I could definitely be wrong, but I believe the message they were trying to convey was that even though they may have been making plenty of money via the established labels, in principle, they believed their alternative model was more equitable for all parties. Little different than a street musician except with a much larger, and by virtue of the "on request" nature of webhosting, a more suitable audience.
Well, if you take a number and substitute the first occurrence of a each unique digit, and replace it with an L, then the subsequent occurrence with an O, then back to an L for the next, and repeat ad infinitum, and then use this formula on 666, you get LOL.
My system boots uTorrent, @home client (with 2 tasks), Avast, Comodo Firewall, and I typically have Outlook and Firefox open (with 10+ tabs), which brings memory usage to ~80% with 2GB of RAM, and 300 odd megs paged out. I'd wager that quite a few people have a very similar setup, with the possible exception of the @home client, which uses nearly 250MB on its own.
Opening new applications, or switching to one that's been paged out (aka not the active Window) is agonizingly slow, and that's with torrents on a separate array from the OS/Program Files. I popped in another 2GB, however, and all is well. I now have 0 page file usage and rarely go above 50% unless I have a game open. So yeah, the window manager doesn't require 2GB, but (what I consider to be) an average setup will easily chew up that much.
Congratulations, you've just become the latest victim of a rather oldtroll/joke. The fact that it's a nearly verbatim copy of an old troll makes it sort of funny. Also people occasionally mod Insightful or Interesting to boost karma, since the Funny mod carries no karma bonus.
Only if you believe that a few extra degrees Celsius will wipe out humanity. Despite claims to the contrary, people are not immobile, and can relocate in the event that their current residence becomes uninhabitable. Also, warmer temperatures generally contribute to periods of prolific growth and expansion for all forms of life, which means food will probably not be an issue. Even if global warming is happening, all it means is that life will change -- for the better for some, for the worse for others. But that is truly nothing new.
Regardless, a raffle would've raised far more money, as it's a safe bet nearly everyone would've bought at least 1 ticket for $1 USD. Hell, non-Americans can afford two at that price!
I might agree, but only because of the money laundering and fraud; spam is a minor annoyance. I find billboards and television commercials infinitely more annoying, and they're perfectly legal. At least I can delete spam with minimal effort.
At any rate, I highly doubt these fellows are responsible for all of the spam on the internet, or that they started the trend, so punishing them for the existence of spam filtering is sort of absurd.
It's sort of ridiculous that a successful musician would be retired before the age of 40. I can understand athletes retiring because their bodies can't keep up (though many go on to other careers), and one-hit-wonders moving on, but why would a popular musician retire at all, let alone at such a young age. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Carlos Santana, B.B. King, Bob Dylan, Hank Williams Jr. and Sr. -- all of these people are either still going, or played till the end. I don't even care for his music, but honestly, it would make more sense for Britney to retire (but there's still hope for that I guess).
I actually had AOL for two reasons. 1) Chat rooms and mail forwarding was faster and easier than usenet, finding FTP dumps, inane IRC rooms, and other "1337" activities. There were no really good news readers (and really still aren't, but fortunately there are decent web interfaces), FTPs would max out and/or go down faster than a Catholic schoolgirl at homecoming, and nobody wanted to DCC to a dialup connection. 2) Back when games required a healthy suspension of disbelief and a metric sh.. well.. a lot of imagination, there was Air Warrior, Legends of Kesmai, and Aliens Online. Of course when Kesmai opened up gamestorm.com, I dropped AOL faster than Angelina dropped pounds.
Before that I had an affair with GEnie, and before that the precursor to AOL: Q-LINK. I still remember downloading SID files because my parents wouldn't let me listen to the "secular" radio.
Unfortunately for AOL, there's not much of anything they can provide these days that the web can't do better, faster, and cheaper (to the end user at least) except, perhaps, to provide compatibility and stability issues (though IE is a close second). Multiplayer online games have long since ceased to be the domain of services with pay-per-hour play time, and the lockdown on chatrooms, e-mail, etc. alienated far more people than it enticed. Unless they can pull an Apple in revitalizing their image and creating a new business model, it seems unlikely that they will continue to exist for any significant amount of time.
I'm sort of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I agree completely that accessibility to physical premises should be guaranteed (although I hate dangling my legs on those super-high toilets in restrooms with only a single stall). On the other hand, there is no braille in the stores I visit (let alone on the products themselves), no braille displays or audio screen readers in the internet cafes. I don't see bookstores stocking audio and/or braille versions of all of their books. CC is not mandated (only mandated not to be removed when present).
Sure, text is more accessible for braille displays and/or screen readers, but at what point does the disability of the individual outweigh the obligation to accommodate them? What if the person is blind, deaf, and has no hands (and therefore cannot read braille)? Should restaurants provide smaller furniture for dwarfs? Larger doorways for extremely tall and/or obese people? (Japan can be a painful country if you're over 6'.. no joke). Should playgrounds provide elevators (or very long ramps) so crippled kids can ride the slide?
As I said, I'm all in favor of physical accessibility to premises and transportation, but it seems like some common sense should be employed. Websites are an inherently visual media. We might as well require movie theaters (or YouTube!) to provide a play-by-play of the action in audio form (Dog rides skateboard. Still riding skateboard. Still riding skateboard. Crashed into hydrant. Kids are pointing and laughing. Dog is not getting up.), or radio stations to broadcast text lyrics. At some point, you have to say I'm sorry, but the cost and effort of accommodating you is beyond reasonable. The problem with this ruling is not that Target will suffer any unreasonable burden by providing a textual version of its pages, but that without strict guidelines on requirements, A) Nobody can know what's required of them, and overly vague laws are unenforcable/unconstitutional (See Montana speed limit case), and B) a malicious plaintiff could potentially sue for basically anything that doesn't cater to their specific disability.
In the case of giant kites, one would hope they'd be warned by their eyes. But even if birds are getting killed by windmills and kites, at least they're mainly killing off the dumb and the weak. Sort of like air sharks. Eventually only the smart and/or skilled fliers will be left, aside from the odd case of down syndrome (pun intended), and this whole issue will be moot.
The problem seems to be that despite the best efforts of the founders to limit the power of aristocracy, the power of the dollar is more important than ever in getting elected. Without money, it is nearly impossible to compete in the current election process.
Unfortunately, the only option politicians are pushing (surprise, surprise) is for taxpayers to foot the bill by using taxpayer money to finance campaigns and banning other sources. What we really need to do is limit campaign *spending*. Politicians should be permitted to make public appearances, and appear in televised debates, but they should be prohibited from spending millions on television and newspaper advertising.. perhaps prohibited from running ads at all. It may seem contrary to the notion of free speech to prohibit these things, but I would argue that creating a level playing field (as much as possible) is more important than allowing money to play such a central role in campaigning. Websites, public appearances, and any form of debate, televised or otherwise, should be the limit of campaigns. If you can't do an effective job of expressing your views in those three formats, you just aren't an effective communicator.
You seem to be equating tools, techniques, and power. Data mining is a technique, not a tool, and I see nothing wrong with it per se. Collecting the list of all calls made from which to data mine, I would argue, is not fine, regardless of what tools or techniques they use to collect that information. Even "voluntary compliance" quickly turns to "noncompliance is suspect," so I would rule out people volunteering their information as well.
Also power is not directly related to the tools used. A car is more powerful than a bike. But just because an officer is driving a cruiser doesn't mean he has the authority to perform an unwarranted search; it just means he can better perform his existing duties in a manner compliant with the rule of law. Aside from that, driving on a public street is very different from using a private network with a private contract with a private entity.
Slashdot Mirror
I could definitely be wrong, but I believe the message they were trying to convey was that even though they may have been making plenty of money via the established labels, in principle, they believed their alternative model was more equitable for all parties. Little different than a street musician except with a much larger, and by virtue of the "on request" nature of webhosting, a more suitable audience.
penup; fd 200; lt 90; fd 300; pendown; fd 100; bk 50; lt 90; fd 100; lt 90; bk 50; fd 100; penup; fd 100; lt 90; pendown; fd 100; bk 50; rt 90; fd 75; rt 90; bk 50; fd 100; lt 90; penup; fd 25; lt 69; pendown; fd 110; rt 138; fd 110; bk 55; rt 111; fd 39; bk 39; penup; lt 111; fd 55; lt 69; fd 62; lt 90; pendown; fd 100; rt 90; bk 37; fd 75; penup; fd 25; pendown; fd 75; bk 75; rt 90; fd 50; lt 90; fd 50; bk 50; rt 90; fd 50; lt 90; fd 75; penup; rt 90; fd 25; rt 90; fd 400; lt 90fd; pendown; fd 100; lt 90; fd 75; penup; fd 25; pendown; fd 75; lt 90; fd 100; lt 90; fd 75; lt 90; fd 100; lt 90; penup; fd 100; pendown; fd 75; lt 90; fd 50; lt 90; fd 37; penup; fd 38; rt 90; bk 50; pendown; fd 100; rt 90; fd 75; penup; fd 25; pendown; fd 75; rt 90; fd 100; rt 90; fd 75; rt 90; fd 100; penup; home
(Not really.. it was actually the most fun I had in school).
Well, if you take a number and substitute the first occurrence of a each unique digit, and replace it with an L, then the subsequent occurrence with an O, then back to an L for the next, and repeat ad infinitum, and then use this formula on 666, you get LOL.
What do that tell you?
6666666!
My system boots uTorrent, @home client (with 2 tasks), Avast, Comodo Firewall, and I typically have Outlook and Firefox open (with 10+ tabs), which brings memory usage to ~80% with 2GB of RAM, and 300 odd megs paged out. I'd wager that quite a few people have a very similar setup, with the possible exception of the @home client, which uses nearly 250MB on its own.
Opening new applications, or switching to one that's been paged out (aka not the active Window) is agonizingly slow, and that's with torrents on a separate array from the OS/Program Files. I popped in another 2GB, however, and all is well. I now have 0 page file usage and rarely go above 50% unless I have a game open. So yeah, the window manager doesn't require 2GB, but (what I consider to be) an average setup will easily chew up that much.
Congratulations, you've just become the latest victim of a rather old troll/joke. The fact that it's a nearly verbatim copy of an old troll makes it sort of funny. Also people occasionally mod Insightful or Interesting to boost karma, since the Funny mod carries no karma bonus.
And arguably, they never have.
Zing!
Only if you believe that a few extra degrees Celsius will wipe out humanity. Despite claims to the contrary, people are not immobile, and can relocate in the event that their current residence becomes uninhabitable. Also, warmer temperatures generally contribute to periods of prolific growth and expansion for all forms of life, which means food will probably not be an issue. Even if global warming is happening, all it means is that life will change -- for the better for some, for the worse for others. But that is truly nothing new.
It's up to $2000 now.
Regardless, a raffle would've raised far more money, as it's a safe bet nearly everyone would've bought at least 1 ticket for $1 USD. Hell, non-Americans can afford two at that price!
Congratulations, you've discovered eBay.
(By the way, "T-shirts" can be replaced with "anything" and the formula still works).
I might agree, but only because of the money laundering and fraud; spam is a minor annoyance. I find billboards and television commercials infinitely more annoying, and they're perfectly legal. At least I can delete spam with minimal effort.
At any rate, I highly doubt these fellows are responsible for all of the spam on the internet, or that they started the trend, so punishing them for the existence of spam filtering is sort of absurd.
So what are you "saying"?
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! PLEASE.
(Hey, somebody was gonna say it.. might as well be me.)
It's sort of ridiculous that a successful musician would be retired before the age of 40. I can understand athletes retiring because their bodies can't keep up (though many go on to other careers), and one-hit-wonders moving on, but why would a popular musician retire at all, let alone at such a young age. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Carlos Santana, B.B. King, Bob Dylan, Hank Williams Jr. and Sr. -- all of these people are either still going, or played till the end. I don't even care for his music, but honestly, it would make more sense for Britney to retire (but there's still hope for that I guess).
I actually had AOL for two reasons. 1) Chat rooms and mail forwarding was faster and easier than usenet, finding FTP dumps, inane IRC rooms, and other "1337" activities. There were no really good news readers (and really still aren't, but fortunately there are decent web interfaces), FTPs would max out and/or go down faster than a Catholic schoolgirl at homecoming, and nobody wanted to DCC to a dialup connection. 2) Back when games required a healthy suspension of disbelief and a metric sh.. well.. a lot of imagination, there was Air Warrior, Legends of Kesmai, and Aliens Online. Of course when Kesmai opened up gamestorm.com, I dropped AOL faster than Angelina dropped pounds.
Before that I had an affair with GEnie, and before that the precursor to AOL: Q-LINK. I still remember downloading SID files because my parents wouldn't let me listen to the "secular" radio.
Unfortunately for AOL, there's not much of anything they can provide these days that the web can't do better, faster, and cheaper (to the end user at least) except, perhaps, to provide compatibility and stability issues (though IE is a close second). Multiplayer online games have long since ceased to be the domain of services with pay-per-hour play time, and the lockdown on chatrooms, e-mail, etc. alienated far more people than it enticed. Unless they can pull an Apple in revitalizing their image and creating a new business model, it seems unlikely that they will continue to exist for any significant amount of time.
He said "pull the wool of their eyes." It's like the strings of their heart, only softer and with a higher risk of retinal damage.
Well it is the US military we are talking about and to be blunt it bes an effective weapon even if it beesn't that big or generates that much power.
There, fixed that for you.
I vote we build huge photovoltaic rings around our planet perpendicular to the sun, then we can collect energy AND look almost as cool as Saturn.
We must have the same friend.
I don't think blind people should be driving anywhere, but that's just me.
I'm sort of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I agree completely that accessibility to physical premises should be guaranteed (although I hate dangling my legs on those super-high toilets in restrooms with only a single stall). On the other hand, there is no braille in the stores I visit (let alone on the products themselves), no braille displays or audio screen readers in the internet cafes. I don't see bookstores stocking audio and/or braille versions of all of their books. CC is not mandated (only mandated not to be removed when present).
Sure, text is more accessible for braille displays and/or screen readers, but at what point does the disability of the individual outweigh the obligation to accommodate them? What if the person is blind, deaf, and has no hands (and therefore cannot read braille)? Should restaurants provide smaller furniture for dwarfs? Larger doorways for extremely tall and/or obese people? (Japan can be a painful country if you're over 6'.. no joke). Should playgrounds provide elevators (or very long ramps) so crippled kids can ride the slide?
As I said, I'm all in favor of physical accessibility to premises and transportation, but it seems like some common sense should be employed. Websites are an inherently visual media. We might as well require movie theaters (or YouTube!) to provide a play-by-play of the action in audio form (Dog rides skateboard. Still riding skateboard. Still riding skateboard. Crashed into hydrant. Kids are pointing and laughing. Dog is not getting up.), or radio stations to broadcast text lyrics. At some point, you have to say I'm sorry, but the cost and effort of accommodating you is beyond reasonable. The problem with this ruling is not that Target will suffer any unreasonable burden by providing a textual version of its pages, but that without strict guidelines on requirements, A) Nobody can know what's required of them, and overly vague laws are unenforcable/unconstitutional (See Montana speed limit case), and B) a malicious plaintiff could potentially sue for basically anything that doesn't cater to their specific disability.
You sure taut them.
In the case of giant kites, one would hope they'd be warned by their eyes. But even if birds are getting killed by windmills and kites, at least they're mainly killing off the dumb and the weak. Sort of like air sharks. Eventually only the smart and/or skilled fliers will be left, aside from the odd case of down syndrome (pun intended), and this whole issue will be moot.
The problem seems to be that despite the best efforts of the founders to limit the power of aristocracy, the power of the dollar is more important than ever in getting elected. Without money, it is nearly impossible to compete in the current election process.
Unfortunately, the only option politicians are pushing (surprise, surprise) is for taxpayers to foot the bill by using taxpayer money to finance campaigns and banning other sources. What we really need to do is limit campaign *spending*. Politicians should be permitted to make public appearances, and appear in televised debates, but they should be prohibited from spending millions on television and newspaper advertising.. perhaps prohibited from running ads at all. It may seem contrary to the notion of free speech to prohibit these things, but I would argue that creating a level playing field (as much as possible) is more important than allowing money to play such a central role in campaigning. Websites, public appearances, and any form of debate, televised or otherwise, should be the limit of campaigns. If you can't do an effective job of expressing your views in those three formats, you just aren't an effective communicator.
You seem to be equating tools, techniques, and power. Data mining is a technique, not a tool, and I see nothing wrong with it per se. Collecting the list of all calls made from which to data mine, I would argue, is not fine, regardless of what tools or techniques they use to collect that information. Even "voluntary compliance" quickly turns to "noncompliance is suspect," so I would rule out people volunteering their information as well.
Also power is not directly related to the tools used. A car is more powerful than a bike. But just because an officer is driving a cruiser doesn't mean he has the authority to perform an unwarranted search; it just means he can better perform his existing duties in a manner compliant with the rule of law. Aside from that, driving on a public street is very different from using a private network with a private contract with a private entity.
I've had enough. I'm an Apo State graduate, and I'm going to Digg.