1. You asserted that, specifically (and paraphrasing), that accepting Christ as the "risen savior" did not mean "checking your brain at the door."
2. I disagreed, and as an aside stated: "We have no reason to believe that a resurrection of any kind has ever taken place, or even in the historicity of this Christ," which I still maintain to be true.
3. You countered: "The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is in no more dispute than that of Julius Caesar." I disagreed, and supplied many examples of such dispute.
4. You countered again, and it is here that the track veers sharply. First, I don't know whether your quote regarding "$bignum people" and "foolish thing[s]" was intended as "aimed fire," but the remark is irrelevant. My marshaled URL's were not an attempt to show you that the number of dissenters is significant, but merely that such dissent exists. Indeed, all of your statements, except the last (and yes, I am familiar with Eta and her Q analysis) were not advancing any substantive arguments at all.
If you want to debate the historicity of Christ, I am more than willing, but this is not the right forum. However, know that I consider the question basically unanswerable, and, for myself, entirely moot. It is interesting from an academic position only.
If you wish to continue our discussion, e-mail me.
If self-evident monopolies (or even companies only percieved as monopolies, but perhaps not technical monopolies within the definitions of law) had better publicists, they would certainly not make the same enormous mistakes again and again, in virtually every country in the Western world. I mean, what PR person worth his bonus wouldn't say: _You have zillions of dollars and control so much of industry X that a certain percentage of the population will see you as villains, so we need to work on your image a bit. How about offering superior, inexpensive service BEFORE the competition, so that our customers actually LIKE us, albeit grudgingly?_
Jeez, I just said it, and I'm not a PR person. Seriously, how come it isn't obvious to every non-cretin in this digital world that the first companies to offer cheap broadband access (perhaps combined with content) will control that world, perhaps forever? I can even apply this to the US: If AT&T tomorrow offered broadband access to 90% of America for $25 monthly, and this $25 included telephone access, AT&T would own Internet access in America.
But I seem to remember that the Aussie government has recently been on this censorship binge, as well. Hmm. I'll revise my AT&T fantasy: $25 unlimited broadband/telephone access with guanteed anonymity and webspace unfettered by any restrictions other than those absolutely required by law or common sense (i.e., kiddie porn, incitement to violence, etc.).
Is it really that hard for companies to figure out that people want their freedom, and that there is an enormous profit to be made by providing them that freedom? That the Internet has become THE important avenue of freedom of expression?
>The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is in no more dispute than that of Julius Caesar.
Sorry, but you are very much in error in making that statement. Many scholars (biblical and otherwise) have doubted the historicity of Jesus for many years. As a brief overview, perhaps you might be interested in consulting the following URL's:
These are presented in random order, as I discovered them. Currently, a great number of theologians concur that Jesus might have existed as an amalgam of historical personages, and this is the opinion that I have formed after 20 years of study.
The following post is controversial, but it is neither flamebait or troll. Further, it is entirely on topic.
>Look guys: being religious (including, specifically, Christian) does not mean checking >your brain at the door.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree here, at least regarding Christianity. I will quote you as evidence:
>It means (broadly speaking) acceptance of... >Christ as the risen savior.
So a person who has NOT checked his or her brain at the door accepts that blood sacrifice was required to absolve him or her of something called _sins,_ and this choice is logical and sane? We have no reason to believe that a resurrection of any kind has ever taken place, or even in the historicity of this Christ, but we willing suspend our disbelief to make ourselves feel better? We choose to believe in a God who is so barbaric and impotent that His best trick is punishing beings whom He created for a crime that He staged?
Catholics believe that they are literally consuming the blood and flesh of this Christ in a mystery they name transubstantiation, but which the rest of the world would consider proxy cannibalism. And, protests from protestants aside (pun intended), Catholics ARE Christians. And they didn't check their brains at the door? Other Christians believe that unless you are immersed in water that you end up being tortured eternally, and these Christians didn't check their brains at the door? What about the Christians who believe that loving someone of the same gender is a heinous evil, and they didn't check their brains at the door, either? Every ridiculous belief can demand respect once it is labeled a _religious_ belief, regardless of the fact that most religions (Christianity especially) exist largely due to FUD much worse than any Microsoft has ever fostered.
This is moderated as insightful? If the same article had been written by Linus Torvalds or John Carmack, the sycophantic praises would have been ringing to the heavens. However, because everyone's favorite object of scorn decides to analyze the DMCA, this type of childish castigation is considered okay, and even moderated up.
I read Jon's article several times, and nowhere did he use the word "conspiracy," grand or otherwise, nor was a conspiracy implied. I am left with a few possibilities to explain your misreading: 1) your tongue is planted firmly tongue in cheek, 2) your tongue is planted firmly in your anus, 3), you are functionally illiterate, or 4) you have listened to far too much Art Bell.
Either that, or you have such a huge hard-on for Jon Katz that your brain fails to engage properly.
"The PS2 is not a machine designed as an instrument for the consumer..."
So, I am a consumer who wants access to the Internet for the purposes of playing cutting-edge massively-multiplayer games, chatting, checking my e-mail, browsing the web, and engaging in on-line forums. I buy a box like the PS2 which does all of these things conveniently, cheaply, and easily, and this box _isn't_ for me, or consumers like me? I am a victim of Sony and other companies who make these non-consumer products?
Please, victimize me more!
"...it is designed as an instrument for Sony to drive consumers into buying more games, more movies, and more of whatever other services they plan to offer."
As can be said for virtually any product ever manufactured. You don't really believe that VCR's and televisions and CD-ROMs were designed as objets d'art, do you?
I work for an ISP, and I answer hundreds of phone calls a week from customers who need a box just like this one. They are desperately perplexed by any technology more complicated than a toaster, and it would save us and them literally thousands of hours of frustration and stress if they had purchased a box more suitable for their limited needs. I see the PS2 and future incarnations of similar hardware as the salvation of the consumer, not the enemy.
The geeks can still buy their power systems and tweak and upgrade and laugh at the unsophisticated consumer-level users.
If this is the "dark side," then R2-D2 and C-3PO are serving the wrong masters.
So, none of the MIT lock-pickers knew how to spell, even remotely? Since I doubt this is the case, I wonder why it was necessary for the document to be edited, as the numerous spelling errors make it obvious that this occurred?
I don't like being male, and I never have (or, rather, I don't like the surplus of unpleasant baggage associated with "maleness"). I am not a transvestite, but I suppose you could say that I had gender issues. I don't like anything macho, and feel perplexed by any of my peers attempts at being "cool" or 'tough." So, yes, I play female characters 100% of the time. When I am reincarnated, I don't want to be reborn male (assuming that I am given the choice). I see nothing odd or unusual about this study at all, or even particularly newsworthy.
I'm a geek, and this review appealed to me. Boyle is a geek-favorite director, and books should be (even if they aren't) important to every geek who deserves the name.
I see your rant as another anti-Katz slam, which is really getting rather tiring. If you don't want to read Katz, the solution is so simple that I won't waste any bandwidth elaborating.
"Yes, there's still a VERY little-known disk-swap trick (and no, I won't say what it is) that you can do with VGS. You can also do this on a regular PSX, so there's no difference."
The swap trick isn't that unknown. Insert an original Playstation CD, get to the first logo screen, force open the drive suddenly (with the switch taped down or blocked so that the disk stays spinning) and insert the copied disk. If anyone is stupid enough to try it, they deserve the damage.
While, strictly speaking, the Connectix product enables users to play their PlayStation back-ups on their G3, we all know that this is not primarily the use to which it will be put. Of course, that's what some users will be doing, but not the majority, despite the protestations. So this judge has just made it harder for a company engaged in lawful business to earn its justified profits. And why? To protect a principal. Yes, a very important principal, but shouldn't sometimes the spirit of the law, and not the letter, be enforced? A quick cruise of Hotline or IRC shows the reality.
I say we Open Source EVERYTHING. If we have no more secrets, if every single little act of our governments were laid bare - and I mean all governments, all offices, all of the time - then Echelon and its ilk wouldn't be necessary. Face it, as long as there are secrets, there will be spying. As the people are suppposed to _be_ the government, in the democacies of the world, at least, then it seems sort of stupid to keep secrets from ourselves.
There are many things that the people have no need, and indeed, no right, to know - whom is giving the President head, for example - but anything that is actually part of the political process should be an open book. Every cent that the government spends should be accountable. Every memo and every record, including e-mail and faxes should be published for the entire public to read. Yes, the voyeuristic bullshit: "I'll be home for lunch dear, have the KY ready," from some horny congressman to his wife should be excluded. Give our public servants carte blanche to delete up to 50 personal references a year (ammounting to no more than, say, 5,000 words), with a panel that examines, randomly, such deletions, to make sure that this generosity isn't being abused. that would still maintain the privacy that everyone deserves, and keep the world safe for the rest of us.
Are there any gay characters in Star Wars? I am not a big fan of the series, but I did come across a gay Star Wars "fanfic" page that was midly interesting. I know that George has painted a future in which most of the human-universe seem to be caucasian, but has he forgotten all of those members of humanity who love members of the same gender?
As Star Wars seems (inexplicably, from my viewpoint) to stir the emotions of so many millions of people, doesn't George have a responsibility to represent all of us? Blacks, whites - ALL races - gays, lesbians, bi's, the transgendered?
This might be moderated as flamebait or a troll, but that is not my intention:
Why is covering a computer case with the skin of a slaughtered innocent animal "shagadelic?" I know that we have become desensitized to the murder of cattle because we eat them and they taste good, but what if these cases had been covered in horse skin? Or the skin of a collie? I know, dogs are "different," but we slaughter millions of dogs - dogs that are put down due to the indifference and neglect of their owners - at dog shelters every year. Certainly the skins shouldn't be allowed to go to waste?
Anytime that we find ourselves decorating our computer cases (or ourselves) with a material ripped off the flesh of other animals - and we ARE animals, too - I think we ought to show a bit more respect than referring to it as "shagadelic."
Do we classify the engineers of these DOS attacks as Script Kiddies or Cyber Terrorists? And does the fact that the have only attacked big, commercial sites make them criminal losers or heroic vigilantes protesting the commercialization of the 'net?
Further, _if_ it is a protest, does it make it any less wrong? Let us assume for a second that a group calling themselves the "Anti-Open Source Brigade" starting shutting down Slashdot regularly, out of the sincere political conviction that Open Source was really a terrible evil? Forget that their logic may be flawed; these are a group of committed, idealistic young men who knock Slashdot off-line quite successfully for hundreds of hours during a two month period. And not just Slashdot: Freshmeat goes down, and all of the Anodover sites, and Redhat, and every important Open Source proponent site on the 'net? Is it okay because their motives were pure?
Lastly: if this were MS going down, how many cries of jubilation would we be hearing on Slashdot? And would it makes us hypocrites?
This isn't flaimbait or a troll, though some may choose to interpret it as such. It is merely the very puzzled question: why do so many like the most damaging show on TV?
When I was a teen, all of the wacko conpiracy theorists were quietly tolerated, and the National Enquirer was their rag. Generally they were John Birchers/KKK'ers/Aryan Nation nutcases. Nobody had heard of the "New World Order" or black helicopters or FEMA's evil plots and Christian Identity groups were just a perverted nightmare. However, after the X-Files gave crackpots and paranoids respect, all of the aforementioned were suddenly "cool." Abducteees are no longer laughed at or pitied, people talk seriously about alien proctologists on Art Bell, and thousands of certifiably commitable lunatics have stopped taking their medication.
I also believe that the resurgence in homophobia/racism/creationism/flat-earthers/etc. has a direct connection to "X-Files chic." More times than I can count I've listened to otherwise sane people discuss episodes of the X-Files as if they were literal truth.
Doesn't this scare anyone else? Or am I just alarmist and a loon?
Free speech can certainly be violent, and flaming is, by definition, violent (i.e., to send an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message).
Flaming is EVERYTHING like road rage. It demonstrates the inability of the sender to behave calmly and rationally in a stressful situation, because rage (or stupidity) has blurred their senses. Often, it demonstrates nothing but the (frequently inarticulate) glee of a malicious thug.
I don't want this post to be interpreted as a troll or flamebait, but I do have to ask the following question:
What difference does it make when TPM is released on DVD? If the movie were absolutely the best film in the history of cinema (and this would be arguable, to say the least), it will still be just as good in two years. Why is this story any more newsworthy than "Party of Five Not Aired in Poland?" Not all geeks are enamored of Star Wars - count this geek/SF fan as a hardcore Star Wars hater - and, even if we were, I don't see that this non-event merits any more than two lines on the back page of a Star Wars fanzine.
"which was written after work on the movie began. The aliens were always Buggers in the first four books, Shadow's use of "Formics" is revisionism.:)"
No, it isn't. I remember quite clearly some exposition in one of the first two books in which it is explained that the "buggers" were called one thing in reports and official documents (by the scientists), but were called "buggers" by the press, _and_ by the scientists in private conversation. Granted, I haven't read any of the books since they were new, so "Formics" might not have been the official bugger nomenclature, but "bugger" wasn't their official name, either.
I agree and disagree simultaneously. I agree that web designers should strive for cross-browser compatibility, but not: "If the site doesn't work under lynx, there's a problem." Compatibility can be stretched to the point of irrelevancy.
In actual numbers, I'll bet that there are more Internet Explorer-using Croatians than the entire web-browsing Linux community. If some question that assumption, pick Italians instead. Hell, pick the Chinese or even the Finnish. The same ratio probably applies. It seems to me rather pathetic that we whine when the trivial content of a single website is inaccessible to a tiny fraction of the web-browsing world, and yet we don't even consider it worth our notice that millions of users can't access the content of the majority of arguably more important sites.
We can't design for everybody, and I don't believe that we should try. We should design for the majority, yes, but it is obstinate to insist that we should design for all. If that is part of your credo, bless you, but don't expect everyone to share your religion.
Slashdot uses JavaScript, which means that it isn't accessible to everyone, but I don't think many of us rue the extra capabilities that this provides. As for as the aesthetics versus functionality argument, I think that both can be achieved. When the two behemoths in the browser war are entirely CSS and XML compliant, then that dual nature should be easy, or at least much-simplified.
One final point: I'm seen very few websites with essential or non-duplicable information. If people really don't like the "flashy" extensions, stop visiting the sites that use them. When the numbers drop, so will the extensions. However, personally, given the choice between an aesthetically-pleasing site which provides the same information as a dull or unimaginatively presented site, I'll choose the former every time. I'm not talking about the garish, how-many-fonts-can-I-fit-on-one-page, midi-music playing, banner-scrolling, dark blue letters on black background travesty. And, yes, I know that one person's aesthetic dream is another's design nightmare. Still, I believe that reasonable compromises can be reached, and will satisfy a far larger audience.
Like a loosing politician hearing a poll, you doubt the data before you, and yet Apache continues to be the leader.
I quote this data from an article previously/.'d:
"Though Apache is obviously in wide use, this statistic overstates its popularity. Why? Because it measures Apache's market share based on the number of unique domain names, as opposed to the number of unique servers. Apache, popular among ISPs because of its price (free) and unlimited configurability, can host hundreds or thousands of domains on a single server.
Netcraft also surveys SSL servers on the Internet, and there the numbers are very different: Microsoft's 37 percent is almost twice that of Netscape's or Stronghold's share, and Sun Web Server doesn't even make the list. Because SSL servers are more likely to be real business servers (as opposed to those hosting "Great Doghouses of the South" or other home-page marginalia), Netcraft's survey is a telling indicator of Microsoft's presence in the market."
Given MSs very small share, it's no wonder those numbers have gone up, 'double not-much' is still not much.
Regardless of how you cook (or ignore) the data, MS's share cannot be described as "small," unless you are involved in some serious wishful-thinking.
Elite is a typewriter size? Really? So, what sizes do typewriters come in? Rather, what sizes _did_ they come in, as I don't think they make them anymore.
Customer to clerk: "I'd like a typewriter, please."
Clerk: "What size of typewriter would you like? Elite, medium, or large?"
The word "elite," for your information, while it may denote a typewriter type (as in the alphanumeric relief character which strikes the page for printing) providing twelve characters to the linear inch, is also a perfectly functional noun (and sometimes adjective) which doesn't require the "é" in English even if it does have a French etymology.
Now that you have convinced me that every web page must be viewable by _every_ prospective user, I suggest the following guidelines:
1. For the Coleco Adam users (there were 29,629 visitors to "Coleco Adam's House" - http://www.flash.net/~coleco/main.htm - so they do exist), Opera Software needs to port a version of their browser, and ensure that it is available on 256K digital datapack tapes. I doubt that there are modems available for the Adam, but, hey, it the equal opportunity that counts, isn't it?
2. There are still CP/M users who might want to fire up MEX and peruse Fox's content, so I think that Fox, and Wired, and/., ought to make their content easily accessible to those forgotten users. Telnet and terminal access today!
3. Gopher is a protocol now seldom used, and that is inexcusable. Do Disney or Microsoft or Amazon ever consider the Gopher user when they design their sites? No! I think we should all write letters of protest about this omission. Why, neglecting Gopher users is the same as putting signs up saying 'No Blacks Allowed" or "Homosexuals Not Welcome Here " or anything else that excludes or denies!
This is just the start of the revolution. I have a Vic-20 and a TI-99/4A that glare balefully at me whenever I connect to the net (okay, maybe there is slight anthromorphism here), and I think that/. should spearhead a new Open Source project to provide Internet connectivity to those beloved platforms.
Let us all unite in this important struggle! Linux today, the HP-67 tomorrow!
I would be very surprised if more people used AIM than ICQ. I know very few Internet addicts who don't use ICQ, whereas it is primarily AOL users who use AIM, and then not nearly all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that we are losing track here.
1. You asserted that, specifically (and paraphrasing), that accepting Christ as the "risen savior" did not mean "checking your brain at the door."
2. I disagreed, and as an aside stated: "We have no reason to believe that a resurrection of any kind has ever taken place, or even in the historicity of this Christ," which I still maintain to be true.
3. You countered: "The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is in no more dispute than that of Julius Caesar." I disagreed, and supplied many examples of such dispute.
4. You countered again, and it is here that the track veers sharply. First, I don't know whether your quote regarding "$bignum people" and "foolish thing[s]" was intended as "aimed fire," but the remark is irrelevant. My marshaled URL's were not an attempt to show you that the number of dissenters is significant, but merely that such dissent exists. Indeed, all of your statements, except the last (and yes, I am familiar with Eta and her Q analysis) were not advancing any substantive arguments at all.
If you want to debate the historicity of Christ, I am more than willing, but this is not the right forum. However, know that I consider the question basically unanswerable, and, for myself, entirely moot. It is interesting from an academic position only.
If you wish to continue our discussion, e-mail me.
If self-evident monopolies (or even companies only percieved as monopolies, but perhaps not technical monopolies within the definitions of law) had better publicists, they would certainly not make the same enormous mistakes again and again, in virtually every country in the Western world.
I mean, what PR person worth his bonus wouldn't say: _You have zillions of dollars and control so much of industry X that a certain percentage of the population will see you as villains, so we need to work on your image a bit. How about offering superior, inexpensive service BEFORE the competition, so that our customers actually LIKE us, albeit grudgingly?_
Jeez, I just said it, and I'm not a PR person. Seriously, how come it isn't obvious to every non-cretin in this digital world that the first companies to offer cheap broadband access (perhaps combined with content) will control that world, perhaps forever? I can even apply this to the US: If AT&T tomorrow offered broadband access to 90% of America for $25 monthly, and this $25 included telephone access, AT&T would own Internet access in America.
But I seem to remember that the Aussie government has recently been on this censorship binge, as well. Hmm. I'll revise my AT&T fantasy: $25 unlimited broadband/telephone access with guanteed anonymity and webspace unfettered by any restrictions other than those absolutely required by law or common sense (i.e., kiddie porn, incitement to violence, etc.).
Is it really that hard for companies to figure out that people want their freedom, and that there is an enormous profit to be made by providing them that freedom? That the Internet has become THE important avenue of freedom of expression?
No, I just can't resist:
l /historical_jesus.html l /jesus_search.html u s.htm
>The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is in no more dispute than that of Julius Caesar.
Sorry, but you are very much in error in making that statement. Many scholars (biblical and otherwise) have doubted the historicity of Jesus for many years. As a brief overview, perhaps you might be interested in consulting the following URL's:
1. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_stil
2. http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/home.htm
3. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_stil
4. http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/jsem_b.html
5. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/jesus/jes
6. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/jesus.htm
7. http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm
8. http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/
These are presented in random order, as I discovered them. Currently, a great number of theologians concur that Jesus might have existed as an amalgam of historical personages, and this is the opinion that I have formed after 20 years of study.
The following post is controversial, but it is neither flamebait or troll. Further, it is entirely on topic.
>Look guys: being religious (including, specifically, Christian) does not mean checking
>your brain at the door.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree here, at least regarding Christianity. I will quote you as evidence:
>It means (broadly speaking) acceptance of...
>Christ as the risen savior.
So a person who has NOT checked his or her brain at the door accepts that blood sacrifice was required to absolve him or her of something called _sins,_ and this choice is logical and sane? We have no reason to believe that a resurrection of any kind has ever taken place, or even in the historicity of this Christ, but we willing suspend our disbelief to make ourselves feel better? We choose to believe in a God who is so barbaric and impotent that His best trick is punishing beings whom He created for a crime that He staged?
Catholics believe that they are literally consuming the blood and flesh of this Christ in a mystery they name transubstantiation, but which the rest of the world would consider proxy cannibalism. And, protests from protestants aside (pun intended), Catholics ARE Christians. And they didn't check their brains at the door? Other Christians believe that unless you are immersed in water that you end up being tortured eternally, and these Christians didn't check their brains at the door? What about the Christians who believe that loving someone of the same gender is a heinous evil, and they didn't check their brains at the door, either? Every ridiculous belief can demand respect once it is labeled a _religious_ belief, regardless of the fact that most religions (Christianity especially) exist largely due to FUD much worse than any Microsoft has ever fostered.
"john katz, you ignorant slut."
This is moderated as insightful? If the same article had been written by Linus Torvalds or John Carmack, the sycophantic praises would have been ringing to the heavens. However, because everyone's favorite object of scorn decides to analyze the DMCA, this type of childish castigation is considered okay, and even moderated up.
I read Jon's article several times, and nowhere did he use the word "conspiracy," grand or otherwise, nor was a conspiracy implied. I am left with a few possibilities to explain your misreading: 1) your tongue is planted firmly tongue in cheek, 2) your tongue is planted firmly in your anus, 3), you are functionally illiterate, or 4) you have listened to far too much Art Bell.
Either that, or you have such a huge hard-on for Jon Katz that your brain fails to engage properly.
"The PS2 is not a machine designed as an instrument for the consumer..."
So, I am a consumer who wants access to the Internet for the purposes of playing cutting-edge massively-multiplayer games, chatting, checking my e-mail, browsing the web, and engaging in on-line forums. I buy a box like the PS2 which does all of these things conveniently, cheaply, and easily, and this box _isn't_ for me, or consumers like me? I am a victim of Sony and other companies who make these non-consumer products?
Please, victimize me more!
"...it is designed as an instrument for Sony to drive consumers into buying more games, more movies, and more of whatever other services they plan to offer."
As can be said for virtually any product ever manufactured. You don't really believe that VCR's and televisions and CD-ROMs were designed as objets d'art, do you?
I work for an ISP, and I answer hundreds of phone calls a week from customers who need a box just like this one. They are desperately perplexed by any technology more complicated than a toaster, and it would save us and them literally thousands of hours of frustration and stress if they had purchased a box more suitable for their limited needs. I see the PS2 and future incarnations of similar hardware as the salvation of the consumer, not the enemy.
The geeks can still buy their power systems and tweak and upgrade and laugh at the unsophisticated consumer-level users.
If this is the "dark side," then R2-D2 and C-3PO are serving the wrong masters.
So, none of the MIT lock-pickers knew how to spell, even remotely? Since I doubt this is the case, I wonder why it was necessary for the document to be edited, as the numerous spelling errors make it obvious that this occurred?
I don't like being male, and I never have (or, rather, I don't like the surplus of unpleasant baggage associated with "maleness"). I am not a transvestite, but I suppose you could say that I had gender issues. I don't like anything macho, and feel perplexed by any of my peers attempts at being "cool" or 'tough." So, yes, I play female characters 100% of the time. When I am reincarnated, I don't want to be reborn male (assuming that I am given the choice). I see nothing odd or unusual about this study at all, or even particularly newsworthy.
I'm a geek, and this review appealed to me. Boyle is a geek-favorite director, and books should be (even if they aren't) important to every geek who deserves the name.
I see your rant as another anti-Katz slam, which is really getting rather tiring. If you don't want to read Katz, the solution is so simple that I won't waste any bandwidth elaborating.
"Yes, there's still a VERY little-known disk-swap trick (and no, I won't say what it is) that you can do with VGS. You can also do this on a regular PSX, so there's no difference."
The swap trick isn't that unknown. Insert an original Playstation CD, get to the first logo screen, force open the drive suddenly (with the switch taped down or blocked so that the disk stays spinning) and insert the copied disk. If anyone is stupid enough to try it, they deserve the damage.
While, strictly speaking, the Connectix product enables users to play their PlayStation back-ups on their G3, we all know that this is not primarily the use to which it will be put. Of course, that's what some users will be doing, but not the majority, despite the protestations. So this judge has just made it harder for a company engaged in lawful business to earn its justified profits. And why? To protect a principal. Yes, a very important principal, but shouldn't sometimes the spirit of the law, and not the letter, be enforced? A quick cruise of Hotline or IRC shows the reality.
I say we Open Source EVERYTHING. If we have no more secrets, if every single little act of our governments were laid bare - and I mean all governments, all offices, all of the time - then Echelon and its ilk wouldn't be necessary. Face it, as long as there are secrets, there will be spying. As the people are suppposed to _be_ the government, in the democacies of the world, at least, then it seems sort of stupid to keep secrets from ourselves.
There are many things that the people have no need, and indeed, no right, to know - whom is giving the President head, for example - but anything that is actually part of the political process should be an open book. Every cent that the government spends should be accountable. Every memo and every record, including e-mail and faxes should be published for the entire public to read. Yes, the voyeuristic bullshit: "I'll be home for lunch dear, have the KY ready," from some horny congressman to his wife should be excluded. Give our public servants carte blanche to delete up to 50 personal references a year (ammounting to no more than, say, 5,000 words), with a panel that examines, randomly, such deletions, to make sure that this generosity isn't being abused. that would still maintain the privacy that everyone deserves, and keep the world safe for the rest of us.
Are there any gay characters in Star Wars? I am not a big fan of the series, but I did come across a gay Star Wars "fanfic" page that was midly interesting. I know that George has painted a future in which most of the human-universe seem to be caucasian, but has he forgotten all of those members of humanity who love members of the same gender?
As Star Wars seems (inexplicably, from my viewpoint) to stir the emotions of so many millions of people, doesn't George have a responsibility to represent all of us? Blacks, whites - ALL races - gays, lesbians, bi's, the transgendered?
And why are there no female Jedi's?
This might be moderated as flamebait or a troll, but that is not my intention:
Why is covering a computer case with the skin of a slaughtered innocent animal "shagadelic?" I know that we have become desensitized to the murder of cattle because we eat them and they taste good, but what if these cases had been covered in horse skin? Or the skin of a collie? I know, dogs are "different," but we slaughter millions of dogs - dogs that are put down due to the indifference and neglect of their owners - at dog shelters every year. Certainly the skins shouldn't be allowed to go to waste?
Anytime that we find ourselves decorating our computer cases (or ourselves) with a material ripped off the flesh of other animals - and we ARE animals, too - I think we ought to show a bit more respect than referring to it as "shagadelic."
Just my two cents worth.
Do we classify the engineers of these DOS attacks as Script Kiddies or Cyber Terrorists? And does the fact that the have only attacked big, commercial sites make them criminal losers or heroic vigilantes protesting the commercialization of the 'net?
Further, _if_ it is a protest, does it make it any less wrong? Let us assume for a second that a group calling themselves the "Anti-Open Source Brigade" starting shutting down Slashdot regularly, out of the sincere political conviction that Open Source was really a terrible evil? Forget that their logic may be flawed; these are a group of committed, idealistic young men who knock Slashdot off-line quite successfully for hundreds of hours during a two month period. And not just Slashdot: Freshmeat goes down, and all of the Anodover sites, and Redhat, and every important Open Source proponent site on the 'net? Is it okay because their motives were pure?
Lastly: if this were MS going down, how many cries of jubilation would we be hearing on Slashdot? And would it makes us hypocrites?
This isn't flaimbait or a troll, though some may choose to interpret it as such. It is merely the very puzzled question: why do so many like the most damaging show on TV?
When I was a teen, all of the wacko conpiracy theorists were quietly tolerated, and the National Enquirer was their rag. Generally they were John Birchers/KKK'ers/Aryan Nation nutcases. Nobody had heard of the "New World Order" or black helicopters or FEMA's evil plots and Christian Identity groups were just a perverted nightmare. However, after the X-Files gave crackpots and paranoids respect, all of the aforementioned were suddenly "cool." Abducteees are no longer laughed at or pitied, people talk seriously about alien proctologists on Art Bell, and thousands of certifiably commitable lunatics have stopped taking their medication.
I also believe that the resurgence in homophobia/racism/creationism/flat-earthers/etc. has a direct connection to "X-Files chic." More times than I can count I've listened to otherwise sane people discuss episodes of the X-Files as if they were literal truth.
Doesn't this scare anyone else? Or am I just alarmist and a loon?
Free speech can certainly be violent, and flaming is, by definition, violent (i.e., to send an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message).
Flaming is EVERYTHING like road rage. It demonstrates the inability of the sender to behave calmly and rationally in a stressful situation, because rage (or stupidity) has blurred their senses. Often, it demonstrates nothing but the (frequently inarticulate) glee of a malicious thug.
I don't want this post to be interpreted as a troll or flamebait, but I do have to ask the following question:
What difference does it make when TPM is released on DVD? If the movie were absolutely the best film in the history of cinema (and this would be arguable, to say the least), it will still be just as good in two years. Why is this story any more newsworthy than "Party of Five Not Aired in Poland?" Not all geeks are enamored of Star Wars - count this geek/SF fan as a hardcore Star Wars hater - and, even if we were, I don't see that this non-event merits any more than two lines on the back page of a Star Wars fanzine.
"which was written after work on the movie began. The aliens were always Buggers in the first four books, Shadow's use of "Formics" is revisionism. :)"
No, it isn't. I remember quite clearly some exposition in one of the first two books in which it is explained that the "buggers" were called one thing in reports and official documents (by the scientists), but were called "buggers" by the press, _and_ by the scientists in private conversation. Granted, I haven't read any of the books since they were new, so "Formics" might not have been the official bugger nomenclature, but "bugger" wasn't their official name, either.
I agree and disagree simultaneously. I agree that web designers should strive for cross-browser compatibility, but not: "If the site doesn't work under lynx, there's a problem." Compatibility can be stretched to the point of irrelevancy.
In actual numbers, I'll bet that there are more Internet Explorer-using Croatians than the entire web-browsing Linux community. If some question that assumption, pick Italians instead. Hell, pick the Chinese or even the Finnish. The same ratio probably applies. It seems to me rather pathetic that we whine when the trivial content of a single website is inaccessible to a tiny fraction of the web-browsing world, and yet we don't even consider it worth our notice that millions of users can't access the content of the majority of arguably more important sites.
We can't design for everybody, and I don't believe that we should try. We should design for the majority, yes, but it is obstinate to insist that we should design for all. If that is part of your credo, bless you, but don't expect everyone to share your religion.
Slashdot uses JavaScript, which means that it isn't accessible to everyone, but I don't think many of us rue the extra capabilities that this provides. As for as the aesthetics versus functionality argument, I think that both can be achieved. When the two behemoths in the browser war are entirely CSS and XML compliant, then that dual nature should be easy, or at least much-simplified.
One final point: I'm seen very few websites with essential or non-duplicable information. If people really don't like the "flashy" extensions, stop visiting the sites that use them. When the numbers drop, so will the extensions. However, personally, given the choice between an aesthetically-pleasing site which provides the same information as a dull or unimaginatively presented site, I'll choose the former every time. I'm not talking about the garish, how-many-fonts-can-I-fit-on-one-page, midi-music playing, banner-scrolling, dark blue letters on black background travesty. And, yes, I know that one person's aesthetic dream is another's design nightmare. Still, I believe that reasonable compromises can be reached, and will satisfy a far larger audience.
Since when are quotes original? Am I expected to quote myself, then? What would be the point of that?
A quote is, by definition, to repeat in speech or writing from another.
Like a loosing politician hearing a poll, you doubt the data before you, and yet Apache continues to be the leader.
/.'d:
I quote this data from an article previously
"Though Apache is obviously in wide use, this statistic overstates its popularity. Why? Because it measures Apache's market share based on the number of unique domain names, as opposed to the number of unique servers. Apache, popular among ISPs because of its price (free) and unlimited configurability, can host hundreds or thousands of domains on a single server.
Netcraft also surveys SSL servers on the Internet, and there the numbers are very different: Microsoft's 37 percent is almost twice that of Netscape's or Stronghold's share, and Sun Web Server doesn't even make the list. Because SSL servers are more likely to be real business servers (as opposed to those hosting "Great Doghouses of the South" or other home-page marginalia), Netcraft's survey is a telling indicator of Microsoft's presence in the market."
Given MSs very small share, it's no wonder those numbers have gone up, 'double not-much' is still not much.
Regardless of how you cook (or ignore) the data, MS's share cannot be described as "small," unless you are involved in some serious wishful-thinking.
Elite is a typewriter size? Really? So, what sizes do typewriters come in? Rather, what sizes _did_ they come in, as I don't think they make them anymore.
Customer to clerk: "I'd like a typewriter, please."
Clerk: "What size of typewriter would you like? Elite, medium, or large?"
The word "elite," for your information, while it may denote a typewriter type (as in the alphanumeric relief character which strikes the page for printing) providing twelve characters to the linear inch, is also a perfectly functional noun (and sometimes adjective) which doesn't require the "é" in English even if it does have a French etymology.
Now that you have convinced me that every web page must be viewable by _every_ prospective user, I suggest the following guidelines:
/., ought to make their content easily accessible to those forgotten users. Telnet and terminal access today!
/. should spearhead a new Open Source project to provide Internet connectivity to those beloved platforms.
1. For the Coleco Adam users (there were 29,629 visitors to "Coleco Adam's House" - http://www.flash.net/~coleco/main.htm - so they do exist), Opera Software needs to port a version of their browser, and ensure that it is available on 256K digital datapack tapes. I doubt that there are modems available for the Adam, but, hey, it the equal opportunity that counts, isn't it?
2. There are still CP/M users who might want to fire up MEX and peruse Fox's content, so I think that Fox, and Wired, and
3. Gopher is a protocol now seldom used, and that is inexcusable. Do Disney or Microsoft or Amazon ever consider the Gopher user when they design their sites? No! I think we should all write letters of protest about this omission. Why, neglecting Gopher users is the same as putting signs up saying 'No Blacks Allowed" or "Homosexuals Not Welcome Here " or anything else that excludes or denies!
This is just the start of the revolution. I have a Vic-20 and a TI-99/4A that glare balefully at me whenever I connect to the net (okay, maybe there is slight anthromorphism here), and I think that
Let us all unite in this important struggle! Linux today, the HP-67 tomorrow!
I would be very surprised if more people used AIM than ICQ. I know very few Internet addicts who don't use ICQ, whereas it is primarily AOL users who use AIM, and then not nearly all of them.