---"I've predicted this for a long time. The first generation of Amiga platforms were revolutionary, and blew away offerings from other personal computer manufacturers. In fact, it was only recently, with AGP systems, that modern PCs could even match the first Amiga (the A1000) in terms of graphics sync/performance."
Sounds like you're an Amiga fanboy. Care to back up your "Assertions" with real numbers?
---"The new generation of Amigas will be running on PPC-compatible hardware. (Even older Amgias can get extension boards with PPC chips on them, though), and will truly rock. It's been a while since we've seen a truly good mixture of hardware and software, working together well to build the ultimate platform. That was... hmm - the late 80s and early 90s. The Amiga. The x86 hardware has (and still does) prohibit the PC from reaching this level,"
Care to mention examples? Perfreablly comparing to the Amiga (the old ones)
"and MacOS (up until MacOS X) has been a complete toy operating system."
Agreed.
"Just when PCs and Macs are starting to catch up with the original Amiga, the new Amiga is getting ready to be unleashed."
I'll believe it when I can use it somewhere. I've heard about the "Amiga 1" ever since '98 from usenet. Unless you're talking to the developers, I see this as much fud as the Troll "BSD is dying".
---" Reposting again. Managed to get up to 50 Karma, posted ONE pro-Troll message, and got mod-bombed. This diatribe was truer than I thought. CLiT, I shall be honored if you accept me as a member!"
Yeah, if you post something that doesn't get approved with the group-think of the Nazi -Moderators, you're modded to hell and back. I posted an article about being for the Spammer in the recent article and explaining why I dontt want congress involved. I was on topic and everything else, but some fuck-wad Thought I was a troll. Guess he doesn't have the mental capicity to understand other viewpoints. Still, Ringbarer, if you think you got mod-bombed, talk to "negativekarmanow tm" about his post.
This moderation evidently shows that MANY people wanted to see it, however, the thread was being bitch-slapped by moderators applying -1 to every article continously. Here's the totals...
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=377, Flamebait=4, Troll=27, Redundant=5, Insightful=98, Interesting=205, Informative=49, Funny=12, Overrated=11, Underrated=63, Total=851to every article continously. Here's the totals...
Before modding me down, if this isn't news, WHY WOULD K5 treat this as a story??? Perhaps editors, you shouldn't CENSOR people. You're who we look up to..
Yeah, old comps do get dusty inside. However, even if the fan quits, it's still not a problem. That bit of dust is flammible, but the metal aint. There's a fireproof box around those bunnies. ANd once it smolders some, it'll burn out most of the O2 (since the fans dont pump air cause of dust). There goes your "fire hazard"
From what I understand, Limbo (or whatever the whacked-out name crap means) is the 8.0 Beta.
What I usually do is of the following (depending on what OS):
If it's MS Windows, I wait about 6 months till most of the bugs are worked out. XP has been a show-stopper to me. I wont install that piece of Spyware-ridden crap.
If it's Linux distro XYZ, I usually wait for about 1.5 to 2 months till I touch the new distro. If there's bugs, it'll be usually worked out in that time. Course, if something currently works, I'm gonna leave it alone.
---"That might be a nice way of doing things, but I don't think it would work. People might pay up a fair amount of money once or twice, but not after that. (I, for one, think the Linux-XBox thing is a hoax.) Call me a cynic."
Actually this isn't the first time money has been ante'd for free stuff. There was a guy (not anon, just forget name) that was offering 10K for soft-modem drivers. Still, nobody's made it.
And yeah, the Linux X-Box does seem hoax-ish.. But it's a great way to get on Slashdot. But still, if Linux on XBox is possible, the 200K might pay for a little of the legal fees. I bet, though that he does have the money (whoever it is), but bets that nobody will be able to.
The only way see that Linux can get onto the XBox without hardware mods, is by hijacking a legit program with unsecured binary code. Smash stack, gain control and run Linux. Then you have to deal with infringement of the hijacked game. All in all, a platform I'd rather not buy, or touch.
---"These people are the Internet equivalent of the Nike-store-smashing-anarchist juveniles. They need to grow up and realize how the real world works."
I wouldn't say that the first sentance is true, but the second certainly is. EFF is a so-called polictical activism committee. Well, they whine for money for court cases that usually are doomed to the very start. Why dont they usually win? Well, they don't give enough money to overturn the laws as they're made. All other PAC's do heavy lobbying and giving of heavy amounts of money to opposing officals.
The EFF is a reactionary orginazation. These do NOT work. Instead, I'd rather put money (from anon sources) into a pool requesting program X to be written. So what if the program is deemed "Illegal". If it's out there (source and all), no company/government/grassroots campaign can take it away. For my example, look at the 200K being offered to hack the X-Box for Linux. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
We know you're going in a home-made rocket. How does you insurance company feel about this? Have the raised/severed your coverage? Considering that even govenrmental projects have went up in a flash of fire (challenger), and that they even have coverage on that, will you purchase life insurance (if you can)?
ALso try reading the damn site for development....
__________________________________________
New project: opendj-libopendj OK, folks, I know that the current client broadcasting software (in Java) really sucks. The user interface is clunky, the installation is a pain, and the massive download size of the Java Runtime Environment is intolerable for DJs who are supposed to only need a 56K modem to broadcast.
Solution: opendj-libopendj and opendj-client-qt The opendj-libopendj project, already underway, aims to provide a C library API interface to the client-side of the OPENdj Protocol. opendj-libopendj uses the Apache project's APR library to achieve platform independence.
The opendj-client-qt project, which is not yet started, will use opendj-libopendj as a foundation for a platform independent, C++ client based on the Qt Toolkit.
So, are you volunteering to write it in C or C++ ? You're complaining soo much, so put your time where your mouth is Mr. Hanzo.
This is one example of why Open Source programming ideas are bad. When the developer comes out, other's bitch at him without anything to contribute. That's why authors get burnt out.
Your moronic analogy doesnt cut it. This argument is between the standards of the same practice in a differnt medium. You have all these open-source free-data types who want everything to be really cheap. However, when somebody abuses the system, you call "Kill the * " Spammers are the cost of a "free Internet-like system". I like that cost. I'll just let my filters take care of the crap.
---"The pro-spam people in Congress use the same rationale for their position. Funny that, given that few among their group give a tin shit about our freedom of speech at any other point during their careers. I'm certainly not trying to imply anything about your rationale by bringing this up, of course; John Gilmore is of the same opinion, and he's certainly not profiting from the junk e-mail getting crammed down our throats."
That's ok. Even if you were implying anything, it wouldn't be a big deal. My opinion's that of the minority. In slashdot (where we are the minority when considering the whole US), the small ones are looked down upon.
---"If this country actually ran on the idea that all speech is protected speech, I would agree with the position that spam could be protected. However, one of the principles that we seem to apply in our society is that speech is not sacroscant. Think slander, libel, obscenity, and harassment laws, and the famous "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" rule of thumb. By these standards, spam absolutely should not be considered to be protected speech."
That's the thing. If "spam" has physically hurt people, then fine. Sue them for money lost. However, if you compare your argument to that of physical spam, there is no freeloading. They pay for what they spend. The only current problem is that of metered bandwidth. If all bandwidth was charged for Outgoing connections (stable price), then I have no problem with spamming. They pay for it, I dont. The internet system is still to new for that to take effect. Also I dont like congress/courts take part in something that they have little knowledge about.
---"Spam relies a great deal of public and private resources -- resources that the spammer can never adequately pay for -- and by simply receiving spam I am cost time and money for the privilege of reading somebody's advertisement. Obscenity supposedly causes harm. Slander and libel obviously cause harm. Harassment causes harm. Does spam somehow get a free pass because it involves money changing hands?"
That's the thing. The spammer DOES pay for them. If they buy a dedicated T-1 for 1000$ a month (unlimited usage) (cost based on data transfer) , fine, let him spam. I see that the T-1 carrier was charged for X amount of bandwidth and the physical connection. I see that the cost was justified for the data.
I guessI dont buy into the same group-think as everybody else here on Slashdot. I look it as 2 problems: 1: The lack of a stable, OutStream abndwidth metering 2: The lack of the same ruleset when compare to physical spam.
>Correct, however if everybody had unilateral metering of Outbound data (perferabally per meg (10^6 bytes), then it would work. If you were hit >by a flood, the person who pays outbound will pay for it.
---AND YOU pay for it. Would people be so tolerant of snail-mail spam if we had to pay for each letter that arrived in our mailbox? I think not.
Wrong. I'm carefully saying OUTBOUND. Going to a POP3 or IMAP server and requesting transfer of mail is INBOUND, not outbound (and I mean relative to you). However, if you received spam, and responded to it, you'd pay for the response.
In the case of metered transfers, if you consider inbound and outbound, you can make somebody "PAY" by flooding him. If I remember correctly, the original mail system was "The Receiver Pays" type. People even then DIDNT LIKE THAT. So, you pay for what you send outbound.
Correct, however if everybody had unilateral metering of Outbound data (perferabally per meg (10^6 bytes), then it would work. If you were hit by a flood, the person who pays outbound will pay for it.
And in this, you pay for what you use. That just happens to be the same for electricity, Gasoline, long-distance telephone time (I know, Britans pay per minute local too), sewage and water (if in town that has them). Many of these fluctiuate on time of purchase (as in telephones). If you use at night when less are using it, you pay less. Only when the internet's data is metered like this, will we be able to get past these issues.
That's my point. It works because people allow it to work. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean people won't do it.
Look at the "illicit drug situation". Certain drugs are illegal. DO people still use them? Yes. Have the numbers went down since the enacted idiotic penalties? No.
What I dont like from spam lawsuits is that it forces the court (and future judgements) into 1 way of thinking. I DONT LIKE THIS. I'd much rather have orginazations of spam-fighters killing them at mail servers and gateways rather than in the court-room. And even if the courts say it's bad, what about out-of-country spam? Still sent.
---"He seems to missing a fundamental point: You do not have a Constitutional right to an internet connection."
However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).
---"You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to."
I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty.
---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."
Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.
---"I think I'll start buying stock in telecoms and ISP's just for the purpose of filing shareholder lawsuits against companies that cave in to spammers like this. Breach of fiduciary duty is extremely serious to large companies, and you can sue individual CEOs/board members/etc as well as the company. He wants to use the courts to force companies to provide services, the shareholders have a right to use the courts to make sure the companies DON'T provide those services to him."
I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE.
C'mon. Everybody hates spam. Even the slashdot trolls posted the obligatory net.abuse news group. Thing is, why EXACTLY is he rich?
1: He accepts jobs that ONLY pay 1000$ or more. Even the herbal stuff gets into this bracket. 2: Percentage cut on people who buy goods.
Well, even though people hate it, IT MAKES MONEY. I dont care what it is: drugs, pop, cd's, DVD's, equipment... People do what makes money. Evidently spam makes a lot, even though the heavy equipment required to send it.
If he wants to spend the money to send spam, let him. I see banning it as against the first amendment (speech). However, that doesnt stop ISP's putting spam filters (and low transfer speeds). My ISP even has procmail, so I can make my own.
---"* there is a good chance he/she/it will spend more money with them. this income would be lost if the screwed it out of the $10000. * people will hear about this and they will loose business. * class action lawsuits. "
I see it a bit different way. He has hacked items. If you get a big profile case (say a hacker with 2000$ worth of stolen cards), that's when the FBI comes in, seises your comp and then you have criminal proceedings on stealing.
Heh, where I live, "Old Cards" is mirage or so. These people have never seen much anything older than that. Well, that's when I played my Rat deck. Too bad they implemented the 4 card limit.
I've played this game years ago, back when legends and the Dark were out. Well, after looking what they were doing, they were adding "new" rules and making half-assed cards basd on older, and more powerful, cards. Then you have the Tier1 and Tier 2 playing sets. To play on the upper set, you have to BUY NEW CARDS.
This continual upgrading scheme (for paper,. nonetheless) is what ran me away. I play for fun now, and spend half the time trying to figure out the stupid new variations on the original rules.
Then again, the rules change every other week. How can they update the game so that the new rules are correctly in effect? Still, Online or offline, the game still stinks these days.
Well, it seems pretty easy why Linux companies die. All the big Linux companies were during the dot.com . Well we all know how that turned out. Simply enough, if they created a product, somebody could come in and make a better gpl version of it. The incentive and the money wasn't there. No money = no company.
Well, in the case of todays Linux companies, le'ts see who they are.... IBM, SuSE (big in Germany),and Red Hat (it IS linux.. heh). Those are your big players (along with a few other distros). IBM makes its money by being a glue contractor.
"You need X done? We can use Linux (so you can put more money behind the hardware instead of software. Your performance will be 30% more without cost of software."
Then you have 2 major distros. They sell conveinance and/or commercial apps. Red Hat wont sell commercial stuff (yet).
Overall, this "insight" on this article is idiotic. The article is soo much more than "Why dont Open Source Companies make money?" It covers topics of governments and why ours ISNT using linux wholesale (MS marketing/lobbying). Bad Slashdot reporting. That's all. Go read the article.
Actually, what Google AND slashdot could do is have a HTML page devoted to paying advertisers. I'd love to surf through Slashdot's ads. Some look really catchy, but 1 click and they go on to the next one.
In Googles case, they could create some tree structure that would list all adverts under the search category.
Hey CmdrTaco, you listening? You said you'd implement in the future;-)
Slashdot Mirror
---"I've predicted this for a long time. The first generation of Amiga platforms were revolutionary, and blew away offerings from other personal computer manufacturers. In fact, it was only recently, with AGP systems, that modern PCs could even match the first Amiga (the A1000) in terms of graphics sync/performance."
Sounds like you're an Amiga fanboy. Care to back up your "Assertions" with real numbers?
---"The new generation of Amigas will be running on PPC-compatible hardware. (Even older Amgias can get extension boards with PPC chips on them, though), and will truly rock. It's been a while since we've seen a truly good mixture of hardware and software, working together well to build the ultimate platform. That was... hmm - the late 80s and early 90s. The Amiga. The x86 hardware has (and still does) prohibit the PC from reaching this level,"
Care to mention examples? Perfreablly comparing to the Amiga (the old ones)
"and MacOS (up until MacOS X) has been a complete toy operating system."
Agreed.
"Just when PCs and Macs are starting to catch up with the original Amiga, the new Amiga is getting ready to be unleashed."
I'll believe it when I can use it somewhere. I've heard about the "Amiga 1" ever since '98 from usenet. Unless you're talking to the developers, I see this as much fud as the Troll "BSD is dying".
Maybe because IE supports the xml STANDARD more than mozilla.
---" Reposting again. Managed to get up to 50 Karma, posted ONE pro-Troll message, and got mod-bombed. This diatribe was truer than I thought. CLiT, I shall be honored if you accept me as a member!"
Yeah, if you post something that doesn't get approved with the group-think of the Nazi -Moderators, you're modded to hell and back. I posted an article about being for the Spammer in the recent article and explaining why I dontt want congress involved. I was on topic and everything else, but some fuck-wad Thought I was a troll. Guess he doesn't have the mental capicity to understand other viewpoints. Still, Ringbarer, if you think you got mod-bombed, talk to "negativekarmanow tm" about his post.
This moderation evidently shows that MANY people wanted to see it, however, the thread was being bitch-slapped by moderators applying -1 to every article continously. Here's the totals...
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=377, Flamebait=4, Troll=27, Redundant=5, Insightful=98, Interesting=205, Informative=49, Funny=12, Overrated=11, Underrated=63, Total=851to every article continously. Here's the totals...
Before modding me down, if this isn't news, WHY WOULD K5 treat this as a story??? Perhaps editors, you shouldn't CENSOR people. You're who we look up to..
Google could get slashdotted, or maybe even Slashdot itself could be slashdotted.
Yeah, old comps do get dusty inside. However, even if the fan quits, it's still not a problem. That bit of dust is flammible, but the metal aint. There's a fireproof box around those bunnies. ANd once it smolders some, it'll burn out most of the O2 (since the fans dont pump air cause of dust). There goes your "fire hazard"
The only thing is it's a boring news day.
fp
From what I understand, Limbo (or whatever the whacked-out name crap means) is the 8.0 Beta.
What I usually do is of the following (depending on what OS):
If it's MS Windows, I wait about 6 months till most of the bugs are worked out. XP has been a show-stopper to me. I wont install that piece of Spyware-ridden crap.
If it's Linux distro XYZ, I usually wait for about 1.5 to 2 months till I touch the new distro. If there's bugs, it'll be usually worked out in that time. Course, if something currently works, I'm gonna leave it alone.
---"That might be a nice way of doing things, but I don't think it would work. People might pay up a fair amount of money once or twice, but not after that. (I, for one, think the Linux-XBox thing is a hoax.) Call me a cynic."
Actually this isn't the first time money has been ante'd for free stuff. There was a guy (not anon, just forget name) that was offering 10K for soft-modem drivers. Still, nobody's made it.
And yeah, the Linux X-Box does seem hoax-ish.. But it's a great way to get on Slashdot. But still, if Linux on XBox is possible, the 200K might pay for a little of the legal fees. I bet, though that he does have the money (whoever it is), but bets that nobody will be able to.
The only way see that Linux can get onto the XBox without hardware mods, is by hijacking a legit program with unsecured binary code. Smash stack, gain control and run Linux. Then you have to deal with infringement of the hijacked game. All in all, a platform I'd rather not buy, or touch.
---"These people are the Internet equivalent of the Nike-store-smashing-anarchist juveniles. They need to grow up and realize how the real world works."
I wouldn't say that the first sentance is true, but the second certainly is. EFF is a so-called polictical activism committee. Well, they whine for money for court cases that usually are doomed to the very start. Why dont they usually win? Well, they don't give enough money to overturn the laws as they're made. All other PAC's do heavy lobbying and giving of heavy amounts of money to opposing officals.
The EFF is a reactionary orginazation. These do NOT work. Instead, I'd rather put money (from anon sources) into a pool requesting program X to be written. So what if the program is deemed "Illegal". If it's out there (source and all), no company/government/grassroots campaign can take it away. For my example, look at the 200K being offered to hack the X-Box for Linux. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
We know you're going in a home-made rocket. How does you insurance company feel about this? Have the raised/severed your coverage? Considering that even govenrmental projects have went up in a flash of fire (challenger), and that they even have coverage on that, will you purchase life insurance (if you can)?
ALso try reading the damn site for development....
__________________________________________
New project: opendj-libopendj
OK, folks, I know that the current client broadcasting software (in Java) really sucks. The user interface is clunky, the installation is a pain, and the massive download size of the Java Runtime Environment is intolerable for DJs who are supposed to only need a 56K modem to broadcast.
Solution: opendj-libopendj and opendj-client-qt
The opendj-libopendj project, already underway, aims to provide a C library API interface to the client-side of the OPENdj Protocol. opendj-libopendj uses the Apache project's APR library to achieve platform independence.
The opendj-client-qt project, which is not yet started, will use opendj-libopendj as a foundation for a platform independent, C++ client based on the Qt Toolkit.
So, are you volunteering to write it in C or C++ ? You're complaining soo much, so put your time where your mouth is Mr. Hanzo.
This is one example of why Open Source programming ideas are bad. When the developer comes out, other's bitch at him without anything to contribute. That's why authors get burnt out.
Your moronic analogy doesnt cut it. This argument is between the standards of the same practice in a differnt medium. You have all these open-source free-data types who want everything to be really cheap. However, when somebody abuses the system, you call "Kill the * " Spammers are the cost of a "free Internet-like system". I like that cost. I'll just let my filters take care of the crap.
---"The pro-spam people in Congress use the same rationale for their position. Funny that, given that few among their group give a tin shit about our freedom of speech at any other point during their careers. I'm certainly not trying to imply anything about your rationale by bringing this up, of course; John Gilmore is of the same opinion, and he's certainly not profiting from the junk e-mail getting crammed down our throats."
That's ok. Even if you were implying anything, it wouldn't be a big deal. My opinion's that of the minority. In slashdot (where we are the minority when considering the whole US), the small ones are looked down upon.
---"If this country actually ran on the idea that all speech is protected speech, I would agree with the position that spam could be protected. However, one of the principles that we seem to apply in our society is that speech is not sacroscant. Think slander, libel, obscenity, and harassment laws, and the famous "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" rule of thumb. By these standards, spam absolutely should not be considered to be protected speech."
That's the thing. If "spam" has physically hurt people, then fine. Sue them for money lost. However, if you compare your argument to that of physical spam, there is no freeloading. They pay for what they spend. The only current problem is that of metered bandwidth. If all bandwidth was charged for Outgoing connections (stable price), then I have no problem with spamming. They pay for it, I dont. The internet system is still to new for that to take effect. Also I dont like congress/courts take part in something that they have little knowledge about.
---"Spam relies a great deal of public and private resources -- resources that the spammer can never adequately pay for -- and by simply receiving spam I am cost time and money for the privilege of reading somebody's advertisement. Obscenity supposedly causes harm. Slander and libel obviously cause harm. Harassment causes harm. Does spam somehow get a free pass because it involves money changing hands?"
That's the thing. The spammer DOES pay for them. If they buy a dedicated T-1 for 1000$ a month (unlimited usage) (cost based on data transfer) , fine, let him spam. I see that the T-1 carrier was charged for X amount of bandwidth and the physical connection. I see that the cost was justified for the data.
I guessI dont buy into the same group-think as everybody else here on Slashdot. I look it as 2 problems:
1: The lack of a stable, OutStream abndwidth metering
2: The lack of the same ruleset when compare to physical spam.
>Correct, however if everybody had unilateral metering of Outbound data (perferabally per meg (10^6 bytes), then it would work. If you were hit
>by a flood, the person who pays outbound will pay for it.
---AND YOU pay for it. Would people be so tolerant of snail-mail spam if we had to pay for each letter that arrived in our mailbox? I think not.
Wrong. I'm carefully saying OUTBOUND. Going to a POP3 or IMAP server and requesting transfer of mail is INBOUND, not outbound (and I mean relative to you). However, if you received spam, and responded to it, you'd pay for the response.
In the case of metered transfers, if you consider inbound and outbound, you can make somebody "PAY" by flooding him. If I remember correctly, the original mail system was "The Receiver Pays" type. People even then DIDNT LIKE THAT. So, you pay for what you send outbound.
Correct, however if everybody had unilateral metering of Outbound data (perferabally per meg (10^6 bytes), then it would work. If you were hit by a flood, the person who pays outbound will pay for it.
And in this, you pay for what you use. That just happens to be the same for electricity, Gasoline, long-distance telephone time (I know, Britans pay per minute local too), sewage and water (if in town that has them). Many of these fluctiuate on time of purchase (as in telephones). If you use at night when less are using it, you pay less. Only when the internet's data is metered like this, will we be able to get past these issues.
That's my point. It works because people allow it to work. Just because it's against the law doesn't mean people won't do it.
Look at the "illicit drug situation". Certain drugs are illegal. DO people still use them? Yes. Have the numbers went down since the enacted idiotic penalties? No.
What I dont like from spam lawsuits is that it forces the court (and future judgements) into 1 way of thinking. I DONT LIKE THIS. I'd much rather have orginazations of spam-fighters killing them at mail servers and gateways rather than in the court-room. And even if the courts say it's bad, what about out-of-country spam? Still sent.
---"He seems to missing a fundamental point: You do not have a Constitutional right to an internet connection."
However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).
---"You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to."
I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty.
---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."
Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.
---"I think I'll start buying stock in telecoms and ISP's just for the purpose of filing shareholder lawsuits against companies that cave in to spammers like this. Breach of fiduciary duty is extremely serious to large companies, and you can sue individual CEOs/board members/etc as well as the company. He wants to use the courts to force companies to provide services, the shareholders have a right to use the courts to make sure the companies DON'T provide those services to him."
I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE.
C'mon. Everybody hates spam. Even the slashdot trolls posted the obligatory net.abuse news group. Thing is, why EXACTLY is he rich?
1: He accepts jobs that ONLY pay 1000$ or more. Even the herbal stuff gets into this bracket.
2: Percentage cut on people who buy goods.
Well, even though people hate it, IT MAKES MONEY. I dont care what it is: drugs, pop, cd's, DVD's, equipment... People do what makes money. Evidently spam makes a lot, even though the heavy equipment required to send it.
If he wants to spend the money to send spam, let him. I see banning it as against the first amendment (speech). However, that doesnt stop ISP's putting spam filters (and low transfer speeds). My ISP even has procmail, so I can make my own.
---"* there is a good chance he/she/it will spend more money with them. this income would be lost if the screwed it out of the $10000.
* people will hear about this and they will loose business.
* class action lawsuits. "
I see it a bit different way. He has hacked items. If you get a big profile case (say a hacker with 2000$ worth of stolen cards), that's when the FBI comes in, seises your comp and then you have criminal proceedings on stealing.
Heh, where I live, "Old Cards" is mirage or so. These people have never seen much anything older than that. Well, that's when I played my Rat deck. Too bad they implemented the 4 card limit.
---"Of course then the issue is -- will they really kick off somebody who has bought $10000 worth of cards ..."
That's 10000$ bucks for free for them. Why not?
I've played this game years ago, back when legends and the Dark were out. Well, after looking what they were doing, they were adding "new" rules and making half-assed cards basd on older, and more powerful, cards. Then you have the Tier1 and Tier 2 playing sets. To play on the upper set, you have to BUY NEW CARDS.
This continual upgrading scheme (for paper,. nonetheless) is what ran me away. I play for fun now, and spend half the time trying to figure out the stupid new variations on the original rules.
Then again, the rules change every other week. How can they update the game so that the new rules are correctly in effect? Still, Online or offline, the game still stinks these days.
Well, it seems pretty easy why Linux companies die. All the big Linux companies were during the dot.com . Well we all know how that turned out. Simply enough, if they created a product, somebody could come in and make a better gpl version of it. The incentive and the money wasn't there. No money = no company.
Well, in the case of todays Linux companies, le'ts see who they are.... IBM, SuSE (big in Germany),and Red Hat (it IS linux.. heh). Those are your big players (along with a few other distros). IBM makes its money by being a glue contractor.
"You need X done? We can use Linux (so you can put more money behind the hardware instead of software. Your performance will be 30% more without cost of software."
Then you have 2 major distros. They sell conveinance and/or commercial apps. Red Hat wont sell commercial stuff (yet).
Overall, this "insight" on this article is idiotic. The article is soo much more than "Why dont Open Source Companies make money?" It covers topics of governments and why ours ISNT using linux wholesale (MS marketing/lobbying). Bad Slashdot reporting. That's all. Go read the article.
Actually, what Google AND slashdot could do is have a HTML page devoted to paying advertisers. I'd love to surf through Slashdot's ads. Some look really catchy, but 1 click and they go on to the next one.
;-)
In Googles case, they could create some tree structure that would list all adverts under the search category.
Hey CmdrTaco, you listening? You said you'd implement in the future