The reason many e-gold-accepting sites look pretty poor is because they are almost always owner-designer-operator jobs of someone doing it all himself. You are comparing a garage sale with a frigging strip mall and then wonder why there is no cafeteria in the garage.
I haven't come accross any pedophilia or similar pervert sites accepting e-gold in quite a while. There were a few early in the year but the more respectable 'exchangers' and their association made it difficult for them to get their ill-gotten gains out of the system.
There is an entire casino site, built specifically for e-gold and other online currency users, which doing rather well for itself. Of course, they are actually pros and not one of the cut and paste carder jobs the web is rampant with.
Lastly, there are 1.5 million e-gold accounts, about half of which are funded, which isn't huge, but sizeable.
Credit cards are pro consumer, charge backs are easy for buyers, fraud is rampant. e-gold is pro-merchants, charge backs are impossible, fraud is reasonably moderate, and e-gold does react to complaints by suspending accounts, but you need a court order to get more details. PayPal is pro PayPal. The charge back from both ends, play buyers against sellers and keep the loot from both sides. At least that is what used to happen quite frequently. Imagine you sell some kit for a grand and six months later PayPal grabs a grand from your bank account and tells you the charge was reversed, because the buyer was a crook. Imagine then you personally know the buyer and know he's not a crook. Worse, imagine the buyer calls you and tells you that P(r)ayPal took the money off his account and off the account of someone who had bought something from him earlier, as well. That used to be PayPal. I'm not sure if they still are, but it did happen to us, so I believe every single word at www.paypal-warning.com
Now go to http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=310408 a nd sign up for an account:-)
' Publishing personal information about public servants WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION is tantamount to creating a site that encourages libel' How about using personal information without informing the public or using due process and ruining peoples' lives? If it's okay for coppers to do it and it's okay for public servants to do it with public servants of other countries, wouldn't you agree that it is high time that the creeps has some of their own medicine?
Of course, even if there was proof that Bush was a felon, sexist, abusive mongrel, nothing would happen. Wait, wasn't there proof for those published already?
I fear the whole site may just be a valve to bitch about politicians while leaving them to do their dirty work anyway... But then, that's just me...
okay, so the at-large scheme will be dropped, the corporate guys will take full control behind a smoke screen of the dept. of commerce.
what else is new? did anyone actually believe that ICANN was going to be democratic?
if we give them the benefit of the doubt, then one might consider that maybe the at-large scheme was a serious experiment.
what exactly did it bring? plenty of bickering among the guys who got in, complaints from the guys who didn't get in and long discussions from a minority that wouldn't have stood a chance to change anything anyway.
so, with the new set of rules, they are only openly admitting what was clear from the beginning anyway. and IMHO, i'd rather go with an organization that makes money from keeping the system running than with somebody who is accountable to the public and prone to party politics and cover-ups.
i think ICANN should be a corporation and we should all be able to buy shares in it. even the guys who are always against everything can then buy shares and make a mess at shareholders meetings. wouldn't that be more democratic?
ever since esther dyson left the top of ICANN it was clear that it would be the end to any hope for having a say...
Amen on both counts - but it is disturbing that you would have days in which you are less cynical. You must be new to the industry.
Just kidding... =o].
The primary focus of life is survival. Next come creature comforts. Both cost money.
Will you please apply for ajob at our company? I mea, you can create content 16 hours per day, 7 days per week and we will publish all your content rather than paying you a salary.
Please bring along all like-minded friends you have. We will provide free food and board...
While i'd agree with most of the point you make, there is one little thing that you should consider:
All that useless junk as you put it, that was bought and money wasted on during the upswing days is exactly what kep the upswing running, the economy booming and most people happy.
Without the kiddo-CEOs spending all that cash on non-core business items, the boom would have fizzed out in a matter of months.
So, how about all the poor Nerds that are making money by selling overpriced services to those ignorant commerce people?
I guess most of the people here who criticize the commercial aspects of the net don't recall how it all happened.
Remember, the banner ad is an American invention. The first online commerce was product sourcing and then automating logistics, etc.
Well, most new technologies are first invented from the most profitable online sector - p0rn. Cause they can afford to pay for it.
So, as long as p0rn is around, new technologies will be introduced - and picked up from the comercial sector.
But, without online sales sites the Internet is not doing much for global understanding.
Sad as that might sound, the spread of the net in Asia is focused on commerce. Education is secondary, if it does not serve commerce and information exchange is always based on commercial interests.
Nowadays so many sectors of the economy depend on a smoothly running Net, that it would be unthinkable to seperate commerce [and that means those annoying ads that pay our bills] from the rest.
So, maybe it's time for a reality check? Aprt from that, ask yourself, would you volunteer free time, if you had the choice of getting a cent from every banner displayed online???
reading the comments, it seems to me that the a few/.-ers are interested in space beyond star wars movies and most others just believe the usual 'predigested' hype of "experts".
<BR>can't you see the obvious?
<BR>-- MIR has to go, so that the PR focus is on ISS
<BR>-- Keeping MIR in storage will not make much money for the aerospace industry
<BR>-- Condemning MIR as old tech gives Americans {US'ians) the chummy feelinf of superiority
<BR>
<BR>Let's face it. Russian Space missions were always 'can-do' ventures, in which human readyness to self-sacrifice and improvisation as the superior form of trouble-shooting, beat the western 'safety through piles of cash' approach.
<BR>Only when Kennedy realized this and instructed US developers to mimmick the 'Russian way', did the Americans gain ground and won the cardboard race to the Moon.
<BR>
<BR>Since then the West is back in it's safety nets and doing everything to stiffle Russia's space programs. Did you know that the West pratically pressed Russia into the ISS program?
<BR>Russia would have preferred to go it's own way [with japanese financial backing being offered].
<BR>But as NASA and the Pentagon realized that even ESA was starting to reconsider if a deal with Russia might be better than the ISS alternative, the muscle flexing started.
<BR>Rumour has it that there were even threats to impose higher taxes on Eurotech imports if European governments didn't push ESA to fall back in line.
<BR>
<BR>To sum up, this whole, "go with us" approach is creating jobs in the US and ensures that NASA will decide who goes to Mars first.
<BR>
<BR>For the common good, we should have lobbied for MIR years ago and violently opposed billions of dollars to be wasted on a NASA pet project;
<BR>MIR was practically up for sale and projections about adding modules to it and gradually replacing older components, which showed that the same tasks that ISS may or may not achieve [at three times the original planning budget with no end in sight] at less than 30% of the original ISS budget were supressed.
<BR>
<BR>Question:
<BR>--------
<BR>"If three inferior satellites at a cost of $8M each [incl. launch and deployment]can do the job of one superior satellite that costs $50M and has a higher risk margin , shouldn't we go with inferior technology until superior technology becomes cheaper?"
<BR>
<BR>Answer NASA:
<BR>"No, superior technolgy is absolutely vital."
<BR>
<BR>Answer Common Sense:
<BR>"Go with the most cost-effective alternative, especially if it permits time savings, and use the surplus funds for further research and technology improvements"
<BR>
<BR>Argument NASA:
<BR>"Well, you know, it's not our money, really..."
okay, so now the rogue nations have to do twin launches: one to bang the 747 and one to harras the US. the second one has a smiley painted on the tip...
"plenty of foreign nations (some of them hostile) that don't have comparable technology"
who exactly would that be? Zimbabwe is hostile to the U.S.?
Isn't it amazing how the american public tends to believe in it's non-existent superiority. This same believe is what let's the NSA and others like it get away with claiming that keeping ALL 'sensitive' technologies from prying eyes.
The clear disadvantage of this paranoia is obviously that it never pays to be an US ally.
Quite contrary, whenever an ally comes up with a new technology or surveillance technique the NSA, CIA, IRS [yep, them too] immediately gathers to pick their ally's best brains.
So, in the spirit of mutual distrust everybody is afraid of everyone, and even slashdotters with above-average intellligence fall for the oldest ploy in the book.
By scaring people, you easily get away with murder and ultimately by scaring the living daylights out of the masses they are easily controlled...
Most of the technologies described in the papers are common knowledge among tv repair staff the world over...
Aren't you forgetting something?
The US government uses mainly M$ software.
Punitive tariffs? Okay, M$ stops delivery to the US for three months...
Can you imagine what prices win2k would fetch in shops if there was no ample supply?
Corporations depending on software patches and upgrades would torch Congress and shred the President.
I mean, most people don't have a clue just about how much power M$ wields, and that they have been rather tame. say NIXes are tanks, the M$ packages are nuclear powered mobile battle stations.
Of course it's futile, cause M$ wouldn't do anything like this, but the thought is still intriguing. Let's face it, Gates could just say, f*ck you all, pull the plug and wind up M$.
He'd still be the richest person alive and the world-economy would collapse overnight...
Okay, if we believe for a moment that M$ was not entirely truthful in regards to the intruders not having changed anything [or if M$ hasn't nboticed the changes as yet], then there is certainly a certain danger.
Imagine the intruders, in the weeks they had access to win02 dropped a couple of trojans.
Imagine that any computer running that system in future can be rendered useless / or can be highjacked [chipnapped?] by anyone who has a certain key [like Alt+Tab+F12; Shift+F12; Shift+F12].
Now imagine that a second trojan is activated by the first one and the second's job is to collect all passwords/access codes, etc., compile a list and rename the list as a system or dll file, to be stored in an unsuspicous location.
The rest would then be easy... What if the computer in question belongs to someone working on calssified materials, or worse, on bank loan approvals, etc?
For once I agree that there is a fair chance of some danger to anybody's security - ie. every country's national security. More importantly, a danger to the security of our employers...
It seems to be the same old story all over again:
Frinds of the court are either on M$ payroll or they are violently opposed to M$, with the third party being maybe turned on by the legal challenges and law interpretations.
So far I can't recall any Friend's Briefs that are not biased one way or the other [or offtopic in case of the legal beagles].
While the lengthy brief certainly digs deeper into technologies involved, it does so mainly to support a claim and to proof the Friend's point.
How on earth is a non-tech-saavy judge supposed to reach 'neutral' conclusion and pass judgement?
Given the way the whole case was built, any decission is likely to be unfair to the majority as it is likely to be some sort of compromise that nobody will be happy with.
So, what should be on trial is the legal system, prior to trialling M$. Either the judge would need to pass a CS exam, obtain an MBA and phd in Law - without being in touch with any living being or reading any newspapers or opinions while 'studying' the case, or the outcome is unfair, if not unlawfull.
Why do you think Juries are kept away from the public and newspapers during a trial?
Now the court faces popular opinion, contradicting Friends filings and not a single expert brief that has been written without the writer favouring one opinion or the other.
I think that the powers-to-be certainly know all that. If that is the case, then the question arises if this whole think is just a feel-good showpiece. Something to confirm to the stupid masses that the system is fair and equitable and that nobody is above the law.
In fact, when it comes to the crunch, M$ has to be conviceted of 'something' in order to please the dozing public - as has already happened in the original case.
Has anyone ever thought about what would happen if M$ really played hard-ball in this? What exactly would the U.S. do if gates decided to use the majority vote of his and his buddies and move the headquarters of M$ overseas? Think about the job losses and worse the loss in tax revenue and the impact on supporting industries.
Legally, if M$ moved the main development center to another country and Redmond would officially only do component and module work, then M$ would be save for now and the future.
Worse yet, M$ could actually go to the extent of quite literally buying a country or two.
Heck, they could challenge whatever decission or restrictions courts might impose on the platform of the WTO and the United Nations.
Sure M$ would get plenty bad press and calls to boycott their products. But when it comes to the crunch, the vast majority of office bees prefers to use something they already know [win/office].
Political correctness only goes so far...
or is this whole article done by someone in solitarry confinement that hasn't been receiving any outside news for a while?
I'm too lazy to shred the article piece by piece, but I do know that there is a linux-based PDA out there [contra to their claim of no Linux organizer]. I had suggested it to be a post in/. but it was knocked back.
And, while the Itanium might not be readily available, it is quite likely that this is mainly because hardware manufacturers don't feel like offering the more expensive chipsets and new motherboards during the main shopping season if they have warehouses full of 'dead-cows-can-still-be-flogged' boxes.
The same thing seems to be the case for Intel itself. They just came out with P4. It would not make business sense to release the Itanium at the same time.
After all, the general masses [ie. the market] wouldn't really distinguish between usability and necessity, but would simply buy whatever is 'the latest'. On top of that, many widely used software packages don't run on machines that use Itanium chipsets [you guessed it, we got one...].
So, overall, WIRED really screwed up with this article.Badly researched, opinionated against just about everything and everyone. Let's make a collection and send the author a do-it-yourself kit to help him put himself out of his misery and make the world a cleaner place.
"Everyone is talking about polution - do you know how much oxygen 6 billion people use everyday?"
This is weird. Throughout your post you shred my statements and try to bend them as proof that I'm defending M$, when all I'm trying to do, is adding a different perspective to the rather one-sided views that are usually posted with a firm anti-M$ undertone.
I'm not pro M$ nor am I anti O/S. Bothe of which you seem to take for granted. But as you are taking my sentences apart and assuming that I'm trying to make M$'s case, I'll return the favour on a few selected items.
When talking about 'support' I didn't mean what the software supports, but that M$ is responsible for whatever support they give users. Think about it. If we have a problem with Linux who do we ask [if we don't use Red Hat, etc.].
You are gonna point out thousands of newsgroups etc, I'm siure. But who is responsible for the info they are giving? Our Linux people here spend hours after getting a 'tip' only to find out that it was non-sense.
[Now, I have to point out that we are not looking at Linux for ourselves, but we are testing user friendlyness and commercial practicality on a contract for some clients that might or might not implement it.]
Next, M$ never innovated anything... have I said they did? You just imply that I claim that they did innovate. All I said is that they spend billions on developing and supporting their software.
DOS was the standard not Windows, you say. Hey, the context of my Windows is the standard claim was clearly in regards to the end-user. How many companies did send their word processing people to DOS training courses?
Warranties: long before the US came up with fancy laws, there was something like guild code back in Europe. People had pride in the durability of their products [seen any 1970 models Mercedes on the road lately?]. It is a definite MUST for the industry to produce products with shorter life spans to sustain it's existence. If everyone would last longer then it would be a matter of time until markets are saturated and producers are out of busniness.
On that backdrop I suggested that M$ is simply doing the same thing with shipping faulty software.
Something even you couldn't fit into your one-sided M$ bashing theories. That would have been the point when you should have asked yourself if you maybe 'got me wrong'...
One of the main reasons I post at/. is simply because I got a business major and am paid rather well to consult organizations on questions of practicality and workability, rather than coolness and cyber-rebellion. So, I'm trying to show different points of view to tech-heavy mindsets.
Unfortunately, you seem to have taken me as someone on M$'s payroll. Well, they wouldn't like to hear that, considering the number of pirated versions of their various software packages I have been using 'for evaluation purposes'.
I'm also not Libertarian as you seem to presume. Heck, I'm not even American [PTL] nor am I in the U.S.
frankly, i think the 'article' raises some interesting points, and most/dotters don't understand them.
let's see. most of the comments here immediately take the 'force M$ into O/S' position, others keep more in line with the article regarding 'standards'.
well, how about crediting M$ with making the computer revoltion possible in the first place? how many of us would have our type of job today if it wasn't for windows spreading computer use globally? sure, standards and lower hardware prices play an important role as well, but if M$ hadn't set a standard all by itself [Windows], then we'd still be battling with interfacing VAX and NIXes and apples [mcintosh platform] would be sparesly spread in some well to do households.
give M$ some credit, for chip's sake.
that said, i honestly think that the whole case and associted discussions should be marked 'redundant'. the government was too late, too slow, too assuming and the whole affair is [score 0, flamebait] at best.
think about it. if the purpose was to shake M$ and scare them into rethinking their strategy, then the mission is partly accomplished. but breaking them up now, where new technologies and the internet give them a run for their money anyway, is somewhat childish.
will the o/s-linux community come up with the next big thing? will they spend billions on developping and supporting [especially supporting] a standard setting innovation that is available to non-nerds at a low price?
M$ certainly has it's flaws and bullying is never a good thing. But now, the public/states are using M$ strategies to force changes that are not necessarily beneficial to consumers. Or how would you call the use of state monopoly on power to inflict changes on a company - and millions of users?
finally, who is holding car manufacturers responsible for the fact that things start to break down and need replacement just as the warranties run out?
shipping software with bugs and making money on service packs is what pays the high development costs in redmond. nobody forces anyone to run with faulty new M$ software.
I convinced management at our company to run Win95 OSR2 on desktops and NT4 IIS4 on servers.
no blue screens in months.
given development times, all you gotta do, is wait for M$ to release SP3 or 4 and then upgrade and you got a reasonably stable platform to work with. our three linux nerds in the trial department are too busy messing with the o/s to really produce anything else for them company.
my quarterly report will recommend to replace the linux boxes with win2k...
I don't think so. See, I'm working across the road from where Intel makes most of it's PIII and P4 chips.
You wouldn't believe just how much margin they have in PIII to play with. Seems that they already recouped development costs twice over and P4, though just recently available seems to be doing even better.
Word has it that the military has ordered large enough quantities to alone warrant the development.
So, if anything, Intel is likely to drop their prices to ensure dominating market share.
Then the economic decissions you suggest are more likely to be: "while we don't really need a 1.5Ghz chip, it only costs $20 more than alternatives and we might as well go with the better CPU and save ourselves having to spend money on upgrades again in a few months."
Also, I sincerely doubt that Transmeta or Cyrix could really afford an open price war with someone that has already recovered development costs. After all, the mere production of the buggers is below $2.00, each.
But if Transmeta doesn't turn a profit next year, then investors will beat the stock the amazon way - Linus or no Linus...
The mere fact that IBM changed it's mind and that Toshiba is rethinking their decission as well, makes fundamentalist investors wonder if Transmeta is such a good stock to hold, let alone buy.
torching is when you burn hash and use an inhaler;
quartering is when 75% of your coke is actually baking powder...
cruzified = being ripped off and everyone knows it...
just kidding, but i liked your path of thought being triggered by the keywords 'stoned' and 'college'
okay, so we got the P4, the next AMD and Crusoe [which seems to be a flop].
All new, all advanced.
Now we got a no-name come up with a chip that possibly is as good as a Celeron. Possibly.
And that thing is released as the press is talking the stock-market into a continued down-slide and the economy into a crash landing.
Two main issues:
Firstly, if the public continues to follow whatever tabloids write in their investment decissions rather than analyzing fundamentals, then this chip will be a no-go, because IT spending is falling fast and so are IT related investments.
Secondly, if the chip is only as good as a Celeron [which remains to be proven], then a low price will not be enough to ensure it's success.
Intel is likely to drop it's prices for Celerons if it feels threatenedd. As the Intel already has recouped the development costs for the Celeron many times over, they can afford to flood the market and push the new player in a corner.
Had the new chip been released 10 months ago, it would have been a winner. But as the economic downturn looms, they should have waited until panic spreads and released it then as a cheaper alternative.
Releasing it now is strategic idiocy because it's too late for the public market [which will start the next shopping spree in about three months] and to early for the commercial market [which is unlikely to change their budget planning for the next year in order to save $100 on a chip]
Whoever is advising the 'New Kid on the Board' in marketing and sales should be cruzified, stoned, quartered, torched and then sent to college...
Well, i guess that deserves an answer.
especially as you so clealrly state a scientific thesis.
Wake up - life on other planets wouldn't prove anything, either way. Just like no life on other planets doesn't prove anything.
It is refreshing how you liberially mix jusgements, science and metaphysics and then draw mathematical conclusions. there might be hope for the lower levels of our species after all.
In a few decades you will surely pick up the fine distinction between unrelated fields of science and philosphy and might even get to the understanding that mathematical deduction can only be used to support a thesis, never as proof of it.
Unless it's a mathematical thesis, of course. But then, there are those who would immediately challenge mathemathics on philosophical grounds.
Anyway, it is quite obvious that the actual message of my somewhat hard to understand post has eluded you. The message was in a nutshell, that I do support every type of space research and exploration, but think that questionable 'discoveries' should not be sensationalized the way they are, lest people loose interest in the subject matter.
Now again for you:
if NASA yells: "LIFE" too often, then people won't believe it anymore? Do you need a drawing?
okay, what exactly is the significance of water there?
it's not as if it was on the surface - or even close to it. then it's been suggested that the water might be similar to our own oceans [including the oil spills? sorry, just can't help myself...].
that means of course, that it's unlikely to ever be able to support any type of plant life beyond primitive algaes [algii].
so what's the big deal? nobody is likely to fly all that distance to drill 120 miles through solid ice and rock and then pump up saltwater - heck they wouldn't do it if it was oil, or liquid gold, or 100% pure, liquid silicon.
not to mention that we wouldn't have the technology to do something like that in the first place.
let's face it, this is just another PR exploit by NASA trying to keep it's funding.
While I think NASA should get all the funding they want, I also believe that this type of non-news will be counterproductive in the long run. If they keep going in this way, it's likely that when they finally find something newsworthy, then noone will care.
if one's IQ exceeds the one of the plastic pot plant in NSI's main lobby, he/she has no chance of ever being hired by NSI...
We've been transferring hundreds of domains in the past year and have been using their fancy online forms for dozens of NIC handle contact changes. Guess what 3 times these actions went smoothly. THREE TIMES. Three times out of hundreds.
Whenever one of our less experienced clients decides that he/she needs to make some changes, we usually advise them to get things rolling, get the dreaded NIC tracking number and then immediately start spamming NSI on a daily base.
For that purpose we use a variety of *real* NSI email addresses on a rotating base.
Per average it still takes about ten days four emails and two faxes to get any changes done.
So, for the heck of it, we transfered one unused domain name back to NSI, just to see what would happen [well, okay, the team was heavily betting as well].
Guess what? Transferring *to* NSI took 4 hours!
So, it's quite obvious, if there is money in it for them they have no staff shortages and the system works smoothly. If there is no money in it, then they make it as difficult as possible to deter people from changing.
Talking about abusing monopoly powers...
For a short time we even had accounts with NSI because we hoped that things would work more smoothly. Far from it! Our accountants are still in a clinch with their accountants about some missing funds...
Just a reminder of the finer workings of the 'Great Equalizer' - which unfortunately tends to fail to reconscile.
Well okay, many temps felt screwed, because they realized that they could have earned much more.
But, wait a moment, aren't you forgetting two things here?
Firstly, most temps are people that don't WANT a full time job with the same company for a variety of reasons [family commitments, university / college, etc.].
Second, why did they take the job if they weren't happy with it - more - why did many of them stick around for years [even now], only to turn around and ask for more afterwards?
I'd have to say that this pure greed on behalf of the temps. "Hey their is a class action suit and if we join and complain, we might get some free cash".
This has NOTHING to do with *fairness* or with treating Temps and Perms equal.
In a time were software and dotcom hacks are sought after world-wide, they can pretty much write their own ticket. It appears to me that seeing this, the temps mainly envied the guys who are better off and tried to get some extra bucks.
So, now M$ shares lost over 50%. That means the Perms' benefits are worth much less - will the Temps turn around and share some of the free cash
with the Perms?
any jail sentence would be way out of perspective.
let's face it, the campaigners of the wanna-be president of the US have spammed people as far as Russia and China to vote for their candidate [or at least not to vote for anyone else - or to vote twice - or to to forge ballots...].
of course the highjacking of the mail server does deserve punishment. but, condsidering that it takes skill to hijack a mail server, the worst punishment would be to seize all his electronic goodies and forbid him the use of a computer for twelve months.
if that type of punishement is used against hobbyists regularly, then it might actually be enough of a threat for many small-time hacks to think twice before messing around [or before confessing to having messed around...].
keep some space in jail for important cses and real gangsters [politicians, bankers, clerics, etc.]
Slashdot Mirror
Oh ye of little faith and lotsa blindness :-)
a nd sign up for an account :-)
The reason many e-gold-accepting sites look pretty poor is because they are almost always owner-designer-operator jobs of someone doing it all himself. You are comparing a garage sale with a frigging strip mall and then wonder why there is no cafeteria in the garage.
I haven't come accross any pedophilia or similar pervert sites accepting e-gold in quite a while. There were a few early in the year but the more respectable 'exchangers' and their association made it difficult for them to get their ill-gotten gains out of the system.
There is an entire casino site, built specifically for e-gold and other online currency users, which doing rather well for itself. Of course, they are actually pros and not one of the cut and paste carder jobs the web is rampant with.
Lastly, there are 1.5 million e-gold accounts, about half of which are funded, which isn't huge, but sizeable.
Credit cards are pro consumer, charge backs are easy for buyers, fraud is rampant.
e-gold is pro-merchants, charge backs are impossible, fraud is reasonably moderate, and e-gold does react to complaints by suspending accounts, but you need a court order to get more details.
PayPal is pro PayPal. The charge back from both ends, play buyers against sellers and keep the loot from both sides. At least that is what used to happen quite frequently.
Imagine you sell some kit for a grand and six months later PayPal grabs a grand from your bank account and tells you the charge was reversed, because the buyer was a crook. Imagine then you personally know the buyer and know he's not a crook. Worse, imagine the buyer calls you and tells you that P(r)ayPal took the money off his account and off the account of someone who had bought something from him earlier, as well.
That used to be PayPal. I'm not sure if they still are, but it did happen to us, so I believe every single word at www.paypal-warning.com
Now go to
http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=310408
' Publishing personal information about public servants WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION is tantamount to creating a site that encourages libel'
How about using personal information without informing the public or using due process and ruining peoples' lives?
If it's okay for coppers to do it and it's okay for public servants to do it with public servants of other countries, wouldn't you agree that it is high time that the creeps has some of their own medicine?
Of course, even if there was proof that Bush was a felon, sexist, abusive mongrel, nothing would happen. Wait, wasn't there proof for those published already?
I fear the whole site may just be a valve to bitch about politicians while leaving them to do their dirty work anyway... But then, that's just me...
okay, so the at-large scheme will be dropped, the corporate guys will take full control behind a smoke screen of the dept. of commerce.
what else is new? did anyone actually believe that ICANN was going to be democratic?
if we give them the benefit of the doubt, then one might consider that maybe the at-large scheme was a serious experiment.
what exactly did it bring? plenty of bickering among the guys who got in, complaints from the guys who didn't get in and long discussions from a minority that wouldn't have stood a chance to change anything anyway.
so, with the new set of rules, they are only openly admitting what was clear from the beginning anyway. and IMHO, i'd rather go with an organization that makes money from keeping the system running than with somebody who is accountable to the public and prone to party politics and cover-ups.
i think ICANN should be a corporation and we should all be able to buy shares in it. even the guys who are always against everything can then buy shares and make a mess at shareholders meetings. wouldn't that be more democratic?
ever since esther dyson left the top of ICANN it was clear that it would be the end to any hope for having a say...
Amen on both counts - but it is disturbing that you would have days in which you are less cynical. You must be new to the industry.
Just kidding... =o].
The primary focus of life is survival. Next come creature comforts. Both cost money.
Will you please apply for ajob at our company? I mea, you can create content 16 hours per day, 7 days per week and we will publish all your content rather than paying you a salary.
Please bring along all like-minded friends you have. We will provide free food and board...
Oops, this'll be modded down as [-5 Truthful]
While i'd agree with most of the point you make, there is one little thing that you should consider:
All that useless junk as you put it, that was bought and money wasted on during the upswing days is exactly what kep the upswing running, the economy booming and most people happy.
Without the kiddo-CEOs spending all that cash on non-core business items, the boom would have fizzed out in a matter of months.
So, how about all the poor Nerds that are making money by selling overpriced services to those ignorant commerce people?
I guess most of the people here who criticize the commercial aspects of the net don't recall how it all happened.
Remember, the banner ad is an American invention. The first online commerce was product sourcing and then automating logistics, etc.
Well, most new technologies are first invented from the most profitable online sector - p0rn. Cause they can afford to pay for it.
So, as long as p0rn is around, new technologies will be introduced - and picked up from the comercial sector.
But, without online sales sites the Internet is not doing much for global understanding.
Sad as that might sound, the spread of the net in Asia is focused on commerce. Education is secondary, if it does not serve commerce and information exchange is always based on commercial interests.
Nowadays so many sectors of the economy depend on a smoothly running Net, that it would be unthinkable to seperate commerce [and that means those annoying ads that pay our bills] from the rest.
So, maybe it's time for a reality check? Aprt from that, ask yourself, would you volunteer free time, if you had the choice of getting a cent from every banner displayed online???
where did the come from?
reading the comments, it seems to me that the a few /.-ers are interested in space beyond star wars movies and most others just believe the usual 'predigested' hype of "experts".
<BR>can't you see the obvious?
<BR>-- MIR has to go, so that the PR focus is on ISS
<BR>-- Keeping MIR in storage will not make much money for the aerospace industry
<BR>-- Condemning MIR as old tech gives Americans {US'ians) the chummy feelinf of superiority
<BR>
<BR>Let's face it. Russian Space missions were always 'can-do' ventures, in which human readyness to self-sacrifice and improvisation as the superior form of trouble-shooting, beat the western 'safety through piles of cash' approach.
<BR>Only when Kennedy realized this and instructed US developers to mimmick the 'Russian way', did the Americans gain ground and won the cardboard race to the Moon.
<BR>
<BR>Since then the West is back in it's safety nets and doing everything to stiffle Russia's space programs. Did you know that the West pratically pressed Russia into the ISS program?
<BR>Russia would have preferred to go it's own way [with japanese financial backing being offered].
<BR>But as NASA and the Pentagon realized that even ESA was starting to reconsider if a deal with Russia might be better than the ISS alternative, the muscle flexing started.
<BR>Rumour has it that there were even threats to impose higher taxes on Eurotech imports if European governments didn't push ESA to fall back in line.
<BR>
<BR>To sum up, this whole, "go with us" approach is creating jobs in the US and ensures that NASA will decide who goes to Mars first.
<BR>
<BR>For the common good, we should have lobbied for MIR years ago and violently opposed billions of dollars to be wasted on a NASA pet project;
<BR>MIR was practically up for sale and projections about adding modules to it and gradually replacing older components, which showed that the same tasks that ISS may or may not achieve [at three times the original planning budget with no end in sight] at less than 30% of the original ISS budget were supressed.
<BR>
<BR>Question:
<BR>--------
<BR>"If three inferior satellites at a cost of $8M each [incl. launch and deployment]can do the job of one superior satellite that costs $50M and has a higher risk margin , shouldn't we go with inferior technology until superior technology becomes cheaper?"
<BR>
<BR>Answer NASA:
<BR>"No, superior technolgy is absolutely vital."
<BR>
<BR>Answer Common Sense:
<BR>"Go with the most cost-effective alternative, especially if it permits time savings, and use the surplus funds for further research and technology improvements"
<BR>
<BR>Argument NASA:
<BR>"Well, you know, it's not our money, really..."
okay, so now the rogue nations have to do twin launches: one to bang the 747 and one to harras the US. the second one has a smiley painted on the tip...
"plenty of foreign nations (some of them hostile) that don't have comparable technology"
who exactly would that be? Zimbabwe is hostile to the U.S.?
Isn't it amazing how the american public tends to believe in it's non-existent superiority. This same believe is what let's the NSA and others like it get away with claiming that keeping ALL 'sensitive' technologies from prying eyes.
The clear disadvantage of this paranoia is obviously that it never pays to be an US ally.
Quite contrary, whenever an ally comes up with a new technology or surveillance technique the NSA, CIA, IRS [yep, them too] immediately gathers to pick their ally's best brains.
So, in the spirit of mutual distrust everybody is afraid of everyone, and even slashdotters with above-average intellligence fall for the oldest ploy in the book.
By scaring people, you easily get away with murder and ultimately by scaring the living daylights out of the masses they are easily controlled...
Most of the technologies described in the papers are common knowledge among tv repair staff the world over...
Aren't you forgetting something?
The US government uses mainly M$ software.
Punitive tariffs? Okay, M$ stops delivery to the US for three months...
Can you imagine what prices win2k would fetch in shops if there was no ample supply?
Corporations depending on software patches and upgrades would torch Congress and shred the President.
I mean, most people don't have a clue just about how much power M$ wields, and that they have been rather tame. say NIXes are tanks, the M$ packages are nuclear powered mobile battle stations.
Of course it's futile, cause M$ wouldn't do anything like this, but the thought is still intriguing. Let's face it, Gates could just say, f*ck you all, pull the plug and wind up M$.
He'd still be the richest person alive and the world-economy would collapse overnight...
Okay, if we believe for a moment that M$ was not entirely truthful in regards to the intruders not having changed anything [or if M$ hasn't nboticed the changes as yet], then there is certainly a certain danger.
Imagine the intruders, in the weeks they had access to win02 dropped a couple of trojans.
Imagine that any computer running that system in future can be rendered useless / or can be highjacked [chipnapped?] by anyone who has a certain key [like Alt+Tab+F12; Shift+F12; Shift+F12].
Now imagine that a second trojan is activated by the first one and the second's job is to collect all passwords/access codes, etc., compile a list and rename the list as a system or dll file, to be stored in an unsuspicous location.
The rest would then be easy... What if the computer in question belongs to someone working on calssified materials, or worse, on bank loan approvals, etc?
For once I agree that there is a fair chance of some danger to anybody's security - ie. every country's national security. More importantly, a danger to the security of our employers...
It seems to be the same old story all over again:
Frinds of the court are either on M$ payroll or they are violently opposed to M$, with the third party being maybe turned on by the legal challenges and law interpretations.
So far I can't recall any Friend's Briefs that are not biased one way or the other [or offtopic in case of the legal beagles].
While the lengthy brief certainly digs deeper into technologies involved, it does so mainly to support a claim and to proof the Friend's point.
How on earth is a non-tech-saavy judge supposed to reach 'neutral' conclusion and pass judgement?
Given the way the whole case was built, any decission is likely to be unfair to the majority as it is likely to be some sort of compromise that nobody will be happy with.
So, what should be on trial is the legal system, prior to trialling M$. Either the judge would need to pass a CS exam, obtain an MBA and phd in Law - without being in touch with any living being or reading any newspapers or opinions while 'studying' the case, or the outcome is unfair, if not unlawfull.
Why do you think Juries are kept away from the public and newspapers during a trial?
Now the court faces popular opinion, contradicting Friends filings and not a single expert brief that has been written without the writer favouring one opinion or the other.
I think that the powers-to-be certainly know all that. If that is the case, then the question arises if this whole think is just a feel-good showpiece. Something to confirm to the stupid masses that the system is fair and equitable and that nobody is above the law.
In fact, when it comes to the crunch, M$ has to be conviceted of 'something' in order to please the dozing public - as has already happened in the original case.
Has anyone ever thought about what would happen if M$ really played hard-ball in this? What exactly would the U.S. do if gates decided to use the majority vote of his and his buddies and move the headquarters of M$ overseas? Think about the job losses and worse the loss in tax revenue and the impact on supporting industries.
Legally, if M$ moved the main development center to another country and Redmond would officially only do component and module work, then M$ would be save for now and the future.
Worse yet, M$ could actually go to the extent of quite literally buying a country or two.
Heck, they could challenge whatever decission or restrictions courts might impose on the platform of the WTO and the United Nations.
Sure M$ would get plenty bad press and calls to boycott their products. But when it comes to the crunch, the vast majority of office bees prefers to use something they already know [win/office].
Political correctness only goes so far...
or is this whole article done by someone in solitarry confinement that hasn't been receiving any outside news for a while?
/. but it was knocked back.
I'm too lazy to shred the article piece by piece, but I do know that there is a linux-based PDA out there [contra to their claim of no Linux organizer]. I had suggested it to be a post in
And, while the Itanium might not be readily available, it is quite likely that this is mainly because hardware manufacturers don't feel like offering the more expensive chipsets and new motherboards during the main shopping season if they have warehouses full of 'dead-cows-can-still-be-flogged' boxes.
The same thing seems to be the case for Intel itself. They just came out with P4. It would not make business sense to release the Itanium at the same time.
After all, the general masses [ie. the market] wouldn't really distinguish between usability and necessity, but would simply buy whatever is 'the latest'. On top of that, many widely used software packages don't run on machines that use Itanium chipsets [you guessed it, we got one...].
So, overall, WIRED really screwed up with this article.Badly researched, opinionated against just about everything and everyone. Let's make a collection and send the author a do-it-yourself kit to help him put himself out of his misery and make the world a cleaner place.
"Everyone is talking about polution - do you know how much oxygen 6 billion people use everyday?"
This is weird. Throughout your post you shred my statements and try to bend them as proof that I'm defending M$, when all I'm trying to do, is adding a different perspective to the rather one-sided views that are usually posted with a firm anti-M$ undertone.
/. is simply because I got a business major and am paid rather well to consult organizations on questions of practicality and workability, rather than coolness and cyber-rebellion. So, I'm trying to show different points of view to tech-heavy mindsets.
I'm not pro M$ nor am I anti O/S. Bothe of which you seem to take for granted. But as you are taking my sentences apart and assuming that I'm trying to make M$'s case, I'll return the favour on a few selected items.
When talking about 'support' I didn't mean what the software supports, but that M$ is responsible for whatever support they give users. Think about it. If we have a problem with Linux who do we ask [if we don't use Red Hat, etc.].
You are gonna point out thousands of newsgroups etc, I'm siure. But who is responsible for the info they are giving? Our Linux people here spend hours after getting a 'tip' only to find out that it was non-sense.
[Now, I have to point out that we are not looking at Linux for ourselves, but we are testing user friendlyness and commercial practicality on a contract for some clients that might or might not implement it.]
Next, M$ never innovated anything... have I said they did? You just imply that I claim that they did innovate. All I said is that they spend billions on developing and supporting their software.
DOS was the standard not Windows, you say. Hey, the context of my Windows is the standard claim was clearly in regards to the end-user. How many companies did send their word processing people to DOS training courses?
Warranties: long before the US came up with fancy laws, there was something like guild code back in Europe. People had pride in the durability of their products [seen any 1970 models Mercedes on the road lately?]. It is a definite MUST for the industry to produce products with shorter life spans to sustain it's existence. If everyone would last longer then it would be a matter of time until markets are saturated and producers are out of busniness.
On that backdrop I suggested that M$ is simply doing the same thing with shipping faulty software.
Something even you couldn't fit into your one-sided M$ bashing theories. That would have been the point when you should have asked yourself if you maybe 'got me wrong'...
One of the main reasons I post at
Unfortunately, you seem to have taken me as someone on M$'s payroll. Well, they wouldn't like to hear that, considering the number of pirated versions of their various software packages I have been using 'for evaluation purposes'.
I'm also not Libertarian as you seem to presume. Heck, I'm not even American [PTL] nor am I in the U.S.
frankly, i think the 'article' raises some interesting points, and most /dotters don't understand them.
...
let's see. most of the comments here immediately take the 'force M$ into O/S' position, others keep more in line with the article regarding 'standards'.
well, how about crediting M$ with making the computer revoltion possible in the first place? how many of us would have our type of job today if it wasn't for windows spreading computer use globally? sure, standards and lower hardware prices play an important role as well, but if M$ hadn't set a standard all by itself [Windows], then we'd still be battling with interfacing VAX and NIXes and apples [mcintosh platform] would be sparesly spread in some well to do households.
give M$ some credit, for chip's sake.
that said, i honestly think that the whole case and associted discussions should be marked 'redundant'. the government was too late, too slow, too assuming and the whole affair is [score 0, flamebait] at best.
think about it. if the purpose was to shake M$ and scare them into rethinking their strategy, then the mission is partly accomplished. but breaking them up now, where new technologies and the internet give them a run for their money anyway, is somewhat childish.
will the o/s-linux community come up with the next big thing? will they spend billions on developping and supporting [especially supporting] a standard setting innovation that is available to non-nerds at a low price?
M$ certainly has it's flaws and bullying is never a good thing. But now, the public/states are using M$ strategies to force changes that are not necessarily beneficial to consumers. Or how would you call the use of state monopoly on power to inflict changes on a company - and millions of users?
finally, who is holding car manufacturers responsible for the fact that things start to break down and need replacement just as the warranties run out?
shipping software with bugs and making money on service packs is what pays the high development costs in redmond. nobody forces anyone to run with faulty new M$ software.
I convinced management at our company to run Win95 OSR2 on desktops and NT4 IIS4 on servers.
no blue screens in months.
given development times, all you gotta do, is wait for M$ to release SP3 or 4 and then upgrade and you got a reasonably stable platform to work with. our three linux nerds in the trial department are too busy messing with the o/s to really produce anything else for them company.
my quarterly report will recommend to replace the linux boxes with win2k
I don't think so. See, I'm working across the road from where Intel makes most of it's PIII and P4 chips.
You wouldn't believe just how much margin they have in PIII to play with. Seems that they already recouped development costs twice over and P4, though just recently available seems to be doing even better.
Word has it that the military has ordered large enough quantities to alone warrant the development.
So, if anything, Intel is likely to drop their prices to ensure dominating market share.
Then the economic decissions you suggest are more likely to be: "while we don't really need a 1.5Ghz chip, it only costs $20 more than alternatives and we might as well go with the better CPU and save ourselves having to spend money on upgrades again in a few months."
Also, I sincerely doubt that Transmeta or Cyrix could really afford an open price war with someone that has already recovered development costs. After all, the mere production of the buggers is below $2.00, each.
But if Transmeta doesn't turn a profit next year, then investors will beat the stock the amazon way - Linus or no Linus...
The mere fact that IBM changed it's mind and that Toshiba is rethinking their decission as well, makes fundamentalist investors wonder if Transmeta is such a good stock to hold, let alone buy.
torching is when you burn hash and use an inhaler;
quartering is when 75% of your coke is actually baking powder...
cruzified = being ripped off and everyone knows it...
just kidding, but i liked your path of thought being triggered by the keywords 'stoned' and 'college'
okay, so we got the P4, the next AMD and Crusoe [which seems to be a flop].
All new, all advanced.
Now we got a no-name come up with a chip that possibly is as good as a Celeron. Possibly.
And that thing is released as the press is talking the stock-market into a continued down-slide and the economy into a crash landing.
Two main issues:
Firstly, if the public continues to follow whatever tabloids write in their investment decissions rather than analyzing fundamentals, then this chip will be a no-go, because IT spending is falling fast and so are IT related investments.
Secondly, if the chip is only as good as a Celeron [which remains to be proven], then a low price will not be enough to ensure it's success.
Intel is likely to drop it's prices for Celerons if it feels threatenedd. As the Intel already has recouped the development costs for the Celeron many times over, they can afford to flood the market and push the new player in a corner.
Had the new chip been released 10 months ago, it would have been a winner. But as the economic downturn looms, they should have waited until panic spreads and released it then as a cheaper alternative.
Releasing it now is strategic idiocy because it's too late for the public market [which will start the next shopping spree in about three months] and to early for the commercial market [which is unlikely to change their budget planning for the next year in order to save $100 on a chip]
Whoever is advising the 'New Kid on the Board' in marketing and sales should be cruzified, stoned, quartered, torched and then sent to college...
Well, i guess that deserves an answer.
especially as you so clealrly state a scientific thesis.
Wake up - life on other planets wouldn't prove anything, either way. Just like no life on other planets doesn't prove anything.
It is refreshing how you liberially mix jusgements, science and metaphysics and then draw mathematical conclusions. there might be hope for the lower levels of our species after all.
In a few decades you will surely pick up the fine distinction between unrelated fields of science and philosphy and might even get to the understanding that mathematical deduction can only be used to support a thesis, never as proof of it.
Unless it's a mathematical thesis, of course. But then, there are those who would immediately challenge mathemathics on philosophical grounds.
Anyway, it is quite obvious that the actual message of my somewhat hard to understand post has eluded you. The message was in a nutshell, that I do support every type of space research and exploration, but think that questionable 'discoveries' should not be sensationalized the way they are, lest people loose interest in the subject matter.
Now again for you:
if NASA yells: "LIFE" too often, then people won't believe it anymore? Do you need a drawing?
---There goes my Karrrma ---
okay, what exactly is the significance of water there?
it's not as if it was on the surface - or even close to it. then it's been suggested that the water might be similar to our own oceans [including the oil spills? sorry, just can't help myself...].
that means of course, that it's unlikely to ever be able to support any type of plant life beyond primitive algaes [algii].
so what's the big deal? nobody is likely to fly all that distance to drill 120 miles through solid ice and rock and then pump up saltwater - heck they wouldn't do it if it was oil, or liquid gold, or 100% pure, liquid silicon.
not to mention that we wouldn't have the technology to do something like that in the first place.
let's face it, this is just another PR exploit by NASA trying to keep it's funding.
While I think NASA should get all the funding they want, I also believe that this type of non-news will be counterproductive in the long run. If they keep going in this way, it's likely that when they finally find something newsworthy, then noone will care.
Just an uniformed opinion...
if one's IQ exceeds the one of the plastic pot plant in NSI's main lobby, he/she has no chance of ever being hired by NSI...
We've been transferring hundreds of domains in the past year and have been using their fancy online forms for dozens of NIC handle contact changes. Guess what 3 times these actions went smoothly. THREE TIMES. Three times out of hundreds.
Whenever one of our less experienced clients decides that he/she needs to make some changes, we usually advise them to get things rolling, get the dreaded NIC tracking number and then immediately start spamming NSI on a daily base.
For that purpose we use a variety of *real* NSI email addresses on a rotating base.
Per average it still takes about ten days four emails and two faxes to get any changes done.
So, for the heck of it, we transfered one unused domain name back to NSI, just to see what would happen [well, okay, the team was heavily betting as well].
Guess what? Transferring *to* NSI took 4 hours!
So, it's quite obvious, if there is money in it for them they have no staff shortages and the system works smoothly. If there is no money in it, then they make it as difficult as possible to deter people from changing.
Talking about abusing monopoly powers...
For a short time we even had accounts with NSI because we hoped that things would work more smoothly. Far from it! Our accountants are still in a clinch with their accountants about some missing funds...
Just a reminder of the finer workings of the 'Great Equalizer' - which unfortunately tends to fail to reconscile.
Well okay, many temps felt screwed, because they realized that they could have earned much more.
But, wait a moment, aren't you forgetting two things here?
Firstly, most temps are people that don't WANT a full time job with the same company for a variety of reasons [family commitments, university / college, etc.].
Second, why did they take the job if they weren't happy with it - more - why did many of them stick around for years [even now], only to turn around and ask for more afterwards?
I'd have to say that this pure greed on behalf of the temps. "Hey their is a class action suit and if we join and complain, we might get some free cash".
This has NOTHING to do with *fairness* or with treating Temps and Perms equal.
In a time were software and dotcom hacks are sought after world-wide, they can pretty much write their own ticket. It appears to me that seeing this, the temps mainly envied the guys who are better off and tried to get some extra bucks.
So, now M$ shares lost over 50%. That means the Perms' benefits are worth much less - will the Temps turn around and share some of the free cash
with the Perms?
any jail sentence would be way out of perspective.
let's face it, the campaigners of the wanna-be president of the US have spammed people as far as Russia and China to vote for their candidate [or at least not to vote for anyone else - or to vote twice - or to to forge ballots...].
of course the highjacking of the mail server does deserve punishment. but, condsidering that it takes skill to hijack a mail server, the worst punishment would be to seize all his electronic goodies and forbid him the use of a computer for twelve months.
if that type of punishement is used against hobbyists regularly, then it might actually be enough of a threat for many small-time hacks to think twice before messing around [or before confessing to having messed around...].
keep some space in jail for important cses and real gangsters [politicians, bankers, clerics, etc.]