Clearly anyone who bought advertising space is cashing in right now, but I wonder if this guy is saying hehas sold $911K so that he can REALLY sell the last 88,200$ in space and actually make money.
Why worry about it? After all, if he is lying it really doesn't matter because the Taxman will punish him quite severely.
I mean, he got rich, but what a bunch of morons that *bought* a freakin rock!
Actually, they weren't morons any more than people who drive to the beach specifically to pick up some rocks are. Those people spend money on gas, suntan lotion, and often snacks just to get rocks that won't be conversation pieces any time soon. It's entertaining to them. That's all that matters.
The pet rock was stupid. That was a point that no one missed. But, it was something to talk about because it was a funny kind of stupid. What I see as much more stupid is people buying new expensive products that pretty much do the same thing as the perfectly functioning products they already have from last year except the new product looks different.
It's not like the pet rock people bought new and improved pet rocks every year to show off to their friends.
Conspicuous Consumption is much more stupid IMO than spending a little bit of money on a rock that generates some laughs.
The kid got people to throw money at him with an idea NOBODY else thought of and all you can do is whine about how he is not a genius, can barely drive and basically doesn't deserve it because it was "easy" money. What a fucking wet blanket, in ten years you will probably be working for him.
There are "wet blankets" commenting on every article here. And, lately, they often get modded up.
Someone kid could build a working nuclear reactor at home and more than a handful of people would say things like "I could have built one using coconuts + some particular distro of Linux", "What an idiot, he showed how he did it using PowerPoint. He's not too bright.", and my personal favorite type of reply "So what? They've been built in lots of countries. This is nothing new. *YAWN*".
Why would any different style of speaker be any more or less likely to cause hearing damage vs another? Surely the only thing that really matters is the volume at which the sound hits your eardrum.
In Australia (home country warning) it's against advertising regulations to sells cars by showing how fast/aggressive they can drive. (Which is common-sense as you can never legally drive them like that on our bodgey streets.)
In the USA, most of us believe that people in Australia drive like Mel Gibson.
On the other hand, I'm not too worried about people modifying it to play while driving. You can modify your car not to beep when your selt belt is off (assuming you have this feature), but not a lot of people do this. Why? Because (a) it takes time, and (b) it is dumb. Most people are going to get caught by these two hindrances when it comes to any sort of modification to play and drive at the same time.
This may shock you, but there are many people who disable (or have someone else do it) ABS because it "feels funny" compared to what they are used to when depressing the brake pedal.
Yes, it's stupid, but it's not unusual. Trust me, "stupid" is not a very high hurdle to jump.
I've only had a little personal experience, but I always thought that letters like these from the courts (indictments, notices of arraignment dates, etc.) were usually sent certified return receipt so that they can be certain that you've gotten the letter.
Actually, no, that is rare.
Court funding has been cut quite a bit over the years. Usually, they'll just keep on sending mail and/or warnings that a drivers licence will be suspended if there isn't a reply.
It's called a laptop and 802.11. There was a stat released recently reporting that a significant percentage of wireless networking users have taken advantage of it in the can...am I posting this post from the bathroom????
Yes, but in an emergency situation where it's discovered that the toilet paper roll is empty...
Printer friendly mode has been a staple of existence for many years. I'm actually surprised that it was adopted so readily rather than inisting on forcing more ads on users.
It's a very smart move. From my observations, people usually print items from news sites so that they can show other people the articles.
That's extremely effective advertising for the news site which then leads more people to visit and see the other advertisements. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If the ads bug you so much, why don't you just read the articles using the "Printer Friendly" mode?
True, many sites allow this. But, the bigger point that struck me is the fact that a $9.95/month subscription doesn't get rid of the advertising.
As most savvy website owners know, a lot of people are willing to pay a monthly rate as long as (outside) advertising is not displayed to the viewers. Of course, there have to be other benefits but getting rid of advertisements should be part of any package where the person isn't sent a digital copy of the newspaper.
I've tried lots of firefox extensions, some I love, some I hate, few work correctly, or as described. Such is life with open source, but I'm not complaining about that!
There are extensions that help manage extensions.
Of course, some of those may not do everything well so we'll have to wait for extensions that manage extensions that manage extensions before it's All Good.
However, I would buy a blank one and install it myself. And I don't see how it would be major inconvenience for 'normal' consumers, since most of them have to re-install Windows at some point anyway.
The overwhelming majority of them don't install Windows in the standard way since they don't have the actual Windows CD.
Instead, they have discs that automatically rewrite a partition on the box. The only input from the consumer is when clicking YES to "this will erase all data...do you wish to proceed?"
Jesus, could they have put any more ads in that damn video? Now I remember why I quit watching TV.M
I would not have minded one advertisement. Or, even a couple of very short ones at the beginning. After all, *someone* has to pay for bandwidth. I'll "pay" the price of losing 30-60 seconds of my time if the content is hard to find anywhere else and it's an interesting subject to me. Heck, if it's a quality 1 hour video I'll put up with several minutes (ala PBS) at the beginning but the content had better not disappoint me or I'll have a negative attitude about the products that helped pay for the video distribution.
What I will not stand for is TV-like advertising that interrupts what I am watching. That, and then hearing crappy audio is what made me stop watching the video.
Wiki isn't a news site - information of that kind should be posted elsewhere first - and only end up in the encyclopedia when it's been verified, understood, etc.
That's mostly true. News coverage should be edited at Wikinews
What I mean by "mostly" is that there is a small amount of acceptable news posted at Wikipedia. That news usually relates to disasters and similar topics.
For example, the Wikipedia acting-like-a-newspaper coverage of Hurricane Katrina was incredibly well done compared to most actual news sites.
I was going to post this with my slashdot ID but I don't want people to associate my slashdot ID with what I use on Wikipedia. If somebody would donate a mod point to this article I would be much obliged.
That is an excellent example of why we should not completely remove anonymous users from Wikipedia.
Restricting editors to non-anons is hardly going to slash their userbase. Idealism seems to trump pragmatism in the wikimedia world.
Actually, it would but that often depends on the specific topic. For example, Even a high-profile article like the Firefox one has a lot of anonymous activity with relatively few outrageous edits. Some people want to contribute but don't want to be in the spotlight in any way at all.
On a similar note, there are many anonymous people who post here and get modded up for being interesting, informative, and insightful because of their contributions.
Re:Does anyone remember that old DOS game?
on
Global Thermonuclear War
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Anyway, I'd love to know what the name of that game was (Dad always called it "Simulation"; but I think that's a silly name for a video game, so I never believed him)
And you know what? We'll have won too. This isn't a zero sum game. It's only religious presidents and arse-licking prime ministers with agendas beyond doing what's best for their countries that lose.
Actually, they do believe that it's best for the country. They're extremely concerned because the next large scale war will be in the middle east. They're looking at it from the viewpoint of "when gasoline rises to $10+ per gallon because of less (easy to get) oil being available, who's going to be in position to control the largest sources of oil in the world?"
But, they're using a "the ends justify the means" strategy which goes directly against their supposed religious beliefs.
Jimmy Carter has always been a bit soft in the head, and it hasn't gotten better with age. There will not be 9-10% of the population who will vote for Bush in 2008, and yet it will likely be another Republican sweep.
That's true unless he's being taken out of context, which he is. I watched the interview.
He is well aware of the difference between election years where a president is up for re-election and election years where a president is not. Most nice guys in high political offices are seen as "soft in the head" but it's silly in light of his accomplishments to this day to think he doesn't know that presidents don't get 3 terms.
Also, leading up to the 2004 election, the Bush administration used this same belief by making sure that he had solidly had those people by sending out a "vote for anyone else is a vote to kill our children in the military (Iraq)!" message.
I know I said all that Commandment business about not killing, but I'm in an Old Testament mood right now, George. You need to make things right over there.
That should actually read "business about not murdering" because that's the most accurate English translation of that commandment.
Of course, that doesn't weaken you point whatsoever.
Also, I don't watch PBS, so I don't know what the hell that means.
It means animal sex and human boobies on video. Also, you can see all of the breasts that you want but they must either be old ones (preferably diseased or mid-surgical procedure!), or, more often, saggy ones from some aborigine wiculture.
Nice boobs cause quite a rucus with those who don't have them anymore and leads to lots of phone calls and letter-writing campaigns.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly anyone who bought advertising space is cashing in right now, but I wonder if this guy is saying hehas sold $911K so that he can REALLY sell the last 88,200$ in space and actually make money.
Why worry about it? After all, if he is lying it really doesn't matter because the Taxman will punish him quite severely.
I mean, he got rich, but what a bunch of morons that *bought* a freakin rock!
Actually, they weren't morons any more than people who drive to the beach specifically to pick up some rocks are. Those people spend money on gas, suntan lotion, and often snacks just to get rocks that won't be conversation pieces any time soon. It's entertaining to them. That's all that matters.
The pet rock was stupid. That was a point that no one missed. But, it was something to talk about because it was a funny kind of stupid. What I see as much more stupid is people buying new expensive products that pretty much do the same thing as the perfectly functioning products they already have from last year except the new product looks different.
It's not like the pet rock people bought new and improved pet rocks every year to show off to their friends.
Conspicuous Consumption is much more stupid IMO than spending a little bit of money on a rock that generates some laughs.
The kid got people to throw money at him with an idea NOBODY else thought of and all you can do is whine about how he is not a genius, can barely drive and basically doesn't deserve it because it was "easy" money. What a fucking wet blanket, in ten years you will probably be working for him.
There are "wet blankets" commenting on every article here. And, lately, they often get modded up.
Someone kid could build a working nuclear reactor at home and more than a handful of people would say things like "I could have built one using coconuts + some particular distro of Linux", "What an idiot, he showed how he did it using PowerPoint. He's not too bright.", and my personal favorite type of reply "So what? They've been built in lots of countries. This is nothing new. *YAWN*".
Why would any different style of speaker be any more or less likely to cause hearing damage vs another? Surely the only thing that really matters is the volume at which the sound hits your eardrum.
Harmonic distortion is also a large factor.
In Australia (home country warning) it's against advertising regulations to sells cars by showing how fast/aggressive they can drive. (Which is common-sense as you can never legally drive them like that on our bodgey streets.)
In the USA, most of us believe that people in Australia drive like Mel Gibson.
On the other hand, I'm not too worried about people modifying it to play while driving. You can modify your car not to beep when your selt belt is off (assuming you have this feature), but not a lot of people do this. Why? Because (a) it takes time, and (b) it is dumb. Most people are going to get caught by these two hindrances when it comes to any sort of modification to play and drive at the same time.
This may shock you, but there are many people who disable (or have someone else do it) ABS because it "feels funny" compared to what they are used to when depressing the brake pedal.
Yes, it's stupid, but it's not unusual. Trust me, "stupid" is not a very high hurdle to jump.
I've only had a little personal experience, but I always thought that letters like these from the courts (indictments, notices of arraignment dates, etc.) were usually sent certified return receipt so that they can be certain that you've gotten the letter.
Actually, no, that is rare.
Court funding has been cut quite a bit over the years. Usually, they'll just keep on sending mail and/or warnings that a drivers licence will be suspended if there isn't a reply.
It's called a laptop and 802.11. There was a stat released recently reporting that a significant percentage of wireless networking users have taken advantage of it in the can...am I posting this post from the bathroom????
Yes, but in an emergency situation where it's discovered that the toilet paper roll is empty...
Printer friendly mode has been a staple of existence for many years. I'm actually surprised that it was adopted so readily rather than inisting on forcing more ads on users.
It's a very smart move. From my observations, people usually print items from news sites so that they can show other people the articles.
That's extremely effective advertising for the news site which then leads more people to visit and see the other advertisements. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If the ads bug you so much, why don't you just read the articles using the "Printer Friendly" mode?
True, many sites allow this. But, the bigger point that struck me is the fact that a $9.95/month subscription doesn't get rid of the advertising.
As most savvy website owners know, a lot of people are willing to pay a monthly rate as long as (outside) advertising is not displayed to the viewers. Of course, there have to be other benefits but getting rid of advertisements should be part of any package where the person isn't sent a digital copy of the newspaper.
I've tried lots of firefox extensions, some I love, some I hate, few work correctly, or as described. Such is life with open source, but I'm not complaining about that!
There are extensions that help manage extensions.
Of course, some of those may not do everything well so we'll have to wait for extensions that manage extensions that manage extensions before it's All Good.
However, I would buy a blank one and install it myself. And I don't see how it would be major inconvenience for 'normal' consumers, since most of them have to re-install Windows at some point anyway.
The overwhelming majority of them don't install Windows in the standard way since they don't have the actual Windows CD.
Instead, they have discs that automatically rewrite a partition on the box. The only input from the consumer is when clicking YES to "this will erase all data...do you wish to proceed?"
It's a fricking table of all the cards and their specifications. It doesn't review a single card at all.
Dave Fanboy: "My God, it's full of ATI advertisements"
Jesus, could they have put any more ads in that damn video? Now I remember why I quit watching TV.M
I would not have minded one advertisement. Or, even a couple of very short ones at the beginning. After all, *someone* has to pay for bandwidth. I'll "pay" the price of losing 30-60 seconds of my time if the content is hard to find anywhere else and it's an interesting subject to me. Heck, if it's a quality 1 hour video I'll put up with several minutes (ala PBS) at the beginning but the content had better not disappoint me or I'll have a negative attitude about the products that helped pay for the video distribution.
What I will not stand for is TV-like advertising that interrupts what I am watching. That, and then hearing crappy audio is what made me stop watching the video.
That is a terrible term. I am English. There are Welsh, Scottish and Irish people... a 'Brit' is unknown here.
US Yanks will try to be a bit more careful in the future.
Wiki isn't a news site - information of that kind should be posted elsewhere first - and only end up in the encyclopedia when it's been verified, understood, etc.
That's mostly true. News coverage should be edited at Wikinews
What I mean by "mostly" is that there is a small amount of acceptable news posted at Wikipedia. That news usually relates to disasters and similar topics.
For example, the Wikipedia acting-like-a-newspaper coverage of Hurricane Katrina was incredibly well done compared to most actual news sites.
I was going to post this with my slashdot ID but I don't want people to associate my slashdot ID with what I use on Wikipedia. If somebody would donate a mod point to this article I would be much obliged.
That is an excellent example of why we should not completely remove anonymous users from Wikipedia.
Restricting editors to non-anons is hardly going to slash their userbase. Idealism seems to trump pragmatism in the wikimedia world.
Actually, it would but that often depends on the specific topic. For example, Even a high-profile article like the Firefox one has a lot of anonymous activity with relatively few outrageous edits. Some people want to contribute but don't want to be in the spotlight in any way at all.
On a similar note, there are many anonymous people who post here and get modded up for being interesting, informative, and insightful because of their contributions.
Anyway, I'd love to know what the name of that game was (Dad always called it "Simulation"; but I think that's a silly name for a video game, so I never believed him)
Do you mean this?
Unless you've had your hotmail account since before they were bought by microsoft. :P
Yes, but this IS tinfoil hat country.
Yeah, but she -is- hot.
Yes, but her email address on that page is a Microsoft (hotmail) one.
That's an automatic -2 Hotness in these here parts not to mention the tinfoil hat factor.
And you know what? We'll have won too. This isn't a zero sum game. It's only religious presidents and arse-licking prime ministers with agendas beyond doing what's best for their countries that lose.
Actually, they do believe that it's best for the country. They're extremely concerned because the next large scale war will be in the middle east. They're looking at it from the viewpoint of "when gasoline rises to $10+ per gallon because of less (easy to get) oil being available, who's going to be in position to control the largest sources of oil in the world?"
But, they're using a "the ends justify the means" strategy which goes directly against their supposed religious beliefs.
Jimmy Carter has always been a bit soft in the head, and it hasn't gotten better with age. There will not be 9-10% of the population who will vote for Bush in 2008, and yet it will likely be another Republican sweep.
That's true unless he's being taken out of context, which he is. I watched the interview.
He is well aware of the difference between election years where a president is up for re-election and election years where a president is not. Most nice guys in high political offices are seen as "soft in the head" but it's silly in light of his accomplishments to this day to think he doesn't know that presidents don't get 3 terms.
Also, leading up to the 2004 election, the Bush administration used this same belief by making sure that he had solidly had those people by sending out a "vote for anyone else is a vote to kill our children in the military (Iraq)!" message.
I know I said all that Commandment business about not killing, but I'm in an Old Testament mood right now, George. You need to make things right over there.
That should actually read "business about not murdering" because that's the most accurate English translation of that commandment.
Of course, that doesn't weaken you point whatsoever.
Also, I don't watch PBS, so I don't know what the hell that means.
It means animal sex and human boobies on video. Also, you can see all of the breasts that you want but they must either be old ones (preferably diseased or mid-surgical procedure!), or, more often, saggy ones from some aborigine wiculture.
Nice boobs cause quite a rucus with those who don't have them anymore and leads to lots of phone calls and letter-writing campaigns.