"Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."
They were ever anything else?
I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type. Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?
Street cred? If you mean "cool", then no. However, there was a time - in fact, quite a long time - before the Internet was open to the public. I used CompuServe and GEnie from the mid-80s through the early 90s. Most people I knew used Prodigy, AOL, etc. All of these were subscription services where you signed up for dial-up access.
The idea of an "ISP" - one that simply provided you the same connectivity as anyone else - didn't come along until the mid-90s or perhaps a little later (at least in terms of widespread availability). Prior to that, it was only walled gardens...you signed up for CompuServe, you could only talk to people on CompuServe, you used CompuServe modem banks to dial into, you had access only to CompuServe content, etc. Ditto for AOL, Prodigy, etc. They eventually adapted so you could email from CompuServe to AOL, but this was much later.
This story is nonsense from start to finish. Yes, some newspaper execs got together and discussed paywalls. Big deal.
There is nothing illegal about that. I realize everyone on Slashdot thinks of himself as an antitrust expert, but industry people do this all the time. Credit card companies have trade associations, and so do banks, car dealers, fast food franchisees, and book publishers.
"Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport. It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves.
Omigosh! An industry conference! But if we call it a "quickie conclave" it sounds sinister...
In which they discussed ways their members might adapt to the market! Stop the presses! Wait - they apparently had some legal counsel to make sure they weren't breaking the law! Wow!
This story is sensationalist nonsense. There is truly nothing to see here. The best part is the guy from the Atlantic whining about the decline of journalism, while simultaneously providing an example.
This would still seem unlikely, no site that I'm aware of will send opps' hole cards to your client until the hand is over. And in the case of Pstars, they use ssh for client comms so hopefully that's pretty unbreakable...
You're likely right. Here's an example of what I was referring to. The story is sketchy on specifics (it's MSNBC), but it appears he had or was inside help.
Anyway, my overall point was that cheating by technical means is another dimension, though it occurs to me now that it's a dimension in face-to-face play, too;-)
A good analysis, but it's quite different in online play.
1. Skill with probability: This is virtually automated. Nearly all players use assistants (generally with the OK of the various sites). I'm referring to simple assistants that calculate pot odds, etc. When you watch the World Series of Poker, you see the little percentages displayed for you...this is the same thing. At any rate, while you still have to interpret them, 90% of the work is done for you.
2. Skill with reading people and 3. hiding your own tells: Gone. There are some people who say that you can get some reads based on how someone plays...i.e., if they always play immediately but sometimes they think about it for 5-10 seconds. The problem is that you don't know what's going on - is it just lag? did they dash over to the fridge for a beer? There really is no way to read.
4. Luck: Same as always.
However, I'd add something about competing against technology. That is a whole other front you don't have in face-to-face play. Specifically, scenarios like:
I've got three accounts and you're the only one at the table who isn't me.
I'm sitting with a friend on two laptops and we're logged into the same game and comparing notes.
I'm using any of a zillion profilers. They automatically watch every game I participate in and take flawless notes. A week from now when you join a game I'm in, I can click on your name and see every hand I've ever watched you play. Oh, and by the way, I often observe hundreds of games at once.
Or perhaps I'm using a poker database, which is usually not cool with the sites but they can't really stop it. Not only are my notes taken, but they're centrally warehoused and exchanged with all other players, so even if we've never played against each other, now I have a record of virtually every hand of online poker you've played, all sliced and diced with stats.
And of course, who knows if the site is truly legit (the big ones are, but there could always be some rogue admin), or if someone has found a flaw in their protocol, etc.
Etcetera. The tech side of it is surprisingly large.
BTW, I say "I" in the above examples, but I don't play anymore. There was a huge ocean of fish who came in after the first WSOP ("hey, I can be Chris Moneymaker!") but they faded out and now it's the same mechanical players playing six hands at once, grinding out the quarter tables for a few bucks a day...blah.
"Today is Memorial Day in the United States of America. We would appreciate you folks taking some time to reflect on our servicemen who gave their lives saving your asses in WW I and II"
Actually it was the Soviet Union that broke the back of the German army.
True. And of course, quite a definitive comment since the Germans were the only evil actors in World War II.
is the second most important thing. I'd even say it's the first one: I can live without internet, but to work offline I need to charge the laptop.
Amen, brother! At big airports it's comical to see guys clustered around poles or walking around with their laptop and adapter in hand like circling vultures, waiting for a free outlet.
It's really pathetic that airports don't have more places to charge. Every seat should have one. For that matter, so should every seat on a plane...
I don't want to be nuked. Why is the USA allowed to have nukes?
Grandparent made a good point. The US is pretty hypocritical. "WE HAVE NUKES, BUT THEY ARE NOT FOR YOU!"
Then nearly every nation on earth (189 out of 193) is similarly hypocritical, because they all signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which endorses the status quo. All the other countries of the world want the USA (and Russia, China, France, Britain) to have nukes but not them. What a bunch of hypocrites!
Usually when I have paid cash for something and told my refund will be in the form of store credit, I ask them to point out where I paid in store credit on the receipt, and where in the statute books it states I can't be refunded in the currency I paid in.
They may instead point you to the sign that says "no refunds".
Stay polite but firm, refuse point blank to accept less and keep moving up the command chain when the next chump sent to deal with you repeats the same as the last chump. Make sure you use a loud but calm voice to ensure that other customers hear you. Mind you, I enjoy twisting a sales person inside out with logic until they run out of excuses and agree to what the law states I'm entitled to just to get me out the door.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you buy something at a store that has a no-refunds, store-credit-only policy posted, you have zero rights. "The law" does not state otherwise.
Not to mention the value in being able to see the quality and try out the product before you buy it.
With all of the consumer review and testing websites, such as CNet and TomsHardware (for PCs), available these days is that even necessary anymore?
If everyone adopts the "I read the reviews and buy over the net" model and there are no more brick & mortar stores, who will write the reviews?
Not to mention that (a) plenty of review outlets have started honest and later devolved into "we whore ourselves for our advertisers", and (b) just because a camera feels good in your hand doesn't mean it'll feel good in mine - in fact, the only way to see if it'll feel good in mine is to actually put it in mine.
As far as I'm concerned, proprietary software is, by definition, not fit for purpose in public projects**.
My generalization meter just went from SWEEPING to OVERFLOW.
Yes, open software is better for government projects, all things being equal. But when they're not - which is often the case - you have to make a judgement each time. For example, I can think of several transportation management apps and several engineering apps which have no open source equivalent and likely never will (mainly because the "itch" you'd have to scratch is, for example, a large, multi-modal transportation network). Saying that proprietary software is "by definition, not fit for purpose" would be ridiculous in such cases, which are far from uncommon.
I would wager that 90%+ of US Army x86 computer systems are not in the field. They're sitting on purchasing agent's desks, human resources desks, etc. They use Windows because they need use Office and various industry-specific applications that are on Windows.
They likely have legacy apps that they've been using since before Linux existed. (Not the original DOS versions, of course - whatever the vendor's latest, which probably runs on Windows).
The US Army isn't any different than a Fortune 500 company...and 99.9% of those have Windows on the desktop (I'm assuming Apple is the exception;-)
In the U.S., treason is narrowly defined as "levying war against [the U.S.], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." The Rosenbergs did not make war against the U.S., and no state of war existed between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., so we were not enemies.
While we're quoting the constitution, please quote the part that defines "enemy".
Oh.
Gosh, I guess that means it's up to the courts to interpret...
By the way, you do realize that your whole point is invalid because the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, right? They were sentenced for espionage, not treason. And by the way, they took oaths not to reveal secrets and were aware that any illegal revelations carried the potential of the death penalty.
Not sure whether Fight Club is to be taken as an authoritative source for movie-making trivia, but according to Tyler Durden, those are marks that are supposed to indicate an upcoming scene change.
Can anyone who knows about movie editing confirm this? I was always curious about this.
You're confusing the end-of-reel markers (which are in the upper right), with Coded Anti-Piracy dots, which appear in the middle of the picture, or wherever they decide to put them.
The end-of-reel markers are apparently a technological necessity and not very distracting. Having a pattern of dots suddenly appear over an actor's face, on the other hand...
Those antipiracy dots are really annoying. Especially when you try to sneak them into a half-second of a special effects burst. Saw a couple in Star Trek, and at least four in Angels & Demons. In each case, there was an explosion or other high-contrast light and they tried to sneak in a few frames of antipiracy dots.
Although I think that technology is lame and unnecessary, there are a zillion less obvious places to put it...
The only people who see bad things about the Internet are the old and those frightened by change.
That's quite a statement. The only people who see anything bad about the Internet are old people and those frightened by change?
Nonsense.
Widespread consumption of porn. Ability to harrass people in new ways. Privacy invasion. Constant distraction as a way of life among kids. More people staring at computer screens instead of being social. Decline of postal services and traditions (e.g., a cheesy electronic greeting card vs. a telegram). Stores going out of business due to the Internet (e.g., used bookstores, used music stores, etc.) Applying for a job and being turned down based on your Facebook posts. Increased government surveillance.
Etcetera. To state that "there are no cons" or "the only people who see bad things about the internet are the old and those frightened by change" is ridiculous. You can certainly defend the opinion that there is a net benefit to the Internet, perhaps even a large one. But don't say there is nothing bad about it.
I don't agree that nothing good has come from the Internet.
However, I haven't yet decided if there is an overall net benefit. I suspect that the cons outweigh the pros. I'm referring to the entirety of the impact of the Internet
Of course, it's purely an academic speculation, since it's not going away.
Just because something is "highly inflammatory" does not mean that publishing it necessarily serves some greater good.
Of course, perhaps your exposure would promote some good by exposing corruption or something. You didn't really give any reason other than you have something "inflammatory".
It's disquieting that no one asked for any justification, but rather leapt to technical solutions. Then again, this is SlashDot...
Slashdot Mirror
"Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."
They were ever anything else?
I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type. Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?
Street cred? If you mean "cool", then no. However, there was a time - in fact, quite a long time - before the Internet was open to the public. I used CompuServe and GEnie from the mid-80s through the early 90s. Most people I knew used Prodigy, AOL, etc. All of these were subscription services where you signed up for dial-up access.
The idea of an "ISP" - one that simply provided you the same connectivity as anyone else - didn't come along until the mid-90s or perhaps a little later (at least in terms of widespread availability). Prior to that, it was only walled gardens...you signed up for CompuServe, you could only talk to people on CompuServe, you used CompuServe modem banks to dial into, you had access only to CompuServe content, etc. Ditto for AOL, Prodigy, etc. They eventually adapted so you could email from CompuServe to AOL, but this was much later.
The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time.
Oh, the Obama administration is giving them a good run for their money...first banks, now automakers. Maybe airlines for the trifecta.
This story is nonsense from start to finish. Yes, some newspaper execs got together and discussed paywalls. Big deal.
There is nothing illegal about that. I realize everyone on Slashdot thinks of himself as an antitrust expert, but industry people do this all the time. Credit card companies have trade associations, and so do banks, car dealers, fast food franchisees, and book publishers.
"Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport. It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves.
Omigosh! An industry conference! But if we call it a "quickie conclave" it sounds sinister...
In which they discussed ways their members might adapt to the market! Stop the presses! Wait - they apparently had some legal counsel to make sure they weren't breaking the law! Wow!
This story is sensationalist nonsense. There is truly nothing to see here. The best part is the guy from the Atlantic whining about the decline of journalism, while simultaneously providing an example.
...and even the most bleeding hearted liberals believe that we should be left a sizable share of our income to our own responsibility and desires.
Hey, that sounds good - can we go back to that?
"Editors", that's "Which Free IDE". We covered that in third grade.
This would still seem unlikely, no site that I'm aware of will send opps' hole cards to your client until the hand is over. And in the case of Pstars, they use ssh for client comms so hopefully that's pretty unbreakable...
You're likely right. Here's an example of what I was referring to. The story is sketchy on specifics (it's MSNBC), but it appears he had or was inside help.
Anyway, my overall point was that cheating by technical means is another dimension, though it occurs to me now that it's a dimension in face-to-face play, too ;-)
A good analysis, but it's quite different in online play.
1. Skill with probability: This is virtually automated. Nearly all players use assistants (generally with the OK of the various sites). I'm referring to simple assistants that calculate pot odds, etc. When you watch the World Series of Poker, you see the little percentages displayed for you...this is the same thing. At any rate, while you still have to interpret them, 90% of the work is done for you.
2. Skill with reading people and 3. hiding your own tells: Gone. There are some people who say that you can get some reads based on how someone plays...i.e., if they always play immediately but sometimes they think about it for 5-10 seconds. The problem is that you don't know what's going on - is it just lag? did they dash over to the fridge for a beer? There really is no way to read.
4. Luck: Same as always.
However, I'd add something about competing against technology. That is a whole other front you don't have in face-to-face play. Specifically, scenarios like:
Etcetera. The tech side of it is surprisingly large.
BTW, I say "I" in the above examples, but I don't play anymore. There was a huge ocean of fish who came in after the first WSOP ("hey, I can be Chris Moneymaker!") but they faded out and now it's the same mechanical players playing six hands at once, grinding out the quarter tables for a few bucks a day...blah.
"Today is Memorial Day in the United States of America. We would appreciate you folks taking some time to reflect on our servicemen who gave their lives saving your asses in WW I and II"
Actually it was the Soviet Union that broke the back of the German army.
True. And of course, quite a definitive comment since the Germans were the only evil actors in World War II.
Oh wait...
is the second most important thing. I'd even say it's the first one: I can live without internet, but to work offline I need to charge the laptop.
Amen, brother! At big airports it's comical to see guys clustered around poles or walking around with their laptop and adapter in hand like circling vultures, waiting for a free outlet.
It's really pathetic that airports don't have more places to charge. Every seat should have one. For that matter, so should every seat on a plane...
So NASA creates a probe which is sent to find life but instead destroys it...
...I think I heard this story once or twice before...
I don't want to be nuked. Why is the USA allowed to have nukes?
Grandparent made a good point. The US is pretty hypocritical. "WE HAVE NUKES, BUT THEY ARE NOT FOR YOU!"
Then nearly every nation on earth (189 out of 193) is similarly hypocritical, because they all signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which endorses the status quo. All the other countries of the world want the USA (and Russia, China, France, Britain) to have nukes but not them. What a bunch of hypocrites!
Usually when I have paid cash for something and told my refund will be in the form of store credit, I ask them to point out where I paid in store credit on the receipt, and where in the statute books it states I can't be refunded in the currency I paid in.
They may instead point you to the sign that says "no refunds".
Stay polite but firm, refuse point blank to accept less and keep moving up the command chain when the next chump sent to deal with you repeats the same as the last chump. Make sure you use a loud but calm voice to ensure that other customers hear you. Mind you, I enjoy twisting a sales person inside out with logic until they run out of excuses and agree to what the law states I'm entitled to just to get me out the door.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you buy something at a store that has a no-refunds, store-credit-only policy posted, you have zero rights. "The law" does not state otherwise.
Not to mention the value in being able to see the quality and try out the product before you buy it.
With all of the consumer review and testing websites, such as CNet and TomsHardware (for PCs), available these days is that even necessary anymore?
If everyone adopts the "I read the reviews and buy over the net" model and there are no more brick & mortar stores, who will write the reviews?
Not to mention that (a) plenty of review outlets have started honest and later devolved into "we whore ourselves for our advertisers", and (b) just because a camera feels good in your hand doesn't mean it'll feel good in mine - in fact, the only way to see if it'll feel good in mine is to actually put it in mine.
As far as I'm concerned, proprietary software is, by definition, not fit for purpose in public projects**.
My generalization meter just went from SWEEPING to OVERFLOW.
Yes, open software is better for government projects, all things being equal. But when they're not - which is often the case - you have to make a judgement each time. For example, I can think of several transportation management apps and several engineering apps which have no open source equivalent and likely never will (mainly because the "itch" you'd have to scratch is, for example, a large, multi-modal transportation network). Saying that proprietary software is "by definition, not fit for purpose" would be ridiculous in such cases, which are far from uncommon.
Corporations doing what is best for their owners and share holders is a MYTH. This is one of the biggest myths of the corporate era of history.
Corporations move first to promote the interests of the *corporation* itself. The interests of shareholders is a very. very distant second.
I think I know what you're getting at, but could you please repost it, only with your generalizations set a bit more sweeping?
I would wager that 90%+ of US Army x86 computer systems are not in the field. They're sitting on purchasing agent's desks, human resources desks, etc. They use Windows because they need use Office and various industry-specific applications that are on Windows.
They likely have legacy apps that they've been using since before Linux existed. (Not the original DOS versions, of course - whatever the vendor's latest, which probably runs on Windows).
The US Army isn't any different than a Fortune 500 company...and 99.9% of those have Windows on the desktop (I'm assuming Apple is the exception ;-)
"The first rule of Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club." Somehow, I don't think this applies to NDAs.
Well, it all depends on what you sign, right?
In the U.S., treason is narrowly defined as "levying war against [the U.S.], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." The Rosenbergs did not make war against the U.S., and no state of war existed between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., so we were not enemies.
While we're quoting the constitution, please quote the part that defines "enemy".
Oh.
Gosh, I guess that means it's up to the courts to interpret...
By the way, you do realize that your whole point is invalid because the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, right? They were sentenced for espionage, not treason. And by the way, they took oaths not to reveal secrets and were aware that any illegal revelations carried the potential of the death penalty.
Not sure whether Fight Club is to be taken as an authoritative source for movie-making trivia, but according to Tyler Durden, those are marks that are supposed to indicate an upcoming scene change.
Can anyone who knows about movie editing confirm this? I was always curious about this.
You're confusing the end-of-reel markers (which are in the upper right), with Coded Anti-Piracy dots, which appear in the middle of the picture, or wherever they decide to put them.
The end-of-reel markers are apparently a technological necessity and not very distracting. Having a pattern of dots suddenly appear over an actor's face, on the other hand...
Those antipiracy dots are really annoying. Especially when you try to sneak them into a half-second of a special effects burst. Saw a couple in Star Trek, and at least four in Angels & Demons. In each case, there was an explosion or other high-contrast light and they tried to sneak in a few frames of antipiracy dots.
Although I think that technology is lame and unnecessary, there are a zillion less obvious places to put it...
...that since trucks only need to improve to 29MPG over the next 7 years, the SUV isn't going away any time soon.
The only people who see bad things about the Internet are the old and those frightened by change.
That's quite a statement. The only people who see anything bad about the Internet are old people and those frightened by change?
Nonsense.
Widespread consumption of porn. Ability to harrass people in new ways. Privacy invasion. Constant distraction as a way of life among kids. More people staring at computer screens instead of being social. Decline of postal services and traditions (e.g., a cheesy electronic greeting card vs. a telegram). Stores going out of business due to the Internet (e.g., used bookstores, used music stores, etc.) Applying for a job and being turned down based on your Facebook posts. Increased government surveillance.
Etcetera. To state that "there are no cons" or "the only people who see bad things about the internet are the old and those frightened by change" is ridiculous. You can certainly defend the opinion that there is a net benefit to the Internet, perhaps even a large one. But don't say there is nothing bad about it.
I don't agree that nothing good has come from the Internet.
However, I haven't yet decided if there is an overall net benefit. I suspect that the cons outweigh the pros. I'm referring to the entirety of the impact of the Internet
Of course, it's purely an academic speculation, since it's not going away.
Talk to some real germans soldiers when they are willing to let their guard down.
You better be quick about it, since the youngest ones are in their 80s now.
Are you just doing this because you can?
Just because something is "highly inflammatory" does not mean that publishing it necessarily serves some greater good.
Of course, perhaps your exposure would promote some good by exposing corruption or something. You didn't really give any reason other than you have something "inflammatory".
It's disquieting that no one asked for any justification, but rather leapt to technical solutions. Then again, this is SlashDot...