This problem should really take care of itself. Just get a staffer to SQL-inject* the necessary clause as a rider for some boring budget stuff that no one will read all the way through, wait for Dubya to sign it, and then pop out and shout p0wned! Then they'll have to build that foolproof system, and we'll be all set.
It's just cheaper to wait a few billion years for roaches to evolve sentience in the unlikely event of a near-term collision. We'll kill ourselves off sooner than that, so no sense in worrying about asteroids unless one's coming in <100 years or so.
I'm not sure what to make of Job's comments about the apparent fragility of networks. On the one hand, I think it'd be very strange indeed for them to admit the network is that fragile, especially if it really is.
My guess is that the network isn't really that fragile, but that a rogue application that hogs bandwidth (think Bittorrent over EDGE or the Melissa virus) could conceivably degrade service to the point where QoS for live voice conversations would be impaired, which isn't quite the same as a total outage, but might as well be for people who just want to talk on the phone.
Alternatively, the availability of applications that make free use of the network for services that they want to charge you ridiculous prices for ($0.10/sms or pay for downloading ringtones or to send photos that you take with the phone) just scares them too much and they want to soak the customer for every last nickle and dime they can squeeze out.
We should love smart users. If they come up with their own solutions to problems, they're de facto developers. If the business is run well, good workers will succeed and advance while poor workers fail and leave the company. In time, we'll have evolved a class of competent users, even experts, and have application development in the hands of everyone, along with the skillset to actually make decent software. It's a long way off, and maybe a pipe dream, I know, but don't squash the dream. Please.
Well put, but one other lesson to learn is to make sure you let all these private censors know who you want censored. If YouTube didn't hear from a bunch of pro-muslim people, you can bet they would have just left things as they were. It stands to reason, then, also, that if YouTube hears from a lot of people who object to censorship, that they'll re-evaluate and possibly change course in their policies.
When you get shut out of a well-trafficked region of the net that is readily accessible to the public, your message is getting marginalized. You might not be getting censored in a strict sense of the term, but you're definitely getting suppressed, and suppression of ideas does not help to further the cause of robust, intellectually honest debate. This is bad, and if left uncorrected we'll just see a further dumbing down of public discourse and heavy-handed control of what's allowed to be said by those who have control over the popular media. That's about as antithetical to real democracy as you can get, and just because it's corporations doing it and not the government doesn't mean that it's OK, or that there's no problems, even if it's technically legal.
If you look carefully, you'll notice I didn't mention religion at all. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. All I've said is that no one goes about employing "terrorist" tactics for the sole purpose of scaring people. The people who do that stuff want something.
People who spout off empty platitudes like "All they wanted was to incite fear and massive panic amongst the people of the USA. They won," are only helping the world to continue to not understand what's happening. This is not ALL "they" wanted. They certainly want more than just that. The word "they" suggests a monolithic organization that does not actually exist. Each participant has their own motivations and goals. Treating them all the same and ascribing to their actions the vague and abstract goal of only wanting to make people afraid is ludicrous.
I'm not saying that everyone just needs nurturing and sympathy and then we'll magically have world peace and brotherly love. I'm saying understand them -- know your enemy.
Find out what turned those people who are against you into enemies, and act to stop that from happening to more people, so that in time there will be fewer people who want to be your enemy. If you do not understand how the enemy thinks, if you do not know what he wants or understand how he most likely will try to achieve his ends, you are at a hopeless disadvantage.
Take away your enemies' motivations for hating you.
Understand their true goals so that you can thwart them properly.
Or shit your pants every time a couple of pothead cartoon marketers stick up a couple of lite brights in public areas. The choice is yours.
I keep hearing people spew the notion that the "goal of terrorists is to terrorize".
Yeah, right.
Terrorist is a label applied to one's political enemies. NO ONE calls their self a terrorist.
These are people who have goals and are very dedicated to achieving them by any means necessary. Their goal is not simply to terrorize. Terror is the means, not the end. Look into what they want to achieve and learn to understand how they look at the world, and you'll be a little closer to finding a solution that brings about peace.
The idea that terrorists is an actual ideology that people subscribe to, and that these people just want everyone to live in fear -- and nothing more than that -- is a colossal misunderstanding that can only help perpetuate the ongoing conflict.
Wouldn't this just make every single game feel and play like every other? Total boredom. I'd like this about as much as I would like 64,000 ugly skins for my favorite media player app.
Think about the Server licenses, the CALs, the MS SQL licenses, the Office licenses, the Exchange Server licenses, and all that stuff when you think of Enterprise customers. Plus thousands of desktops. All the users call the enterprises's helpdesk when they need something, so MS doesn't deal with them a whole lot, and thus doesn't tie up a huge amount of resources in supporting them.
Mom and pop outfits, by contrast, might have a handful of licenses of Windows desktop OSes, maybe a server license but probably not, probably don't upgrade at the drop of a hat, might not even purchase valid licenses for every system they run, and probably require a good deal more handholding and support because they're not the IT pros that large enterprises can afford to hire to keep their shit running.
And it's not to say that MS doesn't profit from small businesses, they just don't profit as much. Even if the profit margin is decent still, you can bet you're going to pay more attention to a multi-million dollar customer account than a multi-thousand dollar customer account.
Re:Buy one for DNF coding team.
on
Game Writing
·
· Score: 1
This book is going to force the DNF guys to do another total rewrite, so that DNF will have the most revolutionary storytelling system ever. Nice going.
It's repugnant only from the standpoint that the content served by the domains while they're being speculated is repugnant. The dns registrar system allows this behavior, and it's profitable, so you just know someone will do it. You can't blame them for doing something that isn't illegal that can be pretty lucrative. The people doing it do take risks, and may well participate in other, more definitely unethical behaviors such as spamming or browser hijacking. Simply serving a crappy web page on a potentially popular domain name is merely distasteful. I don't see any solution to stop the market forces driving it that would be worse than the problem.
That's not to say that there aren't domain squatters who have taken trademarked words without the trademark holder's permission and then added.com,.org,.net, etc. and registered them ahead of the trademark holder. Squatting on those domains is probably a more legitimate problem. But having the foresight to buy a dns registration for sex.com or buy.com or some other "hot" word back before anyone else can think to is totally brilliant. Maybe not technically brilliant, but business-wise it's brilliant. I won't argue with the fact that putting up a shitty web site there is lame, but I'm still jealous I didn't think of the idea first.
It's not really squatting, though, is it? In real estate, squatting means living on property that you don't own, without the owner's knowledge/consent, because the property is effectively abandoned and neglected.
This is more like real estate speculation. Buying a parcel of land, and then sitting on it to assert ownership rights, while not developing it and waiting along for someone who wants to buy it from you so that they can use it. Speculating is a lot less unsavory-sounding than squatting.
While this is true, what we REALLY need is further integration. The GUN-cameraphone would solve a ton of problems. We'd probably even have direct democracy, finally.
My first thought on reading this was, "Holy fuck!" Thinking about the new level of totalitarianism such a device would enable. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to feel certain that as long as they're using a technology called iRobot in their design, it won't go anywhere, because they'll be embroiled in lawsuits with Apple until long after my bones have turned to dust.
Slashdot Mirror
This problem should really take care of itself. Just get a staffer to SQL-inject* the necessary clause as a rider for some boring budget stuff that no one will read all the way through, wait for Dubya to sign it, and then pop out and shout p0wned! Then they'll have to build that foolproof system, and we'll be all set.
*SQL = Staffer Quill Language
It's just cheaper to wait a few billion years for roaches to evolve sentience in the unlikely event of a near-term collision. We'll kill ourselves off sooner than that, so no sense in worrying about asteroids unless one's coming in <100 years or so.
Yes, but now busses explode randomly on a daily basis ;)
I'm not sure what to make of Job's comments about the apparent fragility of networks. On the one hand, I think it'd be very strange indeed for them to admit the network is that fragile, especially if it really is.
My guess is that the network isn't really that fragile, but that a rogue application that hogs bandwidth (think Bittorrent over EDGE or the Melissa virus) could conceivably degrade service to the point where QoS for live voice conversations would be impaired, which isn't quite the same as a total outage, but might as well be for people who just want to talk on the phone.
Alternatively, the availability of applications that make free use of the network for services that they want to charge you ridiculous prices for ($0.10/sms or pay for downloading ringtones or to send photos that you take with the phone) just scares them too much and they want to soak the customer for every last nickle and dime they can squeeze out.
We should love smart users. If they come up with their own solutions to problems, they're de facto developers. If the business is run well, good workers will succeed and advance while poor workers fail and leave the company. In time, we'll have evolved a class of competent users, even experts, and have application development in the hands of everyone, along with the skillset to actually make decent software. It's a long way off, and maybe a pipe dream, I know, but don't squash the dream. Please.
How many "this could be the cure for AIDS/Cancer/Virginity" articles get posted on /. every month?
I'll believe it when the treatment actually gets used to eradicate the disease.
Guess I'll go back to holding my breath.
Post-soviet, but yeah...
Well put, but one other lesson to learn is to make sure you let all these private censors know who you want censored. If YouTube didn't hear from a bunch of pro-muslim people, you can bet they would have just left things as they were. It stands to reason, then, also, that if YouTube hears from a lot of people who object to censorship, that they'll re-evaluate and possibly change course in their policies.
When you get shut out of a well-trafficked region of the net that is readily accessible to the public, your message is getting marginalized. You might not be getting censored in a strict sense of the term, but you're definitely getting suppressed, and suppression of ideas does not help to further the cause of robust, intellectually honest debate. This is bad, and if left uncorrected we'll just see a further dumbing down of public discourse and heavy-handed control of what's allowed to be said by those who have control over the popular media. That's about as antithetical to real democracy as you can get, and just because it's corporations doing it and not the government doesn't mean that it's OK, or that there's no problems, even if it's technically legal.
If you look carefully, you'll notice I didn't mention religion at all. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. All I've said is that no one goes about employing "terrorist" tactics for the sole purpose of scaring people. The people who do that stuff want something.
People who spout off empty platitudes like "All they wanted was to incite fear and massive panic amongst the people of the USA. They won," are only helping the world to continue to not understand what's happening. This is not ALL "they" wanted. They certainly want more than just that. The word "they" suggests a monolithic organization that does not actually exist. Each participant has their own motivations and goals. Treating them all the same and ascribing to their actions the vague and abstract goal of only wanting to make people afraid is ludicrous.
I'm not saying that everyone just needs nurturing and sympathy and then we'll magically have world peace and brotherly love. I'm saying understand them -- know your enemy.
Find out what turned those people who are against you into enemies, and act to stop that from happening to more people, so that in time there will be fewer people who want to be your enemy. If you do not understand how the enemy thinks, if you do not know what he wants or understand how he most likely will try to achieve his ends, you are at a hopeless disadvantage.
Take away your enemies' motivations for hating you.
Understand their true goals so that you can thwart them properly.
Or shit your pants every time a couple of pothead cartoon marketers stick up a couple of lite brights in public areas. The choice is yours.
I keep hearing people spew the notion that the "goal of terrorists is to terrorize".
Yeah, right.
Terrorist is a label applied to one's political enemies. NO ONE calls their self a terrorist.
These are people who have goals and are very dedicated to achieving them by any means necessary. Their goal is not simply to terrorize. Terror is the means, not the end. Look into what they want to achieve and learn to understand how they look at the world, and you'll be a little closer to finding a solution that brings about peace.
The idea that terrorists is an actual ideology that people subscribe to, and that these people just want everyone to live in fear -- and nothing more than that -- is a colossal misunderstanding that can only help perpetuate the ongoing conflict.
Better yet, make ITMS open to everyone who wants to sell, just like eBay is open to everyone who wants to sell.
Makes me think of Planetes...
Wouldn't this just make every single game feel and play like every other? Total boredom. I'd like this about as much as I would like 64,000 ugly skins for my favorite media player app.
Think about the Server licenses, the CALs, the MS SQL licenses, the Office licenses, the Exchange Server licenses, and all that stuff when you think of Enterprise customers. Plus thousands of desktops. All the users call the enterprises's helpdesk when they need something, so MS doesn't deal with them a whole lot, and thus doesn't tie up a huge amount of resources in supporting them.
Mom and pop outfits, by contrast, might have a handful of licenses of Windows desktop OSes, maybe a server license but probably not, probably don't upgrade at the drop of a hat, might not even purchase valid licenses for every system they run, and probably require a good deal more handholding and support because they're not the IT pros that large enterprises can afford to hire to keep their shit running.
And it's not to say that MS doesn't profit from small businesses, they just don't profit as much. Even if the profit margin is decent still, you can bet you're going to pay more attention to a multi-million dollar customer account than a multi-thousand dollar customer account.
This book is going to force the DNF guys to do another total rewrite, so that DNF will have the most revolutionary storytelling system ever. Nice going.
That's such a great idea, I think I'll patent it!
$40 billion ought to be enough for anybody to quash proof of idiotic statements made sufficiently long ago.
Why not make ten bigger?
And by "second half of 2007" they mean, fourth quarter 2011. I love MS Project:)
It's repugnant only from the standpoint that the content served by the domains while they're being speculated is repugnant. The dns registrar system allows this behavior, and it's profitable, so you just know someone will do it. You can't blame them for doing something that isn't illegal that can be pretty lucrative. The people doing it do take risks, and may well participate in other, more definitely unethical behaviors such as spamming or browser hijacking. Simply serving a crappy web page on a potentially popular domain name is merely distasteful. I don't see any solution to stop the market forces driving it that would be worse than the problem.
.com, .org, .net, etc. and registered them ahead of the trademark holder. Squatting on those domains is probably a more legitimate problem. But having the foresight to buy a dns registration for sex.com or buy.com or some other "hot" word back before anyone else can think to is totally brilliant. Maybe not technically brilliant, but business-wise it's brilliant. I won't argue with the fact that putting up a shitty web site there is lame, but I'm still jealous I didn't think of the idea first.
That's not to say that there aren't domain squatters who have taken trademarked words without the trademark holder's permission and then added
Because we're too busy making the company work to spend all our time golfing and attending social functions.
It's not really squatting, though, is it? In real estate, squatting means living on property that you don't own, without the owner's knowledge/consent, because the property is effectively abandoned and neglected.
This is more like real estate speculation. Buying a parcel of land, and then sitting on it to assert ownership rights, while not developing it and waiting along for someone who wants to buy it from you so that they can use it. Speculating is a lot less unsavory-sounding than squatting.
Is how these dinosaurs managed to fire their machineguns through their propellers without shooting off the prop?
While this is true, what we REALLY need is further integration. The GUN-cameraphone would solve a ton of problems. We'd probably even have direct democracy, finally.
My first thought on reading this was, "Holy fuck!" Thinking about the new level of totalitarianism such a device would enable. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to feel certain that as long as they're using a technology called iRobot in their design, it won't go anywhere, because they'll be embroiled in lawsuits with Apple until long after my bones have turned to dust.