No, I won't lecture you on maturity an proper behavior, it would be a waste of time. In fact, maybe you are right about how allowing the common person to say anything cheapens the quality of the written word, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Oh by the way, thanks for giving me a topic for my latest blog entry, and I'm glad you enjoy the blog! The way you keep writing to me about it, I can tell that you really do care. I'm really sorry, but I did have to cut off your ability to "crapflood" it, though, since a bunch of other people also read it. I'm not really sure how effective your crapflood was, though, since the five minutes or so it took me to remove the posts haven't yet convinced me to stop writing. I guess you'll have to waste some more of your own energy and try to figure out some other way to vandalize it. Good luck with that, I'll keep an eye on it to see what you come up with.
Now I've really got to go. I'm sure that the nice folks on Slashdot don't want to read any more diatribes and there are a lot more people I have to scream about Daylight Saving Time about. I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you if you post your e-mail address. And just so you look a little less silly to your next troll target, "sycophant" is spelled "syco-," not "sycho-." Later...
Hopefully, this answer is a little less facetious than the others...
The overwhelming majority of people who would watch the movie because it's a Firefly movie already know that it's coming out. The people who don't know about Firefly don't really care what it's called.
And IMHO, Serenity is a much cooler name than Firefly. It will probably draw a bigger crowd from the latter group, which is composed of a lot more people.
In 2007, Wonder Woman. Why do I get the feeling that it will be a lot different—and a lot better—than the '70's Lynda Carter series? (Not that there's anything particularly wrong with the '70's Lynda Carter series...)
But does that mean that we have to pretend that it doesn't happen?
The article doesn't pretend that it doesn't happen, it simply points out that the number is based on wild-ass guesses collected by a company that has a vested interest in making the numbers appear as bad as possible.
In this case, I believe that the "We'd better defend it now!" people are fully justified.
If I were really in an emergency, I wouldn't even use a cell phone.
If I were really in an emergency, I would probably use whatever communication method is closest, even if it were a tin can with a string hanging out the end of it.
For real, I have a land line and a cell phone. I don't have a VoIP phone, but I've used them. If I were really in an emergency, I wouldn't hesitate to use any of the three and would only resort to one farther away if my first choice didn't work or if the emergency personnel on the other end specifically requested it. I probably wouldn't even stop to think about it.
I've beenscreaming for years and I'll say it again: Daylight Saving Time is a stupid concept that should be done away with as soon as possible.
I hope whoever came up with the idea of pretending that it's an hour earlier than it really is is burning in hell right now, along with those who codified this weird lunacy into law.
I could give you a thousand reasons why it should be eliminated, but here's the most important one to me. Noon has historically been the time, more or less, when the sun is high in the sky. Daylight Savings Time completely does away with that rationale. Now, noon is only defined by what we personally find convenient.
This wasn't just for the cameras. I was at a convention in Atlanta, Georgia back in my hard-core Trekkie days (I've mellowed out a bit...). Being a broke teenager, I could only afford a one-day pass, and they didn't schedule any autograph sessions for that day. During his Q&A session, I asked him if my buddy and I could have autographs since we wouldn't be able to see him during the other two days.
He said of course we could, he didn't realize that they were selling one-day passes and thought everyone there would be there for two more days. Right there in the Q&A, he said that anyone who wouldn't have another chance to see him on one of the other two days could meet him in the hallway after the Q&A and get autographs.
After the Q&A, he stayed late and a handful of people met him out in the hall while he signed autographs. I was very impressed that the whole room didn't go right then (kudos to the Trekkies!), but more than that, I was impressed that Jimmy Doohan went clearly above and beyond what he was obligated to do just for the sake of being a nice guy. Out in the hallway, he was extremely personable and it was obvious that he wasn't just going through the motions of getting a bunch of Trekkies (myself included) out of his hair, an impression I got from some of the other actors.
Nowadays, I'm not so much a Star Trek fan, but one of my most prized possessions is still my autographed copy of Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. Not because of the autograph, because I have lots of 'em from various people, but because of the memory of what a nice guy Jimmy Doohan was and how special it was that he took some time out of his schedule and his life just to be a nice guy to me, an anonymous guy he didn't know and would very likely never see again.
And yes, of all of the Star Trek actors I've read about beyond their non-Trek lives, Jimmy Doohan is BY FAR the most interesting, courageous and noble one. Christ, the man was shot by Nazis six times with a machine gun in World War II while storming a beach! In my book, that makes him a bigger hero than even the fictional Captain Kirk.
I like the idea of IPTV, but not in the way that it is being used in this article. I'd really like the concepts of networks and channels to pretty much go away, leaving only studios and ISPs.
As it stands now, studios have to beg and plead networks to carry their programming, and a lot of times, they have to compromise their artistic creativity to pander to the networks' need to sell advertising to sponsors and meet stupid FCC anti-obscenity standards. Consumers have to pick through hundreds of hours of worthless drivel to find a veryfewpricelessgems.
With IPTV, we could completely cut out the middlemen. We watch and pay for exactly what we want to watch and pay for, tv studios get to make exactly what they want to make, and everyone's happy. Well, everyone except the former network executives, who are used to telling us what we're supposed to like to watch and screwing creative people for the sake of petty power.
Which on Slashdot, has very little bearing on whether or not it's funny.
Look, like I said, I have no problem with anyone picking on Bill Gates because he wants to rule the software world and destroy people who want to give their software away for free. But there's a huge difference between picking on Bill Gates because he's evil and picking on Bill Gates because he's nerdy. Being a nerd myself, I'll defend him every time against latter attacks, even if it costs me some Slashdot karma.
Hell, I have been known to tell a few self-deprecating nerd jokes. But that's not what this was. This was a malicious attack against a specific person for a quality that almost everyone here shares to some extent. Maybe you also think that <insert ethnicity or physical trait> jokes are funny to a lot of people, and maybe in some situations, some of them actually are. But posting them in a <insert ethnicity or physical trait> forum is not only bad taste, it's a generally assholish thing to do. And when someone who happens to be a <insert ethnicity or physical trait> gets irritated, you shouldn't be surprised.
You know, if you want to pick on Bill Gates for his business practices, his attitude towards open source software, or any of his other actions or beliefs, knock yourself out.
Having a rather thick skin, I'm not terribly offended or anything, but why, on a "News for Nerds" site, are you picking on the man for no other reason than, well, being a nerd? And why, pray tell, is this rather personal malicious and unwarranted attack modded up as "Funny"?
And last, but not least, I doubt that a married multibillionaire (with three kids, incidentally) needs to masturbate very often no matter how nerdy he is, but not being privvy to his personal life (or a multibillionaire), I'm just guessing.
1) The article isn't about the invention of the Internet, it is about the invention of the World Wide Web.
2) How many times do we have to hear the joke about Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet? It's a myth that Al Gore ever claimed to have anything to do with the technical design of the Internet. He did indeed, however, have a large role in providing the environment in which it became the "Information Superhighway" that it is today.
Amazingly enough, Oxford's American Dictionary disagrees with you. "Facade" with a "c" is a perfectly legitimate spelling. It always pays to back up your pedantry with research.
But you didn't say that either was correct. In fact, you went so far as to insult the original poster by calling him names and belittling his claim.
If the third sentence above had been something like, "In normal typing, it could go either way," then I probably would have overlooked the fact that your first sentence was wrong. But what you originally implied was that because "facade" is a legitimate alterate spelling of the word "façade," it therefore follows that Facade is an acceptable alternative name of the game for Façade. Maybe the game designers don't care, maybe they do, but in either case, the implication that the former necessarily makes the latter true is just plain wrong.
In other words, the fact that the Oxford American Dictionary says that "facade" is a word has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Facade is an acceptable typographic representation of the name of the game. The original poster may be pedantic, but in return, you were obnoxious. If you had just been a little less so, I might have actually agreed with you, and there probably wouldn't have been an argument.
Oh, and yes, I do try to observe the correct use of umlauts and essets when possible, even on Slashdot. Thinking that no one does (or should) is rather naïve, in my opinion...
Just because "facade" is a legitimate spelling of that word (according to many dictionaries, the only correct spelling, in fact), it doesn't make it the correct spelling of this game. The parent may be nitpicky (or pedantic even), but if you follow the link in the article, you will see that technically, he is correct.
It's a little bit like someone pointing out that the name of a popular doughnut chain here is "Dunkin' Donuts," not "Dunking Doughnuts." You can point out until you're blue in the face that the latter is orthographically correct, but that doesn't make it the name of the restaraunt.
Well, like I said, I didn't mean to pick on you, but I do disagree with the attitude that what they're doing is aggrandizing.
First of all, everyone seems to be assuming that they're holding a big-time concert for the employees, and as long as they're doing that, maybe they can make a few brownie points (and extra sales) with customers by Webcasting it, too.
I don't think that's necessarily a valid assumption. According to the promo site, "Amazon.com is pleased to invite you to help us celebrate our 10th anniversary with a concert featuring Bob Dylan and Norah Jones, as well as all-time customer-favorite authors and filmmakers." How do you know that they weren't going to Webcast the concert as a genuine show of thanks to the customers, and figured as long as they're going to have a concert, they might as well hold it at Benaroya Hall and invite their Seattle employees as an extra special thanks?
Also, you cite some examples of thoughtful gifts such as pottery books and pies and conclude with Amazon not finding out too much about their customers. How do you know this? I'm betting that an awful lot of customers adore Bob Dylan, Norah Jones, Bill Maher, and everyone else they have scheduled to participate. What exactly were they supposed to do? Call millions of customers' friends and relatives to find out what special gift would be just what that guy who ordered a copy of The Illustrated Book Of Anal Sex would appreciate? (That item, incidentally, is worth checking out for the unsettlingly amusing review alone...)
Some are saying that they'd rather have a discount or some sort of certificate. I disagree, I think that would be a stupid idea. Every podunk store selling cheap crap on tv has anniversary sales, and Amazon's stuff is already less expensive than most everyone else's. To most people, a 10th anniversary customer appreciation sale is-- well, just another stupid sale. But seeing Bob Dylan perform live? That's pretty special, even if it is only on a Webcast. Does it promote more sales? Probably, because it certainly sticks out a lot more than just another sale, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an offer of something unique, not just another sale. And isn't that kind of what you're saying they should have been shooting for?
Well, like I said, I don't find anything disingenuous about this at all. I think it's a nice gesture, and I for one appreciate it a lot more than the nothing that most companies do to thank their customers, and a lot more than just another "one day only!" sale.
Hmmm, an event that's unique, that's special, that's financially practical, and that will likely build on considerable customer goodwill... I think that the PR guys at Amazon actually hit a homerun on this one, Slashdotters' opinions notwithstanding.
I [am] Jesus and I like John Ashcroft's singing, you insensitive clod!
If you were Jesus, you never would have let anyone in America even know who John Ashcroft is. I will still always remember him neither as the Attorney General of the United States nor as the number one runner up to Shatner's "I Want to Sex You Up" as the biggest earbleed of all time, but as the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead guy.
Voters of Missouri: "Hmmm... Ashcroft or dead guy. Ashcroft or dead guy... I'll take the dead guy!"
George W. Bush: "Yep, the loser to the dead guy is the person I want as one of the most powerful people in my administration! Oh, and could you please vote for me again in 2004?"
Okay fine, hate them for the patent stuff, that's a valid answer to my question. But that's not what everyone was complaining about. A quick search on the front comment page for the word "patent" picked up three comments about it. All the others are stuff like this:
A free concert I can't goto and with 2 people I probably wouldn't go see anyway...
...a 30% discount on my next 10 purchases would suffice!
Why don't they post pictures of the company picnic too.
Throw me your table scraps, Amazon! Look! I'm begging!
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but what I don't understand is why people are acting like it's some kind of grave insult to us that Amazon is offering a free Webcast of a concert they are hosting. Whether you like the artists or not, I might add, they are two pretty big names. I'm sure there are lots of average schmoes out there who will enjoy seeing the concert, even if it is streaming over the Web.
Just in case someone from Amazon happens to read Slashdot and makes it this far into the comments, the repliers to my parent comment are right about the patent stuff, but I, a long-time paying customer, do think the free concert is a good idea. Though I probably won't watch it, since I'm not a big fan of Dylan or Jones, I do appreciate the thought and willingness to Webcast it. And I think that the views expressed above are weird exceptions; most people out there feel the same as I do.
Well, it may not be much of an issue now, but this is quickly changing.
Both Microsoft and Sony are playing with the idea that these game consoles will do more than merely play games. If it also has DVR functionality, advanced DVD capabilities, etc., then the day will soon arrive where people DO leave them on 24x7.
I have a TiVo, which is just a special-purpose computer. I wouldn't mind at all if it had a "power down" mode that would run a grid application such as trying to help cure cancer while it's not recording anything and I'm not watching anything.
And for what it's worth, both my Xbox and PS2 stay on 24x7. When I'm done playing a game, I usually just switch the input on the tv, not actually turn the console off. Am I alone in this?
For real, why is everyone bashing Amazon? I buy stuff from them all the time. The prices are very competitive on most items, and the selection of stuff is hard to beat. I've been a pretty loyal customer since 1998, and unless something is significantly cheaper somewhere else, I almost always buy anything I need that they sell there.
If you don't like Bob Dylan or Norah Jones, then don't watch the frickin' concert! Jesus, you'd think that they were having John Ashcroft in concert or something, the way everyone is reacting! ("Let the eagle soar!..." Ugh.)
My company, a large Fortune 100, does this periodically. For special occasions, it will sponsor a concert for the employees and VIPs. Chances are that Amazon was going to have the concert anyway, and decided to Webcast it just to be nice, so give 'em a frickin' break, already!
Sheesh, talk about no good deed going unpunished...
Ah, sorry, DEAD is hexadecimal for 57,005 in decimal, so the difference between 57,005 coders and me (presumably all by my lonesome) is 57,004 programmers. It explains the t-shirt, too. Like I said, it's corny, but for some reason, it strikes me as really funny.:-)
First of all, I can't think of anything stopping the same thing from happening with Linux software. Although it's ever elusive, if Linux does eventually become the desktop standard, do you think that average Linux users will conscienciously check every MD5 hash for every binary they download? Probably not. Even if some external means of verification exists that a program is authentic, it adds a layer of complexity to using the system that most average people, given the choice, simply won't use.
Which brings me to my second point, that if you have to blame anything you mentioned, the emphasis should be on the USER, not the operating system. And personally, I don't blame the average user because I think that there's no excuse for computers and software not being easy and intuitive enough for average users to use without having to spend hours and hours learning it. So who does the blame lie with? Primarily, the developers of virii and adware. Secondarily, the developer community (closed AND open source) for not putting enough emphasis on security with ease of use. And the problem with feeling that they "deserve their pop-ups" is that they're not just hurting themselves by throttling their own bandwidth, they are collectively throttling the bandwidth of the entire Internet, and that makes it your and my problem, too.
Third, I am a Windows user for around twelve years, and a damn competent one, if I do say so myself. I have never once been hacked, infected, or adwared (can that be used as a verb?) without it being a deliberate action on my part for academic purposes. If Windows were such an insecure operating system, it seems that no amount of virus and adware protection would prevent me from eventually getting some nasty bug. The fact is that with a few simple actions, Windows is as safe and secure for an average user as any other OS.
In addition to pointing out the obvious (which I'm not criticizing you for, sometimes things need to be said), please do something about it. A nice start might be what I did: Buy a spindle of CD-R's and burn a copy of a FOSS antivirus program, adware detector/remover, Firefox, etc. and start handing it out to your friends and family, and offer to help out in giving their machines a periodic tune-up (or overhaul, as the case may be) to make their lives--and by extension, your life--a little easier and better.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I won't lecture you on maturity an proper behavior, it would be a waste of time. In fact, maybe you are right about how allowing the common person to say anything cheapens the quality of the written word, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Oh by the way, thanks for giving me a topic for my latest blog entry, and I'm glad you enjoy the blog! The way you keep writing to me about it, I can tell that you really do care. I'm really sorry, but I did have to cut off your ability to "crapflood" it, though, since a bunch of other people also read it. I'm not really sure how effective your crapflood was, though, since the five minutes or so it took me to remove the posts haven't yet convinced me to stop writing. I guess you'll have to waste some more of your own energy and try to figure out some other way to vandalize it. Good luck with that, I'll keep an eye on it to see what you come up with.
Now I've really got to go. I'm sure that the nice folks on Slashdot don't want to read any more diatribes and there are a lot more people I have to scream about Daylight Saving Time about. I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you if you post your e-mail address. And just so you look a little less silly to your next troll target, "sycophant" is spelled "syco-," not "sycho-." Later...
Hopefully, this answer is a little less facetious than the others...
The overwhelming majority of people who would watch the movie because it's a Firefly movie already know that it's coming out. The people who don't know about Firefly don't really care what it's called.
And IMHO, Serenity is a much cooler name than Firefly. It will probably draw a bigger crowd from the latter group, which is composed of a lot more people.
But I'm just guessing.
In 2007, Wonder Woman. Why do I get the feeling that it will be a lot different—and a lot better—than the '70's Lynda Carter series? (Not that there's anything particularly wrong with the '70's Lynda Carter series...)
I still have their refridgerator magnets and magnet shopping lists. God, how I loved Webvan. And the bins are still great...
They didn't, it's number nine. (Why do I suddenly hear The White Album in my head?)
Here it is, enjoy!
The article doesn't pretend that it doesn't happen, it simply points out that the number is based on wild-ass guesses collected by a company that has a vested interest in making the numbers appear as bad as possible.
In this case, I believe that the "We'd better defend it now!" people are fully justified.
If I were really in an emergency, I would probably use whatever communication method is closest, even if it were a tin can with a string hanging out the end of it.
For real, I have a land line and a cell phone. I don't have a VoIP phone, but I've used them. If I were really in an emergency, I wouldn't hesitate to use any of the three and would only resort to one farther away if my first choice didn't work or if the emergency personnel on the other end specifically requested it. I probably wouldn't even stop to think about it.
The real trick is, your opinions ought to hurt my feelings but they don't.
Because I don't care.
What are you, six years old? Can't you find any kids to pick on at recess instead, or are you afraid they'll tell your mommy?
(bigger sigh with eyes rolling.)
Oops, I linked to the wrong comment post above, I didn't write that one. I did, however, write one of the replies.
I've been screaming for years and I'll say it again: Daylight Saving Time is a stupid concept that should be done away with as soon as possible.
I hope whoever came up with the idea of pretending that it's an hour earlier than it really is is burning in hell right now, along with those who codified this weird lunacy into law.
I could give you a thousand reasons why it should be eliminated, but here's the most important one to me. Noon has historically been the time, more or less, when the sun is high in the sky. Daylight Savings Time completely does away with that rationale. Now, noon is only defined by what we personally find convenient.
(sigh.)
This wasn't just for the cameras. I was at a convention in Atlanta, Georgia back in my hard-core Trekkie days (I've mellowed out a bit...). Being a broke teenager, I could only afford a one-day pass, and they didn't schedule any autograph sessions for that day. During his Q&A session, I asked him if my buddy and I could have autographs since we wouldn't be able to see him during the other two days.
He said of course we could, he didn't realize that they were selling one-day passes and thought everyone there would be there for two more days. Right there in the Q&A, he said that anyone who wouldn't have another chance to see him on one of the other two days could meet him in the hallway after the Q&A and get autographs.
After the Q&A, he stayed late and a handful of people met him out in the hall while he signed autographs. I was very impressed that the whole room didn't go right then (kudos to the Trekkies!), but more than that, I was impressed that Jimmy Doohan went clearly above and beyond what he was obligated to do just for the sake of being a nice guy. Out in the hallway, he was extremely personable and it was obvious that he wasn't just going through the motions of getting a bunch of Trekkies (myself included) out of his hair, an impression I got from some of the other actors.
Nowadays, I'm not so much a Star Trek fan, but one of my most prized possessions is still my autographed copy of Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. Not because of the autograph, because I have lots of 'em from various people, but because of the memory of what a nice guy Jimmy Doohan was and how special it was that he took some time out of his schedule and his life just to be a nice guy to me, an anonymous guy he didn't know and would very likely never see again.
And yes, of all of the Star Trek actors I've read about beyond their non-Trek lives, Jimmy Doohan is BY FAR the most interesting, courageous and noble one. Christ, the man was shot by Nazis six times with a machine gun in World War II while storming a beach! In my book, that makes him a bigger hero than even the fictional Captain Kirk.
I like the idea of IPTV, but not in the way that it is being used in this article. I'd really like the concepts of networks and channels to pretty much go away, leaving only studios and ISPs.
As it stands now, studios have to beg and plead networks to carry their programming, and a lot of times, they have to compromise their artistic creativity to pander to the networks' need to sell advertising to sponsors and meet stupid FCC anti-obscenity standards. Consumers have to pick through hundreds of hours of worthless drivel to find a very few priceless gems.
With IPTV, we could completely cut out the middlemen. We watch and pay for exactly what we want to watch and pay for, tv studios get to make exactly what they want to make, and everyone's happy. Well, everyone except the former network executives, who are used to telling us what we're supposed to like to watch and screwing creative people for the sake of petty power.
Well, as long as I'm drawing Flamebait mods...
Which on Slashdot, has very little bearing on whether or not it's funny .
Look, like I said, I have no problem with anyone picking on Bill Gates because he wants to rule the software world and destroy people who want to give their software away for free. But there's a huge difference between picking on Bill Gates because he's evil and picking on Bill Gates because he's nerdy. Being a nerd myself, I'll defend him every time against latter attacks, even if it costs me some Slashdot karma.
Hell, I have been known to tell a few self-deprecating nerd jokes. But that's not what this was. This was a malicious attack against a specific person for a quality that almost everyone here shares to some extent. Maybe you also think that <insert ethnicity or physical trait> jokes are funny to a lot of people, and maybe in some situations, some of them actually are. But posting them in a <insert ethnicity or physical trait> forum is not only bad taste, it's a generally assholish thing to do. And when someone who happens to be a <insert ethnicity or physical trait> gets irritated, you shouldn't be surprised.
You know, if you want to pick on Bill Gates for his business practices, his attitude towards open source software, or any of his other actions or beliefs, knock yourself out.
Having a rather thick skin, I'm not terribly offended or anything, but why, on a "News for Nerds" site, are you picking on the man for no other reason than, well, being a nerd? And why, pray tell, is this rather personal malicious and unwarranted attack modded up as "Funny"?
And last, but not least, I doubt that a married multibillionaire (with three kids, incidentally) needs to masturbate very often no matter how nerdy he is, but not being privvy to his personal life (or a multibillionaire), I'm just guessing.
1) The article isn't about the invention of the Internet, it is about the invention of the World Wide Web.
2) How many times do we have to hear the joke about Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet? It's a myth that Al Gore ever claimed to have anything to do with the technical design of the Internet. He did indeed, however, have a large role in providing the environment in which it became the "Information Superhighway" that it is today.
Amazingly enough, Oxford's American Dictionary disagrees with you. "Facade" with a "c" is a perfectly legitimate spelling. It always pays to back up your pedantry with research.
But you didn't say that either was correct. In fact, you went so far as to insult the original poster by calling him names and belittling his claim.
If the third sentence above had been something like, "In normal typing, it could go either way," then I probably would have overlooked the fact that your first sentence was wrong. But what you originally implied was that because "facade" is a legitimate alterate spelling of the word "façade," it therefore follows that Facade is an acceptable alternative name of the game for Façade. Maybe the game designers don't care, maybe they do, but in either case, the implication that the former necessarily makes the latter true is just plain wrong.
In other words, the fact that the Oxford American Dictionary says that "facade" is a word has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Facade is an acceptable typographic representation of the name of the game. The original poster may be pedantic, but in return, you were obnoxious. If you had just been a little less so, I might have actually agreed with you, and there probably wouldn't have been an argument.
Oh, and yes, I do try to observe the correct use of umlauts and essets when possible, even on Slashdot. Thinking that no one does (or should) is rather naïve, in my opinion...
I hate to point this out, but...
Just because "facade" is a legitimate spelling of that word (according to many dictionaries, the only correct spelling, in fact), it doesn't make it the correct spelling of this game. The parent may be nitpicky (or pedantic even), but if you follow the link in the article, you will see that technically, he is correct.
It's a little bit like someone pointing out that the name of a popular doughnut chain here is "Dunkin' Donuts," not "Dunking Doughnuts." You can point out until you're blue in the face that the latter is orthographically correct, but that doesn't make it the name of the restaraunt.
Well, like I said, I didn't mean to pick on you, but I do disagree with the attitude that what they're doing is aggrandizing.
First of all, everyone seems to be assuming that they're holding a big-time concert for the employees, and as long as they're doing that, maybe they can make a few brownie points (and extra sales) with customers by Webcasting it, too.
I don't think that's necessarily a valid assumption. According to the promo site, "Amazon.com is pleased to invite you to help us celebrate our 10th anniversary with a concert featuring Bob Dylan and Norah Jones, as well as all-time customer-favorite authors and filmmakers." How do you know that they weren't going to Webcast the concert as a genuine show of thanks to the customers, and figured as long as they're going to have a concert, they might as well hold it at Benaroya Hall and invite their Seattle employees as an extra special thanks?
Also, you cite some examples of thoughtful gifts such as pottery books and pies and conclude with Amazon not finding out too much about their customers. How do you know this? I'm betting that an awful lot of customers adore Bob Dylan, Norah Jones, Bill Maher, and everyone else they have scheduled to participate. What exactly were they supposed to do? Call millions of customers' friends and relatives to find out what special gift would be just what that guy who ordered a copy of The Illustrated Book Of Anal Sex would appreciate? (That item, incidentally, is worth checking out for the unsettlingly amusing review alone...)
Some are saying that they'd rather have a discount or some sort of certificate. I disagree, I think that would be a stupid idea. Every podunk store selling cheap crap on tv has anniversary sales, and Amazon's stuff is already less expensive than most everyone else's. To most people, a 10th anniversary customer appreciation sale is-- well, just another stupid sale. But seeing Bob Dylan perform live? That's pretty special, even if it is only on a Webcast. Does it promote more sales? Probably, because it certainly sticks out a lot more than just another sale, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an offer of something unique, not just another sale. And isn't that kind of what you're saying they should have been shooting for?
Well, like I said, I don't find anything disingenuous about this at all. I think it's a nice gesture, and I for one appreciate it a lot more than the nothing that most companies do to thank their customers, and a lot more than just another "one day only!" sale.
Hmmm, an event that's unique, that's special, that's financially practical, and that will likely build on considerable customer goodwill... I think that the PR guys at Amazon actually hit a homerun on this one, Slashdotters' opinions notwithstanding.
<rant style="color:political; rant-type:offtopic;">
I [am] Jesus and I like John Ashcroft's singing, you insensitive clod!
If you were Jesus, you never would have let anyone in America even know who John Ashcroft is. I will still always remember him neither as the Attorney General of the United States nor as the number one runner up to Shatner's "I Want to Sex You Up" as the biggest earbleed of all time, but as the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead guy.
</rant>
Blah blah blah patent blah blah...
Okay fine, hate them for the patent stuff, that's a valid answer to my question. But that's not what everyone was complaining about. A quick search on the front comment page for the word "patent" picked up three comments about it. All the others are stuff like this:
A free concert I can't goto and with 2 people I probably wouldn't go see anyway...
Why don't they post pictures of the company picnic too.
Throw me your table scraps, Amazon! Look! I'm begging!
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but what I don't understand is why people are acting like it's some kind of grave insult to us that Amazon is offering a free Webcast of a concert they are hosting. Whether you like the artists or not, I might add, they are two pretty big names. I'm sure there are lots of average schmoes out there who will enjoy seeing the concert, even if it is streaming over the Web.
Just in case someone from Amazon happens to read Slashdot and makes it this far into the comments, the repliers to my parent comment are right about the patent stuff, but I, a long-time paying customer, do think the free concert is a good idea. Though I probably won't watch it, since I'm not a big fan of Dylan or Jones, I do appreciate the thought and willingness to Webcast it. And I think that the views expressed above are weird exceptions; most people out there feel the same as I do.
Well, it may not be much of an issue now, but this is quickly changing.
Both Microsoft and Sony are playing with the idea that these game consoles will do more than merely play games. If it also has DVR functionality, advanced DVD capabilities, etc., then the day will soon arrive where people DO leave them on 24x7.
I have a TiVo, which is just a special-purpose computer. I wouldn't mind at all if it had a "power down" mode that would run a grid application such as trying to help cure cancer while it's not recording anything and I'm not watching anything.
And for what it's worth, both my Xbox and PS2 stay on 24x7. When I'm done playing a game, I usually just switch the input on the tv, not actually turn the console off. Am I alone in this?
For real, why is everyone bashing Amazon? I buy stuff from them all the time. The prices are very competitive on most items, and the selection of stuff is hard to beat. I've been a pretty loyal customer since 1998, and unless something is significantly cheaper somewhere else, I almost always buy anything I need that they sell there.
If you don't like Bob Dylan or Norah Jones, then don't watch the frickin' concert! Jesus, you'd think that they were having John Ashcroft in concert or something, the way everyone is reacting! ("Let the eagle soar!..." Ugh.)
My company, a large Fortune 100, does this periodically. For special occasions, it will sponsor a concert for the employees and VIPs. Chances are that Amazon was going to have the concert anyway, and decided to Webcast it just to be nice, so give 'em a frickin' break, already!
Sheesh, talk about no good deed going unpunished...
Ah, sorry, DEAD is hexadecimal for 57,005 in decimal, so the difference between 57,005 coders and me (presumably all by my lonesome) is 57,004 programmers. It explains the t-shirt, too. Like I said, it's corny, but for some reason, it strikes me as really funny. :-)
It's not a Windows problem.
First of all, I can't think of anything stopping the same thing from happening with Linux software. Although it's ever elusive, if Linux does eventually become the desktop standard, do you think that average Linux users will conscienciously check every MD5 hash for every binary they download? Probably not. Even if some external means of verification exists that a program is authentic, it adds a layer of complexity to using the system that most average people, given the choice, simply won't use.
Which brings me to my second point, that if you have to blame anything you mentioned, the emphasis should be on the USER, not the operating system. And personally, I don't blame the average user because I think that there's no excuse for computers and software not being easy and intuitive enough for average users to use without having to spend hours and hours learning it. So who does the blame lie with? Primarily, the developers of virii and adware. Secondarily, the developer community (closed AND open source) for not putting enough emphasis on security with ease of use. And the problem with feeling that they "deserve their pop-ups" is that they're not just hurting themselves by throttling their own bandwidth, they are collectively throttling the bandwidth of the entire Internet, and that makes it your and my problem, too.
Third, I am a Windows user for around twelve years, and a damn competent one, if I do say so myself. I have never once been hacked, infected, or adwared (can that be used as a verb?) without it being a deliberate action on my part for academic purposes. If Windows were such an insecure operating system, it seems that no amount of virus and adware protection would prevent me from eventually getting some nasty bug. The fact is that with a few simple actions, Windows is as safe and secure for an average user as any other OS.
In addition to pointing out the obvious (which I'm not criticizing you for, sometimes things need to be said), please do something about it. A nice start might be what I did: Buy a spindle of CD-R's and burn a copy of a FOSS antivirus program, adware detector/remover, Firefox, etc. and start handing it out to your friends and family, and offer to help out in giving their machines a periodic tune-up (or overhaul, as the case may be) to make their lives--and by extension, your life--a little easier and better.