"But I guess anonymity is something to be feared and trampled on."
What? Anonymous posting is a huge burden on Slashdot because 99.9% of what you anonymous chickenshits post is inflammatory garbage. The fact that a.) The threshold is even there and b.) That it's only ONE point above anonymous is not a sign that being anonymous is something to be feared, but rather something that is accepted. Only on Slashdot could the allowance of anonymous posting be turned into some attempt to keep the little people down.
Incidently, you're still anonymous even if you register a nickname. Nobody has any NFI who you are, nickname or not. In light of that fact alone, I don't see how anybody could mod what you said as insightful.
"That's strange. I don't remember having to buy Windows the last time I built a PC. Or bought a Mac."
Try to buy a laptop without Windows.
(note: That problem would be easy to rectify if laptop components like mobos, cases, and screens were available for purchase. *Hint:Asus,Microstar,etc*)
"So what's to keep Europeans from buying the US version of the game and running it on other formats?"
You mean besides PAL vs. NTSC, the whole modding thing to make a system region free, or the inflation of prices that causes imported games to not be worth the trouble? Not a whole lot.
"You do realize the irony of that statement, don't you?"
No, I don't, sorry. If you think I'm saying that it's wrong because it means Nintendo cannot come in and take over the market, then you misunderstand my point.
"While I dislike the practice, as it basically forces you to buy every console out there (provided you want to play the games), it's nothing new."
Nothing new? Sony's domination of the game market is pretty significant. They have such a big marketshare (plus a LOT of cash in the bank) that they can potentially buy up exclusives to enough titles to seriously harm Microsoft and Nintendo's ability to compete in the marketplace.
This is really the first time that the game market hasn't had two neck-in-neck competitors, that's what's new about it.
"What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?"
I think that too much time is spent here worrying about Microsoft and not enough worrying about Sony. Sony's starting to get into the de-facto monopoly position that Windows was at many moons ago, and as a result, you're going to see stuff like this happening. (Square anybody?)
I've pointed this out before, but it fell on deaf ears since people generally like Sony's products.
"Nonsense. Microsoft's market dominance is as a result of a bundling deal signed in 1982 with IBM, and since that time, dirty tricks to ensure monopoly control."
"Wonder if there's any spots on that ranch left that can make a good Star Wars movie?"
So far they've brought us to the desert, an ice planet, the sky, the forest, underground, a factory, a no-moon, undertwater, and a grassy field. I'd say a vineyard is the final frontier for Star Wars!
"If peoples' ability to disseminate information serves as a message to corporations that their attempts to turn the US into a police state won't work, then I can live with that."
The gamble you take is that the people's attempts to disseminate information causes the US to turn into a police state. I personally would rather not flip that coin.
All this work to stop spam, and ICQ's done it for years.
Frankly, a series of filters is probably the worst approach at stopping SPAM. It's a game of "make the filter, defeat the filter, and risk not getting important mail." Why bother? The solution lies in a different approach. Authorization. There needs to be authorization layers in order to defeat spam. We need buddy lists, we need blacklists, we need the ability to request authorization, etc.
I realize that fixing this problem isn't a simple one given the scale in which it's used. But man, I really wish somebody'd figure out how to do the transitory work. I'm almost completely reliant on ICQ and Private Messaging on forums in order to keep up with everybody.
This might be insightful if not for the fact that Microsoft's dominance is a result saying "we likem", as opposed to Microsoft putting a gun to tens of millions of people's heads.
I should have mentioned this in my previous post. Sometime after that Christmas, the defect rate went way down. It happened right about the time that the "boot with the door open" trick to play imports stopped working on newer units. I think Sony did something to improve the manufacturing.
I'm sorry if my original post read like "All the PS's broke all the time.
"For as many failed units that Sony throws out, it still amazes me when people associate the word Sony with Quality. "
I worked at a video game retailer when the original Playstation was launched. From that Sept to just after XMAS, for every 100 PS's we sold, we got roughly 20-25 back defective. This was in the whole district, not just the store I was in. I can't imagine this was limited to just Kansas City.
Funny thing is, people actually deny that the original PS had this many problems. Even our competitors bitched about it.
"The actual cpu, video processing units, and sound processing units are much more powerful than either the Gamecube or xbox."
No, they're not. You're comparing the main processors of the GC and XBOX to the PS2's graphic chip. The GC and XBOX both have seperate graphics chips, and the results wipe the floor with the PS2. The RAM bottleneck for that system is a good chunk of the reason why the graphics are blurry, no doubt about that. However, the GC and XBOX both have nifty little hardware graphic features (anti-aliasing, texture compression, etc) that the PS2 has to do in software.
The XBOX and GC are both decidedly more powerful than the PS2, they also have technology that's a year newer.
I appreciate that. Being understood is more important to me than being right.
" I just think it would be stupid and counterproductive."
The basis of my argument is about outside impressions. My personal view pretty much agrees with yours. I don't really think Slashdot should worry about pointing fingers. I'm worried that by trying to discredit BBC so harshly they've attracted even more attention to that suspiscion. (Sorry for my spelling, I'm on cold meds.)
"The problem is that someone is, for whatever reasons, and we all lose from it:("
I share your concern over everything you mentioned about the internet. Take comfort in knowing, though, that the internet cannot really be taken over by media interests or the gov't. They could comprise of a significant portion of it, but I don't think they could wipe out the 'opportunity for private dissent.' (I see it more like individual expression, but I don't think that changes the definition a whole lot.) The worst case scenario is a slashdot-esque crowd will build their own net.;)
"Spammers are making money from the open ports that the machines running MyDoom have, and the inbuilt SMTP code in the virus itself. The DDoS is just sleight of hand."
I don't buy that. a.) The SMTP ports are for the replication of the worm, b.) By attacking SCO, the virus is attracting more attention to itself. The result is a media circus that'll get it more quickly innoculated. It seems more likely that the spammers are being framed.
"Show me an 'Open Source Extremist' you think to be capable of doing something like this, and lacking any moral sense... "
Read the comments on any Slashdot story about SCO. To an outsider, it is really hard to tell if they're being serious or not. It doesn't help when stories are posted describing SCO as 'litigous bastards'.
"Also, MyDoom is supposed to have started in Russia -- more famed for its spam industry than its open source contributions, you would think."
That might be true if Russia was a country comprised only of spammers.
"Also, 'revenge'? SCO isn't any threat to Linux -- they're only a threat to their customers, and anyone unlucky or stupid enough to have signed a contract with them."
That's not the impression you'd get from reading the comments (or even the stories) on Slashdot.
"Anyway, you believe what you like and I'll believe what I like. "
Fair enough. THat's not a brush off, but I doubt we'll see eye to eye. For the record, I don't think you're an idiot or anything.
" I'll admit I'm wrong when I see proof,"
Well hold on, this isn't a discussion about right or wrong. We're talking about impressions here. We're talking about what it looks like, not what it is. It very realistically could be a spammer from Russia. My feelings wouldn't exactly be hurt if it turned out to be that. What sparked my comment was that there really are no facts in this case, all you can do is look at who has the most motive. I really think that the vast majority of people active on this particular topic are so anxious to not be associated with this that they're trying really hard to avoid looking at their own behaviour in this. That's what my rant was about. They were quick to say "Well the BBC just sucks anyway" instead of just saying "Ooops... to an outsider, I can see why they'd look at us first."
That make sense? That's what I'm after, not being right about whodunnit.
Not a smart idea. I was reading on CNN the other day that Yahoo's got a "see your background" service going up soon. (Hotjobs or something?) Evidently, there are web services out there where a potential employer can look you up and verify where you've worked etc. If that doesn't sync up with what you say in the interview/resume, then a lever is pulled and you fall through a trap door. Yahoo's service is meant to provide somebody with a means of seeing what's on their record (For a modest price...) and get it rectified if it's wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"But I guess anonymity is something to be feared and trampled on."
What? Anonymous posting is a huge burden on Slashdot because 99.9% of what you anonymous chickenshits post is inflammatory garbage. The fact that a.) The threshold is even there and b.) That it's only ONE point above anonymous is not a sign that being anonymous is something to be feared, but rather something that is accepted. Only on Slashdot could the allowance of anonymous posting be turned into some attempt to keep the little people down.
Incidently, you're still anonymous even if you register a nickname. Nobody has any NFI who you are, nickname or not. In light of that fact alone, I don't see how anybody could mod what you said as insightful.
Sorry, I don't follow that logic.
And no, that's not cowardice.
"That's strange. I don't remember having to buy Windows the last time I built a PC. Or bought a Mac."
Try to buy a laptop without Windows.
(note: That problem would be easy to rectify if laptop components like mobos, cases, and screens were available for purchase. *Hint:Asus,Microstar,etc*)
"So what's to keep Europeans from buying the US version of the game and running it on other formats?"
You mean besides PAL vs. NTSC, the whole modding thing to make a system region free, or the inflation of prices that causes imported games to not be worth the trouble? Not a whole lot.
"How the hell is it a monopoly when there are 2 other systems to compete? "
You tell me. I didn't say Sony was a monopoly.
"You do realize the irony of that statement, don't you?"
No, I don't, sorry. If you think I'm saying that it's wrong because it means Nintendo cannot come in and take over the market, then you misunderstand my point.
"While I dislike the practice, as it basically forces you to buy every console out there (provided you want to play the games), it's nothing new."
Nothing new? Sony's domination of the game market is pretty significant. They have such a big marketshare (plus a LOT of cash in the bank) that they can potentially buy up exclusives to enough titles to seriously harm Microsoft and Nintendo's ability to compete in the marketplace.
This is really the first time that the game market hasn't had two neck-in-neck competitors, that's what's new about it.
"I think it's fine as long as it's on PS2 :)"
That's the problem. Raise that barrier of entry, and it's that much harder for a company like Nintendo to come along and crack the market share.
Why make a game for an audience of 10 million when you can publish it on Sony's platform to an audience of 50 mil?
"What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?"
I think that too much time is spent here worrying about Microsoft and not enough worrying about Sony. Sony's starting to get into the de-facto monopoly position that Windows was at many moons ago, and as a result, you're going to see stuff like this happening. (Square anybody?)
I've pointed this out before, but it fell on deaf ears since people generally like Sony's products.
"Nonsense. Microsoft's market dominance is as a result of a bundling deal signed in 1982 with IBM, and since that time, dirty tricks to ensure monopoly control."
The courts would disagree with you.
"Wonder if there's any spots on that ranch left that can make a good Star Wars movie?"
So far they've brought us to the desert, an ice planet, the sky, the forest, underground, a factory, a no-moon, undertwater, and a grassy field. I'd say a vineyard is the final frontier for Star Wars!
"..with some ugly stupid people. I'm tired of the same old same old.
Try Red Dwarf.
"If peoples' ability to disseminate information serves as a message to corporations that their attempts to turn the US into a police state won't work, then I can live with that."
The gamble you take is that the people's attempts to disseminate information causes the US to turn into a police state. I personally would rather not flip that coin.
All this work to stop spam, and ICQ's done it for years.
Frankly, a series of filters is probably the worst approach at stopping SPAM. It's a game of "make the filter, defeat the filter, and risk not getting important mail." Why bother? The solution lies in a different approach. Authorization. There needs to be authorization layers in order to defeat spam. We need buddy lists, we need blacklists, we need the ability to request authorization, etc.
I realize that fixing this problem isn't a simple one given the scale in which it's used. But man, I really wish somebody'd figure out how to do the transitory work. I'm almost completely reliant on ICQ and Private Messaging on forums in order to keep up with everybody.
Grr. I left an important word out of my post.
"fact that Microsoft's dominance is a result saying "we likem"....
That's supposed to say
"...fact that Microsoft's dominance is a result of the market saying "we likem"..."
Sorry for being confusing.
"Should read " enforce conformity "
This might be insightful if not for the fact that Microsoft's dominance is a result saying "we likem", as opposed to Microsoft putting a gun to tens of millions of people's heads.
"You forgot emacs vs vim!"
O'Brien would NEVER use VIM!!!
"Do your self a favor and research the technology before you try and talk about it. "
I did, the graphics on it suck.
I should have mentioned this in my previous post. Sometime after that Christmas, the defect rate went way down. It happened right about the time that the "boot with the door open" trick to play imports stopped working on newer units. I think Sony did something to improve the manufacturing.
I'm sorry if my original post read like "All the PS's broke all the time.
"For as many failed units that Sony throws out, it still amazes me when people associate the word Sony with Quality. "
I worked at a video game retailer when the original Playstation was launched. From that Sept to just after XMAS, for every 100 PS's we sold, we got roughly 20-25 back defective. This was in the whole district, not just the store I was in. I can't imagine this was limited to just Kansas City.
Funny thing is, people actually deny that the original PS had this many problems. Even our competitors bitched about it.
"The actual cpu, video processing units, and sound processing units are much more powerful than either the Gamecube or xbox."
No, they're not. You're comparing the main processors of the GC and XBOX to the PS2's graphic chip. The GC and XBOX both have seperate graphics chips, and the results wipe the floor with the PS2. The RAM bottleneck for that system is a good chunk of the reason why the graphics are blurry, no doubt about that. However, the GC and XBOX both have nifty little hardware graphic features (anti-aliasing, texture compression, etc) that the PS2 has to do in software.
The XBOX and GC are both decidedly more powerful than the PS2, they also have technology that's a year newer.
"I can understand why you feel the way you do"
:("
;)
I appreciate that. Being understood is more important to me than being right.
" I just think it would be stupid and counterproductive."
The basis of my argument is about outside impressions. My personal view pretty much agrees with yours. I don't really think Slashdot should worry about pointing fingers. I'm worried that by trying to discredit BBC so harshly they've attracted even more attention to that suspiscion. (Sorry for my spelling, I'm on cold meds.)
"The problem is that someone is, for whatever reasons, and we all lose from it
I share your concern over everything you mentioned about the internet. Take comfort in knowing, though, that the internet cannot really be taken over by media interests or the gov't. They could comprise of a significant portion of it, but I don't think they could wipe out the 'opportunity for private dissent.' (I see it more like individual expression, but I don't think that changes the definition a whole lot.) The worst case scenario is a slashdot-esque crowd will build their own net.
"Spammers are making money from the open ports that the machines running MyDoom have, and the inbuilt SMTP code in the virus itself. The DDoS is just sleight of hand."
I don't buy that. a.) The SMTP ports are for the replication of the worm, b.) By attacking SCO, the virus is attracting more attention to itself. The result is a media circus that'll get it more quickly innoculated. It seems more likely that the spammers are being framed.
"Show me an 'Open Source Extremist' you think to be capable of doing something like this, and lacking any moral sense... "
Read the comments on any Slashdot story about SCO. To an outsider, it is really hard to tell if they're being serious or not. It doesn't help when stories are posted describing SCO as 'litigous bastards'.
"Also, MyDoom is supposed to have started in Russia -- more famed for its spam industry than its open source contributions, you would think."
That might be true if Russia was a country comprised only of spammers.
"Also, 'revenge'? SCO isn't any threat to Linux -- they're only a threat to their customers, and anyone unlucky or stupid enough to have signed a contract with them."
That's not the impression you'd get from reading the comments (or even the stories) on Slashdot.
"Anyway, you believe what you like and I'll believe what I like. "
Fair enough. THat's not a brush off, but I doubt we'll see eye to eye. For the record, I don't think you're an idiot or anything.
" I'll admit I'm wrong when I see proof,"
Well hold on, this isn't a discussion about right or wrong. We're talking about impressions here. We're talking about what it looks like, not what it is. It very realistically could be a spammer from Russia. My feelings wouldn't exactly be hurt if it turned out to be that. What sparked my comment was that there really are no facts in this case, all you can do is look at who has the most motive. I really think that the vast majority of people active on this particular topic are so anxious to not be associated with this that they're trying really hard to avoid looking at their own behaviour in this. That's what my rant was about. They were quick to say "Well the BBC just sucks anyway" instead of just saying "Ooops... to an outsider, I can see why they'd look at us first."
That make sense? That's what I'm after, not being right about whodunnit.
"Just falsify it! Every other bastard does..."
Not a smart idea. I was reading on CNN the other day that Yahoo's got a "see your background" service going up soon. (Hotjobs or something?) Evidently, there are web services out there where a potential employer can look you up and verify where you've worked etc. If that doesn't sync up with what you say in the interview/resume, then a lever is pulled and you fall through a trap door. Yahoo's service is meant to provide somebody with a means of seeing what's on their record (For a modest price...) and get it rectified if it's wrong.
Lying in the digital age is a bad idea.
"Regarding MyDoom -- who makes money out of that? The spammers, actually."
Spammers are making money from a DoS attack? Right. That's much more believable than an Open Source Extremist exacting revenge.