Oh bullshit. I'm tired of this... just because a few (and it is a few) dickheads get upset over small things does not mean all, or even most, Linux users are zealots.... All this "zealot" business is self-fulfilling... you bang on about it until lots of people start to believe it. Shut up
To quote the original poster of this thread: "everybody has noticed this except you"
Until you admit the truth that this is a problem, you're destined to suffer the same fates. No, not everyone is a zealot. But the point is that there is a critical mass of zealotry that turns off a lot of people.
First of all, realize that this is not meant to plug into some personal computer, or even mainframe. It's meant to work with a pair of big-ass expensive backbone routers between major ISPs. Think about the big pipe between, say, Exodus and MCI.
The point of this is not to run 40Gb to your house, but to use it for major backbones. The benefit to you personally is getting full bandwidth to your DSL line (or whatever) from various web sites or download servers.
I'm not saying the ability to click through is useless or anything, only that it's a bonus and not the primary measure of effectiveness.
For example, if I had a banner ad advertising that there was a special episode of The Simpsons coming up, I wouldn't have to click through in order to be prompted to watch it.
Also, don't underestimate the power of branding. If people see a lot of banner ads for a particular product, and then at some point they need an item in that category, they are much more likely to pick a product where they recognize the brand.
"We" do? How do you come to that conclusion? Click-through rates, perhaps?
First of all, I can't click through a billboard, I hardly ever see them, yet they don't seem to be going away. The reason is because they work.
Second of all, you answered your own question: "We avoid them the same way we dig in the couch for the remote when commercials interrupt The Simpsons."
Yet people continue to advertise on The Simpsons. Guess why? Because most people don't hit the remote. Advertising works.
This is not to say that it's proven the banner ads "work" (whatever the definition of that is), but the jury is definitely still out. People do not have to click through for them to be effective.
D3D is carefully licensed and protected by Microsoft
That's an assumption you're making, not a fact. First, I don't think you can copyright (much less patent) just an API, particularly when it's openly documented. I guess you could point at the recent attempt by Microsoft to copyright their extensions to Kerberos, but it's doubtful that Microsoft will be that forceful with Direct3D when they want a lot of developers to use it.
Second, if Microsoft is not freaking out about Wine (much less the Direct3D part of Wine that another poster alluded to), it's safe to assume they won't try anything with Direct3D.
The point is that Microsoft can't fight a protection battle at the same time they are trying to promote an API. The two goals are just at odds with each other.
Flamebait? I think a moderator needs a lesson in reality. There would be an incredible amount of animosity towards a project to implement Direct3D under Linux. Never mind the fact that Microsoft has exactly as much right as SGI to promote a 3D API.
Anyone have any technical details of the anti-cheat technology? I dug through the link and couldn't find anything (the link that promised "more details" didn't deliver).
However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983)
Exactly. The government (i.e., USPS) is not, and should not be, allowed to pick and choose what's "best" for the recipients to recieve (excepting that weird case)
I as a private recipient can ban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS.
Indeed. You somehow assumed that I was against the right for an individual to "opt out". Clearly an individual should be able to choose to opt out of unsolicited mail. But the point is that the government should not make that choice for individuals without their consent.
In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'.
That's an opinion, not a fact. It's up to each individual to decide whether they want to receive unsolicited communications.
Bottom line, I am fully capable of making these decisions without the government's -- or your -- help.
I think spam is more akin to postal junk mail. Technically speaking, there is a "cost" involved of throwing away the stuff, namely your time. You could also argue that it requires you to buy trash liners more often, etc. But the cost is so minimal and theoretical (like e-mail) that the argument doesn't hold much water.
The point is that it would be a bad idea to have the government regulating too much what people could send you postal mail. However, there are cases where even postal mail becomes harassment, and you can file complaints for that.
The point is that we don't want to government to have too much power over what mail can or cannot be delivered between private individuals. We definitely want more power to be able to easily filter spam/junk mail, but I don't think we want full-blown bans.
The reason I like "unsolicited" rather than "adv" (for advertisement) is that the former covers more ground. I would find Greenpeace spam just as annoying as toner spam.
Spam, per se, is not illegal. Irritating, but not illegal. I think the recent federal law only requires that they give you a method of opting out.
Also, I think a lot of people need to think through the concept of "banning spam". There are significant free speech issues involved here. If the federal government restricts people's rights to send communications to private individuals, that is the "slippery slope" to the government controlling how individuals communicate.
Just for the record, I think the federal law should require unsolicited e-mails to include an identifier in the subject like "unsolicited" or something.
Terminals can boldface (or close enough, doing a higerintensity colour).
Good point; I forgot about that. I haven't used Lynx is so long... does it process bold/emphasis tags as bold text?
I've never really seen a difference in how I mentally process the emphasis of italics over boldface.
Hmmm. I feel a difference, but it's hard to quantify. Now, when I read back that last sentence to myself, I pronounce "feel" with a little more "thoughtfulness" or perhaps "subtlety", and "quantify" with more "authority" and "weight". I don't know if that makes any sense at all, but they do feel different to me.:)
Then you apparently never use Word Processors (no, troff is not a substitute), nor do you use markup editors (no, TeX is not a substitute). Apparently you also:
Never edit photographs
Think pictures with your news are overrated
Italics and boldface add no extra information (emphasis is also overrated)
Of course, we could also talk about playing videos, viewing scanned documents, etc, etc, etc.
Thank god the world is not run by people like you. We'd all be living in unpainted concrete cubes without any windows (pun intended). DrWiggy: "Go outside if you want to see outside! Color is just useless decoration! I'll have the last laugh with my concrete cube in the next earthquake, by god!"
P.S. This is not to say that I never use CLI's... I use them quite often when programming. But for application work, frankly, I am not a savage.
Ya know, the one idea that I don't think has gotten enough attention from SF is faster-than-light travel. Damn it, why aren't they spending my tax dollars are something worthwhile like this?
It must be a conspiracy. Why don't those dunderheads get off their butts and get it done. Heck, at least half of science fictions books must have FTL drives. If that many authors think it's a good idea, then it must be.
nice. attack the messenger rather than the message.
Actually, I attacked both.
based on Microsoft's history, any reasonable person would be dubious of the notion that Microsoft's Reseach labs are truly free and share all their findings.
No, A reasonable person doesn't make knee-jerk conclusions, particularly when you could have just followed the link and saw with your own eyes that MS publishes a considerable amount of material.
But that won't matter. We all know that MS is held to a different standard.
"He works for Microsoft research, which you'll note keeps all of its research papers online." -- If you believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
The point is that MS/Research has published a considerable amount of pure research papers. I'm sure they have some amount of stuff that's close to release that they don't publish -- just like every other corporate research arm, such as Bell Labs.
But I keep forgetting -- this is Slashdot, where "the truth is irrelevent, you will be assimilated".
Sorry; no offense. When I pictured "Mesquite", I pictured some hot, dry desert out in the middle of the sticks. I didn't realize it was a suburb of a real city.
Although, I have to say, both Hook and Abrash have gone on record as saying one of the reasons they left was get to a greener environment. I haven't heard if this was part of Cash's motivation.:)
He works for Microsoft research, which you'll note keeps all of its research papers online.
Just because a company is closed source, doesn't mean it doesn't have a sharing philosophy. Or, put it another way, Bell Labs is (was) just as "closed source" once you got to the product stage. Do you put them into the same category?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh bullshit. I'm tired of this ... just because a few (and it is a few) dickheads get upset over small things does not mean all, or even most, Linux users are zealots. ... All this "zealot" business is self-fulfilling ... you bang on about it until lots of people start to believe it. Shut up
To quote the original poster of this thread: "everybody has noticed this except you"
Until you admit the truth that this is a problem, you're destined to suffer the same fates. No, not everyone is a zealot. But the point is that there is a critical mass of zealotry that turns off a lot of people.
--
I thought Killcreek looked a lot better before the boob job, bleached hair and troweled-on make-up.
But then, I've never liked the plastic look. I like a more natural look.
--
First of all, realize that this is not meant to plug into some personal computer, or even mainframe. It's meant to work with a pair of big-ass expensive backbone routers between major ISPs. Think about the big pipe between, say, Exodus and MCI.
--
The point of this is not to run 40Gb to your house, but to use it for major backbones. The benefit to you personally is getting full bandwidth to your DSL line (or whatever) from various web sites or download servers.
--
Childish? Yeah, I guess it's pretty childish to actually want applications to use!!
Again, users use applications, not operating systems.
--
I'm not saying the ability to click through is useless or anything, only that it's a bonus and not the primary measure of effectiveness.
For example, if I had a banner ad advertising that there was a special episode of The Simpsons coming up, I wouldn't have to click through in order to be prompted to watch it.
Also, don't underestimate the power of branding. If people see a lot of banner ads for a particular product, and then at some point they need an item in that category, they are much more likely to pick a product where they recognize the brand.
--
We all know that banners don't work anymore.
"We" do? How do you come to that conclusion? Click-through rates, perhaps?
First of all, I can't click through a billboard, I hardly ever see them, yet they don't seem to be going away. The reason is because they work.
Second of all, you answered your own question: "We avoid them the same way we dig in the couch for the remote when commercials interrupt The Simpsons."
Yet people continue to advertise on The Simpsons. Guess why? Because most people don't hit the remote. Advertising works.
This is not to say that it's proven the banner ads "work" (whatever the definition of that is), but the jury is definitely still out. People do not have to click through for them to be effective.
--
Not to mention putting puny black type on an ugly dim background color making it incredibly difficult to read.
If this is the future of the web, I better get a new eyeglass prescription.
--
D3D is carefully licensed and protected by Microsoft
That's an assumption you're making, not a fact. First, I don't think you can copyright (much less patent) just an API, particularly when it's openly documented. I guess you could point at the recent attempt by Microsoft to copyright their extensions to Kerberos, but it's doubtful that Microsoft will be that forceful with Direct3D when they want a lot of developers to use it.
Second, if Microsoft is not freaking out about Wine (much less the Direct3D part of Wine that another poster alluded to), it's safe to assume they won't try anything with Direct3D.
The point is that Microsoft can't fight a protection battle at the same time they are trying to promote an API. The two goals are just at odds with each other.
--
First of all, it's irrelevent which API is better. The only thing that matters is what everyone uses.
Second of all, no one is talking about "hitching their futures". Implementing Direct3D doesn't preclude also allowing OpenGL.
This is one of the problems with the Linux (and dare I say OSS) community... too much zealotry, not enough practicality.
--
Flamebait? I think a moderator needs a lesson in reality. There would be an incredible amount of animosity towards a project to implement Direct3D under Linux. Never mind the fact that Microsoft has exactly as much right as SGI to promote a 3D API.
--
Anyone have any technical details of the anti-cheat technology? I dug through the link and couldn't find anything (the link that promised "more details" didn't deliver).
--
I don't see how we're not saying the same thing.
However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983)
Exactly. The government (i.e., USPS) is not, and should not be, allowed to pick and choose what's "best" for the recipients to recieve (excepting that weird case)
I as a private recipient can ban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS.
Indeed. You somehow assumed that I was against the right for an individual to "opt out". Clearly an individual should be able to choose to opt out of unsolicited mail. But the point is that the government should not make that choice for individuals without their consent.
In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'.
That's an opinion, not a fact. It's up to each individual to decide whether they want to receive unsolicited communications.
Bottom line, I am fully capable of making these decisions without the government's -- or your -- help.
--
I think spam is more akin to postal junk mail. Technically speaking, there is a "cost" involved of throwing away the stuff, namely your time. You could also argue that it requires you to buy trash liners more often, etc. But the cost is so minimal and theoretical (like e-mail) that the argument doesn't hold much water.
The point is that it would be a bad idea to have the government regulating too much what people could send you postal mail. However, there are cases where even postal mail becomes harassment, and you can file complaints for that.
The point is that we don't want to government to have too much power over what mail can or cannot be delivered between private individuals. We definitely want more power to be able to easily filter spam/junk mail, but I don't think we want full-blown bans.
--
The reason I like "unsolicited" rather than "adv" (for advertisement) is that the former covers more ground. I would find Greenpeace spam just as annoying as toner spam.
--
Spam, per se, is not illegal. Irritating, but not illegal. I think the recent federal law only requires that they give you a method of opting out.
Also, I think a lot of people need to think through the concept of "banning spam". There are significant free speech issues involved here. If the federal government restricts people's rights to send communications to private individuals, that is the "slippery slope" to the government controlling how individuals communicate.
Just for the record, I think the federal law should require unsolicited e-mails to include an identifier in the subject like "unsolicited" or something.
--
Terminals can boldface (or close enough, doing a higerintensity colour).
Good point; I forgot about that. I haven't used Lynx is so long... does it process bold/emphasis tags as bold text?
I've never really seen a difference in how I mentally process the emphasis of italics over boldface.
Hmmm. I feel a difference, but it's hard to quantify. Now, when I read back that last sentence to myself, I pronounce "feel" with a little more "thoughtfulness" or perhaps "subtlety", and "quantify" with more "authority" and "weight". I don't know if that makes any sense at all, but they do feel different to me. :)
--
Then you apparently never use Word Processors (no, troff is not a substitute), nor do you use markup editors (no, TeX is not a substitute). Apparently you also:
Thank god the world is not run by people like you. We'd all be living in unpainted concrete cubes without any windows (pun intended). DrWiggy: "Go outside if you want to see outside! Color is just useless decoration! I'll have the last laugh with my concrete cube in the next earthquake, by god!"
P.S. This is not to say that I never use CLI's... I use them quite often when programming. But for application work, frankly, I am not a savage.
--
Indeed. I think there are a lot of issues that have never been debated before. I'm sure we'll see some fresh perspectives from both sides!
I for one welcome reopening this seldom-visited topic.
--
And it's less filling!
--
Ya know, the one idea that I don't think has gotten enough attention from SF is faster-than-light travel. Damn it, why aren't they spending my tax dollars are something worthwhile like this?
It must be a conspiracy. Why don't those dunderheads get off their butts and get it done. Heck, at least half of science fictions books must have FTL drives. If that many authors think it's a good idea, then it must be.
Come on guys, get it done!
--
nice. attack the messenger rather than the message.
Actually, I attacked both.
based on Microsoft's history, any reasonable person would be dubious of the notion that Microsoft's Reseach labs are truly free and share all their findings.
No, A reasonable person doesn't make knee-jerk conclusions, particularly when you could have just followed the link and saw with your own eyes that MS publishes a considerable amount of material.
But that won't matter. We all know that MS is held to a different standard.
--
"He works for Microsoft research, which you'll note keeps all of its research papers online." -- If you believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
The point is that MS/Research has published a considerable amount of pure research papers. I'm sure they have some amount of stuff that's close to release that they don't publish -- just like every other corporate research arm, such as Bell Labs.
But I keep forgetting -- this is Slashdot, where "the truth is irrelevent, you will be assimilated".
--
Sorry; no offense. When I pictured "Mesquite", I pictured some hot, dry desert out in the middle of the sticks. I didn't realize it was a suburb of a real city.
Although, I have to say, both Hook and Abrash have gone on record as saying one of the reasons they left was get to a greener environment. I haven't heard if this was part of Cash's motivation. :)
--
He works for Microsoft research, which you'll note keeps all of its research papers online.
Just because a company is closed source, doesn't mean it doesn't have a sharing philosophy. Or, put it another way, Bell Labs is (was) just as "closed source" once you got to the product stage. Do you put them into the same category?
--