Your reply was much more interesting than the one which was moderated up to 3, insightfull if you ask me. You make a good point and I agree. I'm giving a lot of replies, and I don't feel like detailing my position. Thanks for the intelligent responce however.
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
That's an interesting point which I wasn't aware of. Do you know which churches people were attending?
Upon thinking about it a little (very little), I stand by my position that religion has and continues to play less of a role in our every-day thinking than it used to. How long ago was it that you last heard someone use the phrase "That wouldn't be Christian". It used to be common.:P Furthermore, most of the people I know who attend church these days are doing so almost entirely as a gesture. Earlier last century, people didn't necessarily feel they needed to attend church to re-affirm their beliefs. Perhaps the increase in attedance is attributable to a sense of religious decay? Anyway.:P:P I'm still hung over (see most recent post above) and I don't want to argue any more. My wrists hurt and my eyes are sore.
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
First I would like to mention that I find it sad that your comment was moderated higher than mine, most likley because mine took a (plausibly) pro-religion stance, despite the fact that I'm as anti-religion as anyone ever was. Next, I would like to appologize if I'm not as lucid as I should be, as I'm rather hung-over. Ok, on with the replies.
And we live in a very sick society. Cause and effect?
This was as far as I had to read to see that you had missed the point, and to further make me regret having posted any opinion on a subject as contraversial as this one. But where exactly do you see any evidence what-so-ever that I think religion is better than alternative basis for moral foundation? If any exists, I should appologize for having mis-spoke, because it's not my belief. Furthermore, your assertion backs up my position as far as best as I can see. We're not talking about an unrealistic utopian society here, we're talking about here and now. As I see it, you have made my point for me. Yes, I agree completely, we live in a sick society.
But let's back up and question your claim. Which fundamental values are you speaking of? Marriage and family? The ban on murder and cannibalism? Property ownership?
What's important here is that any value system is passed down from family to offspring at all. But in the case of Christianity, the values aren't all that horrible. Sure, we could do without all of the old-testament, but have you ever read the gospels? Jesus wasn't a half bad guy. So if you're denying that Jesuit religion has basic values, I can't see where you're comming from. If you're denying that our country was founded upon these values, then you're flat out wrong. So wrong in fact that I wont even bother defending my point. Or do mean something like:
I suspect that any truly fundamental value we could name actually predates any religion now being practiced in our society. And many of our more sophisticated values were current among our pagan ancestors as well.
Of course they've been around for some time. Where do you think Jesuits got the values to begin with? But that's not the point I'm making. How are these values handed down in the american society in which I (and perhaps you) live? Do you deny that christianity does indeed hand these values down from progeneter to progeney? It really gets under my skin that the issue is so emotionally charged that I can get a knee-jerk response like this one from anyone.
And the supporting evidence is...??
You know, I began to write a reply to this, but then I realized that my orrigional post was almost entirely on this subject. I'll touch on it again regardless. People without a strong intellectual or scientific (or otherwise) foundation in basic moral values are without them when they lose religion. Some may even be stupid enough to do massively unconsidered things like shoot other people or themselves without these values. I'm not suggesting that all of the population is that stupid. I'm not even suggesting that a large part are. However, it is the ones that are who I'm worried about.
For that matter, is religion decaying
Grr, make me look up statistics on the subject... but do you really believe that there are as large a percentage of jesuits in this country as there used to be? In fact, I won't look up statistics because I can defend my point regardless. America as undergone a massive infulx of diverse populations since it's foundation. These people brought with them an equally diverse set of religions. As populations shift, it fundemntally dilutes the basic, religious fiber of our country.:P caught me in a clutch on that one, having to defend a point I assumed was so obvious that noone would take issue with it.
I gave up religion a quarter of a century ago. D'ya suppose I'm more likely to shoot someone now than I was then?
You know, I've been trying to keep this from getting nasty, but I'm just really hung-over and I can't think of any way do dance around this issue. The essence of my argument is that the intellectually dis-enfranchized may be at a moral loss with out religion. So, if you read and understood my orriginal post, you are essentially asking me if I think you're stupid. And not just stupid either, but actually so stupid or chemically imballanced (and I'm sorry for putting those side by side, but I feel I have to. Lemme just as a quick aside assert that I don't feel that the two are related) that you'd be prone to go out and do something dangerous entirely without regard for the saftey of yourself or others. My point is that there are people who will.
Do the increasingly atheistic nations of Europe have a higher rate of random murder than the over-religious (and exceedingly self-righteous) USofA?
I considered covering this in my orrigional post, but I didn't want to be too long winded. I assumed that people would believe that this is a subject into which I've invested many hours of debate in the past. Most parts of Europe have a better system for ethics than "we" (or I at least) as Americans do. Let's take England for example. I've always been fond of the English. England is a monarchy, with nearly supreme authority transfered to the monarch. What the monarch says, goes. This has historically served an embodiment of the diety. A quote that springs to mind has to do with the Queen being a vessel of God or something along those lines. This creates a more insolluble image of religious and ethical authority than we have here in the states. I'm not going to defend the notion that this carries through to today, but it doesn't need be. Please, for the love of milk and honey, tell me that you can see that historical influences continue to pressure the thinking of the day, as well as the customs of those cultures immediately surrounding them. It's such a part of their society that they have continued to act according to tradition. Yes, it's a better system, but one which we have failed to adopt. Take communism, in which the monarch actually is God. There you have a perfect embodiment of God-on-earth, fouled because that God is only human (communism's fatal flaw if you ask me). Oh well.
Now this next bit might sound offensive, and I appologize. You sound more angry than you need to be about this. Is it even remotely possible that you continue to feel upset with the religion which you abandon and anyone who advocates it? Did you feel alone when you lost religion? I did, but I try hard not to let it cloud my opinions. I'm sorry, that whole final paragraph sounded way too condecending, but I really think that even very intelligent people may have reflexive responses to religious people because they feel alone and bitter without it. And that last sentence sounded way too pro-religion. FUCK GOD! There, I feel better. =) Sorry for the whole last paragraph.
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Allow me to first mention that I'm not religious and that most of my friends aren't either.
however...
I think that the single most dangerous pheonomina in modern society is the destruction of religious based values. This probably sounds a bit outlandish to most, but hear me out.
Do you, the reader, personally consider yourself an exceptionally intelligent, well-adjusted person? If so, do you often find yourself disgusted with the general lack of common sense exhibited by those around you? I do too. So how does it make you feel that these people are free to go out and purchase fire arms, knives, drink too much and jump behind the wheel of a car? Personally, I find it a little unnerving. I cannot find it in myself to advocate that we revoke these basic rights, but what happens when the intellectually underprivilidged or passionately psychotic don't understand the ramifications of their actions or simply don't care?
Let's start again with a theoretical example. It's a terrifing world out there, and I have a fairly difficult time dealing with it. Does it unnerve you to think that I am an athiest and a gun owner? I have no god to fear, and no diety to tell me that killing people at random is wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if I were smart enough to see that life is worth living and worthy of respect? I'm not. Wouldn't it be nice if our society, absent of religion, cherished these basic values? It doesn't. *bang* *bang*
Some might assert that there must be a better solution than religion. In American society, I fear that this is not the case. Our societies' fundamental values are founded in religion. As religion decays, it takes those values with it.
Perhaps a better provider for ethical foundation is just around the corner, but until we get there, I take comfort in the knowledge that the redneck with the 10-gauge down the hall is an ardent catholic.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Now I'm having INSIPID THOUGHTS about the beautiful, round wives of HOLLYWOOD MOVIE MOGULS encased in PLEXIGLASS CARS and being approached by SMALL BOYS selling FRUIT..
-- Zippy the Pinhead
and...
they have forgotten the basic tenet of MARKETING - that the only thing that is important in the whole scheme of thing is to SATISFY your customer.
-- Taco Cowboy
Seperated at birth, hmm?
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Look at the (free) mp3 sites out there... tons of music, anyone can put stuff out there... and 99.9% of it is crap.
Some time ago I went out looking for for.xm's and.it's and other free downloadable mod-alikes. I listened to litterally hundred of songs, and found a few dozen to put out on a two cd set. I advertised this to my friends, charging only for the basic media and a very nominal duplication charge which I waved until demand got quite high. They loved this music and soon it wasn't uncommon to hear it being played at local parties. Which brings me to my next point:
Record labels, if nothing else, provide a filter that while it doesn't ensure that everything is quality, gets rid of a great deal of chaff.
I agree that this is a usefull function, but it can be argued that this is duplicated within the community. See mp3.com, which will often have links to quality, freely available music. They have done the foot work for us, and are sharing their knowledge in exchange for the privlidge of exposing us to a small ad box. Another good example is the (now defunct, unless the url has moved?) hornet.org, which collected and rated music from the mod community.
I believe that eventually, peer review can be enacted, as it has been here on slashdot with post moderation. Love it or hate it, it is a system for peer review of content and it appears to work from time to time.
Plus, I don't want intereactivity in my fictional stores... what will this lead to? Serialized fiction where people provide their input into the work?
I only lightly read Katz's article, but I didn't get the impression that he was advocating interactivity in text as much the kind of peer review I have mentioned and incorporation of new media. Furthermore, the OED which you mention is a wonderous example of a moderated open-submission system which appears to have worked =). Yea yea, it's not fiction, but you get the point. On a side note, I thought last I checked, the online OED was around $300.00 per year... I should check again. Anyway.
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
I dunno about you, but I come here for a specific brand of news. That news must be selected with one, and only one set of criteria. I don't think that it's unfair to call this criteria a bias, but I do think it's wrong to chastize slashdot for it. I personally am rather fond of the stories I read here. If I wanted to read about general computing, I'd go to ZDNet Computing or one of any number of other sites. If I wanted to read about pseudo-trendy almost-cutting-edge news, I'd read Wired. I think it's important to realize that the bias which you call for the disposal of is quite necessary.
Furthermore, many respectible news agencies have extremely biased reporting styles. ZDNet appears to irrationally favor Linux over other operating systems, www.benews.com seems to like BE and for whatever reasons, and www.microsoft.com appears to be a page devoted largely to talk of some familiy of operating systems I've never heard of.
Serriously though, everyone gives Slashdot a lot of crap about their reporting. If you're looking for something that you're not getting here, go elsewhere.
And as others have mentioned, yes, BSD did get it's own article. Look before you leap:P.
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Not so much forgot as willfully excluded =). I do completely agree though. Some others have mentioned a new one on me, Plan 9... which sounds really cool. Some links I dug up... Official home page and Lucent Plan 9 page with lotsa links... And I'm not sure how I forgot QNX which is a supremely cool os =). I'm sure there are lots more.
But yes, IMHO, Win9x and NT both have their places in our multi-os world =). That place is, of course, in the dumpster (tounge-in-cheek).
Serriously, Win9x is the platform for which a distressing number of games are targeted. I don't know that this is because it's particularly well tailored for this purpose, or if it's the result of driver availablity and that ubiquitous DirectX standard.
-rt ====== Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Katz Bashers appear to be a dime a dozen but has it ever occured to you that maybe he really is a worthwhile writer? Maybe, just maybe he can use his clout and apparent talent to communicate a remotely clear picture of geek society to the public. Wouldn't that be better than the image they presently have stuffed in their heads?
Futhermore, I have a difficult time understanding why anyone can possibly be so upset about his existence. Are you jealous that a precieved non-geek is writing for what is considered a prestigous geek zine and you aren't? Well, anyway, I don't really care too much... but the anamocity does grow tiresome.
The "screwy" sectors are still corrected, BlindRead just keeps on going though. You then need to go out and find an ISO patch which keeps the game from checking for the bad sectors.
Incidently, the copy protection might be quite difficult to penetrate. If you've been trying to copy lots of recent commercial software, you may have noticed that many games will now cause problems with your burner. I've heard a number of hypothesis as to how they're doing it, none of which would make a software hack very easy to impliment. A few of my friends and I have hypothesized that they are simply writing bad tracks to the CD, much in the same way Playstation copy protection works. The device encounters the bad track and attempts to compensate. Unfortunately, this routine is defined in ROM on the burner. The game would then explicitly request that track from the device and await a failure. if(!failed) exit(1);. Another, perhaps less reasonable hypothesis was proposed by a friend of mine. He suggests that game companies are writing large peices of data to unallocated portions of the CD's file system. As CD reads are calls into ROM, it seems that it would return some kind of failure when requested to return data on a supposedly blank portion of the CD.
Obviously, neither of those techniques are viable for music CD's, however they are very effective in the anti-"game piracy" effort. Furthermore, it seems to me that the technique being employed here is most likley along these lines, somehow causing the device to fail and not the software. This could throw a monkey wrench in the whole cracking works.
On a related note, I once tried to get my burner company to open-source their Flash-ROM so I could make a version of my own. The tech support gentleman was quite confused and directed me to their hiring manager. I attempted at great length to explain that I wasn't interested in a job, but would be willing to make improvements and modifications to their software for free. After nearly an hour of unsucessful explaination, I gave up.
For starters, the OSs were'nt "ranked" at all, they were compared for strengths and weaknesses.
Well, actually they were ranked in the order that they are listed. It is also mentioned at the top of the article that Win2k gets the "blue ribbon". They are furthermore explicitly ranked at http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2000/0124revs.html (the review upon which the CNN article is based).
Second, RH actually "came in first" in more than one catagory, *including* file serving(...)*if* there were fewer than 100 clients
But on the actual rankings, which seem to elude your supperiour reading comprehension, Novell comes in first. So while it is admitted that RH is supperior with fewer clients, they didn't actually "come in first" in any catagory.
The article was far more objective than the people complaining about its lack of objectivity have been.
This clearly isn't true. Scores were granted in areas such as (direct quotes) "useful management interfaces" and "functionality and ease of use". These are subjective not objective. In order for a comparison to be truely objective, it needs to be based on numbers over which there cannot be dispute, ie, benchmarks. They ranked these OSes on superficial and subjective criteria and frankly, I disagree. I think that in Win2k you sacrafice functionality in favor of ease of use. I think the inverse is true in the case of RH. If I were to rate your intelligence subjectively based on your previous post, I'd have to say that you're an idiot. Objectivity may prove otherwise. Who knows.
Yes, I would be willing to concede quickly that IE causes major problems under 95-98, but then again, what doesn't? I find that a surprising percentage of the device drivers included with those OS's will cause system instability, not to mention third party drivers.
I also should mention that while I haven't used Opera extensively, I haven't had any problems with it. One last thing I left out of my previous message: I have high hopes for Mozilla. Long live the lizard!! =)
Now, it should be known that I don't like MS at all. In fact, I am hopefull that we will see Gates and Balmer strung up. But in all objectivity, I should also note that IE4.0-5.0 under NT 4.0 has crashed on me once,/ever/. This excludes plugin related crashes (Flash is evil). I've seen Netscape crash quite regularly under Linux, 98 and NT. Back in the 4.0 days, I was a die-hard Netscape user, if only to protest MS's business practices. I switched because of crashes and have no desire to switch back. I realize your post was essentially just kidding around, but I think this scratches the surface just beneath a serrious problem in the OSS community. It seems that many of us have a knee-jerk reaction for anything Not Good For Open-Source. At some point it becomes just as detramental to our cause as genuine FUD. If we're constantly making desicions/opinions based on history and not the real facts, we're not doing any good for anyone. I realize again that you're probably just joking, and I'm not accusing you specifically of exhibiting the above traits. I just thought I'd speak my mind. An interesting test of my theory will be to see if this gets moderated up or down. =) Sincerely, Ryan Taylor
I read the other replies and I think they did a suitible job tearing you to shreds technically. I have something a bit more obvious to point out which they appear to have neglected: The CPU does exist, they have it working in both speeds, the slower one is available for shiping as of today, and they played quake on it today while live on ZDTV.
If you're gunna be stupid, at least you could keep the edge out of your voice so as not to piss people off.
The first describes the benchmarking technique, the second describes the results! =) I would have had it up sooner, but either/. is flakey today, or my connection is. Share and enjoy.
Mobile Platform Benchmarks (http://www.transmeta.com/crusoe/download/pdf/Benc hmarkWhitePaper_1-18-00.pdf) (.pdf, 93 KB)
Transmet a Mobile Benchmark Report (http://www.transmeta.com/crusoe/download/pdf/Crus oeBenchmarkReport_1-18-00.pdf) (.pdf, 116 KB)
I haven't looked in a while but last I checked, Yahoo wasn't profitable. While this may have changed, I sincerely doubt their PE is anything like AOL's. I should probably look this up before shooting my mouth off. Oh well.
It has changed. Yahoo is now profitable. Their PE of 1,629 (one thousand, six hundred and twenty nine) is a little insane however. I only emphasize that number because I find it completely unbelievable. Their earnings per share are a good deal lower than those of AOL as well.
Anyway.
I don't like AOL. It could be said that I in fact hate AOL. I do however believe that there is little danger of their bubble bursting at this point.
More than three times higher (16.9% vs. 5.1%). That's nothing to sneeze at.
TW is a company which has consistantly had shortfalls in earnings, while AOL has continually exceeded estimates. Also, if you project AOL's estimated growth out for the next five years (49.9%), AOL's PE (of 217) becomes more reasonable, while TW's really doesnt (currently valued at 101 times earnings, anticipating growth of 13.8% over the next five years).
Take into account TW's shortfalls in earnings vs. AOL's consistant out-performance, and simultaniously look at TW's loss of 277% in earnings over the last five years vs. AOL's gain 92% in the same timeframe. This begins to level the playing field.
Yes, AOL has an enormous market cap (twice that of TW), but their stock has also consistantly out-performed. I don't think AOL is going anywhere. If you look at anaylyst recommendations, you see litterally dozens of strong buys and absolutely no sells from major brokerage houses, while brokers seem comparitively luke-warm about TW.
Just as AOL is now able to buy Time Warner, a well established company with much greater revenues and cash flow.
It should be noted that this is being treated as a merger, not an aquisition. While Time Warner does produce five times the earnings of AOL, AOL is more profitable (produces more profit in actual dollars [not percentages]) and for this reason, will very likely assume a controlling share of TW.
Your mention of the Japanese economy and it's eventual colapse (perhaps colapse is to strong, but we'll call this "imho") is interesting. I personally feel that stocks are actually trading at sustainable, although over-inflated, levels. Our economies' growth over the next ten years may very possibly reflect that of the past five. While inflationary presures have increased slightly, so have wages. (imho) Only a serrious increase in inflation without any foundation in underlying growth could produce a serrious fall in stocks at this point.
Maybe next we will see Yahoo buy Disney... it is certainly not unthinkable.
I haven't looked in a while but last I checked, Yahoo wasn't profitable. While this may have changed, I sincerely doubt their PE is anything like AOL's. I should probably look this up before shooting my mouth off. Oh well.
But reading these press releases, both companies feel that they need to push the internet to be central in our lives. May I ask why?
Isn't it obvious? Money is most certianly the primary motivation. You have to admit, from the capitalist business man's point of view, this deal is potentially extreemly lucrative. You say that "you [AOL and TW] nor a company nor a governement can define the purpose or behavior of the internet". I'm not sure that this is true. Americans remain the primary force in world government, and America remains a consumer economy. The internet didn't become "big" until it became accessable to the average user (see the rise of the "web is internet" concept). As it has become larger, the other applications (IRC, newsgroups, free information exchange between comon people) for the internet have become more sparse. Their numbers may have remained approximately the same, but as big business has begun to dominate the landscape of the internet, the un-profitable uses for it are pushed out to the edges... perhaps off the map entirely.
This brings me back to my original remark. The internet is a marketable tool for the proliferation of capitalism. As long as this remains true, big business will continue to dump money into it, and it will play a larger and larger role in all of our lives. People (in America) follow money. No two ways around it. Those with the most money win.
hrm... I dunno... I'd rather get cutting edge news and rumors then get a solid pile of day old stuff regularly. Who are you to say I can't? You have you're preference, I have mine. I like mine. Keep up the good work/., don't listen to this punk-monkey. And speaking of you, suggesting that/. goes out and creates false news intentionally seems pretty unconfirmed. I suppose you have no obligation to hold yourself to the standards that you're demanding tho... still. I dunno, you just sound like a turkey to me. A big turkey. With really big socks. Statements like "The people of Slashdot love to bad unconfirmed rumors around till they sound like the truth"... How arrogant can you get? Serriously, how do you know what they intended? You're prolly right tho... they must be out to get us. I mean, you say it with such confidence!!! You don't even have one of those "This is unconfirmed" disclaimers on your post, so it MUST be true, right? You prolly have hundreds of hours of phone recordings of them detailing their plans to snooker all of the/. reading community. You keep them stuffed in your matress, right? That is the kind of story validation that you're asking for, isn't it? I can hear them now, laughing, yes, LAUGHING at all the fools who believe their misbegotten LIES. It's a conspiracy man!! They're out to get me! The black hellicopters, EVERYWHERE!!! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!!! ARARARARGH!!!! If anyone asks, you last saw me heading south. You're the only one I can trust. This may be last you hear from me. Good night and good luck.
*shrug* Earlier today, that line either didn't exist, or their asp server wasn't properly functioning. Seeing as how they have recieved press about this from a number of different sources, it seems reasonable that the privacy agreement had possibly been taken off-line for updating.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory with you guys?
I ardently resent the association you draw between me and "you guys". I don't personally support "conspiracy theory" and I don't believe I have any of my own. I do however despise spam with all my heart and soul. This company appears to make money through "direct marketing", or spamming people. This offends me.
I don't care how good-natured their motives are, or how legitimate their business is. You sign up with them, they mail you about things you probably don't need or want. I realize there is an opt-out policy, as well as a means to have yourself removed from their lists. I frankly don't care. Their business's whole principal offends me.
You seem angry in your responce to me. If you aren't angry yourself, perhaps you should reread your message, and listen to the tone? I'm angry because you've chosen to associate me with the conspiracy theorists. At least I have an excuse.
Rather hard to find... ehehe... I tried the link labeled "Privacy Agreement" on the main page, which links back to the main page. Convienent misshap. I tried the link in the liscence agreement which is incidently labeled, "8. Privacy -- See our Privacy Statement"... this links back to the liscence agreement. So I tried "http://cometzone.cometsystems.com/privacy.asp#".. . this worked. Here's what I found:
"Registration
Comet Systems gathers information about our Cometeers that allows us to offer compelling services in a manner that provides personal privacy protection as well. When you join CometZone, we ask you to provide us with some required information such as your email address and home page URL, and some optional information such as your name and address."
"Account Activity Logs
As a result of joining CometZone, a Cometeer account is set up for you on our system that contains your user settings and preferences, e.g., which Comet Cursor you've selected for each of your Cometeer web pages. Every time you login to CometZone, or change your CometZone settings or preferences, your Cometeer Activity Log ("Activity Log") is updated to reflect this activity. Comet Systems uses Activity Logs as a means for better understanding our Cometeers and their interests."
"...Any information you provide to Comet Systems when registering for CometZone is maintained and is accessible only by Comet Systems and a few of Comet Systems's content sponsors. We use the information collected during registration to better understand your interests, and to provide you with the best products and services on the web... "
Anyway... I'm a little appalled that they appear to have tried to hide their privacy agreement, and furthermore, that the CEO's explaination seems incompatible with this information.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
--- Just when you think you've invented something idiot proof, someone goes and invents a better idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Upon thinking about it a little (very little), I stand by my position that religion has and continues to play less of a role in our every-day thinking than it used to. How long ago was it that you last heard someone use the phrase "That wouldn't be Christian". It used to be common. :P Furthermore, most of the people I know who attend church these days are doing so almost entirely as a gesture. Earlier last century, people didn't necessarily feel they needed to attend church to re-affirm their beliefs. Perhaps the increase in attedance is attributable to a sense of religious decay? Anyway. :P :P I'm still hung over (see most recent post above) and I don't want to argue any more. My wrists hurt and my eyes are sore.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Now this next bit might sound offensive, and I appologize. You sound more angry than you need to be about this. Is it even remotely possible that you continue to feel upset with the religion which you abandon and anyone who advocates it? Did you feel alone when you lost religion? I did, but I try hard not to let it cloud my opinions. I'm sorry, that whole final paragraph sounded way too condecending, but I really think that even very intelligent people may have reflexive responses to religious people because they feel alone and bitter without it. And that last sentence sounded way too pro-religion. FUCK GOD! There, I feel better. =) Sorry for the whole last paragraph.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
however...
I think that the single most dangerous pheonomina in modern society is the destruction of religious based values. This probably sounds a bit outlandish to most, but hear me out.
Do you, the reader, personally consider yourself an exceptionally intelligent, well-adjusted person? If so, do you often find yourself disgusted with the general lack of common sense exhibited by those around you? I do too. So how does it make you feel that these people are free to go out and purchase fire arms, knives, drink too much and jump behind the wheel of a car? Personally, I find it a little unnerving. I cannot find it in myself to advocate that we revoke these basic rights, but what happens when the intellectually underprivilidged or passionately psychotic don't understand the ramifications of their actions or simply don't care?
Let's start again with a theoretical example. It's a terrifing world out there, and I have a fairly difficult time dealing with it. Does it unnerve you to think that I am an athiest and a gun owner? I have no god to fear, and no diety to tell me that killing people at random is wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if I were smart enough to see that life is worth living and worthy of respect? I'm not. Wouldn't it be nice if our society, absent of religion, cherished these basic values? It doesn't. *bang* *bang*
Some might assert that there must be a better solution than religion. In American society, I fear that this is not the case. Our societies' fundamental values are founded in religion. As religion decays, it takes those values with it.
Perhaps a better provider for ethical foundation is just around the corner, but until we get there, I take comfort in the knowledge that the redneck with the 10-gauge down the hall is an ardent catholic.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
I believe that eventually, peer review can be enacted, as it has been here on slashdot with post moderation. Love it or hate it, it is a system for peer review of content and it appears to work from time to time.
I only lightly read Katz's article, but I didn't get the impression that he was advocating interactivity in text as much the kind of peer review I have mentioned and incorporation of new media. Furthermore, the OED which you mention is a wonderous example of a moderated open-submission system which appears to have worked =). Yea yea, it's not fiction, but you get the point. On a side note, I thought last I checked, the online OED was around $300.00 per year... I should check again. Anyway.-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Furthermore, many respectible news agencies have extremely biased reporting styles. ZDNet appears to irrationally favor Linux over other operating systems, www.benews.com seems to like BE and for whatever reasons, and www.microsoft.com appears to be a page devoted largely to talk of some familiy of operating systems I've never heard of.
Serriously though, everyone gives Slashdot a lot of crap about their reporting. If you're looking for something that you're not getting here, go elsewhere.
And as others have mentioned, yes, BSD did get it's own article. Look before you leap :P.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
But yes, IMHO, Win9x and NT both have their places in our multi-os world =). That place is, of course, in the dumpster (tounge-in-cheek).
Serriously, Win9x is the platform for which a distressing number of games are targeted. I don't know that this is because it's particularly well tailored for this purpose, or if it's the result of driver availablity and that ubiquitous DirectX standard.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
It is, and the orrigional comment didn't suggest otherwise. Read again:
"other operating systems based on" implies that unix is one of a group of "operating systems based on
But that's not what I really wanted to comment on.
Hrm... read: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Read: http://www.eros-os.org/ Read: http://www.be.com/
Alternatives are out there. You just haven't found them.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Futhermore, I have a difficult time understanding why anyone can possibly be so upset about his existence. Are you jealous that a precieved non-geek is writing for what is considered a prestigous geek zine and you aren't? Well, anyway, I don't really care too much... but the anamocity does grow tiresome.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
The "screwy" sectors are still corrected, BlindRead just keeps on going though. You then need to go out and find an ISO patch which keeps the game from checking for the bad sectors.
Obviously, neither of those techniques are viable for music CD's, however they are very effective in the anti-"game piracy" effort. Furthermore, it seems to me that the technique being employed here is most likley along these lines, somehow causing the device to fail and not the software. This could throw a monkey wrench in the whole cracking works.
On a related note, I once tried to get my burner company to open-source their Flash-ROM so I could make a version of my own. The tech support gentleman was quite confused and directed me to their hiring manager. I attempted at great length to explain that I wasn't interested in a job, but would be willing to make improvements and modifications to their software for free. After nearly an hour of unsucessful explaination, I gave up.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
But on the actual rankings, which seem to elude your supperiour reading comprehension, Novell comes in first. So while it is admitted that RH is supperior with fewer clients, they didn't actually "come in first" in any catagory.
This clearly isn't true. Scores were granted in areas such as (direct quotes) "useful management interfaces" and "functionality and ease of use". These are subjective not objective. In order for a comparison to be truely objective, it needs to be based on numbers over which there cannot be dispute, ie, benchmarks. They ranked these OSes on superficial and subjective criteria and frankly, I disagree. I think that in Win2k you sacrafice functionality in favor of ease of use. I think the inverse is true in the case of RH. If I were to rate your intelligence subjectively based on your previous post, I'd have to say that you're an idiot. Objectivity may prove otherwise. Who knows.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
I also should mention that while I haven't used Opera extensively, I haven't had any problems with it. One last thing I left out of my previous message: I have high hopes for Mozilla. Long live the lizard!! =)
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Now, it should be known that I don't like MS at all. In fact, I am hopefull that we will see Gates and Balmer strung up. But in all objectivity, I should also note that IE4.0-5.0 under NT 4.0 has crashed on me once, /ever/. This excludes plugin related crashes (Flash is evil). I've seen Netscape crash quite regularly under Linux, 98 and NT. Back in the 4.0 days, I was a die-hard Netscape user, if only to protest MS's business practices. I switched because of crashes and have no desire to switch back. I realize your post was essentially just kidding around, but I think this scratches the surface just beneath a serrious problem in the OSS community. It seems that many of us have a knee-jerk reaction for anything Not Good For Open-Source. At some point it becomes just as detramental to our cause as genuine FUD. If we're constantly making desicions/opinions based on history and not the real facts, we're not doing any good for anyone. I realize again that you're probably just joking, and I'm not accusing you specifically of exhibiting the above traits. I just thought I'd speak my mind. An interesting test of my theory will be to see if this gets moderated up or down. =) Sincerely, Ryan Taylor
I read the other replies and I think they did a suitible job tearing you to shreds technically. I have something a bit more obvious to point out which they appear to have neglected: The CPU does exist, they have it working in both speeds, the slower one is available for shiping as of today, and they played quake on it today while live on ZDTV.
If you're gunna be stupid, at least you could keep the edge out of your voice so as not to piss people off.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
The first describes the benchmarking technique, the second describes the results! =) I would have had it up sooner, but either /. is flakey today, or my connection is. Share and enjoy.
c hmarkWhitePaper_1-18-00.pdf) (.pdf, 93 KB)
s oeBenchmarkReport_1-18-00.pdf) (.pdf, 116 KB)
Mobile Platform Benchmarks (http://www.transmeta.com/crusoe/download/pdf/Ben
Transmet a Mobile Benchmark Report (http://www.transmeta.com/crusoe/download/pdf/Cru
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Anyway.
I don't like AOL. It could be said that I in fact hate AOL. I do however believe that there is little danger of their bubble bursting at this point.
TW is a company which has consistantly had shortfalls in earnings, while AOL has continually exceeded estimates. Also, if you project AOL's estimated growth out for the next five years (49.9%), AOL's PE (of 217) becomes more reasonable, while TW's really doesnt (currently valued at 101 times earnings, anticipating growth of 13.8% over the next five years).
Take into account TW's shortfalls in earnings vs. AOL's consistant out-performance, and simultaniously look at TW's loss of 277% in earnings over the last five years vs. AOL's gain 92% in the same timeframe. This begins to level the playing field.
Yes, AOL has an enormous market cap (twice that of TW), but their stock has also consistantly out-performed. I don't think AOL is going anywhere. If you look at anaylyst recommendations, you see litterally dozens of strong buys and absolutely no sells from major brokerage houses, while brokers seem comparitively luke-warm about TW.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Your mention of the Japanese economy and it's eventual colapse (perhaps colapse is to strong, but we'll call this "imho") is interesting. I personally feel that stocks are actually trading at sustainable, although over-inflated, levels. Our economies' growth over the next ten years may very possibly reflect that of the past five. While inflationary presures have increased slightly, so have wages. (imho) Only a serrious increase in inflation without any foundation in underlying growth could produce a serrious fall in stocks at this point.
I haven't looked in a while but last I checked, Yahoo wasn't profitable. While this may have changed, I sincerely doubt their PE is anything like AOL's. I should probably look this up before shooting my mouth off. Oh well.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Isn't it obvious? Money is most certianly the primary motivation. You have to admit, from the capitalist business man's point of view, this deal is potentially extreemly lucrative. You say that "you [AOL and TW] nor a company nor a governement can define the purpose or behavior of the internet". I'm not sure that this is true. Americans remain the primary force in world government, and America remains a consumer economy. The internet didn't become "big" until it became accessable to the average user (see the rise of the "web is internet" concept). As it has become larger, the other applications (IRC, newsgroups, free information exchange between comon people) for the internet have become more sparse. Their numbers may have remained approximately the same, but as big business has begun to dominate the landscape of the internet, the un-profitable uses for it are pushed out to the edges... perhaps off the map entirely.
This brings me back to my original remark. The internet is a marketable tool for the proliferation of capitalism. As long as this remains true, big business will continue to dump money into it, and it will play a larger and larger role in all of our lives. People (in America) follow money. No two ways around it. Those with the most money win.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
hrm... I dunno... I'd rather get cutting edge news and rumors then get a solid pile of day old stuff regularly. Who are you to say I can't? You have you're preference, I have mine. I like mine. Keep up the good work /., don't listen to this punk-monkey. And speaking of you, suggesting that /. goes out and creates false news intentionally seems pretty unconfirmed. I suppose you have no obligation to hold yourself to the standards that you're demanding tho... still. I dunno, you just sound like a turkey to me. A big turkey. With really big socks. Statements like "The people of Slashdot love to bad unconfirmed rumors around till they sound like the truth"... How arrogant can you get? Serriously, how do you know what they intended? You're prolly right tho... they must be out to get us. I mean, you say it with such confidence!!! You don't even have one of those "This is unconfirmed" disclaimers on your post, so it MUST be true, right? You prolly have hundreds of hours of phone recordings of them detailing their plans to snooker all of the /. reading community. You keep them stuffed in your matress, right? That is the kind of story validation that you're asking for, isn't it? I can hear them now, laughing, yes, LAUGHING at all the fools who believe their misbegotten LIES. It's a conspiracy man!! They're out to get me! The black hellicopters, EVERYWHERE!!! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!!! ARARARARGH!!!! If anyone asks, you last saw me heading south. You're the only one I can trust. This may be last you hear from me. Good night and good luck.
Did it ever occur to you that they might have been using a form of JavaScript to load the privacy page?
"Privacy Statement"
*shrug* Earlier today, that line either didn't exist, or their asp server wasn't properly functioning. Seeing as how they have recieved press about this from a number of different sources, it seems reasonable that the privacy agreement had possibly been taken off-line for updating.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory with you guys?
I ardently resent the association you draw between me and "you guys". I don't personally support "conspiracy theory" and I don't believe I have any of my own. I do however despise spam with all my heart and soul. This company appears to make money through "direct marketing", or spamming people. This offends me.
I don't care how good-natured their motives are, or how legitimate their business is. You sign up with them, they mail you about things you probably don't need or want. I realize there is an opt-out policy, as well as a means to have yourself removed from their lists. I frankly don't care. Their business's whole principal offends me.
You seem angry in your responce to me. If you aren't angry yourself, perhaps you should reread your message, and listen to the tone? I'm angry because you've chosen to associate me with the conspiracy theorists. At least I have an excuse.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Rather hard to find... ehehe... I tried the link labeled "Privacy Agreement" on the main page, which links back to the main page. Convienent misshap. I tried the link in the liscence agreement which is incidently labeled, "8. Privacy -- See our Privacy Statement"... this links back to the liscence agreement. So I tried "http://cometzone.cometsystems.com/privacy.asp#".. . this worked. Here's what I found:
"Registration
Comet Systems gathers information about our Cometeers that allows us to offer compelling services in a manner that provides personal privacy protection as well. When you join CometZone, we ask you to provide us with some required information such as your email address and home page URL, and some optional information such as your name and address."
"Account Activity Logs
As a result of joining CometZone, a Cometeer account is set up for you on our system that contains your user settings and preferences, e.g., which Comet Cursor you've selected for each of your Cometeer web pages. Every time you login to CometZone, or change your CometZone settings or preferences, your Cometeer Activity Log ("Activity Log") is updated to reflect this activity. Comet Systems uses Activity Logs as a means for better understanding our Cometeers and their interests."
"...Any information you provide to Comet Systems when registering for CometZone is maintained and is accessible only by Comet Systems and a few of Comet Systems's content sponsors. We use the information collected during registration to better understand your interests, and to provide you with the best products and services on the web... "
Anyway... I'm a little appalled that they appear to have tried to hide their privacy agreement, and furthermore, that the CEO's explaination seems incompatible with this information.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
---
Just when you think you've invented something idiot proof, someone goes and invents a better idiot.