some of these, especially the chunked encoding, transfer negotiation, and things like bookmarking negotiated URIs, isn't possible with IIS and other web servers.
so, what kind of world would that be when all of the UAs did the right thing and the servers fell over?
Re:In a Corporatocracy, we're all just targets.
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
With the constant barrage of "targeted" advertising becoming more and more insistent, more and more precise, more and more prevalent and more and more psychologically driven, it's any wonder we can think for ourselves at all.
Turn off your TV and your radio. I guarantee that the level of marketing out there is still low enough to be easily relegated to line noise.
It's the point at which you no longer have a choice about advertising that people have to start getting shot.
Leading the partnership for a Jon Katz-free universe,
Son of Dog
Shit. Back in the days when I was trading C64 games I realized that counting the "warez" doesn't work. Give all you've got out freely and you'll get everything for free.
The analogy doesn't hold up here. I'm not giving for free, I'm being forced to PAY to give. I don't count my mp3z as warez, I count them as one giant, attention-deficit-friendly playlist. My time on napster is just a bonus for everyone out there trying to find that palace brothers or rodan b-side.
My point, oh ye of little reading comprehension, was that the people with the largest collections, ie those who are are most altruistic and who make napster worthwhile for the greatest number of users, are unlikely to suffer the ignominy of being forced to pay for being nice.
When the stuff you trade flows freely, everybody benefits.
What part of 'monthly service charge vs. same-service-free-somewhere-else' are you missing here?
Leading the partnership for a stupid-free slashdot,
Son of Dog
I'd rather pay $10/month, and be able to dl and new albums (which you can often find in their entirety)
Except that the only way all those new albums are making it onto napster now is because it's free - It's a chicken-and-egg problem.
You're less likely to find the new ablums online now that people have to pay for it. I will certainly no longer offer my 4,000+ mp3 collection. Where's the reward for it? I'm sure that, like most people with really large collections, I share 20 or 30 times the number of songs per day that I download. I'm certainly not going to pay for the priveledge of giving away my bandwidth - that's ludicrous.
It's a lot like the karma cap. Once you hit 50 karma, what's the point in continuing to post logged-in? You can only ever lose karma.
Leading the partnership for a Britney-Free napster,
Son of Dog
I called the first test the
Startup Test: it times how long it takes a particular program to start and display its
first page. I timed each program on its second startup so there would be no delay
from copying initial preferences and such.
Except that, the second time something starts in linux, unless you do something to interfere, it will load straight from RAM, especially on a 256MB box, thanks to linux's extremely aggressive buffer/cache setup.
bah, decentralization isn't inherently any more insecure than ICANN running the root servers. if the the roots served.tld roots instead of domain roots, it would be exactly the same as it is now.
i guess that's not really decentralized DNS, as much as decentralized TLDs. shrug. in any case, the technology is exactly the same.
TLD namespace control does nothing more than exacerbate the existing artificial monopoly. There is no technical reason at all for having a set number of TLDs. Putting more control of TLDs in the hands of any organization just encourages that organization to abuse said control.
Or: Who will watch the watchers?
Free the TLDs! Open the root servers! Decentralize DNS!
it's so much more over there because they tax you out the wazoo for stupid things like game consoles. on the other hand, at least it doesn't cost you $2000 to go to the emergency room.
personally, i'd take the price hike on playstations.
Slashdot Mirror
all of my solaris 9 betas have shipped with Gnome on a 'bonus software' CD.
/usr/dt/bin/dtconfig -kill
/usr/dt/bin/dtconfig -x
that's all the solaris you need to know, chubby.
is it just me, or did anyone else wonder if this was a battle over block -vs- character device drivers?
hi.
polaroid also cannot compete with my cock.
thank you.
i would like to henceforth be known as sir captain mighty jebus, please.
thank you.
113
much like those stars, while this is not actually the FIRST of POSTs it is in the FIRST GENERATION of posts.
i believe you'll find that equally scientifically relevant.
thank you.
on behalf of myself, i'd like to thank me for helping bring something this terrible to light.
i do what i can.
you stole my 2206133rd post. :(
2206133th pizn0st in your ASS!
but now there is one.
this hasn't been moderated down yet because no one with mod points speaks sed. how appropriate.
a beowulf cluster of clones?!
Give Riker the balls to nail every babe on the show.
And, according to a STTNG episode, every boy as well.
some of these, especially the chunked encoding, transfer negotiation, and things like bookmarking negotiated URIs, isn't possible with IIS and other web servers.
so, what kind of world would that be when all of the UAs did the right thing and the servers fell over?
a zero-sum game?
With the constant barrage of "targeted" advertising becoming more and more insistent, more and more precise, more and more prevalent and more and more psychologically driven, it's any wonder we can think for ourselves at all.
Turn off your TV and your radio. I guarantee that the level of marketing out there is still low enough to be easily relegated to line noise.
It's the point at which you no longer have a choice about advertising that people have to start getting shot.
Leading the partnership for a Jon Katz-free universe,
Son of Dog
Shit. Back in the days when I was trading C64 games I realized that counting the "warez" doesn't work. Give all you've got out freely and you'll get everything for free.
The analogy doesn't hold up here. I'm not giving for free, I'm being forced to PAY to give. I don't count my mp3z as warez, I count them as one giant, attention-deficit-friendly playlist. My time on napster is just a bonus for everyone out there trying to find that palace brothers or rodan b-side.
My point, oh ye of little reading comprehension, was that the people with the largest collections, ie those who are are most altruistic and who make napster worthwhile for the greatest number of users, are unlikely to suffer the ignominy of being forced to pay for being nice.
When the stuff you trade flows freely, everybody benefits.
What part of 'monthly service charge vs. same-service-free-somewhere-else' are you missing here?
Leading the partnership for a stupid-free slashdot,
Son of Dog
I'd rather pay $10/month, and be able to dl and new albums (which you can often find in their entirety)
Except that the only way all those new albums are making it onto napster now is because it's free - It's a chicken-and-egg problem.
You're less likely to find the new ablums online now that people have to pay for it. I will certainly no longer offer my 4,000+ mp3 collection. Where's the reward for it? I'm sure that, like most people with really large collections, I share 20 or 30 times the number of songs per day that I download. I'm certainly not going to pay for the priveledge of giving away my bandwidth - that's ludicrous.
It's a lot like the karma cap. Once you hit 50 karma, what's the point in continuing to post logged-in? You can only ever lose karma.
Leading the partnership for a Britney-Free napster,
Son of Dog
I called the first test the
Startup Test: it times how long it takes a particular program to start and display its
first page. I timed each program on its second startup so there would be no delay
from copying initial preferences and such.
Except that, the second time something starts in linux, unless you do something to interfere, it will load straight from RAM, especially on a 256MB box, thanks to linux's extremely aggressive buffer/cache setup.
bah, decentralization isn't inherently any more insecure than ICANN running the root servers. if the the roots served .tld roots instead of domain roots, it would be exactly the same as it is now.
i guess that's not really decentralized DNS, as much as decentralized TLDs. shrug. in any case, the technology is exactly the same.
it's all good.. it'll get hammered in m2, where my .sig doesn't show up.
whee @ slashcode.
flamebait? ya know, that guy that everyone from /. wanted so badly to get elected to ICANN ran on exactly the same platform as my post.
what does that tell ya?
TLD namespace control does nothing more than exacerbate the existing artificial monopoly. There is no technical reason at all for having a set number of TLDs. Putting more control of TLDs in the hands of any organization just encourages that organization to abuse said control.
Or: Who will watch the watchers?
Free the TLDs! Open the root servers! Decentralize DNS!
it's so much more over there because they tax you out the wazoo for stupid things like game consoles. on the other hand, at least it doesn't cost you $2000 to go to the emergency room.
personally, i'd take the price hike on playstations.