He was talking about donating money. If he wants to go back and revise what he said, that's fine — it's his business and his money — but I'm just going on what he said.
You're not just going to tell other people to donate, are you? Seriously.
One other quick question, which I still haven't seen answered. When Slashdot was bought, and the parent company(ies) were going to have IPOs, I believe that you and CmdrTaco would be donating some of the income to Free Software or other projects you supported. Have you done so yet, and to which causes? Thanks.
Who decides what spam is and isn't? Once you have somebody deciding that question, you start down the slippery slope. Is it just bulk email sent from a single point? Okay, make that illegal.
With advances in distributed technologies, some company will come along and offer money (or free services) to people who will install an app which will receive IM/SOAP messages from a central server. The app will integrate with their email client to automagically send out individual, unsolicited email to select people. Okay, now that we've decided to make these illegal, who gets to decide which of these emails are illgeal? And do we start invading individuals' computers to find out if they're part of this network, or if they just decided to send out the email at their own discretion? Do we start banning any unsolicited mail whatsoever? I can call someone unsolicited, mail someone unsolicited, but if I email someone unsolicited and they happen to have a beef with me or what I'm saying, they can turn me in to the police?
Standing outside my house with a bullhorn is disturbing the peace. Spamming me disturbs my delete key for about a quarter of a second.
Suppose he runs an open shell account server that keeps no logs but allows people to break in to your boxes? Is that also virtuous?
But I thought that we're not supposed to blame Napster for the behavior of its users. Did everyone change their mind on that one?
Just curious, but what's the cost in resources and works-gummed-up that spammers have cost you? I shudder to think of all the time that the spam-busters have spent for free, and how much more they could've been doing with their lives instead.
And vigilante action is great fun until the day comes that the vigilante groups are against you.
The way I kinda see it is there's a constant cry around here about evil censorship! You know, any limitations on free speech, up to and including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, threats, etc., are evil. Well, unless it's spam. Censor away!
There's a pretty timely article on this subject at The Register. EFF co-founder John Gilmore runs an open relay mail server at home, which, to anti-spammers, is among the most evil things that you can do. So, they complained to his upstream provider, and now they're no longer forwarding his email. Censorship or the right thing to do?
Personally, I don't like the anti-spam groups, because I don't want some lynch-mob arbitrarily deciding what is spam and what isn't. I do give them credit in this case for remaining consistant and not making an exception for a well-known netizen. (Can't believe I just used that word. That's why I cancelled my subscription to Wired five years ago.)
I get political spam telling me how evil one candidate or another is. They don't need to identify themselves to get their point across. Especially in races not limited to two candidates.
People shouldn't be able to freely share information with each other?
There should be the contact information for the list sellers.
So anonymity should be available to everyone else, just not those filthy spammers?
It always strikes me as hypocritical that people who say that they're for freedom, who defend network intruders as people just wanting to explore (or that they're doing them a service by showing them their security holes!), don't hesitate for a second to throw all those values out the window just so they don't get inconvenienced with extra email. Just so you know, I'm not characterizing the poster to whom I'm replying, just pointing out the general mood.
I'd love to see what happens if Kevin Mitnick started up his own spam service. There'd be soooo many confused script kiddies.
Aha, I did a little more digging, and apparently the #1 ranking means that they bought BE much more than the rest of the population. So, in absolute terms, BE didn't even make the top 20 in your city, but sales were unusually strong compared to other cities. Amazon wasn't exactly clear on this initially. As to why your city, was it possible that part of the movie was filmed there? Some of the woodsey stuff did have a pacific northwest look to it.
Well, that's a good point. I didn't notice the distinction (sales vs. rentals) in the orginal post. However, I notice that on some of those same DVD sales list, "Coyote Ugly" was higher on the charts than "Battlefield Earth." I mean, what religious outfit could possibly be propping up the sales of that monstrosity? I'm a hot-blooded, babe-loving, American male, but even I don't want to see the exploits of those bimbos, so I don't think it can be attributed to the T&A factor.
I noticed a couple of other interesting things when I was taking a look for this information. Someone put out a press release (on PRNewswire)about how BE DVD sales have skyrocketed, and I thought this quote was funny: "'It's a perfect DVD... right up there with its special effects, aliens and space ships,' according to Anaheim, California video retailer Jay R. Ross." I mean, come on. I did think the DVD was somewhat interesting, especially since it had a voiceover by the filmmakers discussing it, and you could tell that they were greatly influenced by the negative reviews -- they were kind of defensive, explaining how you "can't get it" if you expect to see a serious movie instead of a "full-motion comic book." I'm not ragging on them for the commentary, I really did think it was interesting. But, this thing being "a perfect DVD"??? As another poster here says, "Oh my, that is funny."
The other thing I noticed is that at Amazon, this movie is the most-ordered DVD (yes, #1) in the cities of Auburn, WA, and Santa Maria, CA. That's just messed up. Does anybody know if these cities are big Scientology cities?
Cheers,
Re:Napster and users signed its own death warrant
on
Napster Traffic Drops
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I'm just going by what Napster supporters say all the time.
Cheers,
Napster and users signed its own death warrant
on
Napster Traffic Drops
·
· Score: 1
Remember that Napster usage increased sales of CDs. The RIAA was able to use all this extra money into a promotional campaign to destroy the credibility of Napster and its users. They could also use this money on lobbying the government. They could point to the rampant "Ooooh, non-free stuff for free -- gimme!" attitude that was starting to take hold among a lot of people, and being so unattractive, this gave the RIAA a pretty solid moral ground compared to their adversaries when it comes to future rights battles.
So, I'm sure that the RIAA would like to plant a big wet one on Napster and its users for, (1) increasing its income through greater CD sales, (2) ensuring that future laws will be favorable to RIAA's terms whenever they decide to get into the online game. I gotta give 'em credit, the plan was fuckin' beautiful.
It could be the curiosity factor. I know a lot of people, including myself, who didn't get to see it in the theater because it was out of there so fast. Not because we thought it would be great, but thought it might be cool to be a part of seeing on the big screen what was shaping up to be one of the biggest film disasters of all time.
Also, some people might have wanted to see if it really was as bad as the critics were saying. Personally, I don't think it was. It wasn't a good movie, and I wouldn't watch it again, even for comedic value, but I didn't think it was much worse (if at all) than tired flicks like Independence Day or Starship Troopers.
Might be worth a try. Not saying that it's Perl's fault, but something's causing Slashdot to go tits up at least once a day. Maybe rewriting the code in a different language or trying a different database would give them some insight as to what the problem is.
Cheers,
Re:Multi Processors under Win9x
on
Emergence of SMT
·
· Score: 1
You're not wrong, which is why I said "hardly anything at all" can use more than one CPU under MacOS, instead of saying that nothing can. The amount of software that can, though, is extremely limited.
Cheers,
Re:Multi Processors under Win9x
on
Emergence of SMT
·
· Score: 1
Yup, kinda reminds me when people were getting all excited about those dual CPU boxes that Apple was selling to take attention away from the megahertz gap vs. x86. Yeah, nevermind that hardly at anything at all can utilize more than one processor under MacOS, it's got two CPUs! w00t!
Yeah, except that (1) the guy in the article never said anything about 100 million pesos, he actually was talking about tens of millions of pesos, but that (2) the tens of millions of pesos comment was only his opinion, and (3) he admitted that he didn't have any exact numbers to back that opinion up.
Given that they're not even past the design stage of this project, and there's no way that he could figure the cost when it hasn't even been designed, the phrase "Whoop-dee-doo" comes to mind.
Glad to see that the Linux zealots at Slashdot have really matured over the years. My question: Is it fear of M$ that makes them act so bizarrely, or are they just not that bright to begin with?
Huh, since when would I ever post anonymously to laugh at how hideous Linux's user experience is compared to Windows'? Just like I'm not going to care when this post gets modded down. Hint: If I posted my Linux-trashing posts as AC to save my oh-so-precious karma, then how would you guess that a Linux-bashing post might have been mine? Nice to see someone out there obsessing over me, though. Send me someone brighter next time, though, okay?
That Yahoo stock IPO'd at 13 bucks and has split four times since then. At $16 today, it's still worth about 16 times the IPO price. If his bank wanted to sell the stock sooner, December 1999 would've been a good time for it, when the stock was over 100 times the IPO price. The only thing I'm not understanding is why the original poster is actually sounding proud about his bank's horrible, horrible decision.
I dunno, sounded like you were declaring the winner to me. MSN wins in hits. You want Yahoo to win in something, there are plenty of other categories to choose from. For example, you could counter that Yahoo serves up the greatest number of ads. And then someone else would counter, well MSN actually makes more money from their ads because their clients are larger and pay more to have their ads shown. And someone else would counter, yeah, but AOL is by far the stickiest place on the net. And so on and so on.
As far as portals go, it's like good art -- you can't really pin it down in so many words, but you know it when you see it. I don't know what Netscape looks like these days, but MSN and Yahoo just have their similarities in different places. www.msn.com == my.yahoo.com. www.yahoo.com == search.msn.com. A portal is just an aggregate of the most common things that web users do, located all in one place -- a jumping off point, hence the name.
Yeah, and I hereby declare the NY Mets to be the winners of the 2000 World Series, because they were at a disadvantage because of all that money that George Steinbrenner was paying to the Yankees. Sorry, but excuses are for the weak, not the winners.
What difference does it make that Yahoo focuses the "main page" of its portal on its search engine? The tone of your post makes it sound like this is a good thing, although I'm not sure why it would be a positive or negative. Please explain.
What is useless about portals? They make for a good starting page. Mine gives me the number of new emails I have, a list of messaging contacts that are currently online, a listing of my stocks, headlines, and a search engine entry box. Having all that (along with other stuff I'm interested in) in one single page (I don't even have to scroll down except to see the stock quotes) is convenient as Hell. That "portals are evil" sentiment of yours is just typical Slashdot kneejerkism against anything that's big or popular.
So what did Hotmail have before that they don't now? Specifically, what features have been messed up in order to "fit into [MSN's] own portal structure, and work with every little trinket and gadget built into their portal," whatever the Hell that means? Oh yeah, I'm not sure how such a "net savy" user such as yourself didn't know this, but Hotmail is served up from Windows servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when are spammers only "corporations or other businesses?"
Cheers,
He was talking about donating money. If he wants to go back and revise what he said, that's fine — it's his business and his money — but I'm just going on what he said.
Cheers,
The basketball games on right now suck, I'm not going to watch WaterWorld, and I think He Hate Me is out with an injury. Please say yes.
Cheers,
You're not just going to tell other people to donate, are you? Seriously.
One other quick question, which I still haven't seen answered. When Slashdot was bought, and the parent company(ies) were going to have IPOs, I believe that you and CmdrTaco would be donating some of the income to Free Software or other projects you supported. Have you done so yet, and to which causes? Thanks.
Cheers,
Who decides what spam is and isn't? Once you have somebody deciding that question, you start down the slippery slope. Is it just bulk email sent from a single point? Okay, make that illegal.
With advances in distributed technologies, some company will come along and offer money (or free services) to people who will install an app which will receive IM/SOAP messages from a central server. The app will integrate with their email client to automagically send out individual, unsolicited email to select people. Okay, now that we've decided to make these illegal, who gets to decide which of these emails are illgeal? And do we start invading individuals' computers to find out if they're part of this network, or if they just decided to send out the email at their own discretion? Do we start banning any unsolicited mail whatsoever? I can call someone unsolicited, mail someone unsolicited, but if I email someone unsolicited and they happen to have a beef with me or what I'm saying, they can turn me in to the police?
Standing outside my house with a bullhorn is disturbing the peace. Spamming me disturbs my delete key for about a quarter of a second.
Suppose he runs an open shell account server that keeps no logs but allows people to break in to your boxes? Is that also virtuous?
But I thought that we're not supposed to blame Napster for the behavior of its users. Did everyone change their mind on that one?
Just curious, but what's the cost in resources and works-gummed-up that spammers have cost you? I shudder to think of all the time that the spam-busters have spent for free, and how much more they could've been doing with their lives instead.
And vigilante action is great fun until the day comes that the vigilante groups are against you.
Cheers,
The way I kinda see it is there's a constant cry around here about evil censorship! You know, any limitations on free speech, up to and including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, threats, etc., are evil. Well, unless it's spam. Censor away!
There's a pretty timely article on this subject at The Register. EFF co-founder John Gilmore runs an open relay mail server at home, which, to anti-spammers, is among the most evil things that you can do. So, they complained to his upstream provider, and now they're no longer forwarding his email. Censorship or the right thing to do?
Personally, I don't like the anti-spam groups, because I don't want some lynch-mob arbitrarily deciding what is spam and what isn't. I do give them credit in this case for remaining consistant and not making an exception for a well-known netizen. (Can't believe I just used that word. That's why I cancelled my subscription to Wired five years ago.)
Cheers,
I get political spam telling me how evil one candidate or another is. They don't need to identify themselves to get their point across. Especially in races not limited to two candidates.
Cheers,
There should be penalties for list sellers.
People shouldn't be able to freely share information with each other?There should be the contact information for the list sellers.
So anonymity should be available to everyone else, just not those filthy spammers?
It always strikes me as hypocritical that people who say that they're for freedom, who defend network intruders as people just wanting to explore (or that they're doing them a service by showing them their security holes!), don't hesitate for a second to throw all those values out the window just so they don't get inconvenienced with extra email. Just so you know, I'm not characterizing the poster to whom I'm replying, just pointing out the general mood.
I'd love to see what happens if Kevin Mitnick started up his own spam service. There'd be soooo many confused script kiddies.
Cheers,
Aha, I did a little more digging, and apparently the #1 ranking means that they bought BE much more than the rest of the population. So, in absolute terms, BE didn't even make the top 20 in your city, but sales were unusually strong compared to other cities. Amazon wasn't exactly clear on this initially. As to why your city, was it possible that part of the movie was filmed there? Some of the woodsey stuff did have a pacific northwest look to it.
Cheers,
Well, that's a good point. I didn't notice the distinction (sales vs. rentals) in the orginal post. However, I notice that on some of those same DVD sales list, "Coyote Ugly" was higher on the charts than "Battlefield Earth." I mean, what religious outfit could possibly be propping up the sales of that monstrosity? I'm a hot-blooded, babe-loving, American male, but even I don't want to see the exploits of those bimbos, so I don't think it can be attributed to the T&A factor.
I noticed a couple of other interesting things when I was taking a look for this information. Someone put out a press release (on PRNewswire)about how BE DVD sales have skyrocketed, and I thought this quote was funny: "'It's a perfect DVD ... right up there with its special effects, aliens and space ships,' according to Anaheim, California video retailer Jay R. Ross." I mean, come on. I did think the DVD was somewhat interesting, especially since it had a voiceover by the filmmakers discussing it, and you could tell that they were greatly influenced by the negative reviews -- they were kind of defensive, explaining how you "can't get it" if you expect to see a serious movie instead of a "full-motion comic book." I'm not ragging on them for the commentary, I really did think it was interesting. But, this thing being "a perfect DVD"??? As another poster here says, "Oh my, that is funny."
The other thing I noticed is that at Amazon, this movie is the most-ordered DVD (yes, #1) in the cities of Auburn, WA, and Santa Maria, CA. That's just messed up. Does anybody know if these cities are big Scientology cities?
Cheers,
Hey, I'm just going by what Napster supporters say all the time.
Cheers,
Remember that Napster usage increased sales of CDs. The RIAA was able to use all this extra money into a promotional campaign to destroy the credibility of Napster and its users. They could also use this money on lobbying the government. They could point to the rampant "Ooooh, non-free stuff for free -- gimme!" attitude that was starting to take hold among a lot of people, and being so unattractive, this gave the RIAA a pretty solid moral ground compared to their adversaries when it comes to future rights battles.
So, I'm sure that the RIAA would like to plant a big wet one on Napster and its users for, (1) increasing its income through greater CD sales, (2) ensuring that future laws will be favorable to RIAA's terms whenever they decide to get into the online game. I gotta give 'em credit, the plan was fuckin' beautiful.
Cheers,
It could be the curiosity factor. I know a lot of people, including myself, who didn't get to see it in the theater because it was out of there so fast. Not because we thought it would be great, but thought it might be cool to be a part of seeing on the big screen what was shaping up to be one of the biggest film disasters of all time.
Also, some people might have wanted to see if it really was as bad as the critics were saying. Personally, I don't think it was. It wasn't a good movie, and I wouldn't watch it again, even for comedic value, but I didn't think it was much worse (if at all) than tired flicks like Independence Day or Starship Troopers.
Cheers,
It's be tragic to see the former rebel-wannabes shown to be spineless pussies twice in the same week.
Cheers,
Are you smart enough to fit Python DECSS on a tshirt? Pearl people are.
Are you planning on being celibate for life? People putting DeCSS on their tshirts better be.
Cheers,
Might be worth a try. Not saying that it's Perl's fault, but something's causing Slashdot to go tits up at least once a day. Maybe rewriting the code in a different language or trying a different database would give them some insight as to what the problem is.
Cheers,
You're not wrong, which is why I said "hardly anything at all" can use more than one CPU under MacOS, instead of saying that nothing can. The amount of software that can, though, is extremely limited.
Cheers,
Yup, kinda reminds me when people were getting all excited about those dual CPU boxes that Apple was selling to take attention away from the megahertz gap vs. x86. Yeah, nevermind that hardly at anything at all can utilize more than one processor under MacOS, it's got two CPUs! w00t!
Cheers,
Yeah, except that (1) the guy in the article never said anything about 100 million pesos, he actually was talking about tens of millions of pesos, but that (2) the tens of millions of pesos comment was only his opinion, and (3) he admitted that he didn't have any exact numbers to back that opinion up.
Given that they're not even past the design stage of this project, and there's no way that he could figure the cost when it hasn't even been designed, the phrase "Whoop-dee-doo" comes to mind.
Cheers,
Glad to see that the Linux zealots at Slashdot have really matured over the years. My question: Is it fear of M$ that makes them act so bizarrely, or are they just not that bright to begin with?
Cheers,
Huh, since when would I ever post anonymously to laugh at how hideous Linux's user experience is compared to Windows'? Just like I'm not going to care when this post gets modded down. Hint: If I posted my Linux-trashing posts as AC to save my oh-so-precious karma, then how would you guess that a Linux-bashing post might have been mine? Nice to see someone out there obsessing over me, though. Send me someone brighter next time, though, okay?
Cheers,
That Yahoo stock IPO'd at 13 bucks and has split four times since then. At $16 today, it's still worth about 16 times the IPO price. If his bank wanted to sell the stock sooner, December 1999 would've been a good time for it, when the stock was over 100 times the IPO price. The only thing I'm not understanding is why the original poster is actually sounding proud about his bank's horrible, horrible decision.
Cheers,
I dunno, sounded like you were declaring the winner to me. MSN wins in hits. You want Yahoo to win in something, there are plenty of other categories to choose from. For example, you could counter that Yahoo serves up the greatest number of ads. And then someone else would counter, well MSN actually makes more money from their ads because their clients are larger and pay more to have their ads shown. And someone else would counter, yeah, but AOL is by far the stickiest place on the net. And so on and so on.
As far as portals go, it's like good art -- you can't really pin it down in so many words, but you know it when you see it. I don't know what Netscape looks like these days, but MSN and Yahoo just have their similarities in different places. www.msn.com == my.yahoo.com. www.yahoo.com == search.msn.com. A portal is just an aggregate of the most common things that web users do, located all in one place -- a jumping off point, hence the name.
Cheers,
Yeah, and I hereby declare the NY Mets to be the winners of the 2000 World Series, because they were at a disadvantage because of all that money that George Steinbrenner was paying to the Yankees. Sorry, but excuses are for the weak, not the winners.
What difference does it make that Yahoo focuses the "main page" of its portal on its search engine? The tone of your post makes it sound like this is a good thing, although I'm not sure why it would be a positive or negative. Please explain.
Cheers,
What is useless about portals? They make for a good starting page. Mine gives me the number of new emails I have, a list of messaging contacts that are currently online, a listing of my stocks, headlines, and a search engine entry box. Having all that (along with other stuff I'm interested in) in one single page (I don't even have to scroll down except to see the stock quotes) is convenient as Hell. That "portals are evil" sentiment of yours is just typical Slashdot kneejerkism against anything that's big or popular.
So what did Hotmail have before that they don't now? Specifically, what features have been messed up in order to "fit into [MSN's] own portal structure, and work with every little trinket and gadget built into their portal," whatever the Hell that means? Oh yeah, I'm not sure how such a "net savy" user such as yourself didn't know this, but Hotmail is served up from Windows servers.
Cheers,