The parent is the most complete and insightful comment so far on this topic.
To elabotrate (not attempt to half-sole), those of us who understand IT often grossly overestimate the average email/web user. I'd estimate that 90 percent of the people I know who use email are clueless about EVERYTHING. Click this, read email. Click this, delete email. Click this, send email. Click this, block email. That's the extent of their knowledge. Most probably think an IP address is the location of a public restroom, and believe Internet Explorer IS "the internet." And I'd bet that a huge chunk of them have at one time or another bought something through a spamvertized website.
Trying to educate them is hopeless--I know, I've tried. The best thing we can do is send as many as possible TO AOL, not try to lure them away from it. The protections AOL has in place makes knowledgeable users cringe, but they also protect the rest of us from clueless users, and those users from each other and themselves.
I dearly wish SCO would realize their ill-thought strategy of propping up their failing business with a lawsuit win is not working. Do the honorable thing, SCO: Die quietly without trying to take as many as you can with you.
If one of us (three-dimensional beings) interacted with a Flatlander, exposed them to our technology, what would they think of us and their two-dimensional world?
At the magazine I edit, many of the department email address forward to me before they go to the department editors. Part of the reason is that some of the department editors can be, shall we say, less than diplomatic when dealing with incorrigible readers. Part of my job is to ensure that exchanges do not become denigrating or insulting, and to avoid lawsuits.
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British. Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics. Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
The parent: Troll, maybe. Flamebait, only to mods with no sense of humor. Funny, definitely.
"Make an edited version of a film if you like but clearly label it so that my worldview isn't damaged by the dangerous subversiveness of covert censorship."
If your worldview can be damaged by a film edit, you must not be very secure in your worldview.
"...many movies go overboard and many others have sex or violent scenes when it doesn't forward plot or character."
My point exactly. Would a graphic sex scene have mad Love Story a better movie? No. In fact, it would have been a distraction from the theme and message.
Would explicit special effects of Hunphrey Bogart's character getting decapitated with a machete have made Treasure of the Sierra Madre a better movie? No. (Actually, there was a scene that showed the character's decapitated head, but it was cut before release.)
Some movies/stories/plots call for graphic violence/blood/sex or whatever, and that is fine. But why film an inconsistent or gratuitous tumor into an otherwise great piece of work?
I agree. There are some stories that cannot be told without the gore and calamity because the gore and calmity *is* the story. The movie "The Evil that Men Do" is another example.
You know, I have watched hundreds of mevies wherein I *knew* a couple had sex, but it was not depicted explicity, yet this did not detract one bit from the movie's entertainment value.
I have also watched hundreds of movies where sombody got their throat cut, but it did not explicitly depict the gushing blood, the cutee's bubbling, burbling, rasping sounds as he tried to breathe through a severed esophogus and inhaled his own blood, but the entertainment value was not diminished.
So, if these scenes were edited out of a movie before I saw it, I would not miss them. If the movie is well made with an entertaining story line, the gratuitous scenes are not necessary.
Further, all the hand-wringing over the artist's "rights" is a crock. Untalented "artists" try to compensate for lack of talent with sensational special effects, gore, sex, etc. Most of them should study the classics (Citizen Caine, Casablanca, The Magnificant Seven, et al) and get a clue about what real artists do.
What is the difference between me FAST-FORWARDing through some portion of a movie I find objectionable and having a piece of technology that does it for me automatically?
Why MS ever come up with the concept that an OS was suuposed to be anything but a platform on which to run apps. I do not give a rat's ass about the OS. The OS doe not do any real "work." When it get in the way of apps, it is no longer of any value.
MS keeps bloating the OS, making apps ever less convenient and usable. MS seems hell-bent on "developing" itself out of business.
I wonder if there are any equivalents to my apps that will run on CP/M?
Actually, this surprises me as an exception rather than the rule as far as AOL is concerned.
(I posted the following in an earlier discussion on a different topic, but it is 100 percent applicable here.)
I am not an AOL customer, have never been, never will be (at least, not by choice), but I am glad AOL is there to serve the unwashed masses. Because a huge portion of their customer base is, shall we say, "uninformed," AOL has taken a number of measures to protect them (and their network) from malicious traffic. Based on anecdotal observation, it seems to be working.
Because hundreds of people have my "public" email address in their address books, I recive dozens (sometimes hundreds) of virues per week whenever there is an outbreak. However, I cannot recall the last time I received one from an AOL user.
I receive hundreds of (filtered) spam messages daily, but again, cannot recall receiving any from an AOL machine. (This based on source IP address, not the forged FROM line.)
On the flip side, 30-40 percent of spam comes from zombied Comcast and RoadRunner accounts (most from Comcast). The rest come from non-North American IP addresses.
Like I said, limited anecdotal observation, but it appears to me AOL is doing something right, and is the perfect ISP for the "uninformed" user.
Considering the size of their customer base, imagine how much more junk/malicious 'net traffic there would be without AOL.
I am not an AOL customer, have never been, never will be (at least, not by choice), but I am glad AOL is there to serve the unwashed masses. Because a huge portion of their customer base is, shall we say, "uninformed," AOL has taken a number of measures to protect them (and their network) from malicious traffic. Based on anecdotal observation, it seems to be working.
Because hundreds of people have my "public" email address in their address books, I recive dozens (sometimes hundreds) of virues per week whenever there is an outbreak. However, I cannot recall the last time I received one from an AOL user.
I receive hundreds of (filtered) spam messages daily, but again, cannot recall receiving any from an AOL machine. (This based on source IP address, not the forged FROM line.)
On the flip side, 30-40 percent of spam comes from zombied Comcast and RoadRunner accounts (most from Comcast). The rest come from non-North American IP addresses.
Like I said, limited anecdotal observation, but it appears to me AOL is doing something right, and is the perfect ISP for the "uninformed" user.
Considering the size of their customer base, imagine how much more junk/malicious 'net traffic there would be without AOL.
I enlisted in the Army at 17. I was old enough to train for war, old enough to buy beer at the base PX, but not old enough to buy beer off-base or even to vote.
".. the argument in our society is that underage children aren't able to consent to sex in an informed manner, and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all."
That is not necessarily true. Male dogs will voluntarily copulate with human women--active participation evidences consent.
Society also recognizes that minors are capable of making adult choices--witness minors tried as adults for felony crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent is the most complete and insightful comment so far on this topic.
To elabotrate (not attempt to half-sole), those of us who understand IT often grossly overestimate the average email/web user. I'd estimate that 90 percent of the people I know who use email are clueless about EVERYTHING. Click this, read email. Click this, delete email. Click this, send email. Click this, block email. That's the extent of their knowledge. Most probably think an IP address is the location of a public restroom, and believe Internet Explorer IS "the internet." And I'd bet that a huge chunk of them have at one time or another bought something through a spamvertized website.
Trying to educate them is hopeless--I know, I've tried. The best thing we can do is send as many as possible TO AOL, not try to lure them away from it. The protections AOL has in place makes knowledgeable users cringe, but they also protect the rest of us from clueless users, and those users from each other and themselves.
I say go AOL, go!
I dearly wish SCO would realize their ill-thought strategy of propping up their failing business with a lawsuit win is not working. Do the honorable thing, SCO: Die quietly without trying to take as many as you can with you.
If one of us (three-dimensional beings) interacted with a Flatlander, exposed them to our technology, what would they think of us and their two-dimensional world?
I assume you're joking, but in case you aren't, it's from "Of Mice and Men" by Steinbeck.
At the magazine I edit, many of the department email address forward to me before they go to the department editors. Part of the reason is that some of the department editors can be, shall we say, less than diplomatic when dealing with incorrigible readers. Part of my job is to ensure that exchanges do not become denigrating or insulting, and to avoid lawsuits.
OS "features" I'd like to see:
- Simple interface (command line is okay, but simple GUI prefered)
- Cross-platform app support
- Straightforward firewall
- Cross-platform networking
- Meaningful user's manual
- Minimal system resource demands (reserved for apps)
Maybe I am asking too much.
Understood. I had not seen it before.
Apologies to the mod.
Redundant?
1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British. Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics. Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.
The parent: Troll, maybe. Flamebait, only to mods with no sense of humor. Funny, definitely.
"Make an edited version of a film if you like but clearly label it so that my worldview isn't damaged by the dangerous subversiveness of covert censorship."
If your worldview can be damaged by a film edit, you must not be very secure in your worldview.
Or maybe genrephobia.
"...many movies go overboard and many others have sex or violent scenes when it doesn't forward plot or character."
My point exactly. Would a graphic sex scene have mad Love Story a better movie? No. In fact, it would have been a distraction from the theme and message.
Would explicit special effects of Hunphrey Bogart's character getting decapitated with a machete have made Treasure of the Sierra Madre a better movie? No. (Actually, there was a scene that showed the character's decapitated head, but it was cut before release.)
Some movies/stories/plots call for graphic violence/blood/sex or whatever, and that is fine. But why film an inconsistent or gratuitous tumor into an otherwise great piece of work?
Give this man a +5 Funny! Best laugh I've had in days!
I agree. There are some stories that cannot be told without the gore and calamity because the gore and calmity *is* the story. The movie "The Evil that Men Do" is another example.
You know, I have watched hundreds of mevies wherein I *knew* a couple had sex, but it was not depicted explicity, yet this did not detract one bit from the movie's entertainment value.
I have also watched hundreds of movies where sombody got their throat cut, but it did not explicitly depict the gushing blood, the cutee's bubbling, burbling, rasping sounds as he tried to breathe through a severed esophogus and inhaled his own blood, but the entertainment value was not diminished.
So, if these scenes were edited out of a movie before I saw it, I would not miss them. If the movie is well made with an entertaining story line, the gratuitous scenes are not necessary.
Further, all the hand-wringing over the artist's "rights" is a crock. Untalented "artists" try to compensate for lack of talent with sensational special effects, gore, sex, etc. Most of them should study the classics (Citizen Caine, Casablanca, The Magnificant Seven, et al) and get a clue about what real artists do.
What is the difference between me FAST-FORWARDing through some portion of a movie I find objectionable and having a piece of technology that does it for me automatically?
I agree. I run both XP SP2 and OS-X and see the same crap you describe.
How I wish all the apps I need and interoperability with others on my network were rock-solid under Linux. SOmeday soon, maybe...
Are you that Marine in Iraq who used spaghetti from an MRE to fish in one of Saddam's palace lakes?
In April 2002, ananova.com carried a story about how passing cars could make toads explode.
From the article (in my local archive):
Air pressure from passing cars 'causes toads to explode'
Passing cars can make toads crossing roads explode without even touching them.
A German researcher says they cause a sudden rise in air pressure which can be fatal for the amphibians.
Professor Dietrich Hummel, of Braunschweig, measured the suction caused by cars in a wind tunnel.
He says any speed over 20mph can can cause toads to explode and is calling for speed limits on toad-crossing blackspots.
He told The Mirror: "The bigger the clearance, the better it is for the toad. A Formula 1 car would be a disaster."
"The fact that people need to upgrade their computer regularly, and forcibly buy the latest version of Windows isn't doing MS any harm."
You are quite correct, of course. I keep forgetting that most people are attracted by flashing lights and shiny things. (sigh)
Why MS ever come up with the concept that an OS was suuposed to be anything but a platform on which to run apps. I do not give a rat's ass about the OS. The OS doe not do any real "work." When it get in the way of apps, it is no longer of any value.
MS keeps bloating the OS, making apps ever less convenient and usable. MS seems hell-bent on "developing" itself out of business.
I wonder if there are any equivalents to my apps that will run on CP/M?
Actually, this surprises me as an exception rather than the rule as far as AOL is concerned.
(I posted the following in an earlier discussion on a different topic, but it is 100 percent applicable here.)
I am not an AOL customer, have never been, never will be (at least, not by choice), but I am glad AOL is there to serve the unwashed masses. Because a huge portion of their customer base is, shall we say, "uninformed," AOL has taken a number of measures to protect them (and their network) from malicious traffic. Based on anecdotal observation, it seems to be working.
Because hundreds of people have my "public" email address in their address books, I recive dozens (sometimes hundreds) of virues per week whenever there is an outbreak. However, I cannot recall the last time I received one from an AOL user.
I receive hundreds of (filtered) spam messages daily, but again, cannot recall receiving any from an AOL machine. (This based on source IP address, not the forged FROM line.)
On the flip side, 30-40 percent of spam comes from zombied Comcast and RoadRunner accounts (most from Comcast). The rest come from non-North American IP addresses.
Like I said, limited anecdotal observation, but it appears to me AOL is doing something right, and is the perfect ISP for the "uninformed" user.
Considering the size of their customer base, imagine how much more junk/malicious 'net traffic there would be without AOL.
I am not an AOL customer, have never been, never will be (at least, not by choice), but I am glad AOL is there to serve the unwashed masses. Because a huge portion of their customer base is, shall we say, "uninformed," AOL has taken a number of measures to protect them (and their network) from malicious traffic. Based on anecdotal observation, it seems to be working.
Because hundreds of people have my "public" email address in their address books, I recive dozens (sometimes hundreds) of virues per week whenever there is an outbreak. However, I cannot recall the last time I received one from an AOL user.
I receive hundreds of (filtered) spam messages daily, but again, cannot recall receiving any from an AOL machine. (This based on source IP address, not the forged FROM line.)
On the flip side, 30-40 percent of spam comes from zombied Comcast and RoadRunner accounts (most from Comcast). The rest come from non-North American IP addresses.
Like I said, limited anecdotal observation, but it appears to me AOL is doing something right, and is the perfect ISP for the "uninformed" user.
Considering the size of their customer base, imagine how much more junk/malicious 'net traffic there would be without AOL.
I enlisted in the Army at 17. I was old enough to train for war, old enough to buy beer at the base PX, but not old enough to buy beer off-base or even to vote.
Go figure *that*.
Well, I cannot imagine how the male dog could be harmed by the act, but that's another discussion.
I think you would have to agree, however, that in our sex-conscious society most 12-year-olds of either sex are quite capable of informed consent. No?
" .. the argument in our society is that underage children aren't able to consent to sex in an informed manner, and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all."
That is not necessarily true. Male dogs will voluntarily copulate with human women--active participation evidences consent.
Society also recognizes that minors are capable of making adult choices--witness minors tried as adults for felony crimes.