I guess the point is; getting annoyed at people for using the most popular operating system (which obviously is the one keyloggers are going to target) is just about the most pointless thing you can do. By basic definition everyone can't be part of the minority.
t's worth keeping in mind that television in the UK has a very different flavor then in the US.
Correct.
Firstly, the country is geographically smaller, so it's all national. There are no local affiliates. Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.
WRONG. There are local variations for most of the main "terrestrial" channels.
Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever, they are funded by a per household tv tax.
WRONG. BBC2 is a minority channel.
Only somewhat 'new' channels like Four have ads and they are often regarded as somewhat 'tacky'.
WRONG. ITV, the main commercial TV network has been broadcasting (with adverts) for over 50 years.
Maybe I'm missing something, but all I ever seen to see on UK tv is ads for car insurance and ring tones.
Hmmm, kind of depends what your viewing habits are.
Spammers and scammers love being thought stupid. They want you to think you're smarter than them. They want to be underestimated.
Maybe spammers don't need to be technological geniuses, and maybe some of them can't spell, but they aren't dumb. In the classic manner of all human history, they are the slightly smarter making money out of the not so smart. The real morons here are the ones who, incredibly, actually take financial advice from spam.
Unfortunately the morons will always be with us, and perhaps this increase in spam is a sign that more internet users are getting the message on spam and binning it. The spam's response rate goes down, and so the spammer cranks ups the volume in order to compensate. As long as we have one moron in a hundred thousand, spam can still turn a profit. Remember, the cost of spam isn't born by the spammer. They're getting something pretty much for nothing, and no-one's making any real effort to stop them.
This will never, ever end while conducted as a techie game of hide the email.
The best method of information extraction is torture, it's also the least humane (least human?). Torture has it's risks too however, the spanish inquisition proved that when they would torture people until they confessed just to stop the torture.
Erm, don't you just contradict yourself there? The victim knows the best way to stop the torture is to tell the torturer what they want to hear, and usually they have a very good idea what that is. Great if the torturer just wants confirmation of what they have already decided, really bad if they want the actual truth.
The best way to extract information is in a way that the source doesn't know what you wish to know and isn't aware you're extracting it. That way they have no incentive to either lie or mislead. This is what's usually called spying.
Fair point, but you've got to understand something. Many WoW players are of the age where the world is full of authority figures. Their parents, their teachers, their boss. In their limited experience they think Blizzard fits in nicely with this. They're just another boss-guy getting in the way of the kids having fun. They have rules and stuff. Cue constant whining about everything Blizzard does being unfair, and they hate them.
Unfortunately these kids haven't figured yet that Blizzard is not just like their parents or their teachers. They don't really care about them, and it isn't their job to look out for them, or pick up after them. Blizzard is a company in a free market economy. They only supply the game because they are paid to. So if anyone's the boss, it ain't Blizzard.
But it's really amusing when they get all angsty about being done over by "the man Blizzard". Particularly when they've only themselves to blame.
That's just a little past ridiculous, and I think Blizzard is rightfully feeling some sort of backlash against this.
You know, if they were trinkets that were easy to get then everyone would have them, and all the dimwits who are getting so upset about this wouldn't want them.
And it seems pretty clear to me that having introduced a reward system, Blizzard are unlikely to just leave it at these daft card games. You could pick up points in all manner of other ways. Some points, its to be hoped, could be earned in ways that don't involve you having more money that sense.
I swear to god I'm going to take a claw hammer to the next person who repeats that myth.
Better make sure the person is a "non-citizen" before you start swinging that hammer. They're the ones with no rights, you can do what you want to them. Otherwise you might get into trouble.
Of course, the next step would be defining exactly what is meant by a "citizen". Lets get that sucker narrowed down shall we? Open up what we can do to those damn annoying "non-citizens". Hell, let's stop pussyfooting around, just call them "non-persons" and be done with it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting there's a problem with the web. Not here, not on the BBC article. Clearly the guy was an unstable nutter. "Web Rage" is no different from "Road Rage". No one suggests that the road's at fault when a motorist loses their temper and behaves violently, it's just the background to the behaviour described.
I don't follow your logic. Surely the conversation goes something like this;
Spamhaus: You're in the US, we're in the UK. We don't recognise your court of law.
Illinois Court: Aha! But you recognised us at first when you asked to change jurisdiction! Therefore you must have acknowledged our jurisdiction. So pay your fine!
Spamhaus: Why is asking to change jurisdiction acknowledging jurisdiction?
Illinois Court: Because the law says it does.
Spamhaus: What law?
Illinois Court: United States law.
Spamhaus: *sigh* Please refer to our first statement.
Anyone who has spent any time on Google Video knows about these claims, and those on similar conspiracy nut films. The people who put them on Google are happy to spam the comment sections of other videos in order to direct people to their shoddy videos and get the message out.
It's also interesting to note that their logic here is one of "argumentum ad populum". i.e. lots of people have viewed this video, therefore it must be true, and it becomes more true the more people view it. Therefore, in order to suppress the truth, Google have to conceal how many people have viewed it. (It is also taken for granted that all who view it are convinced of its truth.) And so, the conspiracy nut believes, their crusade towards revealing the truth draws ever nearer.
Naturally, as conspiracy nuts, there's no point trying to discuss opposing facts and reason with them, as this is just further evidence of the all pervading conspiracy. But no matter how many people view their video, it cannot make fact the fantasies of the foolish and ignorant. And the conspiracy in their heads will never cease, because that is what makes it so fascinating to them. If their suspicions were ever, amazingly, proven correct, there will always be another conspiracy within the conspiracy to keep the ball rolling for them.
These students did not go on to MySpace and call their teacher a lesbian (a many posts here seem to think). Had it been that, it would be no more than teenage rantings I'm sure you can find on a million blogs that has no impact on anyone.
What they did do was; go on to MySpace and falsly represented themselves as being their teacher, posted false information about their teacher that was calculated to be harmful, and invited comment from others.
Quite apart from the libel and embarrassment, that could have real life impact on the teacher if some crazy person read the page and decided to take things a bit further than simply commenting.
These students deserve all they get, and if that means taking it to their parents as well, so be it.
I guess sometimes people want the questions that don't matter answered. Why else am I wasting my time answering this? And that's even supposing we're agreed what matters.
What about it's DRM?
What about it? This is an article on iPod random shuffle.
What about the fact that Jobs pulled 99 cents/song out of his ass?
That's not a question, that's begging the question.
So I mentioned that it's seeded and never truly random. So what if it also appeared in a 5 page article? I really don't care. Does that invalidate the rest of my comment?
Yup. It shows you haven't read the article and have no business commenting on it, far less criticising its content.
Re:Gimme a screen shot of Firefox please
on
IE7 Toolbar Mayhem
·
· Score: 1
All he has proved is a dumb user can clutter up the browser with tons of useless toolbars. What is so strange about it?
No he hasn't. If you RTFA, you'll see what he proves is that;
1/ IE7 makes it hard work installing this crap and, unlike previous version, is aware it's happening.
2/ IE7 successfully removes most of it when asked.
People have got so used to reading articles knocking IE in slashdot, they can't actually spot a pro-IE piece when they read it!
You know, instead of wasting your interviewee's time, you could have installed a five song list on your iPod and set it to shuffle.
You seem to be unsure of what makes a good interviewer. It's his job to ask the questions that his readers don't get a chance to. How is discussing a topic that would be of great interest to many and provide Apple an opportunity to talk up their product from an unusual angle, wasting the interviewer's time? I bet Steve Jobs loved the question, which is why he was willing to spend time chasing answers for him.
Would it have been better to discuss iPod colours for the millionth time? I doubt Jobs would think so.
Apart from that. Is there anything in your post that Levy himself doesn't conclude? Or didn't you bother reading that far?
What was most interesting about the whole affair was just how many people were unable to tell reality from "reality tv". There must be a whole lot of people out there whose idea of what is real is based on what they've seen on tv. Makes you wonder just what experience they have, if any, of actual life.
What made it obvious lonelygirl was a professional production.
- the videos were just too good. The deliberate flaws were too easy.
- the story line was just too soap opera and implausible.
- the editing (while looking sharp) looked like the result of multiple takes of the same dialogue.
- they featured foreshadowing of seemingly pointless detail. That's a narrative device that just doesn't happen in real life.
(1) to pay and use when the price is reasonable and the company behind the product respects us
Who decides what is a reasonable price?
You have no right to demand respect from a company that you have no relationship with. If you do not buy a company's product they have no obligations to you, nor you to them.
(2) to protest through whatever means we feel are appropriate when the price to end users is completely absurd or the company treats us like garbage.
Who decides when the price is absurd?
Sorry, but it is anyone's right to value the product of their labour at whatever price they like. If you don't agree with them, then don't pay. Go someplace else or do without. You do not have any relationship with the company, are not their customer, they have no contact with you, so how can they treat you like garbage?
The tone of your post appears to be that you have a right to others work, and if they're not prepared to sell it to you at a price that you like, it's because they don't respect you and treat you like garbage. So its ok therefore for you to just take it anyway.
What makes you think that any of the RIAA money goes to the artists?
Because they are part of the same industry. Your comment is about as dumb as questioning where the money goes when you buy software. What makes you think any of the money goes to the programmer who wrote it? It goes to the software company, doesn't it?
It goes to pay the record labels, who don't give one red cent to the artists (after all, it's not in their contracts.)
You have a remarkable insight into artist contracts and the music industry. Care to show us some of the figures and contracts that prove your sweeping statement?
You have a touching faith in UK libel laws. All they do is ensure that UK newspapers like the Daily Mail know exactly how far to go before falling foul of the law. They are experts in bending the truth just so far, or presenting editorial opinion as a factual report.
Life must be tough for Daily Mail readers. Every day they're told by their paper how evil in the world is conspiring against them to steal their jobs, money, property and very way of life. They must live in a constant state of alarm. No wonder they hate and fear everyone who aren't exactly like them.
You're missing the parent poster's main motivation. It's the "don't pay a fair price for your music and invent a reason to justify it" motivation. They aren't interested in everyone winning.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the point is; getting annoyed at people for using the most popular operating system (which obviously is the one keyloggers are going to target) is just about the most pointless thing you can do. By basic definition everyone can't be part of the minority.
Correct.
Firstly, the country is geographically smaller, so it's all national. There are no local affiliates. Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.
WRONG. There are local variations for most of the main "terrestrial" channels.
Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever, they are funded by a per household tv tax.
WRONG. BBC2 is a minority channel.
Only somewhat 'new' channels like Four have ads and they are often regarded as somewhat 'tacky'.
WRONG. ITV, the main commercial TV network has been broadcasting (with adverts) for over 50 years.
Maybe I'm missing something, but all I ever seen to see on UK tv is ads for car insurance and ring tones.
Hmmm, kind of depends what your viewing habits are.
Except that's not a word. :)
Come to that, neither is the one before it.
Maybe spammers don't need to be technological geniuses, and maybe some of them can't spell, but they aren't dumb. In the classic manner of all human history, they are the slightly smarter making money out of the not so smart. The real morons here are the ones who, incredibly, actually take financial advice from spam.
Unfortunately the morons will always be with us, and perhaps this increase in spam is a sign that more internet users are getting the message on spam and binning it. The spam's response rate goes down, and so the spammer cranks ups the volume in order to compensate. As long as we have one moron in a hundred thousand, spam can still turn a profit. Remember, the cost of spam isn't born by the spammer. They're getting something pretty much for nothing, and no-one's making any real effort to stop them.
This will never, ever end while conducted as a techie game of hide the email.
Erm, don't you just contradict yourself there? The victim knows the best way to stop the torture is to tell the torturer what they want to hear, and usually they have a very good idea what that is. Great if the torturer just wants confirmation of what they have already decided, really bad if they want the actual truth.
The best way to extract information is in a way that the source doesn't know what you wish to know and isn't aware you're extracting it. That way they have no incentive to either lie or mislead. This is what's usually called spying.
You don't Troll recent patents, unless you've found a way of provoking them with dumb comments.
You trawl them.
Let me know once it catches up with the 21st century and is DAB.
Unfortunately these kids haven't figured yet that Blizzard is not just like their parents or their teachers. They don't really care about them, and it isn't their job to look out for them, or pick up after them. Blizzard is a company in a free market economy. They only supply the game because they are paid to. So if anyone's the boss, it ain't Blizzard.
But it's really amusing when they get all angsty about being done over by "the man Blizzard". Particularly when they've only themselves to blame.
You know, if they were trinkets that were easy to get then everyone would have them, and all the dimwits who are getting so upset about this wouldn't want them.
And it seems pretty clear to me that having introduced a reward system, Blizzard are unlikely to just leave it at these daft card games. You could pick up points in all manner of other ways. Some points, its to be hoped, could be earned in ways that don't involve you having more money that sense.
Better make sure the person is a "non-citizen" before you start swinging that hammer. They're the ones with no rights, you can do what you want to them. Otherwise you might get into trouble.
Of course, the next step would be defining exactly what is meant by a "citizen". Lets get that sucker narrowed down shall we? Open up what we can do to those damn annoying "non-citizens". Hell, let's stop pussyfooting around, just call them "non-persons" and be done with it.
And what's the problem with this? If you like WoW, aren't bored with it, then the news that Blizzard plan to keep updating it is good news.
And if want to try another game, there are other companies eager for your custom.
I don't think anyone is suggesting there's a problem with the web. Not here, not on the BBC article. Clearly the guy was an unstable nutter. "Web Rage" is no different from "Road Rage". No one suggests that the road's at fault when a motorist loses their temper and behaves violently, it's just the background to the behaviour described.
Spamhaus: You're in the US, we're in the UK. We don't recognise your court of law.
Illinois Court: Aha! But you recognised us at first when you asked to change jurisdiction! Therefore you must have acknowledged our jurisdiction. So pay your fine!
Spamhaus: Why is asking to change jurisdiction acknowledging jurisdiction?
Illinois Court: Because the law says it does.
Spamhaus: What law?
Illinois Court: United States law.
Spamhaus: *sigh* Please refer to our first statement.
It's also interesting to note that their logic here is one of "argumentum ad populum". i.e. lots of people have viewed this video, therefore it must be true, and it becomes more true the more people view it. Therefore, in order to suppress the truth, Google have to conceal how many people have viewed it. (It is also taken for granted that all who view it are convinced of its truth.) And so, the conspiracy nut believes, their crusade towards revealing the truth draws ever nearer.
Naturally, as conspiracy nuts, there's no point trying to discuss opposing facts and reason with them, as this is just further evidence of the all pervading conspiracy. But no matter how many people view their video, it cannot make fact the fantasies of the foolish and ignorant. And the conspiracy in their heads will never cease, because that is what makes it so fascinating to them. If their suspicions were ever, amazingly, proven correct, there will always be another conspiracy within the conspiracy to keep the ball rolling for them.
These students did not go on to MySpace and call their teacher a lesbian (a many posts here seem to think). Had it been that, it would be no more than teenage rantings I'm sure you can find on a million blogs that has no impact on anyone.
What they did do was; go on to MySpace and falsly represented themselves as being their teacher, posted false information about their teacher that was calculated to be harmful, and invited comment from others.
Quite apart from the libel and embarrassment, that could have real life impact on the teacher if some crazy person read the page and decided to take things a bit further than simply commenting.
These students deserve all they get, and if that means taking it to their parents as well, so be it.
It's politically incorrect cos it was addressed to the girls. Like the boys had nothing to do with it and didn't need to know.
I guess sometimes people want the questions that don't matter answered. Why else am I wasting my time answering this? And that's even supposing we're agreed what matters.
What about it's DRM?
What about it? This is an article on iPod random shuffle.
What about the fact that Jobs pulled 99 cents/song out of his ass?
That's not a question, that's begging the question.
So I mentioned that it's seeded and never truly random. So what if it also appeared in a 5 page article? I really don't care. Does that invalidate the rest of my comment?
Yup. It shows you haven't read the article and have no business commenting on it, far less criticising its content.
No he hasn't. If you RTFA, you'll see what he proves is that;
1/ IE7 makes it hard work installing this crap and, unlike previous version, is aware it's happening.
2/ IE7 successfully removes most of it when asked.
People have got so used to reading articles knocking IE in slashdot, they can't actually spot a pro-IE piece when they read it!
You seem to be unsure of what makes a good interviewer. It's his job to ask the questions that his readers don't get a chance to. How is discussing a topic that would be of great interest to many and provide Apple an opportunity to talk up their product from an unusual angle, wasting the interviewer's time? I bet Steve Jobs loved the question, which is why he was willing to spend time chasing answers for him.
Would it have been better to discuss iPod colours for the millionth time? I doubt Jobs would think so.
Apart from that. Is there anything in your post that Levy himself doesn't conclude? Or didn't you bother reading that far?
What made it obvious lonelygirl was a professional production.
- the videos were just too good. The deliberate flaws were too easy.
- the story line was just too soap opera and implausible.
- the editing (while looking sharp) looked like the result of multiple takes of the same dialogue.
- they featured foreshadowing of seemingly pointless detail. That's a narrative device that just doesn't happen in real life.
they chastise me for 'stealing' music
Where?
and then write down my IP address
Yeah, like many websites do for every hit. Is this news to you?
How long until the RIAA sends me a letter regarding my visit to eDonkey.com and requests to view my harddrive to find 'stolen' files?
I don't know. How long until dramatic and unfounded leaps of hyperbole are punishable by death?
Who decides what is a reasonable price?
You have no right to demand respect from a company that you have no relationship with. If you do not buy a company's product they have no obligations to you, nor you to them.
(2) to protest through whatever means we feel are appropriate when the price to end users is completely absurd or the company treats us like garbage. Who decides when the price is absurd?
Sorry, but it is anyone's right to value the product of their labour at whatever price they like. If you don't agree with them, then don't pay. Go someplace else or do without. You do not have any relationship with the company, are not their customer, they have no contact with you, so how can they treat you like garbage?
The tone of your post appears to be that you have a right to others work, and if they're not prepared to sell it to you at a price that you like, it's because they don't respect you and treat you like garbage. So its ok therefore for you to just take it anyway.
Because they are part of the same industry. Your comment is about as dumb as questioning where the money goes when you buy software. What makes you think any of the money goes to the programmer who wrote it? It goes to the software company, doesn't it?
It goes to pay the record labels, who don't give one red cent to the artists (after all, it's not in their contracts.)
You have a remarkable insight into artist contracts and the music industry. Care to show us some of the figures and contracts that prove your sweeping statement?
Life must be tough for Daily Mail readers. Every day they're told by their paper how evil in the world is conspiring against them to steal their jobs, money, property and very way of life. They must live in a constant state of alarm. No wonder they hate and fear everyone who aren't exactly like them.
You're missing the parent poster's main motivation. It's the "don't pay a fair price for your music and invent a reason to justify it" motivation. They aren't interested in everyone winning.