But your definition of success has to do with a company being around after 25 years. This has nothing to do with technology. That's simply business, which does little to further technology in any real sense. The money that the business MAY provide to R&D COULD push technology ahead a little further. But people who purely do research with no profit motive are more likely to get farther in terms of the concepts that will have a lasting impact. Most R&D in the private sector only moves forward once it's deemed profitable.
My definition of success is that a technology is still in use after 25 , 50 or even hundreds of years after it's original debut. It doesn't matter if it's manufactured by a completely different company than it's originator, or just used by some hobbyists in a basement somewhere. This kind of success is proof that the technology is superior. Money and bottom lines don't figure into it at all. And they shouldn't. But people who think that it should matter are the ones who are behind software patents and so-called "intellectual property".
Right now, the argument is coming from the neo-capitlist side. However, if this were thirty years ago and the communists wanted to establish that the state had all ownership of software and "intellectual property", you can bet most Americans would have been opposed to it. This points to the fact that software patents and "intellectual property" are wrong and will do nothing but hinder progress. However, acceptance of these concepts by the general public relies entirly on who is making the propositions. At the moment, the general public is blind to the fact that the people who want these kinds of mechanisms in place want to control their rights to access technology. This is because the neo-capitalists are hiding behind what American capitalism used to stand for. Just think very loosely about the movie Dark Crystal and you'll get the picture of what has happened to American business. The real bottom line is that WE have become the evil empire that the Soviet Union was previously considered. Like it or not, it's the truth.
As far as success, it's obvious that we just have different viewpoints, so there is no need in either of us trying to convert the other. You are more a businessman (possibly with a technological focus), I am a technologist (who cares only about technology and nothing else).
But if they win this one, then the Children's Television Workshop should try and get royalties for all the letters of the alphabet since they had close ties to all the letters of the alphabet. "This program has been brought to you by the letter S"
...I'd say that this person is looking for a PORTABLE solution that can walk with the user. The problem with portable MP3 players is that they have more value to someone who would want to steal them. I'd say that a centralized system with wireless audio would be more appropriate and would lose the attractiveness as well. Just a few super cheap FM stereo walkman type devices each tuned to a specific frequency and an X10 control device to trigger playback for that unit should be inexpensive enough. Have a computer with multiple sound outputs wired to multiple low power xmitters that correspond to specific portable stations. The X10 device stops and starts the recording on the frequency that the attached radio is tuned to. Voila! All for about $5 per device. Of course you woul have to make sure the museum's electircal lighting grid would carry the X10 signal. Sure it's ugly as sin, but cheap and relatively reliable.
What? Stylish to? That's a requirment as well? OK, go with the out of the box solution then...
Honestly, if you want more assistance with this:
1. How log do the recordings have to be? 2. Do they need to be portable, or is this a fixed station that a person walks up to? 3. Is this a one shot deal, or will the system need t be re-usable? 4. If it's portable, does it need a small form factor?
The major metropolitan museum I frequent, uses tape based walkman devices. Inexpensive and pretty disposable. Unfortunately, when dealing with the public, you really can't expect to have a device that is durable AND inexpensive. Sometimes lo-tech is the best appraoch even if it isn't stylish.
Completely dismissing all the pro and con science regarding this issue. I have to say that if we can have a ten kiloton bob the size of a golf ball, then we can guarantee global decimation with a car full of golf balls. Why do the monkeys insist on playing with fire? Because they haven't gotten burned yet. In this case, once they DO get burned it won't matter because there won't be any monkeys left. I don't care if this is just some kind of theoretical experiment at this stage. If and when it does become a reality, you know that one of the fearful warmongers will demand that the ultimate weapon is made so that they are the biggest kid on the block. Humans have so much potential for great things and for self destruction.
I've asked the volume license question many times before. It just makes sense considering that very few people these days have just one PC at home. The typical setup is now two to three PCs with networking. Do they honestly expect people to pay the expensive fees per machine? I'd use Windows XP on more of my machines if I could go to CompUSA and buy a five-pack with media for say... $500. That's more than fair. However, since they don't... I use Linux on every machine in my house with only one box running Windows XP Pro. That's close to twenty machines with Linux and one lone Windows box. Of course, now that I've learned a lot about how to use Linux, you'd be hard pressed to get me back to Windows on any more than two boxes... Microsoft is chasing people like me away. I could have been a pretty decent customer if they had a grasp on reality and realized that people like me will buy fairly priced software.
Pirates care about how much their boxes affect the internet as much as SUV drivers care about their impact on the environment. Personally, I think any luser out there with an infected Windows box hitting other hosts on the internet should be fined by their ISP. Pirates are just plain idiots.
I can't say I'll miss it. I tried watching TechTV on many occasions, but it was just a little too basic. Most of the shows were nothing more than product ads. I was hoping for something more accessible like scripting and programming. A little Perl, a little C, maybe some Bash and Emacs tips, throw in a little CMD and WScript, even some VB. But most of the shows seemed like a cross between the Home Shopping Network and a...For Dummies book. I can't stand the Thunderbirds, so that didn't grab me. Besides, that's what Cartoon Network and SciFi are more suited to. The pseudo-scientific shows they had weren't much more than "look at how great these companies are at innovating"!. Not too useful. Now, if they would have run Cosmos (with updates), maybe the original UK version of Battlebots, Dr. Who and had some hardcore programming shows, it would have struck a chord a little more.
...I think this guy has it right. We went straight from WW II to WW III and it's been going on for almost half a century. Everyone needs to open their eyes a bit.
I'd pay the fee for a subscription. Television here in the U.S. pretty much SUCKS the big one. You Brits have it a lot better over there. I get to watch shows a year or more behind here on BBC America. But I'd just like to get rid of the middle man and see the real thing. I'd drop my DirecTV subscription just to watch Aunty.
Merely A Shift in Business Model
on
Spammer Sues SpamCop
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you can't succeed by anoying the hell out of people with unsolicited bulk e-mail, then SUE EVERYONE!!! Scott, welcome to the ranks of Darl McBride. You two should be very cozy together once you get saddled up in the same prison.
Losers like Scott and Darl act like it's their "god given" right to profit with as little effort expended as possible. Well you know what? FUCK THEM!;P
Yes. But for how long will they be "newbies"? my point is that to use a machines as complex as a computer, you'd better damn well know the machine inside an out. A lot of people make the car comparison with computers saying that the only thing a user needs to know to use a car is how to steer it. But... we are not users. We are more like mechanics. And if all your mechanic knew how to do was steer a car, you'd be sunk. Now think about how many auto mechanics there are out there... Someday there could be as many people who know Linux inside and out. Or, at least, that should be the goal.
I'm not a troll. I'm pointing out that most of us who use Linux, use it at home primarily and at work second. 99% of Linux users are NOT newbies. How mny of us on Slashdot woul you say are "newbies"? Not me. Sure, there are things I don't know, and I'm not a coder, but really... how hard is it (once you have the experience) to grab source code, configure and compile it? It just isn't that big of a deal and it doesn't require any programming skill. Even editing C source files or Makefiles is NOT that big of a deal. What it takes is exposure and experience to a different approach. I would put compiling and installing libraries and software on Linux on the same level as editing the Windows Registry. We've all done that, and again it's no big deal.
I haven't used support from any company for my own systems at home in close to ten years. Suport is pointless if I know how to fix everything myelf. Linux has made that a reality for most users. The only place I find myself having to dal with support (and piss poor support in some cases) is at work where we have Sun, HP-UX and Windows. But let's get real here. How many of us need support? I mean REALLY NEED it? Most of us keep very nicely run networks of 10-20 machines at home (thanks to the fact that we DON'T have to pay huge prices for sotware). A lot of what we learn at home translates to things we can use at work. So in many cases we are our own support at work, especially where Linux is concerned. The distro doesn't matter much if you know what you are doing, so support is largely irrelevant to a majority of us. I'm sure there are other here who will echo this sentiment.
I can imagine if the Sun nuts on Slashdot could moderate ABC's column, they would mark this article as one big Troll.
Personally, I'd have mixed feelings if Sun died. In geneal, I hate Sun. Their support sucks. Java sucks. The Solaris OS doesn't have anything on HP-UX. I've had major problems with Sun support for their Messaging Server product. Everyone I talk to at Sun on the phone is incompetent. But hey... where I work we're historically a DEC/Compaq/HP shop with the best years being the Digital years. So we're a little biased. We recently moved to HP-UX and I have to say that HPs support is much better compared to Sun. Patching the OS is a snap compared to Solaris. There is more of a community of free information exchange around HP-UX than Solaris and the SunOne products. Only recently has SunSolve opened up forums that are middling at best. Unless Sun has some really whiz-bang service or application, I think they are largely irrelevant. My only qualm with their disappearance would be that there is one less opponent to Microsoft. Hopefully, what would happen is that HP would canibalize the best parts of Solaris (what few there are) like they are doing with Tru 64. SPARC? Hah. Couldn't touch the dust that Alpha (and now Itanium) kicks up when it screams ahead of the pack.
"While the noncommercial model may lead to many flavors of software, getting broad, consistent innovation requires coordination across many technology components. In the event of needed enhancements or fixes, the Linux development community, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot advance Linux the way we can - and must - innovate in Windows."
This is one area that open source and Linux need a little work in. We have a lot of really great coders, but we are lacking in the diversity of people who actually know various fields very well. A perfect example can be taken from the Windows world itself circa 1994. Back then, I was an audio engineer coming from the Macintosh world. I was beginning to look at the PC as a possible option. What I found after a lot of research was that there were many limitations within Windows 3.1 to multimedia and audio in particular. A few PC based friends of mine were making recommendations that I look at the Turtle beach products, Zefiro accoustics (for hardware), S.A.W. and the like. I wound up trying quite a few of them and settled on Cakewalk Pro Audio. It worked, as well as you could expect a Windows based audio/MIDI sequencer to work, at that time. These days, things on the Windows platform have improved tremendously. Sure, they aren't Macs and still don't work as well as Macs for professional audio, but they work about 98% as well.
What happened? Microsoft was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the fact that not everyone looks at a computer as a "business tool". For some of us, a computer is a creative tool, which is as far away from business as you can get. Artists are a pretty small market, but they can be a lucrative one. And that's what made Microsoft pay attention. They actually got creative types (real artists and musicians) together with engineers and made *some* of the needed changes to the OS to improve the multimedia subsystem. Again, the Mac is MUCH better at this than Windows, but the disparity isn't as big now.
Unfortunately, in the Linux world, we still have mostly coders who like to play at being "artists" on the weekends. This is NOT a slam. I would qualify that I'm an artist who likes to play at being a "coder" during the week. What's needed are more people who can bridge the gap between the coders and the people who use the applications. This is something that most coders are loathe to accept. "Let the user dictate how the app works!? Nonsense!!" It ain't pretty, but there are some key areas of knowledge that coders just don't have the expertise in. And this applies to more fields than just art. How many coders truthfully say that they can understand and relate to the needs of their users in a very intimate way in the following fields/careers: 1. Accounting 2. Law (IANAL anyone?) 3. Playwriter 4. Journalist 5. Librarian
The point? A computer is no longer a "business tool", it's a "life tool" and needs to be viewed as such when applications and the OS are being designed. This is the point that Ballmer made in his own hamfisted way of "us vs. them". The reality is that the open source/free software community needs to include more than just coders in the development cycle.
Is your project working on a multitrack audio editor? Then get some professional audio engineers to review your project and make suggestions. In exchange for their expertise, maybe you can offer to set up a system with your application. Are you starting to work on a new application to batch process graphics for print? Then open your project up to non-coders with professional print backgrounds who can tell you if your project is useful or not.
This doesn't have to be the "free-for-all" nightmare that most coders envision. You can restrict what kind of non-coder gets to participate in the development cycle based on their experience in the field and how many useful contributions they have made after a period of time. You will also need to let more people like me into the development cycle.
The langauge in that story was certainly Re-fucking-printable based on how-fucking-much that fucking-word "fuck" is so-fukcing-overused on fucking-Slashdot.
Now we'll see how much of a sense of humor the mods REALLY have.;p
But Mutant X was incredibly lame. The music sucked. The acting sucked. The stories REALLY sucked. There was more sucking going on in that series than a gang-bang movie featuring Anna Malle. I remember the first and ONLY episode I ever saw had this "hacker" with some really lame looking "hacker tool" that was made out of a Nissan Sentra A/C control panel, a laptop and some goofy junk all thrown together in a briefcase. They lost me at that moment for good. Even Cleopatra 2525 has more intellectual content than Mutant X. And I HATED Cleopatra 2525.
Slashdot Mirror
But your definition of success has to do with a company being around after 25 years. This has nothing to do with technology. That's simply business, which does little to further technology in any real sense. The money that the business MAY provide to R&D COULD push technology ahead a little further. But people who purely do research with no profit motive are more likely to get farther in terms of the concepts that will have a lasting impact. Most R&D in the private sector only moves forward once it's deemed profitable.
My definition of success is that a technology is still in use after 25 , 50 or even hundreds of years after it's original debut. It doesn't matter if it's manufactured by a completely different company than it's originator, or just used by some hobbyists in a basement somewhere. This kind of success is proof that the technology is superior. Money and bottom lines don't figure into it at all. And they shouldn't. But people who think that it should matter are the ones who are behind software patents and so-called "intellectual property".
Right now, the argument is coming from the neo-capitlist side. However, if this were thirty years ago and the communists wanted to establish that the state had all ownership of software and "intellectual property", you can bet most Americans would have been opposed to it. This points to the fact that software patents and "intellectual property" are wrong and will do nothing but hinder progress. However, acceptance of these concepts by the general public relies entirly on who is making the propositions. At the moment, the general public is blind to the fact that the people who want these kinds of mechanisms in place want to control their rights to access technology. This is because the neo-capitalists are hiding behind what American capitalism used to stand for. Just think very loosely about the movie Dark Crystal and you'll get the picture of what has happened to American business. The real bottom line is that WE have become the evil empire that the Soviet Union was previously considered. Like it or not, it's the truth.
As far as success, it's obvious that we just have different viewpoints, so there is no need in either of us trying to convert the other. You are more a businessman (possibly with a technological focus), I am a technologist (who cares only about technology and nothing else).
...SCO is in the real business of technology these days, this is no surprise. Read with me now:
1. There is technology for technology's sake (open source, true innovation)
2. There is "technology" for business sake (lowest common denominator ripoffs, more focus on marketing than R&D, specific focus on profit)
3. Then there is SCO (sue, sue, sue, sue, sue... ad nauseum and "Here is our repackaged version of our crap OS with open source stuff")
Which technologies will still be around 50-100 years from now? Undoubtedly those that originate in group 1.
But if they win this one, then the Children's Television Workshop should try and get royalties for all the letters of the alphabet since they had close ties to all the letters of the alphabet. "This program has been brought to you by the letter S"
Go Here. This has long been an urban legend, and this particular instance may still be an urban legend...
Hmmm...
;P
Less processing power and more errors in humans?
Global Warming?
Has anyone checked to see if the Earth's cooling fan is all clogged up and seized by dust bunnies?
...I was just doing research. Honest guv! - Pete Townsend
...I'd say that this person is looking for a PORTABLE solution that can walk with the user. The problem with portable MP3 players is that they have more value to someone who would want to steal them. I'd say that a centralized system with wireless audio would be more appropriate and would lose the attractiveness as well. Just a few super cheap FM stereo walkman type devices each tuned to a specific frequency and an X10 control device to trigger playback for that unit should be inexpensive enough. Have a computer with multiple sound outputs wired to multiple low power xmitters that correspond to specific portable stations. The X10 device stops and starts the recording on the frequency that the attached radio is tuned to. Voila! All for about $5 per device. Of course you woul have to make sure the museum's electircal lighting grid would carry the X10 signal. Sure it's ugly as sin, but cheap and relatively reliable.
What? Stylish to? That's a requirment as well? OK, go with the out of the box solution then...
Honestly, if you want more assistance with this:
1. How log do the recordings have to be?
2. Do they need to be portable, or is this a fixed station that a person walks up to?
3. Is this a one shot deal, or will the system need t be re-usable?
4. If it's portable, does it need a small form factor?
The major metropolitan museum I frequent, uses tape based walkman devices. Inexpensive and pretty disposable. Unfortunately, when dealing with the public, you really can't expect to have a device that is durable AND inexpensive. Sometimes lo-tech is the best appraoch even if it isn't stylish.
I still argue that humans are just monkeys playing with fire. They will set the jungle ablaze eventually. Mmmmm... charred monkey. ;P
You are correct. I thought it said 10,000 tons.
Completely dismissing all the pro and con science regarding this issue. I have to say that if we can have a ten kiloton bob the size of a golf ball, then we can guarantee global decimation with a car full of golf balls. Why do the monkeys insist on playing with fire? Because they haven't gotten burned yet. In this case, once they DO get burned it won't matter because there won't be any monkeys left. I don't care if this is just some kind of theoretical experiment at this stage. If and when it does become a reality, you know that one of the fearful warmongers will demand that the ultimate weapon is made so that they are the biggest kid on the block. Humans have so much potential for great things and for self destruction.
(Let the games begin)
I've asked the volume license question many times before. It just makes sense considering that very few people these days have just one PC at home. The typical setup is now two to three PCs with networking. Do they honestly expect people to pay the expensive fees per machine? I'd use Windows XP on more of my machines if I could go to CompUSA and buy a five-pack with media for say... $500. That's more than fair. However, since they don't... I use Linux on every machine in my house with only one box running Windows XP Pro. That's close to twenty machines with Linux and one lone Windows box. Of course, now that I've learned a lot about how to use Linux, you'd be hard pressed to get me back to Windows on any more than two boxes... Microsoft is chasing people like me away. I could have been a pretty decent customer if they had a grasp on reality and realized that people like me will buy fairly priced software.
Pirates care about how much their boxes affect the internet as much as SUV drivers care about their impact on the environment. Personally, I think any luser out there with an infected Windows box hitting other hosts on the internet should be fined by their ISP. Pirates are just plain idiots.
I can't say I'll miss it. I tried watching TechTV on many occasions, but it was just a little too basic. Most of the shows were nothing more than product ads. I was hoping for something more accessible like scripting and programming. A little Perl, a little C, maybe some Bash and Emacs tips, throw in a little CMD and WScript, even some VB. But most of the shows seemed like a cross between the Home Shopping Network and a ...For Dummies book. I can't stand the Thunderbirds, so that didn't grab me. Besides, that's what Cartoon Network and SciFi are more suited to. The pseudo-scientific shows they had weren't much more than "look at how great these companies are at innovating"!. Not too useful. Now, if they would have run Cosmos (with updates), maybe the original UK version of Battlebots, Dr. Who and had some hardcore programming shows, it would have struck a chord a little more.
...I think this guy has it right. We went straight from WW II to WW III and it's been going on for almost half a century. Everyone needs to open their eyes a bit.
I'd pay the fee for a subscription. Television here in the U.S. pretty much SUCKS the big one. You Brits have it a lot better over there. I get to watch shows a year or more behind here on BBC America. But I'd just like to get rid of the middle man and see the real thing. I'd drop my DirecTV subscription just to watch Aunty.
If you can't succeed by anoying the hell out of people with unsolicited bulk e-mail, then SUE EVERYONE!!! Scott, welcome to the ranks of Darl McBride. You two should be very cozy together once you get saddled up in the same prison.
;P
Losers like Scott and Darl act like it's their "god given" right to profit with as little effort expended as possible. Well you know what? FUCK THEM!
Yes. But for how long will they be "newbies"? my point is that to use a machines as complex as a computer, you'd better damn well know the machine inside an out. A lot of people make the car comparison with computers saying that the only thing a user needs to know to use a car is how to steer it. But... we are not users. We are more like mechanics. And if all your mechanic knew how to do was steer a car, you'd be sunk. Now think about how many auto mechanics there are out there... Someday there could be as many people who know Linux inside and out. Or, at least, that should be the goal.
I'm not a troll. I'm pointing out that most of us who use Linux, use it at home primarily and at work second. 99% of Linux users are NOT newbies. How mny of us on Slashdot woul you say are "newbies"? Not me. Sure, there are things I don't know, and I'm not a coder, but really... how hard is it (once you have the experience) to grab source code, configure and compile it? It just isn't that big of a deal and it doesn't require any programming skill. Even editing C source files or Makefiles is NOT that big of a deal. What it takes is exposure and experience to a different approach. I would put compiling and installing libraries and software on Linux on the same level as editing the Windows Registry. We've all done that, and again it's no big deal.
Learning How To Update Your Own System == True Self Sufficiency
I haven't used support from any company for my own systems at home in close to ten years. Suport is pointless if I know how to fix everything myelf. Linux has made that a reality for most users. The only place I find myself having to dal with support (and piss poor support in some cases) is at work where we have Sun, HP-UX and Windows. But let's get real here. How many of us need support? I mean REALLY NEED it? Most of us keep very nicely run networks of 10-20 machines at home (thanks to the fact that we DON'T have to pay huge prices for sotware). A lot of what we learn at home translates to things we can use at work. So in many cases we are our own support at work, especially where Linux is concerned. The distro doesn't matter much if you know what you are doing, so support is largely irrelevant to a majority of us. I'm sure there are other here who will echo this sentiment.
I can imagine if the Sun nuts on Slashdot could moderate ABC's column, they would mark this article as one big Troll.
Personally, I'd have mixed feelings if Sun died. In geneal, I hate Sun. Their support sucks. Java sucks. The Solaris OS doesn't have anything on HP-UX. I've had major problems with Sun support for their Messaging Server product. Everyone I talk to at Sun on the phone is incompetent. But hey... where I work we're historically a DEC/Compaq/HP shop with the best years being the Digital years. So we're a little biased. We recently moved to HP-UX and I have to say that HPs support is much better compared to Sun. Patching the OS is a snap compared to Solaris. There is more of a community of free information exchange around HP-UX than Solaris and the SunOne products. Only recently has SunSolve opened up forums that are middling at best. Unless Sun has some really whiz-bang service or application, I think they are largely irrelevant. My only qualm with their disappearance would be that there is one less opponent to Microsoft. Hopefully, what would happen is that HP would canibalize the best parts of Solaris (what few there are) like they are doing with Tru 64. SPARC? Hah. Couldn't touch the dust that Alpha (and now Itanium) kicks up when it screams ahead of the pack.
This is one area that open source and Linux need a little work in. We have a lot of really great coders, but we are lacking in the diversity of people who actually know various fields very well. A perfect example can be taken from the Windows world itself circa 1994. Back then, I was an audio engineer coming from the Macintosh world. I was beginning to look at the PC as a possible option. What I found after a lot of research was that there were many limitations within Windows 3.1 to multimedia and audio in particular. A few PC based friends of mine were making recommendations that I look at the Turtle beach products, Zefiro accoustics (for hardware), S.A.W. and the like. I wound up trying quite a few of them and settled on Cakewalk Pro Audio. It worked, as well as you could expect a Windows based audio/MIDI sequencer to work, at that time. These days, things on the Windows platform have improved tremendously. Sure, they aren't Macs and still don't work as well as Macs for professional audio, but they work about 98% as well.
What happened? Microsoft was dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the fact that not everyone looks at a computer as a "business tool". For some of us, a computer is a creative tool, which is as far away from business as you can get. Artists are a pretty small market, but they can be a lucrative one. And that's what made Microsoft pay attention. They actually got creative types (real artists and musicians) together with engineers and made *some* of the needed changes to the OS to improve the multimedia subsystem. Again, the Mac is MUCH better at this than Windows, but the disparity isn't as big now.
Unfortunately, in the Linux world, we still have mostly coders who like to play at being "artists" on the weekends. This is NOT a slam. I would qualify that I'm an artist who likes to play at being a "coder" during the week. What's needed are more people who can bridge the gap between the coders and the people who use the applications. This is something that most coders are loathe to accept. "Let the user dictate how the app works!? Nonsense!!" It ain't pretty, but there are some key areas of knowledge that coders just don't have the expertise in. And this applies to more fields than just art. How many coders truthfully say that they can understand and relate to the needs of their users in a very intimate way in the following fields/careers:
1. Accounting
2. Law (IANAL anyone?)
3. Playwriter
4. Journalist
5. Librarian
The point? A computer is no longer a "business tool", it's a "life tool" and needs to be viewed as such when applications and the OS are being designed. This is the point that Ballmer made in his own hamfisted way of "us vs. them". The reality is that the open source/free software community needs to include more than just coders in the development cycle.
Is your project working on a multitrack audio editor? Then get some professional audio engineers to review your project and make suggestions. In exchange for their expertise, maybe you can offer to set up a system with your application. Are you starting to work on a new application to batch process graphics for print? Then open your project up to non-coders with professional print backgrounds who can tell you if your project is useful or not.
This doesn't have to be the "free-for-all" nightmare that most coders envision. You can restrict what kind of non-coder gets to participate in the development cycle based on their experience in the field and how many useful contributions they have made after a period of time. You will also need to let more people like me into the development cycle.
The langauge in that story was certainly Re-fucking-printable based on how-fucking-much that fucking-word "fuck" is so-fukcing-overused on fucking-Slashdot.
;p
Now we'll see how much of a sense of humor the mods REALLY have.
For farts n hahas
It's a good thing he notified his friend of this violation, but anyone who uses that phrase needs a reality check.
But Mutant X was incredibly lame. The music sucked. The acting sucked. The stories REALLY sucked. There was more sucking going on in that series than a gang-bang movie featuring Anna Malle. I remember the first and ONLY episode I ever saw had this "hacker" with some really lame looking "hacker tool" that was made out of a Nissan Sentra A/C control panel, a laptop and some goofy junk all thrown together in a briefcase. They lost me at that moment for good. Even Cleopatra 2525 has more intellectual content than Mutant X. And I HATED Cleopatra 2525.