Were you even around during the 3.x era? If you were, do you honestly believe security was an issue back then? Windows was intended to make an OS easier to use for the individual; which it did. MS only delved into the world of NT because of hack crazy pieces of shit who wanted to make everyone's life miserable by breaking into an already simple piece of software. I think anyone here in this forum would agree that NO machine is totally secure, however if we had less people trying to make a point by taking down millions of machines to make a point we'd be better off. I don't trust MS but I trust the people who hack it even less. When someone writes code that infects my PC (even when 'patched') to prove a point they can kiss my royal ass. All they are, are pieces of shit who should fall off the face of the planet and die a horrible death. Thet are NOT part of the solution, rather they are the problem. Evil minds do evil things and becaause of that I have to worry about worms, trojans and virii. To all the people who do such things.....FUCK OFF. Even Unix based sysadmins don't want to deal with you assholes.
Is this article about disabilities or software? Besides, software is a tool, not a social problem that needs to be dealt with because of some neurotic belief that if kids don't have it at age 2 they will be permanently disfigured or scarred. Jesus Christ, IT'S JUST SOFTWARE
The obvious problem though is that MOST sysadmins want to be on the up and up. It's difficult at best to explain away liscenses you don't have for users on your network. Just my $.02
It really is ironic that/.'s complain and boycott industries that are anti *nix but plaud the companies that tend to fight back; it's almost cyclical. I'm not for the RIAA or MPAA myself but it really calls into question which 'side'/.'s are rooting for. Personally, I hope both sides spend so much on lawyer fees they both go bankrupt. I also, by the way, hate lawyers.
Again, the article is not addressing local state or city tax liabilities....it's addressing INTERNET COMMERCE. Just by purchasing something online is what they want to tax...and on the federal level. Your local tax complications have nothing to do with it.
What if I live in Las Vegas and I buy goods or services in Nevada? Why should I be charged an internet tax? Schools, roads, services and whatnot are all paid for with income and property taxes; why should we pay MORE on the back of a new tax because our local governments can't spend wisely? It's ludicrous. What's next, a "breath air tax"? I was under the assumption (I know, don't ass-u-me) that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against such taxes and that it worked on the premise of anti-excessive tax verbage in our constitution. I guess not. Our elected leaders (who work for US by the way) can vote themselves a pay increase; turn around and demand more of our hard earned dollars in the guise of an unwanted or unneeded tax. Shit. The more I write about this the more I want to leave this country. Can Canada be just as bad? I'll have to check into that.
Finally, someone who GETS it. Maybe they should start by not being able to vote themselves a raise. When's the last time you were able to raise your hand and say "Hey, I need another summer home and some campaign money for next year.....let's say we give ourselves a 33% pay increase at taxpayer expense? All in favor say 'Aye'"?
Crazy.
Please give me your website address so I can block it outright....that seems more honest than what you're trying to say. I don't want to stumble across it and have to try to deal with your lack of customer support to remove a bug that was placed on my PC because of an advertiser; unless you want to take responsibility for that. Crap, just let me know your website address so I can avoid it.
You tend to forget that the less people are on the internet the more they're watching tv (by nature)and they are flooding the market. In either medium we're subjected to obscene amounts of advertising which would tend to favor the most popular form of delivery. I guess I just have to be content walking my dog and talking with with my wife as alternatives. That may not be such a bad thing; getting back to basics rather than debate if ads are good thing in ANY medium. Either way they're trying to sell me something I probably won't want anyway.
Wow....you sound like the RIAA; the consumer is the parasite while YOU'RE the one doing the advertising. If you work for a website than you should already know the bandwidth should be in the operating cost of the business; if it's not...start looking for another job where they don't consider consumers parasites.
And why should they? The world has turned for 4 billion+ years without it. Man has existed for thousands of years without it. In fact, it's only been the last 10 years or so that the general public has had any sort of interaction with the web and now we're supposed to change our whole attitude on advertising because of the medium it's delivered? I know for a fact that the people I see movies with are PISSED at the ads (not the previews); I know for a FACT that my family wonders why there's a half hour of ads on pay tv between movies and I know for a FACT I hate the advertising schemes used by the current web designers. If people had to pay for the web to compensate these costs my guess is they'd go without (at least at home). Then where would the advertising costs go? To another medium, I suspect. I know the argument that it costs a lot to host a site but only until it becomes popular. If you don't have the money or the time....shit or get off the pot. A similar site will take your place.
I think you made the anti-point. I DO pay for commercial free TV yet I STILL get advertising; whether it be for a sister cable channel (usually asking me to subscribe)or by the telemarketers who know my subscription status and try to sell me on the same subscription to the same sister channel. I agree with your 'food-chain' statement but they should be at the bottom, not the top.
I would LOVE for you to write that script and have NAV 2004 installed by default on all PC's. Let's see you have 90% less traffic on your ad-supported website for 2 weeks and see what happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Were you even around during the 3.x era? If you were, do you honestly believe security was an issue back then? Windows was intended to make an OS easier to use for the individual; which it did. MS only delved into the world of NT because of hack crazy pieces of shit who wanted to make everyone's life miserable by breaking into an already simple piece of software. I think anyone here in this forum would agree that NO machine is totally secure, however if we had less people trying to make a point by taking down millions of machines to make a point we'd be better off. I don't trust MS but I trust the people who hack it even less. When someone writes code that infects my PC (even when 'patched') to prove a point they can kiss my royal ass. All they are, are pieces of shit who should fall off the face of the planet and die a horrible death. Thet are NOT part of the solution, rather they are the problem. Evil minds do evil things and becaause of that I have to worry about worms, trojans and virii. To all the people who do such things.....FUCK OFF. Even Unix based sysadmins don't want to deal with you assholes.
Oh please don't equate BG with God....I'm somewhat religious.
Note to you: Apples are usually donated to schools.
I agree with you.
Is this article about disabilities or software? Besides, software is a tool, not a social problem that needs to be dealt with because of some neurotic belief that if kids don't have it at age 2 they will be permanently disfigured or scarred. Jesus Christ, IT'S JUST SOFTWARE
TRS-80.....those were the days. I learned to program on an 80!
The obvious problem though is that MOST sysadmins want to be on the up and up. It's difficult at best to explain away liscenses you don't have for users on your network. Just my $.02
It really is ironic that /.'s complain and boycott industries that are anti *nix but plaud the companies that tend to fight back; it's almost cyclical. I'm not for the RIAA or MPAA myself but it really calls into question which 'side' /.'s are rooting for. Personally, I hope both sides spend so much on lawyer fees they both go bankrupt. I also, by the way, hate lawyers.
Oh c'mon.....Jar Jar wasn't THAT bad
Again, the article is not addressing local state or city tax liabilities....it's addressing INTERNET COMMERCE. Just by purchasing something online is what they want to tax...and on the federal level. Your local tax complications have nothing to do with it.
Wow....+100 mod points. I love this debate!
WAHOOOOO......I wish I had mod privelage rightr now! +100!
What if I live in Las Vegas and I buy goods or services in Nevada? Why should I be charged an internet tax? Schools, roads, services and whatnot are all paid for with income and property taxes; why should we pay MORE on the back of a new tax because our local governments can't spend wisely? It's ludicrous. What's next, a "breath air tax"? I was under the assumption (I know, don't ass-u-me) that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against such taxes and that it worked on the premise of anti-excessive tax verbage in our constitution. I guess not. Our elected leaders (who work for US by the way) can vote themselves a pay increase; turn around and demand more of our hard earned dollars in the guise of an unwanted or unneeded tax. Shit. The more I write about this the more I want to leave this country. Can Canada be just as bad? I'll have to check into that.
Finally, someone who GETS it. Maybe they should start by not being able to vote themselves a raise. When's the last time you were able to raise your hand and say "Hey, I need another summer home and some campaign money for next year.....let's say we give ourselves a 33% pay increase at taxpayer expense? All in favor say 'Aye'"? Crazy.
I agree. And PBS has gotten a lot better as of late.
What about the freeloader that steals from Best Buy.....where's the model then?
Please give me your website address so I can block it outright....that seems more honest than what you're trying to say. I don't want to stumble across it and have to try to deal with your lack of customer support to remove a bug that was placed on my PC because of an advertiser; unless you want to take responsibility for that. Crap, just let me know your website address so I can avoid it.
You tend to forget that the less people are on the internet the more they're watching tv (by nature)and they are flooding the market. In either medium we're subjected to obscene amounts of advertising which would tend to favor the most popular form of delivery. I guess I just have to be content walking my dog and talking with with my wife as alternatives. That may not be such a bad thing; getting back to basics rather than debate if ads are good thing in ANY medium. Either way they're trying to sell me something I probably won't want anyway.
Wow....you sound like the RIAA; the consumer is the parasite while YOU'RE the one doing the advertising. If you work for a website than you should already know the bandwidth should be in the operating cost of the business; if it's not...start looking for another job where they don't consider consumers parasites.
And why should they? The world has turned for 4 billion+ years without it. Man has existed for thousands of years without it. In fact, it's only been the last 10 years or so that the general public has had any sort of interaction with the web and now we're supposed to change our whole attitude on advertising because of the medium it's delivered? I know for a fact that the people I see movies with are PISSED at the ads (not the previews); I know for a FACT that my family wonders why there's a half hour of ads on pay tv between movies and I know for a FACT I hate the advertising schemes used by the current web designers. If people had to pay for the web to compensate these costs my guess is they'd go without (at least at home). Then where would the advertising costs go? To another medium, I suspect. I know the argument that it costs a lot to host a site but only until it becomes popular. If you don't have the money or the time....shit or get off the pot. A similar site will take your place.
I think you made the anti-point. I DO pay for commercial free TV yet I STILL get advertising; whether it be for a sister cable channel (usually asking me to subscribe)or by the telemarketers who know my subscription status and try to sell me on the same subscription to the same sister channel. I agree with your 'food-chain' statement but they should be at the bottom, not the top.
Perhaps a 'Google P2P'. Think about it.
Is that 'gray' or 'grey'? I've never really been sure....
I would LOVE for you to write that script and have NAV 2004 installed by default on all PC's. Let's see you have 90% less traffic on your ad-supported website for 2 weeks and see what happens.
Woof....well said.....I wish I had mod points to give you. Please don't listen (I know you won't) to anyone calling you a fool.