Time was, it was actually fun to flame Microsoft for inane, stupid comments, policies, and products. Lately, though, they've just been making it too easy.
I mean, come on: my dog could flame that piece. Where's the challenge?
"I would hope if he vetoes it, we don't have a tragedy like... Columbine, because then he can take some responsibility," she said.
OK, maybe some of that quote was taken out of context or something, but does that make sense? "I hope we don't have a Columbine tragedy, because then the govenor will have to take responsibility for it"?
Sounds to me like she would like to see an incident of some kind, then make a lot of hay blaming the govenor.
But that's what all this is really all about, isn't it? Political Grandstanding. Pick a hot-button topic, and come out publicly on one side of the issue. Doesn't matter which side, flip a coin. Your opponents naturally take the opposite side, and you fight it out for a while in the court of public opinion, see who comes out the victor. Repeat ad naseum.
A great way to create the illusion of working for a living.
The article isn't really clear how something like this would work. One big huge background Gif-map? A java/cgi program loaded at startup?
Seems to me it'd be pretty easy to screw with their data as well. Just throw in a few random up/down arrow keys, or slightly change your mouse acceleration at random times.
A lot of times it depends on the game being played as well.
In TFC, a lot of times I (with my ~70 ping) will be six or seven steps into a building, or around a corner, and suddenly get gibbed, because someone with 250+ ping just saw me enter the building, and sniped me. Valve screwed with their Netcode to help make the game more playable for modem users in their latest patch, and the result is weird little glitches like that.
Sometimes, in real life, people are confronted with situations where they don't know what to do. In such situations, they generally seek out the advice of their peers and colleagues, people that perhaps have been in similar situations, before making a decision that could possibly affect the rest of their lives. It's called getting as much information as possible, and doing everything within their power to make an informed, wise decision.
I know this is probably difficult for you to comprehend, since you were apparently born with the sum total of all human knowledge, but try to understand that this is very helpful for the rest of us.
Hell yeah Uhura, at least back in the day! Check out that one TOS episode (can't remember name) where Kirk, Bones, Scotty, and Uhura get transported to the "evil" universe, complete with "evil" uniforms. Uhura had abs that'd make Britney Spears hide in shame.
Roxio is trying to get for free what other people pay for....said Dave Marglin, general counsel for Berkeley, Calif.-based Gracenote
OK, there's several ways I could go here, so I'll just list them all and let you all decide:
1. Yeah! Shame on Roxio for having the business sense to use publicly available material to get an advantage over others! That's un-American!
2. Translation: Someone has discovered that our entire business is based on publicly available information that anyone with enough time and resources could obtain and organize. Our best hope to defuse this situation is to desperately attempt to associate this with Napster as much as possible.
In this context, it's not surprising that, as early as 1995, Bill Gates wrote in his book The Road Ahead about what he called the "Internet gold rush" and predicted both enormous long-term advances and substantial short-term setbacks, saying "Gold rushes tend to encourage impetuous investments. A few will pay off, but when the frenzy is behind us, we will look back incredulously at the wreckage of failed ventures and wonder, 'Who funded these companies? What was going on in their minds? Was that just mania at work?"
OK, although I've never read it, I'm sure Gates' book does indeed have this in it. It's just too big of lie to get away with, at least in this day and age. But this just reminds me so much of this part of 1984:
For
example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth
of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day,
had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet
but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in
North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had
launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa
alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big
Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the
thing that had actually happened.
Just a silly coincidence, I guess. Also, who was this speaker's audience? I mean, he makes this big deal that Gates foretold an Internet boom and bust all the way back in 1995!!! Was the Internet even invented back then? Wow, Bill, you had the courage to predict that a new technology would be exploited by many for business purposes, and that many of these businesses would be cheap, fly by night operations who would fail quickly. Somebody call Nostredamus and let him know his services are no longer required.
Yes, but then FORTRAN was designed from the ground up to be inheritly un-funny. There is absolutely nothing funny about FORTRAN code. In fact, if you place FORTRAN code next to something funny, that object will slowly become un-funny over the course of a few weeks.
Time to pimp. It doesn't specialize in breaking-news or up-to-the-minute reviews like some other sites, but Joystick101.org is a gaming site I've found myself spending a lot of time at. A community driven site (running Scoop) that posts articles by editors, and allows users to vote on submitted material. Sort of a cross between Slashdot and Kuro5hin.
Good place to find some intelligent, thoughtful discussion on just about anything gaming related. I invite everyone to check it out.
They probably get a lot of their hardware on the cheap too. Maxtor would probably cut you a pretty nice deal if you tell them you want 4000 80Gig drives.
Almost as bad is some of the.sigs I was using back in those days. Lots of Ren and Stimpy quotes, Simpsons once in a while. Huge 2-column ASCII things, with quotes on both sides. Ugh.
And they were actual.sig files too! Yay college UNIX accounts!
1. (Response): Business sense aside, it's wrong to not give a job to a handicap or otherwise disabled employee, who is qualified and wants the job, simply because it's going to cost that business more money to meet their needs than a normal employee. That's called discrimination. Especially when it's discrimination based on the possibility of CTS.
2. Again, we're not talking about discriminating against someone with a condition, we're talking about discriminating against someone who might one day have a condition. No one know's for sure if these people will get CTS, just like no one knows for sure if someone will get cancer. Would it be OK for a company to not offer you a job, simply because your family has a history of cancer, and they don't want to risk exposing themselves to costly medical bills?
I'm not advocating giving someone something for nothing here. Businesses should hire the best qualified employee, period. What I am against, however, is businesses using genetic information to deny jobs to otherwise qualified employees, simply because other employees will cost them less.
OK, I can't really decide if you were trolling or not, so here goes. 2 things to keep in mind here:
1. Even people at high risk for CTS can perform in a repetitive function job, provided that they or their employer make sure their work environment is adequately equipped to handle the stresses. If a person is qualified for the job, and wants the job, there shouldn't be an artificial barrier created by this "risk of CTS" factor.
2. If you accept this, where does it stop? A familiar battle cry in many issues, but very relevant in this case. Should employers be able to check for histories of heart conditions for the same reasons (don't want employees keeling over eating a Bacon Cheeseburger, bad for moral)? Should your company be allowed to know your family has a history of glaucoma (after all, more medical bills bring the stock down)?
I realize it's not the same, as your point seems to be that both parties are benefiting: the company doesn't pay for surguries, and the person doesn't get CTS. But what you have to realize is that this company probably doesn't give a rats ass about whether their employee get's CTS or not, they just care if they have to pay for it. Allowing this sort of thing to go on opens a flood gate for all other kinds discrimination in the name of "employee benefit".
Famke? Why not just go for Kelly LeBrock. She's probably still hot, assuming she hasn't killed herself with a 3-day drug-induced drinking binge and purge session by now.
I think the main difference, here, is that we're not talking about lending the movie(CD, whatever) to a friend for a spell, or making a copy of a "few pages" (minutes). We're talking about, in theory anyway, perfect digital reproductions of the original.
I'll grant you that it's not the most heinous thing one can do, but it's not exactly a victimless crime, either. I mean, right now, even today, I can probably go and download the new Dave Mathews albumn in it's entirety off Napster. Assuming the whoever put it up made a quality rip, I can then create my own copy of Everyday in less than an hour, and for no more than the cost of my cable modem. Is DMB significantly hurt by my doing this? Of course not. But by the same token, is Wal-Mart significantly hurt if I go in and lift a bag of Sam's Choice Hot Grits? Not any more so than DMB, but it doesn't make it right, in either case.
Old arguments I know. My main point is this: It's entertainment media. No one's rights are violated because they have to plunk down $20 for the Matrix or DMB. If you think the price is a rip-off, then you don't buy them. That's a choice you make as a consumer. But your miniature boycott of the product does not give you the right to obtain said product (that you would otherwise have to pay for) for free from another source.
If your friends come over and watch the movie, that's fine. If your friends come over, and you give them a copy of the movie that they keep and take home with them, that's when it becomes illegal.
Stealing from the rich is no less a crime than stealing from the poor.
A Katz diatride is one thing, Joe Slashdot submitting a minor piece of news as an AC, breathlessly pounding at his keyboard in the hopes of being the first to submit it, is quite another.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you could make that into the cliched choose 2 saying, and it'd work pretty well, though not perfectly:
Popularity, Sales, and Integrity: Choose 2
Some might argue Sting lost integrity when he started selling BMW's. Can't argue with DMB though.
What they are afraid of is what happened to Atari back in the 80's.
Time was, it was actually fun to flame Microsoft for inane, stupid comments, policies, and products. Lately, though, they've just been making it too easy.
I mean, come on: my dog could flame that piece. Where's the challenge?
"I would hope if he vetoes it, we don't have a tragedy like ... Columbine, because then he can take some responsibility," she said.
OK, maybe some of that quote was taken out of context or something, but does that make sense? "I hope we don't have a Columbine tragedy, because then the govenor will have to take responsibility for it"?
Sounds to me like she would like to see an incident of some kind, then make a lot of hay blaming the govenor.
But that's what all this is really all about, isn't it? Political Grandstanding. Pick a hot-button topic, and come out publicly on one side of the issue. Doesn't matter which side, flip a coin. Your opponents naturally take the opposite side, and you fight it out for a while in the court of public opinion, see who comes out the victor. Repeat ad naseum.
A great way to create the illusion of working for a living.
The article isn't really clear how something like this would work. One big huge background Gif-map? A java/cgi program loaded at startup?
Seems to me it'd be pretty easy to screw with their data as well. Just throw in a few random up/down arrow keys, or slightly change your mouse acceleration at random times.
A lot of times it depends on the game being played as well.
In TFC, a lot of times I (with my ~70 ping) will be six or seven steps into a building, or around a corner, and suddenly get gibbed, because someone with 250+ ping just saw me enter the building, and sniped me. Valve screwed with their Netcode to help make the game more playable for modem users in their latest patch, and the result is weird little glitches like that.
Damn, that's the funniest thing I've seen on Slashdot all week.
Well, we all view the world to conform to our own realities, I guess...
Dear Anonymous Coward,
Sometimes, in real life, people are confronted with situations where they don't know what to do. In such situations, they generally seek out the advice of their peers and colleagues, people that perhaps have been in similar situations, before making a decision that could possibly affect the rest of their lives. It's called getting as much information as possible, and doing everything within their power to make an informed, wise decision.
I know this is probably difficult for you to comprehend, since you were apparently born with the sum total of all human knowledge, but try to understand that this is very helpful for the rest of us.
Hell yeah Uhura, at least back in the day! Check out that one TOS episode (can't remember name) where Kirk, Bones, Scotty, and Uhura get transported to the "evil" universe, complete with "evil" uniforms. Uhura had abs that'd make Britney Spears hide in shame.
Roxio is trying to get for free what other people pay for....said Dave Marglin, general counsel for Berkeley, Calif.-based Gracenote
OK, there's several ways I could go here, so I'll just list them all and let you all decide:
1. Yeah! Shame on Roxio for having the business sense to use publicly available material to get an advantage over others! That's un-American!
2. Translation: Someone has discovered that our entire business is based on publicly available information that anyone with enough time and resources could obtain and organize. Our best hope to defuse this situation is to desperately attempt to associate this with Napster as much as possible.
3. Competition? What, me worry?
Maybe students should try and claim "First Pos..er..Paper"?
In this context, it's not surprising that, as early as 1995, Bill Gates wrote in his book The Road Ahead about what he called the "Internet gold rush" and predicted both enormous long-term advances and substantial short-term setbacks, saying "Gold rushes tend to encourage impetuous investments. A few will pay off, but when the frenzy is behind us, we will look back incredulously at the wreckage of failed ventures and wonder, 'Who funded these companies? What was going on in their minds? Was that just mania at work?"
OK, although I've never read it, I'm sure Gates' book does indeed have this in it. It's just too big of lie to get away with, at least in this day and age. But this just reminds me so much of this part of 1984:
For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened.
Just a silly coincidence, I guess. Also, who was this speaker's audience? I mean, he makes this big deal that Gates foretold an Internet boom and bust all the way back in 1995!!! Was the Internet even invented back then? Wow, Bill, you had the courage to predict that a new technology would be exploited by many for business purposes, and that many of these businesses would be cheap, fly by night operations who would fail quickly. Somebody call Nostredamus and let him know his services are no longer required.
Yes, but then FORTRAN was designed from the ground up to be inheritly un-funny. There is absolutely nothing funny about FORTRAN code. In fact, if you place FORTRAN code next to something funny, that object will slowly become un-funny over the course of a few weeks.
Time to pimp. It doesn't specialize in breaking-news or up-to-the-minute reviews like some other sites, but Joystick101.org is a gaming site I've found myself spending a lot of time at. A community driven site (running Scoop) that posts articles by editors, and allows users to vote on submitted material. Sort of a cross between Slashdot and Kuro5hin.
Good place to find some intelligent, thoughtful discussion on just about anything gaming related. I invite everyone to check it out.
They probably get a lot of their hardware on the cheap too. Maxtor would probably cut you a pretty nice deal if you tell them you want 4000 80Gig drives.
Almost as bad is some of the .sigs I was using back in those days. Lots of Ren and Stimpy quotes, Simpsons once in a while. Huge 2-column ASCII things, with quotes on both sides. Ugh.
.sig files too! Yay college UNIX accounts!
And they were actual
System administrators were indispensible fifteen years ago, but they're barely useful now -- and in a short time they'll be completely superfluous
That's got to be the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in a month.
It's pretty clear to everyone here by now your just trolling. Go away.
1. (Response): Business sense aside, it's wrong to not give a job to a handicap or otherwise disabled employee, who is qualified and wants the job, simply because it's going to cost that business more money to meet their needs than a normal employee. That's called discrimination. Especially when it's discrimination based on the possibility of CTS.
2. Again, we're not talking about discriminating against someone with a condition, we're talking about discriminating against someone who might one day have a condition. No one know's for sure if these people will get CTS, just like no one knows for sure if someone will get cancer. Would it be OK for a company to not offer you a job, simply because your family has a history of cancer, and they don't want to risk exposing themselves to costly medical bills?
I'm not advocating giving someone something for nothing here. Businesses should hire the best qualified employee, period. What I am against, however, is businesses using genetic information to deny jobs to otherwise qualified employees, simply because other employees will cost them less.
OK, I can't really decide if you were trolling or not, so here goes. 2 things to keep in mind here:
1. Even people at high risk for CTS can perform in a repetitive function job, provided that they or their employer make sure their work environment is adequately equipped to handle the stresses. If a person is qualified for the job, and wants the job, there shouldn't be an artificial barrier created by this "risk of CTS" factor.
2. If you accept this, where does it stop? A familiar battle cry in many issues, but very relevant in this case. Should employers be able to check for histories of heart conditions for the same reasons (don't want employees keeling over eating a Bacon Cheeseburger, bad for moral)? Should your company be allowed to know your family has a history of glaucoma (after all, more medical bills bring the stock down)?
I realize it's not the same, as your point seems to be that both parties are benefiting: the company doesn't pay for surguries, and the person doesn't get CTS. But what you have to realize is that this company probably doesn't give a rats ass about whether their employee get's CTS or not, they just care if they have to pay for it. Allowing this sort of thing to go on opens a flood gate for all other kinds discrimination in the name of "employee benefit".
Famke? Why not just go for Kelly LeBrock. She's probably still hot, assuming she hasn't killed herself with a 3-day drug-induced drinking binge and purge session by now.
I think the main difference, here, is that we're not talking about lending the movie(CD, whatever) to a friend for a spell, or making a copy of a "few pages" (minutes). We're talking about, in theory anyway, perfect digital reproductions of the original.
I'll grant you that it's not the most heinous thing one can do, but it's not exactly a victimless crime, either. I mean, right now, even today, I can probably go and download the new Dave Mathews albumn in it's entirety off Napster. Assuming the whoever put it up made a quality rip, I can then create my own copy of Everyday in less than an hour, and for no more than the cost of my cable modem. Is DMB significantly hurt by my doing this? Of course not. But by the same token, is Wal-Mart significantly hurt if I go in and lift a bag of Sam's Choice Hot Grits? Not any more so than DMB, but it doesn't make it right, in either case.
Old arguments I know. My main point is this: It's entertainment media. No one's rights are violated because they have to plunk down $20 for the Matrix or DMB. If you think the price is a rip-off, then you don't buy them. That's a choice you make as a consumer. But your miniature boycott of the product does not give you the right to obtain said product (that you would otherwise have to pay for) for free from another source.
Or better yet, Y2-Adams!
Oh wait, that's 42. Never mind.
If your friends come over and watch the movie, that's fine. If your friends come over, and you give them a copy of the movie that they keep and take home with them, that's when it becomes illegal.
Stealing from the rich is no less a crime than stealing from the poor.
A Katz diatride is one thing, Joe Slashdot submitting a minor piece of news as an AC, breathlessly pounding at his keyboard in the hopes of being the first to submit it, is quite another.