If the story is interesting, what is the big frickin deal? If it's not interesting, what is the big fricking deal?
Me personally, I'm sick of lots of stories Slashdot posts about. Do I filter them? Nah. Do I bitch about them? Admittedly I used to. But life's too short. Now I just scroll on.
I should point out that Nintendo made a heck of a lot more on cartridge based games than Sony ever did or does on CD based. (Hence one of the reasons Nintendo didn't move to the optical disc format.)
In any event, I'm still baffled how one can label a 30 million unit sale a failure in any stretch of the imagination. I can understand "didn't reach its potential" or "not as good as other consoles", but failure? Honestly. To be clear, Im nitpicking the choice of words, not the feelings behind them.
Again, it depends on how you look at it. It kind of slipped in between generations. The PS2, XBOX, and GC are all well above what the DC was all about. Yes, it's the first one, but on the other hand it wasnt that close to the PS2 either.
In any event, give me a little credit, I didn't say they were of the same generation. Though I wasn't all that clear what my view was, I was merely pointing out why somebody'd make a statement like that. To some, whether factually correct or not, the DC was in a generation all of its own.
"Ok, so graffiti didn't exist before GTA came out? If it didn't or it wasn't a problem, then they might have a case."
I remember Jet Grind Radio for the Dreamcast had similar publicity problems. Anybody remember the "Graffiti is Art" event that the city tried to shut down at the last minute?
" Listen, just because the big N isn't number one in console sales, doesn't mean that they are not a successful company, or that they are on the brink of failure."
I had somebody tell me once that the N64 was a failure despite selling 30 million units. I kid you not, he actually added the 'despite selling 30 million units' bit. He had a bit of a chip on his shoulder.
"(In other words, what's the best approach to get more of this group to start using the Creative Commons?)"
Texture images. A lot of 3D artists out there, including myself, bought a digital camera just for the sake of taking photos that become elements of textures for our final 3D work. Finding free textures on the web is a hassle, and most of us aren't so posessive of our texture images that we'd probably be likely to donate. At least, I can speak for myself. I'd be perfectly happy to share the photos I've taken if others would share theirs as well.
" In all honesty - how many people take 80 GB of pictures on a vacation?"
How many people forget to download the pics from their last vacation? My trip to Universal Studios, many months ago, is still on my camera right now. Hehe.
"It's easy to imagine Halo 2 at high resolution: you just have to imagine a world in which Microsoft didn't buy Bungie, and so the Halo games were published to sell games rather than to sell game consoles."
It's easy to imagine that there never would have been a Halo 2 in that scenario because it wouldn't have been near as successful. Half a million copies of a PC game is hard enough to sell, but to match their success on the XBOX? No way.
Like it or not, Microsoft did YOU, a Halo fan, a huge favor by buying Bungie. Afterall, money is what keeps them developing.
"Actually, the problem with unconfirmed opt-in is that anyone ELSE can put my email address in, then I get spammed by NYT, unsubscribe. Repeat."
I covered that with the little bit about blocking NYTimes.com. You don't have much excuse for not having a mail app that doesn't easily support that feature.
"There ARE ways to RESPONSIBLY run an email list. NYT has just chosen NOT to."
Perhaps. Never said otherwise. However, the reason you have such things as mail filters is because email is inherently insecure, not because NYT is the big a big ol incompetent meanie.
I'd nominate Virtual Dub. Come to think of it, I think I'm going to donate a little towards the guy who wrote that. Damn useful if you have to make.AVIs.
Whoop de doo. I could have been clearer. Go ahead and dwell on a questionable phrasing of my original post. Meanwhile, I'm still right, and you still embarrased yourself. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't be going on and on about my original post. Grow up.
Well, despite all the comments I make to the tune of being a 3D artist, I'm really the CEO of NYTimes.com. I figure the best way to improve subscribership is to reply to anonymous retards on Slashdot and spin them around to my point of view. I figure with the 3 or 4 discussions I have on this matter every year, our subscription numbers will double. That's why I make the big bucks.
"So on top of all that BS they demand, they run an abusable mailing list by allowing additions without confirmation ?"
To be fair, though I do agree with your point, that's a flaw with email in general, not just NYT. Anybody can send you email, solicited or not. Fortunately, they are just one entity, and I imagine they honor the unsubscription methods. 'Abuse' would be about as extensive as putting your email address in, they send ya something, and you unsubscribe. If I were to do it again, then all you'd have to do is put a filter on NYTimes.com and boom, abuse proof. It sucks that NYT is running like this, but the potential of damage done is pretty limited.
This problem needs to be solved on a more fundamental level. Email is too easy to abuse in the first place. Ever put your email address on Slashdot without 'spam armor'? Don't, unless it's a throw-away address. You'll get flooded with crap. All because there's no challenge/response with regards to email. Anybody can send you anything. Pretty weak.
"So, just what is your position over there at the NYT? Director of online advertising? Or maybe you're the one who sells out their subscribers to their "partners?""
Heh. Has anybody ever won a debate using the "You must work for the bad guy!" rebuttal? Running out of steam there, buddy?
"You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrasment by validating what you threw out as fact. Seems to me like you got shut the fuck down above when that dude above pointed out that you were dead wrong about what fields were required.............."
I have access to the stories on NYT, and they don't have any personal info on me. Shot/shut down? Heh. Yeah.
Giving up of privacy is not required to join NYT. I made this point earlier in this thread, but it's worth stating again: You can put nothing but garbage in those fields, even in the email field, and it'll let you in. The only privacy you lose is the privacy you volunteer.
On a fundamental level, I agree with you, but NYT really should not be in your crosshairs. Asking to voluntarily provide information is not a crime. If you really don't want to give it up, then don't read their content.
Right, and they don't validate any of it. They don't even have you click a link after you've recieved an email from them to activate the account.
You don't have to give them info. Put garbage in the blanks, then sit down and shut up. I'm tired of you self-righteous loud-mouths with your campaign against NYT. And for what? No more registration screen that NYT has every right to request for providing all that content? Why don't you guys go do something useful and rattle your pitchforks against Microsoft's registration program for XP instead of bitching about something that barely registers as an inconvenience?
(p.s. Don't take my harsh words too personally, that rant's been building up for quite a while now.)
Slashdot Mirror
"s this "service" worth up to $647 a month? Or, does each "article" represent up to $80 of work?"
Said the guy posting in an offensive story, thus providing more eyeballs to the related ads.
If the story is interesting, what is the big frickin deal? If it's not interesting, what is the big fricking deal?
Me personally, I'm sick of lots of stories Slashdot posts about. Do I filter them? Nah. Do I bitch about them? Admittedly I used to. But life's too short. Now I just scroll on.
Lighten up.
I should point out that Nintendo made a heck of a lot more on cartridge based games than Sony ever did or does on CD based. (Hence one of the reasons Nintendo didn't move to the optical disc format.)
In any event, I'm still baffled how one can label a 30 million unit sale a failure in any stretch of the imagination. I can understand "didn't reach its potential" or "not as good as other consoles", but failure? Honestly. To be clear, Im nitpicking the choice of words, not the feelings behind them.
Again, it depends on how you look at it. It kind of slipped in between generations. The PS2, XBOX, and GC are all well above what the DC was all about. Yes, it's the first one, but on the other hand it wasnt that close to the PS2 either.
In any event, give me a little credit, I didn't say they were of the same generation. Though I wasn't all that clear what my view was, I was merely pointing out why somebody'd make a statement like that. To some, whether factually correct or not, the DC was in a generation all of its own.
"Ok, so graffiti didn't exist before GTA came out? If it didn't or it wasn't a problem, then they might have a case."
I remember Jet Grind Radio for the Dreamcast had similar publicity problems. Anybody remember the "Graffiti is Art" event that the city tried to shut down at the last minute?
"Um, maybe it's just me, but wasn't the Dreamcast the "Dreamcast of this generation"?"
Depends on how you measure it. The DC wasn't even really around when the GameCube came out.
" Listen, just because the big N isn't number one in console sales, doesn't mean that they are not a successful company, or that they are on the brink of failure."
I had somebody tell me once that the N64 was a failure despite selling 30 million units. I kid you not, he actually added the 'despite selling 30 million units' bit. He had a bit of a chip on his shoulder.
" Seriously, this is getting very old now. They need some fresh new script-writers over at MS,"
Right, like we don't need any new writers over here at Slashdot? News flash: Windows XP isn't Windows 98.
"There's nothing I've put on craigslist that I would have put in a newspaper. How could they be losing money?"
:D
Maybe you're not the newspaper's sole customer?
"The point is?" ... just a little beyond your reach?
"(In other words, what's the best approach to get more of this group to start using the Creative Commons?)"
Texture images. A lot of 3D artists out there, including myself, bought a digital camera just for the sake of taking photos that become elements of textures for our final 3D work. Finding free textures on the web is a hassle, and most of us aren't so posessive of our texture images that we'd probably be likely to donate. At least, I can speak for myself. I'd be perfectly happy to share the photos I've taken if others would share theirs as well.
"You are wasting money that has been given to you in good faith by countless people."
And how much would they have spent on consultants to set that all up for them in the first place?
Grow up. They spent money and got what they needed. "Wasteful" is a relative measure.
" In all honesty - how many people take 80 GB of pictures on a vacation?"
How many people forget to download the pics from their last vacation? My trip to Universal Studios, many months ago, is still on my camera right now. Hehe.
"It's easy to imagine Halo 2 at high resolution: you just have to imagine a world in which Microsoft didn't buy Bungie, and so the Halo games were published to sell games rather than to sell game consoles."
It's easy to imagine that there never would have been a Halo 2 in that scenario because it wouldn't have been near as successful. Half a million copies of a PC game is hard enough to sell, but to match their success on the XBOX? No way.
Like it or not, Microsoft did YOU, a Halo fan, a huge favor by buying Bungie. Afterall, money is what keeps them developing.
"Actually, the problem with unconfirmed opt-in is that anyone ELSE can put my email address in, then I get spammed by NYT, unsubscribe. Repeat."
I covered that with the little bit about blocking NYTimes.com. You don't have much excuse for not having a mail app that doesn't easily support that feature.
"There ARE ways to RESPONSIBLY run an email list. NYT has just chosen NOT to."
Perhaps. Never said otherwise. However, the reason you have such things as mail filters is because email is inherently insecure, not because NYT is the big a big ol incompetent meanie.
I'd nominate Virtual Dub. Come to think of it, I think I'm going to donate a little towards the guy who wrote that. Damn useful if you have to make .AVIs.
Whoop de doo. I could have been clearer. Go ahead and dwell on a questionable phrasing of my original post. Meanwhile, I'm still right, and you still embarrased yourself. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't be going on and on about my original post. Grow up.
" if you don't protect your privacy at every turn, you will lose it quickly."
:)
I think we agree on that.
And thanks for the link! Much appreciated. Good night.
Well, despite all the comments I make to the tune of being a 3D artist, I'm really the CEO of NYTimes.com. I figure the best way to improve subscribership is to reply to anonymous retards on Slashdot and spin them around to my point of view. I figure with the 3 or 4 discussions I have on this matter every year, our subscription numbers will double. That's why I make the big bucks.
"So on top of all that BS they demand, they run an abusable mailing list by allowing additions without confirmation ?"
To be fair, though I do agree with your point, that's a flaw with email in general, not just NYT. Anybody can send you email, solicited or not. Fortunately, they are just one entity, and I imagine they honor the unsubscription methods. 'Abuse' would be about as extensive as putting your email address in, they send ya something, and you unsubscribe. If I were to do it again, then all you'd have to do is put a filter on NYTimes.com and boom, abuse proof. It sucks that NYT is running like this, but the potential of damage done is pretty limited.
This problem needs to be solved on a more fundamental level. Email is too easy to abuse in the first place. Ever put your email address on Slashdot without 'spam armor'? Don't, unless it's a throw-away address. You'll get flooded with crap. All because there's no challenge/response with regards to email. Anybody can send you anything. Pretty weak.
"So, just what is your position over there at the NYT? Director of online advertising? Or maybe you're the one who sells out their subscribers to their "partners?""
Heh. Has anybody ever won a debate using the "You must work for the bad guy!" rebuttal? Running out of steam there, buddy?
"You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrasment by validating what you threw out as fact. Seems to me like you got shut the fuck down above when that dude above pointed out that you were dead wrong about what fields were required.............."
I have access to the stories on NYT, and they don't have any personal info on me. Shot/shut down? Heh. Yeah.
"Yes I am. My privacy is valuable to me."
Giving up of privacy is not required to join NYT. I made this point earlier in this thread, but it's worth stating again: You can put nothing but garbage in those fields, even in the email field, and it'll let you in. The only privacy you lose is the privacy you volunteer.
On a fundamental level, I agree with you, but NYT really should not be in your crosshairs. Asking to voluntarily provide information is not a crime. If you really don't want to give it up, then don't read their content.
Dunno. As soon as I filled it out with a garbage address, I had access to the story.
You could have saved yourself some embarrasment if you had just tried what I had suggested.
Right, and they don't validate any of it. They don't even have you click a link after you've recieved an email from them to activate the account.
You don't have to give them info. Put garbage in the blanks, then sit down and shut up. I'm tired of you self-righteous loud-mouths with your campaign against NYT. And for what? No more registration screen that NYT has every right to request for providing all that content? Why don't you guys go do something useful and rattle your pitchforks against Microsoft's registration program for XP instead of bitching about something that barely registers as an inconvenience?
(p.s. Don't take my harsh words too personally, that rant's been building up for quite a while now.)