No one ever went bankrupt overestimating the stupidity of the American public.
The moment you use the rationale "People aren't that stupid" to say why something can't happen, they you've already lost the argument.:)
People buy things from Spam and give out their personal details in response to bulk e-mail. I'm sorry, but many people are dumb as rocks.
Besides, we already know what 127.0.0.1 is, but how's a novice to know this, if all they know of computers is what they've picked up in a few weeks of experimenting?
I don't find this implausible at all. Even the fact that the "hacker" never made the connection between their hack attempts and being disconnected is consistent with what I've seen of human nature. I used to have an employee who blew five fuses on her UPS and didn't realize that it happened every time she plugged her space heater into the UPS!
I had her plug the Space Heater into the wall, and the UPS stopped blowing fuses.
Woah, 90's Flash back!... and they still think they can beat Netscape to the game. When are they going to realize that what made Netscape so successfull(sp) was the fact that is has been so unbiased in all ways imaginable.
Netscape makes money by prioritising(sp) quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising(sp) money.
If the alternative is legislation that would prevent games from even being released, letting parents have some control over what their kids do and do not play is an acceptable compromise. I see no difference between this and the lock you could get to prevent kids from plugging a cartridge into the original Nintendo.
Don't be silly. It's not science fiction. It's just fiction. No science about it, as that would confuse most of their target audience. Remember, as Barbi said "Math is hard," and you need math to do science, so science must be hard!
Not Gay myself, but I have enough Gay friends to not be fond of someone who wants priests to stop ministering to gays and lesbians.
From the article:
A nun who was ordered by Ratzinger to stop ministering to gays and lesbians called his election to pope "devastating" for those who believe the Catholic Church needs to be more tolerant on social issues such as homosexuality.
This is about getting Adobe to pay licensing fees. Making high end consumers scream at Adobe for not supporting the high end cameras their egos MADE them buy is a good way to do it.
Don't think for a moment that Nikon will take heat for this, Adobe will get grief for not supporting a "simple file format" and Nikon will get off with some insults on Slashdot and a fat licensing fee from Adobe.
The people who spend $5k on a camera never blame the hardware if they can blame software instead.
No, the people who buy the cameras will complain endlessly about the Photoshop software that can't support the files form their cameras, and conclude their camera is just too advanced for Photoshop to handle.
Remember, photographers never blame hardware when there's software to take the rap.
I used to have a boss who nearly fired me when he found out I was using OpenOffice, because he insisted that anything I wrote using it would be "Open Sourced" as a result. I'd like to point out that the difference between a word processor and a text editor was over his head, and he thought I wrote my code in it as well.
I countered with "If that were true, Microsoft would own the copyright to everything you write with Word."
You could see the gears in his head seize at the thought. After close to a minute he said "But we only have on copy. We'll just pick one machine and say that's what Microsoft owns."
This is about getting Adobe to pay licensing fees. Making high end consumers scream at Adobe for not supporting the high end cameras their egos MADE them buy is a good way to do it.
Don;t think for a moment that Nikon will take the heat for this, Adobe will get grief for not supporting a "simple file format" and Nikon will get off with some insults on Slashdot and a fat licensing fee from Adobe.
I support software that is currently dealing with the "Users want RAW and we don't read all the RAW formats yet" battle. Trust me, the people who spend $5k on a camera never blame the hardware if they can blame software instead.
Damn, and me without Mod Points. My current employer makes digital asset management software, and we're not enthused about clients calling up and saying "Do you support RAW format?"
A reply of "What camera are you using?" frequently gets a disdainful "You must be an idiot" style reply that can only come from the arrogant ignorant when they're wrong, but are convinced they're right. (Everyone whose ever answered a tech support line knows exactly what I mean)
It's amazing how many people are out there using these cameras and are convinced that "Raw" is some universal standard that everyone's supporting.
Every see the movie Sneakers? The object everyone is after is a chunk of hardware that cracks hashes. If these guys really did have something that could crack hashes so easily, SSL and just about every encryption scheme on the planet would be cracked wide open in the process.
Second, because the open source version gives more game play options and can be tweaked more. Other posts on this story go into more detail.
Third, Linux support without Wine or other emulators.
Finally, platform support. The hackers can always port FreeCiv to the latest and greatest OS/Hardware combo, assuming there's enough interest in such a port. Civ 3 is already broken on XP SP2, and may not be fixed, but Freeciv, if it were broken, would likely have a patch out within a few weeks or even days.
Think that's bad, take a look at nethack, with graphics stuck in the 70's!
The graphics lag a bit because the developers focus on game play and features. I'm sure there are a lot of people who also keep their old computers around for "retro" gaming, so their families can have the latest and greatest hardware for converting home movies to DVD or playing games with lots of fancy graphics.
There's also going to be a bit of nostalgia on the part of the people who played the original Civ.
Besides, games of this nature don't really lend themselves to "fancy" graphics. IF the graphics are decent, clean and easy to understand, they meet the design goals.
Does Monopoly have photo realistic images on the cards, and hand carved hotels? Nope.
I'm not trying to be a wise ass here, I'm just pointing out that the people to whom the game is targeted care more about how fun it is to play than how it looks, and will probably have some rather harsh things to say about the attention span and IQ of anyone who thinks a game can't be fun or worth playing if it's graphics aren't the latest and greatest.
I agree. If the site is going to use annoying advertising methods, then I'll block them. They're welcome to redesign their site so you can't get at the content without seeing the ads. If they do, I'll just stop going to those sites.
In most cases, I'll also avoid entire companies if their ads annoy me. Want to guarantee it'll be a couple of years before I buy anything from you? Annoy me with a bad ad.
I refused to book anything through Orbitz for years because of a really annoying banner ad campaign that got in my face and annoyed me for a couple of months. Two months of "branding" on the sites I frequented at the time got them added to my personal black list. I was amused when their site started having "problems" whenever the sales staff tried to access it form work. Of course, the network admin was far more pissed at them than I was.
The sites that use pop sunders or pop overs that Firefox doesn't block get added to my hosts file as 127.0.0.1.
Google and text ads, along with most banner ads, I leave as is. I view those, because they don't jump, pop or do anything else to annoy me.
On a side note, the only ads that's ever gotten me to actually buy anything were Google ads.
The story doesn't get posted on/. until someone is willing to trade sexual favors in exchange for getting their article published. As a result, there'll always be some lag time between when a story breaks and when it gets posted.
First, someone needs to notice it, and get emotionally involved.
Next, someone needs to care enough to trade sexual favors.
Then, someone actually has to shag one of the/. editors. (I hear this is the shortest step, and actually adds very little in terms of lag time)
Finally, the article gets posted for all the/. readers to enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
But then all the exploit writers hanging out on IRC would be denied the humor newbies provide when they try to hack.
No one ever went bankrupt overestimating the stupidity of the American public.
:)
The moment you use the rationale "People aren't that stupid" to say why something can't happen, they you've already lost the argument.
People buy things from Spam and give out their personal details in response to bulk e-mail. I'm sorry, but many people are dumb as rocks.
Besides, we already know what 127.0.0.1 is, but how's a novice to know this, if all they know of computers is what they've picked up in a few weeks of experimenting?
I don't find this implausible at all. Even the fact that the "hacker" never made the connection between their hack attempts and being disconnected is consistent with what I've seen of human nature. I used to have an employee who blew five fuses on her UPS and didn't realize that it happened every time she plugged her space heater into the UPS!
I had her plug the Space Heater into the wall, and the UPS stopped blowing fuses.
MS have already set their sights on Google; they're dead in the water.
They're already dead, they just don't know enough to shut down their servers?
It's fake!?!?!?!?!
Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woah, 90's Flash back! ... and they still think they can beat Netscape to the game. When are they going to realize that what made Netscape so successfull(sp) was the fact that is has been so unbiased in all ways imaginable.
Netscape makes money by prioritising(sp) quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising(sp) money.
Go figure.
If the alternative is legislation that would prevent games from even being released, letting parents have some control over what their kids do and do not play is an acceptable compromise. I see no difference between this and the lock you could get to prevent kids from plugging a cartridge into the original Nintendo.
Don't be silly. It's not science fiction. It's just fiction. No science about it, as that would confuse most of their target audience. Remember, as Barbi said "Math is hard," and you need math to do science, so science must be hard!
if I were to figure out a way to make love to google
Heh, what do you think slashdot does now?
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
Is this headline better?
Extreme Homophobe Ratzinger Elected New Pope
Not Gay myself, but I have enough Gay friends to not be fond of someone who wants priests to stop ministering to gays and lesbians.
From the article:
A nun who was ordered by Ratzinger to stop ministering to gays and lesbians called his election to pope "devastating" for those who believe the Catholic Church needs to be more tolerant on social issues such as homosexuality.
Yeah, he's a real peach, isn't he?
Or are you just a disgruntled liberal ex-Catholic looking for a whipping boy?
LOL
Protestant.
We have a long history of baiting Catholics.
Oh, Office wasn't the big deal.
The 12 CPUs on 6 servers running MS SQL Enterprise on the other hand, that I should report.
Google ads don't annoy me. Fraud hurts their business model, and as a result may cause them to go away.
At which point we'll be left with pop-overs, pop-unders, flash and every other annoying thing marketing slime can come up with.
Click Fraud hurts my web browsing experience.
This is about getting Adobe to pay licensing fees. Making high end consumers scream at Adobe for not supporting the high end cameras their egos MADE them buy is a good way to do it.
Don't think for a moment that Nikon will take heat for this, Adobe will get grief for not supporting a "simple file format" and Nikon will get off with some insults on Slashdot and a fat licensing fee from Adobe.
The people who spend $5k on a camera never blame the hardware if they can blame software instead.
No, the people who buy the cameras will complain endlessly about the Photoshop software that can't support the files form their cameras, and conclude their camera is just too advanced for Photoshop to handle.
Remember, photographers never blame hardware when there's software to take the rap.
I used to have a boss who nearly fired me when he found out I was using OpenOffice, because he insisted that anything I wrote using it would be "Open Sourced" as a result. I'd like to point out that the difference between a word processor and a text editor was over his head, and he thought I wrote my code in it as well.
I countered with "If that were true, Microsoft would own the copyright to everything you write with Word."
You could see the gears in his head seize at the thought. After close to a minute he said "But we only have on copy. We'll just pick one machine and say that's what Microsoft owns."
Yes folks, he rebutted me with software piracy.
In the end, I had to un-install OpenOffice
This is about getting Adobe to pay licensing fees. Making high end consumers scream at Adobe for not supporting the high end cameras their egos MADE them buy is a good way to do it.
Don;t think for a moment that Nikon will take the heat for this, Adobe will get grief for not supporting a "simple file format" and Nikon will get off with some insults on Slashdot and a fat licensing fee from Adobe.
I support software that is currently dealing with the "Users want RAW and we don't read all the RAW formats yet" battle. Trust me, the people who spend $5k on a camera never blame the hardware if they can blame software instead.
Damn, and me without Mod Points. My current employer makes digital asset management software, and we're not enthused about clients calling up and saying "Do you support RAW format?"
A reply of "What camera are you using?" frequently gets a disdainful "You must be an idiot" style reply that can only come from the arrogant ignorant when they're wrong, but are convinced they're right. (Everyone whose ever answered a tech support line knows exactly what I mean)
It's amazing how many people are out there using these cameras and are convinced that "Raw" is some universal standard that everyone's supporting.
If money is the goal, the RIAA is the better bet.
Every see the movie Sneakers? The object everyone is after is a chunk of hardware that cracks hashes. If these guys really did have something that could crack hashes so easily, SSL and just about every encryption scheme on the planet would be cracked wide open in the process.
First, for the challenge.
Second, because the open source version gives more game play options and can be tweaked more. Other posts on this story go into more detail.
Third, Linux support without Wine or other emulators.
Finally, platform support. The hackers can always port FreeCiv to the latest and greatest OS/Hardware combo, assuming there's enough interest in such a port. Civ 3 is already broken on XP SP2, and may not be fixed, but Freeciv, if it were broken, would likely have a patch out within a few weeks or even days.
Think that's bad, take a look at nethack, with graphics stuck in the 70's!
The graphics lag a bit because the developers focus on game play and features. I'm sure there are a lot of people who also keep their old computers around for "retro" gaming, so their families can have the latest and greatest hardware for converting home movies to DVD or playing games with lots of fancy graphics.
There's also going to be a bit of nostalgia on the part of the people who played the original Civ.
Besides, games of this nature don't really lend themselves to "fancy" graphics. IF the graphics are decent, clean and easy to understand, they meet the design goals.
Does Monopoly have photo realistic images on the cards, and hand carved hotels? Nope.
I'm not trying to be a wise ass here, I'm just pointing out that the people to whom the game is targeted care more about how fun it is to play than how it looks, and will probably have some rather harsh things to say about the attention span and IQ of anyone who thinks a game can't be fun or worth playing if it's graphics aren't the latest and greatest.
I agree. If the site is going to use annoying advertising methods, then I'll block them. They're welcome to redesign their site so you can't get at the content without seeing the ads. If they do, I'll just stop going to those sites.
In most cases, I'll also avoid entire companies if their ads annoy me. Want to guarantee it'll be a couple of years before I buy anything from you? Annoy me with a bad ad.
I refused to book anything through Orbitz for years because of a really annoying banner ad campaign that got in my face and annoyed me for a couple of months. Two months of "branding" on the sites I frequented at the time got them added to my personal black list. I was amused when their site started having "problems" whenever the sales staff tried to access it form work. Of course, the network admin was far more pissed at them than I was.
The sites that use pop sunders or pop overs that Firefox doesn't block get added to my hosts file as 127.0.0.1.
Google and text ads, along with most banner ads, I leave as is. I view those, because they don't jump, pop or do anything else to annoy me.
On a side note, the only ads that's ever gotten me to actually buy anything were Google ads.
OK, it's Scotland. What's your point?
But, but, I thought Lawyers were BAD.
Here they did something GOOD.
*head explodes*
The story doesn't get posted on /. until someone is willing to trade sexual favors in exchange for getting their article published. As a result, there'll always be some lag time between when a story breaks and when it gets posted.
/. editors. (I hear this is the shortest step, and actually adds very little in terms of lag time)
/. readers to enjoy.
First, someone needs to notice it, and get emotionally involved.
Next, someone needs to care enough to trade sexual favors.
Then, someone actually has to shag one of the
Finally, the article gets posted for all the