Sometimes I'll go over to my home machines, and just check about a half a dozen tabs in Mozilla which are always up just to see if anything new happened since the last time.
You may want to look into RSS. It's made for this kind of thing.
I don't quite understand the editorialization on the summary. Theodp tries to make it sound like Amazon.com's hiring practices are bad for rural America. But his links don't support that. They talk about having to bus workers in from out of town (as far away as the next state) to work seasonally in the warehouses.
But it's not like Amazon is turning down local workers in favor of out of town workers. According to one of the articles linked "more than 85 percent of the yearly labor needs are supplied by the local labor pool. Staff management works with local employment agencies, recruits at colleges and works with high schools to provide jobs for graduating seniors," and "we first start with the local labor pool, then broaden our search." Amazon is employing the locals and out of town people (which also help the locals by staying in hotels paid for by Amazon and patronizing locals businesses).
Amazon has also set up education programs to help potential-workers complete their GED, and supported other local programs. "Amazon.com has partnered with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Team Taylor County and Kentucky Adult Education to form the Go, Earn, Do program, which helps people earn their GED." According to an Amazon spokesman, "we've hired several graduates of the program so far and as the program grows we hope to hire even more."
So I really don't see Theodp's snarky objection to Amazon and Bezo's stand on how tech helps out rural areas. If anything, the articles he links actually support Bezos' claims.
Bezos' remarks on Shawn Fanning are on the mark, too. Sure, Fanning was in a Boston dorm room when he wrote Napster, but it's not like he needed the massive infrastructure of a huge city to do it, just an Internet connection. As Bezos points out, "that's the kind of thing people can do anywhere. They can do it in Seattle, they can do it in North Dakota."
So pretty much all of the editorializing in the summary is wrong, and doesn't seem to server any purpose other than to troll us. I guess I bit.
(An off topic ad hominem: theodp@aol.com? On Slashdot? Puh-leaze. I see September still hasn't ended.)
That's not true, though. Mainstream journalism requires t least that you have a resume, probably references, that you can pass an interview, and that your boss agrees with what you have to say. Weak as they may be, a blogging "job" requiresa none of these "safegaurds".
I'm not disagreeing at all. After actually reading (bits of) the article, I was pretty disgusted that I was actually defending the guy. But there is a kernel of truth, I think, that should be recognized there, even if he said it in the worst possible way.
I've only skimmed the article, but has it occured to you guys that it might not be all wrong. We're quick to rush in and defend blogs - they're a great way for the underdogs to expose actual wrongdoing and injustices - but maybe not all bloggers deserve our support.
The truth is, Forbes is right, blogs allow yahoos with an axe to grind and phony information to gain publicity adn credibility - after all, they're the underdog, standing against the faceless corporation. In a day where pretty much all of us are very skeptical of anything published in the mainstream maybe far too many of us are willing to take anything read in a blog as the gospel truth (I read it on the Internet, so it has to be true).
FUD flows in both directions, and businesses should be at least aware of the blogosphere, and that bloggers may be spreading misinformation, and how to counter it with the truth. Businesses, of course, also need to know that the blogosphere is watching their every move - and they need to be more careful now than ever that they always act ethically - something thye should be doing anyway.
Reading the Frobes article deeper, it's pretty hard to defend. The article itself is full of misinformation and despicable ideas (in their sidebars, they side with SCO, malign Pamela Jones, and suggest using the DMCA to take down blogs). Nevertheless, the general idea of my post still remains - maybe we're a bit too trusting of blogs, and it doesn't hurt to look at the other's guys point of view. Bloggers are just as capable of spreading FUD as a corporation - even more capable because wheras a corporation has very very little accountability, an anonymous blogger has even less.
I saw Neil Gaiman at a book reading/signing in Seattle, where he talked about the mp3 audio book. Apparently Gaiman had to fight hard with his publishers to get the book out on mp3. The publishers were worried about an MP3 CD having no protection against copying and sharing whatsoever. But in Gaiman's own (paraphrased) words "Most people, when they buy the audiobook, the first thing they're going to do it carefully rip it and put it on their iPod. So why can't we just do most of the work for them?"
So once again, it's a case of the artist fighting for better access for the listener/reader/watcher, against the wished of the business execs. They claim they're trying to protect the artist but when artists have to fight for things they want, like mp3 audiobooks, CC-licensed book, and torrents of albums, it gets pretty easy to see through the lies.
Hopefully, this test will help the stigma of being labeled "crazy." If a psychologist tell you you're anxious, that's one thing. But if a blood test reveals a disorder, that's something else entirely in most people's minds, I'll bet. Hopefully this will help "legitimize" psychological disorders, and stop people from saying things like "just snap out of it."
"There is a very dark, black cloud in this game. It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime." Why are they suing bitorrent users then?
Umm... is it because bitorrent users don't arrange to have you killed?
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Err, no offest, but someone had to do one.
I actually think this isn't a bad idea, it would just never work. The "Requires too much cooperation from spammers" point in enormous. They just simply wouldn't put where your email address was obtained, and there's be nothing we could do about it, and life would go on as normal.
Internet poker sites aren't as worried about collusion (the form of cheating your described) as Vegas casinos are about people cheating the house. If a gambler cheats the house, the casino loses money. But if poker players cheat, it's the other players who lose. The house still gets to take it's share of each poker pot (the rake), so they make money whether you cheat or not.
Of course, they don't allow collusion, because if other players start to lose a lot, they might not want to play as much. And the online poker rooms do watch out for collusion. But it's not nearly as big a concern as Vegas cheaters.
IMDB des, in fact, use a completely automated recommendations system. A few details are available on each recommendations page.
With over 456,000 titles on the IMDb it isn't feasible to handpick Recommendations for every film. That's why we came up with a complex formula to suggest titles that fit along with the selected film and, most importantly, let our trusted user base steer those selections. The formula uses factors such as user votes, genre, title, keywords, and, most importantly, user recommendations themselves to generate an automatic response.
We're proud of our system for, if you disagree with a Recommendation for a given title and know of a better one, we encourage you to help us improve the results. Look for the "Update" button or the "Add a Recommendation" link at the bottom of the page and add more relevant (or just plain more) Keywords, or add the titles that you think should be surfacing, and help make Recommends more useful, more appropriate, and more fun.
I did my best to read the thread, but it seems to be missing information, or is, at the least, poorly organized. The email linked from the Slashdot article is simply Mark Pilgrim telling people to uninstall greasemonkey. There's no clear explanation of what's going on.
Seems like the problem is fairly obvious. Executable code is sometimes malicious. That's kind of just part of the whole "General purpose" computing thing. The same thing goes for any executable on any system.
And the solution is hte same: don't use executables (scripts) from dodgy sources. And since greasemonkey scripts are by definition open source (little 'o'), and usually not very long, it's trivial check for flaws or exploits. If not yourself, some white hat out there will do it.
Do you really think the big pulishers give a shit about the small bookstores? Hint, they don't.
It's all about revenue. By having a well publicised street date, they create a false scarcity and a sort of frenzy in the consumers (not the readers -- the consumers, the people with the money). The consumers know they can't get it until whatever date, and when that date comes, they jump on it and pay their 30 bucks for the hardcover. Without the artifical frenzy of the street date, they might not buy the hardcove the day it comes out. They might not buy it at all. They might go for the trade or - god forbid - the mass market paperback. Worst of all, they might borrow it from a friend! Imagine that, all that enjoyment without paying Big Media a dime. It's criminal! Don't even get me started on libraries. Little pinko Bolshevik communes, every one.
Protexting the small bookstores might be a nice thing for the publishers to talk about -- it makes the proles feels fuzzy inside -- but if it wasn't for the fact that they can make twice as much at Barnes & Noble by having a big, hyped midnight release like Revenge of the Atttack of the Phanton Clones, they wouldn't be doing it. Fuck the small retailers. If doing a big release meant twice as much BN revenue and the smaller bookstores had to sell their children to stay in business, they'd still do it.
It's not about small bookstores. I doubt JK's publishers gave them a second thought. It's revenue. And it's not revenue from Fran's Book Barn, either.
Another guitar playing robot in the GuitarBot. The guitar bot doesn't play an actual guitar, rather there is a seperate robot/string assembly for each string. But it is a neat little gadget, and I believe it's been on slashdot before. Another advantage of the Guitarbot is that is comes with a video clip of it performing.
Don't go there...if you look at the history of Slashdot they're anti-Ham radio for the most part
I call troll. I don't know which Slashdot your reading. If your take a look at the past articles on broadband over power lines (like this onem the vast majority of people have been for HAM radios, talking about what a bad idea BPL is.
Their reasoning is why stop progress for something that only 600,000 people in the country do.
You forget that HAMs are basically the original geeks. Slashdotters support their fellow geeks, including hams, very much.
You know, the needs of the many outway the needs of the few.
Right. 'Cause you know how gung-ho we are about taking away people's rights, especially minorities. We hate liberty and love the FCC and large corporations..
Seriously. Come up with a better troll. I can't believe you were modded +5.
I don't see how that makes the photographer stupid. I got all the digital shots from my wedding in full resolution on a CD. And I got all the negatived from the film camera. The wedding photgrapher business is changing, and the couple often gets the originals these days.
What you said flatly contradicts the story, as well as news posted on scifi.com itself saying the episodes will air on fridays, starting July 22nd. So somehow I doubt you're correct.
Slashdot Mirror
You may want to look into RSS. It's made for this kind of thing.
I don't quite understand the editorialization on the summary. Theodp tries to make it sound like Amazon.com's hiring practices are bad for rural America. But his links don't support that. They talk about having to bus workers in from out of town (as far away as the next state) to work seasonally in the warehouses.
But it's not like Amazon is turning down local workers in favor of out of town workers. According to one of the articles linked "more than 85 percent of the yearly labor needs are supplied by the local labor pool. Staff management works with local employment agencies, recruits at colleges and works with high schools to provide jobs for graduating seniors," and "we first start with the local labor pool, then broaden our search." Amazon is employing the locals and out of town people (which also help the locals by staying in hotels paid for by Amazon and patronizing locals businesses).
Amazon has also set up education programs to help potential-workers complete their GED, and supported other local programs. "Amazon.com has partnered with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Team Taylor County and Kentucky Adult Education to form the Go, Earn, Do program, which helps people earn their GED." According to an Amazon spokesman, "we've hired several graduates of the program so far and as the program grows we hope to hire even more."
So I really don't see Theodp's snarky objection to Amazon and Bezo's stand on how tech helps out rural areas. If anything, the articles he links actually support Bezos' claims.
Bezos' remarks on Shawn Fanning are on the mark, too. Sure, Fanning was in a Boston dorm room when he wrote Napster, but it's not like he needed the massive infrastructure of a huge city to do it, just an Internet connection. As Bezos points out, "that's the kind of thing people can do anywhere. They can do it in Seattle, they can do it in North Dakota."
So pretty much all of the editorializing in the summary is wrong, and doesn't seem to server any purpose other than to troll us. I guess I bit.
(An off topic ad hominem: theodp@ aol.com ? On Slashdot? Puh-leaze. I see September still hasn't ended.)
That's not true, though. Mainstream journalism requires t least that you have a resume, probably references, that you can pass an interview, and that your boss agrees with what you have to say. Weak as they may be, a blogging "job" requiresa none of these "safegaurds".
I proporse no ideal line-drawings.
I'm not disagreeing at all. After actually reading (bits of) the article, I was pretty disgusted that I was actually defending the guy. But there is a kernel of truth, I think, that should be recognized there, even if he said it in the worst possible way.
I've only skimmed the article, but has it occured to you guys that it might not be all wrong. We're quick to rush in and defend blogs - they're a great way for the underdogs to expose actual wrongdoing and injustices - but maybe not all bloggers deserve our support.
The truth is, Forbes is right, blogs allow yahoos with an axe to grind and phony information to gain publicity adn credibility - after all, they're the underdog, standing against the faceless corporation. In a day where pretty much all of us are very skeptical of anything published in the mainstream maybe far too many of us are willing to take anything read in a blog as the gospel truth (I read it on the Internet, so it has to be true).
FUD flows in both directions, and businesses should be at least aware of the blogosphere, and that bloggers may be spreading misinformation, and how to counter it with the truth. Businesses, of course, also need to know that the blogosphere is watching their every move - and they need to be more careful now than ever that they always act ethically - something thye should be doing anyway.
Reading the Frobes article deeper, it's pretty hard to defend. The article itself is full of misinformation and despicable ideas (in their sidebars, they side with SCO, malign Pamela Jones, and suggest using the DMCA to take down blogs). Nevertheless, the general idea of my post still remains - maybe we're a bit too trusting of blogs, and it doesn't hurt to look at the other's guys point of view. Bloggers are just as capable of spreading FUD as a corporation - even more capable because wheras a corporation has very very little accountability, an anonymous blogger has even less.
I saw Neil Gaiman at a book reading/signing in Seattle, where he talked about the mp3 audio book. Apparently Gaiman had to fight hard with his publishers to get the book out on mp3. The publishers were worried about an MP3 CD having no protection against copying and sharing whatsoever. But in Gaiman's own (paraphrased) words "Most people, when they buy the audiobook, the first thing they're going to do it carefully rip it and put it on their iPod. So why can't we just do most of the work for them?"
So once again, it's a case of the artist fighting for better access for the listener/reader/watcher, against the wished of the business execs. They claim they're trying to protect the artist but when artists have to fight for things they want, like mp3 audiobooks, CC-licensed book, and torrents of albums, it gets pretty easy to see through the lies.
Hopefully, this test will help the stigma of being labeled "crazy." If a psychologist tell you you're anxious, that's one thing. But if a blood test reveals a disorder, that's something else entirely in most people's minds, I'll bet. Hopefully this will help "legitimize" psychological disorders, and stop people from saying things like "just snap out of it."
"Visiting our Red Space Neighbor?" What the hell? That's a terribly headline. What's wrong with saying "Mars?"
"Excuse me honey. I have to go to the big toilet room neighbor."
Look, it was a joke. I was just whoring for the +5 to feel good about myself.
As for the organized crime type of pirated being small guys, I imagine they'd use a a gun.
I actually think this isn't a bad idea, it would just never work. The "Requires too much cooperation from spammers" point in enormous. They just simply wouldn't put where your email address was obtained, and there's be nothing we could do about it, and life would go on as normal.
Internet poker sites aren't as worried about collusion (the form of cheating your described) as Vegas casinos are about people cheating the house. If a gambler cheats the house, the casino loses money. But if poker players cheat, it's the other players who lose. The house still gets to take it's share of each poker pot (the rake), so they make money whether you cheat or not.
Of course, they don't allow collusion, because if other players start to lose a lot, they might not want to play as much. And the online poker rooms do watch out for collusion. But it's not nearly as big a concern as Vegas cheaters.
No. Next question.
You can also find total space used if you go into the big long system information page (in one of the settings menus, I believe).
I did my best to read the thread, but it seems to be missing information, or is, at the least, poorly organized. The email linked from the Slashdot article is simply Mark Pilgrim telling people to uninstall greasemonkey. There's no clear explanation of what's going on.
Seems like the problem is fairly obvious. Executable code is sometimes malicious. That's kind of just part of the whole "General purpose" computing thing. The same thing goes for any executable on any system.
And the solution is hte same: don't use executables (scripts) from dodgy sources. And since greasemonkey scripts are by definition open source (little 'o'), and usually not very long, it's trivial check for flaws or exploits. If not yourself, some white hat out there will do it.
So in other words, business as usual.
> It looks like most of their portfolio makes it into production
Or perhaps it's that the design that don't make it into production are taken off the site (since they're obviously not super good designs).
Do you really think the big pulishers give a shit about the small bookstores? Hint, they don't.
It's all about revenue. By having a well publicised street date, they create a false scarcity and a sort of frenzy in the consumers (not the readers -- the consumers, the people with the money). The consumers know they can't get it until whatever date, and when that date comes, they jump on it and pay their 30 bucks for the hardcover. Without the artifical frenzy of the street date, they might not buy the hardcove the day it comes out. They might not buy it at all. They might go for the trade or - god forbid - the mass market paperback. Worst of all, they might borrow it from a friend! Imagine that, all that enjoyment without paying Big Media a dime. It's criminal! Don't even get me started on libraries. Little pinko Bolshevik communes, every one.
Protexting the small bookstores might be a nice thing for the publishers to talk about -- it makes the proles feels fuzzy inside -- but if it wasn't for the fact that they can make twice as much at Barnes & Noble by having a big, hyped midnight release like Revenge of the Atttack of the Phanton Clones, they wouldn't be doing it. Fuck the small retailers. If doing a big release meant twice as much BN revenue and the smaller bookstores had to sell their children to stay in business, they'd still do it.
It's not about small bookstores. I doubt JK's publishers gave them a second thought. It's revenue. And it's not revenue from Fran's Book Barn, either.
Another guitar playing robot in the GuitarBot. The guitar bot doesn't play an actual guitar, rather there is a seperate robot/string assembly for each string. But it is a neat little gadget, and I believe it's been on slashdot before. Another advantage of the Guitarbot is that is comes with a video clip of it performing.
I call troll. I don't know which Slashdot your reading. If your take a look at the past articles on broadband over power lines (like this onem the vast majority of people have been for HAM radios, talking about what a bad idea BPL is.
You forget that HAMs are basically the original geeks. Slashdotters support their fellow geeks, including hams, very much.
Right. 'Cause you know how gung-ho we are about taking away people's rights, especially minorities. We hate liberty and love the FCC and large corporations..
Seriously. Come up with a better troll. I can't believe you were modded +5.
From the headline: "Low-Hanging Moon Explained"
From the article: "Experts have yet to agree on either or, indeed, any explanation."
So... which is it?
Ok, I got it. That would be phenomenally stupid.
I don't see how that makes the photographer stupid. I got all the digital shots from my wedding in full resolution on a CD. And I got all the negatived from the film camera. The wedding photgrapher business is changing, and the couple often gets the originals these days.
What you said flatly contradicts the story, as well as news posted on scifi.com itself saying the episodes will air on fridays, starting July 22nd. So somehow I doubt you're correct.