You do realize that Bill Clinton holds the record for the most troops deployed during his term as President - right?
GWB probably would rely a lot on his military advisors - that's what (in theory) experts are there for. His job is to distill that knowledge and make the final decisions based on what he is informed.
I'd much rather have someone who listens to advisors than someone who will start dropping bombs based on a hair-trigger reaction to an opinion poll somewhere or to divert attention from a sex scandal.
...and while he probably wouldn't have had the sex scandal problem, Gore lived and died (and lost an election) by the opinion polls. Just watch the three presidential debates for proof of that.
(not saying Bush will be any good - I don't know - but I don't see why anyone should sell him short before he proves himself a good or bad president)
"...and well financed terrorist groups are much more likely to try and get one"
Emphasis mine. Back when the USSR and the US shared all the weapons, each player had a large arsenal at their disposal.
Now that we have two-bit dictators with missles, it would seem quite likely that we'd have a lot more. Due to our greater finances, resources, and even land mass 'mutually assured destruction' is not so mutual. We might lose New York, but they'd lose most of their country.
Yeah, it's still something to worry about. But as another poster said, biological weapons are probably far more cost effective and harder to justify return strikes against.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise that things are necessarily riskier now - we may be more likely to be attacked, but the extent of the attack will likely be far less...
Fight the man! Fuck the capitalist oppressors! Vote Nader! Smoke pot! Kill whitey!
I can't believe that Nike would force people to make their shoes at gunpoint! That's just sick and wrong, man! If they weren't being physically threatened to do such horrible work, they could get jobs at one of those much better paying local companies, right?
What they're saying is that they are a guaranteed source for verified, certified, known-good code. That is, to distinguish themselves from any potential forking going on. That's the business model.
Makes sense to me, regardless of how cool 'Helix Code' sounded and how dumb the new name sounds.
If you think Apple has problems now, just imagine the problems they'd have if they catered to those who ask for - no, demand - software for free.
(and yes, I know the different between 'free' and 'Free' in opensource/free-software parlance)
Apple is a business. If you can provide them with a good reason to see you as a viable market, I'm sure they'd be happy to consider it. Until then, they're not going to waste developer resources while there's more important work to be done.
---
but people aren't using Linux PPC just because they want a UNIX-like OS on their G4 - the reasons usually go deeper than that.
---
Do you really think that?
I disagree. Those people most likely bought those G4s and old versions of Mac OS in the past, but needed Linux for various reasons (quite likely a stable server platform, development, scientific apps, etc).
While they aren't as vocal, I really do believe that there are more people out there attracted to Linux for practical reasons versus those attracted for ideological reasons.
The reality, I think, is this: If LinuxPPC is as good or better as Mac OS X for any reason, it'll stick around. It could even stick around in a limited form for those who use it for ideological reasons. But I don't think Apple will have to worry about it cutting into Mac OS X sales unless their OS either sucks or costs too much.
I don't know about the pricing, but for most people who just want to get work done and aren't part of any 'movement', I'm not sure LinuxPPC will have the same appeal it had before (unless someone wraps a really really good and consistant UI around Linux - good luck).
If you want something dirt cheap, and money is your biggest concern, then go for the no-name Wintel box.
If you realize that a good system with a good UI will enhance your productivity enough in the span of a few months to pay for the extra cost, go for the Mac.
Like anything, it's all a matter of practicality. If you think the systems are 100% comparable and nothing will be gained from the Apple box, then don't buy it. But I humbly suggest that you don't base everything on price, as there are a number of other factors out there...
Well, the thing to remember is those of us who have supported LinuxPPC may not be quite the same group of people who are seen in the mainstream Linux community.
From my (admittedly limited) observations and experience, LinuxPPC users tend to be pretty pragmatic when it comes to the technology they use. Many or most of us have had Macs for years, and are unencumbered by the ideological biases that seems a bit more common in the main Linux community. While there are certainly some open-source and/or free software advocates out there, most of us simply want to get the job done with the best tools available.
As I'm sure most of you know, the current Mac OS isn't exactly a high end server platform. Linux allows you to take your older Mac hardware and put it to use in such an environment. As it is, there's a whole lot of stuff I can do running PHP/Perl and MySQL on LinuxPPC that I wouldn't even bother thinking about using Mac OS. The latter is only of interest to me for workstation stuff (which is important too).
Mac OS X changes that. All of the practical benefits of Linux are pretty much there, but wrapped into an interface we can actually enjoy using and feel productive with. Rather than being forced to learn two user interfaces, we can focus on one that bears a strong resemblence with what we're used to (note that I have some reservations with the OSX UI, but it appears to be getting a bit better with each release).
Just remember, LinuxPPC users may not be exactly like the mainstream Linux community. These are people who at some point in the past have bought Apple's proprietary hardware and software, and didn't consider it blasphemy. We just needed something that Apple until now could not provide.:>
I'm one of those people whose interest in LinuxPPC has waned somewhat since Mac OS X has hit the spotlight.
Before, my plan was to continue using my Mac for workstation and graphics type stuff, as well as coding (mostly PHP, Perl, etc).
I would then set up an old Mac clone with LinuxPPC and use it as a test server, which I did for a while. Worked pretty well.
Since I've been using Mac OS X (DP3, DP4, and PB) my plans have changed somewhat. Being a typical geek I'll probably play with each release of LinuxPPC, but I really can't get the same kind of productivity with Linux that I can get with OSX. Before, it was a choice between an OS with great user interface and lousy stability versus an OS with great stability and lousy user interface. Now, OSX appears to be on track to giving me both. Why stick with Linux?
Do I think LinuxPPC will die? Not really. By virtue of being open-source it doesn't suffer from some of the same uncertainty that 100% commercial products do, but I'm not sure it's going to get too far. Even now the media fascination with Linux has waned a bit.
So, I'll probably wipe my server's drive and use OSX once I give the final release a clear evaluation. But I'll check in from time to time, especially with Helix Code and Eazel in the mix.
RISC is inherantly better than CISC, but that doesn't mean that it's forever going to be faster. Motorola in particular has been quite slow in developing the PowerPC.
Apple is dealing with it by using dual processors, but that will only help for so long. The megahertz gap is widening, and while it doesn't mean everything, it certainly doesn't help any. The PowerPC may per-Mhz be faster than X86, but it's certainly not twice as fast as Apple would like you to believe.
Let me disclaim myself before you flame me: I'm typing this on a PowerBook G3, have been a Mac user since '84, and intend to remain one for the forseeable future. And no, raw speed is not everything (a good user interface is worth more than a fast chip IMHO), but let's face facts: Motorola and IBM just aren't pushing the PowerPC architecture fast enough...
While you're right about the "whole widget" thing, I wouldn't count Mac OS X on Intel hardware out.
It's quite possible Apple could develop an X86-based machine for OSX to run on. It simply wouldn't work on non-Apple X86 machines.
The PowerPC is a superior architecture, but lack of interest from IBM and (especially) Motorola make it a shakey proposition in the long-term... and it's certainly hurting Apple in the short term. Unless the AIM alliance actually does something, Apple could very well be justified in switching to an X86 architecture.
How Apple will manage the PR backlash is hard to say - this is the company that strapped a Pentium onto the back of a snail after all. But at least they could get chips in quantity and probably save a few bucks in the process.
But you're right on one thing: Don't expect OSX to be running on clones any time soon, at least until Microsoft blows up or something. They can't afford that kind of competition.
---
I don't agree with Singer, but I did want to point out that this argument is not ridiculous -- or at least that professional ethicists take this argument quite seriously.
---
Perhaps the argument wasn't so ridiculous (although it strikes me as the result of a middle-class guilt complex more than any real altruism), but the fact that someone was spending time posting on Slashdot chastising people who simply prefer not to support resource theft.
Real altruism comes with actually doing things for other people, not pointing out how selfish others are so that others are reminded of how superior your ethics are. I respect those who help others day in and out far more than those who prefer to sit around and talk about it.
While giving to others is great (and a good thing to strive for), I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks they deserve charity from others. It's the people who don't have any choice in their station in life (particularly children) who deserve the most help.
I just get annoyed at blowhards, trying to impose their ideal society on the rest of the world. All we're trying to do is avoid a little spam. If he has a problem with the wasted time, perhaps he should be pissed at spammers - without them, we wouldn't have to filter it out.
---
I don't know anyone who pays per byte per Internet access so it's not costing me anything at all.
---
It doesn't matter. Most ISPs and email providers don't charge that way. They take the average bandwidth and resource consumption of all users combined and factor that into their rates. If each user used fewer resources, they wouldn't have to charge quite as much.
In the end, if one person uses up more bandwidth, either the other users are given less bandwidth to consume or they are charged for it with higher base level prices. Generally the latter.
Also, this isn't counting the fact that many ISPs need full time handlers to deal with the complaints, extra servers to deal with the load, and so on. Just because there isn't a section on your bill labeled "Cost due to spam" doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
---
It seems like a lot of the slashbots have started this crusade to stop all spammers at any cost, even if that means wasting government resources and what few empty beds we have in our nation's jails
---
I agree with you that prosecution should be a last resort, but to be honest with you I think spammers deserve the jail time more than most of those charged with petty offenses. No matter how small you believe it to be, what spammers do is no different than theft. Most of them are con men (securities fraud, pyramid schemes, etc) as well.
Either way, it's nice to see that you worry about government resources. So do I. But don't you think user resources are important as well? And remember, the government is there to hear our grievences - that's what they are paid for. But I'm certainly not being paid to hear about someone's "Make Money Fast" scheme. In fact, I pay for it.
---
Even as we speak, there are literally, millions of people with swollen stomachs in the final stages of starvation
---
This is a false argument, based on the assumption that if we don't delete spam or turn in spammers that suddenly the other ills of the world would receive more attention. That's a pretty dubious argument.
You can turn it around, though - if I didn't spend so much time "just pushing delete" I would have more time to spend volunteering time and money to charity. You could even say that the extra processor time spent processing incoming spam uses up electricity, which means more factories churn polluting smoke into the air.
See how silly that sounds?
---
It doesn't take 30 seconds to delete victims of genocide or ethnic cleansings from your inbox, so obviously what you can't see from the comfort of your living room doesn't matter
---
Are you a horrible person because you're spending time posting to Slashdot instead of, say, volunteering time at the United Way or flying relief missions in Bosnia? If you're going to take up so much time preaching this kind of ill logic, you should consider spending that time on something more meaningful (like devoting every single moment of your life sacrificing your own rights because others have it worse).
---
It's this attitude that will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't do something to stop it.
---
*sigh*
The end of humanity, because we hold people accountable for their actions?
---
I think it's a good idea to get involved in what you believe is right, but damn is it really worth it to harass all the spammers.
---
Harass them? I just report them, and deal with those that are reported to me. Are you willing to extend your argument to those who are more visible in their theft? Should we stop harassing bank robbers because someone is starving in Africa? Come on. I'm not saying that spamming is of quite the same scale, but the principle (and morality) is about the same. People have no right to make someone pay for something they didn't ask for.
...and since you didn't mention it in your reply, I'm going to assume that you've rethought your freedom of speech argument.
---
I believe strongly in the First Amendment right of free speech and I believe that all speech, be it good or bad, should be protected.
---
I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment (I voted libertarian this time around and support the EFF), but this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
Spam is analogous to someone running up to you, telling you something, and taking a few cents from your pocket each time without your permission.
Who do you think pays for all of that bandwidth, server space, administrative time, etc? The spammer? Nope. Your ISP does - and then pass on the cost to you. And what if a spammer uses the same ISP as you do? You pay for that too, as many spammers split without paying their bill or utilize a ton of bandwidth before leaving. Multiply this by the thousands of spammers out there, and it's obviously a big problem.
It's not free speech. It's theft.
Also remember that free speech doesn't give you the right to enter someone's property to spout off at them, which is exactly what spam entails. Just as a theater owner can boot you out of his establishment, don't tell me that I have to put up with (and pay for) someone else's speech in my own mailbox.
Perhaps you should ask for your money back? I'm sure the Slashdot crew would be more than happy to give you a refund of the subscription fees they've asked you for...
Of course, you may also consider not coming here any longer, if it's so bad. You've been complaining about the quality of Slashdot for some time now.
France is a country doing something on the behalf of its people, not a person itself. It's quite possible that there are a few people in France who want Nazi or KKK regalia for whatever reason. France has taken it upon itself to tell those people that they cannot purchase these items. This is obviously an issue based in subjective morality - in other words, France thinks it knows what's better than its citizens. This may or may not be true, but it's not really the issue here.
On the other hand, spam is by definition not solicited. It is unwanted and unasked for. It is also effectively a form of 'postage due' advertising, where the recipient pays the cost of distribution and storage. And while Yahoo only takes money from those who want the products advertised within, spam is (once again, by definition) sent to people who aren't given the opportunity to opt-out before they ever see or pay for it.
Your analogy would be correct if France were complaining about Yahoo forcing people to pay for Nazi and KKK stuff they didn't want. This is not the case.
Spam is not and never has been about content. I don't care if it's porn or something from a mainstream corporation - it's about cost shifting, not the content itself. It's about not being forced to effectively pay for the extra resource consumption your ISP incurs via higher usage fees.
(note: I work as an abuse handler at a mid-sized web hosting company, and know that we could afford to charge our customers less if spammers didn't take up so much time and resources)
Here's your first problem. Don't worry about what you call yourself, and then you'll be on a path to true happiness.
If at some point in the future you walk/talk/act like a duck and eventually call yourself a duck, that's fine. You're a duck. But don't stress or obsess over it.
NIN is a good example. The Fragile has sold a lot less than Trent's previous works (ie. The Downward Spiral), and yet has gotten a lot of critical praise. Why? For one thing, it's a double-CD release, meaning that it's longer and costs a bit more. Radio airplay has been very light as there are few single-friendly tracks (and the few there are tend to have a bit of, um, radio unfriendly language or themes).
But in some ways, NIN is pop. Nine Inch Nails is probably the most visible example of industrial music out there. I mean, the guy is (albeit rarely) on MTV.
In that respect, pop isn't necessarily bad, as long as the artist doesn't compromise - and with The Fragile it's obvious that he didn't. It was quite obvious on first listen that the release wouldn't sell as well as TDS did simply because it wasn't so clear cut angst-y and yet wasn't exactly upbeat either. This drove some of the hangers-on away.
I liked NIN before it became semi-mainstream, and continued to like it when he gained some popularity (while certain pretentious assholes missed out on some of Reznor's best material). He's in a commercial slump right now, but also an artistic renaissance - doesn't bug me, as long as he doesn't take another 5 years to release an album. If anyone lets a band's popularity or lack thereof stop them from listening to it, they're going to miss out on a lot of good music.
I am in the middle of reading a book on the 'Millennial generation', ie. kids born on or after 1982. One interesting thing the book brought up that never occurred to me was that this resurgence of banal crap (N Sync, B. Spears, Backstreet Boys, and so on) is part of a revolving cycle. About every other decade a new generation starts off with 'safe', upbeat music. What is sacrificed in the way of importance and message is made up for in accessability and universal appeal. As those kids grow older things change and music begins to push bounds again. Early pop Beatles gave way to the counterculture of the late 60s and early/mid 70s. The Jackson 5 and disco gave way to grunge and hard rock. It's roughly a 20 year cycle.
Food for thought... Luckily, Mr. Reznor isn't going anywhere, nor are some of his predecessors (SMG, Pig, MDFMK, FLA, and a whole ton of old Skinny Puppy CDs). Those of us who just don't get the new stuff can sit back and wait - some of these goofy kids will eventually come up with something meaningful again, no worries.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that Bill Clinton holds the record for the most troops deployed during his term as President - right?
GWB probably would rely a lot on his military advisors - that's what (in theory) experts are there for. His job is to distill that knowledge and make the final decisions based on what he is informed.
I'd much rather have someone who listens to advisors than someone who will start dropping bombs based on a hair-trigger reaction to an opinion poll somewhere or to divert attention from a sex scandal.
...and while he probably wouldn't have had the sex scandal problem, Gore lived and died (and lost an election) by the opinion polls. Just watch the three presidential debates for proof of that.
(not saying Bush will be any good - I don't know - but I don't see why anyone should sell him short before he proves himself a good or bad president)
- Jeff A. Campbell
"...and well financed terrorist groups are much more likely to try and get one"
Emphasis mine. Back when the USSR and the US shared all the weapons, each player had a large arsenal at their disposal.
Now that we have two-bit dictators with missles, it would seem quite likely that we'd have a lot more. Due to our greater finances, resources, and even land mass 'mutually assured destruction' is not so mutual. We might lose New York, but they'd lose most of their country.
Yeah, it's still something to worry about. But as another poster said, biological weapons are probably far more cost effective and harder to justify return strikes against.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise that things are necessarily riskier now - we may be more likely to be attacked, but the extent of the attack will likely be far less...
- Jeff A. Campbell
Fight the man! Fuck the capitalist oppressors! Vote Nader! Smoke pot! Kill whitey!
I can't believe that Nike would force people to make their shoes at gunpoint! That's just sick and wrong, man! If they weren't being physically threatened to do such horrible work, they could get jobs at one of those much better paying local companies, right?
- Jeff A. Campbell
Is it me, or did every community have a BBS called "The Pirate's Cove"?
There was one here, in 509...
- Jeff A. Campbell
What they're saying is that they are a guaranteed source for verified, certified, known-good code. That is, to distinguish themselves from any potential forking going on. That's the business model.
Makes sense to me, regardless of how cool 'Helix Code' sounded and how dumb the new name sounds.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Nothing else changing, eh? So Solaris is still going to bundle HelixCode Gnome?
That must suck for Ximian, now that they have their own 'Ximian Gnome'.
:>
Sorry. Just being a pedantic geek. Obviously, at the minimum a search and replace of all instances of 'Helix Code' are in order.
(for the record, I liked the old name much better. oh well)
- Jeff A. Campbell
Apple paid Xerox in stock for the privilege - there was no theft involved.
Now, Microsoft on the other hand...
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
No matter how much Apple benchmarks Photoshop, it's still not a significant metric of overall system performance.
---
It's significant when half of Apple's target market spends most of their day in an Altivec-enhanced Photoshop, don't you think?
- Jeff A. Campbell
If you think Apple has problems now, just imagine the problems they'd have if they catered to those who ask for - no, demand - software for free.
(and yes, I know the different between 'free' and 'Free' in opensource/free-software parlance)
Apple is a business. If you can provide them with a good reason to see you as a viable market, I'm sure they'd be happy to consider it. Until then, they're not going to waste developer resources while there's more important work to be done.
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
but people aren't using Linux PPC just because they want a UNIX-like OS on their G4 - the reasons usually go deeper than that.
---
Do you really think that?
I disagree. Those people most likely bought those G4s and old versions of Mac OS in the past, but needed Linux for various reasons (quite likely a stable server platform, development, scientific apps, etc).
While they aren't as vocal, I really do believe that there are more people out there attracted to Linux for practical reasons versus those attracted for ideological reasons.
The reality, I think, is this: If LinuxPPC is as good or better as Mac OS X for any reason, it'll stick around. It could even stick around in a limited form for those who use it for ideological reasons. But I don't think Apple will have to worry about it cutting into Mac OS X sales unless their OS either sucks or costs too much.
I don't know about the pricing, but for most people who just want to get work done and aren't part of any 'movement', I'm not sure LinuxPPC will have the same appeal it had before (unless someone wraps a really really good and consistant UI around Linux - good luck).
- Jeff A. Campbell
If you want something dirt cheap, and money is your biggest concern, then go for the no-name Wintel box.
If you realize that a good system with a good UI will enhance your productivity enough in the span of a few months to pay for the extra cost, go for the Mac.
Like anything, it's all a matter of practicality. If you think the systems are 100% comparable and nothing will be gained from the Apple box, then don't buy it. But I humbly suggest that you don't base everything on price, as there are a number of other factors out there...
- Jeff A. Campbell
Well, the thing to remember is those of us who have supported LinuxPPC may not be quite the same group of people who are seen in the mainstream Linux community.
:>
From my (admittedly limited) observations and experience, LinuxPPC users tend to be pretty pragmatic when it comes to the technology they use. Many or most of us have had Macs for years, and are unencumbered by the ideological biases that seems a bit more common in the main Linux community. While there are certainly some open-source and/or free software advocates out there, most of us simply want to get the job done with the best tools available.
As I'm sure most of you know, the current Mac OS isn't exactly a high end server platform. Linux allows you to take your older Mac hardware and put it to use in such an environment. As it is, there's a whole lot of stuff I can do running PHP/Perl and MySQL on LinuxPPC that I wouldn't even bother thinking about using Mac OS. The latter is only of interest to me for workstation stuff (which is important too).
Mac OS X changes that. All of the practical benefits of Linux are pretty much there, but wrapped into an interface we can actually enjoy using and feel productive with. Rather than being forced to learn two user interfaces, we can focus on one that bears a strong resemblence with what we're used to (note that I have some reservations with the OSX UI, but it appears to be getting a bit better with each release).
Just remember, LinuxPPC users may not be exactly like the mainstream Linux community. These are people who at some point in the past have bought Apple's proprietary hardware and software, and didn't consider it blasphemy. We just needed something that Apple until now could not provide.
- Jeff A. Campbell
I'm one of those people whose interest in LinuxPPC has waned somewhat since Mac OS X has hit the spotlight.
Before, my plan was to continue using my Mac for workstation and graphics type stuff, as well as coding (mostly PHP, Perl, etc).
I would then set up an old Mac clone with LinuxPPC and use it as a test server, which I did for a while. Worked pretty well.
Since I've been using Mac OS X (DP3, DP4, and PB) my plans have changed somewhat. Being a typical geek I'll probably play with each release of LinuxPPC, but I really can't get the same kind of productivity with Linux that I can get with OSX. Before, it was a choice between an OS with great user interface and lousy stability versus an OS with great stability and lousy user interface. Now, OSX appears to be on track to giving me both. Why stick with Linux?
Do I think LinuxPPC will die? Not really. By virtue of being open-source it doesn't suffer from some of the same uncertainty that 100% commercial products do, but I'm not sure it's going to get too far. Even now the media fascination with Linux has waned a bit.
So, I'll probably wipe my server's drive and use OSX once I give the final release a clear evaluation. But I'll check in from time to time, especially with Helix Code and Eazel in the mix.
- Jeff A. Campbell
RISC is inherantly better than CISC, but that doesn't mean that it's forever going to be faster. Motorola in particular has been quite slow in developing the PowerPC.
Apple is dealing with it by using dual processors, but that will only help for so long. The megahertz gap is widening, and while it doesn't mean everything, it certainly doesn't help any. The PowerPC may per-Mhz be faster than X86, but it's certainly not twice as fast as Apple would like you to believe.
Let me disclaim myself before you flame me: I'm typing this on a PowerBook G3, have been a Mac user since '84, and intend to remain one for the forseeable future. And no, raw speed is not everything (a good user interface is worth more than a fast chip IMHO), but let's face facts: Motorola and IBM just aren't pushing the PowerPC architecture fast enough...
- Jeff A. Campbell
While you're right about the "whole widget" thing, I wouldn't count Mac OS X on Intel hardware out.
... and it's certainly hurting Apple in the short term. Unless the AIM alliance actually does something, Apple could very well be justified in switching to an X86 architecture.
It's quite possible Apple could develop an X86-based machine for OSX to run on. It simply wouldn't work on non-Apple X86 machines.
The PowerPC is a superior architecture, but lack of interest from IBM and (especially) Motorola make it a shakey proposition in the long-term
How Apple will manage the PR backlash is hard to say - this is the company that strapped a Pentium onto the back of a snail after all. But at least they could get chips in quantity and probably save a few bucks in the process.
But you're right on one thing: Don't expect OSX to be running on clones any time soon, at least until Microsoft blows up or something. They can't afford that kind of competition.
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
I don't agree with Singer, but I did want to point out that this argument is not ridiculous -- or at least that professional ethicists take this argument quite seriously.
---
Perhaps the argument wasn't so ridiculous (although it strikes me as the result of a middle-class guilt complex more than any real altruism), but the fact that someone was spending time posting on Slashdot chastising people who simply prefer not to support resource theft.
Real altruism comes with actually doing things for other people, not pointing out how selfish others are so that others are reminded of how superior your ethics are. I respect those who help others day in and out far more than those who prefer to sit around and talk about it.
While giving to others is great (and a good thing to strive for), I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks they deserve charity from others. It's the people who don't have any choice in their station in life (particularly children) who deserve the most help.
I just get annoyed at blowhards, trying to impose their ideal society on the rest of the world. All we're trying to do is avoid a little spam. If he has a problem with the wasted time, perhaps he should be pissed at spammers - without them, we wouldn't have to filter it out.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Hrm. Nope, it's probably better just to complain a lot over an extended period and yet never actually leave.
:>
I have to admit, though, your blatant sarcasm is sometimes amusing.
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
I don't know anyone who pays per byte per Internet access so it's not costing me anything at all.
---
It doesn't matter. Most ISPs and email providers don't charge that way. They take the average bandwidth and resource consumption of all users combined and factor that into their rates. If each user used fewer resources, they wouldn't have to charge quite as much.
In the end, if one person uses up more bandwidth, either the other users are given less bandwidth to consume or they are charged for it with higher base level prices. Generally the latter.
Also, this isn't counting the fact that many ISPs need full time handlers to deal with the complaints, extra servers to deal with the load, and so on. Just because there isn't a section on your bill labeled "Cost due to spam" doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
---
It seems like a lot of the slashbots have started this crusade to stop all spammers at any cost, even if that means wasting government resources and what few empty beds we have in our nation's jails
---
I agree with you that prosecution should be a last resort, but to be honest with you I think spammers deserve the jail time more than most of those charged with petty offenses. No matter how small you believe it to be, what spammers do is no different than theft. Most of them are con men (securities fraud, pyramid schemes, etc) as well.
Either way, it's nice to see that you worry about government resources. So do I. But don't you think user resources are important as well? And remember, the government is there to hear our grievences - that's what they are paid for. But I'm certainly not being paid to hear about someone's "Make Money Fast" scheme. In fact, I pay for it.
---
Even as we speak, there are literally, millions of people with swollen stomachs in the final stages of starvation
---
This is a false argument, based on the assumption that if we don't delete spam or turn in spammers that suddenly the other ills of the world would receive more attention. That's a pretty dubious argument.
You can turn it around, though - if I didn't spend so much time "just pushing delete" I would have more time to spend volunteering time and money to charity. You could even say that the extra processor time spent processing incoming spam uses up electricity, which means more factories churn polluting smoke into the air.
See how silly that sounds?
---
It doesn't take 30 seconds to delete victims of genocide or ethnic cleansings from your inbox, so obviously what you can't see from the comfort of your living room doesn't matter
---
Are you a horrible person because you're spending time posting to Slashdot instead of, say, volunteering time at the United Way or flying relief missions in Bosnia? If you're going to take up so much time preaching this kind of ill logic, you should consider spending that time on something more meaningful (like devoting every single moment of your life sacrificing your own rights because others have it worse).
---
It's this attitude that will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't do something to stop it.
---
*sigh*
The end of humanity, because we hold people accountable for their actions?
---
I think it's a good idea to get involved in what you believe is right, but damn is it really worth it to harass all the spammers.
---
Harass them? I just report them, and deal with those that are reported to me. Are you willing to extend your argument to those who are more visible in their theft? Should we stop harassing bank robbers because someone is starving in Africa? Come on. I'm not saying that spamming is of quite the same scale, but the principle (and morality) is about the same. People have no right to make someone pay for something they didn't ask for.
...and since you didn't mention it in your reply, I'm going to assume that you've rethought your freedom of speech argument.
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
I believe strongly in the First Amendment right of free speech and I believe that all speech, be it good or bad, should be protected.
---
I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment (I voted libertarian this time around and support the EFF), but this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
Spam is analogous to someone running up to you, telling you something, and taking a few cents from your pocket each time without your permission.
Who do you think pays for all of that bandwidth, server space, administrative time, etc? The spammer? Nope. Your ISP does - and then pass on the cost to you. And what if a spammer uses the same ISP as you do? You pay for that too, as many spammers split without paying their bill or utilize a ton of bandwidth before leaving. Multiply this by the thousands of spammers out there, and it's obviously a big problem.
It's not free speech. It's theft.
Also remember that free speech doesn't give you the right to enter someone's property to spout off at them, which is exactly what spam entails. Just as a theater owner can boot you out of his establishment, don't tell me that I have to put up with (and pay for) someone else's speech in my own mailbox.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Perhaps you should ask for your money back? I'm sure the Slashdot crew would be more than happy to give you a refund of the subscription fees they've asked you for...
Of course, you may also consider not coming here any longer, if it's so bad. You've been complaining about the quality of Slashdot for some time now.
- Jeff A. Campbell
Your argument is flawed.
France is a country doing something on the behalf of its people, not a person itself. It's quite possible that there are a few people in France who want Nazi or KKK regalia for whatever reason. France has taken it upon itself to tell those people that they cannot purchase these items. This is obviously an issue based in subjective morality - in other words, France thinks it knows what's better than its citizens. This may or may not be true, but it's not really the issue here.
On the other hand, spam is by definition not solicited. It is unwanted and unasked for. It is also effectively a form of 'postage due' advertising, where the recipient pays the cost of distribution and storage. And while Yahoo only takes money from those who want the products advertised within, spam is (once again, by definition) sent to people who aren't given the opportunity to opt-out before they ever see or pay for it.
Your analogy would be correct if France were complaining about Yahoo forcing people to pay for Nazi and KKK stuff they didn't want. This is not the case.
Spam is not and never has been about content. I don't care if it's porn or something from a mainstream corporation - it's about cost shifting, not the content itself. It's about not being forced to effectively pay for the extra resource consumption your ISP incurs via higher usage fees.
(note: I work as an abuse handler at a mid-sized web hosting company, and know that we could afford to charge our customers less if spammers didn't take up so much time and resources)
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
I fall into this catagory somewhat - only for me it's country music. (Yea, go ahead and gag.)
---
I won't gag. In fact, I'm intrigued. I've never heard country music before.
:>
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
I want to call myself something!
---
Here's your first problem. Don't worry about what you call yourself, and then you'll be on a path to true happiness.
If at some point in the future you walk/talk/act like a duck and eventually call yourself a duck, that's fine. You're a duck. But don't stress or obsess over it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
---
nor are some of his predecessors (SMG, Pig, MDFMK, FLA, and a whole ton of old Skinny Puppy CDs)
---
Oh yeah, and I know these bands didn't necessarily come before NIN. "predecessors" was the wrong term. Oops.
- Jeff A. Campbell
It's hard to define pop.
NIN is a good example. The Fragile has sold a lot less than Trent's previous works (ie. The Downward Spiral), and yet has gotten a lot of critical praise. Why? For one thing, it's a double-CD release, meaning that it's longer and costs a bit more. Radio airplay has been very light as there are few single-friendly tracks (and the few there are tend to have a bit of, um, radio unfriendly language or themes).
But in some ways, NIN is pop. Nine Inch Nails is probably the most visible example of industrial music out there. I mean, the guy is (albeit rarely) on MTV.
In that respect, pop isn't necessarily bad, as long as the artist doesn't compromise - and with The Fragile it's obvious that he didn't. It was quite obvious on first listen that the release wouldn't sell as well as TDS did simply because it wasn't so clear cut angst-y and yet wasn't exactly upbeat either. This drove some of the hangers-on away.
I liked NIN before it became semi-mainstream, and continued to like it when he gained some popularity (while certain pretentious assholes missed out on some of Reznor's best material). He's in a commercial slump right now, but also an artistic renaissance - doesn't bug me, as long as he doesn't take another 5 years to release an album. If anyone lets a band's popularity or lack thereof stop them from listening to it, they're going to miss out on a lot of good music.
I am in the middle of reading a book on the 'Millennial generation', ie. kids born on or after 1982. One interesting thing the book brought up that never occurred to me was that this resurgence of banal crap (N Sync, B. Spears, Backstreet Boys, and so on) is part of a revolving cycle. About every other decade a new generation starts off with 'safe', upbeat music. What is sacrificed in the way of importance and message is made up for in accessability and universal appeal. As those kids grow older things change and music begins to push bounds again. Early pop Beatles gave way to the counterculture of the late 60s and early/mid 70s. The Jackson 5 and disco gave way to grunge and hard rock. It's roughly a 20 year cycle.
Food for thought... Luckily, Mr. Reznor isn't going anywhere, nor are some of his predecessors (SMG, Pig, MDFMK, FLA, and a whole ton of old Skinny Puppy CDs). Those of us who just don't get the new stuff can sit back and wait - some of these goofy kids will eventually come up with something meaningful again, no worries.
- Jeff A. Campbell