Because usually when mankind gets involved and moves nature from place to place, the results are exellent!
I mean... Look at the lamprey in the great lakes, not to mention the zebra mussels.
Also in Michigan, we have these great lookalike lady bug things (I've heard them called both "Asian Beetles". and "Japanese Beetles"), which multiple by the thousands, and smell something fierce when killed. They supposebly were also imported to combat a native pests back in the 80's (aphids for one).
And don't forget about such wonders as the snakehead fish, and Africanized(sp?) bees (ie, "Killer Bee's")! Yesiree.. When man starts manipulating nature, it's truly a wonderful thing.
If I were to give Pratchett another shot, what books should I pick up? what are his top two?
I'd start with his early stuff, which to me was more "laugh out loud" than his later works (which are still better than 99% of the Science Fiction/Fantasy work being put out these days IMHO): "The colour of magic", and "Sourcery" are great starting points.
In fact, as much as I love all Pratchetts stuff, he's never beat Rincewind & Twoflower in my opinion. They were just the perfect "odd couple" for the Discworld IMHO. The Luggage is right up there also, I might add.
I realize that I'm walking a fine line with this question, but seriously... If the readers of/. decide that they want to fill a message thread with conspiracy theories, or diatribe about the poster, what's the problem here? They've read the article (in some cases), they've came to the site, they're interested in it enough to leave feedback, you've got your readers, etc.
I'm sure that you didn't intend it this way, but your "rant" seems to indicate that in your opinion, the message threads become a waste of time for anyone who wants to discuss the merits of the article if it degenerates into a slamfest about the poster, or his/her reason for providing the post. I disagree!
If the message feedback becomes centered around the poster, and their ethics, than that's what the/. readers want to discuss. Simple as that. It might not be the intellectually fulfilling discussion that you (meaning the editor who approved the story)envisioned, but that's not the role a good editor should take IMHO. An editor is there to make sure that a story is legible, easily read (well.. It's slashdot after all, so this is sometimes questionable), and fosters discussion among its readers. That's exactly what the articles you're ranting about are doing. The difference is that the discussion isn't what you wanted to see, and so you feel it's a waste of everyones time simply because it's a waste of your time, based on your interests.
If everyone reading/. felt the same way, then this off-topic discussion wouldn't take place. But they don't... People have their own opinions, and they should be able to discuss what they want in an open forum. Anything less is censorship.
And as far as the moderators go, there is an "off-topic" category, and any non-article specific talk (such as discussing the merits of the submitter) can, and often are labeled as off-topic. In an ideal world, I'd think that a lot of what's bothering yo should have been labeled as off-topic, and still rated based on content. So you might have an off-topic rated thread, but this thread could (or at least should)still be able to be rated up to a 5, or down to a negative based on its content.
I guess my point is this: The old "You build it, and they'll come" saying has worked for Slashdot. You built this site, promoted it, whatever... And we came. You however seem to have a problem with what we want to discuss now that we're here.
If moderators used the system as it's implied, and rated these off-topic threads accurately, you could just choose to filter out off-topic threads and you'd never be bothered by such things. However moderators here seem WAY too focused on modding down content and posters they disagree with, rather than promoting and categorizing the messages in a more neutral manner.
Personally, I'd rather see the/. editors focusing on a way to avoid duplicate articles, rather than working towards eliminating the opinions of those they disagree with.
You still have a subscription fee (not a concern for some / major concern for others)
You still have Tivo the company in the mix, which in the past has:
Erased user-recorded content
Recorded programs that Tivo wanted you to see, without asking your permission (which in addition to being very annoying, also used your precious disk space)
Limited the duration you have for watching recorded content
Not guaranteed any of Tivos features - They can remove them as they see fit (conversely, they can also add features, but who's going to complain about that?)
Made very questionable deals about subscriber privacy (selling demographical information, regional data, etc)
And this Tivo box, as with all other Tivo models, is still limited in what it can do, NOT in terms of hardware and potential, but in what Tivo will let you do with the hardware you're purchasing.
Sorry... Neat specs, and if there were no subscriber fee, I might pick up one for the GF who has issues dealing with my home built PVR (simply because she's afraid she'll break it somehow).
Additionally, while Tivo has turned a blind eye to some of the Tivo hacking that's taken place, they've proven that they're more than ready to disable features of their boxes if consumers begin using them in ways they didn't imagine.
Once Tivo, as a company, begins acknowledging, in legal terms, my rights as owner of the equipment, I'll consider them. Until then, as long as they're catering to Hollywood's hyper-paranoid demands, they're SOL as far as I'm concerned.
The donation helps keep knowledge free, think just how often you use wikimedia websites.
That's the real problem for me, is that I hardly ever use Wiki's. I just don't like them that much to be honest.
Don't get me wrong - I like the idea behind Wiki's, but when I go to them, I almost always spend too much time trying to figure out where the info I want is, and trying to understand the contributors point, when what I really want is an answer to my question. To me, a support forum, or a quick google (or google groups) search generally turns up the info I want faster than a wiki could ever hope to.
Now that's Wiki's in general. The only time I've ever used Wikipedia is to read a reference that someone's put on Digg or here on/. that refers to a specific article, or reference. The fairly recent fiasco surrounding Adam Curry trying to edit the Podcasting history's a good example of this.
It's not that Wikipedia doesn't serve a purpose, as it does. I guess that the easiest way to say it is that I put more faith in dedicated support groups than I do in completely open forums, where anyone's allowed to enter in data. It's not that I have a good example of how this has screwed myself or anyone else up, but it's always there in the back of my mind when I'm turning to these other sources (google, forums, etc), that if I can't find the answer I'm looking for, I can always refer to Wikipedia as a kind of last resort. And I never have had to since the aforementioned alternatives have always given me what I needed.
Having said all this, I don't understand why people would get upset about ads in Wikipedia if they were done nicely (ala Goodle Adsense, so that the ads matched the content you're reading). Those of us who want to support Wikimedia would have a nice way of doing so, and those of us who didn't like the ads would be able to find ways around them (I'm thinking... Greasemonkey). I don't see where an unobtrusive ad that's relevant to the reason I'm on Wikipedia, would really detract too much from the site itself.
But I'm guessing I'm in a minority here since there are obviously a number of people on/. who are absolutely infatuated with Wikipedia, and the sense that it's the "people's encyclopedia", made by the people, for the people, and I can respect that. But since it doesn't have corporate backing, I think they have to be realistic about their options, and unobtrusive, content-specific ads seems to be the best option IMHO.
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Bush will have an original thought, which isn't illegal, or detrimental to this country's well being.
Or, for you "Stop bashing Bush! I love the big guy" type of people (there must be at least a few of you out there)...
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Paris Hilton starts to look appealing. I mean really appealing... In a sexy, feminine sort of way. Not just the usual "She's not too attractive, but she's really dumb, and probably wasted enough of the time that you could steal yourself some money without her knowing" kinda way that most people look at her.
But seriously... The Internet's a global thing. Something that the avg. politician doesn't seem to realize. Unless you (virtually) wall yourself off from the rest of the world (China anyone?), this is a pointless arguement, as this would only hurt the US, and its citizens in the long run. Anyone with any common sense (no... Not the politicians with dollar signs in their eyes) can see this is a dumb idea. The very fact that it's a possibility is just scary as hell!
Nice way to antagonize your readers
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
Is it me, or was the header info for this thread just trying to bait all of the Java fans into defending their language of choice? Not used to such trolling headlines here... Hopefully it's not a sign of things to come, as this is a discussion worth, well... discussing.
But the way the blurb reads, it's basically saying "Get in here & defend yourselves, or you're going to be relegated to 'old timer' status". Might as well throw in some other inflammatory stories to go along with this one... Where's the "Are PHP users too retarded to learn a real language", and "Command lines are for losers" articles?
Are we witnessing the beginning of the "real" internet business, where there is no space for startups
I think you're misunderstanding a lot of the so called "startups". A lot of business's get started with the hope of being bought out by a big company.
Look at it this way:
Would you rather form a startup, work hard and sweat all your life hoping to eventually rival the giants in your field, or would you prefer to form a startup, work hard and sweat for a few years, until some big corporation sees the what you've achieved, and gives you a big paycheck, effectively buying out your company?
While I can appreciate those who want to someday replace the Yahoo's, and Adobe's of the world, I myself would be more than happy to spend a few years toiling in the fields, if it meant a paycheck which would allow me to retire at the age of 40!
Not that del.icio.us was looking for the "big payoff", but your post seems to imply that being bought out is somehow akin to selling out (very similar to the rants you hear when a popular independant band signs on to a major label), which is something I disagree with. Having said that, I am rather interested in what yaho will do with the technology... I'm guessing we'll see some new enhancements to the Yahoo toolbar for starters. Something like "People who have enjoyed the page you're currently on have also enjoyed the following: www.xxx.com, www.yyy.com, etc."
I have a home built PVR, which is getting a bit old (aprox. 4+ years), but it still does the job. The reason I built my own versus buying a Tivo, or some other pre-built system, is that I don't want the big media companies, and the setup manufacturer to start restricting what I can do with my content.
Has anyone heard anything about the DRM potential for this rumored machine? Based on how Apple's restricted their technologies in the past (can't record in 16 bit on ipods, max. video resolution for ipod video is very low, can't retrieve songs from ipod using iTunes, etc) to appease the various media company paranoia's, I worry that this may also be hindered by kiss-ass restrictions and limitations. Anyone heard otherwise?
One's a crime of greed, while the other is a crime of demand (although plently of people get into the drug business solely for the income potential).
If there wasn't a demand for drugs, there would be no drug trade. Conversely, the only reason to steal from others is always greed. Some might steal for fun *cough* winona ryder *cough*, but theft (in person, 3rd person, or via cybercrime) is almost always due to greed. Big difference there... One's there as a result of people wants, and demands. The other is largely parasitic, and exists solely to leech off people.
Personally, I'd rather see my government invest more of our tax dollars into protecting our identities, and investments, as opposed to busting generally harmless dope smokers, and their suppliers (In case you didn't know, marijuana smokers are the most commonly targeted drug demographic these days, and the majority of our tax dollars, go towards fighting marijuana, while proven "bad drugs", such as meth, ruin lives, and run rampant throughout the country).
The reason for all this is greed. The big companies almost write their own laws these days, and meanwhile more and more of our freedoms our lost, as our lawmakers focus on giving their funders (not constituents!) what they want. And surprisingly, things like Cybercrime continue to grow, and be largely ignored (Note, I'm talking real crimes, such as identity theft, phishing, and so on. Not downloading music and videos, which IMHO should be near the bottom of our list of priorities) .
Personally, I'd like to see a major change in how we handle crimes in this country: Elevate identity theft, and other life-altering crimes to the level they deserve, focus our energies and money on bettering our country, and removing our dependence on other countries for our very existance, and stop focusing on the average downloader as being the worst thing to hit the US since Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, start fighting the real drug problems that are facing our country: Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, and so on, rather than going after the "low hanging fruit", marijaua users, which are largely chosen simply for the ease of busts, and the profit available to cops for doing so.
It's all about priorities, and right now our lawmakers top priorities are largely themselves, as evidenced by recentevents.
I agree with the 1st comment: This is ridiculous for Tivo, or any other home entertainment device! Way to sign away your privacy, just to save yourself from having to push a button.
But it also brings up a good question... What if I have 3 or 4 people aprox. the same distance away from the box? For that matter, what if the person closest to the box isn't the person who should be deciding what to watch at that point in time?
But really, this is just another example of why I built my own PVR instead of going the Tivo route: They just don't seem to get what "I" want in a PVR. At the top of that list is that I don't want Tivo controlling what I watch, and what I can record (and they do both). Under that top item though are lots of other reasons as ridicuous as this idea... they just seem so out of touch with what consumers want, and instead of finding out, and tailoring their offerings to what consumers want, they kiss ass to the media companies, allowing them to dictate what Tivo users can and can't do/have.
Let's see... If I buy a movie on PPV, I can record a copy for personal use (for example, showing the girlfriend the next time she's over), using either my trusty old VCR, or my (formerly new & sparkling) PVR system, and if I go the PVR route, that means a quick and easy burn to DVD for archiving, vs. the lower quality, but still watchable VCR.
If I go to rent a movie, it's much more a gray area as to whether I can temporarily archive a copy for personal use, but the potential stil exists. Obviously it's not ok to copy what you rent to keep a personal copy, but the gray area comes into play (IMHO) if I haven't had a chance to watch the movie yet, and my rental duration's over. I still have the option of ripping down a copy of that tape/DVD to watch when I can watch it (after all, I've paid my fee's to rent the movie - It's up to me when I actually watch it), and then erasing that copy once I have watched it.
Or, I can go the route that the big media vultures want me to go... Meaning that I pay the same fee as for the two previous methods, but I have to watch that movie within 24 hours, or it'll "disappear", effectively locking me out from watching it, whether I got to see it during that initial 24 hour period, or not.
What makes more sense here? Keep the existing freedoms and flexability that we have regarding such items, or pay the same amount of money for far fewer features and options... I don't know about you, but I personally see this as yet another way that the media companies are trying to bait us consumers into giving up our rights.
I realize that pricing's not been set yet either, but come on... Unless the movies are less than $1.00, I'm not even going to consider this. A better offer, albeit one which I would also avoid, would be to let the movie be viewable until it has been viewed once. This way, if something comes up, and I don't get to watch the movie during that 24 hour period, I still can go back to it at a later dat and get my moneys worth. Of course then you get into the nitty gritty details of what constitutes a watched movie (Did you "watch it all the way through", "What happens if I stop the movie 5 seconds before the end, or during the closing credits", etc).
Sorry... I've said it here before: I'm all for paying for the ability to download and watch shows. You can even stick a commercial or two in the mix to cover your costs! But once you start removing my freedoms, as far as what I can do with the product I've purchased, I'm going to go elsewhere.
What I hear form all my non /. friends
on
The Rise of Digg.com
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is that Digg gets the articles faster (Well duh... It's completely user/score driven. On/. you have to wait for an editor to post the articles), but also that most of them don't like wading through all the diatribe and arguements in the comments.
Now obviously Digg doesn't have a great comment section, since you can basically only add new message, not keep a thread going, or easily quote/tie your response to a particular comment, but that's not it's thing. That's/.'s thing.
I did find it interesting about how many people have told me that they hate/. for it's users, and the amount of crap you have to dig through in order to get some real info out of the commentary. While I don't mind wading through some crap to find my info, it's been a real eye opener how many people don't care for/.'s nerdy insults and arguments. When i'd mention that with a/. account, you can tailor what types of responses you see when looking at a thread, everyone I mentioned this to came back with a "Why bother? I've got digg now".
So I guess this means that the trolls are doing their thing here on/. (driving people away), and that the common user simply wants to know what's going on in their world. Not to discuss it, or defend their viewpoint against a bunch of Linux hounds, or holyier-than-thou type responses.
Me... I (obviously) still come back to/. for the threads, but I'll be honest in that digg's my 1st stop these days, and when I come to/., it's usually with the thought of "Let's see what/.'s got to say about that digg story I read, if it's even been posted there yet".
To me, the threads are still the "meat and potato's" of/., but I have found myself moderating a lot less since everyone else seems to be wasting their mod points on modding down posts, rather then elevating the good ones above the bad. Maybe/. needs to clean house of some moderators, since they seem to be focusing on what they disagree with, rather than focusing on the strengths which an opposing viewpoint might bring to the table? Just a thought...
Copyright and patent laws were intended to protect someone's intellect, and to allow for works to eventually enter the public domain, ideally to benefit society as a whole once the inventer/creator has made some cash off their idea (IMHO... I'm sure that there's some/. lawyer wannabe getting ready to challenge my definition somewhere).
But nothing really happens this way anymore it seems. Nowadays, when the public is supposed to see some benefits from something entering the public domain, the big, money hungry companies just find some greedy, two-faced politician who's willing to sell out the people who elected them for some easy cash, and they extend protections, and enact new laws to prevent people from getting what they're legally entitled to.
And it's sad actually... Do you think that when the cpoyright laws were put into place, the lawmakers were thinking planning for this to happen? If so, then why set a duration in the first place?
Actually, the fact that they did enact patent laws to protect the little guys (never mind that it's the guys with the money to twist the laws who are reaping all the protection these days), and they did set terms on copyright shows that at one time, politicians and lawmakers were there for the benefit of the people. Nowadays, it's only millionares(sp?) who get elected, largely due to they're having more money, which gives them more visibility. The laws are now so twisted and full of holes that they're totally meaningless.
And I've seen some arguments in favor of laws extending copyright, and granting new rights to content owners, wherein it's argued that the original types of copyright, and patent laws aren't meaningful anyway, as the people who wrote them couldn't have envisioned what technology would bring to the world, but I think that's fucking insane! This is essentially saying that people who were smart enough to found and develop countries, who studied law, and who developed the world in which we live had no vision, or sense of the future? That's crazy talk...
And this Nintendo thing's a great example of the problem: They made lots of money off the NES, knowing all the while that the patent laws would eventually expire, allowing anyone to build an NES machine, and now that they have (or are, as the case seems to be), they're suddenly saying "but, but, but..." as they see that people still are interested in this technology.
I think it's about time that the laws started working for the people again, and those who try to circumvent these laws should be held accountable for violating them. Copyright limits were not put into effect just so that some wealthy, never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives people, who've inherited millions from their ancestors inventions, can use some of that money to keep you and I from getting what we're entitled to.
But me ranting on my virtual soap box isn't going to change anything, and the population as a whole is too wrapped up in their reality TV, and Paris "Dog face" Hilton sexcapades to realize what they're losing out on. It's just so depressing where we as a society have let ourselves be led to. And the whole while, those passing the laws continue to claim that they're doing so for our best interests.
George Carlin said it best in last weekends HBO special (and more people should watch it, and listen to what he's saying!): "They (the politicians) don't care about you. They don't." It's up to we, the people, to dig us out of the mess that we've let others make of our legal system.
Ok... I'm done. the soapbox is free for someone else to rant on. I'm off to download all the NES Roms I can get my hands on! 8)
The idea is to make it impossible to create an MPEG from a video signal unless Hollywood approves it.'"
I'm sure that the Sony's of the world would have a problem with this if the bill truly intends on removing the ability for budding amateur video camera owners to port their videos to mpeg, in preperation for burning to a DVD (In a hurry... Don't have time to RTFA)
At least they should have a problem with this... That'd be a helluva lot of lost video camera (and related equipment)sales, and pissed off customers to deal with!
Less than two weeks ago we heard about Wikipedia having some major quality issues, and now we're talking about distributing it in print fashion to poor and developing nations?
Shouldn't the content be corrected & verified before we start putting out hard copies of the data, which will be interpreted as "the truth" by whomever learns from these tomes?
And really... how often can you use the term "tome" in a/. posting?
We've all seen enough of these types of stories here on/. to know what to expect in the discussion thread. Allow me to sum up about 75% of the inevitable replies:
Good! Pirates deserve to be punished for stealing others works
Pirating is copyright infringement - Not stealing
I can't believe the hypocrisy of Slashdot readers who find it ok to steal music and movies, but who find infringements from the likes of Sco and Microsoft to be wrong
It's people like this who are causing movie ticket prices to be so high
If they'd make better movies, then more people would go to see them in the big theatre, and not prefer to watch them at home
Why are people who commit copyright infringement given sentences equal to, or often more than those given to violent offenders? One's clearly a crime, while the others merely a misdemeanor
Come on and get me MPAA/RIAA - I've got the guts to fight you! I'm going to keep sharing stuff just to piss you off. Muwahahahaha
This guy's a great example of the problems that America has with lawyers... Anyone can become a lawyer, and there's really no criteria to determine who deserves to be a lawyer, vs. those who can simply memorize a lot of laws and precedence.
This guy continues to prove his total ineptitude, but by god, he's got that stupid lawyer degree hanging on his wall, and so he's capable of hurling lawsuits, and thus wasting innocent people's money. The Penny Arcade posts are classics, and between them, and the 14 year old who argued him into a corner (link was posted in yesterdays thread... Look for it if interested), it's quite obvious that this is a man who thinks he's morally right, yet has no clue as to how the law works. He evidently thinks that having that lawyer degree automatically makes him right, and anyone who questions him is "stupid" (using his own mighty lawyer talk).
It'll be nice when once of the people who Jack so casually threatens and harrasses actually hires a lawyer to deal with Jacks threats and harrasment. Perhaps then Jack will learn how the law really does function.
For that matter, as honorable and nice as Penny Arcades contribution in Jacks name is, I would have preferred to see someone go after Jack for not fulfilling his publicly stated contribution once his conditions were met. Regardless, something tells me that Jacks nearing the end of his soap boxing, as he's now involving law enforcement to try and resolve the situations he gets himself into. Eventually someone's going to say "Look, we have bigger fish to fry than a lawyer who doesn't understand the law", and at that point, he'll go from victim to tormentor in the eyes of law enforcement.
Bart PE's been arond awhile! I came across an iso image which someone had put on the p2p networks awhile ago... I think they called it "Windows PE" at the time, but whatever... it was Bart.
Anyways... The iso resulted in a bootable cd which allowed you to boot into a stripped down Windows client, a windows installer, partition magic, and a whole host of other useful (and obviously unlicensed ) software.
It looked to be a very helpful "toolkit" to have, since you could basically fix any Windows boot issues, in addition to performing formats, partitions, and such, with the point and click familiarity of Windows. I remember just thinking that being able to boot into Partition Magic was a pretty neat trick, much less to have a workable system (not 100% "working", but useable).
If I recall, BartPE walks the fine line of licensing by requiring the user to create the Windows discs, using their own personal software, so the p2p version was obviously someone's creation they chose to share with the world, but it was still very cool! At the time I remember thinking that it was more accessible than Knoppix for the avg. non-*nix person, at which this is obviously aimed.
To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
Alright, cue the fanboys with their "Mac's already can do this!" presentation...
Oh! And tell them to be quick about it! The Amiga guys are on after them with their "We were there 1st" remix!
Slashdot Mirror
Why, just look at all the various breeds of dog we have these days. Not too long ago (in evolutionary terms) they were all wolves. Hmmmmmmm?
Good point! My wording should have read "when man relocates nature".
Because usually when mankind gets involved and moves nature from place to place, the results are exellent!
I mean... Look at the lamprey in the great lakes, not to mention the zebra mussels.
Also in Michigan, we have these great lookalike lady bug things (I've heard them called both "Asian Beetles". and "Japanese Beetles"), which multiple by the thousands, and smell something fierce when killed. They supposebly were also imported to combat a native pests back in the 80's (aphids for one).
And don't forget about such wonders as the snakehead fish, and Africanized(sp?) bees (ie, "Killer Bee's")! Yesiree.. When man starts manipulating nature, it's truly a wonderful thing.
If I were to give Pratchett another shot, what books should I pick up? what are his top two?
I'd start with his early stuff, which to me was more "laugh out loud" than his later works (which are still better than 99% of the Science Fiction/Fantasy work being put out these days IMHO): "The colour of magic", and "Sourcery" are great starting points.
In fact, as much as I love all Pratchetts stuff, he's never beat Rincewind & Twoflower in my opinion. They were just the perfect "odd couple" for the Discworld IMHO. The Luggage is right up there also, I might add.
Has this writer ever seen Scott McNealy, much less heard him speak?
I realize that I'm walking a fine line with this question, but seriously... If the readers of /. decide that they want to fill a message thread with conspiracy theories, or diatribe about the poster, what's the problem here? They've read the article (in some cases), they've came to the site, they're interested in it enough to leave feedback, you've got your readers, etc.
/. readers want to discuss. Simple as that. It might not be the intellectually fulfilling discussion that you (meaning the editor who approved the story)envisioned, but that's not the role a good editor should take IMHO. An editor is there to make sure that a story is legible, easily read (well.. It's slashdot after all, so this is sometimes questionable), and fosters discussion among its readers. That's exactly what the articles you're ranting about are doing. The difference is that the discussion isn't what you wanted to see, and so you feel it's a waste of everyones time simply because it's a waste of your time, based on your interests.
/. felt the same way, then this off-topic discussion wouldn't take place. But they don't... People have their own opinions, and they should be able to discuss what they want in an open forum. Anything less is censorship.
/. editors focusing on a way to avoid duplicate articles, rather than working towards eliminating the opinions of those they disagree with.
I'm sure that you didn't intend it this way, but your "rant" seems to indicate that in your opinion, the message threads become a waste of time for anyone who wants to discuss the merits of the article if it degenerates into a slamfest about the poster, or his/her reason for providing the post. I disagree!
If the message feedback becomes centered around the poster, and their ethics, than that's what the
If everyone reading
And as far as the moderators go, there is an "off-topic" category, and any non-article specific talk (such as discussing the merits of the submitter) can, and often are labeled as off-topic. In an ideal world, I'd think that a lot of what's bothering yo should have been labeled as off-topic, and still rated based on content. So you might have an off-topic rated thread, but this thread could (or at least should)still be able to be rated up to a 5, or down to a negative based on its content.
I guess my point is this: The old "You build it, and they'll come" saying has worked for Slashdot. You built this site, promoted it, whatever... And we came. You however seem to have a problem with what we want to discuss now that we're here.
If moderators used the system as it's implied, and rated these off-topic threads accurately, you could just choose to filter out off-topic threads and you'd never be bothered by such things. However moderators here seem WAY too focused on modding down content and posters they disagree with, rather than promoting and categorizing the messages in a more neutral manner.
Personally, I'd rather see the
Sorry... Neat specs, and if there were no subscriber fee, I might pick up one for the GF who has issues dealing with my home built PVR (simply because she's afraid she'll break it somehow).
Additionally, while Tivo has turned a blind eye to some of the Tivo hacking that's taken place, they've proven that they're more than ready to disable features of their boxes if consumers begin using them in ways they didn't imagine.
Once Tivo, as a company, begins acknowledging, in legal terms, my rights as owner of the equipment, I'll consider them. Until then, as long as they're catering to Hollywood's hyper-paranoid demands, they're SOL as far as I'm concerned.
The donation helps keep knowledge free, think just how often you use wikimedia websites.
/. that refers to a specific article, or reference. The fairly recent fiasco surrounding Adam Curry trying to edit the Podcasting history's a good example of this.
/. who are absolutely infatuated with Wikipedia, and the sense that it's the "people's encyclopedia", made by the people, for the people, and I can respect that. But since it doesn't have corporate backing, I think they have to be realistic about their options, and unobtrusive, content-specific ads seems to be the best option IMHO.
That's the real problem for me, is that I hardly ever use Wiki's. I just don't like them that much to be honest.
Don't get me wrong - I like the idea behind Wiki's, but when I go to them, I almost always spend too much time trying to figure out where the info I want is, and trying to understand the contributors point, when what I really want is an answer to my question. To me, a support forum, or a quick google (or google groups) search generally turns up the info I want faster than a wiki could ever hope to.
Now that's Wiki's in general. The only time I've ever used Wikipedia is to read a reference that someone's put on Digg or here on
It's not that Wikipedia doesn't serve a purpose, as it does. I guess that the easiest way to say it is that I put more faith in dedicated support groups than I do in completely open forums, where anyone's allowed to enter in data. It's not that I have a good example of how this has screwed myself or anyone else up, but it's always there in the back of my mind when I'm turning to these other sources (google, forums, etc), that if I can't find the answer I'm looking for, I can always refer to Wikipedia as a kind of last resort. And I never have had to since the aforementioned alternatives have always given me what I needed.
Having said all this, I don't understand why people would get upset about ads in Wikipedia if they were done nicely (ala Goodle Adsense, so that the ads matched the content you're reading). Those of us who want to support Wikimedia would have a nice way of doing so, and those of us who didn't like the ads would be able to find ways around them (I'm thinking... Greasemonkey). I don't see where an unobtrusive ad that's relevant to the reason I'm on Wikipedia, would really detract too much from the site itself.
But I'm guessing I'm in a minority here since there are obviously a number of people on
Rings around Uranus... Moons...
This all sounds like a Goatse moment if I've ever heard of one
Mustn't click the wrong link...
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Bush will have an original thought, which isn't illegal, or detrimental to this country's well being.
Or, for you "Stop bashing Bush! I love the big guy" type of people (there must be at least a few of you out there)...
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Paris Hilton starts to look appealing. I mean really appealing... In a sexy, feminine sort of way. Not just the usual "She's not too attractive, but she's really dumb, and probably wasted enough of the time that you could steal yourself some money without her knowing" kinda way that most people look at her.
But seriously... The Internet's a global thing. Something that the avg. politician doesn't seem to realize. Unless you (virtually) wall yourself off from the rest of the world (China anyone?), this is a pointless arguement, as this would only hurt the US, and its citizens in the long run. Anyone with any common sense (no... Not the politicians with dollar signs in their eyes) can see this is a dumb idea. The very fact that it's a possibility is just scary as hell!
Is it me, or was the header info for this thread just trying to bait all of the Java fans into defending their language of choice? Not used to such trolling headlines here... Hopefully it's not a sign of things to come, as this is a discussion worth, well... discussing.
But the way the blurb reads, it's basically saying "Get in here & defend yourselves, or you're going to be relegated to 'old timer' status". Might as well throw in some other inflammatory stories to go along with this one... Where's the "Are PHP users too retarded to learn a real language", and "Command lines are for losers" articles?
Are we witnessing the beginning of the "real" internet business, where there is no space for startups
I think you're misunderstanding a lot of the so called "startups". A lot of business's get started with the hope of being bought out by a big company.
Look at it this way:
Would you rather form a startup, work hard and sweat all your life hoping to eventually rival the giants in your field, or would you prefer to form a startup, work hard and sweat for a few years, until some big corporation sees the what you've achieved, and gives you a big paycheck, effectively buying out your company?
While I can appreciate those who want to someday replace the Yahoo's, and Adobe's of the world, I myself would be more than happy to spend a few years toiling in the fields, if it meant a paycheck which would allow me to retire at the age of 40!
Not that del.icio.us was looking for the "big payoff", but your post seems to imply that being bought out is somehow akin to selling out (very similar to the rants you hear when a popular independant band signs on to a major label), which is something I disagree with. Having said that, I am rather interested in what yaho will do with the technology... I'm guessing we'll see some new enhancements to the Yahoo toolbar for starters. Something like "People who have enjoyed the page you're currently on have also enjoyed the following: www.xxx.com, www.yyy.com, etc."
I have a home built PVR, which is getting a bit old (aprox. 4+ years), but it still does the job. The reason I built my own versus buying a Tivo, or some other pre-built system, is that I don't want the big media companies, and the setup manufacturer to start restricting what I can do with my content.
Has anyone heard anything about the DRM potential for this rumored machine? Based on how Apple's restricted their technologies in the past (can't record in 16 bit on ipods, max. video resolution for ipod video is very low, can't retrieve songs from ipod using iTunes, etc) to appease the various media company paranoia's, I worry that this may also be hindered by kiss-ass restrictions and limitations. Anyone heard otherwise?
One's a crime of greed, while the other is a crime of demand (although plently of people get into the drug business solely for the income potential).
If there wasn't a demand for drugs, there would be no drug trade. Conversely, the only reason to steal from others is always greed. Some might steal for fun *cough* winona ryder *cough*, but theft (in person, 3rd person, or via cybercrime) is almost always due to greed. Big difference there... One's there as a result of people wants, and demands. The other is largely parasitic, and exists solely to leech off people.
Personally, I'd rather see my government invest more of our tax dollars into protecting our identities, and investments, as opposed to busting generally harmless dope smokers, and their suppliers (In case you didn't know, marijuana smokers are the most commonly targeted drug demographic these days, and the majority of our tax dollars, go towards fighting marijuana, while proven "bad drugs", such as meth, ruin lives, and run rampant throughout the country).
The reason for all this is greed. The big companies almost write their own laws these days, and meanwhile more and more of our freedoms our lost, as our lawmakers focus on giving their funders (not constituents!) what they want. And surprisingly, things like Cybercrime continue to grow, and be largely ignored (Note, I'm talking real crimes, such as identity theft, phishing, and so on. Not downloading music and videos, which IMHO should be near the bottom of our list of priorities) .
Personally, I'd like to see a major change in how we handle crimes in this country: Elevate identity theft, and other life-altering crimes to the level they deserve, focus our energies and money on bettering our country, and removing our dependence on other countries for our very existance, and stop focusing on the average downloader as being the worst thing to hit the US since Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, start fighting the real drug problems that are facing our country: Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, and so on, rather than going after the "low hanging fruit", marijaua users, which are largely chosen simply for the ease of busts, and the profit available to cops for doing so.
It's all about priorities, and right now our lawmakers top priorities are largely themselves, as evidenced by recent events.
I agree with the 1st comment: This is ridiculous for Tivo, or any other home entertainment device! Way to sign away your privacy, just to save yourself from having to push a button.
But it also brings up a good question... What if I have 3 or 4 people aprox. the same distance away from the box? For that matter, what if the person closest to the box isn't the person who should be deciding what to watch at that point in time?
But really, this is just another example of why I built my own PVR instead of going the Tivo route: They just don't seem to get what "I" want in a PVR. At the top of that list is that I don't want Tivo controlling what I watch, and what I can record (and they do both). Under that top item though are lots of other reasons as ridicuous as this idea... they just seem so out of touch with what consumers want, and instead of finding out, and tailoring their offerings to what consumers want, they kiss ass to the media companies, allowing them to dictate what Tivo users can and can't do/have.
Let's see... If I buy a movie on PPV, I can record a copy for personal use (for example, showing the girlfriend the next time she's over), using either my trusty old VCR, or my (formerly new & sparkling) PVR system, and if I go the PVR route, that means a quick and easy burn to DVD for archiving, vs. the lower quality, but still watchable VCR.
If I go to rent a movie, it's much more a gray area as to whether I can temporarily archive a copy for personal use, but the potential stil exists. Obviously it's not ok to copy what you rent to keep a personal copy, but the gray area comes into play (IMHO) if I haven't had a chance to watch the movie yet, and my rental duration's over. I still have the option of ripping down a copy of that tape/DVD to watch when I can watch it (after all, I've paid my fee's to rent the movie - It's up to me when I actually watch it), and then erasing that copy once I have watched it.
Or, I can go the route that the big media vultures want me to go... Meaning that I pay the same fee as for the two previous methods, but I have to watch that movie within 24 hours, or it'll "disappear", effectively locking me out from watching it, whether I got to see it during that initial 24 hour period, or not.
What makes more sense here? Keep the existing freedoms and flexability that we have regarding such items, or pay the same amount of money for far fewer features and options... I don't know about you, but I personally see this as yet another way that the media companies are trying to bait us consumers into giving up our rights.
I realize that pricing's not been set yet either, but come on... Unless the movies are less than $1.00, I'm not even going to consider this. A better offer, albeit one which I would also avoid, would be to let the movie be viewable until it has been viewed once. This way, if something comes up, and I don't get to watch the movie during that 24 hour period, I still can go back to it at a later dat and get my moneys worth. Of course then you get into the nitty gritty details of what constitutes a watched movie (Did you "watch it all the way through", "What happens if I stop the movie 5 seconds before the end, or during the closing credits", etc).
Sorry... I've said it here before: I'm all for paying for the ability to download and watch shows. You can even stick a commercial or two in the mix to cover your costs! But once you start removing my freedoms, as far as what I can do with the product I've purchased, I'm going to go elsewhere.
Is that Digg gets the articles faster (Well duh... It's completely user/score driven. On /. you have to wait for an editor to post the articles), but also that most of them don't like wading through all the diatribe and arguements in the comments.
/.'s thing.
/. for it's users, and the amount of crap you have to dig through in order to get some real info out of the commentary. While I don't mind wading through some crap to find my info, it's been a real eye opener how many people don't care for /.'s nerdy insults and arguments. When i'd mention that with a /. account, you can tailor what types of responses you see when looking at a thread, everyone I mentioned this to came back with a "Why bother? I've got digg now".
/. (driving people away), and that the common user simply wants to know what's going on in their world. Not to discuss it, or defend their viewpoint against a bunch of Linux hounds, or holyier-than-thou type responses.
/. for the threads, but I'll be honest in that digg's my 1st stop these days, and when I come to /., it's usually with the thought of "Let's see what /.'s got to say about that digg story I read, if it's even been posted there yet".
/., but I have found myself moderating a lot less since everyone else seems to be wasting their mod points on modding down posts, rather then elevating the good ones above the bad. Maybe /. needs to clean house of some moderators, since they seem to be focusing on what they disagree with, rather than focusing on the strengths which an opposing viewpoint might bring to the table? Just a thought...
Now obviously Digg doesn't have a great comment section, since you can basically only add new message, not keep a thread going, or easily quote/tie your response to a particular comment, but that's not it's thing. That's
I did find it interesting about how many people have told me that they hate
So I guess this means that the trolls are doing their thing here on
Me... I (obviously) still come back to
To me, the threads are still the "meat and potato's" of
Copyright and patent laws were intended to protect someone's intellect, and to allow for works to eventually enter the public domain, ideally to benefit society as a whole once the inventer/creator has made some cash off their idea (IMHO... I'm sure that there's some /. lawyer wannabe getting ready to challenge my definition somewhere).
But nothing really happens this way anymore it seems. Nowadays, when the public is supposed to see some benefits from something entering the public domain, the big, money hungry companies just find some greedy, two-faced politician who's willing to sell out the people who elected them for some easy cash, and they extend protections, and enact new laws to prevent people from getting what they're legally entitled to.
And it's sad actually... Do you think that when the cpoyright laws were put into place, the lawmakers were thinking planning for this to happen? If so, then why set a duration in the first place?
Actually, the fact that they did enact patent laws to protect the little guys (never mind that it's the guys with the money to twist the laws who are reaping all the protection these days), and they did set terms on copyright shows that at one time, politicians and lawmakers were there for the benefit of the people. Nowadays, it's only millionares(sp?) who get elected, largely due to they're having more money, which gives them more visibility. The laws are now so twisted and full of holes that they're totally meaningless.
And I've seen some arguments in favor of laws extending copyright, and granting new rights to content owners, wherein it's argued that the original types of copyright, and patent laws aren't meaningful anyway, as the people who wrote them couldn't have envisioned what technology would bring to the world, but I think that's fucking insane! This is essentially saying that people who were smart enough to found and develop countries, who studied law, and who developed the world in which we live had no vision, or sense of the future? That's crazy talk...
And this Nintendo thing's a great example of the problem: They made lots of money off the NES, knowing all the while that the patent laws would eventually expire, allowing anyone to build an NES machine, and now that they have (or are, as the case seems to be), they're suddenly saying "but, but, but..." as they see that people still are interested in this technology.
I think it's about time that the laws started working for the people again, and those who try to circumvent these laws should be held accountable for violating them. Copyright limits were not put into effect just so that some wealthy, never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives people, who've inherited millions from their ancestors inventions, can use some of that money to keep you and I from getting what we're entitled to.
But me ranting on my virtual soap box isn't going to change anything, and the population as a whole is too wrapped up in their reality TV, and Paris "Dog face" Hilton sexcapades to realize what they're losing out on. It's just so depressing where we as a society have let ourselves be led to. And the whole while, those passing the laws continue to claim that they're doing so for our best interests.
George Carlin said it best in last weekends HBO special (and more people should watch it, and listen to what he's saying!): "They (the politicians) don't care about you. They don't." It's up to we, the people, to dig us out of the mess that we've let others make of our legal system.
Ok... I'm done. the soapbox is free for someone else to rant on. I'm off to download all the NES Roms I can get my hands on! 8)
The idea is to make it impossible to create an MPEG from a video signal unless Hollywood approves it.'"
I'm sure that the Sony's of the world would have a problem with this if the bill truly intends on removing the ability for budding amateur video camera owners to port their videos to mpeg, in preperation for burning to a DVD (In a hurry... Don't have time to RTFA)
At least they should have a problem with this... That'd be a helluva lot of lost video camera (and related equipment)sales, and pissed off customers to deal with!
Less than two weeks ago we heard about Wikipedia having some major quality issues, and now we're talking about distributing it in print fashion to poor and developing nations?
/. posting?
Shouldn't the content be corrected & verified before we start putting out hard copies of the data, which will be interpreted as "the truth" by whomever learns from these tomes?
And really... how often can you use the term "tome" in a
And so on...
This guy's a great example of the problems that America has with lawyers... Anyone can become a lawyer, and there's really no criteria to determine who deserves to be a lawyer, vs. those who can simply memorize a lot of laws and precedence.
This guy continues to prove his total ineptitude, but by god, he's got that stupid lawyer degree hanging on his wall, and so he's capable of hurling lawsuits, and thus wasting innocent people's money. The Penny Arcade posts are classics, and between them, and the 14 year old who argued him into a corner (link was posted in yesterdays thread... Look for it if interested), it's quite obvious that this is a man who thinks he's morally right, yet has no clue as to how the law works. He evidently thinks that having that lawyer degree automatically makes him right, and anyone who questions him is "stupid" (using his own mighty lawyer talk).
It'll be nice when once of the people who Jack so casually threatens and harrasses actually hires a lawyer to deal with Jacks threats and harrasment. Perhaps then Jack will learn how the law really does function.
For that matter, as honorable and nice as Penny Arcades contribution in Jacks name is, I would have preferred to see someone go after Jack for not fulfilling his publicly stated contribution once his conditions were met. Regardless, something tells me that Jacks nearing the end of his soap boxing, as he's now involving law enforcement to try and resolve the situations he gets himself into. Eventually someone's going to say "Look, we have bigger fish to fry than a lawyer who doesn't understand the law", and at that point, he'll go from victim to tormentor in the eyes of law enforcement.
Can't wait for that to happen...
Bart PE's been arond awhile! I came across an iso image which someone had put on the p2p networks awhile ago... I think they called it "Windows PE" at the time, but whatever... it was Bart.
Anyways... The iso resulted in a bootable cd which allowed you to boot into a stripped down Windows client, a windows installer, partition magic, and a whole host of other useful (and obviously unlicensed ) software.
It looked to be a very helpful "toolkit" to have, since you could basically fix any Windows boot issues, in addition to performing formats, partitions, and such, with the point and click familiarity of Windows. I remember just thinking that being able to boot into Partition Magic was a pretty neat trick, much less to have a workable system (not 100% "working", but useable).
If I recall, BartPE walks the fine line of licensing by requiring the user to create the Windows discs, using their own personal software, so the p2p version was obviously someone's creation they chose to share with the world, but it was still very cool! At the time I remember thinking that it was more accessible than Knoppix for the avg. non-*nix person, at which this is obviously aimed.
To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
Alright, cue the fanboys with their "Mac's already can do this!" presentation...
Oh! And tell them to be quick about it! The Amiga guys are on after them with their "We were there 1st" remix!
That this thing just screams of...
(to the tune of M. Pythons Spam)
Porn, Porn, Porn, Porn
Porn, Porn, Porn, Porn
Horny Porn, Wonderful Porn...
Ah, yes. Open source shows its strength again... BY FORKING.
So what's wrong with that? None of us would be here today if not for the cardinal pleasures of fu- Oh... You said "Forking".
Never mind...