Sony FINALLY announced a US release date and price for the Playstation 2 yesterday - I was hoping to see a/. story about it, but none yet. The Playstation 2 will be available on October 26, for $299.
I'm glad this book is being published, although perhaps connecting all the geeks in the world with two sociopaths isn't the best way to go about pointing out the torture geeks suffer at the hands of their classmates.
I feel like the posters who are questioning the inclusion of comments posted to/. are correct to do so. IANAL, so as far as I can tell, it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it *right*. I am aware that trying to track down the original posters would've been a major pain in the you-know-what, but the least Andover could have done would've been to post a story on/. before the decision was made to take these comments to print. I like Free Information and all that, but this kind of feels like someone taking software that's open source and turning around and selling it without giving due credit to the authors. (I'm not sure that sentence made sense, but I think you know what I mean.) It's legal, but is it ethical? I think a lot of trust has been lost with this action and Hemos, CmdrTaco and the rest should realize why. Everyone's allowed a mistake now and then but this is a pretty serious gaffe.
I don't expect the original posters to be paid for their "work" in the book, but an apology for not providing advance notice to the people who contributed is probably in order.
You can get an NPR feed at http://www.npr.org; it's only available in QuickTime and Windows Media, though. Some of the local stations may have feeds in other formats - anyone know of any?
And it's that second part of the argument, the one that makes it so we really might lose this fight, that makes me not want to buy a DVD player. Sure, I've been wanting one for a while, but then again, do I really want to support a closed technology?
I'm all out of good phrasing skills this morning but I think that's the gist of what I wanted to say. I, like some others I've seen post, am getting really tired of Big Business putting all kinds of restrictions on what I can and can't do as a coder. It makes me want to get out of this field and go do something else. Of course, instead, I'll probably do something like join the EFF and try to help write some free software (I already do my best to use it - mozilla, perl, gcc, linux, etc - where possible, and get people at work to do the same). It just feels like hitting my head against a brick wall sometimes.
Like I said, it's not a counting number. Thus, I realize, you can't have a literal quantity of 0 of something. I realize that.
I would argue that your definition (and kwsNI's) of "true number" is really the definition of some specific type of number, but unfortunately I'm not at home and can't find anything quickly online, although I'll keep looking. Zero *is* a number.
Groundhog day is the day when Punxsatawny (sp? I'm from Western PA, you'd think I'd know) Phil comes out of his burrow and looks for his shadow. If he sees it, we have 6 more weeks of winter; if not, spring comes early.
It originates in an old rhyme, which I can't quite remember, but is something like "If Candlemas is bright and clear, we'll have two winters in the year".
What happens when your University *says* it's an ISP and starts charging for dial up access directly (say $12/mo)? I'm aware that most (all?) unis charge a "technology fee" or something similar, and that does not an ISP make. But what if the university is calling itself an ISP? That blurs the line a bit, IMO. I understand what you're saying about "something has to go" and I agree that, say, Napster should take a backseat to, say, research projects (too bad there's no way to nice it down, that I know of ), but....
OK, I guess I really can't get into this without saying more than I want to say about my ex-University, but let's just say I didn't like what they were doing, so I left. I still feel like I have some obligation to change their behavior, for everyone else, but obviously that's not happening.
At first glance, I agree with you. The students are most likely paying a technology fee (or something similarly titled), so they should get the bandwidth. Then again, *all* the students are paying the fee, not just those who use Napster, so it's not really fair to let one group "hog" the bandwidth.
My knee-jerk reaction to a University banning students from doing this or that on their computer systems is probably worse than most people's. As a student, I worked as a systems admin at my University. I watched them buy 2 SGI Origin 2000s *to use as webservers* and then turn around and tell the students they'd have to pay $12/month for dial in access (no extra email acct, no web space [for undergrads], nothin' but dial up in that price) because they couldn't afford to maintain the modem pool. (The Origin 2000s, btw, were not the only overly-expensive purchase made without clear intent for their use.)
Anyway, I just hope that this University's tech stuff is better managed than mine was. However, when it comes to @Home, that's just plain stupid. If the customer wants to pay for more bandwidth, sell 'em more bandwidth.
OK, I understand what everyone's saying. I still feel like they were just playing Buzzword Bingo, though. The argument is that they are going to be proactive about spam; I would say that, if they wanted to be proactive, i.e. stop spam before it inconveniences everyone else on the 'net, they should've started a long time ago.
Kind of like, I can be proactive about car maintenance. I can get regular oil changes, and keep fuel in the tank, and everything's fine. However, if I fail to change the oil and keep fuel in the tank, etc, and the car starts to stall a lot, I'd consider that too late to take proactive steps towards not having car problems.
I know, it's a stupid semantics issue, but it just seems like when the problem's gotten to the point where it's a real problem, you've passed up the proactive window and are now in CYA* mode.
Basically what you people are doing is akin to being annoyed that you neighbor paints his house a certain color or decided to have a barbecue or something with some of his/her friends and they drank beer (which you may not like).
Actually, given the way Usenet works, it's more akin to being annoyed because your neighbor invited everyone over for a barbeque in your back yard, and drank all your good beer, which you were planning to use when *your* friends came over. Usenet works communally, using disk space and network links that belong to various groups of people. When someone posts spam, it takes up bandwidth and disk space that could be better used by legitimate postings. A UDP is not illegal; it's not censorship, and it's not a DOS either. @home (and others who've been the targets of UDPs) have received repeated requests to do something about the spam, and have done nothing. This would be equivalent to your neighbor *repeatedly* throwing parties in your yard and drinking all of your beer, despite the fact that you've asked him over and over again to please cut it out. The effect of the UDP would be more similar to putting up a barbed-wire fence all around your yard, and not giving your neighbor access to your resources anymore. When the neighbor agrees to stop having his BBQs at your place, you take down the fence, and the neighbor can walk through the yard, or stop by for a visit, etc.
I hate the word "proactive" anyway, but if you're going to use it, Excite@Home, at least use it correctly. It was too late to take "proactive" steps the second the UDP announcement was made. Let's see, what's the definition of proactive? "acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes". Well, it would seem that spam is not a future problem for @Home, but rather an existing problem.
Isn't it funny that the same NSI that gives special priority to customers who buy loads of domain names should now set up to resolve cybersquatting disputes? Hmm.
Anyway, I'm more than a little leery of this, given NSI's track record. It took me three hours on the phone, long distance, and five phone calls, to get my NAMESERVERS changed. And I'm supposed to trust these people to resolve a domain name dispute for me? I don't think so. Also, NSI is a corporate entity. Their contracts essentially say that they have no liability to provide you with the service you're paying for. Why would I want a commercial company to decide whether or not I get/keep my domain name? *Particularly* a company that registered that domain name in the first place?
Or, particularly, a company that *didn't* register that domain name in the first place. What if you got your domain name through, say, register.com instead? Would they be more likely to say you were a cybersquatter?
I haven't had time to carefully read the document where they outline the policies, just glanced at it briefly (got to get to work). But I don't trust NSI as far as I can throw 'em.
Well, I have to say I'm really happy I'm not freezing my ass off and eating green beans out of a tin right now. But it does seem really weird - the rollover was such a non-event that I can't quite believe it's come and gone. Nothing, absolutely not one single solitary thing, went wrong here. Not that I *wanted* anything to, it's just hard to believe that after all those months of hype, there's nothing! (This makes me happy, though, because otherwise I'd have had to have gone into work at 4:30am instead of using my laptop to dial in and find... nothing wrong with the systems.)
On a side note, the streets, restaurants, and stores around here are all strangely empty. There's almost nobody out - good for me, means no lines when I go food shopping;) What, did everyone's radio batteries die, and they're all still hiding out downstairs in their basements, sitting on a pile of canned goods?
I agree. The problem is, I know people who actually *check* the Deja ratings to see what others think of things. I mean, sure, everyone on/. knows how easy it is to rig these, to write a script to vote again and again for your favorite (John Linnell one of the most beautiful people, anyone?), but your Average Joe or Jane doesn't.
I guess I shouldn't care about it, I just find it frustrating that something so utterly useless in terms of providing actual information, but which purports to provide useful information for people making choices, should exist. 'Course, I guess, half the things that are supposed to tell you what to buy are rigged anyway....
I grew up in Pittsburgh, and thought I'd never find a city I liked better. Pittsburgh has a lot to offer, in terms of culture and food and what have you. But it's still a very blue collar kind of town, IMO (don't take that the wrong way; my dad and mom are still blue collar types), and it's not growing, it's shrinking. And you can tell - it just "feels" weird to go there now.
I moved to Columbus this summer and I LOVE it here. It's similar to Pittsburgh in what it offers, but the atmosphere feels younger, more alive, we're in growth mode kind of thing. Transportation is five hundred billion times easier, even with my 12 mile commute.
I'm not sure how to describe what it is I like better, other than that it's just the overall "feel" of the town. Pittsburgh feels depressing to me now (I know - I was just there last weekend;)) whereas Columbus just feels nice. Does this make any sense?
From this article and thing I've read/seen in the past, it doesn't seem like Yahoo is only out to defend the "privacy" of its users. But that doesn't change the fact that this is totally ridiculous! People actually file these lawsuits? Judges actually tell someone they can't publish their privacy policy because they won't give away user data?
I think I'd need more background info but it seems like Universal would have seen Yahoo's privacy policy before selling them broadcast.com and if there were any question about whether or not they'd get the user info, then Universal would have put something into the buying agreement. Mind you, I know almost nothing about how business works, but it seems like if Universal wanted the info, then it should've been in a contract somewhere. Maybe it is and either a) I'm reading the article incorrectly or b) there's information missing from the article.
Re:NSI is the problem here.
on
Etoy Update
·
· Score: 3
You know, that was my first thought. And then my fiance told me that NSI was just following their own policy, and I sort of had to agree. But then, I went back and read their Dispute Policy and it seems like they took an action that directly contradicts what they say in the policy. Here's a quote from section 9 of the policy:
(b) If the registrant's domain name creation date precedes the effective date of the valid and subsisting certified registration owned by the complainant, Network Solutions will take no action on the complainant's request.
So it does seem like your favorite registrant and mine, Network Solutions, didn't read their own policy.
Then again, from what I'm hearing, eToys.com bought the trademark from another company, so the trademark has actually been around longer than the etoy.com domain name. But, eToys.com didn't OWN that trademark until post-etoy. IANAL and this seems like really sticky territory... can any lawyers clarify what they think NSI should have done in this situation?
I was thinking about that this morning when I read this article.
Up until today, I was pretty convinced that etoy would win, hands down - I mean, come on, they registered their domain TWO YEARS before eToys.com came on the scene. But one sentence in that article from American Reporter struck me for some reason - they said the judges would rightly want to be conservative. And for some reason, I read conservative to mean "taking the side of the big American corporation".
If etoy would have lost (they still could, since the Wired article doesn't say it's officially dropped), well... let's just say I'd have a few bones to pick with our judicial system. I do, anyway (not relevant to this discussion), but wouldn't a victory for eToys just have made clear, once and for all, the good old American money-is-all mentality? It seems clear to me that if this case were pursued, etoy SHOULD win, and eToys should be told they did not plan well. If I named my kid the same name as my sister, whose kid was born 2 years earlier, and then went around bitching because people got confused, it would be my own damn fault. eToys could and SHOULD have researched the name first.
I still don't think I'll be shopping at eToys, at least not until the suit is really, truly dropped. After that, well... on one hand, they were stupid to pursue this in the first place. On the other, they listened to what people were saying and responded in an appropriate manner. What to do?
I'd say the value of what Chaney did was more than just the $35 - he covered Microsoft's ass. But really, if I were him, I don't think I'd be saying that to the news. Make it seeeem like you were just being generous, because Linux people are so gosh darn nice, and then hope that MS sends you a big fat check.
Slashdot Mirror
When I worked in tech support, we got a lot of calls from folks who tried to run "telenet" on their Windoze machine and couldn't get it to work.
"Did you type telnet?"
"Yes, I typed telenet."
"No, telnet: t-e-l-n-e-t."
"OK... t-e-l-e-n-e-t, telenet. No, it still doesn't work..."
Sony FINALLY announced a US release date and price for the Playstation 2 yesterday - I was hoping to see a /. story about it, but none yet. The Playstation 2 will be available on October 26, for $299.
I'm glad this book is being published, although perhaps connecting all the geeks in the world with two sociopaths isn't the best way to go about pointing out the torture geeks suffer at the hands of their classmates.
/. are correct to do so. IANAL, so as far as I can tell, it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it *right*. I am aware that trying to track down the original posters would've been a major pain in the you-know-what, but the least Andover could have done would've been to post a story on /. before the decision was made to take these comments to print. I like Free Information and all that, but this kind of feels like someone taking software that's open source and turning around and selling it without giving due credit to the authors. (I'm not sure that sentence made sense, but I think you know what I mean.) It's legal, but is it ethical? I think a lot of trust has been lost with this action and Hemos, CmdrTaco and the rest should realize why. Everyone's allowed a mistake now and then but this is a pretty serious gaffe.
I feel like the posters who are questioning the inclusion of comments posted to
I don't expect the original posters to be paid for their "work" in the book, but an apology for not providing advance notice to the people who contributed is probably in order.
You can get an NPR feed at http://www.npr.org; it's only available in QuickTime and Windows Media, though. Some of the local stations may have feeds in other formats - anyone know of any?
And it's that second part of the argument, the one that makes it so we really might lose this fight, that makes me not want to buy a DVD player. Sure, I've been wanting one for a while, but then again, do I really want to support a closed technology?
I'm all out of good phrasing skills this morning but I think that's the gist of what I wanted to say. I, like some others I've seen post, am getting really tired of Big Business putting all kinds of restrictions on what I can and can't do as a coder. It makes me want to get out of this field and go do something else. Of course, instead, I'll probably do something like join the EFF and try to help write some free software (I already do my best to use it - mozilla, perl, gcc, linux, etc - where possible, and get people at work to do the same). It just feels like hitting my head against a brick wall sometimes.
Ah, yes, but 2/2/2 is hardly the same thing as 2/2/2000 :)
OK, so, zero is a real number. I wasn't taking into account that it had to represent a quantity, i.e. be a natural/counting number, which it isn't.
:) Sorry for having missed that; I'm at SQL training today and that'll kill anyone's brain cells....
So I guess I agree with you then, right?
Like I said, it's not a counting number. Thus, I realize, you can't have a literal quantity of 0 of something. I realize that.
I would argue that your definition (and kwsNI's) of "true number" is really the definition of some specific type of number, but unfortunately I'm not at home and can't find anything quickly online, although I'll keep looking. Zero *is* a number.
Groundhog day is the day when Punxsatawny (sp? I'm from Western PA, you'd think I'd know) Phil comes out of his burrow and looks for his shadow. If he sees it, we have 6 more weeks of winter; if not, spring comes early.
It originates in an old rhyme, which I can't quite remember, but is something like "If Candlemas is bright and clear, we'll have two winters in the year".
It's been awhile, but, as far as I can remember, zero is a number, it's just not a counting number. It is also the additive identity (i.e. x + 0 = x).
Hm, now I have to go look into this a bit more.
I mean, we're in for a whole slew of 'em...
02/04/2000, 02/06/2000....
What happens when your University *says* it's an ISP and starts charging for dial up access directly (say $12/mo)? I'm aware that most (all?) unis charge a "technology fee" or something similar, and that does not an ISP make. But what if the university is calling itself an ISP? That blurs the line a bit, IMO. I understand what you're saying about "something has to go" and I agree that, say, Napster should take a backseat to, say, research projects (too bad there's no way to nice it down, that I know of ), but....
OK, I guess I really can't get into this without saying more than I want to say about my ex-University, but let's just say I didn't like what they were doing, so I left. I still feel like I have some obligation to change their behavior, for everyone else, but obviously that's not happening.
Does it matter? Not really. If it matters, you'll recognize enough in those details to figure it out (and would've known anyway).
At first glance, I agree with you. The students are most likely paying a technology fee (or something similarly titled), so they should get the bandwidth. Then again, *all* the students are paying the fee, not just those who use Napster, so it's not really fair to let one group "hog" the bandwidth.
My knee-jerk reaction to a University banning students from doing this or that on their computer systems is probably worse than most people's. As a student, I worked as a systems admin at my University. I watched them buy 2 SGI Origin 2000s *to use as webservers* and then turn around and tell the students they'd have to pay $12/month for dial in access (no extra email acct, no web space [for undergrads], nothin' but dial up in that price) because they couldn't afford to maintain the modem pool. (The Origin 2000s, btw, were not the only overly-expensive purchase made without clear intent for their use.)
Anyway, I just hope that this University's tech stuff is better managed than mine was. However, when it comes to @Home, that's just plain stupid. If the customer wants to pay for more bandwidth, sell 'em more bandwidth.
OK, I understand what everyone's saying. I still feel like they were just playing Buzzword Bingo, though. The argument is that they are going to be proactive about spam; I would say that, if they wanted to be proactive, i.e. stop spam before it inconveniences everyone else on the 'net, they should've started a long time ago.
Kind of like, I can be proactive about car maintenance. I can get regular oil changes, and keep fuel in the tank, and everything's fine. However, if I fail to change the oil and keep fuel in the tank, etc, and the car starts to stall a lot, I'd consider that too late to take proactive steps towards not having car problems.
I know, it's a stupid semantics issue, but it just seems like when the problem's gotten to the point where it's a real problem, you've passed up the proactive window and are now in CYA* mode.
(*cover your ass)
Basically what you people are doing is akin to being annoyed that you neighbor paints his house a certain color or decided to have a barbecue or something with some of his/her friends and they drank beer (which you may not like).
Actually, given the way Usenet works, it's more akin to being annoyed because your neighbor invited everyone over for a barbeque in your back yard, and drank all your good beer, which you were planning to use when *your* friends came over.
Usenet works communally, using disk space and network links that belong to various groups of people. When someone posts spam, it takes up bandwidth and disk space that could be better used by legitimate postings.
A UDP is not illegal; it's not censorship, and it's not a DOS either. @home (and others who've been the targets of UDPs) have received repeated requests to do something about the spam, and have done nothing. This would be equivalent to your neighbor *repeatedly* throwing parties in your yard and drinking all of your beer, despite the fact that you've asked him over and over again to please cut it out.
The effect of the UDP would be more similar to putting up a barbed-wire fence all around your yard, and not giving your neighbor access to your resources anymore. When the neighbor agrees to stop having his BBQs at your place, you take down the fence, and the neighbor can walk through the yard, or stop by for a visit, etc.
I hate the word "proactive" anyway, but if you're going to use it, Excite@Home, at least use it correctly. It was too late to take "proactive" steps the second the UDP announcement was made. Let's see, what's the definition of proactive? "acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes". Well, it would seem that spam is not a future problem for @Home, but rather an existing problem.
Isn't it funny that the same NSI that gives special priority to customers who buy loads of domain names should now set up to resolve cybersquatting disputes? Hmm.
Anyway, I'm more than a little leery of this, given NSI's track record. It took me three hours on the phone, long distance, and five phone calls, to get my NAMESERVERS changed. And I'm supposed to trust these people to resolve a domain name dispute for me? I don't think so. Also, NSI is a corporate entity. Their contracts essentially say that they have no liability to provide you with the service you're paying for. Why would I want a commercial company to decide whether or not I get/keep my domain name? *Particularly* a company that registered that domain name in the first place?
Or, particularly, a company that *didn't* register that domain name in the first place. What if you got your domain name through, say, register.com instead? Would they be more likely to say you were a cybersquatter?
I haven't had time to carefully read the document where they outline the policies, just glanced at it briefly (got to get to work). But I don't trust NSI as far as I can throw 'em.
Well, I have to say I'm really happy I'm not freezing my ass off and eating green beans out of a tin right now. But it does seem really weird - the rollover was such a non-event that I can't quite believe it's come and gone. Nothing, absolutely not one single solitary thing, went wrong here. Not that I *wanted* anything to, it's just hard to believe that after all those months of hype, there's nothing! (This makes me happy, though, because otherwise I'd have had to have gone into work at 4:30am instead of using my laptop to dial in and find... nothing wrong with the systems.)
;) What, did everyone's radio batteries die, and they're all still hiding out downstairs in their basements, sitting on a pile of canned goods?
On a side note, the streets, restaurants, and stores around here are all strangely empty. There's almost nobody out - good for me, means no lines when I go food shopping
I agree. The problem is, I know people who actually *check* the Deja ratings to see what others think of things. I mean, sure, everyone on /. knows how easy it is to rig these, to write a script to vote again and again for your favorite (John Linnell one of the most beautiful people, anyone?), but your Average Joe or Jane doesn't.
I guess I shouldn't care about it, I just find it frustrating that something so utterly useless in terms of providing actual information, but which purports to provide useful information for people making choices, should exist. 'Course, I guess, half the things that are supposed to tell you what to buy are rigged anyway....
I grew up in Pittsburgh, and thought I'd never find a city I liked better. Pittsburgh has a lot to offer, in terms of culture and food and what have you. But it's still a very blue collar kind of town, IMO (don't take that the wrong way; my dad and mom are still blue collar types), and it's not growing, it's shrinking. And you can tell - it just "feels" weird to go there now.
;)) whereas Columbus just feels nice. Does this make any sense?
I moved to Columbus this summer and I LOVE it here. It's similar to Pittsburgh in what it offers, but the atmosphere feels younger, more alive, we're in growth mode kind of thing. Transportation is five hundred billion times easier, even with my 12 mile commute.
I'm not sure how to describe what it is I like better, other than that it's just the overall "feel" of the town. Pittsburgh feels depressing to me now (I know - I was just there last weekend
OK, I now know why I am not a lawyer. Crikey!
From this article and thing I've read/seen in the past, it doesn't seem like Yahoo is only out to defend the "privacy" of its users. But that doesn't change the fact that this is totally ridiculous! People actually file these lawsuits? Judges actually tell someone they can't publish their privacy policy because they won't give away user data?
I think I'd need more background info but it seems like Universal would have seen Yahoo's privacy policy before selling them broadcast.com and if there were any question about whether or not they'd get the user info, then Universal would have put something into the buying agreement. Mind you, I know almost nothing about how business works, but it seems like if Universal wanted the info, then it should've been in a contract somewhere. Maybe it is and either a) I'm reading the article incorrectly or b) there's information missing from the article.
So it does seem like your favorite registrant and mine, Network Solutions, didn't read their own policy.
Then again, from what I'm hearing, eToys.com bought the trademark from another company, so the trademark has actually been around longer than the etoy.com domain name. But, eToys.com didn't OWN that trademark until post-etoy. IANAL and this seems like really sticky territory... can any lawyers clarify what they think NSI should have done in this situation?
I was thinking about that this morning when I read this article.
Up until today, I was pretty convinced that etoy would win, hands down - I mean, come on, they registered their domain TWO YEARS before eToys.com came on the scene. But one sentence in that article from American Reporter struck me for some reason - they said the judges would rightly want to be conservative. And for some reason, I read conservative to mean "taking the side of the big American corporation".
If etoy would have lost (they still could, since the Wired article doesn't say it's officially dropped), well... let's just say I'd have a few bones to pick with our judicial system. I do, anyway (not relevant to this discussion), but wouldn't a victory for eToys just have made clear, once and for all, the good old American money-is-all mentality? It seems clear to me that if this case were pursued, etoy SHOULD win, and eToys should be told they did not plan well. If I named my kid the same name as my sister, whose kid was born 2 years earlier, and then went around bitching because people got confused, it would be my own damn fault. eToys could and SHOULD have researched the name first.
I still don't think I'll be shopping at eToys, at least not until the suit is really, truly dropped. After that, well... on one hand, they were stupid to pursue this in the first place. On the other, they listened to what people were saying and responded in an appropriate manner. What to do?
I'd say the value of what Chaney did was more than just the $35 - he covered Microsoft's ass. But really, if I were him, I don't think I'd be saying that to the news. Make it seeeem like you were just being generous, because Linux people are so gosh darn nice, and then hope that MS sends you a big fat check.