You know, I had to do a project with.NET Remoting, and none of the documentation or samples in MSDN make absolutely any sense. I started searching newsgroups and whatnot for answers to my questions and Ingo had pretty much all of the answers. I got a copy of this book, and it was more of the same. His sample code was clean, understandable, and unlike most everything else out there it worked!
Anyway, yeah. Ingo rules.
Re:maybe the problem isn't Hollywood
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
as geeks, we are pretty boring to outsiders.
So what? I mean, did anybody see High Fidelity? That had to be one of the more realistic geek portrayals, although they were music geeks and not technology geeks. I had no idea who they were talking about most of the time, but I was entertained nonetheless. Why can't we have a movie like that? You know, just some film about tech geek life and tech geek culture that doesn't involve some big crack as the main plot point? Clerks was about the closest I've ever seen, yet it still didn't come all that close.
And, I'd also like to say, I highly enjoyed this piece of crap film. There was something cool about seeing this in a seattle theater and having half of the theater (presumably RealNetworks employees) laugh at the line, "Our startup is going to produce an application that distributes real time streaming audio and video to a wide array of devices."
Also, I would like to commend all of the NURV programmers for apparently writing flawless code, since it seemed that they were going to ship Synapse without any internal QA, beta testing, or even code reviews. Who needs that crap anyway, right?
You know, I'm a huge fan of The Box. Without it, I'd have never known the greatness of Snow or Green Jelly. So I was quite saddened to hear, about a month ago, that The Box was purchased by Viacom, which is, of course, the parent of MTV. The Box format is going to be scrapped, and The Box channels are essentially going to be folded into M2.
Just thought I'd let you know, in case you thought that the Viacom Corporation will ever let you see a music video that they do not forcefeed you themselves.
First off, the users who are complaining already hit a button that said it was going to do this. It's not like it did it automatically, the user had to take action for this to take place.
Secondly, why complain about this, and why now? How is this different from "Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://hotmail.com" or "Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com" that is at the bottom of every message sent from Hotmail, or the ad that Deja inserts at the bottom of every newsgroup post? Shouldn't you have been complaining about that before this?
What I don't see in this letter is a defense for/. action (or inaction, really)
This seems to me like the first shot of a long battle...
MS: "You're violating our copyright. Take down those posts." /.: "Your copyright doesn't exist. Screw off." MS: "Yes, our copyright does exist. Here's why. Take down those posts." /.: "OK, your copyright exists. These posts don't violate your copyright. Screw off." MS: "Yes, those posts do violate our copyright. Take down those posts." /.: "OK, maybe they do violate your copyright, maybe they don't. We still don't have to take them down. Screw off."
etc, etc....
I'm not sure if this question has been asked before, but... I imagine that news server admins are not liable in the same way that/. is in this case because the person who posts a newsgroup post can remove their own post from the server. So, if copyrighted material was posted to usenet, the copyright holder could go after the poster and make them issue a cancel, or whatever. Wouldn't this whole issue go away if the/. engine would let you remove your own posts? Then, not only does each person own their comments, but they are also liable for them. I dunno, just a thought...
Hate to rain on the parade, but this isn't a MS thing, or an Estonia thing... at this place I used to work in the US, the jackbooted thugs (known as the SPA, or something like that) came by and tallied up all of the incorrectly licensed copies of Lotus SmartSuite that they had installed, and fined the company something like 10 times the value of the licenses as a penalty... Kind of a shame, considering the company *owned* the necessary licenses but simply installed the software incorrectly...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that is amazingly innovative. At least, it was when it shipped in Exchange 2000.
You know, I had to do a project with .NET Remoting, and none of the documentation or samples in MSDN make absolutely any sense. I started searching newsgroups and whatnot for answers to my questions and Ingo had pretty much all of the answers. I got a copy of this book, and it was more of the same. His sample code was clean, understandable, and unlike most everything else out there it worked!
Anyway, yeah. Ingo rules.
as geeks, we are pretty boring to outsiders.
So what? I mean, did anybody see High Fidelity? That had to be one of the more realistic geek portrayals, although they were music geeks and not technology geeks. I had no idea who they were talking about most of the time, but I was entertained nonetheless. Why can't we have a movie like that? You know, just some film about tech geek life and tech geek culture that doesn't involve some big crack as the main plot point? Clerks was about the closest I've ever seen, yet it still didn't come all that close.
And, I'd also like to say, I highly enjoyed this piece of crap film. There was something cool about seeing this in a seattle theater and having half of the theater (presumably RealNetworks employees) laugh at the line, "Our startup is going to produce an application that distributes real time streaming audio and video to a wide array of devices."
Also, I would like to commend all of the NURV programmers for apparently writing flawless code, since it seemed that they were going to ship Synapse without any internal QA, beta testing, or even code reviews. Who needs that crap anyway, right?
EDS
http://www.evildave.net/
You know, I'm a huge fan of The Box. Without it, I'd have never known the greatness of Snow or Green Jelly. So I was quite saddened to hear, about a month ago, that The Box was purchased by Viacom, which is, of course, the parent of MTV. The Box format is going to be scrapped, and The Box channels are essentially going to be folded into M2.
Just thought I'd let you know, in case you thought that the Viacom Corporation will ever let you see a music video that they do not forcefeed you themselves.
Any excuse to bash MS, huh?
First off, the users who are complaining already hit a button that said it was going to do this. It's not like it did it automatically, the user had to take action for this to take place.
Secondly, why complain about this, and why now? How is this different from "Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://hotmail.com" or "Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com" that is at the bottom of every message sent from Hotmail, or the ad that Deja inserts at the bottom of every newsgroup post? Shouldn't you have been complaining about that before this?
What I don't see in this letter is a defense for /. action (or inaction, really)
/.: "Your copyright doesn't exist. Screw off."
/.: "OK, your copyright exists. These posts don't violate your copyright. Screw off."
/.: "OK, maybe they do violate your copyright, maybe they don't. We still don't have to take them down. Screw off."
/. is in this case because the person who posts a newsgroup post can remove their own post from the server. So, if copyrighted material was posted to usenet, the copyright holder could go after the poster and make them issue a cancel, or whatever. Wouldn't this whole issue go away if the /. engine would let you remove your own posts? Then, not only does each person own their comments, but they are also liable for them. I dunno, just a thought...
This seems to me like the first shot of a long battle...
MS: "You're violating our copyright. Take down those posts."
MS: "Yes, our copyright does exist. Here's why. Take down those posts."
MS: "Yes, those posts do violate our copyright. Take down those posts."
etc, etc....
I'm not sure if this question has been asked before, but... I imagine that news server admins are not liable in the same way that
Hate to rain on the parade, but this isn't a MS thing, or an Estonia thing... at this place I used to work in the US, the jackbooted thugs (known as the SPA, or something like that) came by and tallied up all of the incorrectly licensed copies of Lotus SmartSuite that they had installed, and fined the company something like 10 times the value of the licenses as a penalty... Kind of a shame, considering the company *owned* the necessary licenses but simply installed the software incorrectly...