2) They make that much, plus they keep getting some money every year after they retire. I'm unsure of the amount. Plus, most of these people are wealthy already.
People live on 30K a year, in this country. Some on less. Not only are these Senators getting paid to sit around and argue along partisan lines, but they have the best healthcare options on the planet.
And, "geeks living in California" making $158K/year doesn't come from taxpayer pockets.
I'm pretty sure he meant for networks of computers in the home. I'm not sure how many homes would have 10+ computers networked and doing heavy downloading at once, though.
But then, I always like having some wiggle room...
But if they don't have a copyright on it, what grounds are they suing for?
Someone explain. It still should be open and shut; no copyright, no lawsuit.
If you're a web designer, your job is to design a page that 1) works, 2) gets people to the content. Yes, it should look good, but that shouldn't be the first priority. Unless you're making flashy crap which annoys a lot of people.
And your example, a redneck using 2.02, isn't very likely. For one, the W3C standards I mentioned don't work in Netscape 2.02.
Standards work in any *current* browser, and it is generally agreed that older Netscape browsers suck. But coding just for IE6 is going to cost your company some business. Not everyone has IE6, or WindowsXP. Lots of people still use 98, and IE4-5.
By the way, your company is probably legally required to work with special accessibility things such as screenreaders. There are laws about that sort of thing, and it hasn't been too long ago a blind man was suing over it.
Cutting off users with ancient computers/OSes/browsers is a hell of a lot different than cutting off everyone who doesn't use IE. I don't use IE, and if a site won't load in my browser, screw them. It's as simple as that.
And, finally: Standards work in IE6. Standards work in Mozilla. Standards work in screenreaders. Standards work in nearly every browser released since 2000. Probably some that are older. And standards, in my experience, are a lot easier to code and upgrade.
Because (most) of the W3C Standard code works in IE, anyway, for one.
And because coding to the standard guarantees that everyone can use a page -- blind people, for example. Screen readers can have a hard time with funky code. Which is part of the point of standards.
Besides that, this is SLASHDOT. We don't want to bow to an MS product. Where have you been?
(Not to mention, MSIE is a horrible browser to use.)
We still have high standards for journalists, and I want to maintain them.
Where can I get some of what you're smoking? Very few journalists have any integrity whatsoever.
First of all...we're talking about children here. NO child under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts...period.
What the hell are you smoking? When I was 16(which is under 18 for those of you who can't count), I "consented" left and right to sex with my girlfriend.
Let's look at something from a *different* point of view for a second. First and foremost, I don't look at child porn, but I think that viewing it as a right-or-wrong is a bit looney from either side.
When I was 16, my girlfriend and I were having sex. Lots of sex. I got ahold of a video camera, we filmed some of said sex... now, if I were to watch that tape that I made just four years ago of *myself* having sex with a consenting partner, it's child porn?
Think about that. Not all child porn is some fat hairy old guy humping an eight year old.
Dur... that doesn't mean someone won't say "I'll give you $20 to rake my yard/watch my kid/walk my dog."
Plus, maybe she has a lemonade stand. "Buy Lemonade so I can have the internet!" Sounds like a good future geek to me.
Re:Moderators: Please show restraint with mods her
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Wow, man, that was the perfect karma whoring. (No really, I mean, what idiot moderator is going to see that and say, "Well, I disagree! Troll!")
Just too bad I didn't think of it first...
Maybe not most, but some. Of the CDs I've bought in the last year(seven, I think. Didn't keep a calender of it, but it's still more than before I had p2p), all but one were directly because of P2P. The exception was someone I'd heard before the local radio and MTV went to shit, and it was their newest CD.
So maybe not even 10% of the people are like me, but there is a case for it -- MTV and radio stations are very selective. (How many people heard the song from Spiderman everytime they turned on the radio for a few months there?)
Uh, hello. A Slashdot visitor submitted the story. A slashdot editor posted the story.
Slashdot visitors are commenting. (Of course, we'd comment on just about anything...)
It's kind of obvious some of us do.
It isn't really a geeky show, despite the constant Google references Willow makes when she's using her computer, but that doesn't mean geeks don't watch it. But not all the shows I watch are "geek shows." Kind of stereotypical to think that everything we do is, well, geeky.
That's one stupid thing about the auto industry. My dad once had a motorcycle for getting to work. It got about the same gas mileage as the truck he replaced it with.
Because they had to "beef up" the engine before they sold it. Because some idiots want to go faster. Maybe it's just me, but the idea of going really fast on a motorcycle seems kind of stupid.
And SUVs probably can't climb mountains. The damn things can barely turn without rolling over. (The original hummer((not the H2)) being an exception; it was developed more for military use than personal use. I have no idea about the H2)
Personally, I'd rather pay less for gas than be able to have an engine that can go faster; I'm not going to go that fast.
That's how it happened with us. AOL was good at first, because it had unlimited access. Then the price started going up(and the service didn't get any better after they added two bucks to it.). It kept going up. We had another line for dialing up(around $40 a month.).
Couldn't bug my dad into getting a cable modem($35-40 or so, I forget exactly). But I made the price comparison Dell-kid style to my mom(only I wasn't spazzing when I did it). Lo and behold, cable modem.
But they still have AOL for their e-mail. Oh well, sooner or later, that'll change. The Bring Your Own Access Plan will go up in cost to rival the "regular dial in" cost.
The RIAA and MPAA weren't going apeshit with lawyers before. I can see it now.
"They have players that can play video for hours now. Soon, they'll have them that can play all year long!" - Jack Valenti, 2003
That's fine until you consider the billions Nintendo(a Japanese company) has made off of this country.
Sure, the laws suck over here sometimes... but with around 300,000,000 consumer-crazy people, the US would be a hard country for a company to avoid. The profit possibilities are huge.
Of course, China has more people in it than the US -- but they have a much more restrictive government. (See anything about the control they want over the 'net.)
A good addition to this is to talk about cars or books. When you buy a car, you can fuck with the engine all you want. You can modify the speaker system to make it louder(pain in the ass when I'm asleep. don't do this). You can spraypaint your initials on the hood if you want.
And with books, you can cut the cover off and superglue the cover to your windshield on the inside if you want. Don't see Del Rey or Tor suing people for selling scissors and glue. (Note: I've never cut a cover off of a book, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.)
I don't know, but the first reply to it talking about punishing spammers got offtopic. Which is on topic, and if phrased differently, might have been +1 Funny. I'm seeing more and more stupid moderations lately. (Yes, I'm in danger of being off topic again) Both positive and negative, but I've seen lots of stupid moderations lately. Bad moderating monkeys! Bad! (And I meta-moderate off-topic and redundant moderations Unfair now without even bothering to read them, because the two are way overused.)
Slashdot Mirror
2) They make that much, plus they keep getting some money every year after they retire. I'm unsure of the amount. Plus, most of these people are wealthy already.
People live on 30K a year, in this country. Some on less. Not only are these Senators getting paid to sit around and argue along partisan lines, but they have the best healthcare options on the planet.
And, "geeks living in California" making $158K/year doesn't come from taxpayer pockets.
Uranus!
(it had to be said)
I'm pretty sure he meant for networks of computers in the home. I'm not sure how many homes would have 10+ computers networked and doing heavy downloading at once, though.
But then, I always like having some wiggle room...But if they don't have a copyright on it, what grounds are they suing for?
Someone explain. It still should be open and shut; no copyright, no lawsuit.
I'm sorry, but no.
If you're a web designer, your job is to design a page that 1) works, 2) gets people to the content. Yes, it should look good, but that shouldn't be the first priority. Unless you're making flashy crap which annoys a lot of people.
And your example, a redneck using 2.02, isn't very likely. For one, the W3C standards I mentioned don't work in Netscape 2.02.
Standards work in any *current* browser, and it is generally agreed that older Netscape browsers suck. But coding just for IE6 is going to cost your company some business. Not everyone has IE6, or WindowsXP. Lots of people still use 98, and IE4-5.
By the way, your company is probably legally required to work with special accessibility things such as screenreaders. There are laws about that sort of thing, and it hasn't been too long ago a blind man was suing over it.
Cutting off users with ancient computers/OSes/browsers is a hell of a lot different than cutting off everyone who doesn't use IE. I don't use IE, and if a site won't load in my browser, screw them. It's as simple as that.
And, finally: Standards work in IE6. Standards work in Mozilla. Standards work in screenreaders. Standards work in nearly every browser released since 2000. Probably some that are older. And standards, in my experience, are a lot easier to code and upgrade.
Because (most) of the W3C Standard code works in IE, anyway, for one.
And because coding to the standard guarantees that everyone can use a page -- blind people, for example. Screen readers can have a hard time with funky code. Which is part of the point of standards.
Besides that, this is SLASHDOT. We don't want to bow to an MS product. Where have you been?
(Not to mention, MSIE is a horrible browser to use.)
We still have high standards for journalists, and I want to maintain them. Where can I get some of what you're smoking? Very few journalists have any integrity whatsoever.
First of all...we're talking about children here. NO child under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts...period.
What the hell are you smoking? When I was 16(which is under 18 for those of you who can't count), I "consented" left and right to sex with my girlfriend.
Let's look at something from a *different* point of view for a second. First and foremost, I don't look at child porn, but I think that viewing it as a right-or-wrong is a bit looney from either side.
When I was 16, my girlfriend and I were having sex. Lots of sex. I got ahold of a video camera, we filmed some of said sex... now, if I were to watch that tape that I made just four years ago of *myself* having sex with a consenting partner, it's child porn?
Think about that. Not all child porn is some fat hairy old guy humping an eight year old.
Dur... that doesn't mean someone won't say "I'll give you $20 to rake my yard/watch my kid/walk my dog." Plus, maybe she has a lemonade stand. "Buy Lemonade so I can have the internet!" Sounds like a good future geek to me.
Yes, because we all know criminals ONLY break in to steal. There has never been a case when criminals broke in and raped or killed someone.
No, criminals would never do that.
Wow, man, that was the perfect karma whoring. (No really, I mean, what idiot moderator is going to see that and say, "Well, I disagree! Troll!")
Just too bad I didn't think of it first...
Maybe not most, but some. Of the CDs I've bought in the last year(seven, I think. Didn't keep a calender of it, but it's still more than before I had p2p), all but one were directly because of P2P. The exception was someone I'd heard before the local radio and MTV went to shit, and it was their newest CD.
So maybe not even 10% of the people are like me, but there is a case for it -- MTV and radio stations are very selective. (How many people heard the song from Spiderman everytime they turned on the radio for a few months there?)
Slashdot needs a "-1 Didn't RTFA" moderation.
Idiot.
Uh, hello. A Slashdot visitor submitted the story.
A slashdot editor posted the story.
Slashdot visitors are commenting. (Of course, we'd comment on just about anything...)
It's kind of obvious some of us do.
It isn't really a geeky show, despite the constant Google references Willow makes when she's using her computer, but that doesn't mean geeks don't watch it. But not all the shows I watch are "geek shows." Kind of stereotypical to think that everything we do is, well, geeky.
Off topic, but in with your post...
That's one stupid thing about the auto industry. My dad once had a motorcycle for getting to work. It got about the same gas mileage as the truck he replaced it with.
Because they had to "beef up" the engine before they sold it. Because some idiots want to go faster. Maybe it's just me, but the idea of going really fast on a motorcycle seems kind of stupid.
And SUVs probably can't climb mountains. The damn things can barely turn without rolling over. (The original hummer((not the H2)) being an exception; it was developed more for military use than personal use. I have no idea about the H2)
Personally, I'd rather pay less for gas than be able to have an engine that can go faster; I'm not going to go that fast.
That's how it happened with us. AOL was good at first, because it had unlimited access. Then the price started going up(and the service didn't get any better after they added two bucks to it.). It kept going up. We had another line for dialing up(around $40 a month.).
Couldn't bug my dad into getting a cable modem($35-40 or so, I forget exactly). But I made the price comparison Dell-kid style to my mom(only I wasn't spazzing when I did it). Lo and behold, cable modem.
But they still have AOL for their e-mail. Oh well, sooner or later, that'll change. The Bring Your Own Access Plan will go up in cost to rival the "regular dial in" cost.
The RIAA and MPAA weren't going apeshit with lawyers before. I can see it now.
"They have players that can play video for hours now. Soon, they'll have them that can play all year long!" - Jack Valenti, 2003
That's fine until you consider the billions Nintendo(a Japanese company) has made off of this country.
Sure, the laws suck over here sometimes... but with around 300,000,000 consumer-crazy people, the US would be a hard country for a company to avoid. The profit possibilities are huge.
Of course, China has more people in it than the US -- but they have a much more restrictive government. (See anything about the control they want over the 'net.)
A good addition to this is to talk about cars or books. When you buy a car, you can fuck with the engine all you want. You can modify the speaker system to make it louder(pain in the ass when I'm asleep. don't do this). You can spraypaint your initials on the hood if you want.
And with books, you can cut the cover off and superglue the cover to your windshield on the inside if you want. Don't see Del Rey or Tor suing people for selling scissors and glue. (Note: I've never cut a cover off of a book, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.)
I don't know, but the first reply to it talking about punishing spammers got offtopic. Which is on topic, and if phrased differently, might have been +1 Funny.
I'm seeing more and more stupid moderations lately. (Yes, I'm in danger of being off topic again) Both positive and negative, but I've seen lots of stupid moderations lately. Bad moderating monkeys! Bad! (And I meta-moderate off-topic and redundant moderations Unfair now without even bothering to read them, because the two are way overused.)
You don't want them to do that. It's very likely they'd choose the latter. The government of today hates free speech.
... I concede to your point. That was low. ^_~
While I see your point, do you really think anyone would write 60s-ish Batman stories?
Unless he's punching that stupid monkey from the one banner.
*POW*
Holy roughed up monkey, Batman! You won a prize!
Didn't I see this idiot post, almost word for word, a few weeks ago? If not, you're a big moron who repeats the same thing often.
Who wants to bet the guy just saw his site on Slashdot and jerked the power cord out to keep from being melted?