I saw Phantom Edit many months ago, and I've got to say that the movie still sucked. (EP1, not the editing!) There was only one time that I liked the movie, and that was at a Drive-In Movie (where you go park your car and watch it on a gigantic screen). The only reason that was good was because we turned off the sound and only watched the visuals. Try it, watch it on mute, it's much better!
Are they going to call it "subvocalizing" like in Enders Game?
Travis
Re:This is a trojan horse, plain and simple.
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
Keep in mind that the legality of click-through EULA's has not been proven in court yet. Right now, there is no legal precidence for the power of a EULA.
Keep in mind that you could always bind your server to any port you want. Since it's a private service, you don't necessarily need to use standard ports. Heck, just stick it in the dynamic range, they won't be able to block them all.
Of course, how long until they start doing packet monitoring to catch ftp packets and then block the whole connection?
Good idea, but so far open source hasn't generally been profitable for the creators. Slashdot didn't implement this to try something new, they did it to get some revenue.
Personal story: I put up a tip jar on my site, ZERO donations in two months. Then, I put up paid banner ads. I now make over $10 a day off the ads.
In my case, the people that can afford advertising are the businesses, who consider it a cost of doing business. From the user's perspective it's simple an out-of-pocket expense for something that was free anyway.
So you'd like to hope that people would donate, but in my experience it just doesn't work...
I absolutely hate advertising, and block it every chance I get. I've been blocking ads on slashdot for over a year now.
But guess what? I'll still buy subscriptions. I WANT to support slashdot, I WANT to support my favorite artists and actors. What I DON'T want to support is greedy corporations trying to trick user onto their site by fake pop-ups, click-the-money, and windows without nav bars. Slashdot has better ads than most, but the one's I mention have ruined it for everyone.
To sum it up: filter ads, but pay for the sites you appreciate.
You know, most people don't like advertising at all... I think Slashdot realizes this, and is trying to keep it's tivo-loving, spam-hating, filter-loving audience happy. If slashdot had gone to overlarge ads without having this payment system, I would have simply continued to filter out all the ads.
Advertising companies haven't figured out yet that the Web is different. When you buy a TV ad, the user is (pretty much) forced to view it if they want to watch their show. The web, however, is different. People can easily tune out banner ads, they can filter out all ads at several levels, and they can commonly simply choose another site to visit.
Repeat after me, our customers are not revenue units, they are people.
I enjoy slashdot precisely because the stories and comments come from users. Here, at least, comments come truely from the people and are moderated by the people. Not by some all powerful controlling interest.
I do agree, however, that the choice of topics is too-much controlled by a powerful few, maybe by letting everyone at the karma cap vote on which topics get to the home page. I wouldn't want joe anonymous to vote though... Also, super-moderators should be removed, or at least have their moderations show as being from a super-moderator.
Bitch bitch bitch. While I appreciate your position, and partially agree, do you have any more constructive ideas or are you just full of complaints?
I too run a site that gets a fair amount of traffic (7000 _people_ per day), and every time I try to make a buck people come out of the woodwork criticizing my ideas. Yet I VERY RARELY actually find someone who has an idea on what to replace it with...
It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a better idea.
Wow, brilliant. It should be fairly easy to implement too. One problem would be non-standard ports, or if it is a proxy server or something else that isn't strictly an open relay. Our server, for example, accepts incoming connections on SMTP, but it won't actually transmit an email unless it's addressed to our secondary domain (seems like a hack-job, but I didn't set it up)
You're forgetting that non-US countries are bound by US laws, but the US is free to tell other countries to "fuck off because we have the biggest army in the world and we're ready to use it."
Well, you'd hope not, but it happens enough already. The US is too arrogant. I just hope we don't try to nuke one of those "axis of evil" countries. George Bush does NOT represent me, nor a LOT of the people in America.
I think what it implies is that Kazaa/FT has the *ability* to turn off their network. Even if they do not control what goes in or out, if they have the ability to forcibly remove everyone from the network then the judge won't let them use their "we don't have control" argument.
Of course, they can always have their next auto-patch permanently disable the auto-patch feature, but I doubt they want to intentionaly lose control of their network.
Good point, I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted:) What they're really scared of is losing control. Both our arguments lead to that, and as we've all seen, the MPAA and RIAA both have decade-old strangleholds on their respective industries and will do just about anything to maintain that control. VHS tapes took the control out of the studio's hands, Napster took control out of the studio's hands. I'm sure "what's next" will also take control out of their hands. I just wish they'd go with what their revenue units want rather than them try to tell us what we want.
Slashdot is not charging for subscriptions. Slashdot is offering a way for people to turn off advertising.
There is a CRITICAL difference. Subscription sites only allow paid members to even view the site. If you don't want to pay for slashdot, then you don't need to, it just means you'll see more ads.
The music/movie/software/everythingelse industry is not interested in spending a lot of money to completely eradicate piracy. What they want to do is to prevent casual copying (ie napster) and distribution. If they put out crippled CD's that can't be copied by the common person, then the volume of piracy will go down. Similarly, if they go after the major file sharing networks then they make it harder for the _average_ person to pirate their goods then the volume of piracy will go down. People like me (and most of slashdot) will always have the skills to get things for free, but if most of the rest of the population doesn't know how then the losses due to piracy are far lower.
Some people equate digital copying with analog copying, but the primary difference is the volume of piracy, and that's what they're scared of.
The new Morpheus is assumed to have spyware and tracking built into it, right? Well... It's GPL'd and the source code is available... So... _IS_ there tracking?
On a related note, how do we know that the source code available is actually the same that was used to compile the binary version available for download?
Yes, that's why SETI@Home is important (well, SETI in general). The microwave spectrum is a constant everywhere, so any intelligent life wanting to communicate at the speed of light will use EM waves, which can be detected by our radio telescopes.
Unless, of course, everyone else figures out how subspace works (or its equivalent FTL) and we're looking in the wrong place:)
On a technical note, I think it's the Hydrogen 13 band that is quietest in the EM spectrum, so presumably that's what another race would use to send a specific signal. BUT think about how many specific signals we've sent (one?) compared to how many incidental (every radio and TV broadcast since 1930 for example) transmissions we've made...
I completely agree that people should have their privacy, and I have no qualms with people using pseudonyms and hiding their real information. What I am strongly against is the jerks who make horrible comments and hide behind "Anonymous" because they aren't willing to take responsibility for their words.
So, to sum it up, I just want people to use a pseudonym that is anonymous, but that is actually them. (if that makes sense)
My philosophy: if you're not willing to put your name to it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it at all, be it an action, word, or even thought.
First, for $5 what are you worried about? Even if PayPal bilks you, you can put a hold on your credit card...
Second, I disagree, slashdot pulls stories from all over the web. There are MANY times that I see a news item here first simply because it isn't big enough to be mentioned elsewhere. Sure, I could check each site individually but I don't have time for that...
Excellent idea, only problem I see is that the people most likely to pay are also the most likely to have good posts. But then again those are the people you want to keep happy:)
Slashdot Mirror
I saw Phantom Edit many months ago, and I've got to say that the movie still sucked. (EP1, not the editing!) There was only one time that I liked the movie, and that was at a Drive-In Movie (where you go park your car and watch it on a gigantic screen). The only reason that was good was because we turned off the sound and only watched the visuals. Try it, watch it on mute, it's much better!
Damnit I hate this stupid day every damn year.
Are they going to call it "subvocalizing" like in Enders Game?
Travis
Keep in mind that the legality of click-through EULA's has not been proven in court yet. Right now, there is no legal precidence for the power of a EULA.
Travis
Keep in mind that you could always bind your server to any port you want. Since it's a private service, you don't necessarily need to use standard ports. Heck, just stick it in the dynamic range, they won't be able to block them all.
Of course, how long until they start doing packet monitoring to catch ftp packets and then block the whole connection?
Travis
Well duh, didn't you see Hackers?
Row row row the boat.
Good idea, but so far open source hasn't generally been profitable for the creators. Slashdot didn't implement this to try something new, they did it to get some revenue.
Travis
Personal story: I put up a tip jar on my site, ZERO donations in two months. Then, I put up paid banner ads. I now make over $10 a day off the ads.
In my case, the people that can afford advertising are the businesses, who consider it a cost of doing business. From the user's perspective it's simple an out-of-pocket expense for something that was free anyway.
So you'd like to hope that people would donate, but in my experience it just doesn't work...
Travis
I absolutely hate advertising, and block it every chance I get. I've been blocking ads on slashdot for over a year now.
But guess what? I'll still buy subscriptions. I WANT to support slashdot, I WANT to support my favorite artists and actors. What I DON'T want to support is greedy corporations trying to trick user onto their site by fake pop-ups, click-the-money, and windows without nav bars. Slashdot has better ads than most, but the one's I mention have ruined it for everyone.
To sum it up: filter ads, but pay for the sites you appreciate.
Travis
You know, most people don't like advertising at all... I think Slashdot realizes this, and is trying to keep it's tivo-loving, spam-hating, filter-loving audience happy. If slashdot had gone to overlarge ads without having this payment system, I would have simply continued to filter out all the ads.
Advertising companies haven't figured out yet that the Web is different. When you buy a TV ad, the user is (pretty much) forced to view it if they want to watch their show. The web, however, is different. People can easily tune out banner ads, they can filter out all ads at several levels, and they can commonly simply choose another site to visit.
Repeat after me, our customers are not revenue units, they are people.
Travis
I enjoy slashdot precisely because the stories and comments come from users. Here, at least, comments come truely from the people and are moderated by the people. Not by some all powerful controlling interest.
I do agree, however, that the choice of topics is too-much controlled by a powerful few, maybe by letting everyone at the karma cap vote on which topics get to the home page. I wouldn't want joe anonymous to vote though... Also, super-moderators should be removed, or at least have their moderations show as being from a super-moderator.
Travis
Bitch bitch bitch. While I appreciate your position, and partially agree, do you have any more constructive ideas or are you just full of complaints?
I too run a site that gets a fair amount of traffic (7000 _people_ per day), and every time I try to make a buck people come out of the woodwork criticizing my ideas. Yet I VERY RARELY actually find someone who has an idea on what to replace it with...
It's easy to criticize, but much harder to come up with a better idea.
Travis
Wow, brilliant. It should be fairly easy to implement too. One problem would be non-standard ports, or if it is a proxy server or something else that isn't strictly an open relay. Our server, for example, accepts incoming connections on SMTP, but it won't actually transmit an email unless it's addressed to our secondary domain (seems like a hack-job, but I didn't set it up)
You're forgetting that non-US countries are bound by US laws, but the US is free to tell other countries to "fuck off because we have the biggest army in the world and we're ready to use it."
Well, you'd hope not, but it happens enough already. The US is too arrogant. I just hope we don't try to nuke one of those "axis of evil" countries. George Bush does NOT represent me, nor a LOT of the people in America.
I think what it implies is that Kazaa/FT has the *ability* to turn off their network. Even if they do not control what goes in or out, if they have the ability to forcibly remove everyone from the network then the judge won't let them use their "we don't have control" argument.
Of course, they can always have their next auto-patch permanently disable the auto-patch feature, but I doubt they want to intentionaly lose control of their network.
Good point, I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted :) What they're really scared of is losing control. Both our arguments lead to that, and as we've all seen, the MPAA and RIAA both have decade-old strangleholds on their respective industries and will do just about anything to maintain that control. VHS tapes took the control out of the studio's hands, Napster took control out of the studio's hands. I'm sure "what's next" will also take control out of their hands. I just wish they'd go with what their revenue units want rather than them try to tell us what we want.
Slashdot is not charging for subscriptions. Slashdot is offering a way for people to turn off advertising.
There is a CRITICAL difference. Subscription sites only allow paid members to even view the site. If you don't want to pay for slashdot, then you don't need to, it just means you'll see more ads.
Yes I thought of that, but no I don't have the skills. Not everyone is a systems programmer :)
The music/movie/software/everythingelse industry is not interested in spending a lot of money to completely eradicate piracy. What they want to do is to prevent casual copying (ie napster) and distribution. If they put out crippled CD's that can't be copied by the common person, then the volume of piracy will go down. Similarly, if they go after the major file sharing networks then they make it harder for the _average_ person to pirate their goods then the volume of piracy will go down. People like me (and most of slashdot) will always have the skills to get things for free, but if most of the rest of the population doesn't know how then the losses due to piracy are far lower.
Some people equate digital copying with analog copying, but the primary difference is the volume of piracy, and that's what they're scared of.
The new Morpheus is assumed to have spyware and tracking built into it, right? Well... It's GPL'd and the source code is available... So... _IS_ there tracking?
On a related note, how do we know that the source code available is actually the same that was used to compile the binary version available for download?
Simpsons Reference: "Buy him out, boys"
Yes, that's why SETI@Home is important (well, SETI in general). The microwave spectrum is a constant everywhere, so any intelligent life wanting to communicate at the speed of light will use EM waves, which can be detected by our radio telescopes.
:)
Unless, of course, everyone else figures out how subspace works (or its equivalent FTL) and we're looking in the wrong place
On a technical note, I think it's the Hydrogen 13 band that is quietest in the EM spectrum, so presumably that's what another race would use to send a specific signal. BUT think about how many specific signals we've sent (one?) compared to how many incidental (every radio and TV broadcast since 1930 for example) transmissions we've made...
Anyway, enough rambling.
I completely agree that people should have their privacy, and I have no qualms with people using pseudonyms and hiding their real information. What I am strongly against is the jerks who make horrible comments and hide behind "Anonymous" because they aren't willing to take responsibility for their words.
So, to sum it up, I just want people to use a pseudonym that is anonymous, but that is actually them. (if that makes sense)
My philosophy: if you're not willing to put your name to it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it at all, be it an action, word, or even thought.
First, for $5 what are you worried about? Even if PayPal bilks you, you can put a hold on your credit card...
Second, I disagree, slashdot pulls stories from all over the web. There are MANY times that I see a news item here first simply because it isn't big enough to be mentioned elsewhere. Sure, I could check each site individually but I don't have time for that...
Excellent idea, only problem I see is that the people most likely to pay are also the most likely to have good posts. But then again those are the people you want to keep happy :)