Renting the DVDs has a lot of benefits over going to the theatre:
It costs the same or less to rent a movie than to see it in the theatre. All of your friends can come over and you can all watch it without having to pay more.
You can start the movie when you want to instead of waiting for it to begin.
You don't have to worry about getting a good seat and you and your friends can sit together (not always possible in a crowded theatre).
No ringing cell phones and crying children.
You don't have to be subjected to 30 second commercials before the previews and the movie.
Add to that:
Not catching colds and worse when some sick bastard decides to sit behind you and sneeze and cough for 2 hours.
Well, the new releases come with their own problems. Also, they are often resource-hogs requiring hardware upgrades. This is because of new "features" which bring new vulnerabilities and bugs. And further, useful features disappear or mutate into something different.
For instance, Windows 2000 is much more stable than 98. But it's half as fast. And if you manipulate files, Windows 2000 is a pain in the ass because Microsoft decided to eliminate direct access to the desktop in the Save As dialog. Now you have to drill upward thru folders to put it up there. Then they came up with XP, which is even slower due to all the niceties. They eliminated the Desktop icon from the taskbar (it can be restored, but why the hell do they want it gone). And why does it take 2-3 minutes to delete files off a CF card. (as if I didnt know). XP actually deletes each image one at a time, and whatever you do, including emptying the Recycle Bin, they are not gone because unless you format the card in the camera you do not get all the space back. This did not happen in 2000 or 98.
This feature creep is not confined to Microsoft. I used Paint Shop Pro 3 for years as a lightweight image browser and editor. Finally upgraded to Paint Shop Pro 5 because it handles more file types (and is 32-bit). That one launches in 10 seconds, but I kept PSP3 because of its almost instant-on screencap ability and takes up almost no disk space.
But the thumbnail browser in 5 is limited to a microscopic 80x80 pixels. As screens grew that started to suck. Worse, editing in 5 destroys embedded EXIF and IPTC data, and a lot of editors want that intact. So, after sitting out PSPs 6 and 7 I bought 8, which has thumbnails up to 250x250 and correctly handles embedded image data.
But PSP8 is bloatware, requires a ghz processor and takes almost a minute to start even on a better machine. I don't use Photoshop because I don't need all those features, but yet the makers of PSP have seen fit to try to combine Photoshop and Illustrator and incorporate vector graphic support in an attempt to cater to both crowds. I didn't want all that and have to suffer thru slow load times. Now trying to draw a simple straight line now requires a course in Bezier graphics. The interface is both simpler and harder to use as they try to idiot-proof it.
So PSP 5 stays to have instant-on image editing and old-skool line-drawing. So now I have three versions of the same software installed on the same machine.
Regardless, people like you will keep whining that the NYTimes asks people to register. I'll keep pointing out that the NYTimes doesn't sell off your information
Knock yourself out - Promoting the New York Times seems to be the main purpose of your presence here
As I said before (I guess you need to hear things twice to understand them) it is a matter of convenience. It is a matter of convenience.
Picture this: Someone posts an interesting article on Slashdot. The summary is mouth-watering. Preconceived opinions are already forming in my head ready to post to the world verbatim. I click the link to read the article.
But lo! Instead of the article is a multi-page registration form. I can waste time filling it out. I can deduce the alternative, registration free URL. But in either case, it is blocking the free flow of ideas. It sucks. Even more, it is from the New York Times. It says right here my information will be kept private. Can they be trusted? I am not so sure. They are biased. They have issues with trust. They have been caught, on multiple occasions, in downright fabricating their stories.
If my being selective with whom I register with is hypocrisy to you, then apparently there is such a gulf of difference in ideas between us, that we will not be able to conclude this flamewar satisfactorally.
Do not attempt to distract from the fact that you are wrong by accusing me of hypocrisy. First of all, I never said registration was EVIL. It is a matter of convenience on my end. I could give a shit what you do with my false registration information. It is, quite simply, that I do not like having to jump through all those hoops to look at an article.
As to the matter of my foolishly registering with Slashdot, firstly it is interactive and registration there, far from merely marketers collecting information, is smart simply for the fact that abuse in the interactive system is easier when users are anonymous. Slashdot is protecting their system and I can comply with that and support that.
Secondly, Slashdot is unique. But there are 10,000 places where the same, exact online news is available beside the New York Times website -- many of which do not yet require registration. Third, Slashdot does not ask for nearly the quantity of information requested by the New York Times website.
I think it's fantastic that you registered with a real address at the New York Times, and so far have not received marketing from them. I only wish every site that requested registration similarly resist the temptation to use or sell the data so collected. But I have had too many such sites sell me down the river to trust just anyone. I guess that makes me fairly unique.
At first you required just an email. Then an email, name and password. Now you want us to enter our complete demographic statistical profile before being granted permission to view your story. All this besides the ads. Your marketers have gotten out of control over there. What happened to wanting just to influence public ^H^H^H^H tell all the news that is fit to print?
Beyond that, as other newspapers copy you of habit, soon every last online newspaper will require registration. I mean really now, how many separate newspaper accounts do I need to keep track of? For now, this can be avoided at many of the smaller sites that try to get you on the second visit by turning off cookies. But at this point if I see registration required, I no longer bother.
I ^H^H a guy I know used to retaliate, stopped for a while when the spammers built up their defenses, and then tried it again last week against some spams which started leaking thru his filters.
They are wide open again, brothers, because apparently no one else is dossing them anymore either and they have let down their guard.
I would guess that they lost money when they overprotected their forms against that type of "response," which made too many legit buyers say fuck it instead of filling out some bossy form.
The router issues everyone in this thread is talking about sound familiar to me. In my case, it was being caused by the cable co. (Cox) renewing my DHCP lease at random intervals. Usually it would take the router a few minutes, but sometimes up to an hour, for it to figure it out.
Once, it was down for several hours and I found the router (a linksys) had reset its settings (including username and password to admin/default). Another admin suggested this was done actively and remotely.
I do know Cox is anti-router (they think every home user is going to put 5 or 6 machines behind the router, all downloading mp's and movies). Since I moved to Time-Warner Land I have had no such issues. Zero point zero.
Someone post the article so we can make intelligent comments on it. To be honest, I have no idea why an article like this is not considered spam, if we have to pay to read it.
Really now. If millions of people benefit at the cost of a few special cases like yours, I think it ought to be done. The cumulative time all those people spend hassling with the output of Comcast zombies is likely greater than the one-time hassle of you finding another solution (and probably better solution, in terms of percentage of sent mails received).
go to download.com and search for ieradicator. Works on 2000 SP1 on down, and the newer versions with a minor registry tweak. Keep in mind before doing this you may not be aboe to get to windowsupdate.microsoft.com with anything other than IE5+.
Since I always seem to be the guy they call when their computer stops working, and I can't seem to say no to friends and family, I have been forced to adopt a new policy after the wave of new-style spyware over the last month.
This because I spent 20 hours cleaning up spyware infested computers in one week. These new varieties run in god mode and cannot be removed with automated anti-spyware utilities & even windows reversion won't fix it.
I will no longer fix their computers unless the browser is switched to Mozilla 1.6. IE can remain on the computer but can only be used under supervision to access windowsupdate.microsoft.com. Mozilla is a drop-in replacement for IE and Outlook Express, and I feel it is stable and smooth enough for any of them to use.
I'll clean up their machine one last time & help them install Mozilla, but that's it. If it breaks again due to unsupervised use of IE or Outlook, I am not working on it, further than telling them to "run your recovery disks" or "take it back to Dell." I don't have enough time in my life to deal with it.
I did four such cleanup/Mozilla installs in the last week & they are all as happy as hell. To be honest, I think their having such easy access to free computer work from me has made them complacent in their browsing habits, but they are cleaning up their acts right now.
WTF, every last damn thing you are eating has been carefully cultivated for 10,000 years. Do you actually think golden fields of grain stood here before man? Did you know thru artificial selection (Carl Sagan's term) corn (maize) ears have increased in size by a factor of 10? Do you actually think dairy cattle evolved naturally with such swollen, huge udders? Do you think the current population of the world including yourself would have anything to eat if this hadn't taken place?
But I guess it has to stop now because some company is doing it. I know you retch at the fact Monsanto collects patent royalties and it makes me sick also, but it doesn't invalidate their work. Have a look at this page
or read Sagan's books for more hints.
Don't be so sure it can't eventually make money. The microbial process (also called bio-leach) sounds environmentally better than the cyanide heap-leach mining process popular now. Such processes are useful for thin gold ores (less than one ounce/ton).
For example, the low gold content in alluvial fans, downwash from the Chocolate Mountains outside Glamis Calif. never interested the gold-rushers of the 1800s, but since heap and vat leaching was introduced in the 1970s, probably more gold has come out of that mine than in all the placers in the north. Last I checked (it was a while ago) they had pulled more than half a billion dollars worth of gold out of there. Larger mines exist in Nevada and Montana.
The bio process is being refined because the mining companies fear tightening environmental regulations will result in the eventual banning of the cyanide-based processes.
I don't understand.. you say "Britney and company subsidize the niche stuff that people actually like "
If the record companies have a business model that does not make a profit on stuff "people actually like," then perhaps that business model needs revision!
The average movie costs $30 million to produce, and the average CD under $1 million. Sure the movie studios get box office, but they do not have the leverage the music studios get from ASCAP / BMI royalties -- which is what guarantees the studio and artist get your money no matter how much you might hate his music.
Examples: If you paid admission to a nightclub, some of that money goes to satisfy ASCAP / BMI. That money goes to all the members, even the musicians you hate. Hate rap? Well, too bad, you just kissed their ass. Hate Barbra Streisand? Tough. Buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, you are kissing their ass whether you like the music or not.
Bought stuff at a store that plays piped-in music? You guessed it! Some of your cash is going to gold-plated Escalades and coke, which I am sure these bastards find ways to deduct anyway at taxtime.
Those pages are there as a deterrent to using your credit card as funding source for the payment. If you pay with your paypal balance or checking balance, they don't have to pay the discount rate charge to MC/VISA -- usually 1.5 to 2 percent of the total charge. Paypal charges the seller/recipient 2.9percent so their take is much less when the transaction comes from a credit card. If you as a buyer want purchase protection, Paypal tries to sell it to you at a additional charge (physical goods only). The fact that this is offered on cc purchases is proof of as far as I am concerned.
I wish people would simply drop the paying for email concept. Bulk mail (bulk advertising) is not free, yet I still get way more of it stuffed into my physical mailbox than legitimate letters. Making it cost WILL NOT make it go away.
Why are you advocating Recipient Pays, unless you are a marketer? Bad analogy! Postal is "Sender Pays," while spam is "Recipient Pays."
Consider this: What if mailing letters was FREE!!!, and the postal service was financed entirely from (required) rentals of mailboxes. How much junk would you get then?
The fact it, with Sender Pays, the junk in your mailbox is at least all from legitimate businesses, who presumably have licenses and are bonded to the BBB. Furthermore, you can get it shut off (opt-out works in postal), because it costs to send and they don't want to market to hostile prospects.
We will never be free of unwanted ads, at least in capitalist society. But by getting rid of free advertising, we won't have to recieve all the pitches from spurious snake-oil salesmen representing fly-by-night spam houses.
Re:Cha ching, reloaded.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Ok, we'll talk again next year... when the spam load has quadrupled AGAIN and you bought those three new boxed plus two others to handle the new load.
Why don't you step over to alltheweb.com Like google without the spam. As many pages are indexed. The only difference I can see is that they don't cache.
By way of analogy, would you say Hemingway and Melville should have kept fooling with their stories after their release? Should people have bought Moby Dick SE and The Old Man of the Sea Millenium Edition because it is after all only entertainment?
What about Michelangelo? Should he have altered any of his paintings or sculptures because he changed his mind down the road? He certainly had time to do so -- his career spanned nearly 70 years. But he never did. Why? When he had a new idea he created something new, as opposed to GL who has been milking one idea for his entire career.
Lucas obviously should not be compared to these great men... but, whether you're a real artist or a hack, the point is you don't get to keep changing the storyline after you've brought it to the public.
Perhaps in science, you can revise after publication, BUT that is admitting you were wrong in the first place. That's what makes me wonder about Lucas.
Filtering on RBL's and regular expressions (using Spam Pal for WIndows) kills 99.0% of my spam without need for Bayesian. And I get weird spam (foreign langiages, Argentianian, etc) in addition to the usual mortgage, enlargement and viagra spam.
If you're into Bayesian there is a plug-in but only recommend for people who like to tinker. Spam Pal works well enough OOB to waste time on that.
I used to be against RBLs but they work so well, it's a beautiful thing. I have had one false positive in the last month (out of 3000 total mails), and fished it out, nothing lost.
In my mind ostracizing their IP's is the only way to bring these rogue ISP's into line.
Slashdot Mirror
And don't forget the wayback machine.
- It costs the same or less to rent a movie than to see it in the theatre. All of your friends can come over and you can all watch it without having to pay more.
- You can start the movie when you want to instead of waiting for it to begin.
- You don't have to worry about getting a good seat and you and your friends can sit together (not always possible in a crowded theatre).
- No ringing cell phones and crying children.
- You don't have to be subjected to 30 second commercials before the previews and the movie.
Add to that:Well, the new releases come with their own problems. Also, they are often resource-hogs requiring hardware upgrades. This is because of new "features" which bring new vulnerabilities and bugs. And further, useful features disappear or mutate into something different.
For instance, Windows 2000 is much more stable than 98. But it's half as fast. And if you manipulate files, Windows 2000 is a pain in the ass because Microsoft decided to eliminate direct access to the desktop in the Save As dialog. Now you have to drill upward thru folders to put it up there. Then they came up with XP, which is even slower due to all the niceties. They eliminated the Desktop icon from the taskbar (it can be restored, but why the hell do they want it gone). And why does it take 2-3 minutes to delete files off a CF card. (as if I didnt know). XP actually deletes each image one at a time, and whatever you do, including emptying the Recycle Bin, they are not gone because unless you format the card in the camera you do not get all the space back. This did not happen in 2000 or 98.
This feature creep is not confined to Microsoft. I used Paint Shop Pro 3 for years as a lightweight image browser and editor. Finally upgraded to Paint Shop Pro 5 because it handles more file types (and is 32-bit). That one launches in 10 seconds, but I kept PSP3 because of its almost instant-on screencap ability and takes up almost no disk space.
But the thumbnail browser in 5 is limited to a microscopic 80x80 pixels. As screens grew that started to suck. Worse, editing in 5 destroys embedded EXIF and IPTC data, and a lot of editors want that intact. So, after sitting out PSPs 6 and 7 I bought 8, which has thumbnails up to 250x250 and correctly handles embedded image data.
But PSP8 is bloatware, requires a ghz processor and takes almost a minute to start even on a better machine. I don't use Photoshop because I don't need all those features, but yet the makers of PSP have seen fit to try to combine Photoshop and Illustrator and incorporate vector graphic support in an attempt to cater to both crowds. I didn't want all that and have to suffer thru slow load times. Now trying to draw a simple straight line now requires a course in Bezier graphics. The interface is both simpler and harder to use as they try to idiot-proof it.
So PSP 5 stays to have instant-on image editing and old-skool line-drawing. So now I have three versions of the same software installed on the same machine.
Knock yourself out - Promoting the New York Times seems to be the main purpose of your presence here
As I said before (I guess you need to hear things twice to understand them) it is a matter of convenience. It is a matter of convenience.
Picture this:
Someone posts an interesting article on Slashdot. The summary is mouth-watering. Preconceived opinions are already forming in my head ready to post to the world verbatim. I click the link to read the article.
But lo! Instead of the article is a multi-page registration form. I can waste time filling it out. I can deduce the alternative, registration free URL. But in either case, it is blocking the free flow of ideas. It sucks. Even more, it is from the New York Times. It says right here my information will be kept private. Can they be trusted? I am not so sure. They are biased. They have issues with trust. They have been caught, on multiple occasions, in downright fabricating their stories.
If my being selective with whom I register with is hypocrisy to you, then apparently there is such a gulf of difference in ideas between us, that we will not be able to conclude this flamewar satisfactorally.
As to the matter of my foolishly registering with Slashdot, firstly it is interactive and registration there, far from merely marketers collecting information, is smart simply for the fact that abuse in the interactive system is easier when users are anonymous. Slashdot is protecting their system and I can comply with that and support that.
Secondly, Slashdot is unique. But there are 10,000 places where the same, exact online news is available beside the New York Times website -- many of which do not yet require registration. Third, Slashdot does not ask for nearly the quantity of information requested by the New York Times website.
I think it's fantastic that you registered with a real address at the New York Times, and so far have not received marketing from them. I only wish every site that requested registration similarly resist the temptation to use or sell the data so collected. But I have had too many such sites sell me down the river to trust just anyone. I guess that makes me fairly unique.
At first you required just an email. Then an email, name and password. Now you want us to enter our complete demographic statistical profile before being granted permission to view your story. All this besides the ads. Your marketers have gotten out of control over there. What happened to wanting just to influence public ^H^H^H^H tell all the news that is fit to print?
Beyond that, as other newspapers copy you of habit, soon every last online newspaper will require registration. I mean really now, how many separate newspaper accounts do I need to keep track of? For now, this can be avoided at many of the smaller sites that try to get you on the second visit by turning off cookies. But at this point if I see registration required, I no longer bother.
I ^H^H a guy I know used to retaliate, stopped for a while when the spammers built up their defenses, and then tried it again last week against some spams which started leaking thru his filters.
They are wide open again, brothers, because apparently no one else is dossing them anymore either and they have let down their guard.
I would guess that they lost money when they overprotected their forms against that type of "response," which made too many legit buyers say fuck it instead of filling out some bossy form.
The router issues everyone in this thread is talking about sound familiar to me. In my case, it was being caused by the cable co. (Cox) renewing my DHCP lease at random intervals. Usually it would take the router a few minutes, but sometimes up to an hour, for it to figure it out.
Once, it was down for several hours and I found the router (a linksys) had reset its settings (including username and password to admin/default). Another admin suggested this was done actively and remotely.
I do know Cox is anti-router (they think every home user is going to put 5 or 6 machines behind the router, all downloading mp's and movies). Since I moved to Time-Warner Land I have had no such issues. Zero point zero.
Someone post the article so we can make intelligent comments on it.
To be honest, I have no idea why an article like this is not considered spam, if we have to pay to read it.
Really now. If millions of people benefit at the cost of a few special cases like yours, I think it ought to be done. The cumulative time all those people spend hassling with the output of Comcast zombies is likely greater than the one-time hassle of you finding another solution (and probably better solution, in terms of percentage of sent mails received).
ieradicator is here,. Also, they use active-x in the download, so you need IE to download it before removing IE. But it works, so go figure...
go to download.com and search for ieradicator. Works on 2000 SP1 on down, and the newer versions with a minor registry tweak. Keep in mind before doing this you may not be aboe to get to windowsupdate.microsoft.com with anything other than IE5+.
Since I always seem to be the guy they call when their computer stops working, and I can't seem to say no to friends and family, I have been forced to adopt a new policy after the wave of new-style spyware over the last month.
This because I spent 20 hours cleaning up spyware infested computers in one week. These new varieties run in god mode and cannot be removed with automated anti-spyware utilities & even windows reversion won't fix it.
I will no longer fix their computers unless the browser is switched to Mozilla 1.6. IE can remain on the computer but can only be used under supervision to access windowsupdate.microsoft.com. Mozilla is a drop-in replacement for IE and Outlook Express, and I feel it is stable and smooth enough for any of them to use.
I'll clean up their machine one last time & help them install Mozilla, but that's it. If it breaks again due to unsupervised use of IE or Outlook, I am not working on it, further than telling them to "run your recovery disks" or "take it back to Dell." I don't have enough time in my life to deal with it.
I did four such cleanup/Mozilla installs in the last week & they are all as happy as hell. To be honest, I think their having such easy access to free computer work from me has made them complacent in their browsing habits, but they are cleaning up their acts right now.
But I guess it has to stop now because some company is doing it. I know you retch at the fact Monsanto collects patent royalties and it makes me sick also, but it doesn't invalidate their work. Have a look at this page or read Sagan's books for more hints.
Don't be so sure it can't eventually make money. The microbial process (also called bio-leach) sounds environmentally better than the cyanide heap-leach mining process popular now. Such processes are useful for thin gold ores (less than one ounce/ton).
For example, the low gold content in alluvial fans, downwash from the Chocolate Mountains outside Glamis Calif. never interested the gold-rushers of the 1800s, but since heap and vat leaching was introduced in the 1970s, probably more gold has come out of that mine than in all the placers in the north. Last I checked (it was a while ago) they had pulled more than half a billion dollars worth of gold out of there. Larger mines exist in Nevada and Montana.
The bio process is being refined because the mining companies fear tightening environmental regulations will result in the eventual banning of the cyanide-based processes.
I don't understand.. you say "Britney and company subsidize the niche stuff that people actually like "
If the record companies have a business model that does not make a profit on stuff "people actually like," then perhaps that business model needs revision!
Examples: If you paid admission to a nightclub, some of that money goes to satisfy ASCAP / BMI. That money goes to all the members, even the musicians you hate. Hate rap? Well, too bad, you just kissed their ass. Hate Barbra Streisand? Tough. Buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, you are kissing their ass whether you like the music or not.
Bought stuff at a store that plays piped-in music? You guessed it! Some of your cash is going to gold-plated Escalades and coke, which I am sure these bastards find ways to deduct anyway at taxtime.
That's the thing, all right. I'll change my domain's address from AL Ralsky's residence when they crack down on WHOIS spamming.
Those pages are there as a deterrent to using your credit card as funding source for the payment. If you pay with your paypal balance or checking balance, they don't have to pay the discount rate charge to MC/VISA -- usually 1.5 to 2 percent of the total charge. Paypal charges the seller/recipient 2.9percent so their take is much less when the transaction comes from a credit card.
If you as a buyer want purchase protection, Paypal tries to sell it to you at a additional charge (physical goods only). The fact that this is offered on cc purchases is proof of as far as I am concerned.
Why are you advocating Recipient Pays, unless you are a marketer? Bad analogy! Postal is "Sender Pays," while spam is "Recipient Pays."
Consider this: What if mailing letters was FREE!!!, and the postal service was financed entirely from (required) rentals of mailboxes. How much junk would you get then?
The fact it, with Sender Pays, the junk in your mailbox is at least all from legitimate businesses, who presumably have licenses and are bonded to the BBB. Furthermore, you can get it shut off (opt-out works in postal), because it costs to send and they don't want to market to hostile prospects.
We will never be free of unwanted ads, at least in capitalist society. But by getting rid of free advertising, we won't have to recieve all the pitches from spurious snake-oil salesmen representing fly-by-night spam houses.
Ok, we'll talk again next year... when the spam load has quadrupled AGAIN and you bought those three new boxed plus two others to handle the new load.
Why don't you step over to alltheweb.com Like google without the spam. As many pages are indexed. The only difference I can see is that they don't cache.
By way of analogy, would you say Hemingway and Melville should have kept fooling with their stories after their release? Should people have bought Moby Dick SE and The Old Man of the Sea Millenium Edition because it is after all only entertainment?
What about Michelangelo? Should he have altered any of his paintings or sculptures because he changed his mind down the road? He certainly had time to do so -- his career spanned nearly 70 years. But he never did. Why? When he had a new idea he created something new, as opposed to GL who has been milking one idea for his entire career.
Lucas obviously should not be compared to these great men... but, whether you're a real artist or a hack, the point is you don't get to keep changing the storyline after you've brought it to the public.
Perhaps in science, you can revise after publication, BUT that is admitting you were wrong in the first place. That's what makes me wonder about Lucas.
If you're into Bayesian there is a plug-in but only recommend for people who like to tinker. Spam Pal works well enough OOB to waste time on that.
I used to be against RBLs but they work so well, it's a beautiful thing. I have had one false positive in the last month (out of 3000 total mails), and fished it out, nothing lost.
In my mind ostracizing their IP's is the only way to bring these rogue ISP's into line.