Think of the diseases caused by asbestos, asbestosis....
But its pure carbon. And its out in ocean, a thousand miles from anyone. I mean, sure, I'm all ears if you have any data, but you get worse standing in a corn field in Iowa on a clear day.
no, it doesn't. Indoor in the winter is a great time to generate enough static to POP when you touch a door knob, or someone else. It does hurt a little if you do it right. You 'almost' touch them in their under arm area, ear or nose, back of leg, or other sensitive area. If you lived where it gets really cold, you would have done this as a kid.
We used to surf around the house in socks, sliding to build up static to do this, when the outside temp is low enough (making it relatively hotter in the house, thus, ultra low humidity). It works best if you are just coming inside and you are dry. You only get one or two good times, before your potential levels out. We didn't understand how, we just knew we could, and Mom would get pissed if you do it on purpose:D
Re:What about the static electricity it will gener
on
Space Elevator Going Up
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Static electricity, by definition, doesn't move, so it's useless.
Not true. You can harness it's awesome powers to make inflated balloons stick to the ceiling, after you rub them on your head. You can generate it by running your feet on the carpet in the winter, and touching your brother, making him leap 3 feet. It makes pulling clothes out of the dryer much easier: Just grab any one piece, and the rest stick to it.
Ok, not the most useful applications, but still fun.:D
I thought the majority of mass was getting us up to orbital velocity? Going straight up and back down is a lot easier
Well, ya, but the purpose of the velocity to begin with is to get beyond the majority of gravity. 25k footpounds I believe. If you want to get a satalite to orbital velocity, it is much cheaper to do so once it is in orbit, free of 98% of the earth's gravity than it is to do this along the way.
Haul it up to 36k feet, and then it takes a relatively trivial amount of energy to get it to a speed for orbit, since it isn't fighting a stronger force (gravity) at the same time. Also, if you are patient, and can take a week or a month to get the unit up to speed, it will take a very small engine (ie: efficient) to build up the necessary speed.
Also, for probes headed toward the moon/mars/space, orbital speed may not be a factor, except as needed to 'slingshot' the unit. IAMARS (i am not a rocket scientist) but it seems to me that you would have to save 70% of the energy needed by going to 36k km slowly, then positioning. The most important feature is that not only do you save the weight of the extra fuel, but you also the save the extra fuel needed to move that extra fuel. It may actually be more than 70% of the fuel.
Another interesting question: What fuel is used for getting the unit into space (36k km) to begin with: To power the elevator? Obviously it will not be rocket fuel. The cool thing is, if they used technology that harnesses ocean waves then they would not need oil generation units:D Since they talked about putting this platform deep in the pacific ocean, this would be a perfect place to test and perfect this technology.
The secondary benefits of this space elevator could eventually be greater than just cheaper satalite launches.
If you read the article, they are looking at the Pacific ocean as the base of the ribbon. If there was a real problem, and they needed it, it would be possible to cut the ribbon on the earth side, and this would force the cable UP instead of down. Not necessarily the best thing to happen, but it could burn up (carbon) in the atmosphere on the way back.
This stuff is pretty light, and they are looking at a RIBBON, not a cable. So the air resistance would prevent a 100 ft piece (for example) from accellerating to a speed that will cause any major damage. At least that is how I understand it after reading the article.
Same reason if you throw a sheet of paper off a tall building, no one is hurt. You throw a marble instead, and you can split a skull.
But there is another problem: if it burns, will the resulting particles be hazardous for us to inhale?
Carbon nanotubes are primarily, well, carbon. Burning up would create the same stuff that charcoal makes, CO2. Potentially less toxic than second hand cigarette smoke. There may be some other chemicals in there, but the whole idea is to make the tube out of a single material, the nanotubes, to make it strong. So, yes, research is good, but toxicity is probably not the biggest issue.
From the article: "When we actually start launching this it's going to be kind of boring," Dr Edwards said.
After watching rockets (and shuttles) explode into spectacular fireballs, boring is just fine with me. Considering the majority of mass on any rocket is used to just get it to a level of orbit, this could be a nice way for us to start working toward the moon (and eventually beyond) again.
The really exciting will no longer be GETTING into orbit, but rather what we can do once we get there.
I can see for MOST people, the ISP blocking this port is no big deal (blocking except the ISP's own SMTP server) As a matter of fact, this would prevent spam as well, since you could only send through the ISP, and THEY would know if you sent 1.3 millions "Viagra" ads. This is ONLY if they use their own computer to send the spam, which is not always the case.
This would have no effect on people who use Squirrelmail, Hotmail or other web based email clients since they use ports 80 and 443 generally. All the SMTP activity happens on the SERVER instead of the client. These are not good clients for sending mass mail of any kind anyway, way too slow. Ironically, A Good Thing(tm)
This has better potential to prevent spam than to cut viruses/worms, although anyone can still rent a rack and use it for a smtp server for spam, or find an open relay (more rare now). Either way, there is higher accountability since the source is absolutely known and tied to a credit card at the ISP or RackShack.
And like you say, if you want port 25 open, you have to agree to a certain code of conduct and security. If only 3% of their customers need port 25 open (likely less) then full logging is much easier, and more accountable.
Only problem is getting all major ISP's to agree to such a policy, and making ISP's who won't, look bad in the public eye. (ie: shame them into it)
I would be happy with port 25 blocked by default with an option to turn it off for specific customers. However, what's to stop a trojan from installing an SMTP server that uses something other than port 25? Not being argumentative, just curious.
Try setting your email client to use a port other than 25 and you will see. No response (or rejected, rather). Since the trojans rely on SPEAKING with the other mail servers to deliver the mail, they must communicate on the same port, 25. That is the whole idea. Its like trying to surf the web on port 55. Unless you FIND a web server that is Listen'ing to 55, you don't connect.
Won't bother you with a more detailed description unless you ask.
While logged in, on the front page (upper left), choose Preferences, then Comments (almost top page tab). Choose "Do Not Display Scores" _OR_ roll your own custom verison, like below.
You could choose +1 for Troll, Redundant, Flamebait and Offtopic. Now choose -1 for Insightful, Interesting, Funny and Informative. This will take care of everything except Underrated and Overrated (which IMO needs to gotten rid of, they are a way to bypass metamoderation ONLY). Now change Karma bonus to 0.
There are some other interesting settings in there that can make viewing more pleasurable. I don't personally agree with your desire to make everyone at +0, but it can be 90% done.
This will effectively get everything pretty even (except Under/Overrated). Its not perfect, like Slashdot, but its a pretty cool system to be so simple. To be honest, I knew you could change the -1 +1 but didn't know you could completely disable all scores until I went to look to pass the info on to you, so thanks, kinda:D
This is an argument that I've had with a number of people (and I'm sure I'm not alone).
I agree with your perception. I would also add that 2% (or more) of the population is willing to work just long enough to start receiving more unemployment benefits. This distorts the unemployment %'s significantly.
This may also be part of the reason that 4% unemployment is considered full employment in the US....2% is normal turnover, 2% don't really want to work any harder than is necessary to get unemployment anyway.
But IBM already has a copy of SCO's code; they licensed it after all. They can release the output of "shred" without violating their agreements with SCO.
Unless SCO claims that the hash is "derivitive"...
Until the lines that are common are identified, it's impossible to defend against the accusations.
Eventually, SCO is going to have to identify these lines, or they have no case. This program, while "nifty" is not that relative to the lawsuit. It doesn't matter (legally) what lines this program say are similar, but it matters which lines SCO says are relative. Disproving THOSE lines belong to SCO is worthwhile, which this program will not do.
The burden of proof is upon SCO, not the open source community. It is in all of our interest to aggressively prove the origins of "similar" code (as claimed by SCO, not the program) and remove any infringing code, if any.
It is NOT our responsibility to find out what lines are similar, it is SCO's since they are the plantiff. Eventually, they will have to disclose which lines in Linux they claim are infringing, even if they only disclose their own source code in sealed documents. Again, we really don't care about their code, or what this program thinks is similar. We only need to prove the source claimed by SCO is not their property, or prove that the similar code was cleanroom or similar because it was based upon published standards, and that code was the only logical way to impliment it. Or prove they actually stripped away copyright notices on BSD and other software and are now claiming it as their own property. They have to prove their code really IS theirs, as well, and not PD or misappropriated BSD.
I suggested he convert the file from a DRM-format to a non-DRM format, as interoperability is a specific exemption to the DMCA. If this isn't interoperability, what is?
Good point, but one problem. Reverse engineering the DRM is considered a violation of the DMCA itself, so yes, you CAN possibly remove the DRM for interoperability, but the program to do so is illegal (see DeCSS). Catch 22.
They can prohibit sharing by requiring you to reauthorise with iTunes first, removing the rights to the song and only after that would a buyer get his new license.
So if a song gets sold 3 times in 2 years, they have had to authorize/reauthorize it 4 times and only getting paid one time, less than one dollar (and pay royalties). Unless they charge a handling fee for transfering (say 25 cents) so you to make it a deal, you have to sell for 25 cents, so it is half price. Then again, even IF they made the same money to sell first, or help resell, the music producers are going to pressure them to push new tunes, so THEY make money. Remember the lawsuits with Garth Brooks, trying to get royalties for reselling music?
There really are some problems. It IS unreasonable to ask Apple to subsidize everyone's auctions by doing the changeover for free, but almost any fee is alot of money compared to the whole price. So they are correct, there are technical problems given how cheap the 99 cents is to download.
this raises the "library" issue as well. If I own a song, can't I let others "borrow" the song for a period of 24 hours, and they have to promise to "delete" the song (virtually returning control back to me), so I can let someone else "borrow" it?
This was the theoretically legal basis for pirating on BBSes in the 80s (a few anyway). They had one legal copy, and they let other borrow it. Of course, MS software has EULAs that say you can't do that anymore. This of course has its own problems, because when I go to Kinkos and rent a box, am I not borrowing or renting the software as well as the hardware?
That is why they have DRM, which takes us full circle if it denies them the legal right to resell it....got a headache now...
my understanding is that windows has long since cleanroomed all the BSD code out of the operating system, at least on xp. They officially do not distribute 98 anymore, even tho its still in the channel. I can't swear to this, but that is what I hear, which makes their "licensing" from SCO more dubious than ever. More like a contribution than a license, one that benefits MS as well if it creates FUD about Linux.
OSX, on the otherhand, is as BSD as it gets. The question is what license did NeXT have and with who?
They seem to be missing that point. As the article states, telnet is not available on the WAN side of the router (ie: available for the 192.168.*.1/255.255.255.0 network only) but it doesn't matter because the code is considered experimental anyway. The whole purpose is to allow you to log in as root and experiment, NOT to use it in a corporate/production environment.
Amazing what you learn when you actually READ the article.
I have owned many, many pieces of Linksys gear, and while they may not be the "performance leaders", I have never seen one just die. I can't help but to wonder about the power situation in your home.
I would suggest getting some better UPS protection for your routers and switches. You would be surprised at how bad typical electrical service is, and routers and switches tend to stay on 24/7, thus pretty vulnerable. I run everything on UPS. Monitor, routers, hubs, everything. I live in the country (terrible for spikes and brownouts) and have all kinds of gear that is old beyond usefullness, but still works. Even an old UPS that doesn't hold a charge is better than none, since most spikes/brownouts only need about 5 to 10 seconds of power before returning to normal.
This doesn't change the fact that they may be more delicate that you care for, but my guess is you have a power problem.
The problem with the SEC is that they are corrupt, lazy businessmen who have been told to pretty much 'lay off' business by the current administration.
yea, so why are they prosecuting all the corruption that occurred during the last 10 years? Enron? Martha? et al
Nothing personal, but it appears you just don't like the current administration, and using the opportunity to spew hatred with no basis in fact. The current administration IS pro business (no shocker, they are republicans) but that is NOT the same as pro-corruption. Go back and look at WHEN the crimes took place...
I think what NG was trying to say was that if somebody was following you around calling you names, the persistance of it would start to annoy you. The last thing you'd want to hear is "simply ignore them".
Is/. emailing you telling you when an SCO story is available? Does your computer have popups that say "a new sco story is on at./! Click here!"? No? Then your analogy is flawed. You can choose to not see Caldera stories, or just glance over it. No one is forcing you to CLICK on the "READ MORE" to actually view the articles.
Why it got a +5 is probably due to the fact that so many moderators agreed with the post itself. Not the best reason to moderate a post up or down, but those of us that WANT the stories get tired of all the posts bitching about it and some are moderators from time to time.
I would not have modded it +5, and often see posts modded high that didn't need it, and see posts unmodded that should have gotten it. Welcome to Slashdot. That is what metamoderation is for.
We don't go hang in YRO and bitch about all the stories about RIAA, nor do we troll into other topic areas and bitch about the stories there. The SCO saga is unique in this respect, where so many people are complaining about the frequency of the stories. It has gotten to the point of being redundant.
If the editors post stories about SCO, and no one posts to them, then they will quit posting them, but as long as there is interest (and there is) they will continue. This is pretty normal business practice, giving the people what they want. Its based on participation, not complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to play the devils advocate: What about another category? "free software, that is closed-source." Microsoft gives away IE.
When we speak of Free, we speak of Freedom, not price. (heard that before? read the gpl at gnu.org) Think free speech, not free beer.
Think of the diseases caused by asbestos, asbestosis....
But its pure carbon. And its out in ocean, a thousand miles from anyone. I mean, sure, I'm all ears if you have any data, but you get worse standing in a corn field in Iowa on a clear day.
no, it doesn't. Indoor in the winter is a great time to generate enough static to POP when you touch a door knob, or someone else. It does hurt a little if you do it right. You 'almost' touch them in their under arm area, ear or nose, back of leg, or other sensitive area. If you lived where it gets really cold, you would have done this as a kid.
:D
We used to surf around the house in socks, sliding to build up static to do this, when the outside temp is low enough (making it relatively hotter in the house, thus, ultra low humidity). It works best if you are just coming inside and you are dry. You only get one or two good times, before your potential levels out. We didn't understand how, we just knew we could, and Mom would get pissed if you do it on purpose
Static electricity, by definition, doesn't move, so it's useless.
:D
Not true. You can harness it's awesome powers to make inflated balloons stick to the ceiling, after you rub them on your head. You can generate it by running your feet on the carpet in the winter, and touching your brother, making him leap 3 feet. It makes pulling clothes out of the dryer much easier: Just grab any one piece, and the rest stick to it.
Ok, not the most useful applications, but still fun.
I thought the majority of mass was getting us up to orbital velocity? Going straight up and back down is a lot easier
:D Since they talked about putting this platform deep in the pacific ocean, this would be a perfect place to test and perfect this technology.
Well, ya, but the purpose of the velocity to begin with is to get beyond the majority of gravity. 25k footpounds I believe. If you want to get a satalite to orbital velocity, it is much cheaper to do so once it is in orbit, free of 98% of the earth's gravity than it is to do this along the way.
Haul it up to 36k feet, and then it takes a relatively trivial amount of energy to get it to a speed for orbit, since it isn't fighting a stronger force (gravity) at the same time. Also, if you are patient, and can take a week or a month to get the unit up to speed, it will take a very small engine (ie: efficient) to build up the necessary speed.
Also, for probes headed toward the moon/mars/space, orbital speed may not be a factor, except as needed to 'slingshot' the unit. IAMARS (i am not a rocket scientist) but it seems to me that you would have to save 70% of the energy needed by going to 36k km slowly, then positioning. The most important feature is that not only do you save the weight of the extra fuel, but you also the save the extra fuel needed to move that extra fuel. It may actually be more than 70% of the fuel.
Another interesting question: What fuel is used for getting the unit into space (36k km) to begin with: To power the elevator? Obviously it will not be rocket fuel. The cool thing is, if they used technology that harnesses ocean waves then they would not need oil generation units
The secondary benefits of this space elevator could eventually be greater than just cheaper satalite launches.
If you read the article, they are looking at the Pacific ocean as the base of the ribbon. If there was a real problem, and they needed it, it would be possible to cut the ribbon on the earth side, and this would force the cable UP instead of down. Not necessarily the best thing to happen, but it could burn up (carbon) in the atmosphere on the way back.
This stuff is pretty light, and they are looking at a RIBBON, not a cable. So the air resistance would prevent a 100 ft piece (for example) from accellerating to a speed that will cause any major damage. At least that is how I understand it after reading the article.
Same reason if you throw a sheet of paper off a tall building, no one is hurt. You throw a marble instead, and you can split a skull.
But there is another problem: if it burns, will the resulting particles be hazardous for us to inhale?
Carbon nanotubes are primarily, well, carbon. Burning up would create the same stuff that charcoal makes, CO2. Potentially less toxic than second hand cigarette smoke. There may be some other chemicals in there, but the whole idea is to make the tube out of a single material, the nanotubes, to make it strong. So, yes, research is good, but toxicity is probably not the biggest issue.
From the article: "When we actually start launching this it's going to be kind of boring," Dr Edwards said.
After watching rockets (and shuttles) explode into spectacular fireballs, boring is just fine with me. Considering the majority of mass on any rocket is used to just get it to a level of orbit, this could be a nice way for us to start working toward the moon (and eventually beyond) again.
The really exciting will no longer be GETTING into orbit, but rather what we can do once we get there.
No, but it does include your Amazon account number... posted in a story about hacking too ;)
:D
Thank you. You made my evening. Laughed my ass off.
I can see for MOST people, the ISP blocking this port is no big deal (blocking except the ISP's own SMTP server) As a matter of fact, this would prevent spam as well, since you could only send through the ISP, and THEY would know if you sent 1.3 millions "Viagra" ads. This is ONLY if they use their own computer to send the spam, which is not always the case.
This would have no effect on people who use Squirrelmail, Hotmail or other web based email clients since they use ports 80 and 443 generally. All the SMTP activity happens on the SERVER instead of the client. These are not good clients for sending mass mail of any kind anyway, way too slow. Ironically, A Good Thing(tm)
This has better potential to prevent spam than to cut viruses/worms, although anyone can still rent a rack and use it for a smtp server for spam, or find an open relay (more rare now). Either way, there is higher accountability since the source is absolutely known and tied to a credit card at the ISP or RackShack.
And like you say, if you want port 25 open, you have to agree to a certain code of conduct and security. If only 3% of their customers need port 25 open (likely less) then full logging is much easier, and more accountable.
Only problem is getting all major ISP's to agree to such a policy, and making ISP's who won't, look bad in the public eye. (ie: shame them into it)
I would be happy with port 25 blocked by default with an option to turn it off for specific customers. However, what's to stop a trojan from installing an SMTP server that uses something other than port 25? Not being argumentative, just curious.
Try setting your email client to use a port other than 25 and you will see. No response (or rejected, rather). Since the trojans rely on SPEAKING with the other mail servers to deliver the mail, they must communicate on the same port, 25. That is the whole idea. Its like trying to surf the web on port 55. Unless you FIND a web server that is Listen'ing to 55, you don't connect.
Won't bother you with a more detailed description unless you ask.
While logged in, on the front page (upper left), choose Preferences, then Comments (almost top page tab). Choose "Do Not Display Scores" _OR_ roll your own custom verison, like below.
:D
You could choose +1 for Troll, Redundant, Flamebait and Offtopic. Now choose -1 for Insightful, Interesting, Funny and Informative. This will take care of everything except Underrated and Overrated (which IMO needs to gotten rid of, they are a way to bypass metamoderation ONLY). Now change Karma bonus to 0.
There are some other interesting settings in there that can make viewing more pleasurable. I don't personally agree with your desire to make everyone at +0, but it can be 90% done.
This will effectively get everything pretty even (except Under/Overrated). Its not perfect, like Slashdot, but its a pretty cool system to be so simple. To be honest, I knew you could change the -1 +1 but didn't know you could completely disable all scores until I went to look to pass the info on to you, so thanks, kinda
This is an argument that I've had with a number of people (and I'm sure I'm not alone).
I agree with your perception. I would also add that 2% (or more) of the population is willing to work just long enough to start receiving more unemployment benefits. This distorts the unemployment %'s significantly.
This may also be part of the reason that 4% unemployment is considered full employment in the US....2% is normal turnover, 2% don't really want to work any harder than is necessary to get unemployment anyway.
But IBM already has a copy of SCO's code; they licensed it after all. They can release the output of "shred" without violating their agreements with SCO.
Unless SCO claims that the hash is "derivitive"...
Until the lines that are common are identified, it's impossible to defend against the accusations.
Eventually, SCO is going to have to identify these lines, or they have no case. This program, while "nifty" is not that relative to the lawsuit. It doesn't matter (legally) what lines this program say are similar, but it matters which lines SCO says are relative. Disproving THOSE lines belong to SCO is worthwhile, which this program will not do.
The burden of proof is upon SCO, not the open source community. It is in all of our interest to aggressively prove the origins of "similar" code (as claimed by SCO, not the program) and remove any infringing code, if any.
It is NOT our responsibility to find out what lines are similar, it is SCO's since they are the plantiff. Eventually, they will have to disclose which lines in Linux they claim are infringing, even if they only disclose their own source code in sealed documents. Again, we really don't care about their code, or what this program thinks is similar. We only need to prove the source claimed by SCO is not their property, or prove that the similar code was cleanroom or similar because it was based upon published standards, and that code was the only logical way to impliment it. Or prove they actually stripped away copyright notices on BSD and other software and are now claiming it as their own property. They have to prove their code really IS theirs, as well, and not PD or misappropriated BSD.
Before calling it fiction, can you quote a case where someone did this correctly (ie: the software did not disallow loaning) and was convicted?
The law is USC17 Section 106 or 106A.
Anyone can view it, like all US laws. Google it.
I suggested he convert the file from a DRM-format to a non-DRM format, as interoperability is a specific exemption to the DMCA. If this isn't interoperability, what is?
Good point, but one problem. Reverse engineering the DRM is considered a violation of the DMCA itself, so yes, you CAN possibly remove the DRM for interoperability, but the program to do so is illegal (see DeCSS). Catch 22.
They can prohibit sharing by requiring you to reauthorise with iTunes first, removing the rights to the song and only after that would a buyer get his new license.
So if a song gets sold 3 times in 2 years, they have had to authorize/reauthorize it 4 times and only getting paid one time, less than one dollar (and pay royalties). Unless they charge a handling fee for transfering (say 25 cents) so you to make it a deal, you have to sell for 25 cents, so it is half price. Then again, even IF they made the same money to sell first, or help resell, the music producers are going to pressure them to push new tunes, so THEY make money. Remember the lawsuits with Garth Brooks, trying to get royalties for reselling music?
There really are some problems. It IS unreasonable to ask Apple to subsidize everyone's auctions by doing the changeover for free, but almost any fee is alot of money compared to the whole price. So they are correct, there are technical problems given how cheap the 99 cents is to download.
this raises the "library" issue as well. If I own a song, can't I let others "borrow" the song for a period of 24 hours, and they have to promise to "delete" the song (virtually returning control back to me), so I can let someone else "borrow" it?
This was the theoretically legal basis for pirating on BBSes in the 80s (a few anyway). They had one legal copy, and they let other borrow it. Of course, MS software has EULAs that say you can't do that anymore. This of course has its own problems, because when I go to Kinkos and rent a box, am I not borrowing or renting the software as well as the hardware?
That is why they have DRM, which takes us full circle if it denies them the legal right to resell it....got a headache now...
my understanding is that windows has long since cleanroomed all the BSD code out of the operating system, at least on xp. They officially do not distribute 98 anymore, even tho its still in the channel. I can't swear to this, but that is what I hear, which makes their "licensing" from SCO more dubious than ever. More like a contribution than a license, one that benefits MS as well if it creates FUD about Linux.
OSX, on the otherhand, is as BSD as it gets. The question is what license did NeXT have and with who?
On a private network, telnet is just fine.
They seem to be missing that point. As the article states, telnet is not available on the WAN side of the router (ie: available for the 192.168.*.1/255.255.255.0 network only) but it doesn't matter because the code is considered experimental anyway. The whole purpose is to allow you to log in as root and experiment, NOT to use it in a corporate/production environment.
Amazing what you learn when you actually READ the article.
I have owned many, many pieces of Linksys gear, and while they may not be the "performance leaders", I have never seen one just die. I can't help but to wonder about the power situation in your home.
I would suggest getting some better UPS protection for your routers and switches. You would be surprised at how bad typical electrical service is, and routers and switches tend to stay on 24/7, thus pretty vulnerable. I run everything on UPS. Monitor, routers, hubs, everything. I live in the country (terrible for spikes and brownouts) and have all kinds of gear that is old beyond usefullness, but still works. Even an old UPS that doesn't hold a charge is better than none, since most spikes/brownouts only need about 5 to 10 seconds of power before returning to normal.
This doesn't change the fact that they may be more delicate that you care for, but my guess is you have a power problem.
The problem with the SEC is that they are corrupt, lazy businessmen who have been told to pretty much 'lay off' business by the current administration.
yea, so why are they prosecuting all the corruption that occurred during the last 10 years? Enron? Martha? et al
Nothing personal, but it appears you just don't like the current administration, and using the opportunity to spew hatred with no basis in fact. The current administration IS pro business (no shocker, they are republicans) but that is NOT the same as pro-corruption. Go back and look at WHEN the crimes took place...
I think what NG was trying to say was that if somebody was following you around calling you names, the persistance of it would start to annoy you. The last thing you'd want to hear is "simply ignore them".
/. emailing you telling you when an SCO story is available? Does your computer have popups that say "a new sco story is on at ./! Click here!"? No? Then your analogy is flawed. You can choose to not see Caldera stories, or just glance over it. No one is forcing you to CLICK on the "READ MORE" to actually view the articles.
Is
Why it got a +5 is probably due to the fact that so many moderators agreed with the post itself. Not the best reason to moderate a post up or down, but those of us that WANT the stories get tired of all the posts bitching about it and some are moderators from time to time.
I would not have modded it +5, and often see posts modded high that didn't need it, and see posts unmodded that should have gotten it. Welcome to Slashdot. That is what metamoderation is for.
We don't go hang in YRO and bitch about all the stories about RIAA, nor do we troll into other topic areas and bitch about the stories there. The SCO saga is unique in this respect, where so many people are complaining about the frequency of the stories. It has gotten to the point of being redundant.
If the editors post stories about SCO, and no one posts to them, then they will quit posting them, but as long as there is interest (and there is) they will continue. This is pretty normal business practice, giving the people what they want. Its based on participation, not complaints.