Slashback: P2P, OS X, Blinkenlights

Mmmmm... scalable Gnutella. by gmplague · 2002-02-19 12:02 · Score: 1

All the porn and perl a man could ever want. Plus, I know that futurama will be alive for many many years after fox has cancelled it.

--
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague

Re:Mmmmm... scalable Gnutella. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:17 · Score: 0

Has anyone found a good GPL'd porn repository yet? Remember, it's no good if you can't redistribute what you download. And I want to have access to the source.
Re:Mmmmm... scalable Gnutella. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 15:19 · Score: 0

>You mean you don't have your mother's phone number?

I have Ian's mom's phone number...

In Asia, money talks by Ryu2 · 2002-02-19 12:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm from Taiwan, and have been to many Asian countries. Corruption is rampant -- Taiwan is relatively good compared to places like China, Thailand and Vietnam, but even so, if you pay the right authorities the right amount of money, you can pretty much skirt nearly any sort of law.

I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA paid the ISP some "money" to do so...

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re:In Asia, money talks by CDWert · 2002-02-19 12:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

In ASIA ???????

You smoking crak or wearing blinder....its rampant EVERYWHERE , here in the states more so than ANYWHERE, we just put, civilized names on it , like 'soft-money' , Lobbying, etc.

You wanna talk about Sheer volumes of money sxchanged in pursuit of a single commercial goal, thats right the good ole' USA will win hands down every time.

I have a hope that the next major war wont be fought between countries with differing ideologies, but rather between the people and the corporations. But alas I am just an old crank....

I hope they do find another ISP soon, I have often wondered what ever happened to the Alternet idea ?

--
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-19 12:15 · Score: 1

You are hilarious! I assure you corruption is rampant in every country. If you have enough money you can buy the law anywhere. Under capitalism everything can be bought, everything.

"you can pretty much skirt nearly any sort of law."

Same thing in America. In America OJ Simpson the famous murderer, was lucky to be rich enough to get away with murder. Apparently men cannot skirt paying alimony no matter how rich, but if you kill the harlet you can get off! America sure is a twisted country.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-19 12:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Corruption in America is institutionalized is the best way of putting it. The best thieves are the men who do nothing all day except own a large corporation and soak up profit from their thousands of workers. The best crooks throughout history have always been 'legit'.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Syberghost · 2002-02-19 12:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Goddamn those corporations. How dare they create the kind of wealth that would let the average income be $36,000 a year, in a country where you have to actively refuse any help to starve.
Re:In Asia, money talks by renard · 2002-02-19 13:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Interesting idea; if you can show a payment was made to the Taiwanese ISP then the bribe would be a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977, amended 1988) by the MPAA and indictable under US law.
Of course IANAL but see the code itself if you're interested in details.
-Renard
Re:In Asia, money talks by CDWert · 2002-02-19 15:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, and health care costs are fucking unreal, some people have children dying because they cant buy patented medications that are the ONLY ones for their ill, my sons is $2000 a month, just for him to stay alive. Im lucky I have insurance, admittedley thaey hate me and would do anything to dump me, or how about all the adults dying of something like aids globally and the not being able to save them because US companies hold the patents and wont let go even to save fucking lives. How about all the corporations eroding the rights of citizens for their own profit ? How about a goverment that caters now to the corporations more than its citizens ?

Oh wait, im responding to a complete fucking moron with no grasp in the real world and who lives only in the census statistics !

Spend a day, or an hour if you can stomach it at a world class childrens hospital, Cincinatti , Boston, etc. Talk to the parents of the kids dying in the cancer wards, ask the parents that cant afford the cure for their childs ills, when they are available, ask a parent willing to do anything to save a child that needs an organ transplant, I have experience with my son in both of the above, visit a field hospital in Africa. When youve done those thing and are content that the corporations grace us with a 36,000 average income, you tell me all is roses.......

Idiot.....

--
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 15:40 · Score: 0

There is no possible way of comparing corruption in Asia or in a country like Venezuela or Brazil with corruption in the U.S.. Corruption in the majority of third world countries is widespread from the guy that walks around ticketing illegally parked cars to the President himself. In Brazil you can pay almost any cop to kill someone if you would like--try that with a U.S. cop. Don't compare American, high-level, focused corruption with the widespread, overwhelming corruption of most developing countries--that's just crap. What really fucking amazes me about this is how little people are reacting to the fact that an international (read U.S. backed) organization successfully circumvented all due process rights and simply shut off the pipe to a legitimate online business. If they are not doing anything illegal, then no matter how unethical it is the MPA has no right to shut off the pipe to anyone, by bribery or coercion, whatever the case was. I suppose people who conduct business on the internet have no rights now? How soon until "international piracy fighting organizations" can simply hold the access switch over everyone's heads and simply control the whole net? What will that mean to you when corporations decide it is too complicated to try to determine what is legitimate or illegitimate use of the net to post audio/video/ISOs of any kind and they decide to control all the content? Far fetched you say? I say possible. This pisses me off to no end.
Re:In Asia, money talks by JabberWokky · 2002-02-19 16:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The best crooks throughout history have always been 'legit'.
If they are legit, then they are not criminals.
Saying that crime in first world countries is like that in the rest of the world is a very skewed view. The police beating of a Brit or American is front page news, and the details are dragged through - the cops go to jail. Yes, they do, I worked at the Public Defender's office for years, and they do go to jail. Even if they aren't convicted, they often are pressured out of their job.
However, the police force in China and Russia routinely beat people, even to death - without even having a reason for making an arrest. The stories go by word of mouth, and no public outcry is made - the people who would have spoken up have been killed. Russia is a morbid place to visit now, and friends who have moved to America universally use the term "escaped". China is nasty as well - I had a business partnership be reduced by one member when he didn't return from a visit home.
People like you are often "indy media" fans - consider the fact that just the concept of "media" has not spread to many parts of the world. Travel a bit, spend some time getting to know people, and ask quiet questions to yourself. You'll be surprised how nice your first world country seems with its "corruption for money" and "people going broke from Enron". In many places, people can't *go* broke - sustinence is the daily effort... and "corruption" involves dead bodies in doorways or dumped in a garbage heap.
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-19 16:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

"or how about all the adults dying of something like aids globally and the not being able to save them because US companies hold the patents and wont let go even to save fucking lives. "

Remember when slashdot posted the story about Brazil deciding to ignore American companies patents on AIDS drugs and produce it themselves and pay the patent owners a reduced price? Alot of virulent conservatives were producing justifications for why Brazil's act of humanism was wrong. The United States forced Bayer to produce pills to treat anthrax for a very reduced price. I wonder what those conservative idiots who think money is worth more than Brazilian lives have to say about this. I bet they would rather remain silent.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by MrZaius · 2002-02-19 16:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

All may not be roses, but do you honestly believe that we're no better off because of the corporations? What more than capital and stable economy keeps the African field hospital you mention from doing its job? Education, public health programs, etc, etc can be funded only through taxation or private enterprise. These rely, of course on creation of that capital.

While I certainly feel for you and your son, it is necessary to remember that, even with all its flaws, western society's focus on entrepeneurship and the creation of wealth is what gives your son any chance, at all.

You say that the only cure is a patented drug, that you can (not/barely) afford w/o insurance?
You say that the drugs are completely out of reach for those without insurance?

I say this:
The drug would likely not exist without the patent.
~20 years from now, that patent will not exist.

I say this:
We benefit more than we suffer from corporations and the current structure of our society.
You may not even have been able to afford insurance if it weren't for your employer's help/government regulation.

At least be a lil teeny bit grateful that you don't have to go to the African field hospital you mention.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Bob+Uhl · 2002-02-19 16:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

The best thieves are the men who do nothing all day except own a large corporation and soak up profit from their thousands of workers.
You are so ignorant that I am afraid the English language has no words for fools such as you. I shudder even at quoting your foul lie. Owners do not `soak up profit'; they provide the means without which there would be no product, no profit, no jobs and no workers. Here's how it works: you have $1,000; I need $1,000 to finance my idea. You give me the money, and in return I give you a stake in my idea.
You do realise that ownership is within the reach of all, don't you? That's the whole purpose of stock splits: keeping the price low enough that the individual investor can get into the action. If you want to own a share in your company, go out and buy one. It's not that expensive--and a few thousand now, invested wisely, can mean a comfortable retirement later on life.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:14 · Score: 0

The attack on Yugoslavia and the kidnapping of Milosevic are not random events. They constitute a new phase of the "anti-Eastern" strategy, which Washington has pursued for more than five decades.

That strategy had two parts: Part one was the break up of the Soviet Union, achieved in 1991.

Part Two is the reduction of the Republics of the former Soviet Union (SU) from nations to devastated territories, small protectorates under the domination of the U.S. and its junior partners.

Washington has openly pursued this strategy since the end of World War II, when it created the CIA, in large measure from General Gehlen's network of Nazi operatives, agents and contacts in Western, Eastern and Southern Europe.

Part One of the strategy went into high gear in 1979. At that time it was articulated by Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. It was the reason for the U.S. proxy war against Afghanistan, during which Washington and its allies created and nurtured the phenomenon of Islamist terrorism, which now plagues the former SU, the Balkans, Algeria, and the rest of the planet.

In the West, it is considered politically correct to ascribe the breakup of the Soviet Union to an inevitable 'revolution' brought about by internal decay.

Yet it is well known that most Soviet citizens (perhaps 70%) opposed the break-up of the Union. How can a 'revolution' that is opposed by most people be inevitable?

Alexander Zinoviev was a leading Soviet dissident. Here's what he says:

"The fall of communism has been transformed into the fall of Russia. The Russian catastrophe was deliberately planned in the West. I say this because I was once involved in these plans which, under the pretext of fighting an ideology, in fact prepared the death of Russia.

"Contrary to a widely held view, communism did not collapse for internal reasons. Its collapse is the greatest possible victory of the West. This colossal victory has created a planetary power. The end of communism is also the end of democracy: our era is not only post-communist, it is also post-democratic ... This is because democracy means pluralism: that requires the existence of at least two more or less equal powers During the Cold War there was democracy at world level, a global pluralism within which capitalism and communism coexisted. Now we live in a world dominated by a single force, by a single ideology and by a single globalist party The Western countries are dominant but they are also dominated, because they are progressively losing their sovereignty to what I call "supra-society". This planetary supra- society consists of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organisms whose zones of influence are superior to those of nations. The Western countries are subjected, like other countries, to the control of these supranational structures. But the sovereignty of nations was a constituent part of pluralism and democracy at world level. The present dominating power is crushing sovereign states. The process of European integration which is taking place under our eyes is causing the disappearance of pluralism within this new conglomerate, to the benefit of a new supranational power." ('Figaro', 24th July 1999)

Washington and Western Europe (NATO) contrived to exhaust the Soviets economically (e.g., the Afghan war and the arms race) bribed and otherwise seduced many of its officials, demeaned its ideology, and used other means to bring about the Soviets' so-called internal collapse.

In the 1980s, knowing that the destruction of the Soviet Union was near, the U.S. mobilized Germany and England and launched the attack on Yugoslavia, which went into high gear with the externally-engineered secession of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, precisely when the Soviet Union was being destroyed.

Washington launched this attack because crushing Yugoslavia, and especially the passionately independent Serbs, is the key to pacifying the Balkans. And the Balkans is the strategic southern flank of the former Soviet Union.

Washington Goes for World Conquest

There were plenty of problems with the former Soviet Union, but these are grossly distorted by politicians and propagandists in the West. For example, a year ago, in an article called "Living with Russia," Zbigniew Brzezinski, a strategist of U.S. Imperial rule, explained the existence of grave poverty in Russia as follows:

"The painful reality is that the communist experiment has bequeathed to the Russian people a ruined agriculture, a retarded and in many places primitive social infrastructure, a backward economy increasingly facing the risk of progressive de-industrialization, a devastated environment, and a demographically threatened population."

We have seen the same argument made regarding Bulgaria and indeed all the former socialist countries. It amounts to heaping insult on injury. Since the 'fall' of communism, draconian policies, dictated by Washington through the International Monetary Fund, have methodically laid waste to the economies and social service-structures of these countries.

In the Soviet Union, apartments, childcare (available 24-hours a day), medical and dental care, public transportation and vacations were either free or subsidized so working people could afford them. Higher education was not just free; students were paid stipends if they maintained good grades. (This, one might note in passing, was a policy calculated to induce working class students to go to college and study. In much of the capitalist world today, measures are in effect which produce the opposite effect.)

The finest cultural achievements, such as the great Bolshoi Ballet, were enjoyed by ordinary people. For example, in the case of the Bolshoi, admission was a pittance and transportation was organized so that working people could attend.

In Soviet society, differences in wealth existed but they were nothing like those that exist in the West or that have come to exist in the former socialist countries.

Imperial Hypocrisy

It is under Western guidance that the Soviet Union's great social protections have been destroyed during the past decade. And now Mr. Brzezinski, one of the architects of that destruction, has the audacity to blame it on the system he helped eliminate and preaches the moral superiority of the system he and his ilk have put in its place, in which some live like kings while most others suffer without basic necessities, and the kings preach morality.

(Perhaps the greatest failing of the Soviet Union was its non-democratic character - non-democratic in the profound sense of not relying on the political thinking and action of ordinary people. Instead a highly centralized bureaucracy was the source of all political motion. Imperial strategists like Mr. Brzezinski recognized this flaw, saw that if they could penetrate and corrupt this structure they could bring down the Soviet Union before the people could be mobilized to resist. Which is basically what happened.)

The Soviet Union had a policy of supporting anti-colonial struggle. After World War II, partly inspired by the resistance of the Soviet bloc, colonial and semi-colonial states from Eastern Europe to China gained much freedom from Western domination. But now that the Soviet Union has been broken up, and with it the restraining force of Soviet power, Washington and its European allies are trying to force most of the world's people, that is those living outside North America and Western Europe, into neocolonial status, that is, into desperate poverty.

The Model is Kosovo

In the Balkans we see Washington's policy at its harshest. In a recent speech delivered to soldiers at the giant U.S. military base in Kosovo (called, with pompous arrogance, "Bondsteel") George Bush Jr. described Kosovo as the U.S. model for progress in the Balkans.

This progress has meant rule by the gangster-fascists of the KLA; it has meant that politically unreliable people - ethnic Serbs, "Gypsies," Slavic Muslims and anti-fascist Albanians - are demonized in the media even as they are driven from the province, while those who dare to remain in Kosovo live in constant terror, their homes reduced to prisons. This is all documented.

What Washington has done to the Serbian province of Kosovo it is now trying to do to Macedonia and the rest of Serbia. If Washington is successful in Kosovo-izing Serbia, Macedonia and other Balkans states, it will have created the stable southern flank it needs to escalate the "low intensity wars" (Washington's term) that it is already fighting on many fronts against the former Soviet Union.

Yugoslavia shows what Washington hopes to accomplish in the former Soviet Union, writ small.

First Yugoslavia was broken up, as the former SU had been broken up. In the process, Washington re-created precisely the same fascist power blocs that the Nazi's relied on during World War II, especially clerical-fascists in Croatia and fanatical Islamists in Bosnia.

Now NATO is using quisling governments installed in Belgrade and Skopje, and fascist-secessionists, mobilized behind the slogan 'Greater Albania,' which Washington has encouraged for over a decade, to pulverize the remains, to neutralize the powerful Yugoslav Army, and to physically devastate those populations in Serbia, Macedonia and elsewhere which have historically resisted Imperial domination and whose hearts are drawn to the East.

If Washington succeeds in "pacifying" the Balkans in this fashion, it will try to duplicate the process throughout the former Soviet Union: reducing populations inclined to resist U.S. rule to terrorized slaves ruled by local fascists (conveniently labeled victims of oppression by the pro-NATO media) and all of it dominated by the U.S. and its allies, especially Germany and England.

Components of the anti-Russian onslaught are partly in place

The critical focus of Washington's attempt to recolonize the world lies in the Balkans.

If the new Empire consolidated its power in the Balkans, the former Soviet Union's southern flank, the attack on Russia would increase a hundred- fold. There would be direct NATO intervention from the south and from bases in the Baltic states, from certain former Warsaw pact countries, and increased attack from a few NATO-controlled former Soviet Republics.

This would be justified by an all-out Western media campaign, posing imperial conquest as an attempt to curb humanitarian abuses. At the same time, Washington would escalate various internal attacks, employing:

* Fifth Column forces already in place, organized by George Soros' boys and by U.S. and European agencies (e.g.;, the National Endowment for Democracy) throughout the former Soviet Union;

* Western-inspired attacks by fascist Islamists (it is notable that some of the Chechnya terrorists are now fighting as Albanian rebels in Macedonia);

* Traitorous betrayals by officials corrupted through the military and economic penetration of the former Soviet Union by Washington and its allies.

What would the "Kosovo-izing" of the former Soviet Union mean for the world? First, Washington and its allies could engage in the most extreme plunder of the vast resources of the former Soviet Union. And second, its position consolidated in the former SU, Washington could proceed full force against the great Asian nation-states, trying to break up China and India into numerous small protectorates.

This would be Washington's dream.

Does this policy serve the interests of ordinary people in North America and Western Europe? Quite the contrary. Unchecked, it poses the gravest risk of worldwide nuclear war.

The resistance by Milosevic and the Serbian people to NATO's expansion into the Balkans, their attempt to awaken the great Russian bear, which was stunned by the breakup of the Soviet Union, is of the greatest importance to humanity, East and West.

By refusing to cooperate with NATO's Hague unTribunal, President Milosevic has, in one brave stroke, sent an electrifying call for resistance throughout the world. As a refugee from NATO's attack on Afghanistan wrote:

"I just saw Milosevic [on TV]. He told this criminal Western kangaroo court that he doesn't recognize them. So I wish there was a lot more of those guys, like Milosevic."

The gentleman is correct. We do need tens of thousands of those people like Milosevic. That is why the unTribunal is doing everything it can to force Milosevic to drop his defiance and cooperate with their inquisition.

If the Russians and other people of the former Soviet Union can regroup, achieve unity and create popular movements with a Milosevic-type policy of national unity based on social justice - a policy that defends the nation by mobilizing the overwhelming majority of people for social justice - if the Russian and other Soviet people can do this, they will not only be protecting themselves, they will once again be protecting the world, including the people of the U.S.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Nishi-no-wan · 2002-02-19 16:20 · Score: 1

- I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA paid the ISP some "money" to do so...
If that's the case, then wouldn't a large number of Taiwanese, Chinese, Thai, etc. ISP's be bidding to take over the streaming "rental" business?
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:25 · Score: 0

In ASIA ??????? You smoking crak or wearing blinder....its rampant EVERYWHERE , here in the states more so than ANYWHERE, we just put, civilized names on it , like 'soft-money' , Lobbying, etc.

You don't know what you're talking about. You are merely jaded. When those of us who have lived in Asia say corruption is rampant, we mean things like the police will confiscate your drivers license if they don't like the way you look, and you have to pay them to get it back, and nobody will listen to your story, and nobody cares, because things like that happen every day, all the time. There is no culture of law. In the US we take stop lights, lines on the road, etc., for granted. People stop at stop lights and stop signs, even if nobody else is around here in the US because we are a nation of laws and we have a culture of abiding by the law. We prefer to sue and we have a system that will listen to our story and give us our day in court to prove it.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Jarvo · 2002-02-19 16:27 · Score: 1

I believe what the original poster meant was on a much smaller scale.

e.g. You get pulled over for speeding. When handing over your licence/registration, a $50 note just happens to slide itself in there. Result? Move along, nothing to see here...
Re:In Asia, money talks by Chicks_Hate_Me · 2002-02-19 17:06 · Score: 1

That post seemed a bit offtopic, but I must admit, it was well written. So do you truly believe that the Soviet Republics will form again? Or is that just another Simpsons episode?
Re:In Asia, money talks by sessamoid · 2002-02-19 17:09 · Score: 2

>>All may not be roses, but do you honestly believe that we're no better off because of the corporations? Somebody please mod this parent post up. It's a very clear summary of why patent law (in general) and corporations are necessary and often good. The original poster complains about the high cost of a patented medication to keep his son alive. Without corporate-level research encouraged by patent law that medicine would likely never have existed, with the obvious result. Americans have to pay a lot of patented medications, but at least we have access to them. And don't anybody tell me I don't have a heart for the underprivileged. In my profession I recently estimated I provide over $100,000 of free medical care a year for those who can't pay.

--
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-19 17:13 · Score: 1

I pasted that excerpt from: http://www.tenc.net/analysis/whyisn.htm
Read the whole story.

-Commienst

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by _ph1ux_ · 2002-02-19 20:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

BS.

Why don't you tell us then, how Ken Lay is providing a direct means for a product and profit.

It's nice to see that you have faith in the ideals of a capitalistic society - but reality is not quite so easy.

The people out there that should be able to get in on companies can't really get in on a really meaningful level as easily as you would have us to believe. The fact is that big money, old money and corrupt money are what run the world today. Even though a small percentage of new money is being made so as to help the previously "common folk" become a part of the classes that run the world via finances.

It is sickly apparent in every new scandal that comes about. The Bush and Kennedy families of the world have a strangle-hold on power through money - and these types of people will do anything to maintain that power and wealth.

However - from an outside and naive perspective we can say that the way to the top is through perseverance and hard work, and entreprenerialship (sp?) but the truth is more a factor of who you know - who you can pay, and how lucky you can be at making a killing off the expense of people, countries or corporations without getting caught (or at least not having to give up more than 30% of that profit in bribery etc)

The world of money and power is not ruled by the angles of PC-ness and good ol' pullin' yerself up by yer bootstraps to make an honest buck - rather it is a dark corrupt and sinister world of dog-eat-dog. You kill or be killed.
.
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-19 21:02 · Score: 1

I know a few people who own corporations, and none of them sit around all day -- but even if they did, nothing would be stolen. Thievelry involves deprivation of property against the will of he who is being so deprived. When I work for a corporation or buy from one, I do so of my own free will; hence, thievelry does not occur.

Because you don't like someone or think them undeserving doesn't make them "crooks".
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-19 21:36 · Score: 1

So your son dies unless you spend $2000 a month. Too fucking bad. TANSTAAFL -- never has been, never will be. Life isn't fair. It isn't the government's job to make it fair, and it certainly isn't mine. And I'm not some insensitive bastard who'se never seen human suffering -- I've seen plenty of it, and I'm still an insensitive bastard, because "sensitivity" is simply another word for playing make-believe because the truth looks too ugly.

Should farmers be forced to give away their crops for free? After all, people could die without food! Should landowners be forced to provide shelter for all who need it? After all, people die from exposure! If a landowner can choose not to rent a room to someone out in the cold, why can't a corporation refuse to provide medicine to a cancer patient unable to pay the price they set? If you think the world would be better off without this corporation and their $2000-a-month medicine, you're free not to buy it; if you do, then as much as you might resent the price you acknowledge through your actions that the world is better off with them than without.

All may not be roses, but for most people it's good enough. For those for whom it isn't... well, nobody ever promised you roses. If the corporations didn't exist you'd be even worse off.
Re:In Asia, money talks by poemofatic · 2002-02-19 22:18 · Score: 2

the only meaningful statistic (for your point) is median wages, not average income.

Income includes govt. payments to the poor, and stock dividends to the rich. If you are concerned about the middle class, then you should measure wages, not income {ASIDE: yes, though 50% own some stock, 1% still own 50% of all stock, and most stocks owned are a replacement for pensions, and so should not be counted as wages for a realistic trendline analysis, since in previous years future pension benefits (for working adults) were not counted as wages either}

Another point in the smoke and mirrors: don't count household income, since over the past four decades women have gone to work increasing #'s, thereby inflating the figures. Certainly we should not be thankful to the corps you admire so much for making it more difficult for single income households to survive.

The reason why statisticians prefer to use median over average is because median income figures are a more measure of how the "average" person is doing. i.e. -- you care about what the "average" american earns as opposed to what the sum of all income of all americans/#of americans is. Bill Gates and a few other outliers tend to skew the distribution.

Median wages have fallen fairly steadily since about 1973 (in fixed dollars), and then began to increase in the second part of the 90's. we are now almost back up to 1973 levels at around 29,000 per year.

That's pretty damn good for the planet as a whole, but rather mediocre for a first world nation. Note that, around 1800, the U.S. was by far the richest nation on earth, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, calories per capita, death rates, etc. This was before the age of corporate power, so it may be hard for you to believe. Until around the 1970's we were still at the top of the pack, although europe had wwII to deal with. Since then we;ve slipped to the bottom half of the top 15 or so industrialized nations in terms of the figures cited above (except possibly the calories/person) as well as more modern measures such as literacy, availability of health care, divorce rates, etc.

Are you, uh, satisfied with 30 years of stagnating wages? I'm not. Plot those figures against a chart of the Dow to see how thankful we should be to the corporations for almost keeping up with our parents' standard of living.

--
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-20 00:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

The owners rob the workers. Why does an owner of a large company deserve to make 50-1000 times the amount of money their workers earn? I would think 50 workers would be working harder than one man driving around in a limo, who does not even cook his own food.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Syberghost · 2002-02-20 01:43 · Score: 2

That's pretty damn good for the planet as a whole, but rather mediocre for a first world nation. Note that, around 1800, the U.S. was by far the richest nation on earth, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, calories per capita, death rates, etc. This was before the age of corporate power, so it may be hard for you to believe. Until around the 1970's we were still at the top of the pack, although europe had wwII to deal with. Since then we;ve slipped to the bottom half of the top 15 or so industrialized nations in terms of the figures cited above (except possibly the calories/person) as well as more modern measures such as literacy, availability of health care, divorce rates, etc.

Yes, and in all of those nations that are ahead of us, all THEIR wealth was generated by corporations, as well.
Re:In Asia, money talks by DarkZero · 2002-02-20 01:54 · Score: 2

Travel a bit, spend some time getting to know people, and ask quiet questions to yourself. You'll be surprised how nice your first world country seems with its "corruption for money" and "people going broke from Enron". In many places, people can't *go* broke - sustinence is the daily effort... and "corruption" involves dead bodies in doorways or dumped in a garbage heap.

Just because other countries have worse crimes doesn't mean that what many American/Western corporations are doing isn't wrong. Murder is a higher crime than theft, but that does not make theft right, nor does it make it excusable. We should not excuse criminal or unfortunately legal, but highly immoral actions by corporations just because corporations in China and Russia are worse. Should we excuse murderers in America because there are guerrilla soldiers in the Congo and the Middle East that have twenty or thirty civilian kills on their belt? Of course we shouldn't. Stealing from several thousand people and bribing the US government into changing copyright and labor laws may not compare in magnitude to crimes like bribing police into beating people to death, but they're still wrong, and the culprits should still be held accountable.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Shanep · 2002-02-20 02:10 · Score: 2

Years ago, I saw a documentary on TV about the way Russia handles stuff we tend to deal with reasonably.

I saw this big strong Russian cop grab this guy by the hair at the back of his head, and then smash his face into a wall twice, the man then fell to the ground unconscious and bleeding baddly.

I saw a woman giving birth in a Russian hospital with NO doctor present, just two nurses, one of who was yelling at the mother something to the effect of "hurry up, stupid bitch".

Also in this docco, was footage of a jetliner landing in Russia, off course due to terrorist hijackers. The hijackers demanded a helicopter, to escape once they were off the plane. The heli was provided, the terrorists got into it with some hostages for some protection and what did the Russian "elites" do next?... Fired an AA missile at the heli once it was in the air. The result? All occupants dead, including hostages.

Throughout the cold war, they only announced amazing feats they have acheived once they acheived them. They rarely stated they would attempt something, for fear of failure. How many manned rockets did they loose!?

A polish friend of mine told me that in all published books in Russia, there is a page near the front with propaganda about how superior Russia is and how weak the West is. Pretty hilarious considering.

--
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Re:In Asia, money talks by CDWert · 2002-02-20 02:18 · Score: 2

Actually its not, the procedures, BOTH of which saved hi, the first extending his time to transplant, and the second the LRD liver transplant, were perfected and invented in JAPAN !

It was their singular abhorrence for cadaver donors that lead to his survival, the company I complain about brug patents ? FUJISAWA , a Japanees company.

I sincerley disagree, Cyclosporin, the first major anti rejection drug, was not researched under patent condition, it is a substance found in an artic ergot, by a botanist quite by accident actually some years after the initial samples of permafrost were taken. and is still used to some extent albiet side effects are less than desirable, FK506 was a synthetic replacement So that dosent fly either.

--
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Re:In Asia, money talks by naasking · 2002-02-20 02:21 · Score: 1

Why does an owner of a large company deserve to make 50-1000 times the amount of money their workers earn?

Because the owner had an idea and brought it to life. Because the owner used his mind to create great value, something the worker is apparently incapable of. Would you give a student who wrote a terrible essay which was 200 pages long the same mark as a student who wrote a brilliant essay which was only 10 pages long? He worked SO much harder, so he deserves a better mark right? Please. Work smarter, not harder.

I would think 50 workers would be working harder than one man driving around in a limo, who does not even cook his own food.

In fact, you are wrong on this point as well. Workers work from the morning to the evening, 8 hr. shift, and then they are done. Owners and CEO's do not stop working, and that's why they are payed so much. They live their work; they are always thinking about new strategy, reorganization, and the latest reports, long after they go home. They are compensated for sacrificing more of their lives and freedom to lead a successful business. Just because the workers may be physical labourers, does not make them harder workers.

The owners rob the workers.

Sometimes it happens, but it is the exception, not the rule.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Re:In Asia, money talks by CDWert · 2002-02-20 02:27 · Score: 2

You misunderstand the problem, and my post, I am in the situation I am in and thats that, Im not happy, but I cannot do anything to change it. My son is and always will be provided for, Myself, I am of the finacial means to do it, even without inscurance. I never said anything about not being able to afford it should inscurace drop me.

What I was complaining about, and it goes back to the original thread, is the corruption and payoffs that lead to this situation.

I am a Capatilist, plain and simple, I would sell anything to make a buck, buy sell broker, what have you. I have no problem with free markets, Those markets are fed by COMPETITION , NOT by MONOPLOY, and certainly not state subsidised, and ulitmatley corprateley subsidised constricture of the markets.

Buying and selling the human condition is not capitlisim, NOR is the enforcement of law to keep it as such for only one end, greed. There is a quite different distinction between greed and capatilism, and state ENFORCED markets, the latter is much more aking to communism than capilitalism

--
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 02:36 · Score: 0

Also in this docco, was footage of a jetliner landing in Russia, off course due to terrorist hijackers. The hijackers demanded a helicopter, to escape once they were off the plane. The heli was provided, the terrorists got into it with some hostages for some protection and what did the Russian "elites" do next?... Fired an AA missile at the heli once it was in the air. The result? All occupants dead, including hostages.

You think this is a bad idea? If I'm ever taken hostage anywhere, I hope the SEALs or Special Forces or SWAT come in guns blazing and kill everything that moves. No bargains, no money, just kill the bastards.
Re:In Asia, money talks by CDWert · 2002-02-20 02:50 · Score: 2

Huh ?????

The countries you speak of , the US included, many were able to accumulate wealth through exploitation of their natural resources, the corporations have nothing to do with it, In the US over 50% of the income generated is from SMALL BUSINESS !, so much for the corporations, you speak of these corporations as living entities, that are all benevolent and responsible for all that is good,

The truth is, PEOPLE do the WORK that MAKE thos corporations what they are, and then , as of late, they turn ever more on the very people that man their factories, manage their business and are the very customers that keep them in existance.

--
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Re:In Asia, money talks by Syberghost · 2002-02-20 03:12 · Score: 2

In the US over 50% of the income generated is from SMALL BUSINESS

Small businesses have exploded into the tremendous wealth generators they are today for primarily two reasons:

1) The cheapness of modern office appliances, especially computers, which comes from the economies of scale of the corporations that make them.

2) Doing business servicing big corporations.

The truth is, PEOPLE do the WORK that MAKE thos corporations what they are

Yes; and it's those people you're insulting you say corporations are a bad thing.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 03:15 · Score: 0

So your son dies unless you spend $2000 a month. Too fucking bad.

I hope someone does this to you, you fucking piece of shit.

If the corporations didn't exist you'd be even worse off.

You make it sound so simple! Of course they provide a higher standard of living, but it's the greed they almost always eventually stoop to, that makes them so hated. Medicine that saves lives should be free to those who cannot afford it and forcibly so by the government.

In Australia, life saving medicine is subsidised by the goverment. Works very well too. Tax payers are ultimately paying for what tax payers should be able to get the World over. If you're on a high income you pay more tax, low income less and no income none. But everyone gets a fair chance at life.

Some of you people in the US think you're system is so great, you think you live in the lucky country!
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-20 03:40 · Score: 2

Buying and selling the human condition is not capitlisim, NOR is the enforcement of law to keep it as such for only one end, greed. There is a quite different distinction between greed and capatilism, and state ENFORCED markets, the latter is much more aking to communism than capilitalism

Property -- be it food, clothing, medicine, luxuries or anything else -- is a determiner of the human condition; buying and selling any of them is the allocation of resources that will determine how (and whether) people live. Trying to envision some ideal market without people in it may be useful -- but in the real world, there's always someone at the other end. That said, I entirely agree with you wrt IP law being coopted from serving the public interest to serving the greed of those for whom it creates new "rights" at the expense of limiting others' actions. When arguments over patent or copyright law are made with only passing -- or without any -- recognition of public interests but rather focus on the income of those "owning" said "property", we can both agree that something is quite wrong.

Btw, allow me apologize over my last post being a bit over-the-top. While I do hold to the sentiments given there, expressing them in that manner was, in hindsight, other than appropriate.
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-20 03:51 · Score: 2

Medicine that saves lives should be free to those who need it, eh?

How about food? Clothing? Shelter? Would you think the same way if you were a farmer? A clothier? A landlord? Or would you have "the government" (meaning, among other people, me) pay in place of those who can't?

In Australia, life saving medicine is subsidised by the goverment. Works very well too. Tax payers are ultimately paying for what tax payers should be able to get the World over. If you're on a high income you pay more tax, low income less and no income none. But everyone gets a fair chance at life.

We have differing values for "fair". In my book, "fair" means everyone gets treated by the same rules. It doesn't mean that we start out in the same place or that we'll be in the same situation, but that the law applies equally to everyone.

While you think the services taxpayers get in Austrailia are those worth paying for, then you're welcome to continue to pay for those services to be publicly provided. If, on the other hand, enough of those involved don't want to pay it (ie. wouldn't pay that same tax if it were voluntary, or wouldn't pay the same amount to a private nonprofit providing the same public service), then that would serve as an effective economic demonstration of the minority you're in.

So... let's try it. Make the tax used to pay for free [SERVICE] voluntary, and see if the money collected is enough to pay for free [SERVICE]. If it isn't, then as much as you may want [SERVICE] to be free, consider yourself overruled by the public in general. (Unfair, you claim, as those who are rich each individually have a larger say in such a system? Naturally -- they're the ones you burden with paying for it! Make the burden more equally spread, and the choice will be too).
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 05:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

In my book, "fair" means everyone gets treated by the same rules.

When a CHILD is born to Rupurt Mordoch and another CHILD is born to a poor, uneducated single mother, tell me HOW LIFE IS FAIR TO THE LATTER CHILD!

That child asked to be born to a poor single mother?

The problem with your definition of "fair", is that you measure it in dollars! Put two children next to each other, one rich and the other poor and then tell me the child with the silver spoon in her mouth is somehow more deserving of life than the other child.

Fuckwit.

The poor child will most likely grow up to be a less educated, less healthy single mother who, through depression, ends up abusing drugs, alcohol and perhaps indirectly her own child who will follow in this tradition.

If a person cannot live with basic good health requirements for whatever reason, they should be supported by the rest of society because A: this may help them to become a contributing member to society and B: contributing members of society often fall to these lows also.

If you don't do it this way, rich arsehole, then you will someday find yourself the victim of some very needy "criminals" who are merely desperate people doing desperate things to survive.

Have it your way and keep living in fear.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Yakko · 2002-02-20 05:04 · Score: 1

You do realise that ownership is within the reach of all, don't you?
In theory, you're right. In practice, it doesn't work this way.
You confirm this by saying
a few thousand now, invested wisely, can mean a comfortable retirement later on life
This assumes that I -have- the "few thousand" you're casually bandying around. It may be chump change to some, but it's a significant amount of money to me, which I do not have right now.
But, back on topic... yes, money talks, bullshit walks. That's the end of it.

--

-- Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 05:35 · Score: 0

Heh, anyone who talks like this has a high percentage of actually being a coward and being first to piss their pants and demand safety form their mommy.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Paradise+Pete · 2002-02-20 06:17 · Score: 1

That post seemed a bit offtopic, but I must admit, it was well written

Well pasted is more like it. Which part did you think was well done - the properly constructed sentences or the broad, unsupported claims?
Re:In Asia, money talks by Paradise+Pete · 2002-02-20 06:29 · Score: 1

The owener took risks to get there. The owner invested time learning how to do it. The owener persevered through failure after failure.
The guy digging the ditches took no risks. He did not spend the time educating himself. He simply shows up and lifts dirt, then goes home at the end of the day, grumbling about his sorry lot in life.

I would think the readers of slashdot would appreciate the difference more than most. Remember back in high school when you were busting your ass learning stuff while other kids slacked off and ostracized you for doing it? Well those same guys are the ones now busting their asses trying to keep their pickup truck from being repossesed, all the while not having the skills to understand what's wrong with paying 21% interest on their credit card debt.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Shanep · 2002-02-20 06:59 · Score: 2

No bargains, no money, just kill the bastards.

And completely innocent hostages, instructed to do what they're told via guns, are "bastards" how?

Do you know what a hostage is? I'm desperately searching for some glimmer of logic in your statement but none has come up yet.

You think killing terrorists along with their hostages is a good thing? I can understand that shooting down a plane that is destined to kill many more people than those on the plane is the logical thing to do, but not if it is just the easiest way out.

When this sort of incident happened in France, some French bad-arse elites stormed the plane resulting in the deaths of only the terrorists as far as I can remember. US and British special forces also have pretty good track records. Russians on the other hard seem to fix everything with a sledge hammer.

--
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Re:In Asia, money talks by Bob+Uhl · 2002-02-20 07:02 · Score: 2

Why don?t you tell us then, how Ken Lay is providing a direct means for a product and profit.
Ken Lay was an employee whose actions appear to have destroyed the company--thereby causing massive pain to the shareholders. He was also a shareholder--but apparently used his knowledge as an employee to cheat his fellow shareholders.
The people out there that should be able to get in on companies can?t really get in on a really meaningful level as easily as you would have us to believe.
Wrong again. You can buy shares of most companies for under $200. Voila--you're now in on a company, on a meaningful level (e.g. you'll be paid dividends, you'll receive the annual report, and hopefully your investment will appreciate). Granted--it would take decades to build up any sort of significant share. But nowadays it's quite common for there to be no--or very few--significant shareholders.
It does take quite a long time to turn $100 into $1,000,000. TANSTAAFL. But anyone can put his capital to work for him. That is, essentially, what work is: putting your labour capital to work. It is also what investment is: putting your money to work.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Bob+Uhl · 2002-02-20 07:05 · Score: 2

Are you aware that a CEO is not in most cases the owner? He is an employee of the owners: the shareholders. Oftentimes he is also a shareholder--but so are many other employees. I'm a shareholder in my employer, albeit a very minor one indeed.
The CEO makes what he makes because the shareholders have decided to give him that much money in return for what he does. The job of CEO is different from that of, say, factory worker or system administrator. And, I believe, it merits quite a bit more pay than most positions.
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-20 08:58 · Score: 1

The problem with your definition of "fair", is that you measure it in dollars! Put two children next to each other, one rich and the other poor and then tell me the child with the silver spoon in her mouth is somehow more deserving of life than the other child.

When did I ever say that "fair" was measured in dollars? Indeed, you're the one making that claim when you say that a difference between the dollars spent on one child and another makes their circumstances patently unfair. However, it's not a view I disagree with -- the child with the silver spoon in her mouth is simply lucky, and the child without gets the harder row to hoe. Damn shame, but that's how it happens -- and any attempts to prevent rich (economically deserving!) parents from putting that silver spoon there simply causes more problems than it solves. I said it before and I'll say it again: Life isn't fair. It isn't my job to make it fair, and it isn't the government's either.

The "positive rights" you promote (a "right" to free health care, a "right" to free housing and food, and so forth) are not rights at all but obligations placed not where they belong -- on those who need these resources -- but rather on the entire populace, without regard to their willingness to contribute. In forcing contributions towards any cause, you place those who create value in slavery to those who leech it. True rights place no obligations on others, but rather prevent active harm from being done -- the right to privacy, to free speech; all these boil down to the ability to be left alone.

A word on when I say "economically deserving": Someone becomes economically deserving if they can produce more value than they consume. The easiest way to measure this is to look at the amount of value they create (as measured by how much others will pay them for that value) and the value they consume (as measured by the amount they have to pay others for said value). Someone who creates a valuable product from cheap resources does the public benefit, and their economic reward is well earned. Likewise, one who (by providing capital goods and organization) allows ten or a hundred people to do many times more work than they could alone has created value and is deserving of reward. This only applies to children, of course, if they are looked at as extensions of their parents; needless to say, it's a very debatable view. Even if it's wrong, however, it's a necessary wrong -- a great many people create value primarily because they want to provide for their children -- in effect, to give their children a "leg up", some advantage you'd find patently unfair. Disallow people from giving their children this benefit and you remove much of the incentive for creation in the first place.

The poor child will most likely grow up to be a less educated, less healthy single mother...

You take a more economically deterministic stance than is appropriate in any event. It's possible for an exceptionally hardworking person to break out of poverty (I've personally seen it done -- an old friend of mine, currently a corporate lawyer, comes from a family which never did anything but work fields as far back as is known), and it's quite easy for a stupid and lazy rich child to ditch that silver spoon. If the mass of people (mostly being neither so deserving as to improve their place in the world or so undeserving as to lose it) stay in the station they started out in -- yes, so they do. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's also life.

If a person cannot live with basic good health requirements for whatever reason, they should be supported by the rest of society because A: this may help them to become a contributing member to society and B: contributing members of society often fall to these lows also.

I don't accept that contributing members fall to the lows you speak of -- or at least that they stay there for long. I've been homeless -- for about two days. That's how long it took me to find someone willing to house me (an older lady happy to have help around the house and someone to play the piano for her) and a place of employment (a local computer shop). Might I have been worse off if I didn't have the skills to be hired in the computer shop or if I didn't know how to play the piano? Of course -- but that's why this paragraph defends the ability of contributing members of society to keep themselves housed, clothed and fed. If someone can't do as I did and pull themselves up because they lack the necessary skills or gumption or have allowed themselves to be saddled with too many obligations (children being a prime example), that's their own problem, not mine.

If you don't do it this way, rich arsehole, then you will someday find yourself the victim of some very needy "criminals" who are merely desperate people doing desperate things to survive.

That's a very nice attempt at an explanation of crime -- only thing is that it doesn't work. Victorian England expected crime to go away due to their vastly improved standard of living for the lower classes. Guess what -- it didn't. Having better food, more spending money and otherwise being less "desparate" to survive did nothing to reduce crime, because that nice concise attempt at an explanation is simply wrong. This is, incidentally, one reason why the Great Train Robbery was so shocking -- it provided a highly visible demonstration that crime is not limited to members of the supposed criminal class or those in dire need.

I don't live in fear, by the way. Perhaps you'd like me to -- after all, a populace living in fear of each other is a populace much more likely to accept the "safety" of being controlled, unfree atomatons. And while I may well be an asshole, I'm not all that rich -- my income is certainly well below average for the community I live in; the measures you promote may well be in my financial best interests, but that by no means lessens my opposition. The reason I care more about freedoms than safety is well summarized thusly:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may history forget that ye were our countrymen!"
- Samuel Adams
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 10:37 · Score: 0

Actually, my favorite part was the doublespeak. "Worldwide democracy? "a global pluralism"? "supra-society"?

LOL. War is peace, black is white, and people who still support communism in 2002 are really, really dumb.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-20 10:57 · Score: 1

"Remember back in high school when you were busting your ass learning stuff while other kids slacked off and ostracized you for doing it?"

Hey, do you remember when you were sleeping in English class?

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Paradise+Pete · 2002-02-20 11:44 · Score: 1

Well, you've run rings around me with your powerful logic.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-20 12:32 · Score: 1

worldwide democracy- never mentioned in that article, I searched for it to be sure and it was not there

global pluralism - is when there are more than global powers like what we had back in the days of two superpowers, the USSR and the USA

supra-society - the large multinational corporations that are usurping government power

You are just an idiot, those words are only doublespeak to people who do not know what they mean.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 12:38 · Score: 0

"If they are legit, then they are not criminals."

Learn to think outside of your cracker jack box.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Chicks_Hate_Me · 2002-02-20 13:12 · Score: 1

Oh come, let's stop all the 'booger-brain' and 'dick nose' childish attacks. I'm no communist, but I like what was written (pasted, whatever.) I believe the Soviet Union was a poor excuse for 'democracy' but is the United States is any better (hmm S.U. and U.S a mirror image)? You may think different, but I believe they're both hypocritical bastards. Also, I believe that U.S had an all out propaganda campaign, stating Communism is 'evil' (like Bush and his 'Axis of Evil') and some people believe Communism is truly evil.
But don't you think the Soviet Union had an-all propaganda campaign against capitalism? I wouldn't doubt. So does that justify our propaganda? No! If we are supposed to look better than the Soviets, we wouldn't want to stoop down to their level right?
And what pissed me off most of all about this whole Anti-Communist BS (especially the Red Scare) is if you had an opposing viewpoint to how some things are done in America, you would be called a goddamn communist by some right wing supporter (oddly, if you're against Bush you're a terrorist.) This udder and pure bullshit, this gets rid of debate, free thought and deteriorates democracy.
Don't get me wrong, I love this country, and I'm willing to fight for it. But I'm not willing to die for capitalism or our government, I'm willing to die for our country's beauty, its people, for its ideals (Constitution, Declaration of Independence) and for people like Thomas Jefferson. Democracy isn't capitalism nor communism, it's the sharing of ideas without getting shut out because your ideas are too 'stupid' or too 'radical.' Democracy isn't 'our way or the highway' democracy 9is about self-determination, not forcing your ideals on others. That's what I think when I think of the meaning of Democracy.
And of course I'm sure as hell glad that I can post this pointless rant without getting beat up by some super oppressive neo-nazi police force.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 14:19 · Score: 0

I'm not trying to suggest that everyone deserves the same high quality of life. I am saying, that everyone deserves at least bare minimums to both survive and have opportunities to get back up and give back to the system that helped save them.

any attempts to prevent rich (economically deserving!) parents from putting that silver spoon there simply causes more problems than it solves.

I wound never dare suggest that a rich family should be prevented from putting a silver spoon in their childs mouth. But a comparatively small ammount from the rich, which they would barely notice, can save a less fortunate persons life.

It's possible for an exceptionally hardworking person to break out of poverty

Of course it is possible, but how often does it happen! Poverty is not the same for everyone, and people are not the same either.

because that nice concise attempt at an explanation is simply wrong

No, wealthy areas tend to be populated with happy people whose needs are met. However, these people still suffer from crime, due to poor people coming into their more affluent areas for better pickings and perhaps being driven by anger that they cannot be as happy as their victims. I see it every day.

the Great Train Robbery

One example convinces you? No aspect of life is black and white.

I'll leave you with this. I am down at the moment, out of work for about 10 months having to live off taxpayers. However, for THIRTEEN YEARS before this, I was a tax payer helping to support people just like myself! I AM HAPPY TO KNOW THAT IF I FALL, THERE IS A SAFETY NET THERE WAITING TO CATCH ME, TO AT LEAST GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO GET BACK UP AND _KEEP_THAT_SAFETY_NET_THERE_!

This is a system that keeps society from falling apart, with the rich shortly falling after the poor.
Re:In Asia, money talks by berserker2001 · 2002-02-20 17:13 · Score: 0

"(hmm S.U. and U.S a mirror image)?" actually, the true name of the soviet union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR (the beatles song). in cryllic, it came out to CCCP

--
Me lose brain? Uh, oh! (laughter) Why I laugh? -Homer Simpson
Re:In Asia, money talks by Chicks_Hate_Me · 2002-02-20 17:38 · Score: 1

Yea I guess that would be the 'official name.' By the way, what was that 'USSR' song by the beatles about? I mean, I've heard it on the oldies station once and I was like what the...
Re:In Asia, money talks by Commienst · 2002-02-21 00:26 · Score: 1

The difference between dictatorship and parliamentary democracy--or should I better say capitalistic oligarchy--is that the first one is mainly imposed by raw violence and the latter, the presumed democracy, is mostly imposed by the intellectual control of the citizens, through the weapon of the mass media, through deception. The US mainly controls its population through ideological insititutions.

In the USSR workers were better off than in America, but they were more politicially repressed. They had a disparity in wealth; the bureacrats were better off than the average citiziens, but it is nothing like the gap between rich and poor we have. In America we are less politicially repressed and more economically repressed compared to the average Soviet.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-21 05:27 · Score: 1

But a comparatively small ammount from the rich, which they would barely notice, can save a less fortunate persons life.

Which is an excellent reason why those who are rich should voluntarily contribute to charities.

No, wealthy areas tend to be populated with happy people whose needs are met. However, these people still suffer from crime, due to poor people coming into their more affluent areas for better pickings and perhaps being driven by anger that they cannot be as happy as their victims. I see it every day.

Yes, but even "people whose needs are met" are prone to crime -- and not just as victims. I mentioned The Great Train Robbery by way of discussing the Victorians' views, but any modern white-collar crime serves as an example. Do you really think the Enron executives were driven by anger that they couldn't be as happy as their investors and employees, or do you really realize that poverty is only an excuse for crime used by those criminals who have it?

Do you think that mafia members engage in their business simply because they're down and out? That teens who joyride in others' cars do it because of some resentment, rather than simply for fun? One of my friends in high school was an arsonist. Money never factored into his motivations at all. The perception that crime is something done by poor people is simply untrue.

I am down at the moment, out of work for about 10 months having to live off taxpayers. However, for THIRTEEN YEARS before this, I was a tax payer helping to support people just like myself! I AM HAPPY TO KNOW THAT IF I FALL, THERE IS A SAFETY NET THERE WAITING TO CATCH ME, TO AT LEAST GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO GET BACK UP AND _KEEP_THAT_SAFETY_NET_THERE_!

The money you spent supporting others like yourself during that 13 years could be supporting you directly now (perhaps via unemployment insurance -- unpopular now only because the government provides mandatory programs similar in function). Relying on the government for your safety net is risky business -- laws can change with the wind, and there may well be some loophole you didn't know about until you try to use their services. Provide the net yourself and you know it's there and know the terms (as you negotiated them yourself). Even better is to be capable of getting back up without a net (though admittedly, once one has a family and so forth that gets rather tough).

I question, however, whether your current unemployment is of necessity. Are you unemployed only because you're waiting for a job of the same caliber (in the same field, etc) as the one you last held? Have you tried seeking work doing something different? Contract coding? Burger-flipping? How about lowering your salary requirements (ie. applying for a coding job at burger-flipping pay)? I've seen very few people stay unemployed long by anything but choice.
Re:In Asia, money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-21 18:28 · Score: 0

Enron executives

I've been chatting in forums since 1991, starting out on fidonet and I've come across the types which attempt to use all manner of techniques to rope the other person into arguing against things they did not say. I said, poor people may also be angry at the rich, so who at Enron was poor?

People commit crimes for many reasons, but do you really think that people whose needs (and I should have said before wants) are met, commit on average just as much crime as people whose needs are not met? (wants only ever being exactly that)

The rich usually commit very different crimes to the poor. Rich crimes are mostly driven by greed, whereas poor crimes are mostly driven by desperation. What do you think the chances are that you'll stumble across a CEO in your lounge room, stealing your video and then getting shot by the guy because you spooked him? Desperation crimes usually hurt people more than greed based crimes.

The perception that crime is something done by poor people is simply untrue.

You need to stop mangling what I say. I never said "crime is something done by the poor", as if they were the only "cause of crime". But it is a fact that there is a higher incidence of crime amongst poor people, that is not to say that the rich do not commit crime.

The money you spent supporting others like yourself during that 13 years could be supporting you directly now

Distributed versus unified huh? Not all people are smart enough to invest, or make much more money than what they need to keep a roof over their heads and food in their mouths. Not everyone really thinks about putting money away for emergencies when they're working in their late teens/early twenties. It is sometimes the shock of long term unemployement that causes one to think about these things.

I question, however, whether your current unemployment is of necessity.

After working in design of military digital weapons systems, implementations of telco packet switching equipment and system admin of a stock exchange? You think I should flip burgers? I never said I was desperate, but I am worried. If I move out of IT/electronics now, at 29, I might have difficulty getting back into it, especially if my resume says my last job was flipping fucking burgers. PS, I have lowered my salary requirements.
Re:In Asia, money talks by cduffy · 2002-02-22 03:17 · Score: 1

Rich crimes are mostly driven by greed, whereas poor crimes are mostly driven by desperation.

I'll agree that many poor crimes are driven by desparation -- but not that they're mostly so driven. Do you argue that those who are poor and engage in crime are mostly people who could not find legitimate jobs at all, no matter how hard they tried? I'm not sure I buy that.

Distributed versus unified huh? Not all people are smart enough to invest, or make much more money than what they need to keep a roof over their heads and food in their mouths. Not everyone really thinks about putting money away for emergencies when they're working in their late teens/early twenties. It is sometimes the shock of long term unemployement that causes one to think about these things.

Quite so -- and that's where the concept of individual responsability comes in.

One of those things about giving people responsability is that they tend to take it -- sooner or later. When people see Uncle Joe, who didn't put anything away and as a result is forced to take a job flipping burgers (or ends up a charity case, or...), they're more likely to save up themselves. Right now, there's no immediate need -- after all, big brother'll take care of them, right?

After working in design of military digital weapons systems, implementations of telco packet switching equipment and system admin of a stock exchange? You think I should flip burgers?

I think you should find work -- and in the unlikely event that you can't find something more interesting, flipping burgers it may be. That flipping burgers is presently below you indicates that the economic necessity you would be feeling is being masked by the gov't assistance program, thus causing it to take longer for you to go back to being some variety of productive citizen -- hence, a higher cost of labor and a higher unemployment rate.

Zim Rulz! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

OK so now is it on at a time I am home?

so, is this off-topic because there are so many topics?

OSX *BSD by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:07 · Score: 0

OSX Actually uses quite a bit from NetBSD also. Not sure which got most attention Net/Free but from looking at header files, a lot of it is NetBSD

Re:OSX *BSD by teamhasnoi · 2002-02-19 14:32 · Score: 0

So could os9 'classic' be run on a Net/Free box?

Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Ryu2 · 2002-02-19 12:07 · Score: 4, Informative

In case you didn't know, FOX is planning to pull the plug in it. Futurama is pretty good, but nothing compares to Family Guy!

http://www.damnyouall.net/savefamilyguy/

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Don't mind me... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:09 · Score: 0

... just checking to see if my IP's been banned again. If not, then I'll post something good.

Hate that! by Aknaton · 2002-02-19 12:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Even though they may have a case, I just don't like the fact that some major corporation can shut down your website based solely on their word.

In my opinion, this is something only a court should be able to order.

Re:Hate that! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agreed, though we're rapidly progressing toward a world where you won't be allowed to have a web site unless you're a major corporation. Don't you get it? You're a consumer. Your role is to pay for information and services; perhaps if you're lucky you'll even derive some benefit from them. But that's optional.

We'll talk fondly someday of the time when we had citizens as well as consumers. But face it: at this point, unless you've got money to pass around, your opinion is completely worthless. So just sit back, watch your television, pay your ISP bill, listen to some manufactured pop music (from physical media, of course), and for heaven's sake, don't use too much bandwidth or express an unpopular opinion!
Re:Hate that! by nettdata · 2002-02-19 14:48 · Score: 2

Even though they may have a case, I just don't like the fact that some major corporation can shut down your website based solely on their word.

You know, I agree, and I don't like that fact either, but at the end of the day, it was the site's actions that caused them to be shut down.

Some may call it intimidation, but the site WAS in the wrong (or at least a VERY shady area), and it wasn't the ISP's fight. And it speaks volumes that the site didn't pursue it legally, but rather just went looking for another ISP.

In some wierd way, I have a bit of respect for a company that doesn't just sick the lawyers on someone and get an injunction, but calls them up and says "hey, this isn't right, and if it doesn't stop, we'll have to do something about it".

--

$0.02 (CDN)
Re:Hate that! by HCase · 2002-02-20 03:44 · Score: 1

The site was legal, shady, but legal none the less. The didn't ask the isp instead of sending lawyers out of the goodness of their hearts or any respect, they did so because the lawyers weren't going to be able to bring down a legal site. Its much easier to send a letter, and most likely a fat check, in a case like this. As for the them not persuing the shutdown with legal action, there may have been a "we can turn off your pipe if we don't like you" clause in their agreement, which would again prevent successful legal action.
Re:Hate that! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 03:55 · Score: 0

"In my opinion, this is something only a court should be able to order."

You think that legislation should be passed in Taiwan regulating what kind of business transaction can occur between two private entitites? (Yeah, like the MPAA couldn't buy a court order in Taiwan).

If your ISP shuts you down either you violated the terms of your contract with them or they are violating the terms of their contract with you. If the former, you deserve to lose your service. If the latter, you need to sue your ISP and if you can't get satisfaction, switch.

Yes, I know that the corporations have a hand up in these interactions because of their resources, access, and control. But the other side of this is, the internet is not a public utility anc access is not a guarenteed right. It is a business arrangement between two private entities and in the vast majority of cases people or companies sign off unthinkingly on restrictive policies with little or no process involved in the ISP exercising their contractual rights, and then complain later.

From the post - "So much for process, even in Tiawan." There are two assumptions in this bullshit story, both false. The first is that these Movie88 fuckers have a leg to stand on, which they don't, because regardless of the legal situation in Taiwan, they are transacting business in countries where the business violates copyright laws, with consumers that don't have the legal right to buy unlicensed reproductions of copyrighted materials. The second assumption is that anyone is guarenteed any kind of process in a private business transaction. Well, they may deserve some kind of process in attacking their ISP for breach of contract IF the ISP violated the terms of their contract. That's it.
Re:Hate that! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 07:09 · Score: 0

ahem. take a step back from your computer for a moment and think about what you just said. think about the fact that you just said it in a public context, to a potentially vast audience of people who are here because they care about the issues.
you're right there's a danger that we'll all be thought of as consumers, but only if we all act only like consumers. I hate to break it to you but the american public as a rule does act like a bunch of consumers.
what can you do? stop acting like mindless consumers, communicate, speak out, just live your life as a human being not as a consuming drone, break your tv, think. everything else will follow.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:09 · Score: 0

I can't agree more. Sign the petition! Write a letter!

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:12 · Score: 0

If you think an online petition is going to affect anything in the real world, I've got a few bridges you might want to check out; low, low prices.

Politicians and businessmen pay zero attention to this point-and-click laziness.

Possible antitrust? by Ryu2 · 2002-02-19 12:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Movie88 had posed an unexpected threat to studios' own video-on-demand services such as Movielink and Movies.com, which are still months away from commercial service.

The Taiwanese site was run on a video-store model, allowing people to "rent" access to movies for three days in return for a payment of just $1. The movies, which were streamed to a computer in RealNetworks' video format, could not easily be saved to a hard drive or downloaded.

So how is Movie88 a pirate site if it attempts to prevent downloading of the videos? (Yes, I know Real Video can be downloaded with some utilities, but then again, you could copy rental video tapes/DVDs with the right hardware too)

How is it different in concept from any video store for that matter?

And most importantly, how is it different than the movie studios getting into the act, except for where the money goes? (Do video stores like Blockbuster have to pay royalties to movie studios? Curious...)

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re:Possible antitrust? by Miniluv · 2002-02-19 12:25 · Score: 1

"Do video stores like Blockbuster have to pay royalties to movie studios? Curious..."
They pay royaltiesin the form of highly expensive physical media which then gets rented out over and over until it wears out.
Movie88 wouldn't have to worry about the wearing out, and I'm guessing that since this happened they probably didn't pay jack to the movie houses.
Re:Possible antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:28 · Score: 0

except for where the money goes?

You just answered your own question. If the studios don't get their cut, they bring the hammer down on you. That's a lot like the mafia, now that I think about it...
Re:Possible antitrust? by ncc74656 · 2002-02-19 12:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

So how is Movie88 a pirate site if it attempts to prevent downloading of the videos? (Yes, I know Real Video can be downloaded with some utilities, but then again, you could copy rental video tapes/DVDs with the right hardware too)

Movie88 served up movies with Apache, not RealServer. This made downloading/saving almost trivial. I used FlashGet, with Muffin in front of it to rewrite the user-agent string to make FlashGet appear to the server as RealPlayer 8 instead.
Everything they had that was (probably) ripped from DVD had captions, though...stuff like American History X or eXistenZ, not just foreign-language stuff where subtitles would be useful. Given that adding captions back into the video involves extra work when you're transcoding from DVD (the captions are stored as overlay graphics in the MPEG program stream), you have to wonder why they did this.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Possible antitrust? by Ryu2 · 2002-02-19 12:48 · Score: 2

It's useful (at least for me) for learning foreign languages to listen to the spoken words while having the written text on the bottom.

I assume that most Movie88 customers were in Taiwan, and do not speak English as their native language.

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re:Possible antitrust? by harlows_monkeys · 2002-02-19 13:20 · Score: 1

How is it different from a video store? Video stores have permission.
Re:Possible antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 13:52 · Score: 0

Seeing as Paramount is a sibling company of Blockbuster (both owned by Viacom), I'm sure there's absolutely no shady practices to keep outside rental stores from operating. After all, when Paramount (Viacom) releases a movie, Blockbuster (Viacom) must pay Paramount (Viacom) for the right to rent the movie. Then when you rent the movie, Blockbuster (Viacom) gets some money and everyone's happy. Sure, it's nice to have Hollywood Video (Hollywood Entertainment) around for a little while to bring money into the scheme, but why make it complicated with lots of independent rental shops? When you're ready, you can just acquire your single competitor and have the whole thing to yourself. These Movie 88 people are obviously guilty of infringing on the studios' newest source of money (five of seven agreed on Moviefly, which may have since been renamed (?)), which affects the American economy, which of course means that Taiwan is another country that's part of the Axis of Evil!

Ok, calm down.. calm down.. they're not all out to get you... it just seems that way. It just seems that way. It just seems that way. It just seems that way. It just...
Re:Possible antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:47 · Score: 0

and most of the big video rental stores are owned by media conglomerates (blockbuster-> paramount -> viacom).
Re:Possible antitrust? by armb · 2002-02-19 22:42 · Score: 2

> So how is Movie88 a pirate site if it attempts to prevent downloading of the videos?

Because they hadn't paid for the videos they were streaming. They weren't a site for pirates to copy videos, but they were using pirate videos as the base of their business. That's the MPA's story anyway.
Depends what you feel about the "loophole in Taiwan copyright law" (presumably related to Taiwan only relatively recently adopting laws acceptable to WTO - http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1999/0399Bulletin/T aiwan_CopyrightLawRev.html)

--
rant
Re:Possible antitrust? by Stultsinator · 2002-02-20 03:26 · Score: 1

Yes, Blockbuster et. al. pay a higher price for the movies they rent out, and are only able to rent them out with permission licensed by the movie cartel. That is why Joe Viewer gets in trouble if he rents his copy of a movie to his neighbor, and that is why the MPAA was able to shut down Movie88.

Simply buying a DVD movie doesn't give you license to make copies and sell them, nor does it allow you to broadcast that content.
Re:Possible antitrust? by Ryu2 · 2002-02-20 05:51 · Score: 2

How about indie mom and pop stores not aflicated with the big media companies? Does the MPAA go about trying to find video stores that don't pay royalties?

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re:Possible antitrust? by yesthatguy · 2002-02-20 10:34 · Score: 2

If a video store buys one copy of a movie, then makes 15 copies, and rents out 16, you can bet that the MPAA would probably find out, and be righteously pissed. But as long as the movie stores buy all of the movies they rent out, there's usually no need for royalties. For the early releases that they get for rentals, and going through the proper channels, movie stores can probably easily pay $100 for one copy of one movie. (I saw >$90 movies in a catalog a few years ago). This means that the royalties are already built into the movie price.

--
Yes! That guy!

No "legal" action? by Esgaroth · 2002-02-19 12:13 · Score: 3, Funny

If they "took no legal action", does that mean everything they did was illegal?

Sorry, it had to be said.

Re:Mac OS X reigns! by blackmateria · 2002-02-19 12:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You bastard, your .sig crashed my Windows XP box! :)

That's pretty cool, I think I'll put it in mine.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by CMiYC · 2002-02-19 12:14 · Score: 2

I'd watch it more if it wasn't on at the same time as Friends. At least TiVO is smart enough to record Family Guy when Friends is a re-run, otherwise I would never see it.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:15 · Score: 0

Fox has already heard from the public on this issue: it's called ratings, and the public unequivocally said "shitcan it."

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by soft_guy · 2002-02-19 12:18 · Score: 0

Family Guy is the worst show on TV ever. It should be canceled.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by svferris · 2002-02-19 12:19 · Score: 4, Informative

What I want to know is why we haven't seen Family Guy on DVD here in the U.S.? The U.K. has a Season 1 DVD, as well as a Futurama DVD. They even have an announcement for the Simpsons, Season 2 DVD.

Looks like I'm going to have to invest in a region-free DVD player.

About time by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:23 · Score: 0

You idiot understood what X is. but it deosn't matter. X is now the *Nix like OS with the largest market share. It is yummy and it is good. And I will help sell Linux/BSD servers and help bring down M$.

-entro

Re:Wide! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:24 · Score: 0

HA, HA!

Looks like your nefarious scheme was FOILED.

FOILED, you silly BITCH.

A CRANK? Submitting to Slashdot? And SALON? by sulli · 2002-02-19 12:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Bestill my beating heart!

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:24 · Score: 0

You don't deserve to have a TV.

Blockbuster *does* pay movie studios... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

They pay royalties for both the sales and rentals. There was an article in the NY Times regarding the fact that they make more money renting than selling (specifically DVDs) because of the way the royalties are dished out.

I've become pretty sick of the whole digital media thing and have just abandoned both buying CDs and renting movies froom Blockbuster. I do use my DirecTivo and pay-per-view since between the two I can always find soomething I want to watch. I currently dole out approximately $100 a month for TV/Cable entertainment and hope as little as possible go to the big studios.

When it's worth more... by mengel · 2002-02-19 12:27 · Score: 5, Funny

...to someone else to shut you down than it is to you to be online, a for-profit ISP is motivated to take a payment to turn you off.

I wonder if we'll start seeing ISPs advertising rates to shut down customers:

Turn off a Normal Account $2000
Turn off a Priority Account $4000
Turn off High Bandwith Account $50000

You will be informed in 10 days whether the account has outbid you to re-enable service...

Sounds kind of like something out of a Gibson novel.

--
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'

Re:When it's worth more... by donglekey · 2002-02-19 15:42 · Score: 2

Shit, go ahead an do it I say. I will strike a deal with the ISP, become a huge, offensive, obnoxious, black mark thorn in the side to some deep pockets and BAM!!!! Photoshop + RIAA press release + random porn star with similiar skin tone to Hilary Rosen + SPAM claiming nude pics of the pop flavor of the month . . . . . . instant money.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:When it's worth more... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:17 · Score: 0

This guy is a page widdener, he is trying hard
to get KARMA, so he can post his page widening
crap at +2.

Just look at his posting history

-banuaba

HBO Should Buy Futurama by scotpurl · 2002-02-19 12:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

Quite seriously. HBO needs something animated to balance all that real-life action stuff, :-), and Futurama isn't a bad choice. Could give the show a little more edge, and supply many more comedy possibilities (and likely a little cartoon nudity), plus HBO won't get hysterical at episodes like "Kwanzabot" and prevent their airing.

David Cohen, you out there? Shop that show around.

Re:HBO Should Buy Futurama by Pacifix · 2002-02-19 13:02 · Score: 1

This could be the best idea I've heard all year. Most importantly, we could have a new character: Tony Soprano thought to have been 'iced' by a mob hit wakes up in the year 3000 and moves in on the professor's delivery business!
Re:HBO Should Buy Futurama by Telastyn · 2002-02-19 13:22 · Score: 2

Maybe not *many* more comedy possibilities... I mean South Park was great in movie form so they could discuss swearing and the such, but I'm sure hearing Cartman say PigFucker would get old after a few seasons... but then again people said the simpsons would get old after a few seasons...

I've always wondered why there aren't more "adult cartoons" on more mainstream stations. Not even pr0nt00ns, just anime or even serious animation aimed at 14-40 year olds on one of the HBO's. There's certainly a market for it.
Re:HBO Should Buy Futurama by GigsVT · 2002-02-19 13:35 · Score: 2

I don't know what you mean by mainstream stations, but there were attempts by the other major networks to imitate the Simpsons, after their large success. You had that thing with the muppet dinosaurs, which wasn't animated, but supposedly aiming for Simpson-ness.

You had things like the Critic, and a couple other attempts. Nothing stuck.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:HBO Should Buy Futurama by MaxVlast · 2002-02-19 16:50 · Score: 2

The attentive viewer will notice that The Simpsons did get a little stale as the Bart-centeredness progressed. They had to make the show about Homer for it to really take off. There are only so many Bartman and "eat my shorts" jokes you can make without the show getting stale. So you are correct =)

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:HBO Should Buy Futurama by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 18:02 · Score: 0

Yes, it'll erase the stink of "spawn" from HBO. That show was pretty irritating.

Zim airing regularly? by tskirvin · 2002-02-19 12:29 · Score: 1

They haven't aired a new episode of Zim since October. I haven't heard of any plans to air new episodes yet. Therefore, I kindof doubt that the above reasons for not cancelling Zim are valid...nor do I think that Zim has been saved.
-Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@killfile.org)

Re:Zim airing regularly? by NickFusion · 2002-02-19 13:45 · Score: 1

The audience is building because they are airing the old episodes more regularly. And there are a few new episodes in the pipe.

--
What were you expecting?
Re:Zim airing regularly? by Lumpy · 2002-02-19 15:00 · Score: 2

very true Episode 114b was the last regular one before the Holloween special. and nothing exists after that (at least where people can view it that dont work at nickelodeon)

If you do a search on google for invader zim episodes you can download all publically existing ones.. inclusing the 2 that never aired in the US.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:30 · Score: 0

Well, I have to admit that for the about 40 episodes they have out, only 10 are really priceless (just awesome episodes, like "Screw the Pooch" for example), then about 10 episodes which are okay (entertaining but that's it), then the rest really sucks.
So if Family guy was more consistant it would be awesome.

Re:zzzzzz by sulli · 2002-02-19 12:31 · Score: 0, Flamebait

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Your comment is boring. Please post an interesting comment.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Wide! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:33 · Score: 0

Why does IE not wrap that text of yours? It does contain spaces. Other browsers do wrap it. I guess it's a "feature" of IE. They don't want geeks to be able turn an "ls -a" output into an html file without going through MS FrontPage or something.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:35 · Score: 0

I have to agree with you. I tried watching it the other day and it pretty much consisted of all potty jokes interspersed with fat jokes and sex jokes. Not a lot of funny ones in there either.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by The+Man · 2002-02-19 12:50 · Score: 1

So what? Family Guy is not funny, not original, not creative, not visually elegant or well-done, and not entertaining in any way. There are probably worse programs on TV (Voyager, TNG, and the CowboyNeal Smile Time Variety Hour come to mind) but not by much. I won't miss Family Guy at all. Futurama, I would miss, except that Fox never really showed it after the first few episodes. It was always baseball, or some movie they would start early, or whatever. I would happily pay $100 for a DVD set containing every episode ever made, however.

OS X by Stenpas · 2002-02-19 12:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Since OS X is one of the topics of slashback, it might be worth mentioning that a new update to MacOS X was released. 10.1.3. Here's what it offers:

1.CD Disc Recording Peripherals: Expanded support for QPS, EZQuest, LaCie, Yamaha, MCE Technologies and Sony devices
2.Image Capture and iPhoto: Improved support for several digital camera models from Canon, Kodak and Sony
3.DVD Playback on external VGA displays on PowerBook G4
4.PowerBook video mirroring will be on by default when connecting to a new display
5.Improvements for iTunes when the full screen visualizer is used
6.Login authentication support for LDAP and Active Directory services
7.OpenSSH version 3.0.2p1
8.WebDAV support for Digest authentication
9.Mail includes support for SSL encryption

Get it via Software Update. If you're a bit hesistant, might want to wait for what xlr8yourmac.com says. And MacsOnly does a variety of speed tests for every version released. I'm sure they'll put up new benchmarks shortly.

Re:OS X by syzxys · 2002-02-19 13:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

8.WebDAV support for Digest authentication

That's interesting, because AFAIK MSIE still doesn't support Digest authentication for WebDAV shares (a.k.a. "Web Folders"). (At least, IE5.5 doesn't, and IIRC neither does IE6). It seems to get confused and try to access the site using FrontPage extensions instead, which of course doesn't work because it's running Apache 2.0. That makes it hard to interoperate MSIE with other WebDAV products (like Subversion), at least if you're using Digest auth. I'm glad to see at least someone is actually trying to implement web standards, instead of mixing them together with proprietary stuff. Anyway, just my $0.02.
---
Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise!
Re:OS X by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 19:18 · Score: 1, Informative

No you don't.

10.2 is not out yet.

Look at me, I'm replying to trolls...
Re:OS X by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 20:47 · Score: 0

Actually, you're running 10.1.2, idiot!!!
Re:OS X by netsrek · 2002-02-19 23:54 · Score: 1

Still not sure what the LDAP stuff is all about... this was working ok before this update

Anyone able to shed light on what this is? I'm assuming it's not proper Ldap v3 support, as I reckon they'd crow over that a bit more...

--

i don't read slashdot anymore.
Re:OS X by Paradise+Pete · 2002-02-20 06:12 · Score: 1

One could even say it's co0o0o0o0o0ol (if they were retarded)

If you're going to go to the trouble of saying "one" instead of "you," why then get lazy and say "they?"

google cache of p2p site for "circle" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 12:58 · Score: 1, Informative

The Google cache of The Circle: one ring, no rulers for scalable cooperative file system and P2P networking.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Dr_LHA · 2002-02-19 13:02 · Score: 2, Informative

What I want to know is why we haven't seen Family Guy on DVD here in the U.S.? The U.K. has a Season 1 DVD, as well as a Futurama DVD. They even have an announcement for the Simpsons, Season 2 DVD.

The same reason you can buy Enterprise on VHS and whole seasons of DS9, B5, Voyager, Buffy etc. The UK market is different from the US. For one thing they don't have syndication. In the US it's thought that allowing TV shows to be sold in on VHS or DVD would hurt syndication ratings.

Also in the UK the sale of VHS episodes is high because it usually takes a few months for the TV shows to be shown on regular TV over there. For example I first saw ST:TNG on VHS about a year before I saw it on TV (in the UK).

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 13:04 · Score: 0, Insightful

When an engineer uses "efficiency", it means getting the most output for the least input -- a good thing because it tends to conserve finite natural resources. [1] But when an economist uses "efficiency", it means "efficient distribution" -- a bad thing because it tends to deplete natural resources (all economic activity wastes finite energy stocks). Economic efficiency means the "correct people" (those who can afford it) get the "correct goods and services" (whatever they want; technically known as "Pareto Optimality", which incidentally, doesn't exist). Economic efficiency rewards people who are the most successful at converting natural resources into industrial garbage ... so they can invest in even more conversion of natural resources into industrial garbage.

If one can think like an engineer (social scientists will have difficulty doing this), one can deduce from first principles, history, and observation that a society based on "economic efficiency" will crash and dieoff. Here's how:

1). Visit the astronomy department at your local university and verify that Earth is indeed spherical. All spheres are finite, thus Earth is finite. Therefore, you can deduce that Earth's energy resources are finite too -- finite "energy stocks" (e.g., oil) and finite "energy flows" (e.g., wind).

2). Visit the physics department and verify that: Energy is the capacity to do work (no energy = no work). Thus, the global economy is 100 percent dependent on energy -- it always has been, and it always will be. There are NO exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics.

The First Law of thermodynamics tells us that neither capital nor labor nor technology can "create" energy. Instead, available energy must be spent to transform existing energy stocks, or to divert an existing energy flow into more available energy.

The Second Law of thermodynamics tells us that energy is wasted at every step in the economic process. The engines that actually do the work in our economy (so-called "heat engines", such as diesel engines) waste more than 50 percent of the energy contained in their fuel.

Energy resources must produce more energy than they consume, otherwise they are called "sinks" (this is known as the "net energy" principle). About 735 joules of energy are required to lift 15 kg of oil 5 meters out of the ground just to overcome gravity -- and the higher the lift, the greater the energy requirements. The most concentrated and most accessible oil is produced first; thereafter, more and more energy is required to find and produce oil. At some point, more energy is spent finding and producing oil than the energy recovered -- and the "resource" has become a "sink".

3). Visit the ecology (or population biology) department and verify that "overshoot", "crash", and "dieoff" are common in nature. Dieoff occurs when animals run out of energy stocks (food). H. sapiens are running out of energy stocks (fossil fuel first, and then food).

Now that you have deduced the dieoff scenario from the science, turn on your TV set and observe that "dieoff" is already underway in Russia and Africa.
The only remaining question is when will "dieoff" come to a location near you? Many industry experts expect it in less than ten years. Some say it is here already.

Re:ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 20:39 · Score: 0

unfortunately that doesn't say much. Most PhD economists i know understand little to nothing about economics, and even less about the world of money. i've talked to two freshly minted phd's in economics at a famous palo alto university in the last month. one didn't know what a price/earning ratio was. the other had never heard (or had forgotten) about a little institution called the federal reserve. both got their degrees in game theory, basically studying n by n matrices and searching for equilibria. I'm absolutely amazed about how politicized and ignorant these people are. not meant as a personal attack against you, but against your colleagues.
Re:ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY by kiwipeso · 2002-02-19 21:16 · Score: 0

They got their PhDs in game theory?
I was studying computer science and math for my double major degree in science, yet game theory was not a valid option for a PhD.

Anyway, I got sick for a few months so I couldn't go up to PhD.
Now I'm writing an operating system from the games projects I did outside of uni.

--
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Re:ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY by cduffy · 2002-02-20 03:29 · Score: 1

"Industrial garbage" is that stuff which allows you and me to be sitting in comfortable chairs at computers with a big network behind us, with plenty of food in our cupboards and jobs with high enough pay to make it easy to buy more.

I'll take the industrial garbage, thank you very much. When we run out of fuels it's easy to extract energy from (ie. fossil fuels), we'll switch to other ones -- solar, wind, fission, maybe fusion if it's ready. As the fossil fuels become more scarce they'll become more expensive, thus encouraging self-regulation of the depletion rate or conversion to an alternative source.

In other words: Nothing to see here, move along folks.
Re:ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 10:02 · Score: 0

Yes, but what happens to all the people who are only kept alive by an abundance of CHEAP energy? The rich will become poor, and the poor will die.
Re:ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY by cduffy · 2002-02-20 11:18 · Score: 1

You know, it's after 2000 -- we were supposed to be dead by now, if not by overpopulation or nuclear war, then by bioterrorism or [pick-a-scenario]. The human race is remarkably resiliant. We won't run out of fuel for fission for quite some time; by the time we do, some alternative (fusion?) will be available. Right now we can afford to burn fossil fuels over smashing atoms for political reasons; when fossil fuels become unavailable, those political reasons will play second fiddle to economic necessity and we'll start smashing atoms on a wider scale. Running out of appropriate atoms to smash will take long enough that some other alternative (be it fusion or solar power collected in space and beamed down to Earth) will have become available -- and because it will have to be implemented on a large scale to be effective, it will as a result of this scale of implementation become cheap.

Doom and gloom has been preached so many times over I can't count them all; nonetheless, we haven't died yet. Chances are it won't happen at all. Certainly that's no excuse to sit idly by in the face of genuine disaster -- but it should be an effective caution against crying wolf at disasters that haven't happened yet.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by freakinPsycho · 2002-02-19 13:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

A lot of people seem to be confused about this.

Just because you have a region-free DVD player doesn't mean you can actually watch the movies you buy. If it's sold in the UK, chances are it's in PAL format. You can't watch that format on your NTSC TV, sorry.

You either have to get a TV that can play both or you get a converter. Take your pick, and neither are cheap.

If I'm wrong about this, feel free to tell me. But from the research I've done, this is true.

I wish it weren't.. then I could get Neverwhere on DVD and be able to watch it...

--
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
- Alexandar Woolcot

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 13:08 · Score: 0

"Just don't tell her about my sexy parties"

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by debrain · 2002-02-19 13:14 · Score: 2

What I want to know is why we haven't seen Family Guy on DVD here in the U.S.?

Your local monopolies giving your trouble? I suggest you explore alternatives such as Morpheus, Kazaa, Gnutella, and Freenet. Although not as convenient as consuming pre-fabricated materials, the same material is often provided at the cost of bandwidth.

Although they are without the arbitrary and arcane and draconian restrictions found in the essentially naive government sponsored owners, there is no guarantee that you will be able to find the material you need - however keep in mind that supply will rise to meet demand, in spite of the efforts of the draconians.

Re:Workers of the World, Unite! by spectral · 2002-02-19 13:16 · Score: 1

As opposed to millions of people who are just dead (not VERY dead), or something similar?

Try APEX by Ryu2 · 2002-02-19 13:17 · Score: 2

My APEX DVD player is region free, and can play both NTSC and PAL discs, even if you have a TV that doesn't support that standard; it autoconverts the output as necessary.

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re:Try APEX by Afrosheen · 2002-02-19 13:23 · Score: 2

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Re:Try APEX by freakinPsycho · 2002-02-19 13:33 · Score: 1

Which model is that? I can't find anything that says it will do the converting, only that it can output both formats.

I would just mail you instead of using /. like this, but not mail address shown for you.

--
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
- Alexandar Woolcot

Speaking of Open source P2P networks... by anti11es · 2002-02-19 13:19 · Score: 1

giFT (which is now GNU Internet File Transfer) has implemented OpenFT and its now working quite well in a good "alpha" state. It still needs work, but it is getting better every day. Check it out, it's definitely headed places.

Liar, liar, pants on fire! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 13:21 · Score: 0

os x is Mach with FreeBSD compatible layer. Sorry to burst your bubble, Bubba.

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by mstrjon32 · 2002-02-19 13:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, its possible to not install the BSD Compatibility layer at all when you install OS X. Anyone whose ever installed it would know that. Crazy PC users who have never had the privilage of using a mac...

OS X is a descendant of NeXTstep from NeXT computer, which Apple bought a few years ago with the hopes of using their software as a foundation for their new OS. On top of that, Apple only bought NeXT because they couldn't cut a deal with BeOS for their system.

NeXTstep was one of the most advanced operating systems for its time. Unfortunately, like most Steve Jobs products, NeXT computers were overpriced and ahead of their time. Yet, 10 years later, it has resurfaced as OS X.

Hey only another 5 until I can get a Newton!
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by MaxVlast · 2002-02-19 13:55 · Score: 1

(I posted the following response to the post mentioned by the editors. It's still wrong -- there is no "compatibility layer."

-------------------

Do you know what that means? "Based on NeXT" doesn't mean anything. NeXT was a company.

Mac OS X is based on OpenStep 4.2, which, itself, was based on NEXTSTEP 3.3. NEXTSTEP is a BSD operating system running on a modified version of the Mach microkernel. OpenStep is a API specification and a set of libraries that conforms to that API. OpenStep 4.2 (the operating system) is an implementation of those libraries on top of NEXTSTEP.

When Apple bought NeXT, they planned to build on top of OpenStep. They first produced Rhapsody for PPC and Rhapsody for Intel. They were the same OS running on two hardware platforms. On top of Rhapsody, Apple put the Blue Box, which was a Macintosh compatibility environment. At no time was there any need for a "BSD compatibility layer." It was all software running on top of BSD. Apple then killed Rhapsody for Intel (and the Yellow Box, but that's tangential.)

What was left was released as Mac OS Server.

Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS Server 10.0 (and further versions) are also BSD operating systems. They have the Cocoa (OpenStep) and Carbon libraries available, and the imaging system is called Aqua (replacement for Display PostScript.) At no point in any of this is there a need for any UNIX compatibility layer, as it is all real UNIX. The only compatibility environment necessary is for Mac OS 9 (Classic.) Only certain older applications (Carbon) can run natively on OS X, so for running non-Carbon apps, Mac OS 9 is run in a compatibility environment (similar, but not the same as VMWare.)

I hope that clarifies things.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by Com2Kid · 2002-02-19 15:22 · Score: 2

Friend of mine had a beta of the Newton on a laptop, that, err, anyways. (wasn't stolen).

Had to format it because booting up asked for a password and nobody knew what in the world it was. Apparently the password had been written down on a scrap of paper loooong ago (aren't all passwords at some point in time or another? :) ) and then promptly lost, heh.

Ah, told him later that he should have taken out the HD and put it into an IDE adaptor for his PC and plugged it in as a secondary disk and try accessing it with every file system compatiability layer known to mankind. ;)

He was quite upset that he had not thought of doing that.

--
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by Midnight+Thunder · 2002-02-19 15:25 · Score: 1

In fact it is a little more complicated than that:
MacOS X is actually an OS on top of an OS. The basic operating system is Darwin, which is based on BSD, though its kernel is based on Mach - this is the same relationship between Solaris and SunOS. If you are interested in a more detailed explanation of Mach and Darwin then check out the link here.
Darwin will run quite happily without MacOS X, though the reverse is not true. In fact there are people doing just that and using X-Windows instead. One thing that make Darwin different from other BSDs is that it is an OO OS, for example the I/O allows one driver to inherit functionality from another driver ( single inheritence, though ).
MacOS X as the previous poster pointed out comes bundled with all sorts of APIs than adds all sort of features than makes it more than just a fancy windowing environment. So as I said before MacOS X is an OS on top of an OS.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by MaxVlast · 2002-02-19 15:44 · Score: 1

It really isn't that much more complicated. Mac OS X is the name of a bundle of libraries other features. It's rather like Linux, which is a kernel and a number of GNU libraries/tools.

Darwin is the name of one component of the OS (the BSD core.)

It's no more an OS on top of an OS than Linux + X + KDE is an OS on top of an OS. There are layers of components that provide differing services. Aqua/Quartz is no more an independent OS (the top layer) than X is an OS.

(I made a slight mistake -- the graphics libraries are Quartz, not Aqua. Aqua is the lickable interface.)

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by Golias · 2002-02-19 16:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

On top of that, Apple only bought NeXT because they couldn't cut a deal with BeOS for their system.
Actually, they could. BeOS was available for them to buy, and would have been much cheaper than what they paid for NeXT. They had a choice, and chose NeXT.
Bottom line, Apple believed that Be simply was not worth over $200M, but NeXT was worth over $400M. I suspect the reasons for that difference could be summed up in five words: Steve Jobs and Avi Tevanian.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by murr · 2002-02-19 20:23 · Score: 1

You can choose not to install most BSD *commands*, but the essential part of the BSD layer is the BSD *APIs* in the kernel, which are not optional.
Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire! by skribble · 2002-02-20 02:06 · Score: 1

Actually, its possible to not install the BSD Compatibility layer at all when you install OS X. Anyone whose ever installed it would know that. Crazy PC users who have never had the privilage of using a mac...

The BSD Compatibility layer installs much of the basic commandline software and libraries associated with BSD and other Unix's. However even without this, OS X is still BSD. BSD is a kernel, not the apps with run on it (Same thing with Linux... Linux refers to the kernel... everything else is distribution).

--
--- Nothing To See Here ---

Prior art by salmo · 2002-02-19 13:22 · Score: 3, Funny

I think it's really funny that in an article about intellectual property and prior art Tim O'Reilly cites Morgan's Tarot as the origination of the quote "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." All good geeks know that's from J.R.R. Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings. Woops!

Re:Prior art by Pope · 2002-02-19 16:10 · Score: 3, Funny

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."

I thought that was from the Windows XP readme files...

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 19:02 · Score: 0

hahaha .... very nice

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Afrosheen · 2002-02-19 13:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh, I dunno about that. The CowboyMeal Buffet Luncheon hour is pretty entertaining. That foodfight that broke out between him and CmdrTaco was an uproar!

What I want to see is the excellent Clerks! cartoon continued. I have the 2 dvd set, it's all classic, and another victim of corporate 'policy'. The Tick (live action) can rot in hell, it was a stupid idea to begin with. Some things just aren't meant to be live action. Could you imagine the horror of Speed Racer live action? Or Garfield?

Speaking of prior art... by mattdm · 2002-02-19 13:27 · Score: 2

There used to be a mock Tarot deck called Morgan's Tarot, which had a card that said, "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." Dealing with lawyers is like that. -- Tim O'Reilly's patent article

Morgan's Tarot, copyright 1970. Lord of the Rings, completed in 1948.

Geez, you'd think he'd know better. Or maybe O'Reilly only deals with Unix wizards? (Who, from my experience may be subtle but are generally nice ....)

Investigating O'Reilly charge of crank - smear? by Seth+Finkelstein · 2002-02-19 13:29 · Score: 3, Informative

My ears always perk up when a journalist with the ability to be heard dismisses a critic by slinging mud at them. I have a lot of sympathy for the underdogs in that situation, in part because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

And I've learned some great things by being willing to listen to the target.

TheoDP briefly laid out his complaint in his own words in a Usenet Posting

At the very least, this makes me dubious about the claim by O'Reilly that TheoDP wouldn't explain the relevance of his material.

Hmm, let's compare, O'Reilly claims, regarding TheoDP:

He sent in hundreds of pages of material without any explanation of why he believed any particular part of it invalidated the patent, and all of those who looked at it couldn't see the remotest relevance. Requests for clarification about just what in this material represented prior art were met with avoidance and hostility. His continued harrassment of both me and BountyQuest has convinced me that he's some kind of a crank.

Now let's look at a news report published at the time : (I've added emphasis below)

The story gets weirder still. Another contestant in the Amazon sweepstakes has stepped forward, complaining that his entry was one of four BountyQuest cited as a ``Terrific Submission'' but that, unlike the other three, he didn't get any money.
Ted Conway, a freelance programmer in Chicago, submitted details of a system used by IBM in the 1970s to order and ship printed reports. ``The parallels to Amazon's system are very similar,'' Conway tells me. (He notes that Bezos worked at IBM's San Jose research labs in college and likely would have used the IBM system.)
BountyQuest didn't agree and offered Conway a T-shirt as a consolation prize. Conway now accuses BountyQuest of pulling a whitewash to protect Amazon's legal case.
In a Q&A posted today on SiliconValley.com (www.siliconvalley.com/opinion/gmsv/), an online partner of the Mercury News, O'Reilly says Conway's submission isn't relevant to the Amazon patent. But he admits he's not clear how BountyQuest officials researched and judged the entries. Cella declined to answer any questions about the contest.
Matthew Powers, managing partner of the Silicon Valley office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, says it's unlikely the site would try to cover for Amazon.
The Menlo Park patent attorney says the publicity ``would be so valuable for BountyQuest that there's no way in the world they would not have accepted a submission that killed the patent

How interesting. I assume TheoDP is Ted Conway.

Pending further evidence. I'm inclined to side with TheoDP. It looks like the power of journalism again. Throw the mud, make the smear, virtually no-one will ever check the evidence, and the target can't fight back. Yes, my experiences do color my view here.

Re:Investigating O'Reilly charge of crank - smear? by Seth+Finkelstein · 2002-02-19 17:59 · Score: 2

I managed to find what seems to be the critical exchange, back in April 2001 :
Q: What degree of diligence did BountyQuest exert in trying to understand the very high profile 1-Click submissions? Were people contacted who had actually used or were at least familiar with the prior art described in the submissions? (Submitted by Edie)
TOR: Again, I can't really answer for BountyQuest. However, I imagine that they used the same criteria a court would use, namely to read the documents and to do "pattern matching" on them.
Q: Of the four entries cited specifically by number as "Terrific Submissions" by BountyQuest, Tim O'Reilly chose to exclude only one - #25, which referred to anIBM mainframe system -- from receiving a portion of the $10,000 "unofficial" award, even though it's arguably the most similar to the Amazon patent and represents prior art that Jeff Bezos could have personally used or seen earlier in his mainframe days. Why? (Submitted by Ted)
TOR: Well, I actually thought the Doonesbury cartoon was the best example - it made it pretty clear to me that 1-click shopping was an "obvious" idea. But as programmers say on the net, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), and the lawyers at BountyQuest obviously didn't think that it would pass muster in a court of law as evidence of prior art.
But as to the specific entry you mention - # 25 - it isn't at all clear to me how it's relevant. I didn't read every page, but in scanning through it, I didn't see much evidence of relevance in it. Perhaps if whomever had submitted it had pointed specifically to the passages they thought were relevant, we might have been able to see it as well. But frankly, based on what I did see there, it's hard to see why it was submitted at all!
And I even was able to make sense of it all.
The three selected entries were patents. The other one (#25) was not. So while it might have been closer in a conceptual sense, it arguably wasn't as close in a patent-law sense.
Though the statement on the BountyQuest 1-Click prior art page gives me pause:
What's also interesting, though, is the number of submissions that talk about simplifying the buying process on the Web without actually inventing 1-Click shopping. Look at submission #25 to see how much work some IBM engineers did on the subject of digital shopping without actually inventing 1-Click.
That's disturbingly PR-ish for me, as if they are saying in a twisted way that this prior art actually proves that their patent was a valid innovation (i.e., look at all this relevant earlier work, and they didn't actually invent "1-Click", so Amazon must have innovated!).
Anyway, I've probably spent more time on this than I should have. Chalk it up to my extreme sympathy for those subject to journalist attack, because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Re:Investigating O'Reilly charge of crank - smear? by dilger · 2002-02-20 02:20 · Score: 1

Thanks for the research time. However, I wonder why you label O'Reilly a journalist? I don't think having a weblog makes one a journalist. And certainly, theodp seems eager to invoke the power of publicity provided by journalism (he did the interview with Salon and then submitted the story to Slashdot). Maybe he's not getting the positive spin he wants. Well, that's part of the game.

I guess I don't see why I should feel sorry for theodp/Ted Conway (if indeed it's the same person).

thanks
cbd.
Re:Investigating O'Reilly charge of crank - smear? by Seth+Finkelstein · 2002-02-20 05:20 · Score: 2

(he did the interview with Salon and then submitted the story to Slashdot).
Umm, what "interview with Salon"? Where is he even named in the Salon article? As far as I see, there is one sentence "Then, when BountyQuest announced that no prior art had been discovered undermining the one-click patent, others began to wonder.", which refers collectively to criticism, though of course he is very much among the doubters, and submitted the April 2001 Slashdot story where he does briefly retail his own charges. And then a paragraph giving O'Reilly's statement about how the contest was conducted. But TheoDP's far from the only person with bad things to say about BountyQuest, and is not quoted at all in the Salon article itself.
So this is why I feel sorry for him: As you've just shown, O'Reilly's ad-hominem worked. Rather than looking at the evidence, you reacted to how O'Reilly framed the issue. Now, while "having a weblog" does not a journalist make, O'Reilly is a prominent publisher, not some random geek writing a diary. TheoDP will not be able to have his reply to the personal attack heard in a comparable manner, unless it's picked up by someone else in the media. That's a situation which draws my sympathy.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Re:Investigating O'Reilly charge of crank - smear? by dilger · 2002-02-20 06:37 · Score: 1

Hasty editing -- like you, I'm trying not to spend too much time on this. I meant to change "Salon" to "SiliconValley.com", and I regret the error (yes, I should have used Preview).

Perhaps theodp will chime in here and let us know if he feels bullied by O'Reilly, and if he is in fact Ted Conway.

thanks again,
cbd.

Sorry, Paul, no cigar by Salamander · 2002-02-19 13:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

The previous Slashdot article was about n-dimensional cube or torus topologies. Paul Harrison's "Circle" network (slashdotted - Google cache) is...wait for it...a simple circle. Sort of like Chord, it seems, but less sophisticated. It's not at all clear why a reasonable person would expect Circle to scale particularly well, especially in an environment with high node turnover (lots of potentially circle-breaking join/leave operations).

There's nothing wrong with Circle. It just doesn't seem to meet the promise of being a fully functional network that scales better than Gnutella.

--
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.

Re:Sorry, Paul, no cigar by Chris+Burke · 2002-02-19 14:01 · Score: 2

There's nothing wrong with Circle... But there is a lot wrong with proposing it as an "implementation" of a highly-scalable P2P network. I mean... this thing takes O(N) hops! That's ridiculous! Maybe if this was Step 1 of the process of turning it into a multi-dimensional torus network...

Which, now that I think about it, should become the goal. You could probably use the circle network as the basis for a torus. To get a d-dimensional torus, just hack up the 128-bit keyspace into d sections, and each of the sections serves as a coordinate in that dimension much like the entire key does in the current 1-dimensional implementation...

Heh. Maybe I should email the guy? Or not...

--

The enemies of Democracy are

movie88's troubles... by atomic+brainslide · 2002-02-19 13:37 · Score: 1

the whole issue with movie88 getting shut down by their isp should not really revolve aruond the copyright issue. we can be pretty sure that movie88 signed some sort of contract when they signed up with their isp. if the isp violated this contract, movie88 just has to sue the crap out of 'em. if the contract wasn't violated by the isp, then they should have been smarter about their choice of isps. i really don't see any other issues in this circumstance.

--
check out my comic: Essential Tremors

Re:movie88's troubles... by Vadim+Makarov · 2002-02-19 14:25 · Score: 1

Can anyone point me at an ISP that does not have something like "we can terminate your account at our sole discretion, at any time, with no reason given whatsoever" in their standard terms of service?
I think, virtually ISPs include this statement. If that was the case with HiNet and they acted in accordance with their Terms of Service, you can't complain about it, period. If you do complain, please at least make it clear whether ISP violated the contract or not.
Don't make politics where there is only commerce. Or so they said shutting down the Russian TV6 channel...

--
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by JayAndSilentBob · 2002-02-19 13:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Amen about the clerks, brother. Me and Silent Bob loved that show. We were raking in the mad money. That shit was better than selling smoke! But that wasn't like us at all, all cartooney and shit. But we do miss the phat cash. I gotta get out of here before that tubby bitch breaks out that fuckin' Amy story again. Snoogans.

--

Love,
Jay and Silent Bob

yeah by Trepidity · 2002-02-19 13:53 · Score: 2

and there might actually be people on its network if it had a windows version available.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 15:32 · Score: 0

Nobody in their right mind would put a Windows machine on a network. And this network is even worse -- it's THE INTERNET! If you had Windows, would you connect it to THE INTERNET? I think not...
Re:yeah by Chicks_Hate_Me · 2002-02-19 17:32 · Score: 1

word. Or a curses-based version (kinda like KaZaA) so I can ssh into and download porn all night on my x-less linux server. That would rock!

Zim.. sniff.. by napa1m · 2002-02-19 13:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Zim is in fact, still cancelled. I work at nick, I've seen the ratings from last month, the above statements are, unfortunately, untrue :(

There are still some episodes left to air that are being finished up, including a possible xmas episode, there will be a total of about 27 episodes when all is said and done, but there are no "new" shows nor a "next season" after this lot. Sorry.

--
^nA! Creatures in my Head

Re:Zim.. sniff.. by anotherone · 2002-02-19 15:53 · Score: 2

Bah.
27 episodes as in 27 half hour blocks, each consisting of two 12 minute stories or 27 12 minute episodes?
Any word on whether it might be sold to, say, Cartoon Network? It'd look nice during Adult Swim.

--
Username taken, please choose another one.
Re:Zim.. sniff.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-20 06:15 · Score: 0

No chance. Johnen was remarking in a previous interview that only Nickelodeon could financially support the cgi aspects of the cartoon. Half of Adult Swim is, frankly, cut + paste animation..

Aerie and Lampposts by fm6 · 2002-02-19 14:09 · Score: 2

The most interesting thing about the ressurect Ricochet is its relationship with local governments. The service is dependent on these entities, 'cause all those fixed transceivers are housed in lampposts and other municipal fixtures. Metricom would go to appropriate official and negotiate a kind of rental aggreement. Probably the main reason they ran through so much money so quickly -- they had to pay enough money to convince the locals that it was all worth the trouble.

Now Aerie is going back to these same local authorities and saying, "We can't afford to pay you, but if you help us, we'll give you wireless communication services for free." Not only does this save a lot of money, it creates a local vested interest in making the network work.

Still, $40/month is a lot to pay for something this slow.

Re:Aerie and Lampposts by TechNit · 2002-02-19 17:28 · Score: 1

Well, I live inbetween two local phone providers (too far from the Central Office...) and cable modems have not made it to Bellevue WA (city won't let AT&T tear up their precious potholed streets, read - STUPID). So, in comparison to 56Kbps dialup, 128Kbps and mobility starts to look good. I once had Ricochet when I lived closer to a Central Office. Once DSL was available, of course I switched. But while I was on Ricochet with my handy laptop, it rocked being able to drive to the waterfront in Seattle and surf the mighty internet. Being stuck in the "No Broadband Zone" really sux. So I'm open to anything that will boost my surfing joy....

--
Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!

Flat search network that scales by PureFiction · 2002-02-19 14:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Circle is cool, but it is really a subset of Chord, with searching kind of hacked on top of a hashing index system (i.e. search is implemented by tying keywords to hashes and distributing this hash space.)

This means that high peer churn rates, hot spots in popular keywords, spamming keywords, etc, all make this a rather vulnerable and fragile implementation of searching. It probably is better than gnutella, but that isnt saying much, and it certainly does not mean it is 'infinitely scalable'. The real world is a harsh place...

If you want a scalable, distributed search/discovery mechanism for large peer networks here is your recipe:

1. Build on a base of juicy lightweight UDP messaging. This allows you to send messages directly to peers, circumvent NAT's, and handle many thousands of virtual connections.

2. Sending queries to many thousands of peers is still a large task, even if only small packets are sent directly. Must optimize this.

3. Optimize by using a social discovery mechanism to keep track of which peers are good at answering your queries. Query them first and more often than other peers. Call this peer ranking the 'relative quality' of the peer.

4. Optimize further by halting the query once a sufficient number of matches are found. This way you only need to query a handfull of peers (maybe 10, maybe 200) to complete a query.

5. Finally, perform transitive introduction using the high quality peers in your group. This way you use peers with a high quality to find new peers, and it is highly likely that they will be high quality peers as well.

This is how the ALPINE Network works, and it scales. The number of connections any peer may have is solely up to their discretion, based on bandwidth and memory resources. All communication is direct, and every peer is in direct control over his own resources, which makes for a very robust environment.

There are a number of details, the above simply a 30,000ft description. If you are interested you can read more in the ALPINE Overview and the ALPINE FAQ .

One last comment, this stuff is no longer vaporware :-)

Re:Flat search network that scales by Salamander · 2002-02-19 15:48 · Score: 2

2. Sending queries to many thousands of peers is still a large task, even if only small packets are sent directly. Must optimize this.

Yeah, like by using distributed multicast instead of sending to every peer directly. Quite an optimization there. ;-)

Sorry, coder, couldn't resist. You know I love ya, and the rest of what you said was golden. I'm just never gonna buy the bit about sending the same message through the nearest router a thousand times being better than sending it once to a neighbor on the other side.

--
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Re:Flat search network that scales by PureFiction · 2002-02-19 16:38 · Score: 2

I know :-) I wish we had true multicast. When that day comes, alpine will no longer be needed, and all these other cool projects that are confined to the realm of educational networks (where multicast is supported) can be brought out into the open.

IPv6 might be the answer. Although perhaps ISP's will cut multicast out of v6 as well.

*sigh*

At any rate, distributed multicast is unappealing to me, if only for the reason that there is trust implied. How do I know that peer X is really going to forward those packets? If I could answer that question, then I would be much more amenable to it. I am working under the assumption that I can trust no peer, which may be one of those bad design goals where you pay a high price for something that is of little or no value in return (i.e. malicious non forwarding peers will be rare/non existant)

And the amount of code to add distributed multicast support is hurting my head just thinking about it... *grin*

MTV's Downtown: Too young to die, dammit! by MsGeek · 2002-02-19 14:34 · Score: 2

Family Guy? What about Downtown???

That show NEVER had a chance. MTV YOU SUCK!!!!

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Malata (was Re:Try APEX) by mdecerbo · 2002-02-19 14:50 · Score: 1

I am told by my DVD-fanatic friends that the player to get is the Malata N996;
supposedly, cheaper Malatas and Apexes also do the PAL <-> NTSC conversion,
but they skew the aspect ratio, and the N996 does a much better job.

Also supposedly, the N996, unlike lesser Malatas, can't be modified to be Macrovision-free.
Of course, I'd be copying all my DVDs digitally anyway.

I haven't verified any of these statements myself, though.

I have no affiliation with Malata and have never even used one, but if you Google for 'malata "code free dvd"' you'll get a bunch of information.

HiNet in Taiwan - Not only the largest ISP. by Reknamorken · 2002-02-19 14:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

As in many countries in Asia, it's not only the largest ISP in-country, but also either majority owned or at least a significant chunk, by the incumbent telco, Chunghwa Telecom.

Should Chungwa decide that Movie88 has no need for ISP service it should be a relatively simple matter to drag their feet in bringing up a new circuit.

Regarding the overt use of bribery in Asia, yes it's quite rampant and with the exception of only a few countries in Asia, quite a normal modus operandi.

--

Linux is UNIX.

Great for Zim! by Lumpy · 2002-02-19 14:54 · Score: 2

and I just finished downloading all existing and lost InvaderZim episodes in Divx (the good open one not the lame closed one) and burned to 3 cd's.

Invader zim is great, and you can tell it was never written for children... It was written for demented adults.

Nickelodeon has been the birthplace of the truely innovative cartoons.. Ren and Stimpy is what started their network, Rocko's modern life, and now Samauri Jack and Invader Zim are carrying them on.

Maybe, just maybe Nickelodeon will get a clue and return the heavy innovation and remind everyone that cartoons are not only kids stuff.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Great for Zim! by EvlPenguin · 2002-02-19 15:22 · Score: 2

Invader zim is great, and you can tell it was never written for children... It was written for demented adults.

Duh. This is a series by Jhonen Vasquez, the same Vasquez behind (possibly the best comic book series, ever) Johhny The Homicidal Maniac and Squee. That's probably the show got any word-of-mouth publicity at all: the deranged people such as myself who read JTHM religiously (and perhaps even take a liking to Happy Noodle Boy).

I'm in the process of getting all the episodes on DivX. Once they are done, I shall eat some soul toast (though I have no kiwis) and go on a Vasquez marathon. *BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* (quiet; you... you...WALL)!

--

--
#nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty

Speaking of Taco and Kathleen... by sab39 · 2002-02-19 14:55 · Score: 2

The proposal story only needs 27ish more comments to be #3 on the Hall of Fame (which seems to be broken ATM, but the story in #3 position had 2087 comments). I know it's kind of pointless to be rooting for that story to get as high as possible, but I happen to think that a story about love and happiness deserves to be higher among all those stories about hate and terror. So go post some comments!

Stuart.

Re:Speaking of Taco and Kathleen... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 15:30 · Score: 0

I happen to think that a story about love and happiness deserves to be higher among all those stories about hate and terror.

Why?

So that's why Osama bin Laden wasn't "Man of the Year" in 2001. Geez, people are such pussies these days.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by lazybeam · 2002-02-19 15:13 · Score: 1

I live in Australia (where the format is PAL) and virtually every TV can support NTSC or at least PAL60. (PAL's refresh is 50Hz whereas NTSC is 60Hz. PAL60 is PAL with 60Hz refresh)

My (cheap Sharp) VCR can play NTSC output as PAL60. I'm sure DVD players are better in this respect.

--
-- no sig for you. come back one year.

Re:Workers of the World, Unite! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 15:51 · Score: 0

If you want to find a good economic state, you have to look at the TV show Star Trek. It is the perfect world on a space ship, only if it could be applied in this country.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 15:58 · Score: 0

Mod points to the parent too you idiots. If it weren't for the parent...you see?

"Planning?!" by Pope · 2002-02-19 16:05 · Score: 1

Where have you been, man? The last episode EVER aired last week.

Oh, and those stupid electronic "petitions" do exactly two things: Jack and Squat. They hold as much sway in over the real world as Slashdot's polls. Let's face it: by the time the rest of the world gets to hear about it, the decision has already been made.

If you really want your opinion heard, write a REAL letter, well-written, and mail it to the correct department(s).

However, none of that truly matters if the axe has fallen: you'll be delivering mail to a headless corpse.

I will miss Futurama when is goes off the air, it's one of the most consistenly LOL funny show I watch. Fox never gave it a chance, airing it at 7 EST on Sunday. What, they need more room for shit like "Temptation Island?!"

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Re:"Planning?!" by gmhowell · 2002-02-19 16:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Given the behaviour at Fox, NO show should be scheduled for 7 pm Sunday. Like others have said: if it's not football, it's baseball. If it's not baseball, it's...

Always pre-empted. Of course the show never got ratings: it's never on!!!

It kinda makes sense. Seeing as how the 4:00 NFL games are never over until ~7:15, it's easier to let the talking idiots run their collective mouth for another 15 minutes, instead of screwing up the entire evening lineup.

So pull 'that 80's' show garbage, pull the live action Tick, pull Family Guy, but give Futurama a real time slot.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Blinkenlights Boston? by Tokerat · 2002-02-19 16:11 · Score: 1

Think the Chaos Computer Club can get permission to do this with the office lights in the Prudential Building in downtown Boston?

They spelled "GO SOX" in 2000 in the office lights durring the World Series so there must be some sort of computer control already implemented... it's be great fun to play pong on a skyscraper! I'd pay the $1.00 every once and a while...

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Re:Blinkenlights Boston? by GypC · 2002-02-19 17:54 · Score: 3, Funny

so there must be some sort of computer control already implemented...
Or three guys with graph paper and roller-blades...
Re:Blinkenlights Boston? by Tokerat · 2002-02-19 20:09 · Score: 1

LMAO yea that too...

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Re:Blinkenlights Boston? by spike666 · 2002-02-20 02:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

i know that when they do that in some skyscrapers they just use the computer controlled lighting systems that are pre-existant. but they have to usually manually figure out what room is what...

^ This is Correct by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:21 · Score: 0

The above statement is the correct answer. I knew someone would get it right. :)

Talking to the Zim guys by Brat+Food · 2002-02-19 16:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, in talking to the guys responsible for the creative side of Zim, it seems that the biggest thing going against it is the age group that likes it the most. Apparently, Nick doesnt give a poop about anyone over 11. This is a crying shame. All us gen-x'ers grew up on You can do that on television, turcky TV, all the way up to ren and stimpy.... Nick should get rid of crap-at-night, and pander to the generation of people who have name recognition and affinity to the network since its inception. Zim, ren and stimpy, think "adult-swim". Its a shame nick has seemingly lost the collective brain cell running the show there. The other thing i gleened is that Zim is a Viacom property, and the creators have no control over it whatsoever (the show was created at the behest of nick, coming to Jhonen apparently). Chances of ever seeing a new zim episode? Pretty close to 0. Put that one in the f***ed up by viacom marketing trashbin.

And BTW, when they say the ratings were poor, keep in mind a few things:

1. People over 11 dont count apparently in Nick ratings
2. It was on at the END of regular nick programming
3. It had no consistant time slot (i STILL managed to find it whenever it was on)

I personally loved it, and if you want to see more, go buy the comics by the guys who created and wrote zim. Off the top of my head:

Johnny the homicidal maniac
Squee
Lenore
Filler Bunny

Characters like Happy noodel boy are priceless =)
GIVE ME MENTOS! I DEMAND TO BE FRESH! DO YOU DENY ME FRESHMAKER???!!

--

"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs

Re:Talking to the Zim guys by Brat+Food · 2002-02-19 16:35 · Score: 1

so much for proof reading...

you CANT do that on television.

turkey TV

ok, i think those are the big ones.. no flames plz thx

--

"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs

Of Course crime pays by MousePotato · 2002-02-19 16:43 · Score: 1

"Of course crime pays. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any criminals." - G.Gordon Liddy

--
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.

really? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:44 · Score: 0

Very like Chord :-)

The connectivity is not just a simple circle, but that is the basis of the idea. Each peer knows its immediate neighbour on the circle, so that you are guaranteed to be able to navigate it. However circle also attempts to connect to other nodes around the circle, in order to shortcircuit the routing. To guarantee O(log n) routing hops, you need O(log n) connections per node.

Note: this is the same order of connectivity as a hypercube.

--
Paul Harrison

+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:47 · Score: 0

Oh, for a mod point.

Syndication by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 16:50 · Score: 0

There's plenty of places that would jump at the chance to get Futurama. Probably Comedy Central or Sci Fi. Cartoon planet.. maybe but they are partial to WB and Hanna Barbera cartoons.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by CentrX · 2002-02-19 17:08 · Score: 1

Frankly, I was thinking almost the same thing about Futurama. I don't find it funny at all. Family Guy and the Simpsons, on the other hand, are uproarious. Some Family Guy episodes have been the funniest things on television.

--

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 17:08 · Score: 0

You are a complete fucking moron. Family Guy is the only funny cartoon on t.v. today. How is it not creative??? They say things no other show does and take base humor to a whole new level. My god you probably thought Beautiful Mind was Oscar worthy too. Please for the love of god do not have children.
BTW Futurama,the only cartoon I have ever watched and not laughed at. Sure Bender was slightly amusing, but over all a steaming pile of shit.
Don't agree...that's O.K, you've already demonstrated how bad your taste in T.V. is.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by sessamoid · 2002-02-19 17:13 · Score: 1

>>Could you imagine the horror of Speed Racer live action?

Actually, I had the opportunity to go back and watch some of those Speed Racer episodes I loved so much as a child. After watching a couple of them and getting over the inevitable nostalgia, I reached the conclusion that even animated Speed Racer is pretty horrible.

--
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."

MacOS X is actually an OS on top ofan OS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 17:14 · Score: 0

In fact it is a little more complicated than that:

MacOS X is actually an OS on top of an OS. The basic operating system is Darwin which is based on Aqua/Quartz, though its kernel is based on Mach - this is the same relationship between Solaris and SunOS. If you are interested in a more detailed explanation of Mach and Darwin then check out News at Apple.

Darwin will run quite happily without MacOS X, though the reverse is not true. In fact there are people doing just that and using X-Windows instead. One thing that make Darwin different from other BSDs is that it is an OO OS, for example the I/O allows one driver to inherit functionality from another driver ( single inheritence, though ).

MacOS X as the previous poster pointed out comes bundled with all sorts of APIs than adds all sort of features than makes it more than just a fancy windowing environment. So as I said before MacOS X is an OS on top of an OS.

Re:MacOS X is actually an OS on top ofan OS by MaxVlast · 2002-02-20 03:32 · Score: 2

You had to be anonymous to repost your original posting?
First of all, I didn't say that Mac OS X was a windowing environment. I said it was lots of libraries that provided, among other things, a windowing environment. It just isn't an OS. It's a lot of libraries.
Darwin is the underlying OS. That is correct. (The drivers are irrelevant.) If you're actually interested in seeing how it works, go to this page at Apple.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome

Futurama on VCD in US? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 17:41 · Score: 0

I noticed that several off shore (outside the USA) video cd (vcd) dealers have Futurama collections available.

Does any know where get these in the USA?

Sure DVD would be nice, but I think VCD should be just fine....

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by JayAndSilentBob · 2002-02-19 17:43 · Score: 1

You gots to turn that frown upside-down. And we've got just the thing for that. We call it Doobie-Snacks. BONG.

--

Love,
Jay and Silent Bob

Re:Mac OS X reigns! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 17:47 · Score: 0

Please post the .sig which you are making reference to. I witness no such crashing on my WinXP box; because the sig is blank while looking at the page source.

+5 informative by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 18:01 · Score: 0

Wow mike is a bastard. Thanks for the post. 1st genuinely interesting thing I've read on Slashdot today.

Re:zzzzzz by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 18:08 · Score: 0

:wq!

ZZ

^X^C

After all... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-19 20:15 · Score: 0

Jean-Louis Gasse had his chance.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Sircus · 2002-02-19 20:37 · Score: 2

Pretty much every worthwhile TV produced since about 1994 can do both NTSC and PAL. Even crappy 15" things are doing this now. People don't realise that this is a problem because for most people, it isn't.

--
PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client

From what I understand... by ebbomega · 2002-02-19 21:22 · Score: 1

Jhonen Vasquez (the creative genius behind Zim and Johnny etc.) had no hand in Lenore... It's a common misconception since Lenore is (arguably) the second-most-popular comic from Slave Labour, the people who distribute Johnny and all of Jhonen's other work...

What he _did_ do was I Feel Sick...

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

Re:From what I understand... by netik · 2002-02-19 21:50 · Score: 1

You're correct in saying this, but the comment refers to the GUYS who wrote Zim, of which Roman Dirge (the writer and artist of Lenore) is one!

Re: Is anarcho communism anarchistic? by kiwipeso · 2002-02-19 21:25 · Score: 0

No, Anarcho Communism involves a system of governement.

True Anarchism is against any system of government, and doesn't advocate the abolition of private property which is where the anarcho communists stand out from True Anarchists.

The main reason Anarchists of the late 19th century were feared was the Anarcho Communists who started the Russian Revolution.
Lenin and Stalin then started a counter revolution to create a communist Dictatorship.

A lot of homosexuals in the early 20th century were communists.

--
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer

Utopia by kiwipeso · 2002-02-19 21:49 · Score: 0

Utopia isn't a description of a Communist society, it describes a moneyless society with a communal labor system and a fascist government.

Communism seeks to abolish slavery in it's traditional sense and "wage slavery" as the cummunists describe it.
Utopia had a slave labor system of criminals and immigrant slaves who rented their services for 5 years.

It is clear that the system described in Utopia is closely related to fascism by the xenophobia of the Utopians and their strict moral laws.

I take an interest in many of the factions of anarchism, yet I am not an anarchist as such.
I seek liberty, ecology and capitalism because this best fits my view of evolution.
I say the state and religion are evolutionary dead ends, it only creates illogical thoughts which have no evolutionary purpose.

I believe that a minimal set of laws and punishments should cover everyone.
I believe that people should be free to vote on issues which concern them directly, not though some jackass politican.
A secure network of voting computers, with a polling booth in every suburb should be enough to let the people decide what is law.
I believe that we should be free to know what food we buy is genetically modified and with what.
I believe we should tax the use of oil and diesel as transport fuel to make hydogen fuel cheaper, global warming is too dangerous for idiots like President George W Bush to ignore.

I think freedom of religion also means freedom from those who seek to impose it on you. I'm sure the mormons and hari krisnas are nothing but cults to take your money.

Therefore, I'm an evolutionary anarchist, I believe in adaptive anarchy.

--
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer

Re:AD-600A by marnanel · 2002-02-20 02:17 · Score: 1

Does that 15% VAT tax apply to me?

I believe not. You might have to pay it and then claim it back, though. IANAL.

Fucking EU.

Nothing to do with the EU. It's a UK tax.

--
GROGGS: alive and well and living in

Re:Mac OS X reigns! by blackmateria · 2002-02-20 02:21 · Score: 1

Geez, looks like it disappeared. OK, well originally it was a link to the same page that's now in my .sig.
---
Have you crashed Windows XP with a simple printf recently? Try it!

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by rnelsonee · 2002-02-20 02:45 · Score: 1

This may be off-topic, but to the die-hard Simpsons fans out there:

Click here for a Simpsons pre-order. It's coming out in June. Only 7 months behind schedule!

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by Derci · 2002-02-20 03:44 · Score: 1

Well, you forgot about computer DVDs. They pay no attention to the broadcasting method whatsoever, so you can play PAL, NTSC and probably all other methods (SECAM. MESECAM. Anything else?)

--

-- The ballad of arrivederci

Blinkenlights by bamberg29 · 2002-02-20 03:58 · Score: 1

I was in Berlin last week and I saw Blinkenlights on the evening of 12th at Alexanderplatz and it was so great to watch. Hopefully we'll see something like this again some time.

Dacs

execs robbing the worker by Yakko · 2002-02-20 05:41 · Score: 1

...

The part about the executives not being on the clock is all good and well. . .

Are you a manager or an executive? Your post sure pins you down as one. The fact is, most of us in the "exempt, salaried cogs in the machine" camp DO NOT just work 8hr days. We are also not on the clock. And we're not compensated for any "overtime," tho we're required to account for anything over 8 hours on the time sheet.

It is my opinion that management and executives control the 2nd-class citizens of the corporati by doing any of the following:

- FUD tactics (ie, "YOu will be fired for <insert vague reason here>")
- maintain their lifestyles and pay by reducing those of the workers, and passing it off as "cost savings"
- burning out/stressing out workers so they're forced to quit (gets them off the hook for severance)
- making the work environment as hostile as it legally can be in order to do the burnout/stress thing above
- making workers do the work of several previous workers without compensation
- dodging important questions about layoffs, compensation, and performance reviews at all-hands meetings instead of answering them properly
- changing the performance system to include a hefty subjective component, saying you won't be fired if you now get the "lowest" rating on the new system, and then turning around and saying these ratings will be used at the next layoff

And that's not even an exhaustive list. The manglement and execs don't care. They want their returns on investment.

What trust? I as a worker try trusting the management and execs initially, but once the BS meter is tripped and they don't explain themselves, that trust is lost, and you get cynical workers such as myself.

So, that's why I think the management/execs rob the workers, and basically treat them like dirt. It's sad that nothing's being done to alter my perceptions. . .

--

-- Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.

Re:execs robbing the worker by naasking · 2002-02-20 09:26 · Score: 1

Are you a manager or an executive? Your post sure pins you down as one.

No, I'm not in management or any kind of position of control or power. But I do understand that someone running their own business lives and breaths their work. You're right that employees sometimes/often also work quite a bit over the 8 hr. average workday, but in any small to medium sized business, I cannot see see how employees would work more than the owner.

That said, I didn't mention in my previous post (because it's an over-generalization), that what I said doesn't typically apply in large companies (from what I can tell). Large businesses tend to be unnecessarily top-heavy and consequently suffer many of the problems you outline, and it's truly disgusting. I doubt that all evil men are company executives though, so generalizations don't apply. Most businesses are small to medium sized so casting all owners as evil, greedy degenerates as did the poster I replied to is completely unjustified.

But corrupt management are not the only immoral people employed in companies. There are also lazy, useless workers sucking the companies' money, so to say that the owners are thieves stealing from all the workers is an willfully ignorant perspective. Your same argument of trust should apply equally to all employees, yet I frequently come across workers who abuse their trust and waste the companies's time and money. Perhaps it's human nature, but if so, it applies equally well to workers as to management.

So if you feel that management is unfairly treating it's workers because they don't trust their employees, then talk first to the employees that are causing this perception; the few often ruin it for the many. There are good and bad people everywhere, in all positions. Don't over-generalize based on your experience, and don't prejudice yourself because of it.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Re:execs robbing the worker by Commienst · 2002-02-20 11:02 · Score: 1

Most of the worlds capital belongs to a the large corporations.

--

I am into the copy and paste.
Re:execs robbing the worker by naasking · 2002-02-20 11:33 · Score: 1

But how many such large corporations are there in comparison to small businesses? The ratio is probably 100 000 small businesses for every large corporation (if not higher). So, just because a few large companies are driven by an unscrupulous lust for money you would over-generalize and conclude that all business owners rip off their employees? Please have some perspective.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.

Re:Futurama? How about Family Guy?!? by DavidRavenMoon · 2002-02-20 09:31 · Score: 1

Futurama, I would miss, except that Fox never really showed it after the first few episodes. It was always baseball, or some movie they would start early, or whatever.

That's the problem... wasn't the ratings, they just kept putting it on at bad times, or not showing it at all. I read an interview with Matt Groening, and he said Fox never liked Futurama... they thought it was "too dark." And for anyone who thinks that no one likes the show, do a search and see how many Futurama web sites there are!

I agree Family Guy sucks

--
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol

Well... by ebbomega · 2002-02-20 12:12 · Score: 1

He said 27 in total, right?

If you go by the 27 stories as opposed to 27 episodes, then we've already got 24... (opener + Hallowe'en + 11 2-part episodes), which means three more... however, the official confirmation I've heard is that we're supposed to get at least 6 more full episodes, so it's most likely not that option.

So, the other idea is that we've got 13 episodes, which means we get another 14, which is a good deal more than we were initially promised.

So, I'm guessing that Nick is just reverting the idea that "We're done with it. It's over. Kaput" and they're going to release the next season and see how it does... At least, that's how I see it.

HOPEFULLY they're doing that... but what that means is that it's upon the loyal viewers (@#$%ing Canadian television doesn't have it, so I'm gonna be watching my episodes off the net) to keep watching the new episodes next fall and hopefully keep the show on the air!

Viva La Revolutionne!

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

Zim Petitions May Have Helped by ZeiramMR · 2002-02-20 17:04 · Score: 1

Sorry that this is belated, I didn't catch this thread until a friend just mentioned it.

Last weekend, there was a written petition attempt to save Invader Zim at the anime convention Katsucon in Baltimore, MD. It was started by one of the staffers, who had heard that the show was being cancelled (due to labor disputes). Brad formed a website and started said petition. I offered to help when I heard about it a few weeks before the con, and manning the desk during it's initial four hours and popping in throughout the weekend. I haven't heard all the news back from him yet, but there were about 500 signatures total. The nice thing about this is that these were actual, written signatures and not electronic ones, so they would have a little more weight. I know he planned to scan and send the list to several parties in the dispute, but once again, I haven't formally heard the latest news.

If the show is, in fact, no longer cancelled, it is possible that the various petitions may have been partial cause. Or this might be some misinformation, as Nickelodeon has planned to air the remaining new episodes from the get-go. Either way, hope this news has been of use to fans of the show.

Slashdot Mirror

Slashback: P2P, OS X, Blinkenlights

251 comments