Not at all, but it wasnt too long ago when a severe decline in a show's quality meant a classy cancelation instead of milking the franchise until it was dead and everyone had sour memories of it. Notably, the show Cheers did this. There might be something to be said about how animation allows x amount of people to be replaced (the 'death' of Maude Flanders) compared to live action. Not to mention it looks bad for the network if it just re-hashed the same old thing until people actively turned against the show, thus giving the network bad PR.
I mean, if they can cancel Friends, they can cancel the Simpsons.
They can't decide between the hip-hop iPod wearing talking Nazi-experiment gone wrong talking moose or the kung-fu fighting reptile man.
Some want his sidekick to be his cute younger daughter who will bring in more young males to the box office, but the studio is afraid to get an R-rating for "showing of the belly button" or "girl wearing tight t-shirt" in today's "moral" America.
And please while you're at it, take the Simpsons with you. Its just embarassing when profits dictate how long something is going to run. So if its popular its not just going to run, its going to be run into the ground.
I love the Simpsons, but the last few years have been sub-par potboilers making Murdoch slightly richer, with really no place for the series to go. I see the new ones on my Tivo and only watch them if I seriously have nothing better to do.
When I do watch them I see recycled stories and blatantly ripped off Family Guy gags (which is ironic because FG is very simpsons influenced).
Whatever ever happened to new ideas? I guess that's what Adult Swim is for, while Star Wars, Simpsons, Indiana Jones, U2, Aereosmuth etc continue to see who can be the bigger dinosaur.
Worked. Got "lycos" on the tips of everyone's tongue. Got people to talk about spam. Got Lycos's brand in the news again. Now I'm suddenly seeing Lycos's logo everwhere where I never noticed it before, like at Wired News. No, its not new, I just never "saw" it.
This is a win-win. They exploited the anti-spam fervor and got attention which might translate into profits, loans, etc.
Limited legal liability comes in very handy after all those potential lawsuits. Whatever damage (real, hypothetical, etc) would be protected by the corporate shield, thus protecting the owners.
The companies that hire spammers are corps or s-corps, or LLCs too for the same reason.
It may not be surprising but it is insulting to see a max sentence of six months for a crime involving MILLIONS. The more the person attempts to steal the more time they should serve. Remind me again how much time you get for stealing a car worth 1,001 dollars?
>everyone is greedy to a point.
And who exactly is above this? Greed is extreme selfishness, but we all suffer from selfishness. If we didn't why would we get off our asses, go to school, get a job, start a side project or two or three, etc. You, the poster, obvious have access to a computer and you're literate so you have parken of the "selfishness" you decry pretty well yourself.
>What the heck will it take?
Well, less "humans suck" attitude and better ways to deal with ones social and economic problems. A better informed public through a better media. Strict limitations on marketers and ads. Do you really think Americans would be so obese if it wasnt for all that marketing done directly to kids by fast food outlets? etc
Google also has orkut, which is similiar to this service.
First off, MSNblog's competitors are blogger, myspace, friendster, etc. Perhaps even orkut if it wasn't invite only.
MS is just way too late to the game. They'll get their "defaulters," people who never change their homepage, use MSN messenger because its there, etc. So essentailly a community of techno-phobe office workers and kids. This demographic is also chock full of spyware and probably can't keep IE running for more than two minutes without a spyware related crash, so I doubt blogger and friendster are shaking in their boots.
Yes, because the wikipedia isnt politically charged.
sigh
The parent poster gave you an authorative source and you dismiss it by citing another source that's non-authoratiative. Yes, you are lying. To yourself.
Not to mention working with the tainted lines is a self-fulfilling defeatist prophecy and embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998. Err, lets give it some damn time before you and your religious/political cohorts outlaw its potential.
I dont care how often you parrot those manufactured talking points, a lie is a lie, and a distortion is a distortion.
So? That little argument didn't suddenly make the church collapse on its own rhetoric. To them it (and stem cells and abortion) are "moral issues" that have more to do with faith (the belief of things with no evidence) than with facts.
And other types of stem cell issues were not "moral" issues under clinton. How long until the ReligiousRight's "logic" deems that these "adult cells" are alive in some capacity to help further their anti-abortion agenda? Give it time.
>Results without the ethical issues.
There are proposals and bills to stop ALL stem cell research regardless of origin. Its a hot button dirty politics issue here inthe US. I wouldnt get too comfortable.
Yet in practice there isn't. A lot of these lines have been ruined by mouse DNA and other issues. The best stem cell research, predictically, isnt from these lines but from others and most notably from foreign nations.
Bush could have left the Clinton-era laws alone, but chose to give this as a handout to his religious right base. Its dirty politics any way you slice it. The moral issue is as manufactured as the PC you're using to browse this site.
The jump (if real, etc) is significant in these terms only and only if it can compete on pentium-level prices.
If not, then it should be compared to other high end chips or more fairly to multi-processor implementations. We're not talking Ma's Dell here, but pricey and powerful workstations.
Yeah, this is the kind of culture-jamming defacements the hackers/crackers don't quite get. Its much more powerful than a black html page with tons of calls outs to one's "peeps."
Re:Uh.... does this strike anybody else as wrong?
on
NASA's Deep Impact
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You could make this "hands off" argument for anything. Moon rovers/landings, mars rovers, etc.
The question is, "Should we remain in ignorance to keep things pristine?"
Historically the answer is no and ethically it seems to be working pretty well. Comets that pass through our system number what? In the tens of thousands? More? I don't think this is as controversial as you might think, especially considering we've dropped all sorts of detritus and other "bullet-like" techniques (crashing stuff into planets) for science.
>the joke is that the reason you can't have a $100 pc running windows, is because you need to spend $50 on just Windows.
Not really. I mean, how much money has been dropped by MS just to get into markets? IE development, all the embrace/extend/extinguish stuff, etc.
In other words, if it may be profitable in the future then today it means giving it away for free or nearly free.
So lets look at China. There's an up and coming info market. Ballmer could very well subsidize Windows for next to nothing to put on these machines knowing full well a generation of kids (and current adults) will be using Windows. Learning windows. Getting used to windows. Being branded by windows. etc.
Like you suggested, the returns on Office are so high MS can do whatever it wants.
Also mention MS activation and how you can't just copy office to your home PC anymore, even though you arent using both. Sure to those of us who know licensing this is an accepted practice, but to Joe User this could very well be seen as a pain or MS being too aggressive.
Exactly. There's a need for cures and treatments. Custom grown organs save lives, but I'm afraid the theocratic elements in the US would rather fight their "holy war" over zygotes than cure juvenille diabetes. To them, people living in "the world of sin" deserve to get sick. These people disgust me.
> Not all spammers get $$ by people buying somthing from them.
The question is, so why aren't we publishing and attacking these companies? A spammer is just a delivery system. The people who hire the spammers are the problem. Attacking spam is like attacking the symptom, it works somewhat, but is far from a cure.
I would love to see the names, phone numbers, and addresses of these companies. In fact they should be public record assuming they have a business license, s-corp/llc, etc.
Yeah, that Tao quote is as pretentious as it gets. Of course there are plans and strategies, but speaking like a character out of an RPG game makes for much better media soundbites.
Slashdot Mirror
>any promising fetal stem cell treatments. But there are not.
The popular media isn't exactly a scientific journal. Don't make absolute statements, unless you're willing to back them up.
The following are written above the soundbite 5th grade level:
search1
Or just type "embryonic stem cells" here and be ready for some surprises.
>Would you prefer that losses dictate behavior?
Not at all, but it wasnt too long ago when a severe decline in a show's quality meant a classy cancelation instead of milking the franchise until it was dead and everyone had sour memories of it. Notably, the show Cheers did this. There might be something to be said about how animation allows x amount of people to be replaced (the 'death' of Maude Flanders) compared to live action. Not to mention it looks bad for the network if it just re-hashed the same old thing until people actively turned against the show, thus giving the network bad PR.
I mean, if they can cancel Friends, they can cancel the Simpsons.
They can't decide between the hip-hop iPod wearing talking Nazi-experiment gone wrong talking moose or the kung-fu fighting reptile man.
Some want his sidekick to be his cute younger daughter who will bring in more young males to the box office, but the studio is afraid to get an R-rating for "showing of the belly button" or "girl wearing tight t-shirt" in today's "moral" America.
> just let it die.
And please while you're at it, take the Simpsons with you. Its just embarassing when profits dictate how long something is going to run. So if its popular its not just going to run, its going to be run into the ground.
I love the Simpsons, but the last few years have been sub-par potboilers making Murdoch slightly richer, with really no place for the series to go. I see the new ones on my Tivo and only watch them if I seriously have nothing better to do.
When I do watch them I see recycled stories and blatantly ripped off Family Guy gags (which is ironic because FG is very simpsons influenced).
Whatever ever happened to new ideas? I guess that's what Adult Swim is for, while Star Wars, Simpsons, Indiana Jones, U2, Aereosmuth etc continue to see who can be the bigger dinosaur.
>Editing is not the skill of pressing the right buttons. They could learn it on an old Steenbeck
Exactly. I think we're seeing the problems with gadget lust. I frequently encounter stuff like this, which gives me pause about the future:
person: "This is a great softsynth!"
Me: "What do you play? What have you written?"
person: "Nothing. I'm just gonna hit the keys and make make funny sounds."
Next week its on ebay.
Or
person "This next CPU is kickass!"
me: "What do you code?"
person: "Nothing really. I'm just gonna see how fast I can compile the linux kernel and email my friends about it!"
etc
Tools do not make the artist, ever.
Worked. Got "lycos" on the tips of everyone's tongue. Got people to talk about spam. Got Lycos's brand in the news again. Now I'm suddenly seeing Lycos's logo everwhere where I never noticed it before, like at Wired News. No, its not new, I just never "saw" it.
This is a win-win. They exploited the anti-spam fervor and got attention which might translate into profits, loans, etc.
>Corporate sponsored DDoS attacks?
Limited legal liability comes in very handy after all those potential lawsuits. Whatever damage (real, hypothetical, etc) would be protected by the corporate shield, thus protecting the owners.
The companies that hire spammers are corps or s-corps, or LLCs too for the same reason.
It may not be surprising but it is insulting to see a max sentence of six months for a crime involving MILLIONS. The more the person attempts to steal the more time they should serve. Remind me again how much time you get for stealing a car worth 1,001 dollars?
>everyone is greedy to a point.
And who exactly is above this? Greed is extreme selfishness, but we all suffer from selfishness. If we didn't why would we get off our asses, go to school, get a job, start a side project or two or three, etc. You, the poster, obvious have access to a computer and you're literate so you have parken of the "selfishness" you decry pretty well yourself.
>What the heck will it take?
Well, less "humans suck" attitude and better ways to deal with ones social and economic problems. A better informed public through a better media. Strict limitations on marketers and ads. Do you really think Americans would be so obese if it wasnt for all that marketing done directly to kids by fast food outlets? etc
Like this?
All I can think is "Help me Lord Vader," when I see that pic.
Google also has orkut, which is similiar to this service.
First off, MSNblog's competitors are blogger, myspace, friendster, etc. Perhaps even orkut if it wasn't invite only.
MS is just way too late to the game. They'll get their "defaulters," people who never change their homepage, use MSN messenger because its there, etc. So essentailly a community of techno-phobe office workers and kids. This demographic is also chock full of spyware and probably can't keep IE running for more than two minutes without a spyware related crash, so I doubt blogger and friendster are shaking in their boots.
Yes, because the wikipedia isnt politically charged.
sigh
The parent poster gave you an authorative source and you dismiss it by citing another source that's non-authoratiative. Yes, you are lying. To yourself.
Not to mention working with the tainted lines is a self-fulfilling defeatist prophecy and embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998. Err, lets give it some damn time before you and your religious/political cohorts outlaw its potential.
I dont care how often you parrot those manufactured talking points, a lie is a lie, and a distortion is a distortion.
>Oh, please. A corpse is dead.
So? That little argument didn't suddenly make the church collapse on its own rhetoric. To them it (and stem cells and abortion) are "moral issues" that have more to do with faith (the belief of things with no evidence) than with facts.
And other types of stem cell issues were not "moral" issues under clinton. How long until the ReligiousRight's "logic" deems that these "adult cells" are alive in some capacity to help further their anti-abortion agenda? Give it time.
>Results without the ethical issues.
There are proposals and bills to stop ALL stem cell research regardless of origin. Its a hot button dirty politics issue here inthe US. I wouldnt get too comfortable.
>There is a huge difference between the two
Yet in practice there isn't. A lot of these lines have been ruined by mouse DNA and other issues. The best stem cell research, predictically, isnt from these lines but from others and most notably from foreign nations.
Bush could have left the Clinton-era laws alone, but chose to give this as a handout to his religious right base. Its dirty politics any way you slice it. The moral issue is as manufactured as the PC you're using to browse this site.
The jump (if real, etc) is significant in these terms only and only if it can compete on pentium-level prices.
If not, then it should be compared to other high end chips or more fairly to multi-processor implementations. We're not talking Ma's Dell here, but pricey and powerful workstations.
Yeah, this is the kind of culture-jamming defacements the hackers/crackers don't quite get. Its much more powerful than a black html page with tons of calls outs to one's "peeps."
More of this please.
Intelsat7? Right?
You could make this "hands off" argument for anything. Moon rovers/landings, mars rovers, etc.
The question is, "Should we remain in ignorance to keep things pristine?"
Historically the answer is no and ethically it seems to be working pretty well. Comets that pass through our system number what? In the tens of thousands? More? I don't think this is as controversial as you might think, especially considering we've dropped all sorts of detritus and other "bullet-like" techniques (crashing stuff into planets) for science.
I'll be able to get calls from random strangers asking for songs? I guess I could sing them a few bars.
>This entire article is a made up troll to rile up the mozilla zealots.
Christ, just as I was getting my pitchfork and trying to light a torch. Oh well, maybe next time.
>the joke is that the reason you can't have a $100 pc running windows, is because you need to spend $50 on just Windows.
Not really. I mean, how much money has been dropped by MS just to get into markets? IE development, all the embrace/extend/extinguish stuff, etc.
In other words, if it may be profitable in the future then today it means giving it away for free or nearly free.
So lets look at China. There's an up and coming info market. Ballmer could very well subsidize Windows for next to nothing to put on these machines knowing full well a generation of kids (and current adults) will be using Windows. Learning windows. Getting used to windows. Being branded by windows. etc.
Like you suggested, the returns on Office are so high MS can do whatever it wants.
Also mention MS activation and how you can't just copy office to your home PC anymore, even though you arent using both. Sure to those of us who know licensing this is an accepted practice, but to Joe User this could very well be seen as a pain or MS being too aggressive.
Exactly. There's a need for cures and treatments. Custom grown organs save lives, but I'm afraid the theocratic elements in the US would rather fight their "holy war" over zygotes than cure juvenille diabetes. To them, people living in "the world of sin" deserve to get sick. These people disgust me.
> Not all spammers get $$ by people buying somthing from them.
The question is, so why aren't we publishing and attacking these companies? A spammer is just a delivery system. The people who hire the spammers are the problem. Attacking spam is like attacking the symptom, it works somewhat, but is far from a cure.
I would love to see the names, phone numbers, and addresses of these companies. In fact they should be public record assuming they have a business license, s-corp/llc, etc.
Yeah, that Tao quote is as pretentious as it gets. Of course there are plans and strategies, but speaking like a character out of an RPG game makes for much better media soundbites.