CmdrTaco:(complain all you want posters! I'm abusing my privilage!)
Accipiter:as CmdrTaco would have you believe in his *cough* 'privilage' *cough* abuse.
What's more ironic a flame about bad spelling, or a flame about spelling that flames the original flame? Certainly the irony of the latter was enough for me to respond.
Jackie Chan deserves a lot of the credit, bringing the genre to the attention of Hollywood studios and many moviegoers.
Along with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, etc...
This is an honest Grade B comedy, playing off a few very good lines, lots of well-choreographed martial arts battles -- one goes up the side of a building under construction
actually, it's already built with people living in it; and the building has scaffolding around it.
another takes place in a steam bath with combatants clad only in towels.
They're mostly in bath robes and it's a massage parlor.
I don't know what it will take for Katz to call a movie Grade A, or good, but atleast he conceded that this one is enjoyable. I, on the other hand, judge movies by how well they tell their story. If it's a comedy and it makes me laugh, by definition it was good. I had a good time watching this one and hope Katz is right about it being a franchise (something they elude to in the outtakes.)
Oh yeah, there was a trailer for Fellowship of the Ring in front of this one.
I've gone and hit the addresses showing up in my logs and I haven't seen the tell-tale 'Hacked by Chinese' message. Seems like the new Code Red also leaves the default site at the IP address alone, making it less obvious that a server is infected. Joy.
Of the more than 100 unique messages I send out this weekend, more than 80% completly bounced because there was no abuse/webmaster/hostmaster alias.
The only required, by RFC, email alias is 'postmaster.' While the others you mention are common, they are not required and no one should be begrudged for not having them.
email aliases like abuse, webmaster and hostmaster are not common on windows-machines.
Individual hosts aren't required to support email at all. Any registered domain must have someone who receives postmaster@domain, but that's it.
Also, keep in mind that most people who are infected with this virus DO NOT know they are running IIS. You'd be better off complaining to the people who are the authority for the IP address (check whois.arin.net) and let them track down and fix the host on that address.
I wonder what other of Neal's visions will come to pass
I was wondering the same thing when I read Snow Crash. I was thinking that it all sounded like a bleak, but possible, future for the Internet. Then, by chance, I looked at the copyright (1989, iirc) and was immediately struck dumb by how much he did have right already, considering. Even if he had been using the 'net in the late 80's, the book is still pretty visionary about where it's going/went.
Now Microsoft probably used that as a reason to not let Dell stick AOL icons on the desktop or something, so the option is gone.
Dell did this for reasons related to themselves and Linux. Clouding the issue with Microsoft is a cop out without some sort of evidence to back it up. I'd love to see manufacturers support Linux as a desktop alternative, but there is a base cost to supporting an operating system that needs to be divided over the number of units sold. If they're not selling enough units to support Linux at a profit, they'd be dumb not to drop it.
Rather than assuming they were strong-armed by Microsoft, give them credit for trying to do it too early and hope they'll reconsider if/when Linux is really ready for mass use on the desktop (if it ever should be.)
I have a bad feeling that it's not putting out the ratings Fox wants, nor is it getting the ratings it deserves.
The show is great. The problem is that Fox treats it like some kind of bastard step-child. The best way to kill a show is to move it around the schedule and make it disappear for months at a time. Rabid fans will follow it, but the bulk of the viewers, ones who settle into a routine viewing schedule, will give up on it, or assume it has been cancelled.
What is wrong with it if it is what the user wants?
By purchasing the right keywords, you can destabilize a competitor's website using this. For example, let's say you're running a travel news site. By purchasing the word 'travel', people who visit cnn.com and click 'travel' in the navigation will be shown a link to your site as well as the option to go to the actual link location. Even if the user understands what's going on, which is by no means a certainty (remember that people are getting this software without realizing it), it still infringes on CNN's rights.
It was installed in the license you stupid fuck, its right at the top, they didn't even try to hide it. DUH!
I don't know which license you read, but I saw no mention of this software in the one I read. Nor is it mentioned any place on their (Kazaa's) website. Care to quote your source, perhaps provide a URL.
Wrong. I am under no illusions that these links are from Slashdot. If you want to argue "public confusion", that's a different issue.
Public confusion is exactly the point. You download a program to share files, mindlessly click through the default install, and presto, your web browser is now adding links to pages. I think most people wouldn't even realize the cause and effect here and would very likely think that the links *are* part of the site.
Kazaa does not disclose that this software will be installed anywhere except the install process. If you don't uncheck the box (or even know why you should, after all you want ALL the features of the software your installing, right?) TOPtext is installed. It's an opt-out system that doesn't even disclose what you'd be opting out of.
Also, TOPtext doesn't just highlight plain text. It'll also change existing hyperlinks if somewhat has bought that keyword from them. Instead of linking to what the author intended, it presents optional links, of which the original is only one with advertiser(s) making up the rest.
I would be fine with all of the things it does if they a) told people what they were opting-in for and b) made it opt-in. I agree with you that people should have the right to choose, but we shouldn't be forced to make a choice. That's the fundamental problem with opt-out. They're effectively saying "We've made this choice for you, now choose to undo it, if you don't agree."
There are a couple of differences between the google method you mention and the TOPtext software:
First, you know you're the one changing the appearance. Undoubtedly, many of the people who've installed TOPtext do not even know they've done so, so they don't know that they're the ones adding the yellow links.
Second, if a TOPtext link was already a hyperlink, the original link simply becomes an option presented by TOPtext along with the paid advertiser(s).
It is an issue of discloser and of opting in instead of opting out. Kazaa makes no disclosure of the fact that TOPtext will also be installed except as a checked checkbox in the install process itself. It's not mentioned anywhere on their site or in the license.
Has anyone found anyplace where this is disclosed other than as a default install option? There's no mention in the license, terms of use, faq, installation guide, or anywhere else on their site.
Is having a checked checkbox really all they need to do this? If I add a checkbox to software I'm distributing that says "reformat my hard drive" and then do so if they leave it checked, do I have no liablity?
Well this program 'only' puts a yellow underline under certain keywords in the text.
According to the article from the SF Chronicle, it also highlights text that is already a link, leaving the original intent for the link as simply one of hte options presented when the text is clicked. This is simply wrong.
If the highlighted Web site word was also a hyperlink, the TOPtext gives a choice of going to the original destination or the advertiser's site.
Holy hijacked surfers, Batman. It's bad enough that it changes your site in the eyes of the visitors, but screwing with your own navigation is over the top. It's one thing to turn normal text into links, but changing the links on a site is something else entirely.
Clearly, people who are downloading and installing the Kazan software are not expecting 'TopTen' to be installed as well. Sure, you don't have to install it, but you will by default.
I wonder how this is really any different from a kind of Trojan Horse style of crack. If they're not doing more to disclose this at install than a non-descript checkbox (e.g., including it in the license) then they should be charged, criminally, with cracking the computers of their users.
Downloading and installing free software should not give the software producer the right to do what they will to your computer. Sneaking it into the install process should be criminal if it isn't already.
It does take some practice, but with TiVo's jump-back feature, you can usually get the timing down to get back to the show perfectly on time.
Actually, my problem with the max FF (is it really 60x?) is that my hand-eye coordination is too fast for it. The auto-correct feature of the TiVo fast forward is supposed to jump you back to the start of what you want to watch based on when you see it and press play. The auto-correct on max FF goes back almost 30 seconds too far for me. I use the middle setting (15x, I think). At that speed, the commercials are something like 2 seconds each and the auto-correct works perfect for me.
I do all of my tv watching via TiVo now, and personally I think this report is rubbish in regards to branding and advertising. My rebuttal, in no particular order:
First, people who use a PVR do watch more tv. As a result, they are exposed to more ads during the same time period then they were before.
At least on TiVo, it is impossible to skip over the commercials. Even on maximum fast forward, which is mighty tricky to stop with precision, you get the gist of the commercials and the advertisers still get brand recognition.
Many networks use station branding to fill gaps in their commercial windows (which can be seen even during fast forward) and many place little visual "bugs" in the corner of the programming itself. (TNT is particularly annoying in this regard.)
While 12% couldn't say which network the show was on, atleast that many wouldn't have watched it at all had it not been for their PVR. Ain't statistics great. Think about it. Wouldn't you rather have viewers, even if they don't know who you are, than not have them. If they don't know what network the show is on, how were they gonna watch it without the PVR; and for many shows, who's gonna stay up to 4am to watch it.
Networks may get better ad revenue at night, eventually. I regularly record programming that I wouldn't stay up for. As PVRs become more common place and rating systems catch on, the time of day a show airs will become less relevant to the pricing for its advertising.
Many of the described problems can be addressed through simple changes if the networks care. For example, if you want to record a half-hour show starting at 8:30 and running to 9:00, the PVR will start at 8:30 and run to 9:00. Instead of starting the program at 8:30:00, start it at 8:30:05 and preceed it with 5 seconds of "You're watching ____."
Notepad is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a word processor. That's what wordpad is for.
Notepad is a tool for editing scripts and config files; a graphical alternative to the DOS edit command. Sure, you *can* do other things with it, but that's not its purpose. (Just like you can pound in screws with a hammer.)
Has it crossed no-ones mind that the modified apes could have bred with unmodified apes, producing offspring that resembled the unmodified species but with higher intelligence, strength, etc.?
Well, let's assume that there were already apes on the planet. Exactly how modified would chimps (the only primates on the ship) need to be to mate with them naturally?
A more plausable theory is that of spontaneous, rather than gradual, evolution. It is possible that the chimps, exposed to a sufficiently different environment, could have evolved in a single, or very few generations.
I've heard this theory used to explain some of the apparently sudden stops/starts of related species evolving on earth.
While there are ways to explain away the problem, Burton made no effort to do so. It could have been done in a few seconds as part of the Oberion's logs, or during the father's deathbed speech. He should have know that people would have a hard time suspending disbelief. It's possible to explain away much of the apparent goofs in the movie if you want to spend time doing it, but it still screws up the movie if you have to sit there wondering "what the fsck?" while the movie moves on. Burton, or his writer, was just lazy about the science.
If it was not the Earth how does the Statue of Liberty end there?
Have you seen the *new* Planet of the Apes that just came out? The Statue of Liberty is not in it. This movie is not a retelling of the original story.
Can someone fill us in, how did the first one end?
Note: First movie was made during height of the cold war. American space ship crashes on planet dominated by Apes, but there are humans. Like this movie, it's pretty clear they've gone forward in time.
Ending: Heston, riding away along a coast from the Apes, along with a freed human female, comes across the remains of the Statue of Liberty, suggesting, as the Heston character points out, that most of humankind has blown itself up leaving the world to the Apes.
I saw the movie on Friday and although I liked it, it had some major problems:
Starting the movie in 2029 isn't really a problem. But the technological leaps made in 28 years are staggering. Artificial gravity? Long-range, manned space flight? The Oberion (sp?) appears to be in orbit around Saturn, but it can't be unless the storm also moves you through space as well as time. The planet is not Earth (note the three moons.) So the planet isn't in our solar system.
We know he's going forward through time, about 600+ years, and yet the monkeys have evolved dramatically (into other species infact) over that time period. Perhaps the Oberion went backwards in time when the storm hit it, but that seems unlikely and isn't supported by the Apes timeline.
Are we to believe that enough people survived the crash of the Oberion and the slave rebellion of the monkeys that they could grow a human population that is "four times" that of the Apes.
The ending makes no sense at all except to setup the inevitable sequel. I agree with Katz on this. It was shockingly stupid, even by comparison to the balance of the movie.
I did enjoy the movie and found it to be a welcome retelling. I think Wahlberg did a fine job in the lead. The story doesn't require the stereotypical hollywood hero actor. The character is clearly a reluctant hero, at best, and Wahlberg is well suited for it.
Slashdot Mirror
jcostom, please follow the ball:
CmdrTaco: (complain all you want posters! I'm abusing my privilage!)
Accipiter: as CmdrTaco would have you believe in his *cough* 'privilage' *cough* abuse.
What's more ironic a flame about bad spelling, or a flame about spelling that flames the original flame? Certainly the irony of the latter was enough for me to respond.
one of the mysterious Hong Kong Triads - yes, they're in Lethal Weapon also --
Lethal Weapon 4, actually, but who's counting.
Jackie Chan deserves a lot of the credit, bringing the genre to the attention of Hollywood studios and many moviegoers.
Along with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, etc...
This is an honest Grade B comedy, playing off a few very good lines, lots of well-choreographed martial arts battles -- one goes up the side of a building under construction
actually, it's already built with people living in it; and the building has scaffolding around it.
another takes place in a steam bath with combatants clad only in towels.
They're mostly in bath robes and it's a massage parlor.
I don't know what it will take for Katz to call a movie Grade A, or good, but atleast he conceded that this one is enjoyable. I, on the other hand, judge movies by how well they tell their story. If it's a comedy and it makes me laugh, by definition it was good. I had a good time watching this one and hope Katz is right about it being a franchise (something they elude to in the outtakes.)
Oh yeah, there was a trailer for Fellowship of the Ring in front of this one.
I've gone and hit the addresses showing up in my logs and I haven't seen the tell-tale 'Hacked by Chinese' message. Seems like the new Code Red also leaves the default site at the IP address alone, making it less obvious that a server is infected. Joy.
Of the more than 100 unique messages I send out this weekend, more than 80% completly bounced because there was no abuse/webmaster/hostmaster alias.
The only required, by RFC, email alias is 'postmaster.' While the others you mention are common, they are not required and no one should be begrudged for not having them.
email aliases like abuse, webmaster and hostmaster are not common on windows-machines.
Individual hosts aren't required to support email at all. Any registered domain must have someone who receives postmaster@domain, but that's it.
Also, keep in mind that most people who are infected with this virus DO NOT know they are running IIS. You'd be better off complaining to the people who are the authority for the IP address (check whois.arin.net) and let them track down and fix the host on that address.
To see them come in live:
tail -f [log_file] | grep default.ida
To see just CR2, s/default.ida/default.ida\?XXX/
I got three while writing this. I was wondering what was slowing things down tonight.
I wonder what other of Neal's visions will come to pass
I was wondering the same thing when I read Snow Crash. I was thinking that it all sounded like a bleak, but possible, future for the Internet. Then, by chance, I looked at the copyright (1989, iirc) and was immediately struck dumb by how much he did have right already, considering. Even if he had been using the 'net in the late 80's, the book is still pretty visionary about where it's going/went.
I was with you up until this:
Now Microsoft probably used that as a reason to not let Dell stick AOL icons on the desktop or something, so the option is gone.
Dell did this for reasons related to themselves and Linux. Clouding the issue with Microsoft is a cop out without some sort of evidence to back it up. I'd love to see manufacturers support Linux as a desktop alternative, but there is a base cost to supporting an operating system that needs to be divided over the number of units sold. If they're not selling enough units to support Linux at a profit, they'd be dumb not to drop it.
Rather than assuming they were strong-armed by Microsoft, give them credit for trying to do it too early and hope they'll reconsider if/when Linux is really ready for mass use on the desktop (if it ever should be.)
I have a bad feeling that it's not putting out the ratings Fox wants, nor is it getting the ratings it deserves.
The show is great. The problem is that Fox treats it like some kind of bastard step-child. The best way to kill a show is to move it around the schedule and make it disappear for months at a time. Rabid fans will follow it, but the bulk of the viewers, ones who settle into a routine viewing schedule, will give up on it, or assume it has been cancelled.
What is wrong with it if it is what the user wants?
By purchasing the right keywords, you can destabilize a competitor's website using this. For example, let's say you're running a travel news site. By purchasing the word 'travel', people who visit cnn.com and click 'travel' in the navigation will be shown a link to your site as well as the option to go to the actual link location. Even if the user understands what's going on, which is by no means a certainty (remember that people are getting this software without realizing it), it still infringes on CNN's rights.
Big words from an AC:
It was installed in the license you stupid fuck, its right at the top, they didn't even try to hide it. DUH!
I don't know which license you read, but I saw no mention of this software in the one I read. Nor is it mentioned any place on their (Kazaa's) website. Care to quote your source, perhaps provide a URL.
Wrong. I am under no illusions that these links are from Slashdot. If you want to argue "public confusion", that's a different issue.
Public confusion is exactly the point. You download a program to share files, mindlessly click through the default install, and presto, your web browser is now adding links to pages. I think most people wouldn't even realize the cause and effect here and would very likely think that the links *are* part of the site.
Kazaa does not disclose that this software will be installed anywhere except the install process. If you don't uncheck the box (or even know why you should, after all you want ALL the features of the software your installing, right?) TOPtext is installed. It's an opt-out system that doesn't even disclose what you'd be opting out of.
Also, TOPtext doesn't just highlight plain text. It'll also change existing hyperlinks if somewhat has bought that keyword from them. Instead of linking to what the author intended, it presents optional links, of which the original is only one with advertiser(s) making up the rest.
I would be fine with all of the things it does if they a) told people what they were opting-in for and b) made it opt-in. I agree with you that people should have the right to choose, but we shouldn't be forced to make a choice. That's the fundamental problem with opt-out. They're effectively saying "We've made this choice for you, now choose to undo it, if you don't agree."
well, isn't that modifying the content?
There are a couple of differences between the google method you mention and the TOPtext software:
First, you know you're the one changing the appearance. Undoubtedly, many of the people who've installed TOPtext do not even know they've done so, so they don't know that they're the ones adding the yellow links.
Second, if a TOPtext link was already a hyperlink, the original link simply becomes an option presented by TOPtext along with the paid advertiser(s).
It is an issue of discloser and of opting in instead of opting out. Kazaa makes no disclosure of the fact that TOPtext will also be installed except as a checked checkbox in the install process itself. It's not mentioned anywhere on their site or in the license.
Has anyone found anyplace where this is disclosed other than as a default install option? There's no mention in the license, terms of use, faq, installation guide, or anywhere else on their site.
Is having a checked checkbox really all they need to do this? If I add a checkbox to software I'm distributing that says "reformat my hard drive" and then do so if they leave it checked, do I have no liablity?
Well this program 'only' puts a yellow underline under certain keywords in the text.
According to the article from the SF Chronicle, it also highlights text that is already a link, leaving the original intent for the link as simply one of hte options presented when the text is clicked. This is simply wrong.
From the article:
If the highlighted Web site word was also a hyperlink, the TOPtext gives a choice of going to the original destination or the advertiser's site.
Holy hijacked surfers, Batman. It's bad enough that it changes your site in the eyes of the visitors, but screwing with your own navigation is over the top. It's one thing to turn normal text into links, but changing the links on a site is something else entirely.
These people need to be sued.
Clearly, people who are downloading and installing the Kazan software are not expecting 'TopTen' to be installed as well. Sure, you don't have to install it, but you will by default.
I wonder how this is really any different from a kind of Trojan Horse style of crack. If they're not doing more to disclose this at install than a non-descript checkbox (e.g., including it in the license) then they should be charged, criminally, with cracking the computers of their users.
Downloading and installing free software should not give the software producer the right to do what they will to your computer. Sneaking it into the install process should be criminal if it isn't already.
It does take some practice, but with TiVo's jump-back feature, you can usually get the timing down to get back to the show perfectly on time.
Actually, my problem with the max FF (is it really 60x?) is that my hand-eye coordination is too fast for it. The auto-correct feature of the TiVo fast forward is supposed to jump you back to the start of what you want to watch based on when you see it and press play. The auto-correct on max FF goes back almost 30 seconds too far for me. I use the middle setting (15x, I think). At that speed, the commercials are something like 2 seconds each and the auto-correct works perfect for me.
I do all of my tv watching via TiVo now, and personally I think this report is rubbish in regards to branding and advertising. My rebuttal, in no particular order:
First, people who use a PVR do watch more tv. As a result, they are exposed to more ads during the same time period then they were before.
At least on TiVo, it is impossible to skip over the commercials. Even on maximum fast forward, which is mighty tricky to stop with precision, you get the gist of the commercials and the advertisers still get brand recognition.
Many networks use station branding to fill gaps in their commercial windows (which can be seen even during fast forward) and many place little visual "bugs" in the corner of the programming itself. (TNT is particularly annoying in this regard.)
While 12% couldn't say which network the show was on, atleast that many wouldn't have watched it at all had it not been for their PVR. Ain't statistics great. Think about it. Wouldn't you rather have viewers, even if they don't know who you are, than not have them. If they don't know what network the show is on, how were they gonna watch it without the PVR; and for many shows, who's gonna stay up to 4am to watch it.
Networks may get better ad revenue at night, eventually. I regularly record programming that I wouldn't stay up for. As PVRs become more common place and rating systems catch on, the time of day a show airs will become less relevant to the pricing for its advertising.
Many of the described problems can be addressed through simple changes if the networks care. For example, if you want to record a half-hour show starting at 8:30 and running to 9:00, the PVR will start at 8:30 and run to 9:00. Instead of starting the program at 8:30:00, start it at 8:30:05 and preceed it with 5 seconds of "You're watching ____."
I'd be happy if Notepad had three new features:
Would you use a hammer to drive screws?
Notepad is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a word processor. That's what wordpad is for.
Notepad is a tool for editing scripts and config files; a graphical alternative to the DOS edit command. Sure, you *can* do other things with it, but that's not its purpose. (Just like you can pound in screws with a hammer.)
Has it crossed no-ones mind that the modified apes could have bred with unmodified apes, producing offspring that resembled the unmodified species but with higher intelligence, strength, etc.?
Well, let's assume that there were already apes on the planet. Exactly how modified would chimps (the only primates on the ship) need to be to mate with them naturally?
A more plausable theory is that of spontaneous, rather than gradual, evolution. It is possible that the chimps, exposed to a sufficiently different environment, could have evolved in a single, or very few generations.
I've heard this theory used to explain some of the apparently sudden stops/starts of related species evolving on earth.
While there are ways to explain away the problem, Burton made no effort to do so. It could have been done in a few seconds as part of the Oberion's logs, or during the father's deathbed speech. He should have know that people would have a hard time suspending disbelief. It's possible to explain away much of the apparent goofs in the movie if you want to spend time doing it, but it still screws up the movie if you have to sit there wondering "what the fsck?" while the movie moves on. Burton, or his writer, was just lazy about the science.
If it was not the Earth how does the Statue of Liberty end there?
Have you seen the *new* Planet of the Apes that just came out? The Statue of Liberty is not in it. This movie is not a retelling of the original story.
Can someone fill us in, how did the first one end?
Note: First movie was made during height of the cold war. American space ship crashes on planet dominated by Apes, but there are humans. Like this movie, it's pretty clear they've gone forward in time.
Ending: Heston, riding away along a coast from the Apes, along with a freed human female, comes across the remains of the Statue of Liberty, suggesting, as the Heston character points out, that most of humankind has blown itself up leaving the world to the Apes.
- Starting the movie in 2029 isn't really a problem. But the technological leaps made in 28 years are staggering. Artificial gravity? Long-range, manned space flight? The Oberion (sp?) appears to be in orbit around Saturn, but it can't be unless the storm also moves you through space as well as time. The planet is not Earth (note the three moons.) So the planet isn't in our solar system.
- We know he's going forward through time, about 600+ years, and yet the monkeys have evolved dramatically (into other species infact) over that time period. Perhaps the Oberion went backwards in time when the storm hit it, but that seems unlikely and isn't supported by the Apes timeline.
- Are we to believe that enough people survived the crash of the Oberion and the slave rebellion of the monkeys that they could grow a human population that is "four times" that of the Apes.
- The ending makes no sense at all except to setup the inevitable sequel. I agree with Katz on this. It was shockingly stupid, even by comparison to the balance of the movie.
I did enjoy the movie and found it to be a welcome retelling. I think Wahlberg did a fine job in the lead. The story doesn't require the stereotypical hollywood hero actor. The character is clearly a reluctant hero, at best, and Wahlberg is well suited for it.It was not Earth. Note the following:
everyone will be given a /48...
Should make DNS pretty interesting. I sense a great need on the part of ISPs to provide an interface to let customers handle their own DNS.