Forgive me for saying so, but in this day and age, if you dont have or use a broadband connection, just how many people are going to take you seriously on the Internet and want to market their services to you?
Considering that most people don't have broadband, anyone with a business which has any intention of making money on the Internet would take us seriously.
why the hell should some one make their web site nice, sparce and ugly for you?
You're assuming that makes your web-site bloated and large makes it better looking. Most of the bloat on websites isn't in making it look nice (which is largely a result of good HTML/CSS and someone with a sense of aesthetics), or in content, it's usually big pointless images, often images of words.
Even then, if you have broadband, why cancel out all the improvements with bloated sites? Then you end up with sites taking just as long to download as they did on 56k, with no more information, just more pointless pictures.
read what happened yesterday in a newspaper, or go on the internet and read what is happening now
Or go on slashdot and read what happened last month.
On a more serious note, I think this is a severe sympton of computer addiction. The fact that some people can't even go a couple of hours without electronic stimulation suggests to me that it's time to cut back. The previous comment suggests that some people are so mentally deranged that they have to know everything that's happening right now, they have no patience and no endurance, it's all NOW NOW NOW.
Please, please let no fact be too controversial for Bill Nye.
Is this in America? Controversy seems to have no place there, religious values count for everything. It will probably be watered down or will try to pander to conservative types. If he doesn't, no channel will show it for fear of alienating viewers, and therefore advertisers. If you want to make a controversial programme, do it in Britain and show it on channel 4, such things are encouraged there.
Don't tell me that people in the food industry need people skills, etc. I am NOT denying that there are smart people with skills in that industry, but the MINIMUM qualifications are nearly nil.
Not nearly nil, they ARE nil. They don't need people skills: ever been to a fast food shop? Exactly, they're the most braindead, unfriendly, drooling people in the world. But it's only to be expected that such places attract the lowest level of scum of society. Anyone with any skills or redeeming features would get a proper job.
Yes, I don't consider myself conservative at all, but compared to the people on there, I'm practically Adolf Hitler. The only non-left people on there are trolls trying to provide an antidote to the mindless drooling lefties thinking they're 'profound' and 'intelligent' because they post on an obscure website. Also they seem to have a terrible inferiority complex to slashdot.
The problem with Kuroshin is that it's dead. I can go to Slashdot every day and there are a good handful of stories to read along with some good discussions. On k5, you're lucky if you get a story in a week, and then it will only have 5 comments, which no-one replies to so you can never get a good discussion. Also a lot of the stories aren't even news, but some bloke's opinion on something meaningless.
On the other hand, the site's technically a lot better, the HTML seems to be a million times cleaner than slashdot's (what is a million times zero?) And they don't have a moderation system, which counts for something.
If *I* want to look at porn all day, it's my right as a a citizen of the United States to do so. You don't have a right to stop it.
Does no-one on Slashdot actually read the articles? No-one's talking about complete censorship, they're talking about voluntary filtering. Such a system would be simple to implement and would help a lot of people, and wouldn't affect people who don't want to be involved. This hurts no-one, why all the uproar?
Exactly, he can use the new ISP filter service to filter such sites, much better than having the hassle and unreliability of a client-side filter.
There are these people known variously as "cowards", "fools", "scumbags", and "fascist fuckheads", among many other terms who do not understand that to have "Freedom" takes something known as "Courage". Which is a dwindling resource in this modern world.
What on earth are you talking about? No-one's talking about banning such sites, or filtering them from people who don't want it, it would merely be offering an option for people who want it. Your post is complete hysteria.
Wrong. This law _requires_ ISPs to make a blocking service available (albeit not required).
Yes, it requires them to make it an OPTION, you're completely free to have NO CENSORSHIP WHATSOEVER. That comment by 'frakir' comparing it to China was a complete cheap-shot and not based in reality. In China you can't opt out of the censorship, this is a completely voluntary service.
You can't really compare them yet, because Yahoo are already ahead. Yahoo is an actual running service, Google is just a beta. When Google finally opens their service then we can make a comparison.
I'm sure the same service can be offered with open MP3 or OGG files.
In an ideal world they could just offer MP3s, but piracy is so rampant that DRM is not just an option, it's a necessity. I for one hate DRM, I hate the very idea of it, but if I was selling music, I know that if I let people download MP3s they'd be all over the Internet within minutes. People are scum, and you have to take that into account when doing business with them.
I know that DRM can be broken, but that's a fault of the particular implementation rather than the idea. Eventually, all computers will have DRM built in, you won't be able to so much as see a picture without your rights being controlled by the copyright holders. Yes, it's terrible, but it's been coming, people have got it into their heads that copyright infringement is OK if they do it on the Internet, so even normally law-abiding people are doing it.
The more your pirate, the more they'll do to try to control your rights, so don't bitch on Slashdot about it when it happens, especially when in the previous story you were arguing why it's OK to pirate music.
I didn't realise it was an abbreviation, I thought it was the Scottish prefix, i.e. McChris. MC is usually in capitals, rather than all in lower-case as in the article title. It seems there was a slip in Slashdot standards when this article was composed.
A 100% profit is what you call wrong? Then what on earth would you call 10%, or a loss? The only wrong thing you did was only buying 5 shares, rather than a thousand.
Except Garfield isn't even warm in the first place. I've read it when it's been in the paper, but it's NEVER been funny. At least Dilbert tries to have jokes, even if many of them fall flat, but Garfield doesn't have anything. There are NO jokes, it's just some cat sitting there. Thank god it's been cancelled.
This is an entertainment programme, not a factual programme. The old show was both, IMO.
It tried to be both but was neither. It was too brief to be of any factual value, and too dry and predictable to be of any entertainment value. The new programme realised that you're not going to fit much information into an hour-long TV programme, and even if you did it would only be a millionth of what you could find out on the Internet or in magazines, therefore it wisely concentrated on the entertainment factor, and it that it has succeeded.
Come off it, the old Top Gear, like Fifth Gear, was completely dull. It was like a house-buying programme for cars. I don't watch TV for information I watch it for entertainment. If I wanted information on cars I'd get some car magazines which would have a hundred times more content than a TV programme.
Have you considered that maybe you look at yourself as "mediocre" because you have not been given the chance to tap into your potential? The people at Pixar, or any other great company are not "better" than you, they are people that push their limits everyday and don't settle for a self fulfilling prophecy of being mediocre which most of us settle with.
That's not necessarily true. Some people ARE better than other people. They are more clever, more skillful, have more natural ability, better education, more hard-working, more disciplined, more psychologically healthy, just better people all round. Some people have great potential, some have none no matter how hard they work.
I for one have no potential. It doesn't matter how hard I work at something, I don't learn it. I can't understand things in months of trying that other people pick up instantly. I have no discipline, my hard-work ethic has gradually shrivelled up and died, and am psychologically fucked up. I am worse than other people, and it's nothing to do with 'pushing limits', some people are just better than others.
It's merely some communist fantasy that people are all equal and it's just a matter of 'applying yourself' and having a good working environment.
That simply doesn't work on the long run and leads to the mediocre, and the "its just a job" culture.
A lot of jobs are just that. Most jobs don't need any creativity, they don't need independent thinking, they just need efficiency, nothing else. Not every company's goal is to make computer-generated cartoons with dull plots and irritating characters.
A PhD costs somewhere on the order of 4 to 7 years study. Not impossible, anyone with enough self motivation and desire can accomplish this.
Also don't forget: with a lot of money, and a lack of family to provide for.
Most of us are human beings, each with the same built in potential
No we're not. Not all humans have the same genetics to enable to them to be clever or skillful. Not all humans have the same education. Some get a good education, most get an awful education, some get no education whatsoever.
Some get great facilities for learning, private schools, computers, well-stocked libraries, places to study. Some get state-funded schools, no computer, half-stocked library, nowhere to study but small bedroom in council house which you share with two siblings who fight and scream all day. Some get no computer, no library, a mud hut for a school, no chance to study because you work in a sweat shop to pay your parents debts.
Some have rich parents who invest in your upbringing, some have poor parents who care more about where the next packet of cigarettes is coming from, some have parents who sell them into slavery.
Some have family which include state governers and presidents, some have family which include farm harvesters and prostitutes.
No-one has the same potential as anyone else, everyone starts from a different point. Human beings are not created equal.
To be fair, there's not much incentive to treat employees like human beings. Most jobs are relatively unskilled, or have more demand for jobs than jobs available, therefore you can treat people like shit and they can't do anything about it because they're so replaceable. Treating them like human beings just means extra expense, and makes them think they're more valuable than they are so they don't get much work done. I for one work in a manual labour job and accept the fact that I'm worthless to the company and therefore will be treated as no more than a slave that needs paying.
Which may stimulate a person that's really interested in looking up more about him instead of the person that just wants to try, and fail, at being a smart-ass.
I'm not interested in finding out about him, I just resent the fact that he's presented as some sort of idol when no-one has heard of him other than the person talking about him.
In other news, I met Xyxysxx Sdxyss the other day. Don't know who that is? Well look it up yourself you lazy fucker, have you never heard of google?
If someone's talking about a completely unknown person as if they were some massive slashdot celebrity, then the burden's pretty much on them to explain who the hell it is.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to have to research the people mentioned in every single slashdot post just to find out what the hell is going on. It's like those articles that consist of nothing but acronyms that no-one's ever heard of, and if you complain someone tells you to go and research it yourself...
No, you're still behind. By the time Brits get to university-age, they already have a ten-year binge-drinking career. Although our universities are rather sober in comparison, most seem to have grown out of drinking by then.
That's why you seal yourself in a bag before you die. You need a non-violent method of death for this so as not to break the bag. I suggest cyanide. You climb into the air-tight bag, seal it, and then eat the cyanide capsule. All the CO2 will be contained in the bag, and can be disposed of safely.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me for saying so, but in this day and age, if you dont have or use a broadband connection, just how many people are going to take you seriously on the Internet and want to market their services to you?
Considering that most people don't have broadband, anyone with a business which has any intention of making money on the Internet would take us seriously.
why the hell should some one make their web site nice, sparce and ugly for you?
You're assuming that makes your web-site bloated and large makes it better looking. Most of the bloat on websites isn't in making it look nice (which is largely a result of good HTML/CSS and someone with a sense of aesthetics), or in content, it's usually big pointless images, often images of words.
Even then, if you have broadband, why cancel out all the improvements with bloated sites? Then you end up with sites taking just as long to download as they did on 56k, with no more information, just more pointless pictures.
read what happened yesterday in a newspaper, or go on the internet and read what is happening now
Or go on slashdot and read what happened last month.
On a more serious note, I think this is a severe sympton of computer addiction. The fact that some people can't even go a couple of hours without electronic stimulation suggests to me that it's time to cut back. The previous comment suggests that some people are so mentally deranged that they have to know everything that's happening right now, they have no patience and no endurance, it's all NOW NOW NOW.
To put it another way, just because you aren't in the 100th percentile doesn't mean you are a pile of shit,
Yeah, but if you're not even in the 5th percentile, you have to realise that you're the scum of society, and will never amount to anything.
Please, please let no fact be too controversial for Bill Nye.
Is this in America? Controversy seems to have no place there, religious values count for everything. It will probably be watered down or will try to pander to conservative types. If he doesn't, no channel will show it for fear of alienating viewers, and therefore advertisers. If you want to make a controversial programme, do it in Britain and show it on channel 4, such things are encouraged there.
Don't tell me that people in the food industry need people skills, etc. I am NOT denying that there are smart people with skills in that industry, but the MINIMUM qualifications are nearly nil.
Not nearly nil, they ARE nil. They don't need people skills: ever been to a fast food shop? Exactly, they're the most braindead, unfriendly, drooling people in the world. But it's only to be expected that such places attract the lowest level of scum of society. Anyone with any skills or redeeming features would get a proper job.
Yes, I don't consider myself conservative at all, but compared to the people on there, I'm practically Adolf Hitler. The only non-left people on there are trolls trying to provide an antidote to the mindless drooling lefties thinking they're 'profound' and 'intelligent' because they post on an obscure website. Also they seem to have a terrible inferiority complex to slashdot.
The problem with Kuroshin is that it's dead. I can go to Slashdot every day and there are a good handful of stories to read along with some good discussions. On k5, you're lucky if you get a story in a week, and then it will only have 5 comments, which no-one replies to so you can never get a good discussion. Also a lot of the stories aren't even news, but some bloke's opinion on something meaningless.
On the other hand, the site's technically a lot better, the HTML seems to be a million times cleaner than slashdot's (what is a million times zero?) And they don't have a moderation system, which counts for something.
If *I* want to look at porn all day, it's my right as a a citizen of the United States to do so. You don't have a right to stop it.
Does no-one on Slashdot actually read the articles? No-one's talking about complete censorship, they're talking about voluntary filtering. Such a system would be simple to implement and would help a lot of people, and wouldn't affect people who don't want to be involved. This hurts no-one, why all the uproar?
Then block it. Who exactly is stopping you?
Exactly, he can use the new ISP filter service to filter such sites, much better than having the hassle and unreliability of a client-side filter.
There are these people known variously as "cowards", "fools", "scumbags", and "fascist fuckheads", among many other terms who do not understand that to have "Freedom" takes something known as "Courage".
Which is a dwindling resource in this modern world.
What on earth are you talking about? No-one's talking about banning such sites, or filtering them from people who don't want it, it would merely be offering an option for people who want it. Your post is complete hysteria.
Wrong. This law _requires_ ISPs to make a blocking service available (albeit not required).
Yes, it requires them to make it an OPTION, you're completely free to have NO CENSORSHIP WHATSOEVER. That comment by 'frakir' comparing it to China was a complete cheap-shot and not based in reality. In China you can't opt out of the censorship, this is a completely voluntary service.
It's not censorship if it's voluntary.
You can't really compare them yet, because Yahoo are already ahead. Yahoo is an actual running service, Google is just a beta. When Google finally opens their service then we can make a comparison.
I'm sure the same service can be offered with open MP3 or OGG files.
In an ideal world they could just offer MP3s, but piracy is so rampant that DRM is not just an option, it's a necessity. I for one hate DRM, I hate the very idea of it, but if I was selling music, I know that if I let people download MP3s they'd be all over the Internet within minutes. People are scum, and you have to take that into account when doing business with them.
I know that DRM can be broken, but that's a fault of the particular implementation rather than the idea. Eventually, all computers will have DRM built in, you won't be able to so much as see a picture without your rights being controlled by the copyright holders. Yes, it's terrible, but it's been coming, people have got it into their heads that copyright infringement is OK if they do it on the Internet, so even normally law-abiding people are doing it.
The more your pirate, the more they'll do to try to control your rights, so don't bitch on Slashdot about it when it happens, especially when in the previous story you were arguing why it's OK to pirate music.
I didn't realise it was an abbreviation, I thought it was the Scottish prefix, i.e. McChris. MC is usually in capitals, rather than all in lower-case as in the article title. It seems there was a slip in Slashdot standards when this article was composed.
A 100% profit is what you call wrong? Then what on earth would you call 10%, or a loss? The only wrong thing you did was only buying 5 shares, rather than a thousand.
Except Garfield isn't even warm in the first place. I've read it when it's been in the paper, but it's NEVER been funny. At least Dilbert tries to have jokes, even if many of them fall flat, but Garfield doesn't have anything. There are NO jokes, it's just some cat sitting there. Thank god it's been cancelled.
.
Here's the obligatory maddox link: http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=garfield_sucks
And think of the fun you'd have with an "Out of Order" sign on beer-bash Fridays.
Yes, people would piss all over your desk.
This is an entertainment programme, not a factual programme.
The old show was both, IMO.
It tried to be both but was neither. It was too brief to be of any factual value, and too dry and predictable to be of any entertainment value. The new programme realised that you're not going to fit much information into an hour-long TV programme, and even if you did it would only be a millionth of what you could find out on the Internet or in magazines, therefore it wisely concentrated on the entertainment factor, and it that it has succeeded.
Come off it, the old Top Gear, like Fifth Gear, was completely dull. It was like a house-buying programme for cars. I don't watch TV for information I watch it for entertainment. If I wanted information on cars I'd get some car magazines which would have a hundred times more content than a TV programme.
Have you considered that maybe you look at yourself as "mediocre" because you have not been given the chance to tap into your potential?
The people at Pixar, or any other great company are not "better" than you, they are people that push their limits everyday and don't settle for a self fulfilling prophecy of being mediocre which most of us settle with.
That's not necessarily true. Some people ARE better than other people. They are more clever, more skillful, have more natural ability, better education, more hard-working, more disciplined, more psychologically healthy, just better people all round. Some people have great potential, some have none no matter how hard they work.
I for one have no potential. It doesn't matter how hard I work at something, I don't learn it. I can't understand things in months of trying that other people pick up instantly. I have no discipline, my hard-work ethic has gradually shrivelled up and died, and am psychologically fucked up. I am worse than other people, and it's nothing to do with 'pushing limits', some people are just better than others.
It's merely some communist fantasy that people are all equal and it's just a matter of 'applying yourself' and having a good working environment.
That simply doesn't work on the long run and leads to the mediocre, and the "its just a job" culture.
A lot of jobs are just that. Most jobs don't need any creativity, they don't need independent thinking, they just need efficiency, nothing else. Not every company's goal is to make computer-generated cartoons with dull plots and irritating characters.
A PhD costs somewhere on the order of 4 to 7 years study. Not impossible, anyone with enough self motivation and desire can accomplish this.
Also don't forget: with a lot of money, and a lack of family to provide for.
Most of us are human beings, each with the same built in potential
No we're not. Not all humans have the same genetics to enable to them to be clever or skillful. Not all humans have the same education. Some get a good education, most get an awful education, some get no education whatsoever.
Some get great facilities for learning, private schools, computers, well-stocked libraries, places to study. Some get state-funded schools, no computer, half-stocked library, nowhere to study but small bedroom in council house which you share with two siblings who fight and scream all day. Some get no computer, no library, a mud hut for a school, no chance to study because you work in a sweat shop to pay your parents debts.
Some have rich parents who invest in your upbringing, some have poor parents who care more about where the next packet of cigarettes is coming from, some have parents who sell them into slavery.
Some have family which include state governers and presidents, some have family which include farm harvesters and prostitutes.
No-one has the same potential as anyone else, everyone starts from a different point. Human beings are not created equal.
To be fair, there's not much incentive to treat employees like human beings. Most jobs are relatively unskilled, or have more demand for jobs than jobs available, therefore you can treat people like shit and they can't do anything about it because they're so replaceable. Treating them like human beings just means extra expense, and makes them think they're more valuable than they are so they don't get much work done. I for one work in a manual labour job and accept the fact that I'm worthless to the company and therefore will be treated as no more than a slave that needs paying.
Which may stimulate a person that's really interested in looking up more about him instead of the person that just wants to try, and fail, at being a smart-ass.
I'm not interested in finding out about him, I just resent the fact that he's presented as some sort of idol when no-one has heard of him other than the person talking about him.
In other news, I met Xyxysxx Sdxyss the other day. Don't know who that is? Well look it up yourself you lazy fucker, have you never heard of google?
If someone's talking about a completely unknown person as if they were some massive slashdot celebrity, then the burden's pretty much on them to explain who the hell it is.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to have to research the people mentioned in every single slashdot post just to find out what the hell is going on. It's like those articles that consist of nothing but acronyms that no-one's ever heard of, and if you complain someone tells you to go and research it yourself...
No, you're still behind. By the time Brits get to university-age, they already have a ten-year binge-drinking career. Although our universities are rather sober in comparison, most seem to have grown out of drinking by then.
That's why you seal yourself in a bag before you die. You need a non-violent method of death for this so as not to break the bag. I suggest cyanide. You climb into the air-tight bag, seal it, and then eat the cyanide capsule. All the CO2 will be contained in the bag, and can be disposed of safely.