Slashdot Mirror


Has AOL Lost Its Sex Drive?

TheViewFromTheGround writes "Why have the years since the merger with Time Warner been so hard on America Online? Michael Wolff, a consultant who advised Time Warner not to buy AOL in the early 90's, says that the the big problem is Time Warner's denial of AOL's core value: a monopoly on dirty chat. The argument says that AOL was successful because they had a critical mass of people and that it skillfully marketed talking dirty by appearing to be family friendly. Now, the old media bedfellow is pushing AOL to stop its pimping ways."

261 comments

  1. Puritans! by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn! They're taking away the last good thing about AOL. ;-)

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    1. Re:Puritans! by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Damn! They're taking away the last good thing about AOL. ;-)

      At least we still have Slashdot!

      "IN SOVIET RUSSIA the Party Drives You!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Puritans! by andrew_0812 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean AOL isn't the best way to access the internet any more? What will I do?

    3. Re:Puritans! by mackstann · · Score: 2

      oh yeah, puritans, they must be the the the problem the.

      what?

  2. ummm by goon+america · · Score: 4, Funny
    Now, the old media bedfellow is pushing AOL to stop its pimping ways.

    Couldn't this have been worded better?

    1. Re:ummm by doublem · · Score: 2

      No, it couldn't.

      The Editor said what he ment to say in exactly the way he meant to say it.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    2. Re:ummm by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      That's funny. Because the first thing I saw was:

      Sex Drive. . .hard on. . .with Time Warner. . .on AOL.

      Maybe I'm dyslexic.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    3. Re:ummm by PeePeeSee · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if it was just me but......I guess not this whole article is worded oddly...

    4. Re:ummm by SageLikeFool · · Score: 1

      I agree. Right now it sounds like the synopsis to a Jerry Springer Episode.

    5. Re:ummm by TheViewFromTheGround · · Score: 1

      It was, but whoever posted the submission changed a couple key words.

      --
      Online citizen journalism from the inner city: The View From The Ground
  3. $23.95/month is pretty cheap by vasqzr · · Score: 5, Funny



    Compared to paying $2.99 a minute for a 976 number

    1. Re:$23.95/month is pretty cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Onion headline:
      "Phone Sex AD masturbated to for 0 cents a minute"

  4. Chat rooms are what made AOL great... by Randolpho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and they're what makes people leave AOL in droves.

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
    1. Re:Chat rooms are what made AOL great... by MrLint · · Score: 4, Funny

      No wonder why all the lusers that got onto irc from AOL had such bad potty mouths.

    2. Re:Chat rooms are what made AOL great... by destinyland · · Score: 1
      In 1996 Rolling Stone actually got statistics for how much time AOL users spent in chat rooms. Basically, it was a quarter of all time spent on AOL.

      Enjoyed the article-- but that's probably because it was obliquely about sex.

      ---
      Destiny-land.

      The happiest blog on earth.

  5. A/S/L? by Rocky · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well?

    --
    "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
    1. Re:A/S/L? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is Slashdot.

      The answer to that question is almost always...

      20's Male, Mom's Basement.

    2. Re:A/S/L? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ASL: Acronym. "Another Stinky Loser"

  6. first good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there was a first good thing with aol? god where was i and when was that?

  7. Time Warner cleaning up town...yeah right... by Queelix · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Time Warner's cable interests carry as much softcore porn as the next guy and that don't seem to bother them none.

    AOL's problems are market saturation pure and simple. No ISP can grow like AOL and others did in the late 90s and early 00s for ever.

    1. Re:Time Warner cleaning up town...yeah right... by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 1

      I don't think we're talking about softcore. I think we're talking about chat rooms entitled "Furry Whip Wielding Femdoms Seeking Transgender Albino Subs"

  8. Its not sex but $$ by vivek7006 · · Score: 0

    Who wants a crappy service for $29.99 ??

    1. Re:Its not sex but $$ by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      Who wants a crappy service for $29.99 ??

      AOL users.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
  9. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get better service, speed and options with other services.

    AOL still wants to charge $15 to access their content if you use a different ISP!

    Lol, Time Warner. Bunch of dipshits.

    1. Re:BS by elluzion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Exactly!

      I used to live in a smallish town where AOL offered the best connection speeds over a 56k phone line. So I had an account. Forgive me. I swear, I would connect and immediately minimize, going about my regular internet ways. It was only for bandwidth, I swear.

      Anyways,

      Then I moved to a bigger city and bought broadband. When I called AOL to cancel the account, they assured me I didn't want to do that. Telling me I could still access AOL "Even over the cable modem" for 15 bucks a month. As if the cable modem were some sort of limiting technology or something.

      I had to explain it to them in very simple terms...

  10. Waitaminnit by JPelorat · · Score: 1, Troll

    This isn't a dupe! We're overdue for one... damn, you guys can't even get your screwups right.

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  11. How could AOL loose it's sex drive? by mhesseltine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you seen the number of Penis increasing emails in the average AOL user's mailbox? These people should have the libido of a rabbit on ecstacy.

    --
    Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
  12. What are they going to do? by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Funny

    Put word filters on AIM? That just means the 13 year old punks are going to have to start AIM'ing me with "U R SOFA KING WE TODD DID"

    1. Re:What are they going to do? by ipxodi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod parent up! That's funny.

      --
      load "windows7" ,8,1
    2. Re:What are they going to do? by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 5, Funny

      why's everyone got to pick on the furniture? what the hell did we do to you?

    3. Re:What are they going to do? by mal3 · · Score: 1

      Well you are Evil y'know.

      --
      Non gratis rodentus anus
    4. Re:What are they going to do? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      Could be worse. Could be all those Latin American teenagers that insist on ICQing me to practice their English on.

    5. Re:What are they going to do? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 2

      yeah no crap. With me they are always from Malaysia and Hong Kong though. At least if they were from Latin America I could try some high school spanish on them.

    6. Re:What are they going to do? by nexex · · Score: 2
      oh man, furniture porn

      ohhhhh yea, nothing gets me off like that

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
  13. Sex Drive? by Flamesplash · · Score: 3, Funny

    When exactly did AOL have a sex drive? The last thing I want to think about is AOL and sex. oh god, I need to go clean this filth off me now.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  14. Wow! by bplipschitz · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean it's *not* because AOL just sucks?

    Then it must be the superintelligent user base. . .

  15. AOL by Uhh_Duh · · Score: 5, Interesting


    AOL offers a community feel. A safe-place for internet non-newbies to get warm fuzzies and feel happy and loved. Unfortunately, there are so many other online communities that it's no longer necessary to pay $23.95 for constant busy signals.

    The primary reason people are still with AOL is that many of their subscribers don't feel like they have a choice. "I can't use something else because I don't know how to switch".

    I recently moved my mother-in-law from AOL to Earthlink. She thanks me to this day, even though it's something she could have done.

    --
    -- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
    1. Re:AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary reason people are still with AOL is that many of their subscribers don't feel like they have a choice. "I can't use something else because I don't know how to switch".

      Nope, a significant portion of people use AOL because they always have a local number that is not overwhelmed with users, which means those of us that actually have jobs and travel can always get a connection.

    2. Re:AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you want local numbers that aren't overwhelmed, get a dialup from earthlink, uunet or any of the other people who share pops with aol, but charge less than aol.

    3. Re:AOL by blink3478 · · Score: 1

      "I can't use something else because I don't know how to switch".

      Yes, I can already see the ads. 'I was on AOL and it was like beep-beep-beep-beep and all my smut-hungry chat buddies were gone, and I couldn't log back in.'

      'It was, like, a really good chat room.'

  16. Is a sex drive by cxreg · · Score: 5, Funny

    like this? If only I knew that AOL came with one of those before!

  17. Ummm... by jfinke · · Score: 1

    Didn't AOL buy Time Warner?? Shouldn't they be dictating what is going on? I realize the TW is probably the more stable company, but ...

    1. Re:Ummm... by TTMuskrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Didn't AOL buy Time Warner?? Shouldn't they be dictating what is going on?

      AOL did buy Time Warner, but they helped "pay" for it in AOL stock options...which then proceeded to tank. This did not sit well with the Time Warner people, losing their millions, so they begin clearing the AOL house. I think Steve Case is one of, if not THE, only major original AOL person left and that's because the AOL brand is synonymous with him.

      --
      Support bacteria! It's the only culture most people seem to get.
    2. Re:Ummm... by dvk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortuntely, it seems like in the exec war TW-ers are winning (if not already won). It was mentioned in some story on /. a while ago. Too bad, as for my own political reasons I regard TW as a major evil[0] whereas AOL as a minor bad thing.

      -DVK

      [0] As an example, i'm boycotting CNN for the last 3 years 100%, and would switch to aletrnate cable provider in a second had TWC-NYC not been a monopoly where I live (can't have satellite in our building).

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    3. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you really want to boycott, don't get cable, you wouldn't be the first.

    4. Re:Ummm... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Interesting
      As an example, i'm boycotting CNN for the last 3 years...

      The fall of CNN from reputable news source to racing Fox News to the bottom of the filth was terribly depressing. I used to watch CNN Headline News regularlly. The news moved quickly, the anchors were serious and limited themselves strictly to the news, and the reporting was relatively unbiased for mainstream media. In thirty minutes (any thirty minutes) I could get a quick summary of the world's news. It was perfect background as I went about my mornings.

      Then the changes. They got rid of all of the old anchors and replaced them with irritatingly perky youngsters. The broadcasts become full of inane banter between various anchors. They filled the screen with sidebars and tickers and newsflashes. They created more and longer needless story animations (Dum dum dum, *horns*, "The WAR on TERROR " *horns*). Then it happened... near the end of last year (or was it the year before?), the bubbly airhead anchor introduced "a special report on purchasing gifts online." Well, vapid... but I guess. "As reported by our special AOL correspondant." Erm, that's an amazingly uncomfortable conflict of interest. The "AOL correspondant" then proceeded to tell me all the great stuff I could buy using AOL. No web sites, no general tips. AOL specific content. I turned off my television. Years of my watching for a half hour a day, of my general like of CNN HN, destroyed. To hell with big media.

    5. Re:Ummm... by dvk · · Score: 2

      I prefer to give my eyeballs/ad money to competing channels ;)

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    6. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And his ass is on the way out...

    7. Re:Ummm... by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 2

      CNN Headline News went from a top-notch, well produced news program to a cross between between MTV News and the Home Shopping Network.

      Now it's just lots of glitz and little else :-(

      I rarely watch CNN Headline News nor any CNN program now...never thought the day would come when FOX News would be better than CNN - and that ain't saying much.

      Network news amazingly, despite the drop in quality, is still among the best news programs out there in the major TV media.

      Lastly, newspapers remain a worthwhile news source - some have even improved...wish I could say that for TV news.

    8. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I prefer to give my eyeballs/ad money to competing channels ;)

      Which (as you are no doubt aware) does nothing, unless you're a Nielsen home, and meanwhile TW (who you think are evil) are cashing your cheques.

      This is a little like helping the serial killer next door load the bodies in his trunk, but refusing to listen when he wants to describe how he killed them.

      If you want to take a principled stand, do it. But don't try to sound the hero because your taste leans one way or the other. I don't like country music. My lack of interest doesn't count as a boycott. Cancel your cable subscription or move to a different city that isn't served by Warner or move to a different apartment where you can have a satellite.

    9. Re:Ummm... by hyperturbopete · · Score: 1

      So true.

      I used to watch CNN Headline News in the mornings, and sometimes CNN in the evening, and liked it for the same reasons. The sad thing is that Fox News is doing something rught- Fox is somewhat addictive in its inanely irritating style and "personalities". (one-sided and dumb as fuck, they make you hate them and want to throw stuff at your TV, but somehow because of that you have to watch them)

      CNN's got nothing. Well, actually they still have some respectable stuff (Larry King and Wolf Blitzer), but like you say, their pure-news channels and programs are a waste of time.

      But then all american news channels blow. war on terror, war on saddam, democrats pissing their pants, republicans saying racist shit, blah blah blah.

      There is only one solution: The Daily Show (when news breaks, they fix it!)

      Also, Conan.

      -Pete

    10. Re:Ummm... by hyperturbopete · · Score: 1


      Lastly, newspapers remain a worthwhile news source - some have even improved...wish I could say that for TV news.


      True. Although newspapers tend to have much more focused biases.

    11. Re:Ummm... by gnuber · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I think Steve Case is one of, if not THE, only major
      > original AOL person left and that's because the AOL brand is
      > synonymous with him.

      And even he is still hanging by a thread..

  18. Ads by LooseChanj · · Score: 2, Funny

    This would be a perfect article for a 1,000 hours free ad.

    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  19. Family Values. by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 1, Insightful


    I know the average slashdot reader may find this hard to believe, but not everyone is using the internet to help them masturbate. Mentioning children and family values will be terribly cliched, but they really are still relevent.

    So what if AOL is closing some of the more distasteful chat-rooms; perhaps it will improve the quality and performance of the internet for the rest of us.

    1. Re:Family Values. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or it will just force those who want to talk dirty into the family chat rooms.

    2. Re:Family Values. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but not everyone is using the internet to help them masturbate

      This is true-- many butt pirates use it to arrange actual in-person meetings for gay sex. Hell, there are entire categories of AOL's 'create your own room topic' area that are NOTHING but long, long lists of rooms named, "m4m[insert place name here]"-- you'd never believe how many pud-huffers were around until you saw those lists.

      AOL needs to admit that this is so, and create a spinoff service (or at least a 'red-light district' within the regular AOL service). Then I'll be able to go on AOL and not have to sift through all the gay-sex crud I'm not interested in to find a decent chat room.

    3. Re:Family Values. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are kind of an ignorant jerk. Did you notice that?

    4. Re:Family Values. by ErikZ · · Score: 2


      If you're getting help, it's not masturbation. :-)

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  20. AOL Lost its Sex Drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would it be because these Sex Drives are manufactured by Western Digital?

    Hmm?

    1. Re:AOL Lost its Sex Drive? by Pope · · Score: 1

      No, Micropolis!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  21. Typical AOL chat room conversation.. by LordYUK · · Score: 5, Funny

    400 pound 40 year old bald man AKA SexxyStud91134: A/S/L???
    400 pound acne ridden 38 year old balding woman AKA HotMomma92394848: 18/f/Miami u?
    SS: 19/M/Denver.
    HM: Sounds good, what you look like?
    SS: I am 6'5, 250 pounds of tight muscle. u?
    HM: 5'5 petite brown hair.

    (uploads random amateur porn star jpeg to each other and proceeds to cyber)

    Yeah, you know I'm right. And btw, I hate you HotMamma92394848 for ruining my dreams of AOL women!!!

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    1. Re:Typical AOL chat room conversation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on this should at least be modded Funny

    2. Re:Typical AOL chat room conversation.. by Mard · · Score: 1

      I feel cheated! Why don't we get to see the pictures or cyber?

      --
      DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
    3. Re:Typical AOL chat room conversation.. by LegendOfLink · · Score: 1

      This is SexxyStud91134:

      You mean HotMamma92394848 is....not really an 18 year old Asian girl who has difficulty with her nymphomania problem?!

      Dammit, now those penis enlargment pills I ordered from a link in my AOL mailbox are forfeit!!!!

  22. Umm no by unclelib · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason AOL is losing business is because anyone with half a brain sees that for $29.95 they can get cable or DSL. Once you've gotten a taste of always-on broadband, who would want measly 56k for almost the same price? AOL charges $23.95 for crumby dialup! And anyone can use AOL Instant Messenger to IM their AOL and internet buddies! What are they offering me? Once cable was available in my area I made the switch immediately!

    1. Re:Umm no by Pope · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My Dad uses AOL because they provide local dial-in numbers in a large number of countries. He travels a LOT for business, to places like Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, etc. All those places have local numbers where he can dial in and get his email on his laptop.

      That DSL line at home isn't going to do him any good then, is it?

      Also, he's not a computer geek, so it's not like he cares about getting the latest release of Kazaa or anything.

      AOL may not appeal to you, but there are plenty of people out there for whom it works just fine, since their needs aren't very high. YMMV, mang.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:Umm no by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      I'm aware that traveling dialup users constitute a significant percentage of AOL's user base, and that's why I'm glad that AOL is going to be suffering from the fact that the world is becoming ever-more-wired these days. Just think, you could use some kind of network device (the first thing that comes to mind is a linux box because they're cheap) doing traffic shaping and give away modem-speed wireless internet if you were civic-minded. Terminate DHCP leases at a fairly short interval and when someone has been on for a long time and you're running out of available connections of bandwidth, kick off the oldest user... You could spread the average broadband connection pretty thin at modem speeds, I suspect we will (eventually) see a lot of that kind of thing.

      Your father's needs would be better suited (in a few years when the technology is even more ubiquitous) by a good internet-enabled cellphone, maybe with a keyboard. If all you're doing is email it seems the ideal solution... well, again, it will when the coverage in developing countries gets a little better. I think the low-cost temporary cell site products we're seeing come out lately will help that, people will soon be renting them to put on jobsites and such. Er, more people.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Umm no by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except for those of us who live where DSL is 49.95 a month, and all the available ISPs are within a fwe dollars of each other, with AOL at the cheapest. And dont forget that brand new computer that came with 700 hours. Free.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    4. Re:Umm no by drpatt · · Score: 1

      My Dad uses AOL because they provide local dial-in numbers in a large number of countries. He travels a LOT for business, to places like Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, etc. All those places have local numbers where he can dial in and get his email on his laptop. He should look into AT&T Global Network (not WorldNet)...formerly owned by IBM. They have numbers all over the world also.

    5. Re:Umm no by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

      I "switched" before it was cool.

      I hate to tell you this buddy, but it still isn't cool....

      And another thing, is it so fucking hard to have a simple fucking routine that takes newlines from the text we submit in these fields and replace them with BR's???? Fucking come on? Why the hell am I still manually writing out HTML in this bitch????

      --

      "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    6. Re:Umm no by Q2Serpent · · Score: 1

      700 hours. Free.

      In the first month, maybe. And if you use 700 hours of AOL in the first month, you are one of their target customers, and you belong on AOL.

    7. Re:Umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell your dad top use i2roam http://www.i2roam.com/ - I do and it it works pretty much everywhere...

    8. Re:Umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wrongo-bongo buffalo-breath.


      Cable Internet Access (Comcast) $55/month


      DSL is simply not available, but a few towns over it is $49/month.


      Most Americans simply are not willing to pay that much. Narrowband is here for a long time to come.

  23. Yahoo Messenger!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If AOL lost it's sex drive I think it showed up at Yahoo! My widowed 63 year old mother seems to find the raunchiest people to talk to on Yahoo somehow. I can't decide whether to let her have her fun or destroy her computer.

    1. Re:Yahoo Messenger!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more than any of us EVER wanted to know... :/

  24. Since you ask by IPFreely · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    This isn't a dupe! We're overdue for one... damn, you guys can't even get your screwups right.

    The article immediately before this one on IDE/ATAPI to SCSI Converters was a dupe from October.

    Happy now?

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  25. Re:Admit it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -2 for redundant grammar errors.

  26. Re:Admit it by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    They have the internet on computers now?

  27. Sex appeal? I think not! by thenovacrisis · · Score: 1

    AOL used to be like the average geek. Strong sex drive, but no sex appeal... (Unless you get your average user pitty drunk).

    --

    -----.----.-------
    I'll .sig you!
    1. Re:Sex appeal? I think not! by thenovacrisis · · Score: 1

      Actually, my sig has got me much action.

      --

      -----.----.-------
      I'll .sig you!
  28. What crap by ipxodi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't think I've ever read an article posted here that was such obvious tripe. AOL is not number one because they have sex chat, they're number one because they're EASY TO USE.
    Say what you will about AOL's reliability, tech support and the general IQ level of its users, it is and always has been pretty much "click-and-go".
    I set it up for people on occasion now and it just works. And when I used AOL in 1991-97 it was easy to use and "just worked" then too.
    (remember the DOS interface -- when there were only about 25,000 users?)

    --
    load "windows7" ,8,1
    1. Re:What crap by sebmol · · Score: 1

      I do agree that AOL's ease-of-use was one of the major factors that kept it around well and alive for so long. The problem, however, that I would see is that the longer one user gets exposed to computers and learns how to use them, the less he or she will actually need AOL's easy interface and might even feel restricted by it. I would venture a guess that ease-of-use is what gets new customers to AOL while "dirty chat" is what keeps them (or used to keep them) with AOL.

      --
      "Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
    2. Re:What crap by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

      I remember AOL when it was Q-LINK.

      Those were the days. Of course, there wasn't any "clicking" back then, on the C-64.

      (I did have a C-64 mouse, but it was really only used in GEOS)

    3. Re:What crap by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Ok... confession: AOL user here.

      I don't use their crummy chatrooms, or their "channels," I minimize AOL and use my browser of choice, and never look at AOL's content. Never wanted to, never needed to; I don't find it very appealing.

      I use AOL because it's the only dial-up isp, that I know of [and dial-up's all I can get where I live at the moment,] that doesn't cut you off after 2 hours continual use.
      If a competitor offered a cheaper way to get that, here in the UK [where AOL has 2 million users and the only profit AOL's made in the recent past, and has the lowest complaints of all ISPs] then, if it was a significant reduction in £, I'd up and leave.

      For me, at least, it's not the cybering, it's the ability to use the 'net uninterrupted.
      Maybe that's why they're a such a success in the UK?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:What crap by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 1

      NTL

      Demon

      Pipex

      Even (gawd help us) BT

      --
      -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
    5. Re:What crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll.

    6. Re:What crap by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about Pipex or Demon or NTL, I'll check them out, but BT definitely cuts you off after 2 hours.

      But if you're right, thanks. :)

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    7. Re:What crap by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Well, it appears that none of the isps you mention offer what you said they did.
      Pipex's only non-cut-off unlimited access is £99 a month, a wee bit more than my 15.99 AOL account.

      NTL has a 2 hour cut-off AND makes you sign a 12 month contract [AOL's is 1 month.]

      Demon doesn't even have unmetered, it's all pay-per-minute!

      Thanks for wasting my time, m8.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  29. Some thoughts. by Jared+Stattlemeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember way back when I used AOL. It was an ok service provider. I didn't get busy signals like everyone else. The only gripe I ever had with AOL as in ISP was that in order to connect you had to run the bloated memory eating AOL software. Whereas for another dial up ISP I could use the super lite built in windows dial up networking. I don't want to have to use up all my RAM just to establish a connection. I always ended up minimizing the AOL software and using netscape or other programs.

    AOL was always so dumb with the way they sent out their discs. I got some in collector tins (like altoids tins).

    Their problem isn't that somebody just up-and-decides they need internet access. It's in being around when somebody finally decides they do need to get online. Nothing about the AOL discs inspires someone to keep them around. What they should have been doing is include some additional content that makes you want to hold onto the disc. They're paired with TimeWarner for goodness sakes, you'd think that would give them compelling content. The folks in AOLs marketing department are just stupid with the way they spend money on those discs. (not that I'm not thankful for the few free DVD holder cases)

    I don't know if this is still true (the last time I used AOL was about '94), but once you started using the free hours, AOL needed a credit card number. Just in case you, uh, go over the limit. What they didn't tell you is that if you did go over the limit, you wouldn't be notified; they just quietly started billing you. Then it was the devil's own work to try and get them to stop, and especially to get your CC out of their database.

    1. Re:Some thoughts. by Cy+Guy · · Score: 2

      What they should have been doing is include some additional content that makes you want to hold onto the disc. They're paired with TimeWarner for goodness sakes, you'd think that would give them compelling content.

      Well they did recently run a promotion with CHEERIOS cereal to have the software included on the free DVD's glued to the cereal box.

      They also get there software included on most name brand PC's at the factory, and get there icon installed on your desktop everytime you download a new version Netscape.

      What surprises me is that they don't let you request a free Netscape installation CD with the AOL software on it. Instead they mail out AOL disks whether you want them or not, but if you want to get Netscape on CD you have to pay $5 shipping and handling.

  30. One is enough by Mard · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Have you seen the number of Penis increasing emails in the average AOL user's mailbox?"

    Penis increasing? I hope you're talking about size and not number.

    --
    DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
  31. The bottom line with AOL by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is that in their rush to embrace the Internet they made themselves obsolete. Throughout the early 90's AOL really did provide a lot of value add and made online communities and chatting accessible to the average computer user. By the mid 90's people were still using AOL because it was a safe way to ease into that "WWW thing" everyone was now talking about but still have acess to all that AOL content. Flash forward to the very late 90's and now and AOL has stopped producing anywhere near the amount of content that they used to. All the old cool things like AOL's gaming content just pushes you right back onto the internet. AOL in striving so hard to make sure people could access the internet through them has ceased to have any value beyond that of your basic ISP. All roads from AOL lead out to the internet and eventually most users ask themselves why bother with AOL and its bloated crappy software at all? AOL's user base has "grown up" and the user base which they pull from (newbies) are going to be in shorter and shorter supply as time goes on. Couple that with missing out on being bundled with XP and you see that AOL just don't have that great a future.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  32. Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happen to a better service and/or at a better price. Plus with Time Warners content(movies, actors, directors, writers, etc.) kinda makes you wonder what they're thinking.

  33. giving away all the Love@AOL . . . . . by kraksmoka · · Score: 4, Interesting
    they sold their dating service, it was the only thing i ever used on the damn thing (boss paid for aol, i couldn't complain, just brought my own dsl). selling that service, was shooting one's self in the temple (not the head, obviously, that was well protected up their asses).

    fact is, all of my friends who were aol addicts were hooking up with girls online. that's why they had aol, period. now, they're doomed to be a first rate version of msn, and that aint sayin much.

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    1. Re:giving away all the Love@AOL . . . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      So who bought their dating service? It should still be useful if AOL keeps redirecting people there, as long as AOL is still large... which should continue for quite a while.

      AOL ought to convert themselves to a content warehouse/retailer and an ISP, as separate businesses. If you use them as an ISP you should get a discount on their data. Maybe they can drum up money renting all that vaunted content instead of selling it outright in the way that companies are always telling us you can't do with an idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:giving away all the Love@AOL . . . . . by kraksmoka · · Score: 2

      they sold to match.com, and that's a pay service, stupid aol execs, what did they think people paid 23.95 a mo. for in the first place.

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    3. Re:giving away all the Love@AOL . . . . . by JasonAsbahr · · Score: 1

      match.com looks like a web frontend to the old Matchmaker service. How much of that is AOL code?

      J

    4. Re:giving away all the Love@AOL . . . . . by kraksmoka · · Score: 1

      i don't know about how much aol code lives there, but the customer base does, and its tough to code that.

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  34. Why people hate AOL. by Esther+Sassaman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why people hate AOL:

    They force you to use their dialer, meaning you can't do simple dial-up networking sharing, auto-dialing. Other ISPs use these but still allow you to set up an (unsupported) PPP connection using standard tools

    Said dialer software is full of adverts. AOL/Time Warner removed popup handling abilities from Netscape for this reason, I believe.

    At one point, you had to use their own browser

    It forces you to have Real Player installed (evil) and complains every time you dial in if you remove it

    They ask for your credit card during the trail for verification etc then automatically start billing you without warning. Cancelling used to be difficult and often went "wrong".

    You are paying over the odds because the service has great customer help, which is useless to techies. (I'd recommend it to non-techies for this reason tho)

    They send junk mail. Lot's of it. Regularly. To the same people.

    Said junk mail is not just recyclable paper, it's a cd-rom and a complete waste of resources and bad for environment as it needs to be disposed of in landfills.

    Typically, lamers and newbies were on AOL. A large majority of HTML posts to usenet are from AOL and other anti-social net activites are common, hence the term AOLamer

    They encourage parents to give up responsibility for their children's safety into the hands of parental controls in software.

    They encourage parents to give up responsibility for helping their children with their education since "homework help is just a breeze on AOL"

    Their business model depends on people no realising that they are out of free hours and are going to be charged unless they perform some frustrating and time-hungry tasks to cancel the service. Essentially, they depend on the users thinking they know the whole story when really, they don't until they are forced to pay more.

    They give a misconception of 'the internet' to new users. Some people think that surfing aol:// addresses means they are on the internet.

    They are an ecological menace. Most of the CDs they send out are trashed. Also, consider the waste put out to make the components of the CDs and electricity expended to make something which just fills our landfills faster.

    They reward ignorance. They make it acceptable for you to know nothing about computers and be happy with it even though you are using them as an integral part of your life. (Please no automobile analogies.)

    The stifle choice. Supposedly part of the big news for AOL 8 is that you can now choose between 8 welcome screens and change the colours of your AOL interface ... oooooh ....

    It takes a everything short of a lawsuit to make them stop billing you.

    AOL does not introduce people to the Internet, it dumbs down the Internet, thereby hurting the users in the process. 90% of the AOL users I've had to deal with think their Web Browser is the "Internet". And after years of thinking this, it is almost impossible to get them to understand the truth.

    AOL harbors undesirable individuals much like certain middle eastern nations harbor militant terrorists. What's worse, with all the free 1000 hour disks floating about, individuals who mean ill to the 'Net at large can easily gain free access over and over to do more damage.

    The service is crap. But since most AOL users have been coddled for so long, they CAN'T learn to use anything else; they are stuck w/ sub par service...

    If I think of some more reasons (I know there's a few more)... I'll post another response... :P

    Just a few thoughts from the top of my head... ;-)

    1. Re:Why people hate AOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      [i]Their business model depends on people no realising that they are out of free hours and are going to be charged unless they perform some frustrating and time-hungry tasks to cancel the service. Essentially, they depend on the users thinking they know the whole story when really, they don't until they are forced to pay more.[/i]

      reminds me of how I got a lifetime ban from AOl one summer back in their early days (95 or 96 I think). There would send me stacks of their free hours (25 at the time) diskettes. So I would collect them and keep them in a pile near my computer. I'd sign up for an account. And keep a stop watch running while I was online. When I hit about the 20 hr mark I'd call, cancel the account (which took about 3 hrs minimum, but I had a lot of time on my hands that summer), then pull out a new trial diskette code and sign up for a new account under a different name and address (but with same credit card, which is how they found me). I ran this scam for about 2 1/2 before someone caught on and the sent me a bill for just over $1500. Luckily my Mom is a lawyer and threatened to counter sue. I guess they didn't want the bad plublicity so they settled out of court fairly quickly. I got a lifetime ban from all AOL services and they got $0.

    2. Re:Why people hate AOL. by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      AOL does not introduce people to the Internet, it dumbs down the Internet, thereby hurting the users in the process. 90% of the AOL users I've had to deal with think their Web Browser is the "Internet". And after years of thinking this, it is almost impossible to get them to understand the truth.

      [AOLamer]You mean there's more out there than my internet[/AOLamer]

      the call to tech support "My Internet isn't working"... or "I hear that there's Porn on my internet"... or "What can I do to keep other people off of my computer while I'm using my internet"

      No I don't work for AOL, but I do do Tech support, and I have gotten all of those calls, interestingly enough, mostly from AOL users

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    3. Re:Why people hate AOL. by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I should go get a card with that bank that lets you have these one time credit card numbers with set limits based off your real one. Then I could get like a $5 CC # from them, sign up for AOL for 1000 Hrs, and get another card number. ooh.

      If only I wanted to be on AOL.

      IMarv

    4. Re:Why people hate AOL. by ninewands · · Score: 2
      They force you to use their dialer, meaning you can't do simple dial-up networking sharing, auto-dialing. Other ISPs use these but still allow you to set up an (unsupported) PPP connection using standard tools

      I'm no fan of AOL, but they have used the standard Microsoft dialup adapter since the release of AOL 7.0, so neither this point nor the next one applies any longer ... in fact, the installer for AOL7 asks if you want to REMOVE the AOL dialup adapter.
      It forces you to have Real Player installed (evil) and complains every time you dial in if you remove it

      Again, I'm no fan of AOL OR RealMedia, and the only time I've been around (in the meat world) an AOL user for any length of time was when I had one for a roommate. I IPMasq'd her Windows box to my broadband connection, and RealPlayer wasn't allowed to call home through my iptables ruleset. Also, I'd rather deal with RealPlayer's spyware behaviors than WiMP's.

      just my US$0.02

    5. Re:Why people hate AOL. by TheDanish · · Score: 2

      They force you to use their dialer, meaning you can't do simple dial-up networking sharing, auto-dialing. Other ISPs use these but still allow you to set up an (unsupported) PPP connection using standard tools

      SOOOOO true. When I cancelled my account they said I was doing something WRONG when I said I couldn't use my own dialer (standard MS) to connect! Even though I was at the end of my rope for an Internet connection, I regret having to deal with them.

      Said dialer software is full of adverts. AOL/Time Warner removed popup handling abilities from Netscape for this reason, I believe.

      I couldn't agree more, for the same reason as the last thing I said. And pop-up advertisements conveniently placed when you dial using their software! Arg...

      They ask for your credit card during the trail for verification etc then automatically start billing you without warning. Cancelling used to be difficult and often went "wrong".

      It worked for me, but only after harassing the lady at the phone for ten or fifteen minutes.

      It takes a everything short of a lawsuit to make them stop billing you.

      Not true. I called, told them to cancel my account, and it was done. No more account, no more bills. It took awhile to get past the salesperson thing, but she finally understood my conviction in the fact that AOL was without a doubt the worst service I'd ever used.

      Anyway, the others don't relate to me, but I didn't like AOL at all. Even my crappy cwsredlands account gave me a simple dial-up connection, and it was half the price! Oh, well, I'm past that, now.

      --
      Danish != nationality
  35. I'll tell you why my brother left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He had an argument with one of the AOL "guides" over which baseball team was the best, and the guide didn't like how he was getting one-upped by my brother's mental compendium of statistics... so he promptly banned my entire family for life from AOL.

  36. I miss the Sierra Network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I loved that thing. They later changed their name to ImagiNation Network and didn't last too much longer after that.

  37. You're wrong... by Izang · · Score: 5, Funny

    HotMomma92394848 is also a 400 pound 40 year old bald man.

  38. No, no, no no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of having sex with Steve Case is inherently nauseating. I don't see where these people get these foolish ideas.

  39. Hey look, I found it! by salientpoints · · Score: 1


    Nope, I found it right here.

  40. i'm cracking up over here. by Brigadier · · Score: 2



    Finally the truth is out. I remember when I left aol this is back like 6 years ago to use earthlink and IRC to chat. I tried and failed horrible to get all my friends from school to log unto IRC with no luck. finally I had to go back to AOL in order to talk to everyone I knew. However with Yahoo,msn,icq messenger the whole chat concept is no longer just aol. I haven't been on AOL since 3.0 killed my computer.

  41. Interesting but wrong by usermilk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article has an interesting point of view, however I think AOL is failing due to stagnation. The article touches on this a little, AOL hasn't innovated in years. Seriously, no matter how lame AOL is in reality, they did make some great innovations in instant chat. All the new AOL releases over the past 2+ years haven't added much besides a new revision number.

    1. Re:Interesting but wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't count a crappy copy of ICQ as an "innovation". AIM sucked right from the start. How 'bout them innovative ads in my message windows! How 'bout that wicked powerless user interface that you can't change! Woohoo! Where do I sign up??

  42. Wildly theoretical and unscientific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm not a big fan of AOL, in fact, I dislike it, but the premise for Wolff's argument is so tenuous. If it were written by one of my students, I would give it a D. As evidence, he presents one account of John Podhoretz, an alleged conservative. That's just one "fact." It's not hard evidence!

    As anyone who has ever used AOL realizes, not everyone uses it for the chatrooms. In fact, as evidenced by the immaturity of such chatters, most of the people talking are teenagers, and they are more concerned with "a/s/l" questions than the formation of physical relationships.

    If AOL's PR firm presents it as "family friendly," it's because the company wishes to be seen as the family friendly ISP solution. They aren't involved in some bizarre "yes means no" advertising scheme where "family friendly" really means "dirty talk dating service."

    So, I'll conclude this with one question: Where's the proof?

  43. Actually ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Troll
    the only good thing about AOL.

    What else was there, ever?

    1. Re:Actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only good thing about AOL. What else was there, ever?

      warez. it is STILL TO THIS DAY the best place to get warez. pr cerver anyone?

    2. Re:Actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      infinite 0wnz

  44. corporate sex by kraksmoka · · Score: 3, Funny
    until recently, i have been out of the BIG corporate business world, choosing more artistic, and entrepreneurial clients.

    being back only reminds me of one thing. Truly large CORPORATIONS do NOT HAVE SEX DRIVES (m$ excluded, but they just get off on fucking other companies up the ass). fact is, corporates lust for power. aol was never the monolith that TW is, until today. they were a very flat corporate culture comapared to TW.

    bottom line. using the words corporate and sex together is silly. your warning level is at 20%, thank you, drive thru.

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  45. I used to be on AOL's Community Action Team... by CrazyDwarf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and we were challenged with coming up with room names that might be borderline questionable. One of our jobs was browsing the room names and privatizing names like the one you mentioned. These rooms were still available, but you had to know the room name to get in. I did come up with a room name that no one could ever make a policy decision about whether or not it would be "closed" to the public. My room name was, "Morning Wood on Back Nine".

    --
    It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
  46. AOL Sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, AOL does not need it, nor desererve it, it's a DIALUP service

    1. Re:AOL Sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL offers Broadband in the UK, Not that i'd want AOL broadband though.

  47. A look inward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, with all the pr0n references around here, how many of you guys havent had a 'dirty' chat session every now and then? Honestly, even I hooked up serveral times thanks to AOL. Im my younger days, of course....

  48. AOL's critical Mass by pyrrho · · Score: 2

    AOL was the first online service to embrace Windows GUI. This was natural because it evolved froom a Mac company.

    It beat Compuserve out. I know this from first hand experience working at TSN, another pre-internet online-service that at one time had the same number of user as AOL (but we were a game service, not general) and I watched AOL skyrocket from shipping it's Windows client when Compuserve thought DOS was a better way to go. When Compuserve came out with WinCIM, it was too late for them. It was the mid nineties and many companies got rewarded/spanked by betting on Windows/NotBettingOnWindows.

    They had critical mass first.

    Now there is critical mass everywhere.

    Which of course means next comes a nuclear explosion...

    or wait, did we already have one?

    --

    -pyrrho

    1. Re:AOL's critical Mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know this from first hand experience working at TSN, another pre-internet online-service that at one time had the same number of user as AOL"

      Pre-Internet online-service? :)

    2. Re:AOL's critical Mass by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you are getting at.

      btw, by "pre-interent" I mean, "prior to the commercialization of the internet".

      --

      -pyrrho

    3. Re:AOL's critical Mass by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Based on personal experience, I would say that CompuServ made their revenue mostly from slowing down people using their service. Painful, awful numbers of prompts to go from screen to screen. Several 's between each screen of anything meaningful. The last time ever that I went back to try CompuServe as an ISP, they were finally a regular place with a TCP/IP connection, but their portal to Usenet still used their old software.

      I have painful memories of going online with CompuServ at 300 baud because dialing into the 300 baud modem pool was only about $6 an hour, versus $12 an hour using the 1200 baud lines.

    4. Re:AOL's critical Mass by pyrrho · · Score: 2

      yes, compuserve did kill itself. It was a premium kind of service, they never got over that and liked charging a lot.

      And of course, my comment was a simplification, no doubt we could come up with a lot of contributing factors...

      --

      -pyrrho

  49. New Corporate Earnings from AOL Time Warner by sickboy_macosX · · Score: 1

    Due to the fact that we have no more porn on our Internet Service we have lost 20 million users, and 200 Million dollars in revenue because of this.

    --
    --- /* In Soviet Russia, the Mac OS X kernel panics you! */
  50. Re:Sex Drive? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
    Next time I suggest you keep a hanky or some tissue handy which can stop that from happening.

    Don't get any on-

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  51. get's it? by rodentia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the Time Warner people, who know a thing or two about advertising, correctly surmised that advertising was not going to support the Internet. And so the plan was to sell users Time Warner content. (In my personal defense, I kept talking about what a dirty place AOL was -- that the Internet was the porn business. But the feeling seemed to be that, first, I was joking and, second, while new entertainment technologies often started dirty, they soon became much more sanitized and mass-market.) This service, which started in the autumn of 1994 and closed in the spring of 1999, was called Pathfinder and proved two things: Selling Time Warner content on the Internet was pretty much a nonstarter, and the people at Time Warner lacked a certain flair for the Internet. We just don't get it, they said. Which was the essential reason for merging with AOL. [Emphasis mine.]

    I'm not sure that Mike's getting it any more than TW. Does anyone with any sense imagine that *this internet thing* is going to fall apart if someone can't figure out how to make money on it with standard advertainment/publimation models? Even in '94. And dirty chat is a killer app?

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  52. Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Didion+Sprague · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know, all this "safe internet" shit really bothers me. I'm tired of "kids" movies. I'm tired of "kids" television. I'm tired of hearing everybody kow-towing (is that how that's spelled?) to kids.

    All, right, yes, yes, yes: kids are important. I know that. I don't deny that. But for fuck's sake: I'm important, too. And while my idea of decent entertainment isn't hardcore porn 24/7, it's not the teletubbies either. It's not Blues Clues. And it's not all the shit that the networks pimp out during their "safe hours."

    I watch the Sopranos because it's entertaining. I don't give a rat's ass if it's goddamn offensive, because life is fucking offensive. Sadaam Hussein is fucking offensive.

    Fundamentalist religious idiots offend me. I'm offended by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, all the right-wing religious zealots who appear on late-night cable and who have -- I'll say this now because it's been on my mind for years -- the weirdest fucking hair-dos I have ever seen.

    What is it with these wacko Christian fudamentalists? What's with the hair? Why does all their hair -- men, women, it doesn't matter -- swoop and wave and look like Donald Trump on acid?

    Speaking of which, Donald Trump offends me.

    Bin Laden offends me.

    All this terrorism shit offends me. And, no, one man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist. If you fucking kill civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- you're a goddamn terrorist. And you offend me. I don't give a fuck if you think the civilians are paying taxes to the evil government. You don't go killing people who can't defend themselves. Period. If you wanna blow shit up, put on a goddamn uniform, grab your rusty-ass Kalishnikovs, and goddamn claim a fucking state to be your backer. But don't hide in the fucking shadows.

    I'm tired of the Anti-Americanism. True, America is big and bad and loud. But we're not the *SOLE* cause of misery in the world. I'm tired of nations who just blame, blame, blame and don't accept even a modicum of responsiblity.

    I'm offended by the local news. I'm offended by dippy newscasters who worry about whether or not their colleagues have given them a good "segue" to talk about the next story. Because (a) no one except dippy newscasters give a fuck about "segues" and (b) no one but dippy newscasters tease their fucking audience so much and after *every* fucking segment.

    "But will this beautiful weather last? Tune in at 10!"

    "But will the snow come? Tune in at 10!"

    That offends me. Local news and the way they manipulate you. Not all media offends me. I like the New York Times. But the Chicago Tribune is a fucking joke. There's *nothing* to read in the Tribune. It's like some goddamn newspaper for fifth graders.

    Bob Greene creeped me out. But he's gone now. I knew he was bad news years and years ago. I'm disappointed it took this long to toss his ass out of the cubicle and onto the pavement.

    I miss Mike Royko. I like eating lunch at the Billy Goat Tavern. I like cheesburgers and Pepsi. So fucking sue me. I like the grease on the burgers.

    And I like White Castle. Bring it on, motherfucker. I'll take that bag of fifteen sliders. Sure, I'll get sick after I eat it and shorten my lifespan, but I'd rather shorten my fucking lifespan in one moment of enjoyment than worry about it being prematurely shortened by the four tons of VX that Sadaam has hidden in some Libyan bunker that'll get wheeled out and shipped back to Iraq once the shooting starts.

    My point? Life is offensive. Suck it up. I watched my share of Sesame Street and Electric Company and Mr. Rogers, but that's fine. Those shows were there for me. And I appreciated it. Just like Blues Clues and those fucking weird-ass teletubbies "Teletubby Bye Bye" are there, too. But give folks a break. Not everything has to be kid safe.

    ANd now, on-topic:

    The concept of an internet community is bullshit. AOL was never a goddamn community. It was dirty chat. Who here hasn't dirty chatted on AOL? No one.

    And who here realized after you dirty chatting you were chatting to some legless freak that was just duping your sorry ass into thinking, well, maybe this dirty chat stuff isn't so bad after all?

    Hell, I remember when AOL started and they charged by the hour. I ran up a goddamn huge ass bill on account of my pud-whacking chats to legless freaks of (most likely) both, neither, either, or sexes. God knows who I was talking to. But, the idea of a community is bullshit. It was just a place to talk dirty and hope for the best.

    Cross your fingers, maybe this freak is the girl/guy/whatever of your dreams. But of course it wasn't, and you immediately knew it when, after pressing for more information, you received the IM that said, "Well, wait. Listen. There's something you should know."

    Besides, if you want "safe" communities, there's the real world. Don't mistake virtual pudwhacking for real world social interaction. It never was, is, or will be. It's every man and women for themselves, god save the queen, hold your nose, because here I come, baby.

    Everybody whacks their puds, lets be honest. But lets at least stand up and like that guy in Network say, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." At least not in the virtual wastelands like AOL.

    1. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Denis Leary, is that you?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you fucking kill civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- you're a goddamn terrorist.


      So what about that Afghan wedding that a stray bomb hit?

      Try "if you aim at civialians (that aren't being used as human shields), then you're a terrorist."
    3. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Didion+Sprague · · Score: 1
      Try "if you aim at civialians (that aren't being used as human shields), then you're a terrorist."

      Yes, you're right.

      Thank you.

    4. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by I+hate+Perl · · Score: 0, Troll

      " I like the New York Times. But the Chicago Tribune is a fucking joke. There's *nothing* to read in the Tribune. It's like some goddamn newspaper for fifth graders."

      To keep with the tone of your post ...well, you are fucking snob.
      There is absolutely nothing to read in NYT beyond the usual leftist nonsense on the editorial page.
      Chicago Tribune is not as good as say WSJ but they are truly local paper with some national commentary as opposed to trying to be national paper for snobs and people who like to think they are "getting it".

    5. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of the Anti-Americanism. True, America is big and bad and loud. But we're not the *SOLE* cause of misery in the world. I'm tired of nations who just blame, blame, blame and don't accept even a modicum of responsiblity.
      It's comforting to note that, in these trying and troubled times, Americans have not lost their sense of irony...
      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    6. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by efuseekay · · Score: 1


      Gawd, you are offensive.

      But... excellent rant. Haven't had such a good one for a while.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    7. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by geekd · · Score: 3, Funny

      You just got added to my friends list.

      thank you.

    8. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And, no, one man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist. If you fucking kill civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- you're a goddamn terrorist.

      You should be cautious of such absolutism. Using that argument, the U.S. is a terrorist organization a couple of orders of magnitude more deadly than al Qaeda. Though still a couple orders of magnitude behind Germany and Japan.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by rakslice · · Score: 2

      >>I don't give a fuck if you think the civilians are paying taxes to the evil government. You don't go killing people who can't defend themselves. Period.

      Just so we're clear, that would include retaliatory attacks' "collateral damage" too, right?

    10. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by FoxMcCloud · · Score: 1

      Using that argument, the U.S. is a terrorist organization a couple of orders of magnitude more deadly than al Qaeda.

      And that doesn't make you THINK?

      --
      bool Marketoid::IsGood(){return IsDead();}
    11. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be cautious of such absolutism. Using that argument, the U.S. is a terrorist organization a couple of orders of magnitude more deadly than al Qaeda.

      Be cautious? Why? Because it's unthinkable that the benevolent, morally superior U.S. government would engage in almost the exact same activities as the evil, evil terrorists? Or because if you're not careful, you may end up on the F.B.I.'s "suspect" list? Note that I am not bashing America - hell, I'm American and proud of it - it's our government that makes me think we've lost all sense sometimes. Yes, I post AC - how likely do you think it is that our ever-watchful government agencies don't read sites like this regularly for "subversive" comments? Dismiss me as paranoid if you will, but remember the Cold War and don't be so quick to assume we're past all that.

      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Thomas Jefferson

    12. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god you suck

    13. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by m00nun1t · · Score: 2

      There is a lot out there catering to you, there are plenty of people who know "I'm important too". It's like the argument about women's rights: yes, men are important as well, but women need a chance to catch up after not being given a break for a long time. Sometimes it goes a bit too far, sometimes not far enough, but the idea is right. Likewise, you are important, but there needs to be a chance to create something for kids.

      Plus, you don't have kids do you?

    14. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by scot4875 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not likely. Denis Leary is, for the most part, intelligent and insightful.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    15. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Catnapster · · Score: 1

      If women are not getting a chance to catch up with men, perhaps we should tone down the outrageously anti-male theme of most humor these days. Did any commercial writer ever stop to think that maybe guys wouldn't appreciate all the "guys are idiots" jokes, and thus acquire a covert hostility towards women?

      And don't even tell me there needs to be a chance to create something for kids. There's an entire media conglomerate devoted to the subject named Disney, with four cable TV channels (or was it five?) and a devastatingly efficient crap machine which cranks out three movies that can ONLY be enjoyed by kids a year.

      In addition, there are two excuses for any nefarious act the government plans: terrorism and children. ("For the children" being more commonly used for censorship purposes.)

      While I dislike FX, I applaud it as the first true Decadent-Filth-Only channel.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    16. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by kelleher · · Score: 1

      If you're ever in the Newark, DE area I owe you a beer.

    17. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 2

      This is either a huge troll or someone who just got burned on ebay. Or did you meet some "hot 15 year old" off AOL and are using your "one phone call" to send this post to /..

    18. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by seb249 · · Score: 1

      Ummm, think the most appropriate thing would be to say ... Well Said! hehehe

    19. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by ninewands · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a Freedom of Speech thing, dude ... chill out. They have Freedom of Speech which is balanced by your Right to Be Offended.

      What turns it into a Really BAD Thing(TM) is that THEY want to exercise THEIR Right to Be Offended at the expense of YOUR Freedom of Speech.

    20. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

      Although you are 1 offensive *******ucker, this is one hell of a ran dude, remember me to buy you a beer when you are in The Netherlands sometimes

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    21. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Cyno · · Score: 2

      If they're using their innocent women and children as human shields maybe they're trying to protect something more important than whatever you're trying to blow up. Stop to think for a moment before shooting yet another innocent civilian. The palestinians are the only "terrorists" I've heard of that use their civilians as shields. But what else have they got to lose? Israel is stealing their land and punishing them for an retaliation, and us Americans are funding the whole thing. They certainly don't have the most powerful country in the world backing them up. No, they have a hopeless cause which might prove better to end the miserable lives of their family than force them to put up with another moment in the world you are help creating. You like the thought of innocent civilians being killed by our military, so long as its in the name of Freedom and Defense, don't you? This whole thing makes me sick. You all make me sick. The world makes me sick. And if I didn't think I could make a difference I'd kill myself rather than live with people like you.

    22. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by AntiNorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Denis Leary, is that you?

      No, it's George Carlin.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    23. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      There is absolutely nothing to read in NYT beyond the usual leftist nonsense on the editorial page

      Really? I've never been able to get past the usual leftist nonsense on the 'Please Sign In' page.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    24. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Cyno · · Score: 2

      That's awesome! I'm paranoid too, but that's because if I was running this country I'd know everything every one of you ever sent across any of my networks. I'd put this technology to use so I had complete access to each and every static node on the net and accurate info about all the dynamic hosts, brought to me real-time. I'd also take all your money away, but that's not really related to this discussion. :)

    25. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      The US guvment IS a terrorist organization. :-p

      Well, instead of the three insidious minor-bullies that play dirty jokes on you, the US is more of that overgrown 8 year old who bullys everyone else around. Look how they treat their own citizens... federal interest always outweighs personal rights when convenient.

      I am an American. I love this country's foundations, but our leaders and our people are, for the most part, complete retards.

      *sprays router with flame retardant*

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    26. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I almost agreed with you until that White Castle part! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH.

      However, I'll still take White Castle over a BigMac with some teenager's white bodily fluids in it.

    27. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. But when I see a guy prowling around saying "If you're a civilian-killer, you're a terrorist and deserve to die!" and in the next breath "the U.S. is the greatest country ever!", I feel the need to point the small problem with their thinking out to them. I want to make them think. Or explode, because it's funny to watch. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    28. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Be cautious? Why? Because it's unthinkable that the benevolent, morally superior U.S. government would engage in almost the exact same activities as the evil, evil terrorists?

      Hardly. But I'm reluctant to label my own country as a terrorist organization, and to equal degree reluctant to label anyone else. I do think there are cases of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," and that isn't meant to apply only to the U.S.

      Yes, I post AC - how likely do you think it is that our ever-watchful government agencies don't read sites like this regularly for "subversive" comments? Dismiss me as paranoid if you will, but remember the Cold War and don't be so quick to assume we're past all that.

      The day the you can can rationally expect the government to come after you if you point out that the U.S. has done some nasty and questionable things in the past, then you're too late to be paranoid: it's 1984 and you're already fucked.

      Sheesh, if you're going to be paranoid, at least be -sufficiently- paranoid. ;)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    29. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by BigBir3d · · Score: 2

      I rather enjoyed that!

      I put here (sorry for the .doc format, that will get changed soon), if you don't mind. If you do, please let me know.

      Thanks!

    30. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot!

    31. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're nothing short of hostage takers. Committing crimes and then putting innocent people in the line of fire.

    32. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Cyno · · Score: 2

      When hostage takers take hostages do we kill the hostages to get to the criminals? Then why do we bomb them? Give me a good reason for the killing.

      I think it solves nothing and is simply revenge for America's bruised ego. I feel ashamed.

    33. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by David+Walker · · Score: 1

      All this terrorism shit offends me. And, no, one man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist. If you fucking kill civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- you're a goddamn terrorist. And you offend me.

      How many innocent, hard-working American people died as a result of the attack on September 11th? Far too many. It was a horrible tragedy, and I sympathize with the victims and their families. But Holy Crap man, how many innocent hard-working Afghanis died in the U.S.'s retaliation? There was a stray U.S. bomb that landed on an elementary school in Afghanistan, the death toll was almost as much as that of 9/11, but it was barely on the news. Every single day the U.S. government - my government - slaughters innocent people. It is horrifying.

      The definition of terrorism is the use of violence or force to overthrow a democratically elected government. How many times has the U.S. done this in the 20th Century? It is an objective fact that the United States - a country I love deeply and lament for - is the largest, most dangerous, most feared, and most hated terrorist organization to ever exist. American bombs in Iraq intentionally target power plants, sewage processing facilities and surplus food storage silos. They leave the countries' citizens - innocent citizens, women and children - living in a foodless, powerless squalor awash with sewage. It disgusts me. It should disgust you too.

      I'm tired of the Anti-Americanism. True, America is big and bad and loud. But we're not the *SOLE* cause of misery in the world. I'm tired of nations who just blame, blame, blame and don't accept even a modicum of responsiblity.

      True, America is not responsible for everything, just most of it. The operative difference is that America is the most capable country on the planet of cleaning up after itself; hell, at cleaning up after most everyone else, too. The U.S. spends more money on its military - including the weapons of mass destruction that we kill so many children in order to keep from our enemies - than any other country, and than every other expense of our own. We're the only country in the United Nations with a democratically elected government to not ratify the U.N Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S. impedes the growth of, and its citizens access to, new technology such as alternative fuel and new medecine in order to avoid hurting its own economy - so it can continue to fund its nuclear weapons.

      I've typed enough. For someone who claims to love our country so much you ought to read up on the facts. Frankly, what I think you need is a nice heaping dose of Michael Moore.

    34. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by rodgerd · · Score: 2


      We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
      </wayne's world>

    35. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Eravau · · Score: 1
      I find it rather ironic that you rant about the lack of mature programming while your signature proclaims "They can make me grow old, but they sure as hell can't make me grow up."

      So which is it you want...mature or not?

    36. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Eravau · · Score: 1
      Since when do you have "freedom of speech" on somebody else's property (in this case AOL's chat servers)?

      It's only an attack on free speech if somebody is keeping you from expressing your opinion on your own property with your own penny. AOL won't stop you from creating your own community without the restrictions they may have...where you can say what you like (within legal bounds for slander, etc.).

      This isn't a freedom of speech issue any more than it would be a freedom of speech issue if you refused to let someone send a hateful e-mail using your computer.

    37. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Important distinction:

      Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians

      US attempts to avoid civilian casualties (hell, we could carpet bomb / nuke Afghanistan and Iraq and no one'd be able to do a thing about it)

      See the difference now?

    38. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best thing I've read here in months. Thank you sir.

    39. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by cliveholloway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All this terrorism shit offends me. And, no, one man's freedom fighter is not another man's terrorist. If you fucking kill civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- you're a goddamn terrorist. And you offend me. I don't give a fuck if you think the civilians are paying taxes to the evil government. You don't go killing people who can't defend themselves. Period. If you wanna blow shit up, put on a goddamn uniform, grab your rusty-ass Kalishnikovs, and goddamn claim a fucking state to be your backer. But don't hide in the fucking shadows."

      I'm tired of the Anti-Americanism...

      What, like Vietnam, Iraq, Guatamala, Nicaragua, etc, etc, etc...

      That was far, far too easy. Please try to make ridiculing you a little harder in future - I mean, where's the sport? fish, shooting, barrel...

      .02

      cLive ;-)

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    40. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by DaemonGem · · Score: 0

      And what does half of this have to do with "safe communities"? -Dae

      --
      "Alle reden vom wetter. Wir nicht." - SDS Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund.
      j00 4r3 3n73r1ng l337 w0r1d.
    41. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this and think about who's REALLY responsible for the mess in Iraq:

      http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801.h tml

    42. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by tqft · · Score: 1

      > I'm tired of nations who just blame, blame, blame > and don't accept even a modicum of responsiblity.

      The French come to anyone else's mind beside mine?

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    43. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by FoxMcCloud · · Score: 1

      Oh, I had missed that :) That's alright with me then. Guess you failed to make ME think. Heh.

      --
      bool Marketoid::IsGood(){return IsDead();}
    44. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by MisterMook · · Score: 1

      You know someone has made an excellent rant when I immediately save to text and start sending out links....

    45. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by zenyu · · Score: 1, Flamebait


      US attempts to avoid civilian casualties (hell, we could carpet bomb / nuke Afghanistan and Iraq and no one'd be able to do a thing about it)


      Yes, the US is the only country in the world never to use the weapon of mass distruction on civilians.


      Or, is that the other way around?


      PS Am I the only to have great sense of irony and sadness when those "your drug habit supports terrorism ads" run? My tax paying habit supports terrorism, have you watched "Brazil" since 9/11?

    46. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the motto of The Order of the Red Garter. "If it doesn't offend somebody, it couldn't possibly interest anybody!"

    47. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by MerlTurkin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm with you 100%. The news teasers piss me off too.
      5 o'clock teaser.."New bacteria that eats your brain found in coffee,story at 11!" Ummm, shouldn't we hear that story RIGHT NOW???? You are right on the money. Religion pisses me off, politics makes me projectile vomit. People with cell phones glued to their fucking ear piss me off. Uncontrollable kids screaming piss me off. 10 registers at Home depot with 2 open and 1 mile long lines piss me off. Waiting to go kick Saddam's ass pisses me off. Hey, happy holidays and new year just the same to you and all here on Slashdot!

    48. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by FleshWound · · Score: 2
      women's rights
      Only in America could a group of people that constitutes over 50% of the population be considered a "minority." =)
    49. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Yes, the US is the only country in the world never to use the weapon of mass distruction on civilians.

      A weapon which, incidentially, killed less people than a single German air raid on England. A weapon that avoided 1 millon+ Allied casualties and untold Japanese civilian casualities that would have resulted from a ground war. Oh, and btw - the US isn't the only country to use WMD. Iraq's use of chemical weapons on Iran and the Kurds, for example.

    50. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by zenyu · · Score: 2
      Iraq's use of chemical weapons on Iran and the Kurds, for example.

      That's just silly. Chemical weapons are nothing like a nuke. Chemical weapons were used by just about everyone in the Great War (WWI). They are less effective per pound than conventional munitions and unlike nukes have a legitamite, if ghastly, use in war.


      Your point would have been stronger if you had talked about biological weapons. Those are worst for civilian populations, and as far as I know we haven't used them since we wiped out the Americans. No one defends that anymore, so it isn't as big a liability in trying to get people not to fear and hate us as our more recent war crimes.


      I was just outside our borders recently, our use of nukes on an innocent civilian population is the reason people the world over think it's so strange when we condemn Saddam for using nasty weapons on civilians.

    51. Re:Here's My Rant about "Safe Communities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, that article in the New Republic does a good job of illustrating that Saddam is responsible for the mess in Iraq.

      The United States of America is responsible for Saddam being in power there. George H.W. Bush (the father) gave massive amounts of support to Saddam both during and after the Iran-Iraq war. In fact, Saddam was a huge recipient of U.S. aid right up until he invaded Kuwait.

  53. Re:Sex Drive? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    When exactly did AOL have a sex drive?

    A few years ago when Silicon Valley CEO's were getting busted for thinking they were chatting up children for hot dates. It's my theory that all the competent execs were pervs and when they got locked up the bubble burst.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  54. veteran aol user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    i had aol since ver 1.1....

    i recently cancelled. (after they offered me 2 months free, which i accepted, then cancelled 2 months later) i had Bring Your Own Access for the last bunch of years when an isp was easily accessible...

    i was a beta tester, aol has some pretty great games in thier "premium" section, but thats just it, they try to take all your money at all times.

    newsgroups were a joke, no nntp access, that aol newsgroup keyword was horrible...

    i gotta say that the AOL chats had some pretty damned good warez/porn/mp3 chans, cause there is/was a 16mb limit on email attachments, so 15mb rars were perfect, mass mails made it easily distributible between lots of people, upload once, forward and forward and forward... i wonder if "mm" and "cerver" are still around ;)

    anyways, aol really wasnt that bad, it was one of the two/three isps back then (i had used observer and eccentric, and something else). of course, every year they added prices, adding and adding and adding, i quit when they tried to tack on 3 bux to the BYOA. it helped me get on the internet and learn WHAT NOT TO DO, "A/S/L" is evilll.... ALL CAPS or CaSe TaLKiNG is really lame, same as 3v17 h4x0r talk, and i bet if it wasnt started there, it definitly matured there.

  55. Jon Katz is back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Jon? Jon Katz? Is it you?

    I thought you stopped posting here!

  56. AOL has been on it's way out for years. by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AOL has been on it's way out for years. Time Warner's merger with AOL was dumb.... and not just "regular" dumb... really really dumb.

    At one point in time AOL had a fairly nice product to offer; however, over time AOLs service became bloated, annoying, sloppy, and restrictive. Fortunately, AOL had the dot-com bubble to keep them, and their horrible product, profitable. AOL had tons ad revenue coming in from numerous dot com companies, and many consumers where still new to the concept of being "online."

    Yet now most of AOLs ad clients have either bit the dust or come to realize that banner ads and spam are not necessarily the best way to advertise. Moreover, now that a number of people in the world have had a chance to use the internet sans AOL (ie, LANs at work, schools, libraries, etc), folks are beginning to realize that AOL is a huge POS.

    If Time Warner actually -thought- about what AOL was selling and how they were making money I doubt these two companies would have merged. But, hey, that didn't happen.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  57. IM on AOL by xombo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AOL was not the first company to deploy an instant messaging service that was availible internet wide, ICQ was and that is where the whole cyber-sex thing started. It was easy to find a partner via ICQ and it's random "Men Seeking Women" (etc...) friend finder was a god-sent to helpless, love-sick nerds everywhere (all-be-it porly sorted and managed). Simply put, AOL took an existing technology, put a family friendly coat of make-up on it and a "I don't like those dirty bad nasty words" fuction and called it good for a mere ~$23. Once again we've seen a monopoly take an existing technology, made it friendly, then made it availible. The only step that they're missing from various other monopolies is making it cheap. The last thing most of us will ever dream of seeing is an AOL user switching over to a better, faster connection.

    1. Re:IM on AOL by caluml · · Score: 2

      Have you noticed that people get confused in ICQ about the Men seeking women thing?

      Does it mean Men who are seeking women, or Men-seeking women (like missiles) :o)

      At least it seems that a lot of Johnny Foreigners do.

    2. Re:IM on AOL by Thyrsites · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, cyber sex predates ICQ by a country mile...ever hear of telnet? Muds, Mushes and Moos had other forms of action beyond hack and slash.

    3. Re:IM on AOL by xombo · · Score: 1

      When I used it out of curisosity it pulled up a bunch of men, but whatever :)

    4. Re:IM on AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high, stupid, or merely 12 years old?

      Cyber-sex has been around far longer than ICQ. It's been around longer than ubiquitous internet access. It's been around longer than AOL. I was "hot chatting" in the early eighties on multi-user BBSs and I have no presumptions of being one of the first .

    5. Re:IM on AOL by ninewands · · Score: 2

      Excuse me ... cybersex existed LONG before there was ICQ ... my first "dirty chat" was via "private message" on CompuServe back in 1990 ...

  58. I Think I've Found Your Problem by Myriad · · Score: 2
    AOL used to be like the average geek. Strong sex drive, but no sex appeal... (Unless you get your average user pitty drunk).
    I'm a guy... You're a girl... Simple logic shows us that it is time to start making babies.

    After examining your message I think I've pinpointed the problem behind your lack of sex appeal...

    your sig.

    :)

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
  59. dirty chat is why I keep my AOL by budcub · · Score: 5, Funny
    I got AOL and an ISP account at the same time, in December 1995, and I've kept both. Why? Because I can hook up and get laid from AOL chat rooms, while on IRC I'd only meet freaks. That's a generalization, but its true. I've met mostly freaks on IRC while on AOL I'm much more likely to meet a regular person. Also, they have a "bring your own access" plan, where you pay a much lower fee each month, and access them through TCP/IP and an ISP. Its much faster than dialing up anyways.

    Ever since I've been on, AOL has monitored the language of chat rooms, which is pretty damn annoying, but it explains why you go into a room and no one says anything, we're all IM-ing each other.

    Does anyone remember when you get get real porn from AOL picture galleries? It was sometime in the early 90's. When they decided to go "family friendly" they first blacked out all the genital areas, then got rid of the nudie galleries all together.

    1. Re:dirty chat is why I keep my AOL by JordoCrouse · · Score: 1

      Because I can hook up and get laid from AOL chat rooms

      Wow, I'm sorry, but thats just really sad to me that you chose to use those words.

      I'm from rural Wyoming, so we didn't have many computers when I was a kid - so there was lots of good old fashioned masterbating to hard copy porn. I sure don't remember hearing any of my friends say that they "hooked up and got laid" with the centerfold of miss July 1987.

      I'm older so maybe I don't understand. Whats the difference between masterbating to words on a screen and a picture on a page? Why would the words "got laid" even be remotely in the picture?

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    2. Re:dirty chat is why I keep my AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand. A good friend of mine could, when he lived in a major US city hop on AOL, and within 30 minutes (maybe less), be walking out his door to a real live assignation. I don't know if this works in suburbia or rural areas.

    3. Re:dirty chat is why I keep my AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh huh, suuure.
      the only people getting laid on aol are FBI agents posing as pedophiles

  60. AOL TW Cannibalizing themselves... by GNU_Suit · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that no one brought up that Time Warner cable (provider of my cable modem service) might be diminishing AOLs subscriber base. What's really odd is that they didn't try to "upsell" me to AOL once I got the cable modem.

  61. Look here. by termos · · Score: 1, Funny

    Someone might check this. Since Microsoft is better than AOL there has to be something really wrong.

    --
    Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
  62. Good/bad things about AOL. by caluml · · Score: 2

    The best thing about AOL when you're a newbie is the fact it uses it's own TCP/IP stack.
    The worst thing about AOL when you're no longer a newbie is that it uses it's own TCP/IP stack.

    It used to, anyway. If my memory serves me right.

    And girls in those days didn't say "I don't talk to people I don't know" when you IM'd them ;)

    1. Re:Good/bad things about AOL. by spikedvodka · · Score: 2, Informative

      It still does, and when I tried to talk to their Tech support people about registry changes made in the install process, they were clueless, and refuesed to help me.
      I endedup having to burn a clients data to CDs (10 of them) and wipeing/reloading to get the ethernet connection working becuase it had screwed up the TCP/IP stack so badly.

      I don't know about 8.0, but 6.0 would not just use their own TCP/IP stack, but appeared to overwrite the windows stack

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
  63. IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex drive loses AOL!

  64. This article reminds me of... by RezConRick · · Score: 2, Funny

    2 old roommates. Two guys, just like the pervs described in the article. They would get on AOL and search for user profiles that contained words like "drink" or "party". Then they would send instant messages to these girls (aka "AOL sluts") for 6 hours/day. Once they started talking to a girl, they'd start sending nude pics of themselves to these girls, and sure enough, the girls would come over within a few days. We're talking 2-3 girls per week, n/k. It all came to a halt a while ago when one of them caught a nasty case of the clap. Of course he got it from an AOL hookup and found out he had it by giving it to a different AOL hookup. Without AOL, these guys would have no social life. Anyone else know people like this?

  65. I remember AOL when they were still Quantum by kfg · · Score: 2

    And there was no WWW. Back then they were not only easy to use but the only game in town for the average Joe. They provided the sort of service to the average home user that would be expected of an internet account, and did it without UNIX, archie, gopher, telnet and all that other arcane crap.

    But times change. Now the hardest part of setting up a DHCP account is typing in the names of your ISP's mail and news servers and your ISP will usually be glad to do this *for* a new account.

    AOL exists at all now on the pure inertia of already existing. But there's this thing called friction. . .

    KFG

  66. getting laid worth more than old movies by opencity · · Score: 2, Insightful
    AOL was (is?) a huge singles bar. Someone said about the early days of the alt.sex.* newsgroups that a rock had been turned over exposing and amplfying what had been on/in the minds of Americans. AOL made more money than the biggest internet porn dude.

    Time Warner had It's A Wonderful Life, AOL had teenagers curious about bondage. Which is worth more?

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  67. The EASY way to get off AOL by eric434 · · Score: 1

    ...in under 10 minutes. Do some searching around for "AOL proggies" or the like, find something that can harvest names off chat rooms and spam them with fake 'send me your username and password' messages. Spam the moderators.

    Voila! No more AOL!

    (no, seriously, it works.)

    --
    This .sig temporary until a better .sig can be constructed.
  68. Dirty Chat in the new Milennium.... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't everybody using YAHOO now anyway?

    I mean seriously, you can search out a chat-room by your state, do voice with the whole room, deal with booting, view web-cams, and basically just talk some serious shit to underage and overweight people.

    I thought Yahoo Fuck-Chat was WAY more popular than AOL Fuck-Chat these days? Maybe AOL just never noticed this?

    *(You boot them or they boot you... it becomes a pissing contest about who is the bigger skript kiddie, of course... but that's life in this primarily lamer-driven internet we live in now days.)

    --

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

    Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  69. This Gets My Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Has AOL Lost Its Sex Drive?
    been so hard on America Online
    old media bedfellow

    This gets my vote for "Slashdot Headline with the most innuendos..."

    Guess Uncle Ted doesn't like naughty...

  70. well, by FakePlasticDubya · · Score: 5, Funny

    not only was the sex drive lost, the whole array went down.

    --

    "We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it" -- Winston Churchill
  71. So easy to use... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 2

    AOL Keyword: Dirty-Smutty-Pr0n-Chat-For-40-Year-Old-Preverted-M en-Who-Don't-Shave-Their-Backs

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  72. Yeah, really innovative... by Apathetic1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AOL succeeded in creating a simple, orderly, largely text-based chat client -- the first to work effortlessly.

    Uh huh. Was this before or after IRC?

    Next, AOL developed the Instant Message (IM), through which you could talk directly to anyone else online; then it offered a searchable database of fellow chatters that grew to vast proportions (any interest or kink was immediately searchable); and in 1996, it introduced the Buddy List, through which you could monitor the comings and goings of anyone who interested you (or whose kink interested you).

    So now they're trying to tell us that AIM came out before ICQ? ICQ was the first Instant Messenger I used. I remember when AIM came out and it was LONG after ICQ. Then AOL bought Mirabilis and the ICQ client slowly degenerated into an advertising channel with a messaging feature. (Now I use Miranda)

    This simple technology -- nontechnical people really couldn't chat anywhere else online -- was the engine of AOL's wild growth.

    'scuse me?! I was using ICQ over dial-up almost five years ago, if I've done the math right. The friend that introduced me to it had a five digit ICQ number. My sister got an ICQ account before AIM came out and she's non-technical. Then all her friends signed up.

    And finally, AOL extended its chat range with the AIM applet, which could be used from outside the walls of AOL to chat with other AOLers (and other AIMsters).

    I'll let them off the hook for the last one because ICQ2Go didn't come around until after Mirabilis was purchased by AOL. There may still have been someone who did it before they did, I don't know.

    --

    My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?

    1. Re:Yeah, really innovative... by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      i got on icq the day it went into public beta and it started with 6 digit numbers.

      and before that i used several other IM programs such as powwow, which predated icq by quite some time.

  73. SCSI extensions by dotslashdotdot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back from the future...

    You've seen all of the changes to the SCSI standards over the years. SCSI 1,2 3, wide, fast-wide, ultra, ultra 2. Next will be SCSI extended, or Sex. So hard, fast, swollen and throbbing that no one will be able to resist walking in to a computer store and proudly saying. I've earned enough to BUY a BIGGER Sex drive. What have you got? I need more room for PR0N!

    --
    It is now time to flip off your computer.
  74. Welcome to the internet... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Funny

    where the men are men, the women are men, and the boys are FBI agents.

    1. Re:Welcome to the internet... by ninewands · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I wish to HELL I had mod points ... somebody treat this post to a +1 Funny ...

  75. Isn't that backwards? by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...Michael Wolff, a consultant who advised Time Warner not to buy AOL in the early 90's...
    I'm pretty sure it was AOL that bought Time Warner (which is why it was such a shocker at the time). Not sure that it matters, though it does seem odd that Time Warner would be dictating to AOL considering they were the ones bought.
    1. Re:Isn't that backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was in the [i]early[/i] 90ies. At that time, Time Warner was thinking about buying AOL.
      In the late 90ies, it was of course the other way around.

  76. On the topic of AOL chats by Mr.roboto · · Score: 1

    Me and a friend of mine had a class project where we had to do a survey (blah) so we went into an AOL chat, and it was ladden with the pr0n. So, we go to another one, and it was the same way. Eventually, it transitioned into a game where we tried to find one that wasn't pornographic. We didn't win.

    --
    Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
  77. Lost Sex Drive? by Sir+Network · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the lost sex drive of a serial child molester.
    Have they stopped repeatedly screwing their customners in the ass with their poor service, high rates, and popup ads?

    No? Then make sure that they register as a sex offender in your state and watch your kids.

    --
    Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. --John Wayne
  78. Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

  79. Re:How could AOL -loose- it's sex drive? by saskboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sad to inform you that you've been affected by AOL.

    You no longer can discern the difference between "loose" and "lose".

    Cut your modem cable, pick up a real book, and you'll be cured by next week.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  80. Flashback by ksw2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...just got a sudden flashback of 17 years ago, AOL was spankin' new, and my mom walked in just as somebody started talking about "stimulating g-spots" in some chat room.. Needless to say I was in trouble... ugh

  81. CNN and NPR Let Army Staff Into Newsroom by cpeterso · · Score: 2

    Don't forget that CNN and NPR have allowed US military "psy-ops" officers to be "interns" in their news offices.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=I SO-8859-1&q=cnn+army+psyops

    1. Re:CNN and NPR Let Army Staff Into Newsroom by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2
      Don't forget that CNN and NPR have allowed US military "psy-ops" officers to be "interns" in their news offices.

      If you're going to make a point like this, I suspect I'm not alone in asking that you just pick a relatively reputable source and link to that instead of linking to a Google search. Especially when the Google search turns up a large number of sites your average person has never heard of and there will mistrust. Perhaps offer the Google link as a follow up.

      Also, don't make the link text the same as the link. Give a useful label, like "Google search on 'CNN Army Psyops'" It's much more useful and likely to draw people to click on it. (Of course, if the link said something like "FAIR's coverage of psy-ops working at CNN" and linked to the FAIR coverage, I think it would have gotten even more.)

      That said, I found your contention alarming, so I took a quick look. After skimming over a number of small sites I've never heard, I found one a group I'm actually familiar with: FAIR. While often disagree with FAIR, I'm familiar with them and understand where their prejudices lie. I trust them (or at least trust their slant). So, seeing FAIR's coverage of Psy-Ops at CNN, I feel I got a reasonable summary of the issue and relaxed.

  82. warner bros stores by bwhalen · · Score: 1

    IU really wish this merger wouldve never happened. Amongst my reasons, aside from the media monopoly, is that the warner brothers stores were all closed.

    --
    Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
  83. Metasquares by Q2Serpent · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember metasquares? It was a free game on AOL maybe 6 years ago, and it was one of the funnest online games I ever played. Then they cancelled it. That's ok, I learned something about computers after that, and that was the end of AOL.

  84. Speak for yourself by Hershmire · · Score: 1

    Who here hasn't dirty chatted on AOL? No one.

    I never did, mainly because by the time I was old enough to think about sex, I was old enough to realize how lame and restrictive AOL is. No, I've never even had the urge to talk dirty to strangers on AOL. You really don't know what you're getting, and I'd much rather have the real thing.

    That isn't to say that I don't, as you so elegantly put it, "whack my pud"; just not to an AOLuser's fervent one-handed typing.

    --
    if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll); //Stupid roommates.
  85. You missed an important point by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    There are no safe communities! The universe HATES you! It wants to KILL you! And one day it WILL succeed! You can lock yourself in prisions of fear, let other people tell you they know better than you what you and your kids should be exposed to but it's not going to change the fact that one day you are GOING TO DIE! And then what? You get the prize for being a fucking sheep your entire life? You get to live with fucking Mormons for the rest of eternity? Fuck that! Get out there and live a little. Taunt Death! Get in everyone's face about it! Don't try to take the fucking "safe" route! Ultimately, what the hell do you have to lose, anyway?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  86. As Robert Schimmel sez: by Mr.+Pibb · · Score: 1

    The only one fscking me is AOL out of $21.95 a month.

    Yes, I know they've raised the price, but it's word for word.

  87. i once was a sinner by istar · · Score: 1

    I once used aol while living within the castle walls of my parents. It was free and it was all I had (as far as they knew I had). I disposed of the evil ISP as soon as possible and became baptised the next day in the holy water of prism.net

    God has forgive me for my use of aol.. he can save you to!

    --

    "Oh shit. That wasn't supposed to happen." - OpenBSD telnet exploration turned into accidental server crash
  88. AOL ignorance example by istar · · Score: 1

    Just an inside thought, back in the day when AOL was all I had, I began my curiosity of its networks and learned that the chat room servers disallowed multiple chat room names. (duh, of course) What I did find out that proved dangerous was the %02 and the %0a code were read differently, thus allowing the creation of room names _very_ similar.

    the%02kiddies = the kiddies
    the%0akiddies = the kiddies

    so the chat server creates the secondary because it allows the difference of 2 and a, while the aol programs on the server notice the similar name but do not check the 2 and a difference.

    Thus, in panic it shuts down both chat rooms, leaving everyone inside, blocking it from the chat room list and any entry inside unless you know the origonal chatroom url.

    Anyways, the point is, after spending months explaining and contacting AOL about this breach, I was constantly transfered over and over, because no one knew what I was talking about.
    I was eventually given the address to the virus control center in Washington.....

    This just goes to show that major security holes in AOL 7+ exist, but AOL simply doesnt know how to fix them.

    (the actions to create a duplicate chat room name will be withheld from this forum, as I simply dont want a massive amount of scRiPt3Rs going out and destroying the AOL world more than it is)

    --

    "Oh shit. That wasn't supposed to happen." - OpenBSD telnet exploration turned into accidental server crash
  89. I Thought AOL Was In Trouble... by istartedi · · Score: 2

    ...because they had cycled through all the users and few people ever switch *back* to AOL. That includes yours truly, who tried the free offer, ran one minute over, and then got zapped with monthly charges for service I never used. IIRC, that was the subject of a class action in the mid or late 90s, just before the internet bubble, and was one of the reasons I thought AOL was a bad investment. Silly me. If I had sold near the top... oh well... you know.

    My reasoning was that companies that screw their customers will eventually fail. Of course that may be true, but if they can screw their customers and get away with it for several years, they are a good investment, provided you know when to get out.

    I'm not saying that AOL screws customers now. It sounds like they learned a lesson. I think their problem is that they appeal to new users, then the new users move on. Either that, or they move off. Yep, that's right. People who don't need the interenet. Imagine that.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  90. A victim of capatilism. Reaching the plateau by LowellPorter · · Score: 2

    AOL says it has about 30 million members. Eventually they're going to hit a plateau and stop the massive growth they had in the late 90s. In fact they already have. They've got to find NEW ways of revenue. The days of massive growth are over. I don't think it has anything to do with dirty sex chat. There's still plenty of that. In fact AOL has never advertised that. Go to their chat room listings. You still see those chat rooms. Another thing hurting AOL is competition. There's a lot more of it. Earlier they had to compete with other ISPs when they had the best chat rooms. Now other web sites and ISPs have good chat rooms and instant messanging too. AOL is a victim of capatilism. They've grown all they can in the terms of members, they now need to look to NEW ways of entertaining their members. Maybe then they'll get new ones.

  91. The big, bad Wolff by br00tus · · Score: 1

    I should say as a caveat that Wolff ran one of the original dot bombs, Wolff New Media, which managed to run itself into the ground BEFORE 2000. I've heard from several people he was an asshole boss, and when he ran out of money, he asked his workers to work for free (which some morons did) and then he took what money was left and took a vacation in Tuscany. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.
    Suck.com did a good exposé on him in 1998.

  92. Its the truth!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago I was a moderator for an AOL group and I figured out quickly that most people on AOL were hanging out in the adult chat groups. I'm glad someone has brought this out to the public.

  93. Nostalgia Kills Companies by MakeItStopItHurts · · Score: 1



    It is sad that some of the things that made AOL great might get less attention as the Time Warner boys move in, but unlike the writer:

    1) I doubt it will happen because this is about content, and I don't think the swinging scat fetishists are on AOL for the content -- they're on for the hot (lunch) chat and community experience. Yes they made AOL with their non-stop, $500 a month chat habits, but it's a different business now. AOL's membership is in the tens of millions, these folks number in the hundreds of thousands -- and as compulsive chatters in a fixed-rate world -- don't represent much to AOL anymore. To lose the folks due to inattention would be a shame, but more in the metaphysical sense than from a business point of view.

    2) Everyone else is on AOL (and MSN, and Yahoo!) for the E-mail and content. There are a thousand little niche groups I could list (newbies, people who only use it out of habit, etc...), but one way or another the majority of folks are there to read E-mail and content.

    AOL (like MSN and Yahoo!) is a content network. Content is expensive to produce and serve. It requires creative, editorial, production, technical, and maintenance staff, hardware and bandwidth. The staff who perform this work must be managed. The managers must be managed. In a company the size of AOL, the managers of the managers of the managers of the managers must be managed. This is an exaggeration in support of my point which is: From a business standpoint, it's hard to believe anyone could come to a reasoned conclusion that their stragtegy is off. Here's why:

    1) If it's succesful, it pave the way for AOL/Time Warner to roll up dubiously (heh heh) successful online properties (e.g. people.com, time.com, cnn.com) without taking them offline. By doubiously succesful I mean: as online properties supported by a gutted advertising market, they just lose money anyway. Some of the loyal people.com readers _will_ come over to AOL. This is true for cnn.com, time.com, etc... readers as well. Yes this means downsizing and merging functions and the like, which is difficult and strategically risky. But if they're succesful with the people.com experiment, get ready for them to start rolling these properties up quickly.

    2) AOL customers who might have been using the public network (which is expensive for AOL, since the bandwidth costs for them are at the edges of their network rather than inside it) to visit other interactive Time Warner properties will now do that within AOL's network. How many customers do this? How much will it save? You can bet AOL knows -- every ./er knows this stuff is very measurable. You can also bet they know or have projected with reasonable accuracy just how much they would make (and save) if they rolled all of the existing Time Warner interactive properties up into one big hairball like their plan dictates -- available for free to AOL users, available for pay to everyone else. Time Warner has nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

    3) It broadens AOL's content base, which might help them stem the flow of users who have figured out that the public internet has a lot more content on it than AOL.

    Pathfinder failed because it was ahead of its time. The writer notes that it was started in 1994 and shut down in 1999. Go Figure. In 1995 I had a beautiful blue Indy on my desk at a little interactive firm called Giant Step. It was my workstation and the primary DNS ("name service") and Web host for United Airlines (ual.com) and Maytag (maytag.com). Sometimes, when I was coding, I'd screw something up and shut down and restart the computer because I didn't know enough about Unix (Irix) to kill off the offending program I had written without shutting the box down. There was no firewall. There was no fault-tolerant n-tier architecture. Just me and my Indy.

    My point (aside from painful nostalgic reveling) is:

    1) Times have changed. The Web and its users have gone through the boom cycle and matured quite a bit in a short time. A good portion of the internet population is now paying for at least some of the content they consume.

    2) No one would have paid for content in 1994, 1995, ..., 1999. There was no need to. There were too many companies willing to give it away "for free" or publish it for fun. Popular sites recouped a lot more of their costs in ad revenue than they do now. Those were great days, but they're gone, gone, gone (wo ooh oh ooh oh).

    In closing I'd have to say that AOL users and non-users who enjoy comedycentral.com, cnn.com, the Netscape Network, time.com, people.com or any of the many other tens (hundreds?) of Time Warner interactive properties is in for some changes. I think this experiment will succeed.

    Luckily, there doesn't appear to be any visible intent on the part of the big bad Time Warner wolf to stop people from chatting about plans to screw each others wives or poop on each other. And thank goodness for that. Without that, it just wouldn't be AOL.

  94. More fantasy than truth in this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this really reminds me of my adolescent years,when I made the great discovery that... the Rock Hudson and Doris Day movies were about... *sex!* And those mysterious jokes that I didn't understand were about... *sex!* And those "adult book stores" WEREN'T about highly advanced books with long words in them that only adults could understand, they were about... *sex!* Imagine that!

    So, of course, I jumped to the conclusion that _almost everything_ was about sex.

    The writer says "Then, too, in my personal focus group of thirtysomething single people... [everybody is talking about] having more sex than ever before (when you visit another city, you set up some dates before you arrive -- like booking a hotel)."

    Yeah, right. I knew young men that bragged about stuff like that, too.

    It's probably true that Prodigy's failure (the original Prodigy with the censorship, etc.) was related to overcontrol and trying to turn the whole site into a "shut up and shop" site.

    And there's probably some truth to the article.

    But there's more fantasy than truth in it.

  95. For more on this read Burn Rate by Taurine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The author of the article, Michael Wolff, wrote a book called Burn Rate back in 1998. Its all about how his small media company got sucked into the DotCom revolution, nearly made him very rich and nearly bankrupt, and generally pointed out that the bubble was going to burst, two years before it did. Most of his attempts to sell his company for lots of cash involved AOL, so he has plenty more to say about them in the book. And he made this point about AOL as the 'ultimate brown paper bag' in that book, so the article in a large part is just a rehash of his own work of four years ago. Still, a good book and a decent article.

  96. Re:Smelly fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your boss is a slashdot janitor, it could mean a big raise for you if you do it.

  97. Re:And the ref chimes in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Refereee: WHOOOOOOOOOT! Two minute penalty for age-sex-location checking!

  98. Aol... by iamroot · · Score: 1

    Aol, so sleezy to use, no wonder its number one!

  99. YOU ARE SO FIRED! by YOU+ARE+SO+FIRED! · · Score: 1

    Count me as one in the legions of those who wish people to have confidence in their first posting ability.

    YOU ARE SO FIRED!

  100. As a former Help Desk employee for an ISP... by ssstraub · · Score: 1

    One of the first quesitions asked when diagnosing a connection problem: "Have you ever used AOL on this computer before?"

    It's easy to use because it takes over your computer. Sure AOL will work great. The problem being that NOTHING ELSE WILL!

  101. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Mathematicians often resort to something called Hilbert space, which is
    described as being n-dimensional. Like modern sex, any number can play.
    -- Dr. Thor Wald, "Beep/The Quincunx of Time", by James Blish

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...