088088088088088088,
880880880880880880880880880880P'`880880880b
,88088088088088088088P"88P"Y880b Y880880880,
,d880880880880880880P" d8P' "88P "Y8808808b
d88088088088088088P" Y" ,8P 88088088
;88088088088088088P' '"""" Y" '"""" 8808808P
I88088088088088088' ,aaa, /,aaa, 8808808'
I8808808808\880880 `b8d' | `b8d' 880880P
`Y8808808808\88088 ( ,880880'
`Y8808808808)8808 (___) I88088'
"880880880|8808, ,8808P'
"8808808|8808I ,ad8a8ba, ,8808"
"88088|88088, "Y880P" ,880P'
`8808|8808`Ya, ,ad880P_
8808|8808 `"Yba,,,,,,d88088088088baaa,,_
I880|8808 `""Y88088088P"' `""""Y8baa,,_
8808'8808, ,8808808P `"""Y8baa,,_
,880P Y880b I8808808' `"""8baa,_
,8Y8P' `Y880, 88088088 `""YYaa,_
"',P' `"Y8, I8808808, `""Yba_
,d' `" Y880880b `"b
,d' Y880880b, _______ 8
,8' Y8808808ba,,__,aad88b"""YYY8bba,,_ 8
dP "88088088088088088088a, `"""Yba, 8
8I `880880880880880880880, "b 8
8b `88088088088088088088b 8 ,P
I8, `Y8808808808808808808 8 d'
`88, `Y88088088088088088P 8 8
8`Yb `Y880880880880880P' 8 ,P
8 `Yb Y, `8808808808808P" 8 d'
8 `Yb `8, `Y88088088088 8 8
8 `Yb `8, `Y8808808808 8 ,P
8 `Yb, `8, `8808808808 8 d'
8 "Yb, `Yb, 8808808808 8 ,P
8 "8b, "Yb, ,8808808808 8 ,d'
8 8 "Ya, `"8, d8808808808, 8 d'
8 8 `"Ya, "Ya_ ,88088088P"'Yb, 8 ,P
8 8 `"Ya,_ `"8a, ,d8808P"' ,Y8, ,8 d'
8 8 `"Yb,_ "Y880P"' ,ad88088b, ,8' ,P
8 "ba,_ `"Ybad" ,ad88088088088baaaadP" ,aP'
8, `"Yba,_ ,P' ,ad8808808808P"""""' ,dP'
`8b, `""Ya, ,da8808808808808808bbbaaaaaaadP"'
"Y8a, `"Ya,,d88088088088088088088088088b
`"Ya,._ `Y880880880880880880880880880880,
`""Yba,_ ,d8808808808808808808808808808808b
`""YYaa,,,d8808808808808808808808808808808808,
`"d8808808808808808808808808808808808808b
,d8808808808808808808808808808808808808808,
a8808808808808808808808808808808808808808808b
,d8808808808808808808808PP"" ::""Y880880,
,d8808808808808808PP"" :880880b,
d880880880880P"" ::Y8808808b
d880880880P:;P 88088088b
,88088088P"::;P :880880880,
,d8808808P ::d ::880880880b
a8808808P :8 :I880880880
,d8808808" ::8 I880880880
,d8808808P 8; :I880880880
,d88088088 :Yb; I88088088P
,d880880880 ::Yb I88088088'
d8808808808; ::Yb ::I8808808'
,88088088088b "8; 8808808P
d880880880880b :"Ya; :;;aa; 880880P'
88088088088088b; :`YbbaaaadddPP"" :;88088"
8808808808808808b; a;;;::;ad"8 :d88P"
88088088088088088Y; :""""" 8 :8"
Y88088088088088088Y; ::8 :8
`880880880880880880b ::8 :8
Y880880880880880880 ::8 ;P
`"Y880880880880880 ::8 d'
"Y8808P"Y880880 ::8 8
`"' `"' 8 ::8 8
8 ::8 8
8 ::8; :;P
Y; :Ib :d'
`b ::8 :8
8 ::8 ;P
Y; :8 d'
`b :Y; ::8
`b :b :;P
Y; 8 :d'
`b 8 :8
Y; ::Y; ::;P
`b b :;d'
Y; ::8 ;d'
`b ::8 d'
Y; :8 ::;P
`b :8 ::d'
8 :8 :;P
8 :8 :d'
8 ;8 :8
8 dP ;P
8 ::;P :d'
,P ::d ::8
d ::;P ::8
,P ::d 8
d ::;P 8
d d :8
d :8 :Y,
,P ;P ::b
,P :d 8
,d ::8 8
,d ::;P 8
d d :8
8 8 :8
,P 8 :8
d :8 :8
8 :8 :8
,P :8 :8
d ::8 :8
8 ::8 :8
8 ::8 :8
8 ::8 ;P
8 ::8 d'
8 ::8 8
8 ::Y; ::8
8 b ::8
8 8; ;P
8 8I d'
8 Yb; ::8
8 8"b ::8
8 8 8; ;P
8 ::;P `b d'
Y; :d' Y; ::8
`b :8 `b ::8
8 :8 8 ::8
8 ;P 8 ::8
8 d' 8 :;P
Y; ::8 8 :d'
`b ::8 8 :8
8 :;P 8 :8
8 :8' 8 ;P
8 :8 8 d'
8 :8 8 8
8 :8 8 8
8:;; :8 8 8
,88088b;:8 8 8
,d8808808b8 8 8
,d8808808808 ,d8;; :Y,
d88088088088 ,d880880b; ::b
,880880880880 ,d88088088b; :8
d880880880880 d8808808808b :8
Y880880880880 880880880880; 8
`880880880880 880880880880b 8
8808808:8808 8808808808808 8
8808"ZZZ:880 Y880880880880 Y,
880' ZZZ:880 `880P" `Y8808 :b
88P ZZZ:880 880' 8808 :8
88' ZZZ:880 Y88 8808; 8
88 ZZZ:880, `88 Y880b 8
88 ZZZ:880b 88 `8808 8
"" ZZZ:8808, "" 8808;::Y,
`ZZZ:8808b, 8808b;::b,
"ZZZ:8808 Y880880880b,_
`"""""" "Y88088088088b,
`"Y8808808808

Does the adult video market have $4 billion in sales? Not even half that.

This figure comes from Adult Video News, an industry trade paper--not from Variety, the Hollywood trade paper, which Rich cites. How Adult Video News gets this number is not clear. We asked Adult Video News' managing editor, Mike Ramone. "I don't know the exact methodology," he said, "It's a pie chart." Asked to break the figure down into sales versus rentals, a standard practice among those who cover the video industry, he said he didn't think it was available and suggested we call the editor-in-chief, who didn't return our calls.

In fact, there is no chance that the adult video business has revenues of even $2 billion. This hardly compares to the sales and rentals of legitimate videos, which were roughly $20 billion last year, both according to Adams Media Research and Variety. (Neither Adams nor Variety track porn sales.)

No one tracks the adult video business with any rigor or precision, Adams says. But his "most generous" estimate is that sales and rentals combined are no higher than $1.8 billion. Adams starts with the mainstream video business, which he says had rental income of $10.3 billion and sales of $10.8 billion (both of which far exceed box office grosses, which amounted to $7.67 billion last year, according go the National Association of Theater Owners).

On the rental side, at least half the video stores nationally, including industry leaders Blockbuster (nyse: BBI - news - people) and Hollywood Video (nasdaq: HLYW - news - people), carry no porn titles. Of the 50% (at most) of the stores that do, retailer surveys report that no more than 20% of revenue is from porn. Thus, porn rentals amount to no more than $1 billion.

As for video sales, much of the trade is through outlets like Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people) and Kmart (nyse: KM - news - people), who stock no porn titles. There are, of course, the traditional adult video and bookstores mostly in big cities, but this is a fringe distribution channel at best. Internet and mail order may add to the total, but these channels account for just 10% of legitimate sales. Overall, "There's no way it could be 10% of the legitimate market," Adams says. His top estimate for adult video sales is $800 million.

Adams calls his $1.8 billion aggregate generous. Some of the industry's own numbers suggest a much lower figure. IVD, based in Hightstown, N.J., the nation's largest distributor, said that there are as many as 13,000 video releases per year. (There are many niche markets--boy-boy, fat people, transvestites, freak shows--which add to the total, according to an IVD spokesman.)

A typical release may sell 1,000 to 2,000 units. Using the high-end figure, the industry sells about 26 million units. If the average unit sells either directly or through rentals for $20--a high-end estimate given the fact that the number of titles makes the product a commodity--that means the adult video business grosses at best $520 million, not $4 billion.

All told, the adult video business takes in anywhere from one-tenth to one-half the figure proffered by Adult Video News. Certainly, self-interested statements by pornographers merit a second look.

ascii spork

Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Two thumbs up, OPP. Although, in response to another's post about respecting trolls, I think most of them are just honest-to-goodness dumbasses. Heigh ho.

As an aside, wouldn't a (partially at least) effective lameness filter just be to filter all comments which use punctuation characters as more than, say, 15% of the total comment length (in proportion to the actual comment length or whatever)?

Anyhow, although one must fear posting pro-MS content on Slashdot, I wouldn't go so far as to say they're Nazis. But you do provide an interesting insight into what the makers of Slashdot do to try and keep order...

(Remember 1984? About how Big Brother prevailed because it had no illusion as to its means or ends? And all other powerful leaders believed their nasty means worked towards a better end? I see parallels... (Oh dear, there I go with melodramaticism :-)).)

Anyway, I shall sign off with my actual user name, see if they suspiciously modslap me (I do hope so, I can get anyone I want modslapped then).

- TACD (The same nondescript sig you once knew and loved) - Not Taco! No! TACD! Phew.

OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

As an aside, wouldn't a (partially at least) effective lameness filter just be to filter all comments which use punctuation characters as more than, say, 15% of the total comment length (in proportion to the actual comment length or whatever)?

It would catch code, and geekcodes. The best solution is to just let the thing be modded down. The only thing the lameness filter seems to have accomplished is inspiring a lot more creativity in trolling.

Re:OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Creativity good. I was getting tired of penis bird :-)

But really, surely no-one uses triangle-brackets (whatever the hell those buggers are called) as more than 15% of their post? Or do you mean something else by code, and I am missing it?

Anyway, I'm sure those oh-so-clever Slashcode people can make it so that stuff goes through fine. Hell, why not take every example of ASCII art and whump it into a database, so that every new masterpiece has to be original?

- TACD (The same nondescript sig you once knew and loved (until it got modded off the map for discussing Slashcode)) - Although, you seem to have escaped. Perhaps some auto-AC-modding script is running amok?

Re:OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Anyway, I'm sure those oh-so-clever Slashcode people can make it so that stuff goes through fine. Hell, why not take every example of ASCII art and whump it into a database, so that every new masterpiece has to be original?

Now *that*'s fsckin' brilliant.

By code, I mean programming - Perl comes to mind. The thing's 90% punctuation as it is.

Re:OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

?? What's Perl code doing running around Slashdot in the nude?

I mean, er, what exactly do the people who use the code use it for? Is it necessary for it to be enabled? And not that I know anything about coding, but surely it must have some kind of header saying "Perl code from now on" and something saying "Good old ASCII again from now" at the end, which could be allowed through?

Not that lameness matters to the Slashdot people; they probably have their filters set to show nothing below +2 or something...

- TACD (The same nondescript sig which is getting tiresome to type...)

Re:OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Spiral Man]

what about some odd percentage spaces, or some sort of combination of spaces and punctuation?

since ascii art tends to be mostly spaces, that might work. although, there is also the filled in kind...

another thing to consider is how much punctuation is writen in a row. even perl usually has some sort of alpha numeric number every 2-3 characters : )

of course, all this would just get people to make the ascii art with just letters, and no punctuation...

you could also just count the whitespace in the begining of each line. that would limit the ability to do ascii art, but would also make it hard to post readable code (all those tabs).

i dont think that there is a very good way to delinieate between text and cleverly done ascii art...

Re:OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Spiral Man]

the problem w/ that is that people who do ascii art would just put the art between html tags, also, that would force people who want to post code to know html, so that they a) know to use and b) know how to do other things, like line breaks, etc...

Re:OT: Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of *course* it's $#*#ing off-topic! It's prepended by "OT"! It seems unfair that if you're warned in the subject line you still feel the need to down-mod the thing.

"People like stupid things, right?" -- Hotmail Staff
-- posted "anonymously" for my poor karma's sake.

somewhat amusing..

[Anonymous Coward]

to see every comment in this thread modded down to -1. some of them are pretty inocuous and there are a lot more posts worth modding down than these. curious why this thing is just getting buried to oblivion.

Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one fucken fast moderator, "jamie". Also, I'd like to know how he modded one of my posts down three times, moron.

--The O. P. P.

Re:OT: Re:Understanding subject prefixes! (Erk.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely anyone posting Perl is going to know whatever HTML they need to get it through potential filters?

How about making excessive spacing at before every line (or before a certain percentage of the lines in a post) unacceptable? All ASCII art (apart from one example I've seen) requires a large indent for each line, but text and code don't...

- TACD (http://www.buxtond.co.uk)

Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. I was just lamenting the terrible lack of ASCII art on this article.

But I want to see still more ASCII art on slashdot!

Re:Understanding Slashcode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely if you don't like it here (and I don't remember seeing in the FAQ that this place is totally democratic as that long article seems to think), then why don't you leave?

Simple! :)

I just thought that it's their site and they can do what they like with it surely?
You have no right to demand a certain service from Slashdot do you? :)