Considering that Bush has already shown that he is more than willing to spy on American citizens in the "homeland", and that he feels the rights accorded to him by the Patriot Act afford him anything he demands in the way of National Security, we should be warned. How long will it be before there is connection made, however farfetched, between terrorism and pornography that makes Google complicit in "giving aid and comfort to the enemey". Remember, if you're not with Bush & Co., you're with the terrorists.
I can't read the above without realizing how paranoid it sounds. Still doesn't make me any less apprehensive.
Maybe i'm a cynic but I believe that most people don't care about computers for the same reason they don't care about anything else. The average layperson isn't curious at all! Slashdot is full of nerds. We read about nanobots, particle physics, and GPL drafts in our spare time. Besides, when's the last time an average person has read a book?
You and all the people like you, especially the ones who mod this crap +4 Insightful need to get out of mom's basement and actually go meet an "average person".
It was only in desperation that I found Slashdot. I was using MS Word on Win98 SE back in the '90's when the damn thing BSOD'd simply because I moved a stupid text box from point A to point B.
I realized that there had to be a better way to do whatever I was doing and in extreme frustration I typed "Microsoft Sux" into Google and the first search return was a post here at Slashdot. I registered and have been here ever since.
At that point in time I didn't know I was using Word on Win 98 or what BSOD meant (yeah, imagine being that clueless). But even then, I knew that moving a text box couldn't possibly be "illegal" and that maybe, just maybe, I didn't know much, but I could learn.
And I did. I humbled myself and asked questions of kids and teenagers, I bugged everyone under the age of 25 on my favorite Harry Potter message board and talked to their friends and chatted all my questions away. I asked questions, I read Slashdot cross refereneced with Wikipedia every day until what seemed like Japanese but was really just "geek English" finally started to make sense.
Yes, it was curiosity, but it was also the willingness of those to help a clueless end user like me that kept me going. I do not now and have never seen that willingness on Slashdot. One thing you can always count on here is Jill and Joe Sixpack bashing which is more acceptable and prevalent that bashing Microsoft.
Slashdot, I implore you. Get off your collective geek asses, take a few clueless end users under your wing and help. Don't give me that crap about "can't afford to support" and "I dont' have the time" and "they'll never get it or care anyway". Those are excuses and idiotic ones at that. Trite but true: If you're not a part of the solution then you're definitely a part of the mothafuckin' problem.
So what's a one-time seller or only-time seller to do without a rating history?
I've bought things off Ebay with no problems, but now I'm in the position of selling some furniture I really need to get rid of. What are some of the things I should do to ensure folks that I'm not a scammer?
LOL.
I just realized I "have" four computers.
2 pc's running Win 98, 1 running ME (my mother's) and a McIntosh my mother brought home when she retired from teaching after 32 years.
We play Yahtzee on the McIntosh.
And, one might ask, how can they establish that this alleged uploading cost them $100,000.
Exactly.
The more I read stories like this lately, it's not the "crime" but the "penalties" that seem so outrageous. I mean, everyone knows now that legitimate downloads are nowhere near $100K per download.
It's like they're pissed at all downloaders. Not just the ones they call "pirates" but legitimate downloaders too, for lowering the price and making them change the way they do business for something they thought they had on lock.
I went to the Paramount Website. Their "Movies on Demand/ PPV section", gives a a short list of movies they have available for download and it tells you that they are available at Movielink.com. So you follow that link and find that Movielink will allow you to "rent" downloaded movies which you can "keep" for 30 days, or you can (still in beta) "purchase" movie downloads to "keep on your hard drive" for the price of $8.99 USD.
I'd like Paramount to definitely explain the difference between whatever their portion of the $8.99 is and $100,000 and why they think they deserve anywhere near that difference for a download that cost them nothing.
The real challenge is finding the volunteers to fix all the obscure articles. I recently stumbled across an article with a typo in its outline structure that had been there for about a year, and no one had noticed it in that entire time. It's kind of like getting someone to do serious UI design or end-user documentation for an open-source project. People work on what they find interesting, and if no contributors find a topic interesting, it's not going to get fixed.
Isn't that the beauty of the Wiki? If you see the occasional grammatical error or typo, you can simply hit the edit link and fix it. I'm not a Wiki editor or even a regular contributor, but I do find Wikipedia fascinating and I have done my fair share of typo/grammar correction. Even the smallest contributions to a project of this magnitude can be helpful? Why pass up the opportunity to pitch in?
I think Wiki is not the quintessential encyclopedia but it can definitely give you a nudge in the right direction, especially when you want some starting details on the recent buzz. Need to know more about Rove and Plame-gate? Start at Wikipedia. Trying to figure out why your kid is going on about a "horcrux"? If you had Googled the word "horcrux" in July 16 you would have had a one-word google whack. Google that word now (starting just after July 17) and the first entry is at Wikipedia.
Wiki is not just an online encyclopedia but it has been for me a great reference of what Wiki readers and contributors are really interested in and want to share.
An eye into the mind of everyone.
Is this at all like Slashdot-manufactured consensus? Where we mod up anti-Microsoft, anti-patent, anti-**AA, anti-SCO, pro-F/OSS, pro-Apple, and "Linux is difficult" posts, and mod down anti-Java and anti-USA posts?
To me the miracle is that the anonymous exchange of ideas breeds so much consensus, trolls and all. We certainly don't get that kind of cooperation when we face each other IRL.
My two favorite movies are Toy Story and Kill Bill 2.
I am, definitely your run-of-the-mill movie goer. I think, like myself, the rest of the mainstream audience likes extremes. Stories of such sweetness and innocence that they'd move an axe murder to tears...and also stories of blood-curdling hair raising violence that would make the axe murderer shake in his boots.
People like stories that they can't predict or really even truly understand. I have no ideas why a bunch of Toys should be animate only when people "can't" see them no more than I can understand why Pai Mei decided Beatrix Kiddow was the one he could finally trust to impart the five part exploding palm technique.
The trials of raising a family in subarctic temparatures, regardless of species, biological instict, natural habitiat, is still a pretty extreme story. Not to mention it's one I can take my whole family too.
It's not easy to find a movie the entire family can comfortably watch together. Another extreme experience, taken far too much for granted.
The issue revolves around some states whose Do Not Call... prohibit telemarketers from calling anyone on a Do Not Call, regardless of an existing business relationship.
I actually wandered into your store (online or otherwise) and bought something. You call it a business relationship. I call it a purchase.
DO NOT CALL ME at me home because I bought cheetos from you. DO NOT START SPAMMING me left and right because I bought something from your online store AND for heaven's sake don't start sending junk mailto my house! And what's worse, don't give my name to all YOUR FRIENDS (people who paid for you to give up my info) and have them start calling me, spamming me, and sending me crap!
You are not my business partner just because I bought something from you once or twice and you certainly aren't entitled to anything from me but fair payment for what I bought.
If I want to buy something else from you, I'll find you or one of your "friends". Otherwise, LEAVE ME ALONE.
Sir, you have no right to read about your rights. Hobart writes "Richard Stallman has just posted on his personal website a request for his readers to 'Don't Buy Harry Potter Books,' and offered to leak the plot - in protest of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling forbidding the purchasers from reading the books they paid for. A memorable quote in the Times article says '...There is no human right to read.'"
If you bought it you should read it. Had I been one of those lucky enough to get it earlier, the Fibbies, the CIA and the Mounties would have had to pry it from my cold, dead hands to get me to turn it back in and the headlines would have been great: "Adult Potter Fan Dies Before Turning in Sixth Book".
I believe Canada's ruling was wrong but this asshole goes and nearly proves them right by threatening to post the content. I've worked really hard since the release date was announced to keep spoilers out of view. I've avoided all but the main pages of two HP websites where I know spoilers won't be posted on the front page. I've kept even speculation posts with other fans to a minimum because I really want this book to be a new experience.
The last thing I need at this point is some damned reporter *cough*Katie Couric*cough* casually mentioning who gets killed or broad hints about who the HBP is while I'm flipping past her first thing in the morning. No injunction that I know of can keep people from reporting common knowledge and once it's anywhere on the internet, you can make a decent argument for common knowledge since the information, whether you want it or not, can be had for the sake of a mouse click.
Had I found the books, I would have bought one and there is no way in hell I would have ever turned mine back in. By the same turn, I would have never, under any circumstances, spoiled them for anyone else.
Most Americans want the government to be heavily involved in securing the Internet.
Maybe they're still waiting for Al Gore to fix it since he invented it.
What I want to know is: Who are most Americans and why do I NEVER get asked questions like this.
I'd say that if you actually explained to Average Joe that the government wants to know how, when and where he accesses porn, then you'd get a different answer to this question.
I don't think the public wants the Guvmint policing the internet. What I do think they want is harsh penalties, fines and jailtime for people who are dishonest. The problem is, we already have laws in place to deal with theft and fraud. It's a matter of using what we have and updating where needed, instead of creating entirely new laws that restrict the liberty of the honest man with no thought to protecting that liberty.
Is anyone actually going to sit there and tell me in all seriousness that their primary source of news and info on 9/11 was somebody's blog?
Maybe not a blog, but close to it is Fark.
I was in Ohio, wasn't close enough to the events of 9/11 to know what was truly going on and one of the few websites to continuously update that day without crashing was Fark.
Going back and reading those threads today is an interesting full snapshot into the thoughts of most Americans and the countries who supported us
I think the scene of Anakin's "disfigurement" was a wee bit much for a child of her age, and I don't know how mature this guy's seven year old is, but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?
After Episode One, my 12-year-old daughter really got into the series, watching Episodes IV, V & VI over and over again. These remain her favorites. The month before Episode III she watched them all in the order they were made.
The part that was hard for her was the slaughter of the Jedi. She cried and was so upset we had to leave the theater for a while.
She was sad and angry enough to want to kill Anakin, and she was frighteningly glad Anakin got his legs burned off. She said, "he deserved worse than that for those kids," and she didn't say a word else the rest of the day.
The broadcast flag is just another tool devised by the MPAA to help insure that if people want to watch something beyond the original air-date, they'll have to go out and buy it.
The fact that this statement is so true is both funny and sad.
If the broadcast tv folks true aim is to get me watch their advertisements, they have a better chance of me doing that on pause and rewind than they do when it actually airs.
Reason? When I tape a show, I'm watching it at my own leisure. I've popped it in when I actually have TIME to watch the show. I'm more relaxed, not pressured for time, and I'm prone to let the ads just play through, forget to fast forward, or even, if I see something interesting, rewind, play the ad, get the info and then go out and buy that product.
When I'm watching the show when it airs, it's crunch time. Unless I'm taping, it's the only time I'm going to see it. Commercials are when I run to the bathroom or make sure Suzy brushed her teeth or feed the dog or whatever.
In this instance, their logic may be flawed because the only time I really see their ads and actually pay attention to what they want me to buy is when I "time-shift" their programs.
But I will never BUY a program to watch beyond the original air date unless I'm getting the entire season DVD for a show I really, really like. And I have yet to do this, despite how many shows I like are available mainly because they're so damn expensive. They may be on my Amazon wish list but they have yet to make it to my shelf.
So the broadcast people really need to wake up. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and especially don't try to get money out of me for a "product" that doesn't mean that much. I can always read a book or just enjoy the other parts of my life.
Microsoft seems to be winning its war against Linux.
Once upon a time or even last I checked, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Linux was supposedly not a threat. Oh, Linux merited a bit of astroturf and slams now and again, but Linux was not acknowledged as any sort of competitor.
However when this has changed and Microsoft moved from "Linux is not a threat" to "Linux is the enemy" then it seems to me, that acknowledgement alone is a battle won.
...it's proof that the feds don't CARE what the technical limitations are. If you want to offer dialtone, you have to support 911 emergency calls...People have died because of this. They don't really care why it's difficult to fix.
From the post (DRTFA) The vote came after testimony from people including a Florida woman who had her infant die after being unable to call 911 from her internet phone.
As much as your post and this woman's plight may pull at our heartstrings I would still want someone to prove that had these people been connected to 911 service, that this lady's baby or anyone else would have lived.
I would also want to know what type of disclaimers or whatever these people signed knowing FULL WELL that they wouldn't have 911 or that the service might be limited, only to turn around and sue because they are too guilt-ridden to admit THEY risked their own or their loved-one's life to save a buck.
911 is to dispatch as soon as possible in an ermegency. That does not guarantee that any further mayhem may not occur until the calvary arrives. Dialing 911 is only the beginning of help. It's not a direct guarantee that the the minute you call, you're safe. It just means that someone else now knows that something bad has happened and that possibly the danger isn't over.
I work in telecom. People call and cancel their long distance because they're switching all their land line based svc to switch to VoIP. And I ask them if they are aware that they may not be able to reach 911. And the response 9 times out of 10 is that the savings is worth the risk. Of course no one will think that after an emergency. I wonder if her parents took the risk, initialed the little box, checked the appropriate little form box and if so, the risk factor assumed is their own.
I can't believe people are still on about the aging thing or that this post got marked Insightful. Neither the mod nor the person who actually posted could have read the books.
People who have actually read the series know that this is not true, has never been true and especially if you use Beverly Hills 90210 as a yardstick, then you know it will never be true.
The HP kids age in the stories with each installment of the series and their counterpart actors are growing nicely into their characters. They do not look "too old" unless you're going by usual Hollywood standard of using a child of 10 to portray a child of 12 and using "snappy" dialogue to give the "wise beyond years" effect.
Clever marketing and using younger actors may be a neat trick to fool unwise parents into thinking that the movie is meant for their little one and buying a ticket (a la Kangaroo Jack which pissed off many parents) but if you've ever seen a child carried out of a movie screaming or crying you'd know that it's an awfully cruel one.
Recently George Lucas publicly stated that he is dismayed that the "marketing machine" insists on marketing Episode Three toys and merchandise to a target audience of five and six year olds. He also stated that taking anyone under the age of 12 to see Episode Three is a big mistake.
True Potter fans have been saying the same thing about HP since Movie the first. WB insists on marketing these stories to the preschool and elementary set when in reality the stories are very dark and anyone taking a small child to see Goblet of Fire is going to get their feelings hurt and have to take a terrified child home; especially since all the gory bits don't happen until near the end.
The actors are the right age. The children attending are not.
You know... maybe in this industry it's not the users who are idiots. Just a thought.
Looks like a thought that will never be modded up around here either despite how absolutely spot on you are.
As you say, it is so much easier to write someone off as an idiot and be done with it than actually place the blame squarely where it belongs.
Microsoft. It's all their fault. There I said it. I don't know how it's their fault but at least since I blamed Microsoft for the failure of end users to understand anything, I know this is one post that should get +++555!!!!!!1111 teh ghey, she rox, special moddedity uppest award.
Say it with me now Slashdot: If you're not a part of the solution....
The OP could have expounded a bit, but I ask you all to reconsider as this was also my first, and yes a tad callous, thought.
Her parents were shot by an intruder. Daughter was obviously either hiding or protected well enough that she didn't get shot. The article states that she is 17 not 7 so the expectation is that she would not only know her address but also be able to provide location information, even in a brief space of time.
911 is to dispatch as soon as possible in an ermegency. That does not guarantee that any further mayhem may not occur until the calvary arrives. Dialing 911 is only the beginning of help. It's not a direct guarantee that the the minute you call, you're safe. It just means that someone else now knows that something bad has happened and that possibly the danger isn't over.
If you dial "0" on a Vonage phone do you get a local operator? Does someone even think about any of this in a time of emergency when their life is in danger? Probably not. Maybe not especially a 17 year old kid who's parents have been shot.
However, I work in telecom. People call and cancel their long distance because they're switching all their land line based svc to switch to VoIP. And I ask them if they are aware that they may not be able to reach 911. And the response 9 times out of 10 is that the savings is worth the risk. Of course no one will think that after an emergency. I wonder if her parents took the risk, initialed the little box, checked the appropriate little form box and if so, the risk factor assumed is their own, not Vonage's.
This also speaks to the litigous depths we will sink too. I'm so very tired of people, especially over-eager attorneys, thinking of lawsuits first instead of, "this was awful, let's work on preventing it in the future". Once upon a time we realized the world was not a perfect place. Now when we get pissed off or hurt or even just on a soapbox, we sue.
I hope Vonage doesn't have to spend more time and money focusing on a lawsuit than they could on improving the service and 911 support. The original post poses the fact that will a lawsuit change what happened? The answer is no. Will Vonage improve their service, lawsuit or no? Of course. Time and technology will take care of that.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
Should this one sentence be true, despite being a Senator, this man has a very narrow-minded and dark view of technology. And obvioulsy so do many others of his ilk.
Anyone downloading a copyrighted piece of work must have down so illicitly.
People only want media and software for free and will do anything to keep from paying for them.
Anything to do with p2p or torrents are mostly only used for illicit or illegal activities and should punished to a large extent with jail time and huge fines.
Why are we still belaboring these points when we know that they are not true? Why do we continue to put up with idiots like Hatch who goose-step in line with DMCA rhetoric without truly understanding what they are condemning?
Instead of having the endless debate we've had on this type stuff before, let's answer a question: What are we going to take our government back? What can I do personally to make sure that idiots like this guy are not held in responsible office?
I want the people in office to actually hear my voice and represent my view. Your view. I'm tired of debating and I'm ready to put my time and money where my mouth is.
There are enough cool things without being needlessly sensational, and invoking the Wipe-Out-All-Civilization radius definitely counts as sensational.
I couldn't agree more. There are only 10 stars within 10 light years of us -- one trinary, two doubles and three individual stars. None of them are anywhere near being potential supernovae. The BBC sensationalism was pointless and misleading.
I find this is an interesting cosmic take on the classic "it just barely missed me by this much" story.
The truth of our culture is mired in tall tales like these even if the miss was more like a parsec or two instead of the millimeters we claim. I'll even go so far as to say that despite the possible lack of scientific accuracy, we need more stories like these...more Independence day type stories where it's us against the universe. Not discovering an alien race; we're not ready and we don't need anyone else to discriminate against or fight with. Maybe just the equivalent of a cosmic tsunami to shake us up and pull us together. It seems disasters are the only time the people on this planet are at their best anymore.
Maybe a galactic "Scared Straight" program is exactly what Earth needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that Bush has already shown that he is more than willing to spy on American citizens in the "homeland", and that he feels the rights accorded to him by the Patriot Act afford him anything he demands in the way of National Security, we should be warned. How long will it be before there is connection made, however farfetched, between terrorism and pornography that makes Google complicit in "giving aid and comfort to the enemey". Remember, if you're not with Bush & Co., you're with the terrorists.
I can't read the above without realizing how paranoid it sounds. Still doesn't make me any less apprehensive.
Maybe i'm a cynic but I believe that most people don't care about computers for the same reason they don't care about anything else. The average layperson isn't curious at all! Slashdot is full of nerds. We read about nanobots, particle physics, and GPL drafts in our spare time. Besides, when's the last time an average person has read a book?
You and all the people like you, especially the ones who mod this crap +4 Insightful need to get out of mom's basement and actually go meet an "average person".
It was only in desperation that I found Slashdot. I was using MS Word on Win98 SE back in the '90's when the damn thing BSOD'd simply because I moved a stupid text box from point A to point B.
I realized that there had to be a better way to do whatever I was doing and in extreme frustration I typed "Microsoft Sux" into Google and the first search return was a post here at Slashdot. I registered and have been here ever since.
At that point in time I didn't know I was using Word on Win 98 or what BSOD meant (yeah, imagine being that clueless). But even then, I knew that moving a text box couldn't possibly be "illegal" and that maybe, just maybe, I didn't know much, but I could learn.
And I did. I humbled myself and asked questions of kids and teenagers, I bugged everyone under the age of 25 on my favorite Harry Potter message board and talked to their friends and chatted all my questions away. I asked questions, I read Slashdot cross refereneced with Wikipedia every day until what seemed like Japanese but was really just "geek English" finally started to make sense.
Yes, it was curiosity, but it was also the willingness of those to help a clueless end user like me that kept me going. I do not now and have never seen that willingness on Slashdot. One thing you can always count on here is Jill and Joe Sixpack bashing which is more acceptable and prevalent that bashing Microsoft.
Slashdot, I implore you. Get off your collective geek asses, take a few clueless end users under your wing and help. Don't give me that crap about "can't afford to support" and "I dont' have the time" and "they'll never get it or care anyway". Those are excuses and idiotic ones at that. Trite but true: If you're not a part of the solution then you're definitely a part of the mothafuckin' problem.
So what's a one-time seller or only-time seller to do without a rating history?
I've bought things off Ebay with no problems, but now I'm in the position of selling some furniture I really need to get rid of. What are some of the things I should do to ensure folks that I'm not a scammer?
LOL. I just realized I "have" four computers. 2 pc's running Win 98, 1 running ME (my mother's) and a McIntosh my mother brought home when she retired from teaching after 32 years. We play Yahtzee on the McIntosh.
And, one might ask, how can they establish that this alleged uploading cost them $100,000.
Exactly.
The more I read stories like this lately, it's not the "crime" but the "penalties" that seem so outrageous. I mean, everyone knows now that legitimate downloads are nowhere near $100K per download.
It's like they're pissed at all downloaders. Not just the ones they call "pirates" but legitimate downloaders too, for lowering the price and making them change the way they do business for something they thought they had on lock.
I went to the Paramount Website. Their "Movies on Demand/ PPV section", gives a a short list of movies they have available for download and it tells you that they are available at Movielink.com. So you follow that link and find that Movielink will allow you to "rent" downloaded movies which you can "keep" for 30 days, or you can (still in beta) "purchase" movie downloads to "keep on your hard drive" for the price of $8.99 USD.
I'd like Paramount to definitely explain the difference between whatever their portion of the $8.99 is and $100,000 and why they think they deserve anywhere near that difference for a download that cost them nothing.
The real challenge is finding the volunteers to fix all the obscure articles. I recently stumbled across an article with a typo in its outline structure that had been there for about a year, and no one had noticed it in that entire time. It's kind of like getting someone to do serious UI design or end-user documentation for an open-source project. People work on what they find interesting, and if no contributors find a topic interesting, it's not going to get fixed. Isn't that the beauty of the Wiki? If you see the occasional grammatical error or typo, you can simply hit the edit link and fix it. I'm not a Wiki editor or even a regular contributor, but I do find Wikipedia fascinating and I have done my fair share of typo/grammar correction. Even the smallest contributions to a project of this magnitude can be helpful? Why pass up the opportunity to pitch in? I think Wiki is not the quintessential encyclopedia but it can definitely give you a nudge in the right direction, especially when you want some starting details on the recent buzz. Need to know more about Rove and Plame-gate? Start at Wikipedia. Trying to figure out why your kid is going on about a "horcrux"? If you had Googled the word "horcrux" in July 16 you would have had a one-word google whack. Google that word now (starting just after July 17) and the first entry is at Wikipedia. Wiki is not just an online encyclopedia but it has been for me a great reference of what Wiki readers and contributors are really interested in and want to share. An eye into the mind of everyone.
Is this at all like Slashdot-manufactured consensus? Where we mod up anti-Microsoft, anti-patent, anti-**AA, anti-SCO, pro-F/OSS, pro-Apple, and "Linux is difficult" posts, and mod down anti-Java and anti-USA posts?
To me the miracle is that the anonymous exchange of ideas breeds so much consensus, trolls and all. We certainly don't get that kind of cooperation when we face each other IRL.
My two favorite movies are Toy Story and Kill Bill 2.
I am, definitely your run-of-the-mill movie goer. I think, like myself, the rest of the mainstream audience likes extremes. Stories of such sweetness and innocence that they'd move an axe murder to tears...and also stories of blood-curdling hair raising violence that would make the axe murderer shake in his boots.
People like stories that they can't predict or really even truly understand. I have no ideas why a bunch of Toys should be animate only when people "can't" see them no more than I can understand why Pai Mei decided Beatrix Kiddow was the one he could finally trust to impart the five part exploding palm technique.
The trials of raising a family in subarctic temparatures, regardless of species, biological instict, natural habitiat, is still a pretty extreme story. Not to mention it's one I can take my whole family too.
It's not easy to find a movie the entire family can comfortably watch together. Another extreme experience, taken far too much for granted.
The issue revolves around some states whose Do Not Call ... prohibit telemarketers from calling anyone on a Do Not Call, regardless of an existing business relationship.
I actually wandered into your store (online or otherwise) and bought something. You call it a business relationship. I call it a purchase.
DO NOT CALL ME at me home because I bought cheetos from you. DO NOT START SPAMMING me left and right because I bought something from your online store AND for heaven's sake don't start sending junk mailto my house! And what's worse, don't give my name to all YOUR FRIENDS (people who paid for you to give up my info) and have them start calling me, spamming me, and sending me crap!
You are not my business partner just because I bought something from you once or twice and you certainly aren't entitled to anything from me but fair payment for what I bought.
If I want to buy something else from you, I'll find you or one of your "friends". Otherwise, LEAVE ME ALONE.
Sir, you have no right to read about your rights. Hobart writes "Richard Stallman has just posted on his personal website a request for his readers to 'Don't Buy Harry Potter Books,' and offered to leak the plot - in protest of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling forbidding the purchasers from reading the books they paid for. A memorable quote in the Times article says '...There is no human right to read.'"
If you bought it you should read it. Had I been one of those lucky enough to get it earlier, the Fibbies, the CIA and the Mounties would have had to pry it from my cold, dead hands to get me to turn it back in and the headlines would have been great: "Adult Potter Fan Dies Before Turning in Sixth Book".
I believe Canada's ruling was wrong but this asshole goes and nearly proves them right by threatening to post the content. I've worked really hard since the release date was announced to keep spoilers out of view. I've avoided all but the main pages of two HP websites where I know spoilers won't be posted on the front page. I've kept even speculation posts with other fans to a minimum because I really want this book to be a new experience.
The last thing I need at this point is some damned reporter *cough*Katie Couric*cough* casually mentioning who gets killed or broad hints about who the HBP is while I'm flipping past her first thing in the morning. No injunction that I know of can keep people from reporting common knowledge and once it's anywhere on the internet, you can make a decent argument for common knowledge since the information, whether you want it or not, can be had for the sake of a mouse click.
Had I found the books, I would have bought one and there is no way in hell I would have ever turned mine back in. By the same turn, I would have never, under any circumstances, spoiled them for anyone else.
True HP Fans Don't Tell.
...to having a Slashdot article about me.
Most Americans want the government to be heavily involved in securing the Internet.
Maybe they're still waiting for Al Gore to fix it since he invented it.
What I want to know is: Who are most Americans and why do I NEVER get asked questions like this.
I'd say that if you actually explained to Average Joe that the government wants to know how, when and where he accesses porn, then you'd get a different answer to this question.
I don't think the public wants the Guvmint policing the internet. What I do think they want is harsh penalties, fines and jailtime for people who are dishonest. The problem is, we already have laws in place to deal with theft and fraud. It's a matter of using what we have and updating where needed, instead of creating entirely new laws that restrict the liberty of the honest man with no thought to protecting that liberty.
Is anyone actually going to sit there and tell me in all seriousness that their primary source of news and info on 9/11 was somebody's blog?
Maybe not a blog, but close to it is Fark.
I was in Ohio, wasn't close enough to the events of 9/11 to know what was truly going on and one of the few websites to continuously update that day without crashing was Fark.
Going back and reading those threads today is an interesting full snapshot into the thoughts of most Americans and the countries who supported us
Then.
I think the scene of Anakin's "disfigurement" was a wee bit much for a child of her age, and I don't know how mature this guy's seven year old is, but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?
After Episode One, my 12-year-old daughter really got into the series, watching Episodes IV, V & VI over and over again. These remain her favorites. The month before Episode III she watched them all in the order they were made.
The part that was hard for her was the slaughter of the Jedi. She cried and was so upset we had to leave the theater for a while.
She was sad and angry enough to want to kill Anakin, and she was frighteningly glad Anakin got his legs burned off. She said, "he deserved worse than that for those kids," and she didn't say a word else the rest of the day.
The broadcast flag is just another tool devised by the MPAA to help insure that if people want to watch something beyond the original air-date, they'll have to go out and buy it.
The fact that this statement is so true is both funny and sad.
If the broadcast tv folks true aim is to get me watch their advertisements, they have a better chance of me doing that on pause and rewind than they do when it actually airs.
Reason? When I tape a show, I'm watching it at my own leisure. I've popped it in when I actually have TIME to watch the show. I'm more relaxed, not pressured for time, and I'm prone to let the ads just play through, forget to fast forward, or even, if I see something interesting, rewind, play the ad, get the info and then go out and buy that product.
When I'm watching the show when it airs, it's crunch time. Unless I'm taping, it's the only time I'm going to see it. Commercials are when I run to the bathroom or make sure Suzy brushed her teeth or feed the dog or whatever.
In this instance, their logic may be flawed because the only time I really see their ads and actually pay attention to what they want me to buy is when I "time-shift" their programs.
But I will never BUY a program to watch beyond the original air date unless I'm getting the entire season DVD for a show I really, really like. And I have yet to do this, despite how many shows I like are available mainly because they're so damn expensive. They may be on my Amazon wish list but they have yet to make it to my shelf.
So the broadcast people really need to wake up. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and especially don't try to get money out of me for a "product" that doesn't mean that much. I can always read a book or just enjoy the other parts of my life.
Movie Tickets in my area $9.50
Amount of downloads: Aprox 10,000
Amount Star Wars grossed in just the first weekend: $158.5 million
I suppose that somehow, somewhere that extra $95,000 that they may or may not have made anyway is worth all this.
I'd bet that 9K out of the 10K downloaders actually paid to see the movie anyway.
Microsoft seems to be winning its war against Linux.
Once upon a time or even last I checked, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Linux was supposedly not a threat. Oh, Linux merited a bit of astroturf and slams now and again, but Linux was not acknowledged as any sort of competitor.
However when this has changed and Microsoft moved from "Linux is not a threat" to "Linux is the enemy" then it seems to me, that acknowledgement alone is a battle won.
Point to Linux.
From the post (DRTFA) The vote came after testimony from people including a Florida woman who had her infant die after being unable to call 911 from her internet phone.
As much as your post and this woman's plight may pull at our heartstrings I would still want someone to prove that had these people been connected to 911 service, that this lady's baby or anyone else would have lived.
I would also want to know what type of disclaimers or whatever these people signed knowing FULL WELL that they wouldn't have 911 or that the service might be limited, only to turn around and sue because they are too guilt-ridden to admit THEY risked their own or their loved-one's life to save a buck.
911 is to dispatch as soon as possible in an ermegency. That does not guarantee that any further mayhem may not occur until the calvary arrives. Dialing 911 is only the beginning of help. It's not a direct guarantee that the the minute you call, you're safe. It just means that someone else now knows that something bad has happened and that possibly the danger isn't over.
I work in telecom. People call and cancel their long distance because they're switching all their land line based svc to switch to VoIP. And I ask them if they are aware that they may not be able to reach 911. And the response 9 times out of 10 is that the savings is worth the risk. Of course no one will think that after an emergency. I wonder if her parents took the risk, initialed the little box, checked the appropriate little form box and if so, the risk factor assumed is their own.
I can't believe people are still on about the aging thing or that this post got marked Insightful. Neither the mod nor the person who actually posted could have read the books.
People who have actually read the series know that this is not true, has never been true and especially if you use Beverly Hills 90210 as a yardstick, then you know it will never be true.
The HP kids age in the stories with each installment of the series and their counterpart actors are growing nicely into their characters. They do not look "too old" unless you're going by usual Hollywood standard of using a child of 10 to portray a child of 12 and using "snappy" dialogue to give the "wise beyond years" effect.
Clever marketing and using younger actors may be a neat trick to fool unwise parents into thinking that the movie is meant for their little one and buying a ticket (a la Kangaroo Jack which pissed off many parents) but if you've ever seen a child carried out of a movie screaming or crying you'd know that it's an awfully cruel one.
Recently George Lucas publicly stated that he is dismayed that the "marketing machine" insists on marketing Episode Three toys and merchandise to a target audience of five and six year olds. He also stated that taking anyone under the age of 12 to see Episode Three is a big mistake.
True Potter fans have been saying the same thing about HP since Movie the first. WB insists on marketing these stories to the preschool and elementary set when in reality the stories are very dark and anyone taking a small child to see Goblet of Fire is going to get their feelings hurt and have to take a terrified child home; especially since all the gory bits don't happen until near the end.
The actors are the right age. The children attending are not.
You know... maybe in this industry it's not the users who are idiots. Just a thought.
Looks like a thought that will never be modded up around here either despite how absolutely spot on you are.
As you say, it is so much easier to write someone off as an idiot and be done with it than actually place the blame squarely where it belongs.
Microsoft. It's all their fault. There I said it. I don't know how it's their fault but at least since I blamed Microsoft for the failure of end users to understand anything, I know this is one post that should get +++555!!!!!!1111 teh ghey, she rox, special moddedity uppest award.
Say it with me now Slashdot: If you're not a part of the solution....
Just for today, Harry Potter fans can Ask Peeves
The OP could have expounded a bit, but I ask you all to reconsider as this was also my first, and yes a tad callous, thought.
Her parents were shot by an intruder. Daughter was obviously either hiding or protected well enough that she didn't get shot. The article states that she is 17 not 7 so the expectation is that she would not only know her address but also be able to provide location information, even in a brief space of time.
911 is to dispatch as soon as possible in an ermegency. That does not guarantee that any further mayhem may not occur until the calvary arrives. Dialing 911 is only the beginning of help. It's not a direct guarantee that the the minute you call, you're safe. It just means that someone else now knows that something bad has happened and that possibly the danger isn't over.
If you dial "0" on a Vonage phone do you get a local operator? Does someone even think about any of this in a time of emergency when their life is in danger? Probably not. Maybe not especially a 17 year old kid who's parents have been shot.
However, I work in telecom. People call and cancel their long distance because they're switching all their land line based svc to switch to VoIP. And I ask them if they are aware that they may not be able to reach 911. And the response 9 times out of 10 is that the savings is worth the risk. Of course no one will think that after an emergency. I wonder if her parents took the risk, initialed the little box, checked the appropriate little form box and if so, the risk factor assumed is their own, not Vonage's.
This also speaks to the litigous depths we will sink too. I'm so very tired of people, especially over-eager attorneys, thinking of lawsuits first instead of, "this was awful, let's work on preventing it in the future". Once upon a time we realized the world was not a perfect place. Now when we get pissed off or hurt or even just on a soapbox, we sue.
I hope Vonage doesn't have to spend more time and money focusing on a lawsuit than they could on improving the service and 911 support. The original post poses the fact that will a lawsuit change what happened? The answer is no. Will Vonage improve their service, lawsuit or no? Of course. Time and technology will take care of that.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
Should this one sentence be true, despite being a Senator, this man has a very narrow-minded and dark view of technology. And obvioulsy so do many others of his ilk.
Anyone downloading a copyrighted piece of work must have down so illicitly.
People only want media and software for free and will do anything to keep from paying for them.
Anything to do with p2p or torrents are mostly only used for illicit or illegal activities and should punished to a large extent with jail time and huge fines.
Why are we still belaboring these points when we know that they are not true? Why do we continue to put up with idiots like Hatch who goose-step in line with DMCA rhetoric without truly understanding what they are condemning?
Instead of having the endless debate we've had on this type stuff before, let's answer a question: What are we going to take our government back? What can I do personally to make sure that idiots like this guy are not held in responsible office?
I want the people in office to actually hear my voice and represent my view. Your view. I'm tired of debating and I'm ready to put my time and money where my mouth is.
What do I do next?
I find that many Slashdotters are heartlessly callous towards end user needs and issues.
1. Filter all the comments up to 5
2. Print
3. Take to your favority end user
Even if they can follow the thread of the conversation, ask them if they would know how ACCOMPLISH the actual taks and tips given in the posts.
And please, no jejune whing about how you're tired of having to give out free help. If you're not a part of the solution...
I couldn't agree more. There are only 10 stars within 10 light years of us -- one trinary, two doubles and three individual stars. None of them are anywhere near being potential supernovae. The BBC sensationalism was pointless and misleading.
I find this is an interesting cosmic take on the classic "it just barely missed me by this much" story.
The truth of our culture is mired in tall tales like these even if the miss was more like a parsec or two instead of the millimeters we claim. I'll even go so far as to say that despite the possible lack of scientific accuracy, we need more stories like these...more Independence day type stories where it's us against the universe. Not discovering an alien race; we're not ready and we don't need anyone else to discriminate against or fight with. Maybe just the equivalent of a cosmic tsunami to shake us up and pull us together. It seems disasters are the only time the people on this planet are at their best anymore.
Maybe a galactic "Scared Straight" program is exactly what Earth needs.