It doesn't entertain either you or me, but it entertains cburley and many others, while making use of idle computer cycles. So what is your problem? Is posting your low opinion of such endeavors good use of your time, when you could be out there pulling the plow and feeding the hungry?
Yeh, I suppose not crying is one benefit. Keep in mind that as our civilization has "progressed," locked doors have not become obsolete.
We got no lock on the planet. How do we know a vastly superior ET might have better uses for a life-supporting planet than we do?
Umpteen Millenia Later....:
Brix, do you remember that planet we incubated Ixvo Nartecs ago? Turns out that unusual radio signature was a prime -- may have been a pseudo-intelligence there!
Trolling, are you? You don't contend that the subject-verb-object "Many belonging (to) readers." comprises a sentance, do you? Or that "through you for a loop" is properly spelt?
The article makes clear that the author is not an absolutist on "full disclosure."
"Publishing vulnerabilities that there's no real evidence for is bad. Publishing vulnerabilities that are more smoke than fire is bad. Publishing vulnerabilities in critical systems that cannot be easily fixed and whose exploitation will cause serious harm (e.g., the air traffic control system) is bad."
With such guidelines, one can maintain a consistent philosophy in both the online and offline realms.
Last year, you said "the pilot is just kind of the beginning or like the tip of the iceberg in terms of how stupid and odd we could get, and that would be intriguing for a while, because prime time has a higher profile, wider range, kind of exposure."
Now that the series is in full production, how much of that remains true? Is anybody (at Fox, or at Sonnenfeld's prduction co) putting on the brakes?
I can't say what happened in his case, but I initially got my domain from registerfree.com (the price was right). When they folded, I found that my domain belonged to Tucows. God knows why.
I wrote to them, never received a reply...when it came loose a few months later (I guess nobody wants aka-ed), I snapped it up again.
Things like that happen. In my case, the issue wasn't worth lawyers and $$$ just to find out what had happened, though a lot of mail users at mail.aka-ed.com (5 friends, who now only use me for spam!) were pissed off.
We know the usurper is in bad faith, as his claim on the name was taken for no other reason than to sell it for $550 or more. The poster stated that he is associated with a not-for-profit radio station with those call letters. There can't be 2 such stations. Therefore, the guy who now has the name has "squatted," in a way that ICANN has already determined is in bad faith.
The moderation should stand, and you should be modded down -1, Karma Jealousy.
Correct. The most annoying thing about the "funny" up-mod is when someone makes a subtle, sly, sardonic comment; someone responds to it by saying the exact same thing, except they've dressed it in a clown suit and given it a bicycle horn.
The second poster gets modded to 3 or even 5, Funny; the initial poster gets modded down, off-topic.
This is why engineering students need some liberal arts background.
The problem here is the stuff that strikes moderators as "funny" seldom strikes me the same. I usualy find more humor in stuff labelled Flame, Troll, Redundant, and (like your own post) Off-Topic.
Reasonable in theory, but the problem is the Holywood cartel that seeks to own and control both production and distribution. Anything an independent does to increase ticket revenues can be countered by new demands from Hollywood. As to one of your specific suggestions -- how is an independent theater owner supposed to arrange for folks to hobnob with the cast of a Sony film, when Sony's theater chain is the competition?
What's needed is not an improved business model, it's the elimination of the Holywood cartel from distribution. Long-standing antitrust legislation that took Hollywood out of the distribution biz was repealed during the Reagan era.
We're way OT here, but saying "your business model is flawed" doesn't change things. This is not anybody's "business model" -- this is the way the business has been shaped by the monopoly power of the Hollywod studios.
The "alternate model" is for Hollywood to own all the movie theaters, thus cornering distribution as well as production. That is why Hollywood is giving this guy, and every other independent theater owner, a rough time.
Above this post, see umpteen complains that the site is slashdotted. One guy posts a link that is deeper within the beleaguered wolfram server; that link is also/.'ed, and he gets modded up to 5.
I post, here on/., the only part of the/.'ed site that is "news." I get modded up a point. Then, after wolfram.com is no longer/.'ed, somebody with mod points burning a hole in his pocket mods me down as "redundant."
Thanks to chrisatslashdot, memphis.edu has a mirror; just in case, though -- here is the final chapter, told by Eric W. Weisstein:
Settling the Case
We eventually concluded that there was no real business discussion possible. CRC was simply incapable of listening to or evaluating an actual business proposal. So we weighed the costs of continued litigation against the costs of giving CRC some of the cash for which it appeared so hungry. The cash approach won.
In addition to its "instant win," CRC will be paid annually for books they don't sell, according to a formula that both sides have accepted--although we continue to believe that any past or future failure to achieve projected sales is far more plausibly attributed to CRC's abysmal marketing efforts than to any abuse of the web site by people who want to have and hold snapshots of its contents. But in this life we do what we have to do--and what we are willing to do.
Another important change is that, as part of the settlement agreement, CRC Press will now be given permission to create editions of the printed book based on future snapshots of the website. As a result, CRC insisted that broad reproduction rights to all contributed material be secured. Furthermore, if we are not able to secure such rights, then Wolfram Research and I, at our own expense, must rewrite the entries in question from scratch for CRC to reproduce. This makes it extremely difficult for us to include any new contributed material on the website unless we first secure permissions using CRC's boilerplate permissions form. This form is endorsed by neither Wolfram Research nor myself, but as part of the settlement agreement, we are required to ask contributors to sign it. Since our goal is and always has been to provide your contributions on-line to the worldwide math community, we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or imposition this CRC-mandated form may cause you.
Your shiny direct link is also/.'ed. Bringing more pressure on the wolfram server may be whoring, but it doesn't deserve modding up, IMO.
Why hasn't anybody who's seen the site got the sense to HELP THIS GUY OUT by telling us what legal turn got him back up.
Here's what I know, though I don't know the final chapter: Gentleman sold publisher a book based on his website. Publisher continued sponsoring the website for some time, then turned around and said they held the copyright to the website. Website came down.
So what's the last (or latest) chapter? Somebody who's seen wolfram.com, let us know, and get us off wolfram's back!
Good point. Trustbusters may have an easier time following the dots with Real's potential loss of revenue, though -- media delivery is the potential goldmine they're all familiar with.
Yes, it is silly. Dictionary.com defines deface as "to mar or spoil the apperance of.." or alternatively to "To obliterate; destroy.". Does this oliberate the content? Does it destroy it? No, it adds a tiny little logo. Hardly destroing it.
But indeed "marring," even "spoiling." There are two definitions provided, why are you ignoring the first?
Code Red, Nimbda, all that - the news people have reported that it has caused "billions in damage". That hasnt hurt MS one bit. What makes you think a little fine would?
Public perception does not see MS as responsible for the acts of "cyberterrorists." Frankly, I myself am a bit reluctant to lay full responsibility for every exploit of an OS at the feet of its publisher.
Slashdot Mirror
Either the link is slashdotted, or Carmack's
Someone with mod-points, please REWARD this fine fellow who posted the .plan!
Now, why don't you follow your own advice instead of advertising your own selfishness?
And what are you accomplishing by filling this thread with flamebait and trolls? If you don't like the topic of the thread, move on.
And who is the insane moderator marking this troll as "insightful"? He should also move on to a topic more to his liking instead of trashing this one.
It doesn't entertain either you or me, but it entertains cburley and many others, while making use of idle computer cycles. So what is your problem? Is posting your low opinion of such endeavors good use of your time, when you could be out there pulling the plow and feeding the hungry?
Please step into your backyard a moment.
Don't look up, please.
We got no lock on the planet. How do we know a vastly superior ET might have better uses for a life-supporting planet than we do?
Umpteen Millenia Later.... :
Brix, do you remember that planet we incubated Ixvo Nartecs ago? Turns out that unusual radio signature was a prime -- may have been a pseudo-intelligence there!
"Publishing vulnerabilities that there's no real evidence for is bad. Publishing vulnerabilities that are more smoke than fire is bad. Publishing vulnerabilities in critical systems that cannot be easily fixed and whose exploitation will cause serious harm (e.g., the air traffic control system) is bad."
With such guidelines, one can maintain a consistent philosophy in both the online and offline realms.
Last year, you said "the pilot is just kind of the beginning or like the tip of the iceberg in terms of how stupid and odd we could get, and that would be intriguing for a while, because prime time has a higher profile, wider range, kind of exposure."
Now that the series is in full production, how much of that remains true? Is anybody (at Fox, or at Sonnenfeld's prduction co) putting on the brakes?
(referring to a zero rated post, concerning "advertorials" in
I remember reading that, it didn't really register at the time. Your criticism is "on the money."
Journalistic ethics traditionally requires a "firewall" between editorial and advertisers, it's easy enough to see where some folks wouldn't get it.
Proof, once again, why engineering students need a liberal arts background.
I wrote to them, never received a reply...when it came loose a few months later (I guess nobody wants aka-ed), I snapped it up again.
Things like that happen. In my case, the issue wasn't worth lawyers and $$$ just to find out what had happened, though a lot of mail users at mail.aka-ed.com (5 friends, who now only use me for spam!) were pissed off.
We know the usurper is in bad faith, as his claim on the name was taken for no other reason than to sell it for $550 or more. The poster stated that he is associated with a not-for-profit radio station with those call letters. There can't be 2 such stations. Therefore, the guy who now has the name has "squatted," in a way that ICANN has already determined is in bad faith.
The moderation should stand, and you should be modded down -1, Karma Jealousy.
This is why engineering students need some liberal arts background.
The problem here is the stuff that strikes moderators as "funny" seldom strikes me the same. I usualy find more humor in stuff labelled Flame, Troll, Redundant, and (like your own post) Off-Topic.
Use this story link. less ads, less
Reasonable in theory, but the problem is the Holywood cartel that seeks to own and control both production and distribution. Anything an independent does to increase ticket revenues can be countered by new demands from Hollywood. As to one of your specific suggestions -- how is an independent theater owner supposed to arrange for folks to hobnob with the cast of a Sony film, when Sony's theater chain is the competition?
What's needed is not an improved business model, it's the elimination of the Holywood cartel from distribution. Long-standing antitrust legislation that took Hollywood out of the distribution biz was repealed during the Reagan era.
We're way OT here, but saying "your business model is flawed" doesn't change things. This is not anybody's "business model" -- this is the way the business has been shaped by the monopoly power of the Hollywod studios.
The "alternate model" is for Hollywood to own all the movie theaters, thus cornering distribution as well as production. That is why Hollywood is giving this guy, and every other independent theater owner, a rough time.
I don't get it.
Above this post, see umpteen complains that the site is slashdotted. One guy posts a link that is deeper within the beleaguered wolfram server; that link is also /.'ed, and he gets modded up to 5.
I post, here on /., the only part of the /.'ed site that is "news." I get modded up a point. Then, after wolfram.com is no longer /.'ed, somebody with mod points burning a hole in his pocket mods me down as "redundant."
That guy sucks.
the preview didn't look like that, I swear. (For those who don't trust IP's, the site is the English miirror of I-Art.)
Settling the Case
We eventually concluded that there was no real business discussion possible. CRC was simply incapable of listening to or evaluating an actual business proposal. So we weighed the costs of continued litigation against the costs of giving CRC some of the cash for which it appeared so hungry. The cash approach won.
In addition to its "instant win," CRC will be paid annually for books they don't sell, according to a formula that both sides have accepted--although we continue to believe that any past or future failure to achieve projected sales is far more plausibly attributed to CRC's abysmal marketing efforts than to any abuse of the web site by people who want to have and hold snapshots of its contents. But in this life we do what we have to do--and what we are willing to do.
There are a few other consequences of the settlement which are of interest to MathWorld readers. The first is that a copyright statement "© 1999 CRC Press LLC" (in addition of the © 1999-2001 Wolfram Research, Inc. notice) now appears at the bottom of MathWorld entries that have a corresponding article in CRC's printed shapshot. Despite the fact the I (or volunteer contributors) wrote these entries, that CRC Press did nothing to support their creation or the creation of the web site in which they appear, and the fact that they existed in the website long before they ever appeared in the printed version, the tail has truly come to wave this dog, and this copyright statement will henceforth be a constant reminder of this fact.
Another important change is that, as part of the settlement agreement, CRC Press will now be given permission to create editions of the printed book based on future snapshots of the website. As a result, CRC insisted that broad reproduction rights to all contributed material be secured. Furthermore, if we are not able to secure such rights, then Wolfram Research and I, at our own expense, must rewrite the entries in question from scratch for CRC to reproduce. This makes it extremely difficult for us to include any new contributed material on the website unless we first secure permissions using CRC's boilerplate permissions form. This form is endorsed by neither Wolfram Research nor myself, but as part of the settlement agreement, we are required to ask contributors to sign it. Since our goal is and always has been to provide your contributions on-line to the worldwide math community, we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or imposition this CRC-mandated form may cause you.
Your shiny direct link is also
Why hasn't anybody who's seen the site got the sense to HELP THIS GUY OUT by telling us what legal turn got him back up.
Here's what I know, though I don't know the final chapter: Gentleman sold publisher a book based on his website. Publisher continued sponsoring the website for some time, then turned around and said they held the copyright to the website. Website came down.
So what's the last (or latest) chapter? Somebody who's seen wolfram.com, let us know, and get us off wolfram's back!
Good point. Trustbusters may have an easier time following the dots with Real's potential loss of revenue, though -- media delivery is the potential goldmine they're all familiar with.
Their content, my (the public's) airwaves.
Yes, it is silly. Dictionary.com defines deface as "to mar or spoil the apperance of.." or alternatively to "To obliterate; destroy.". Does this oliberate the content? Does it destroy it? No, it adds a tiny little logo. Hardly destroing it.
But indeed "marring," even "spoiling." There are two definitions provided, why are you ignoring the first?
Code Red, Nimbda, all that - the news people have reported that it has caused "billions in damage". That hasnt hurt MS one bit. What makes you think a little fine would?
Public perception does not see MS as responsible for the acts of "cyberterrorists." Frankly, I myself am a bit reluctant to lay full responsibility for every exploit of an OS at the feet of its publisher.
The only competitors that are affected by this (in the scope of the trial, that is) is Netscape
And all companies that profited, or stood to profit, by Netscape's plug-in architecture, Real Networks being the most significant.