Re:Let's hope he won't get into trouble again
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
I suggest he take up VB.Net classes and work on IE plugins and IIS maintenance.
That's just what we need, the hacker who (in the minds of the semi-literate general public) embodies all that is bad about computing joining forces with the company that (in the minds of the semi-literate/. public) embodies all that is bad about computing.
You know, the more I think about it, the better the idea seems. It could put the final nail in Bill's coffin.
Cloning has the potential to really help some couples with fertility issues
Adoption also has the potential to really help some couples with fertility issues. Granted, it doesn't carry the same pride of ownership, but it's still a proven alternative. After all, modern medical science has pretty much got the entire adoption procedure down. Rarely, if ever, do adoptions produce the kinds of defects seen in animal cloning and feared possible in human cloning.
I'm afraid we can't pin the whole "humans-as-batteries" thing on The Matrix. Stephen King had that little nugget of joy working in The Tommyknockers more than a decade before Neo first said "Whoa".
I think the real reason the machines would keep people around after taking over the earth is quite simple. Without humans, the machines wouldn't have anything to do. Do you honestly think that once the machines took over they would be able to keep themselves occupied for more than a few minutes without humans?
Let's face it, no matter how sentient machines may become, they're most likely still going to be constrained by some finite-valued logic system. They need us for new ideas. Without new ideas, they'll have nothing to do. With nothing to do, they might as well not exist.
I guess robot love dolls won't be on the market until 2013.
Oh, they'll be on the market by 2006, but they'll be strictly Windows-based. It won't be until 2013 that they go open source. At that point they'll come into more common use as BSOD-related personal injuries become far less common.
HBO is outside the realm of the current discussion except as an example of how commercial-free, fee-based tv content can succeed. The fact is, HBO is not a broadcaster in any sense of the word. At no point has HBO made its content available to the general public free of charge.
HBO is a "premium" channel and a healthy portion of the $10 I cough up every month for the priviledge of watching The Sopranos goes straight back to HBO to pay for producing the next season of The Sopranos.
Maybe this is where television needs to go. Ditch the ads and start charging $10 per channel (or more or less, depending on what they figure they can get). How many people here would honestly pay $10/month for ad-free NBC? What if it came bundled with NBC East, NBC West and MSNBC? Worth $10 now?
I'm not saying that ads are the only way to fund tv content, or even the best way. But that's the way we're doing it now and I imagine something drastic's going to have to happen to change things. Advertisers' revenues drop, so they buy fewer ads, so NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox's revenues drop, so they can't spend as much on content, so fewer people watch... downward spiral.
Personally, I think it'll be kind of fun to watch. I might even tape some of it with my trusty VCR.
At least it's not a perfectly clear-cut issue of right and wrong.
Back in the early days of broadcasting, there was quite a bit of debate as to how broadcasters should pay their expenses. Right or wrong, the system that emerged had broadcasters selling air time to advertisers. Thus, consumers get the content "free" on the assumption that they will hear/see the ads and go spend money.
The television delivery system has now evolved to the point where most people pay a third party (cable company, satellite company) to deliver a high-quality signal straight into their home, negating the need for an actual broadcast signal. So now consumers pay the third party, the third party has a financial arrangement with the "broadcasters", and the "broadcasters" still sell ad time.
The question is now, what do the consumers owe the broadcasters? Are all the monthly cable bills enough to cover the expenses of the cable companies and content providers? If so, there's no need for ads. If not, would you pay a higher cable bill to have ad-free content?
In the beginning, broadcasters sold ads to pay for content. Now, broadcasters work on content to sell ads. Personally, I figure once the signal I've paid for is in my home, it's mine to do with as I please, so long as the use is strictly personal.
It's been a few months since I finished Timeline and I'm in some serious Michael Crichton Voodoo-Science(tm) withdrawl.
Just one question, though... If we can't figure out time travel, and we're relying on quantum theory in such a way that when we try to send someone through time the person who arrives was actually sent from a parallel reality where they do understand time travel and not actually the person we sent...why do transcription errors happen? Can't we just rely on a parallel reality where they don't have transcription errors?
It seems to me that these companies might be wandinging into a bit of a legal gray area by trying to offer pay services based on spectrum that has been set aside for free public use. I can't imagine the FCC allowing Clear Channel to throw up a stick and start broadcasting a commercial signal below the 92 MHz mark on your FM dial.
Of course, if the portion of the spectrum used by 802.11 a/b isn't specifically stamped "Non-Commercial Use Only", then I don't see how AT&T et al. can be stopped.
I guess the major question is: "Does the fact that the public has the right to use a given resource for free preclude individuals/corporations from packaging and selling that resource?" I would say as long as Ma Bell's nationwide WiFi network doesn't keep you from using a free WiFi network, then AT&T's in the clear.
Now, will people want to pay for something they could get for free? Of course they would. How else has Micro$oft stayed in business for so long?
with modern high end CPU's taking up 50-70W at full load thats like keep on a lightbulb on 24/7.
That's a great idea. If everybody leaves a lightbulb on (preferably outdoors) 24/7 instead of running Seti@Home, the aliens will be able to see us (at night, anyway).
When I get home from work, I'm shutting down Seti@Home and turning on my back porch light.
I'm afraid in our lawsuit-oriented society the line of thinking will be something more like:
How many happened to be within 2 blocks of the hospital during this glitch and how many of them feel an overwhelming sense of entitlement that might motivate them to join a class-action suit?
I fear a fairly large number of people will see this as an opportunity to sue, regardless of the quality of care they received during the network outage. I'm sure there are plenty of people who feel their lives weren't saved fast enough or at least weren't saved with the quality of service they feel they deserve.
Programmers are morally obligated to give the code to their users and allow their users to freely modify and redistribute the code.
When did this happen?
Is [insert popular novelist here] morally obligated to give away his/her novels, allowing the readers to freely modify and redistribute the text?
I respect the open source movement and I think free (as in speech and beer) software is a Good Thing(tm), but I think saying coders are morally obligated to give away their source code is a step too far.
While a measurement system based on powers of 2 seems fairly straightforward and intuitive to your average techno-nerd, it is still incomprehensible to the average Patriotic American. In fact, I would venture to say that 1024 bytes in a kilobyte is every bit as opaque as our beloved, patriotic, English units.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that there are micro-(or even macro-)organisms drifting through space feeding on UV radiation.
After all, we thought a lack of light would doom the sea floors to lifeless oblivion only to learn that life had adapted to feed on the what was available. Why should we assume that bacteria drifting through the void of space haven't evolved in a similar fashion?
Most congressmen do not even read or have anyone on their staff read email messages...
Not so.
You are right that it's hard for Congressmen to know if an email comes from their district, but that's usually because the sender doesn't include their home address. As long as you include your name and home address, you've got a good chance that your email will be read and considered as seriously as all the postal mail your Congressman receives.
I have sent quite a bit of email to both my Senators and my Representative and I know it's getting read (at least by someone) because I get a response every time. Most of the time I get two responses, one by email and another by snail mail.
So I say email your Congressmen. Include the all-important home address so they'll know you're a constituent. Email early and often. Email weekly. Email daily. Email every time you update your journal. Just never let them forget that you're out there.
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) filed documents with the SEC today relating to a breach of network security.
According to the filings, at 5:23 AM last Tuesday, Microsoft's network was "owned" by a hacker calling himself "Z3r0 kew10r". While the hacker refered to himself as "1337" in his defacement of Microsoft's webpage, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates indicated that the security breach was very minor.
In a press release accompanying the filing, Gates said: "t#1s punk th1nks h3's 1337 but h3's just a littl3 scr1p7 k1dd13 and i'm g0nna sh0w h1m what 1337 is when m3 and the M$ haxx0r cr3w crak his b0xx0r!"
I want to be able to watch the movie as much as I want.
I want to be able to burn the movie to a DVD-R and watch it on a TV screen instead of a computer monitor.
Until the movie industry offers a service that lets me do this, I will not use services like Movielink for my movie downloading needs.
I believe the movie industry is already offering exactly the service you're seeking. It's an amazing new technology called DVD.
DVDs are available for purchase at a wide variety of retail outlets throughout the industrialized world. Not only can a DVDs be played in most DVD-R players, you can watch them as many times as you want. Not only that, but DVDs also replace potentially huge download times with the relatively short time it takes to go to the store. And best of all, DVDs provide audio and video quality unmatched by anything offered by any download site.
Granted, DVDs are often priced as high as $20-$25US, but that's not so much higher than what you're already paying for your movie downloads, is it? Especially when you factor in the cost of the DVD burner and a spindle of blank discs.
Let's get something straight. There's not a single person on this Earth with "movie downloading needs". What we have are movie downloading wants. Say what you want about the movie industry and their ridiculous pricing structures and whatnot, you are not entitled to free movies. If you want to be able to watch a movie as many times as you want on both your tv and your computer, buy the DVD. If you're willing to settle for multiple views over the span of a couple days, rent it. But let's stop pretending that H-wood is giving us no choice but to download pirate copies of their movies.
I seem to recall an author I found particularly enjoyable (R.A. Wilson, perhaps?) mentioned a discussion he had with an older woman who subscribed to the Earth-on-the-back-of-a-giant-turtle theory.
When he asked the woman what the turtle was standing upon, she told him that the turtle was standing upon another turtle. When he asked what that second turtle was standing upon, her reply was something to the tune of:
Don't get smart with me, young man. It's turtles all the way down.
I wonder how many people hold similar beliefs with regard to their operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this merits a third freedom option.
I suggest he take up VB.Net classes and work on IE plugins and IIS maintenance.
That's just what we need, the hacker who (in the minds of the semi-literate general public) embodies all that is bad about computing joining forces with the company that (in the minds of the semi-literate /. public) embodies all that is bad about computing.
You know, the more I think about it, the better the idea seems. It could put the final nail in Bill's coffin.
Cloning has the potential to really help some couples with fertility issues
Adoption also has the potential to really help some couples with fertility issues. Granted, it doesn't carry the same pride of ownership, but it's still a proven alternative. After all, modern medical science has pretty much got the entire adoption procedure down. Rarely, if ever, do adoptions produce the kinds of defects seen in animal cloning and feared possible in human cloning.
Why is it that a supposedly "futuristic" movie has to devolve into car chases?
Plain and simple,
car chases rule.
I'm afraid we can't pin the whole "humans-as-batteries" thing on The Matrix. Stephen King had that little nugget of joy working in The Tommyknockers more than a decade before Neo first said "Whoa".
I think the real reason the machines would keep people around after taking over the earth is quite simple. Without humans, the machines wouldn't have anything to do. Do you honestly think that once the machines took over they would be able to keep themselves occupied for more than a few minutes without humans?
Let's face it, no matter how sentient machines may become, they're most likely still going to be constrained by some finite-valued logic system. They need us for new ideas. Without new ideas, they'll have nothing to do. With nothing to do, they might as well not exist.
I guess robot love dolls won't be on the market until 2013.
Oh, they'll be on the market by 2006, but they'll be strictly Windows-based. It won't be until 2013 that they go open source. At that point they'll come into more common use as BSOD-related personal injuries become far less common.
In the beginning, broadcasters sold ads to pay for content. Now, broadcasters work on content to sell ads s/ads/ad time
HBO is outside the realm of the current discussion except as an example of how commercial-free, fee-based tv content can succeed. The fact is, HBO is not a broadcaster in any sense of the word. At no point has HBO made its content available to the general public free of charge.
HBO is a "premium" channel and a healthy portion of the $10 I cough up every month for the priviledge of watching The Sopranos goes straight back to HBO to pay for producing the next season of The Sopranos.
Maybe this is where television needs to go. Ditch the ads and start charging $10 per channel (or more or less, depending on what they figure they can get). How many people here would honestly pay $10/month for ad-free NBC? What if it came bundled with NBC East, NBC West and MSNBC? Worth $10 now?
I'm not saying that ads are the only way to fund tv content, or even the best way. But that's the way we're doing it now and I imagine something drastic's going to have to happen to change things. Advertisers' revenues drop, so they buy fewer ads, so NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox's revenues drop, so they can't spend as much on content, so fewer people watch... downward spiral.
Personally, I think it'll be kind of fun to watch. I might even tape some of it with my trusty VCR.
At least it's not a perfectly clear-cut issue of right and wrong.
Back in the early days of broadcasting, there was quite a bit of debate as to how broadcasters should pay their expenses. Right or wrong, the system that emerged had broadcasters selling air time to advertisers. Thus, consumers get the content "free" on the assumption that they will hear/see the ads and go spend money.
The television delivery system has now evolved to the point where most people pay a third party (cable company, satellite company) to deliver a high-quality signal straight into their home, negating the need for an actual broadcast signal. So now consumers pay the third party, the third party has a financial arrangement with the "broadcasters", and the "broadcasters" still sell ad time.
The question is now, what do the consumers owe the broadcasters? Are all the monthly cable bills enough to cover the expenses of the cable companies and content providers? If so, there's no need for ads. If not, would you pay a higher cable bill to have ad-free content?
In the beginning, broadcasters sold ads to pay for content. Now, broadcasters work on content to sell ads. Personally, I figure once the signal I've paid for is in my home, it's mine to do with as I please, so long as the use is strictly personal.
It's been a few months since I finished Timeline and I'm in some serious Michael Crichton Voodoo-Science(tm) withdrawl.
Just one question, though...
If we can't figure out time travel, and we're relying on quantum theory in such a way that when we try to send someone through time the person who arrives was actually sent from a parallel reality where they do understand time travel and not actually the person we sent...why do transcription errors happen? Can't we just rely on a parallel reality where they don't have transcription errors?
IANALBIPOOTV
It seems to me that these companies might be wandinging into a bit of a legal gray area by trying to offer pay services based on spectrum that has been set aside for free public use. I can't imagine the FCC allowing Clear Channel to throw up a stick and start broadcasting a commercial signal below the 92 MHz mark on your FM dial.
Of course, if the portion of the spectrum used by 802.11 a/b isn't specifically stamped "Non-Commercial Use Only", then I don't see how AT&T et al. can be stopped.
I guess the major question is: "Does the fact that the public has the right to use a given resource for free preclude individuals/corporations from packaging and selling that resource?" I would say as long as Ma Bell's nationwide WiFi network doesn't keep you from using a free WiFi network, then AT&T's in the clear.
Now, will people want to pay for something they could get for free? Of course they would. How else has Micro$oft stayed in business for so long?
Some of the replies, while short, were absolutely priceless.
Maybe it helps that in my head I heard them all delivered in classic Cpt. James T. Pause-and-Shout style.
with modern high end CPU's taking up 50-70W at full load thats like keep on a lightbulb on 24/7.
That's a great idea. If everybody leaves a lightbulb on (preferably outdoors) 24/7 instead of running Seti@Home, the aliens will be able to see us (at night, anyway).
When I get home from work, I'm shutting down Seti@Home and turning on my back porch light.
I'm afraid in our lawsuit-oriented society the line of thinking will be something more like:
How many happened to be within 2 blocks of the hospital during this glitch and how many of them feel an overwhelming sense of entitlement that might motivate them to join a class-action suit?
I fear a fairly large number of people will see this as an opportunity to sue, regardless of the quality of care they received during the network outage. I'm sure there are plenty of people who feel their lives weren't saved fast enough or at least weren't saved with the quality of service they feel they deserve.
Oh, and IANAL.
Bring me the head of the person who moderated this "Interesting".
Can anyone here tell me what closing one eye does to a person's depth perception? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
It should obviously be moderated "Funny" and my post should obviously be moderated "Troll".
Programmers are morally obligated to give the code to their users and allow their users to freely modify and redistribute the code.
When did this happen?
Is [insert popular novelist here] morally obligated to give away his/her novels, allowing the readers to freely modify and redistribute the text?
I respect the open source movement and I think free (as in speech and beer) software is a Good Thing(tm), but I think saying coders are morally obligated to give away their source code is a step too far.
I believe this particular sign has already been standardized and is currently in use by 99% of the American driving population.
.!..
!!.. if you're from the other side of the pond.
Anything from Mozilla.org. Just find one that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, hug it and squeeze it and call it George.
Personally, I like Phoenix.
I must respectfully disagree.
While a measurement system based on powers of 2 seems fairly straightforward and intuitive to your average techno-nerd, it is still incomprehensible to the average Patriotic American. In fact, I would venture to say that 1024 bytes in a kilobyte is every bit as opaque as our beloved, patriotic, English units.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that there are micro-(or even macro-)organisms drifting through space feeding on UV radiation.
After all, we thought a lack of light would doom the sea floors to lifeless oblivion only to learn that life had adapted to feed on the what was available. Why should we assume that bacteria drifting through the void of space haven't evolved in a similar fashion?
Most congressmen do not even read or have anyone on their staff read email messages...
Not so.
You are right that it's hard for Congressmen to know if an email comes from their district, but that's usually because the sender doesn't include their home address. As long as you include your name and home address, you've got a good chance that your email will be read and considered as seriously as all the postal mail your Congressman receives.
I have sent quite a bit of email to both my Senators and my Representative and I know it's getting read (at least by someone) because I get a response every time. Most of the time I get two responses, one by email and another by snail mail.
So I say email your Congressmen. Include the all-important home address so they'll know you're a constituent. Email early and often. Email weekly. Email daily. Email every time you update your journal. Just never let them forget that you're out there.
When's the last time you touched finger?
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) filed documents with the SEC today relating to a breach of network security.
According to the filings, at 5:23 AM last Tuesday, Microsoft's network was "owned" by a hacker calling himself "Z3r0 kew10r". While the hacker refered to himself as "1337" in his defacement of Microsoft's webpage, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates indicated that the security breach was very minor.
In a press release accompanying the filing, Gates said: "t#1s punk th1nks h3's 1337 but h3's just a littl3 scr1p7 k1dd13 and i'm g0nna sh0w h1m what 1337 is when m3 and the M$ haxx0r cr3w crak his b0xx0r!"
I want to be able to watch the movie as much as I want.
I want to be able to burn the movie to a DVD-R and watch it on a TV screen instead of a computer monitor.
Until the movie industry offers a service that lets me do this, I will not use services like Movielink for my movie downloading needs.
I believe the movie industry is already offering exactly the service you're seeking. It's an amazing new technology called DVD.
DVDs are available for purchase at a wide variety of retail outlets throughout the industrialized world. Not only can a DVDs be played in most DVD-R players, you can watch them as many times as you want. Not only that, but DVDs also replace potentially huge download times with the relatively short time it takes to go to the store. And best of all, DVDs provide audio and video quality unmatched by anything offered by any download site.
Granted, DVDs are often priced as high as $20-$25US, but that's not so much higher than what you're already paying for your movie downloads, is it? Especially when you factor in the cost of the DVD burner and a spindle of blank discs.
Let's get something straight. There's not a single person on this Earth with "movie downloading needs". What we have are movie downloading wants. Say what you want about the movie industry and their ridiculous pricing structures and whatnot, you are not entitled to free movies. If you want to be able to watch a movie as many times as you want on both your tv and your computer, buy the DVD. If you're willing to settle for multiple views over the span of a couple days, rent it. But let's stop pretending that H-wood is giving us no choice but to download pirate copies of their movies.
I seem to recall an author I found particularly enjoyable (R.A. Wilson, perhaps?) mentioned a discussion he had with an older woman who subscribed to the Earth-on-the-back-of-a-giant-turtle theory.
When he asked the woman what the turtle was standing upon, she told him that the turtle was standing upon another turtle. When he asked what that second turtle was standing upon, her reply was something to the tune of:
Don't get smart with me, young man. It's turtles all the way down.
I wonder how many people hold similar beliefs with regard to their operating systems.