These aren't legal driver's licenses
on
Spammers Busted
·
· Score: 1
As the article stated, international driver's licenses are just translations of your existing driver's license. You can get them at most travel agencies.
She was the victim of another of our society's problems -- corporations who believe it will be cheaper to pay off (or toss aside) victims of their recklessness rather than do the right thing in the first place.
The only thing Stella Liebeck was a victim of was her own stupidity. You can scream about the 180 degree temp. all you want. But that still doesn't excuse Liebeck's actions of placing a hot beverage between her legs and spilling it. I don't know what planet you're from, but around these parts, coffee is always served hot unless the customer asks otherwise. Liebeck didn't ask for iced coffee or anything like that. She should've expected the coffee to be hot. But that didn't stop her from getting $2.7 million for her own stupidity.
The moral of this story is: spill hot coffee on your crotch and it's gonna burn. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to understand that.
Do people even still accept responsibility for their own actions anymore?
It's wrong for someone to write a program that exploits obvious problems with Microsoft outlook, but exploiting p2p or iMac firmware issues on CD players is a perfectly acceptable way to "get back at" those darned copyright infringers?
It's wrong to write viruses or exploits because they cause damage to the machines and the networks they're on (if applicable). Server overloading e-mail forwards, worms, malicious viruses that delete key system files...bad.
Putting false MP3s masquerading as whole songs is not wrong. It's actually pretty damn neat, much like when DirecTV fried the receiver cards of cable pirates. No harm is being done to the host machine or the network (well, except in the DirecTV scenario...but that's what you get for stealing cable). The only "harm" is that now you have to go search for the actual Eminem song you wanted.
Cry me a river. Buy the CD and be done with it, if you're really that interested in finding the actual song.
News flash: Most of the interstate highway system is free.
News flash: Your tax dollars paid for those highways.
Kuro5hin.org, the proof of concept democratic group blog, has already posted this, a few days earlier than slashdot. It got voted to front page.
So what? Kuro5hin's "democratic group" concept is flawed. Just try to submit a story, and most times, it'll be rejected for asinine things like a typo, or maybe enough people just didn't agree with the story.
Ever hear the statement "Too many cooks spoil the broth?" That's Kuro5hin for you.
IMO, one of the reasons why we don't see many of these hybrid cars on the road is because they look so damn stupid. Have you ever seen the Honda Insight? It looks like an old CRX, except it's more streamlined, and smaller.
Let's face it, we all want a car that gets good mileage, but we also want a car that looks good too. If we all cared about gas mileage, we'd be driving Geo Metros. But we aren't, because they are ugly cars that are slightly larger than a Matchbox car, and they wouldn't hold up in a fender bender. Everyone wants a big vehicle...not 1975 Cadillac big, but big enough to make us feel safe and look good at the same time. Most hybrids out there lack in the second department.
Auto manufacturers seem to be catching on, and they're starting to make hybrids of existing vehicles (the Honda Civic and Ford Escape come to mind). But they need to start cranking out hybrids of existing models that people like, or models that resemble the SDSU vehicle. Hell, I'd like to see a hybrid Volkswagen Jetta...not that they don't get good mileage as-is, especially if you have diesel. But that's besides the point.:)
Until the auto manufacturers start doing that, I don't think we'll see any general acceptance of hybrid vehicles, because nobody wants to plunk down the money for a silly looking electric Matchbox car.
Re:Blogs (and /.) are most definitely journalism!
on
Blogging for Dummies?
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot has original articles, interviews, and reviews, as well as links to other sites. It is not simply a directory. Ergo, it is rightly called journalism, IMO.
No it isn't. Yes, Slashdot has some original content, but the signal to noise ratio is way off balance. The majority of Slashdot is links to other sites, with editorial comments added in for the sake of it. A news digest? Maybe. Journalism? No. Throwing links around doesn't make the site a hotbed of journalistic goodness.
In a very broad and basic sense, yes, you could consider Slashdot and "blogs" to be "journalism." You could also consider someone who did a paint-by-numbers picture to be an "artist" as well. But in the end, you won't see that paint-by-numbers picture in an art museum, nor will you see Slashdot "journalism" in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal...or even your local hometown newspaper.
Why aren't personal journals journalism?
Because they are (usually) opinionated and show bias, both big no-nos in traditional journalism. Opinion writing is a part of journalism, but it is not what journalism is all about. That's why newspapers dedicate one or two pages to op-ed pieces.
You can call "blogs" journalism all you want, but until you've actually been in the trenches and worked with real journalists, who do it as a profession, you probably won't understand what journalism is all about.
Just because you link something on the web doesn't make it *not* journalism.
You're right. The key is actually putting your own original content with it as well. News outlets such as NBC or Fox will sometimes do stories on things "As first reported in the New York Times," but they will still add their own original content to it as well.
Sites like Kuro5hin (while they do have some gems) are, more or less, op-ed sites. People link to a story or two, and they'll add their own opinion or summarize the issue, maybe tossing in a few token links with more info. While opinion writing is a part of journalism, it is not journalism. If it was, then your local paper would be nothing but op-ed columns.
You can toss in as many links as you want. But unless you went out and did your own research and conducted interviews, don't call it journalism. It's link mining.
...Jon Katz is the closest thing/. has to a journalist.
First of all, Michael is right..."blog" has become extremely overused, much like "P2P." But that's besides the point.
Merely linking to news does not equal journalism. Slashdot isn't journalism. Kuro5hin isn't journalism. Yahoo's Full Coverage site isn't journalism. Hell, Fark isn't journalism. They are link farms. They find and post links to actual news stories across the world. While this makes for an easy-to-read digest of news and information, it does not mean the site becomes a seeming bastion of original journalism.
Real journalism, IMHO (speaking as one), is going out, researching a story, interviewing people, and putting together a concise unbiased story (keep your media bias arguments until the end of class kids). Journalism is not posting a link to a news story elsewhere, and then adding your own personal opinions or thoughts. While the Berkeley school is trying to avoid this, putting a "blog" label on it won't make any difference. Major news sites, like the New York Times and the Washington Post already post their news to the Internet in real time. Some even include "Comment on this story" links as well.
Take away the personal opinions and rambling links, and you don't have a so-called "blog." You have an online news site, just like the big boys. Calling it a "blog" doesn't give any more "hipness" or credibility.
I wish everyone would get over this stupid "BLOGS ARE THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM" crap. You know what? They aren't.
Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man?
on
Live from Iran, Film88
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sharing information is clearly a moral and good thing to do.
Let's define what information is then, shall we?
Directions to the nearest gas station;
When SciFi will be showing MST3K;
How much sugar to put in homemade lemonade;
Where the speed traps are on a highway;
How to install a modem in your computer
That's information. Information is not:
Eminem's latest CD (that's music);
Windows NT (that's software, or a utility if you wanted to call it that);
Spider Man (that's a movie)
Humanity reveres information sharing. Humanity looks down on theft. Get it right.
Good quality CD = 5 guys, 1 computer, 1 good recording device, 1 good sound software package.
Sure, that would work...if you were a GARAGE BAND.
First of all, most recording and mixing is still done in analog fashion (tape), and everything still goes through a mixing board (and those aren't cheap by any long stretch). And if computers are used, I can tell you from first-hand experience, more than just one paltry computer is used. Let's not forget about microphones either. You need mics for each sound source...every instrument, every voice. Some quality uni-directional mics (for recording vocals) can cost up to $20,000. And how about the costs of studio rental? You think everyone records their music in their basement? Get real!
And of course, there's the support people. You gotta pay for a producer (the better they are, the more expensive they come), an engineer, a mixer, the guitar and drum techs, and of course, who can forget the lawyer and accountants? Don't tell me they aren't necessary, because I'll bet my bottom dollar that companies like Blizzard have someone to work the books, and someone to handle the legalese.
While we're at it, how about instruments? A Fender Stratocaster and a Marshall stack will set you back about $5000 at least. You think a group like the Eagles (or any other big-name act) will settle for some practice amps and cheap Stratocaster knock-offs? Hell, they'd laugh at you if you suggested that to them.
Time to make good quality CD (if done right and the musicians know their stuff) : Say a week of recording, full time. And even this is quite long. Add on a week of mixing, full time, for only one guy.
Again, sure, if you're a GARAGE BAND. Nirvana's "Nevermind" album took two months for actual song recording, and an additional month for mixing. Sure, it could take a week, "if done right and the musicians know their stuff." And maybe we'd have world peace, "if people would stop killing each other." Be realistic, it can take up to two months for studio recording, and then an extra month or two for mixing. Unless, of course, that's if you don't mind if your final product sounds like shit.
You say it takes a lot of people and time to put out a quality video game. That's true. It also takes a lot of people and time to put out a quality music CD. You obviously fail to see that.
If anyone owns the X-Files: Key of X soundtrack, the whole dang conspiracy is explained at the end of the CD's final track (around 10:13 or so). Some of us are already ahead of the game (and time zones I guess).:)
You're surfing the Internet on your employer's time
Your employer is paying the bill for the T3 (or whatever)
And you think you have the right to surf the Internet while at work? When you're on the company's time, you're supposed to be working...not bidding on crap on eBay.
Would someone please tell timothy what censorship is? This story doesn't even come close to the definition.
"The first amendment supercedes all previously passed articles."
Just because the First Amendment is the first one in the Constitution doesn't make it the most important one. Hell, IIRC, there were two amendments before the First Amendment that didn't make it, which is why the First Amendment is the first one.
The Supreme Court has ruled, time after time, that speech can be prohibited if there is a substantial state or governmental interest that backs the argument for prohibiting the speech. If you think I'm wrong, go look at cases like Miller v. California, Near v. Minnesota, and United States v. Progressive, among others. Then there are things such as time, place, and manner restrictions which may be used to prohibit speech, as long as the laws are narrowly tailored and don't prohibit more speech than necessary.
But if you want to get technical, as it seems you're doing right now, then I could still say that you're wrong. The First Amendment states that Congress cannot pass any laws barring free speech. It never said anything about the Supreme Court setting precedent.
Go research some Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment before you start with your childish "I'm right you're not!" tirade.
Post the e-mail this guy sent you. Feel free to conceal his real name and e-mail address if you see fit. But post the e-mail, with full headers, so we can see that you're not pulling this all out of thin air.
It amazes me to see how advertisers frequently forget that the Internet and print / broadcast mediums are so different. What works on paper doesn't always work online.
When I turn on the TV, yes, I expect to see ads. But these ads are relegated to their proper spots during a programming block...they aren't contained in the shows themselves. In other words, I can be safe knowing that I can watch Law & Order without worrying that Jerry Orbach will start talking about how cool the X10 wireless camera is. And when the advertising does come on, I can simply get up and go to the kitchen or bathroom, or change the channel.
When I pick up a newspaper I paid for, yes, I'll still see the ads as well. However, there are no ads on the front page, where the important stories are. There's still ads inside the paper, but they don't interfere with my ability to read the stories. When I'm reading an article in the paper, I know that I'm not going to hit an ad contained in the article itself.
But let's see how it's done online...
I go to a news website, and I'll be hit with active ads before I can even read a story. The ads range from annoying Flash ads (some of which include SOUND), pop-up and pop-under windows, and other flashy ads. Even if I go to read an article, there will still be the same ads in the article. Hell, some sites like Salon.com stuff a FULL PAGE ad down your throat before you can continue. There will be ads dividing the article's paragraphs, of varying annoyance. And if I try to leave, that doesn't stop the site from firing a pop-up window at me when I close my browser!
The difference here is that print / TV advertising is passive. It doesn't try to overtly gain your attention. Internet advertising is active. It tries to get your attention even while you're trying to read an article. If I'm going to pay for a subscription with ads, I will not do it under those premises.
If a site wants my money, I will be happy to pay for a subscription with the ads, provided these two major guidelines are met...
No active advertising! Get rid of the Flash ads and the pop-up and pop-under windows!
Ads must not interfere with story content. I don't want to have to navigate a sea of advertising to read something.
Advertisers frequently say that we put up with ads in newspapers and in TV, which we pay for. That's true. But those ads aren't trying to get my attention every second, even if I'm trying to do something else. Want my money, but want to keep the ads? Make them less annoying.
"Personally if I were to run a little website that was/.'ed and thus incured huge commercial rate data transmition fees, Taco/VA would be hearing form my solicitors/lawyers."
And why is that? Because your site couldn't handle the traffic? This was covered before, when Slashdot linked to a story on Something Awful, and Lowtax ended up redirecting people to goatse.cx, because he couldn't handle the traffic.
I felt bad for him, but in all honesty, if you don't want people to visit your website, make it password protected, or take your server offline. You put your site up so people could visit, right? Just because your server can't handle legitamite traffic doesn't mean it's a DOS attack. It means your server can't handle the traffic, plain and simple.
If your logic held true, then maybe the guys at kernel.org should be suing Rob and Co. for every time they link to a new kernel update. Sorry, that doesn't work. Sure, maybe Slashdot should cache pages. And if they don't, do you suggest that they e-mail the site beforehand and say, "Hi, I'd like to link to you, can your server handle the load?" Do you want to do that if you want to link to somebody?
Slashdot Mirror
And look, here's some further reading!
She was the victim of another of our society's problems -- corporations who believe it will be cheaper to pay off (or toss aside) victims of their recklessness rather than do the right thing in the first place.
The only thing Stella Liebeck was a victim of was her own stupidity. You can scream about the 180 degree temp. all you want. But that still doesn't excuse Liebeck's actions of placing a hot beverage between her legs and spilling it. I don't know what planet you're from, but around these parts, coffee is always served hot unless the customer asks otherwise. Liebeck didn't ask for iced coffee or anything like that. She should've expected the coffee to be hot. But that didn't stop her from getting $2.7 million for her own stupidity.
The moral of this story is: spill hot coffee on your crotch and it's gonna burn. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to understand that.
Do people even still accept responsibility for their own actions anymore?
It's wrong for someone to write a program that exploits obvious problems with Microsoft outlook, but exploiting p2p or iMac firmware issues on CD players is a perfectly acceptable way to "get back at" those darned copyright infringers?
It's wrong to write viruses or exploits because they cause damage to the machines and the networks they're on (if applicable). Server overloading e-mail forwards, worms, malicious viruses that delete key system files...bad.
Putting false MP3s masquerading as whole songs is not wrong. It's actually pretty damn neat, much like when DirecTV fried the receiver cards of cable pirates. No harm is being done to the host machine or the network (well, except in the DirecTV scenario...but that's what you get for stealing cable). The only "harm" is that now you have to go search for the actual Eminem song you wanted.
Cry me a river. Buy the CD and be done with it, if you're really that interested in finding the actual song.
News flash: Most of the interstate highway system is free.
News flash: Your tax dollars paid for those highways.
Kuro5hin.org, the proof of concept democratic group blog, has already posted this, a few days earlier than slashdot. It got voted to front page.
So what? Kuro5hin's "democratic group" concept is flawed. Just try to submit a story, and most times, it'll be rejected for asinine things like a typo, or maybe enough people just didn't agree with the story.
Ever hear the statement "Too many cooks spoil the broth?" That's Kuro5hin for you.
IMO, one of the reasons why we don't see many of these hybrid cars on the road is because they look so damn stupid. Have you ever seen the Honda Insight? It looks like an old CRX, except it's more streamlined, and smaller.
:)
Let's face it, we all want a car that gets good mileage, but we also want a car that looks good too. If we all cared about gas mileage, we'd be driving Geo Metros. But we aren't, because they are ugly cars that are slightly larger than a Matchbox car, and they wouldn't hold up in a fender bender. Everyone wants a big vehicle...not 1975 Cadillac big, but big enough to make us feel safe and look good at the same time. Most hybrids out there lack in the second department.
Auto manufacturers seem to be catching on, and they're starting to make hybrids of existing vehicles (the Honda Civic and Ford Escape come to mind). But they need to start cranking out hybrids of existing models that people like, or models that resemble the SDSU vehicle. Hell, I'd like to see a hybrid Volkswagen Jetta...not that they don't get good mileage as-is, especially if you have diesel. But that's besides the point.
Until the auto manufacturers start doing that, I don't think we'll see any general acceptance of hybrid vehicles, because nobody wants to plunk down the money for a silly looking electric Matchbox car.
Slashdot has original articles, interviews, and reviews, as well as links to other sites. It is not simply a directory. Ergo, it is rightly called journalism, IMO.
No it isn't. Yes, Slashdot has some original content, but the signal to noise ratio is way off balance. The majority of Slashdot is links to other sites, with editorial comments added in for the sake of it. A news digest? Maybe. Journalism? No. Throwing links around doesn't make the site a hotbed of journalistic goodness.
In a very broad and basic sense, yes, you could consider Slashdot and "blogs" to be "journalism." You could also consider someone who did a paint-by-numbers picture to be an "artist" as well. But in the end, you won't see that paint-by-numbers picture in an art museum, nor will you see Slashdot "journalism" in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal...or even your local hometown newspaper.
Why aren't personal journals journalism?
Because they are (usually) opinionated and show bias, both big no-nos in traditional journalism. Opinion writing is a part of journalism, but it is not what journalism is all about. That's why newspapers dedicate one or two pages to op-ed pieces.
You can call "blogs" journalism all you want, but until you've actually been in the trenches and worked with real journalists, who do it as a profession, you probably won't understand what journalism is all about.
Just because you link something on the web doesn't make it *not* journalism.
...Jon Katz is the closest thing /. has to a journalist.
You're right. The key is actually putting your own original content with it as well. News outlets such as NBC or Fox will sometimes do stories on things "As first reported in the New York Times," but they will still add their own original content to it as well.
Sites like Kuro5hin (while they do have some gems) are, more or less, op-ed sites. People link to a story or two, and they'll add their own opinion or summarize the issue, maybe tossing in a few token links with more info. While opinion writing is a part of journalism, it is not journalism. If it was, then your local paper would be nothing but op-ed columns.
You can toss in as many links as you want. But unless you went out and did your own research and conducted interviews, don't call it journalism. It's link mining.
And that's just downright scary.
First of all, Michael is right..."blog" has become extremely overused, much like "P2P." But that's besides the point.
Merely linking to news does not equal journalism. Slashdot isn't journalism. Kuro5hin isn't journalism. Yahoo's Full Coverage site isn't journalism. Hell, Fark isn't journalism. They are link farms. They find and post links to actual news stories across the world. While this makes for an easy-to-read digest of news and information, it does not mean the site becomes a seeming bastion of original journalism.
Real journalism, IMHO (speaking as one), is going out, researching a story, interviewing people, and putting together a concise unbiased story (keep your media bias arguments until the end of class kids). Journalism is not posting a link to a news story elsewhere, and then adding your own personal opinions or thoughts. While the Berkeley school is trying to avoid this, putting a "blog" label on it won't make any difference. Major news sites, like the New York Times and the Washington Post already post their news to the Internet in real time. Some even include "Comment on this story" links as well.
Take away the personal opinions and rambling links, and you don't have a so-called "blog." You have an online news site, just like the big boys. Calling it a "blog" doesn't give any more "hipness" or credibility.
I wish everyone would get over this stupid "BLOGS ARE THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM" crap. You know what? They aren't.
Let's define what information is then, shall we?
Directions to the nearest gas station;
When SciFi will be showing MST3K;
How much sugar to put in homemade lemonade;
Where the speed traps are on a highway;
How to install a modem in your computer
That's information. Information is not:
Eminem's latest CD (that's music);
Windows NT (that's software, or a utility if you wanted to call it that);
Spider Man (that's a movie)
Humanity reveres information sharing. Humanity looks down on theft. Get it right.
Good quality CD = 5 guys, 1 computer, 1 good recording device, 1 good sound software package.
Sure, that would work...if you were a GARAGE BAND.
First of all, most recording and mixing is still done in analog fashion (tape), and everything still goes through a mixing board (and those aren't cheap by any long stretch). And if computers are used, I can tell you from first-hand experience, more than just one paltry computer is used. Let's not forget about microphones either. You need mics for each sound source...every instrument, every voice. Some quality uni-directional mics (for recording vocals) can cost up to $20,000. And how about the costs of studio rental? You think everyone records their music in their basement? Get real!
And of course, there's the support people. You gotta pay for a producer (the better they are, the more expensive they come), an engineer, a mixer, the guitar and drum techs, and of course, who can forget the lawyer and accountants? Don't tell me they aren't necessary, because I'll bet my bottom dollar that companies like Blizzard have someone to work the books, and someone to handle the legalese.
While we're at it, how about instruments? A Fender Stratocaster and a Marshall stack will set you back about $5000 at least. You think a group like the Eagles (or any other big-name act) will settle for some practice amps and cheap Stratocaster knock-offs? Hell, they'd laugh at you if you suggested that to them.
Time to make good quality CD (if done right and the musicians know their stuff) : Say a week of recording, full time. And even this is quite long. Add on a week of mixing, full time, for only one guy.
Again, sure, if you're a GARAGE BAND. Nirvana's "Nevermind" album took two months for actual song recording, and an additional month for mixing. Sure, it could take a week, "if done right and the musicians know their stuff." And maybe we'd have world peace, "if people would stop killing each other." Be realistic, it can take up to two months for studio recording, and then an extra month or two for mixing. Unless, of course, that's if you don't mind if your final product sounds like shit.
You say it takes a lot of people and time to put out a quality video game. That's true. It also takes a lot of people and time to put out a quality music CD. You obviously fail to see that.
If anyone owns the X-Files: Key of X soundtrack, the whole dang conspiracy is explained at the end of the CD's final track (around 10:13 or so). Some of us are already ahead of the game (and time zones I guess). :)
Here's some more info on it.
Here's a link about the handcuff story, for those interested.
"...puts a sign on top of your tv that says buy tampax..."
Puts new meaning to the "Tampax was here" slogan, doesn't it?
You're surfing the Internet on your employer's time
Your employer is paying the bill for the T3 (or whatever)
And you think you have the right to surf the Internet while at work? When you're on the company's time, you're supposed to be working...not bidding on crap on eBay.
Would someone please tell timothy what censorship is? This story doesn't even come close to the definition.
Too bad the site appears to be slashdotted. :(
"Is this the first recorded easter egg in software? Or were there prior ones?"
Looks like the first recorded easter egg was back in 1973. Are there any eggs that pre-date this?
"The first amendment supercedes all previously passed articles."
Just because the First Amendment is the first one in the Constitution doesn't make it the most important one. Hell, IIRC, there were two amendments before the First Amendment that didn't make it, which is why the First Amendment is the first one.
The Supreme Court has ruled, time after time, that speech can be prohibited if there is a substantial state or governmental interest that backs the argument for prohibiting the speech. If you think I'm wrong, go look at cases like Miller v. California, Near v. Minnesota, and United States v. Progressive, among others. Then there are things such as time, place, and manner restrictions which may be used to prohibit speech, as long as the laws are narrowly tailored and don't prohibit more speech than necessary.
But if you want to get technical, as it seems you're doing right now, then I could still say that you're wrong. The First Amendment states that Congress cannot pass any laws barring free speech. It never said anything about the Supreme Court setting precedent.
Go research some Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment before you start with your childish "I'm right you're not!" tirade.
Please mod the parent post down to oblivion. It is obviously some AOL cheerleader.
Post the e-mail this guy sent you. Feel free to conceal his real name and e-mail address if you see fit. But post the e-mail, with full headers, so we can see that you're not pulling this all out of thin air.
That's because Salon.com has an ad-free subscription service. Try browsing the site without logging into the service, and you'll see what I mean.
When I turn on the TV, yes, I expect to see ads. But these ads are relegated to their proper spots during a programming block...they aren't contained in the shows themselves. In other words, I can be safe knowing that I can watch Law & Order without worrying that Jerry Orbach will start talking about how cool the X10 wireless camera is. And when the advertising does come on, I can simply get up and go to the kitchen or bathroom, or change the channel.
When I pick up a newspaper I paid for, yes, I'll still see the ads as well. However, there are no ads on the front page, where the important stories are. There's still ads inside the paper, but they don't interfere with my ability to read the stories. When I'm reading an article in the paper, I know that I'm not going to hit an ad contained in the article itself.
But let's see how it's done online...
I go to a news website, and I'll be hit with active ads before I can even read a story. The ads range from annoying Flash ads (some of which include SOUND), pop-up and pop-under windows, and other flashy ads. Even if I go to read an article, there will still be the same ads in the article. Hell, some sites like Salon.com stuff a FULL PAGE ad down your throat before you can continue. There will be ads dividing the article's paragraphs, of varying annoyance. And if I try to leave, that doesn't stop the site from firing a pop-up window at me when I close my browser!
The difference here is that print / TV advertising is passive. It doesn't try to overtly gain your attention. Internet advertising is active. It tries to get your attention even while you're trying to read an article. If I'm going to pay for a subscription with ads, I will not do it under those premises.
If a site wants my money, I will be happy to pay for a subscription with the ads, provided these two major guidelines are met...
No active advertising! Get rid of the Flash ads and the pop-up and pop-under windows!
Ads must not interfere with story content. I don't want to have to navigate a sea of advertising to read something.
Advertisers frequently say that we put up with ads in newspapers and in TV, which we pay for. That's true. But those ads aren't trying to get my attention every second, even if I'm trying to do something else. Want my money, but want to keep the ads? Make them less annoying.
"Personally if I were to run a little website that was /.'ed and thus incured huge commercial rate data transmition fees, Taco/VA would be hearing form my solicitors/lawyers."
And why is that? Because your site couldn't handle the traffic? This was covered before, when Slashdot linked to a story on Something Awful, and Lowtax ended up redirecting people to goatse.cx, because he couldn't handle the traffic.
I felt bad for him, but in all honesty, if you don't want people to visit your website, make it password protected, or take your server offline. You put your site up so people could visit, right? Just because your server can't handle legitamite traffic doesn't mean it's a DOS attack. It means your server can't handle the traffic, plain and simple.
If your logic held true, then maybe the guys at kernel.org should be suing Rob and Co. for every time they link to a new kernel update. Sorry, that doesn't work. Sure, maybe Slashdot should cache pages. And if they don't, do you suggest that they e-mail the site beforehand and say, "Hi, I'd like to link to you, can your server handle the load?" Do you want to do that if you want to link to somebody?
They've already answered the questions about caching pages.
HTH.
Hi! How are you? I send you this anthrax in order to have your advice.
See you later. Thanks.