The "my other browser is a surfboard" was supposed to be the lightbulb moment for everyone who didn't pick up on that during the commercial.
Which, I think, would be everyone who didn't know in advance what it was supposed to be about.
Of course, by the time you get to that "lightbulb" moment, the viewer has already switched the channel (or lost interest) because they were bored to tears, and they never "get" it.
If your audience is bored, they're not going to pay attention, if they're not paying attention, they won't get your message.
I feel I've roundly refuted the grandparent's argument by any definition of the word.
The problem is that what you feel you've done, and what you've actually done, are two separate things.
You claim that your "six or seven" examples are not anecdotal, when in fact that is exactly what they are. Here are some definitions of the word "anecdotal", and your examples clearly fit every single one of them.
The first definition says: evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than controlled, clinical studies.
As your examples are not controlled, clinical studies (in any way, shape or form) and are in fact reports of specific individual cases, then they are anecdotal by definition of the word.
He might, but if he does, he's not forced to pay $60 for the "movie theatre box", plus $10 for each movie he sees.
Or for cable TV?
He might use his TV for broadcast TV, or might have satellite. The difference is that the TV isn't useless without the monthly subscription to its manufacturer.
Or for any form of mindless entertainment out there?
The difference between the mindless entertainment you mentioned and WoW (and most other MMORPGs) is that the other mindless entertainment doesn't require you to "buy" something you can't use unless you pay a subscription to the people who make the thing you "bought".
So it may not be expired, but when the law says you cant even use it to buy a lottery ticket or a pack of smokes, it is pretty useless.
Silly me, but I thought drivers licenses licensed you to drive, not buy cigarettes or lottery tickets.
Of course, it could be the old indirect IQ test. If you're smart enough to not get your license renewed when you don't have to, you're also smart enough not to buy lottery tickets or cigarettes.
Maybe it is just more evidence for the sterotype that Sladhot readers don't RTFA.
It could also be the time differential. Which site posted the link first? (I couldn't see a timestamp on the Digg story, just a date.)
If there's an overlap of readership and the story was posted on one site a couple of hours before the other, it would certainly make a better explanation, no? (After all, if you clicked on the Digg link, then a couple of hours later it showed up on/., would you click again?)
Considering that I hear that Digg posts stories faster than/. does, I'd say that's a much more reasonable explanation, no?
If you are blocking (not hiding) ads and they serve the ads themselves it should be feasible for them to notice that you did n ot in fact download all the content of the page.
So... LJ will start discriminating against blind people who use screen readers (which are often set to not download graphics.)
it like that does do one thing: it buys time for them to create a fix.
Only if ou are working on the flawed assumtion that only MS will find the flaws.
I've got news for you:
There are real black hats, and they spend their free time looking for ways to exploit software. It's hubris to think that only MS can find security flaws in their own product.
Besides, this isn't about early disclosure, it's about any disclosure.
This turns off a lot of "ordinary" folks, who are so insecure about their own beliefs that they can't really wrap their head around someone else who is so secure in theirs.
No, actually, it turns people off because you're an asshole. It has nothing to do with how secure other people are or aren't. But it does have a lot to do with how secure you are (but not in the way that you think).
And those people don't like to be shown to be wrong, either; it just makes them hurt and hostile.
So, because you;re shown to be wrong, but you can't admit it, you're not just an asshole, but a stupid asshole.
And because you get hurt and hostile about people discovering you're a stupid asshole, it means that you're insecure too - which means that you're doubly stupid.
Hmm.. a doubly stupid insecure asshole.
The plain truth is that if you were really secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't care what anyone else thought of them, and ergo you wouldn't be an asshole.
Therefore, you and Ellison are doubly stupid insecure assholes.
Or just go into about:config and disable "browser.blink_allowed"
BTW, what are you doing now that "Friends" is off the air?:o) (sorry, couldn't resist - although I know it's probably not the first time you've heard that one.:o)
If they are a corp. Their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it can't be justified as "marketing"
As a blanket statement, your post is inaccurate. As a specific statement about GoDaddy, your post is just ignorant, and you should read their prospectus before saying what *might* or *might not* be included in it.
What you should have written:
If they are a publically traded corporation their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it isn't in line with their prospectus.
Then you should have actually read their prospectus, and reported with certainty which part(s) of their budget the donation could have come from.
In contrast OSS new features arise either in response to features seen in proprietary software, or simply because a developer discovers how to do something cool and suggests that it be included.
Wow, what a great picture. OSS coders are either lazy, unimaginitive losers who copy MS, or freaks fascinated by new, shiny things.
What about features that appear because a developer needs them? You know, like how 90% of all successful OSS projects start?
I've made some (minor) contributions to OSS projects, and in no case was it because I was copying a closed source feature or because I "discovered how to do something cool". It's because I needed a feature that didn't exist, so I made it happen.
Or do what I do - change them to something you do agree to. After all, a company is trying to unilaterally modify the terms of a contract after it's be executed (ie the software purchase), why shouldn't I have the right to do the same?
I find that doing something like:
echo "You may use this software as per your local Copyright law" >EULA.txt
works wonders for me.
I have no problem clicking "I Agree" after reading that.
Slashdot Mirror
you were either eating Land'o'Lakes cottage cheese, or merengue...man-made merengue.
he was eating what?!??!?!?!?!?
How exactly does one eat a Latin dance style?
copies of movies downloaded or received from people who had downloaded them cost the studios $447 million
Waitaminithere...
Every time someone downloads a movie, money gets siphoned out of the studio's bank accounts?!?!?!
How the hell can someone downloading something cost them actual cash?
I think you're mistaken.
:o)
Red is a colour, apples are fruit (or possibly a brand of computer.
The "my other browser is a surfboard" was supposed to be the lightbulb moment for everyone who didn't pick up on that during the commercial.
Which, I think, would be everyone who didn't know in advance what it was supposed to be about.
Of course, by the time you get to that "lightbulb" moment, the viewer has already switched the channel (or lost interest) because they were bored to tears, and they never "get" it.
If your audience is bored, they're not going to pay attention, if they're not paying attention, they won't get your message.
Perhaps you'd care to articulate
Well, I'll take a stab at it.
I feel I've roundly refuted the grandparent's argument by any definition of the word.
The problem is that what you feel you've done, and what you've actually done, are two separate things.
You claim that your "six or seven" examples are not anecdotal, when in fact that is exactly what they are. Here are some definitions of the word "anecdotal", and your examples clearly fit every single one of them.
The first definition says: evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than controlled, clinical studies.
As your examples are not controlled, clinical studies (in any way, shape or form) and are in fact reports of specific individual cases, then they are anecdotal by definition of the word.
Is that articulate enough for you?
"You could look at BitLocker as anti-Linux. . . "
No, just anti-dual-boot. Microsoft makes their product more secure
Sorry, but since when does dual-boot mean "less secure"?
How many viruses are going to be stopped by preventing dual-booting? How many trojans?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Ya never know - maybe he'll buy you a beer. He's a pretty cool guy once you get to know him. :o)
the Dead Trolls would not approve ;-)
:)
You should read Wes Borg's take on MP3s before you say that.
Just remember that if you're going to use a company logo, don't add dropshadows (or any other modifications) if they don't already have them.
You don't pay to go to the movies?
He might, but if he does, he's not forced to pay $60 for the "movie theatre box", plus $10 for each movie he sees.
Or for cable TV?
He might use his TV for broadcast TV, or might have satellite. The difference is that the TV isn't useless without the monthly subscription to its manufacturer.
Or for any form of mindless entertainment out there?
The difference between the mindless entertainment you mentioned and WoW (and most other MMORPGs) is that the other mindless entertainment doesn't require you to "buy" something you can't use unless you pay a subscription to the people who make the thing you "bought".
So it may not be expired, but when the law says you cant even use it to buy a lottery ticket or a pack of smokes, it is pretty useless.
Silly me, but I thought drivers licenses licensed you to drive, not buy cigarettes or lottery tickets.
Of course, it could be the old indirect IQ test. If you're smart enough to not get your license renewed when you don't have to, you're also smart enough not to buy lottery tickets or cigarettes.
most americans have never experienced fascism and oppression in their life time
Uh, yeah, right.
The problem isn't that they have never experienced fascism and opression, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that it's not happening.
I don't have to worry about the weekly stream of Linux kernel local root exploits.
Dude. 2001 called, they want their ad-hominem back.
Maybe it is just more evidence for the sterotype that Sladhot readers don't RTFA.
/., would you click again?)
/. does, I'd say that's a much more reasonable explanation, no?
It could also be the time differential. Which site posted the link first? (I couldn't see a timestamp on the Digg story, just a date.)
If there's an overlap of readership and the story was posted on one site a couple of hours before the other, it would certainly make a better explanation, no? (After all, if you clicked on the Digg link, then a couple of hours later it showed up on
Considering that I hear that Digg posts stories faster than
Are there others who are still blocked from moderating after that happened?
Yup. Haven't had mod points in years.
If you are blocking (not hiding) ads and they serve the ads themselves it should be feasible for them to notice that you did n ot in fact download all the content of the page.
So... LJ will start discriminating against blind people who use screen readers (which are often set to not download graphics.)
it like that does do one thing: it buys time for them to create a fix.
Only if ou are working on the flawed assumtion that only MS will find the flaws.
I've got news for you:
There are real black hats, and they spend their free time looking for ways to exploit software. It's hubris to think that only MS can find security flaws in their own product.
Besides, this isn't about early disclosure, it's about any disclosure.
This turns off a lot of "ordinary" folks, who are so insecure about their own beliefs that they can't really wrap their head around someone else who is so secure in theirs.
No, actually, it turns people off because you're an asshole. It has nothing to do with how secure other people are or aren't. But it does have a lot to do with how secure you are (but not in the way that you think).
And those people don't like to be shown to be wrong, either; it just makes them hurt and hostile.
So, because you;re shown to be wrong, but you can't admit it, you're not just an asshole, but a stupid asshole.
And because you get hurt and hostile about people discovering you're a stupid asshole, it means that you're insecure too - which means that you're doubly stupid.
Hmm.. a doubly stupid insecure asshole.
The plain truth is that if you were really secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't care what anyone else thought of them, and ergo you wouldn't be an asshole.
Therefore, you and Ellison are doubly stupid insecure assholes.
QED.
Robert Aspirin WAS a drunkard and a womanizer. He used his fame to get into women's pants as often as possible
Dude, you say that like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, what's objectionable? If it's consensual, what's the big deal?
After all, isn't that what fame and fortune are for?
Or just go into about:config and disable "browser.blink_allowed"
:o) :o)
BTW, what are you doing now that "Friends" is off the air?
(sorry, couldn't resist - although I know it's probably not the first time you've heard that one.
Wow - the old gay=pedophile lie.
Actually, it looked more like the old "catholic priest=gay" stereotype to me.
And it was damn funny.
But then I have a sense of humor.
You might want to look into getting one someday.
If they are a corp. Their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it can't be justified as "marketing"
As a blanket statement, your post is inaccurate. As a specific statement about GoDaddy, your post is just ignorant, and you should read their prospectus before saying what *might* or *might not* be included in it.
What you should have written:
If they are a publically traded corporation their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it isn't in line with their prospectus.
Then you should have actually read their prospectus, and reported with certainty which part(s) of their budget the donation could have come from.
the constition [...] Sadly, it has been badly eroded over the years.
:o)
to the point where it doesn't even have a "U" in it anymore...
Sorry, I couldn't get past this line:
In contrast OSS new features arise either in response to features seen in proprietary software, or simply because a developer discovers how to do something cool and suggests that it be included.
Wow, what a great picture. OSS coders are either lazy, unimaginitive losers who copy MS, or freaks fascinated by new, shiny things.
What about features that appear because a developer needs them? You know, like how 90% of all successful OSS projects start?
I've made some (minor) contributions to OSS projects, and in no case was it because I was copying a closed source feature or because I "discovered how to do something cool". It's because I needed a feature that didn't exist, so I made it happen.
Or do what I do - change them to something you do agree to. After all, a company is trying to unilaterally modify the terms of a contract after it's be executed (ie the software purchase), why shouldn't I have the right to do the same?
I find that doing something like:
echo "You may use this software as per your local Copyright law" >EULA.txt
works wonders for me.
I have no problem clicking "I Agree" after reading that.