No offense, but are there *any* websites out there that promise to report actual news on April 1st? This is boring and ridiculous every year.
Seriously, there are legitimate stories out there. Like the Pope's health. I'm not even Catholic and I'd like to know if anyone would even believe he died today because of all the stupid April Fools crap.
This gets old. VERY old. If you want to be subtle, like the parent suggests. Do at most one really, really, good subtle joke.
Got a new box, lets see how my Dual Xeon handles..
You need to improve Xeon's skill in "force grip". That's a pretty nice name for a duel lightsaber weilding dark-side character though. What level is he?
Well, I don't, which is why I said I didn't claim to be an expert.
My basis is that much of Canada is rural. Perhaps moreso than in the US. Given the same network infrastructure, that would mean less of a percentage of people online.
Doesn't mean it's true though. Canada might have everyone and their dog online as well. I just wouldn't guess that given what I know.
I'm not saying "poor people". I'm just making a guess that if the network infrastructure in Canada is at all similar to the US, then there are more "backwoodsy" areas like the Midwest, where broadband isn't available.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, which is why I said I didn't claim to be an expert, it was just three educated guesses.
Fotolog CEO Adam Seifer, who posts a picture of every meal he eats on Get In My Belly!, calls the Fotolog-Flickr-HeyPix-Smugmug phenomenon 'a million reality TV shows, only without the pain and humiliation.'
I don't know what's worse, the fact that the guy is the CEO of a site that caters to weirdos and doesn't think it is, or the fact that he doesn't find his website name, "Get In My Belly!", humiliating.
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I'd have to say there's a few good reasons for this.
1. Canadians Internet users, on average, are probably a bit more tech-savvy than USians, meaning they have a lower response rate than Americans. (See NOTE, below)
2. Canadians with email addresses don't always use.com,.net,.org. Instead they use.ca and I would guess the.de (Germans) folks get comparable amounts of spam when compared to the US for the same reason.
3. Canadians probably don't report spam as often. Basically, they may receive the same amounts, but they aren't surveyed as often as USians on how much they hate spam.
NOTE: I don't want to offend anyone by saying Canadians are smarter on average (esp. since I'm not Canadian myself!), but you have to keep in mind the sheer number of USians that have email addresses compared to those in Canada.
In the US, everyone and their dog has an email address and webpage. In Canada, I find it hard to believe that Ma and Pa Smith have email addresses, or, if they do, at no higher a rate than Ma and Pa Smith in the US Midwest.
Maybe "average" isn't as good a word as "median", too.
It's ironic that the founding fathers were questioning even *having* a bill of rights. Their reason? You should be allowed to do anything, and putting down in words what you have a right to do would eventually limit people to only those things.
The federal government was never intended to be as large as it is now. I don't think a single founding father would look at the federal government today and say, "Good job", unless they were being sarcastic.
Asking if DVDs will be replaced by broadband is like asking if distributing software on floppies will be replaced by distributing software on BBS's. The answer is yes to both being replaced. It never ends.
Slashdot used to be a place to come and find good stories about legitimate tech/geek news items. Are things really so bland that all we have is filler?
See, there's a problem with the "potentially have to demonstrate". Because if there isn't a clearly defined reason why they have to demonstrate a reason to 'invade privacy' or 'take property', they simply can and will when the culture changes.
Granted, it may take 70 to 100 years, but look at just how bad the US is getting boned since the culture changes brought about by FDR. This used to be a great place for free thinkers and immigrants, now it's everything but outright hostile.
Uhh.. I hate to be a prick about it, but IMHO objective conditions are better than subjective. Which one of those conditions listed above is not entirely subjective?
It's great and all if you *trust* the authority figure (police, judge, politician) who will be making the decision, but if you don't trust them, how do those conditions make you feel any better?
There's a lack of a monopoly in network programming. While there is the RIAA and non-RIAA and MPAA and non-MPAA, the issue is that the only individuals that really lose, fret, or freak over downloaded movies or MP3s are those that work for these large groups/oligopolies.
Barring exceptions like Metallica's Lars Ulrich and the set-painter David Goldstein (The guy from the first MPAA ad against piracy), there's actually very little people concerned about the issue. Actors and artists get paid their worth and no more and no less. The big difference is the behind the scenes folks and the corporate BS'rs. Everyone knows this.
For example, Fox Group chairman Peter Chernin makes 14.6 million, 2.6 million in stock options. Goldstein (mentioned above) makes about $90,000. But wait a minute. Let's take a look at the gap between Goldstein and me: about $60,000. Isn't there something wrong here?
Ultimately, the RIAA and MPAA will just break apart as the true talent in copyright protection lies with the individual IT staff working at the various organizations.
There's nothing a RIAA IT technical staff member can do that a Sony/BMG techie can't. There's nothing a Miramax techie can't do that a MPAA tech can.
It makes perfect sense Google would try to go after the calendar market as it is their last big missing piece of the portal puzzle.
This is simply not true. There are an unlimited number of things they could implement. IMHO, perhaps the biggest "missing piece" is an IRC search, of which they were rumored to be creating, but then the buzz died off. However with the success of sites like isoHunt and Packetnews (even with all its friggen ads) Google is missing out on probably a quarter of the searches I do while online.
Second, it's a wellknown fact that the more often your website is updated, the more often that Google checks it. If he recently added a CMS, blog, or iCal, then it is likely Google is just coming back because he's updating a whole lot more.
I'm sorry, I don't update with random, obscure data from German websites. And by the way, this graph is a joke: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/ 1093.jp g
ORNL does estimates and doesn't disclose how they acquire their data. They are clearly partial to there being a global warming effect, because if there was not, they wouldn't exist. Every one of their employees would LOSE THEIR JOBS.
Have you ever *seriously* looked at the global warming debate? Attack the numbers, please. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Global warming activists are.
The parent actually hits on a really good point. Supposing one does buy into the global warming hogwash and actually thinks that the world's 0.117% of man-made additions to greenhouse gases does have an effect on the environment, the Kyoto protocol does not solve the problem.
First off, CO2 is pinpointed as the sole contributor in Kyoto to an increase in world temperature. They erroneously negate the impact that water vapor has on the environment, and more importantly, ignore the solar flare theories which are far more accurate than any climate model to date.
Second, the US is #1 in CO2 production. It will be an Annex I country under the Kyoto protocol, bound to all restrictions and forced to purchase pollution from other countries. China will not be requried to do anything as a "developing" country. China is #2 in CO2 production.
You see, the difference between your average/. poster and those like me is that there are some of us who have spent days looking at the actual debate and see millions as irrelevant in a world of quadrillions. The numbers do not scare me. I'm not ignorant to global warming, warming is in fact happening since 1975 or so, but I do not attribute it to man any more than a cyclical change.
Yes, but what kind of "long-term trends" are we talking about? Scientifically-accurate temperature history only spans maybe the last 50 years, of which, the period from 1945-1975 saw an average decrease in temperature. If the Industrial Revolution is causing warming, you'd think it'd be consistent over the timeframe it was given.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but are there *any* websites out there that promise to report actual news on April 1st? This is boring and ridiculous every year.
Seriously, there are legitimate stories out there. Like the Pope's health. I'm not even Catholic and I'd like to know if anyone would even believe he died today because of all the stupid April Fools crap.
This gets old. VERY old. If you want to be subtle, like the parent suggests. Do at most one really, really, good subtle joke.
Well, they still beat Duke Nukem Forever.
"Ask not what your government can do for you, but how the government can best get the fsck out of controlling your life."
And what if I'm looking for "Captain Crunch" of phreaker fame? How is googlebombing the cereal website going to help?
Got a new box, lets see how my Dual Xeon handles..
You need to improve Xeon's skill in "force grip". That's a pretty nice name for a duel lightsaber weilding dark-side character though. What level is he?
Well, I don't, which is why I said I didn't claim to be an expert.
My basis is that much of Canada is rural. Perhaps moreso than in the US. Given the same network infrastructure, that would mean less of a percentage of people online.
Doesn't mean it's true though. Canada might have everyone and their dog online as well. I just wouldn't guess that given what I know.
I'm not saying "poor people". I'm just making a guess that if the network infrastructure in Canada is at all similar to the US, then there are more "backwoodsy" areas like the Midwest, where broadband isn't available.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, which is why I said I didn't claim to be an expert, it was just three educated guesses.
Fotolog CEO Adam Seifer, who posts a picture of every meal he eats on Get In My Belly!, calls the Fotolog-Flickr-HeyPix-Smugmug phenomenon 'a million reality TV shows, only without the pain and humiliation.'
I don't know what's worse, the fact that the guy is the CEO of a site that caters to weirdos and doesn't think it is, or the fact that he doesn't find his website name, "Get In My Belly!", humiliating.
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I'd have to say there's a few good reasons for this.
.com, .net, .org. Instead they use .ca and I would guess the .de (Germans) folks get comparable amounts of spam when compared to the US for the same reason.
1. Canadians Internet users, on average, are probably a bit more tech-savvy than USians, meaning they have a lower response rate than Americans. (See NOTE, below)
2. Canadians with email addresses don't always use
3. Canadians probably don't report spam as often. Basically, they may receive the same amounts, but they aren't surveyed as often as USians on how much they hate spam.
NOTE: I don't want to offend anyone by saying Canadians are smarter on average (esp. since I'm not Canadian myself!), but you have to keep in mind the sheer number of USians that have email addresses compared to those in Canada.
In the US, everyone and their dog has an email address and webpage. In Canada, I find it hard to believe that Ma and Pa Smith have email addresses, or, if they do, at no higher a rate than Ma and Pa Smith in the US Midwest.
Maybe "average" isn't as good a word as "median", too.
It's ironic that the founding fathers were questioning even *having* a bill of rights. Their reason? You should be allowed to do anything, and putting down in words what you have a right to do would eventually limit people to only those things.
The federal government was never intended to be as large as it is now. I don't think a single founding father would look at the federal government today and say, "Good job", unless they were being sarcastic.
Oh well, at least we still have the Libertarians.
Asking if DVDs will be replaced by broadband is like asking if distributing software on floppies will be replaced by distributing software on BBS's. The answer is yes to both being replaced. It never ends.
Slashdot used to be a place to come and find good stories about legitimate tech/geek news items. Are things really so bland that all we have is filler?
From TFA:
The Jackito doesn't come with character recognition software built-in.
I'll stick with my Speak-N-Spell, thank-you-very-much.
Respective Answers I receieved when asking my buddy (Coder who uses the BSD license on all his projects and who refuses to read Slashdot):
What do you think about creating something, having it duplicated by someone else as their "own creation" without getting credit?
"I don't care."
Has it happened?
"Yes."
Did it cause you to think about switching to GPL, or maybe some other license?
"No."
I'm judging from the curt replies that he's being honest when he says he doesn't care.
Do as you will. These are pictures of Arben and his girlfriend:
http://www.crystalkai.com/us/index.html
Personally, I think he's doing this on purpose so someone will sue him and he'll be the martyr that tests the GPL.
See, there's a problem with the "potentially have to demonstrate". Because if there isn't a clearly defined reason why they have to demonstrate a reason to 'invade privacy' or 'take property', they simply can and will when the culture changes.
Granted, it may take 70 to 100 years, but look at just how bad the US is getting boned since the culture changes brought about by FDR. This used to be a great place for free thinkers and immigrants, now it's everything but outright hostile.
...It *is* awfully close to April Fool's, isn't it?
Uhh.. I hate to be a prick about it, but IMHO objective conditions are better than subjective. Which one of those conditions listed above is not entirely subjective?
It's great and all if you *trust* the authority figure (police, judge, politician) who will be making the decision, but if you don't trust them, how do those conditions make you feel any better?
There's a lack of a monopoly in network programming. While there is the RIAA and non-RIAA and MPAA and non-MPAA, the issue is that the only individuals that really lose, fret, or freak over downloaded movies or MP3s are those that work for these large groups/oligopolies.
Barring exceptions like Metallica's Lars Ulrich and the set-painter David Goldstein (The guy from the first MPAA ad against piracy), there's actually very little people concerned about the issue. Actors and artists get paid their worth and no more and no less. The big difference is the behind the scenes folks and the corporate BS'rs. Everyone knows this.
For example, Fox Group chairman Peter Chernin makes 14.6 million, 2.6 million in stock options. Goldstein (mentioned above) makes about $90,000. But wait a minute. Let's take a look at the gap between Goldstein and me: about $60,000. Isn't there something wrong here?
Ultimately, the RIAA and MPAA will just break apart as the true talent in copyright protection lies with the individual IT staff working at the various organizations.
There's nothing a RIAA IT technical staff member can do that a Sony/BMG techie can't. There's nothing a Miramax techie can't do that a MPAA tech can.
You sound like a Yahoo.
It makes perfect sense Google would try to go after the calendar market as it is their last big missing piece of the portal puzzle.
This is simply not true. There are an unlimited number of things they could implement. IMHO, perhaps the biggest "missing piece" is an IRC search, of which they were rumored to be creating, but then the buzz died off. However with the success of sites like isoHunt and Packetnews (even with all its friggen ads) Google is missing out on probably a quarter of the searches I do while online.
Second, it's a wellknown fact that the more often your website is updated, the more often that Google checks it. If he recently added a CMS, blog, or iCal, then it is likely Google is just coming back because he's updating a whole lot more.
Sounds like something straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
I'm sorry, I don't update with random, obscure data from German websites. And by the way, this graph is a joke:/ 1093.jp g
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive
ORNL does estimates and doesn't disclose how they acquire their data. They are clearly partial to there being a global warming effect, because if there was not, they wouldn't exist. Every one of their employees would LOSE THEIR JOBS.
Have you ever *seriously* looked at the global warming debate? Attack the numbers, please. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Global warming activists are.
The parent actually hits on a really good point. Supposing one does buy into the global warming hogwash and actually thinks that the world's 0.117% of man-made additions to greenhouse gases does have an effect on the environment, the Kyoto protocol does not solve the problem.
/. poster and those like me is that there are some of us who have spent days looking at the actual debate and see millions as irrelevant in a world of quadrillions. The numbers do not scare me. I'm not ignorant to global warming, warming is in fact happening since 1975 or so, but I do not attribute it to man any more than a cyclical change.
First off, CO2 is pinpointed as the sole contributor in Kyoto to an increase in world temperature. They erroneously negate the impact that water vapor has on the environment, and more importantly, ignore the solar flare theories which are far more accurate than any climate model to date.
Second, the US is #1 in CO2 production. It will be an Annex I country under the Kyoto protocol, bound to all restrictions and forced to purchase pollution from other countries. China will not be requried to do anything as a "developing" country. China is #2 in CO2 production.
You see, the difference between your average
Yes, but what kind of "long-term trends" are we talking about? Scientifically-accurate temperature history only spans maybe the last 50 years, of which, the period from 1945-1975 saw an average decrease in temperature. If the Industrial Revolution is causing warming, you'd think it'd be consistent over the timeframe it was given.