If you ever wonder if Craigslist has either sold out our lost the grassroots huminity that makes it so great, just read a couple of posts from the Best of Craigslist. There is some stuff in there that at times is even funnier than the Onion.
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/wd c/35320278.html">A great story of racial harmony in the DC subway</a>
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/ch i/33677778.html">RANT: Fucking BUGS in my FUCKING apartment</a>
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/wd c/32712878.html">I didn't bust a nut because of your dog </a>
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/ny c/31655693.html">Goddammit you stole my ho bag </a>
Craigslist. All class.
Re:Dear God, Why?
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Here is an interesting account of why AOL uses such truely BIZARE drivers to connect to the network (among other weird AOL things) that I found on usenet a while back while doing research into only playnet software:
Brian Heyboer writes:
>I can't tell you for sure, but I suspect they are afraid it will give >away some of their security systems that are also used in the AOL >software. Remember, there was a lot more on the Q-Link end than just >the interface for the users. There was also their entire billing and >password security system. There was also a "back door" of sorts where >Q-Link menus and what-not could be updated via AOL.
AOL is in fact largely based on rewritten QLink (nee PlayNet) code. Many of the algorithms are unchanged.
>Another possibility is that they cannot rather than will not. Q-Link >licensed the software from Playnet and acquired the rights to it only >after winning a lawsuit against the receiver of the bankrupt Playnet. >They never did get all the source code and documentation the lawsuit >gave them the rights to. So, they may not be able to either because the >terms of the judgement don't allow it or they simply don't have it all.
In fact, they may not have the right to resell the technology; it depends on what rights they got. (I suspect they eventually got all the rights, though.)
They did, however, have all the source code and documentation for the PlayNet system, at least as it was when they licensed it (we made a number of mods later to PlayNet, some of which were activated and some never were). I spent a number of days down there training various programmers there on the design. One thing added after QLink (now AOL) licensed PlayNet was a quite complete auditorium/panel/etc setup with queuing, moderators, etc, run entirely via online messages (no client software change required). This was complete and tested and finished the week before PlayNet declared bankruptcy, so no one ever actually used it. There were other things too, but I remember that because I was working on it as PlayNet went under. Of course, they made their own mods (initially mostly cosmetic, but they added lots of stuff later).
As must be obvious, I was one of the main (and last) programmers at PlayNet. It's _really_ amusing to look at AOL today and say "I know why users are limited to 10-character names.", and see many other elements of the original PlayNet design unchanged (even though the reason for them is LONG gone). For example, the 10-character name limit was largely based on how many screen names we could display in the room header in chat within 4(?) 40-character lines on a C64 screen. Ditto the screen-name defaults (I remember us sitting around BS'ing about how we'd handle that, and conflicts - so now you have JoeS12345.) Online messages and how they popped up were another Playnet idea (remember, the next-most-sophisticated system at the time was Compuserve's ASCII "CB". Much has changed in AOL, of course, but it's kind-of heartening to see just how well a design from 1984-85 for 64K 6502-based machines has held up over the years, at least in the broad strokes.
The system (PlayNet and QLink) was actually quite sophisticated. It was run by programs written in a multi-tasking state-machine language. (Yes, your C64 was multi-tasking when doing this - N state-machine tasks plus the "main" (basic/etc) task, which ran the game or whatever if needed. Things like Online messages caused a new task to be started.) The communications protocol was designed (by me) to error-correct the X.25 padmodem link, obey a limit on packet size (128?), and minimize the number of packets (since we were charged both by the hour and the packet back then). It used CRC error-checking (yes, in a C64), asymmetric sliding-windows, piggybacked-acks, selective retransmit
Re:Aren't those terms mutually exclusive?
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's even funnier than you think.
For those that aren't aware, this whole "optimized" craze is a reference to something real evil that AOL has been doing for years: having dial up users connect to proxy servers that compress the living fuck out of any image requested from a web page.
Sound like a good idea, no? Make all the images smaller in size so pages load faster. As a friend of mine put it, "Doesn't AOL realize that people like to look at porn?"
If it was some light compression it would be one thing, but images look like something my cat hacks up on the floor after getting in the garbage once AOL "optimizes" them.
Reminds me of the old Q-Link trick
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not that there is anything new to the whole "Get a serious discount on hardware if you get a subscription to [fill in blank] online service", but for some reason this one is interesting coming from AOL, since back when they we're Quantum Link (The old commodore 64 online service back in the 80's) they did a similar thing.
Back in the Q-link days, not to many folks had modems or could really afford them, so Q-link's hook to get you to sign up with them was that they would offer you a heavily discounted 300 baud modem when you signed up for Q-link. This seems like a no brainier these days, but back then it was really something because most online services like Playnet, GEnie, Compuserve, etc all charged you a setup fee AND charged you like $30 for their software.
So, like I said, not that this is new, it's REALLY not new for AOL.
Man do I ever still pine for the days of Q-link and Club Carribe.
Funny, as I understand it, there is no device lock-in that I'm aware of on the iPods.. You can still transfer plain old mp3's right? Anybody can create an mp3 with lame or blade, so what's the beef exactly?
Oh, it's because you can't transfer Real media files to your iPod.. Here's an idea Real -- if you want Real media files to play or be transfered to an iPod how about releasing a Real media conversion tool?
Real media itself is the lock-in. Once you have a Real media file, you will ALWAYS need Real player to listen to it. MP3's on the other hand...
Sorry, this is nothing like a DVD player that only works with the manufacturer's owned store. If anything it's like a DVD player that doesn't play Beta Max tapes. Real media should have died a long time ago.
I'm not sure if that's the best example because I can't remember the name of the huge company that owns just about every paper in this country, but Pulitzer certainly has their fingers in a lot of pies.
Just as clearchannel owns 90% of all the radio stations, an equivalent exists for newspapers. Just because your paper isn't called "The Sony Time-Warner Times" doesn't mean it isn't owned by somebody huge.
Wow, thanks for that writeup.. I've been a little foggy on the way this works.
Anyway, for those that don't want to change browsers (I can think of many reasons) there is a patch (sort of) available for this. It's called disableing javscript in IE -- at least until Microsoft releases a patch to this exploit.
"Those alien bastards are gonna pay for shooting up my ride..."
I clearly remember when Quake came out like it was yesterday. I remember that at the office I was working at there was a big debate on what was the better game... Duke Nukem 3D or Quake. In the end Quake won, but not without some heated arguments in DN3D's favor.
And of course, before that I remember playing Deathmatch Doom on the office lan on a 386 with a b&w monitor (shivers).
Everybody seems to be focused on video games and music around here, but let's not forget one of the biggest areas where copyright becomes a serious problem with orphaned works -- television and movies. I bet each person in here could name at least 5-10 movies and 5-10 television shows that's they would love to be able to see again, but can't because the companies that own the copyrights to those works refuse to release them on video/dvd or air them again. So why is it illegal to buy or sell fan made copies of such works if there is no other means to acquire or view them?
Obviously most of these things aren't in print because a lack of substantial demand for them, but lets consider that some of the films that are acclaimed for their worth in terms of art are also those that are the least popular among the consumer masses. Wouldn't it be fantastic if none of us could legally view "Casablanca" anymore because Viacom decided it doesn't sell well enough, but still held onto the copyright so nobody could watch it again?
I would name some movies and shows I'd love to see released again, but I'm sure I'd get laughed at. I have some pretty low-brow tastes:)
I have to agree. It's a real shame that I do too, because Joshua Davis is one hell of an interface expert. He's done some real cutting edge interfaces of at praystation.com in the past. But I suppose even a genius can't improve on something that is virtualy perfect to begin with.
The only way I could possibly think of making google any better would be to get rid of that stupid googlebar advertisment they've been sticking on the front page. Just an input box and search results, thank you so much.
Err, Michael Jackson gets cash for all Beatles music sold. Paul and Ringo don't get a dime as they sold the entire Beatles catalog back in the early 80's.
So when you buy a Beatles record, your money goes to out of court setelements for a (alleged) child molester.
If you have any sense of moral decency you download beatles songs from the net.
I gobble up stories like these, and I'm sure I'll read Mitnicks compiled book when it comes out. For me, and I'm sure many others who were involved in the "scene" in the late 80's, early 90's this stuff is pure war story material. It's much like how people that were involved in any major war (WWII, Vietnam) get obsessive over movies like Full Metal Jacket and whatnot. You can see yourself in the people depicted in the stories.
Back in the day, as another poster pointed out, security was next to nill and people were getting away with anything they wanted. I would guess that somewhere around 9,000 former hackers got away with all sorts of interesting exploits and were never caught. Reading those stories today would be great.
Gotta go. This telenet account I dialed into from a PBX is about to wrap around it's billing cycle and die. Keep it k-rad.
Out of curiosity, I just launched Photoshop on my windows machine (1700+ Athlon XP- 512 Megs Ram - Ultra-100 7000 RPM HD - Windows XP Professional).
Total time to launch? 4 Seconds.
So, the new Dual G5 2 Ghz's launch at the same speed as my Quasi-Old Athlon box. Granted, I wouldn't mark performace by how long it takes an application to launch, but those are the numbers in an apples to apples comparison.
This ethernet card is just the ticket I've been looking for actually. I was searching for a proper rs-232 adapter to use with my 64 to connect it as a dumb term to my network, but a bonafide ethernet card is just what the doctor ordered. Too bad it's a little pricey.
> really wish that IBM would just buy these whiney babies out and open source Unix. Well, first IBM collects some payments from Microsoft for the "Unix license" that they "bought" from SCO, and then IBM makes it open source.
I think that is the worse thing IBM could possibly do. First, that is exactly what SCO wants (to be purchased to save the sinking ship). Second, that would (in some ways) admit guilt on IBM's part, making them look bad, and justifying further retarded lawsuits. Third, it's the principal of the matter. SCO *SHOULD* take this to court so they can loose, and IBM can counter sue for damages. Now that would be a win win.
It's pretty simple, actually. All this talk of writting your congressmen, protests -- it's all worthless folks.
What WILL make a diffrence is this:
1) Next chance you get, vote all of these clowns out of office. And for those you can't vote out of office since they are appointed (Ashcroft), vote against those that appointed them.
2) Stop spending money! Since politicions that make and pass laws like these are bought and paid for by corporations for the corporations interests, the best way to nip it in the bud is to stop feeding the machine. Since this war has started, I haven't driven my car. Why? Because I haven't bought any GODAMN GAS.
Slashdot Mirror
If you ever wonder if Craigslist has either sold out our lost the grassroots huminity that makes it so great, just read a couple of posts from the Best of Craigslist. There is some stuff in there that at times is even funnier than the Onion.
d c/32135822.html"Fucking Cicadas - 27 ></a>
d c/35320278.html">A great story of racial harmony in the DC subway</a>
h i/33677778.html">RANT: Fucking BUGS in my FUCKING apartment</a>
d c/32712878.html">I didn't bust a nut because of your dog </a>
y c/31655693.html">Goddammit you stole my ho bag </a>
A few of my favorite recent posts:
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/w
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/w
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/c
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/w
<a href="http://portland.craigslist.org/about/best/n
Craigslist. All class.
Here is an interesting account of why AOL uses such truely BIZARE drivers to connect to the network (among other weird AOL things) that I found on usenet a while back while doing research into only playnet software:
Brian Heyboer writes:
>I can't tell you for sure, but I suspect they are afraid it will give
>away some of their security systems that are also used in the AOL
>software. Remember, there was a lot more on the Q-Link end than just
>the interface for the users. There was also their entire billing and
>password security system. There was also a "back door" of sorts where
>Q-Link menus and what-not could be updated via AOL.
AOL is in fact largely based on rewritten QLink (nee PlayNet)
code. Many of the algorithms are unchanged.
>Another possibility is that they cannot rather than will not. Q-Link
>licensed the software from Playnet and acquired the rights to it only
>after winning a lawsuit against the receiver of the bankrupt Playnet.
>They never did get all the source code and documentation the lawsuit
>gave them the rights to. So, they may not be able to either because the
>terms of the judgement don't allow it or they simply don't have it all.
In fact, they may not have the right to resell the technology;
it depends on what rights they got. (I suspect they eventually got all the
rights, though.)
They did, however, have all the source code and documentation
for the PlayNet system, at least as it was when they licensed it (we made
a number of mods later to PlayNet, some of which were activated and some
never were). I spent a number of days down there training various
programmers there on the design. One thing added after QLink (now AOL)
licensed PlayNet was a quite complete auditorium/panel/etc setup with
queuing, moderators, etc, run entirely via online messages (no client
software change required). This was complete and tested and finished
the week before PlayNet declared bankruptcy, so no one ever actually used
it. There were other things too, but I remember that because I was working
on it as PlayNet went under. Of course, they made their own mods
(initially mostly cosmetic, but they added lots of stuff later).
As must be obvious, I was one of the main (and last) programmers at
PlayNet. It's _really_ amusing to look at AOL today and say "I know why
users are limited to 10-character names.", and see many other elements of
the original PlayNet design unchanged (even though the reason for them is
LONG gone). For example, the 10-character name limit was largely based on
how many screen names we could display in the room header in chat within
4(?) 40-character lines on a C64 screen. Ditto the screen-name defaults (I
remember us sitting around BS'ing about how we'd handle that, and conflicts
- so now you have JoeS12345.) Online messages and how they popped up were
another Playnet idea (remember, the next-most-sophisticated system at the
time was Compuserve's ASCII "CB". Much has changed in AOL, of course, but
it's kind-of heartening to see just how well a design from 1984-85 for 64K
6502-based machines has held up over the years, at least in the broad
strokes.
The system (PlayNet and QLink) was actually quite sophisticated.
It was run by programs written in a multi-tasking state-machine language.
(Yes, your C64 was multi-tasking when doing this - N state-machine tasks
plus the "main" (basic/etc) task, which ran the game or whatever if needed.
Things like Online messages caused a new task to be started.) The
communications protocol was designed (by me) to error-correct the X.25
padmodem link, obey a limit on packet size (128?), and minimize the
number of packets (since we were charged both by the hour and the packet
back then). It used CRC error-checking (yes, in a C64), asymmetric
sliding-windows, piggybacked-acks, selective retransmit
It's even funnier than you think.
For those that aren't aware, this whole "optimized" craze is a reference to something real evil that AOL has been doing for years: having dial up users connect to proxy servers that compress the living fuck out of any image requested from a web page.
Sound like a good idea, no? Make all the images smaller in size so pages load faster. As a friend of mine put it, "Doesn't AOL realize that people like to look at porn?"
If it was some light compression it would be one thing, but images look like something my cat hacks up on the floor after getting in the garbage once AOL "optimizes" them.
Not that there is anything new to the whole "Get a serious discount on hardware if you get a subscription to [fill in blank] online service", but for some reason this one is interesting coming from AOL, since back when they we're Quantum Link (The old commodore 64 online service back in the 80's) they did a similar thing.
Back in the Q-link days, not to many folks had modems or could really afford them, so Q-link's hook to get you to sign up with them was that they would offer you a heavily discounted 300 baud modem when you signed up for Q-link. This seems like a no brainier these days, but back then it was really something because most online services like Playnet, GEnie, Compuserve, etc all charged you a setup fee AND charged you like $30 for their software.
So, like I said, not that this is new, it's REALLY not new for AOL.
Man do I ever still pine for the days of Q-link and Club Carribe.
Funny, as I understand it, there is no device lock-in that I'm aware of on the iPods.. You can still transfer plain old mp3's right? Anybody can create an mp3 with lame or blade, so what's the beef exactly?
Oh, it's because you can't transfer Real media files to your iPod.. Here's an idea Real -- if you want Real media files to play or be transfered to an iPod how about releasing a Real media conversion tool?
Real media itself is the lock-in. Once you have a Real media file, you will ALWAYS need Real player to listen to it. MP3's on the other hand...
Sorry, this is nothing like a DVD player that only works with the manufacturer's owned store. If anything it's like a DVD player that doesn't play Beta Max tapes. Real media should have died a long time ago.
http://www.pulitzerinc.com/map/
I'm not sure if that's the best example because I can't remember the name of the huge company that owns just about every paper in this country, but Pulitzer certainly has their fingers in a lot of pies.
Just as clearchannel owns 90% of all the radio stations, an equivalent exists for newspapers. Just because your paper isn't called "The Sony Time-Warner Times" doesn't mean it isn't owned by somebody huge.
Search your feellings.. You know it to be true!
Wow, thanks for that writeup.. I've been a little foggy on the way this works.
Anyway, for those that don't want to change browsers (I can think of many reasons) there is a patch (sort of) available for this. It's called disableing javscript in IE -- at least until Microsoft releases a patch to this exploit.
"Those alien bastards are gonna pay for shooting up my ride..."
I clearly remember when Quake came out like it was yesterday. I remember that at the office I was working at there was a big debate on what was the better game... Duke Nukem 3D or Quake. In the end Quake won, but not without some heated arguments in DN3D's favor.
And of course, before that I remember playing Deathmatch Doom on the office lan on a 386 with a b&w monitor (shivers).
Everybody seems to be focused on video games and music around here, but let's not forget one of the biggest areas where copyright becomes a serious problem with orphaned works -- television and movies. I bet each person in here could name at least 5-10 movies and 5-10 television shows that's they would love to be able to see again, but can't because the companies that own the copyrights to those works refuse to release them on video/dvd or air them again. So why is it illegal to buy or sell fan made copies of such works if there is no other means to acquire or view them?
:)
Obviously most of these things aren't in print because a lack of substantial demand for them, but lets consider that some of the films that are acclaimed for their worth in terms of art are also those that are the least popular among the consumer masses. Wouldn't it be fantastic if none of us could legally view "Casablanca" anymore because Viacom decided it doesn't sell well enough, but still held onto the copyright so nobody could watch it again?
I would name some movies and shows I'd love to see released again, but I'm sure I'd get laughed at. I have some pretty low-brow tastes
Three words my friend:
Howard
The
Duck
Thats nothing, check out the Corvus ad on page 23 --
"This corresponds to a conservative baud rate of 1.1 megabaud...."
Megabaud? WTF? Is that some arbitrary unit of measurement that they invented to sound like this was wicked fast?
In it's defense, 100 megabytes of removable storange in 1981 was like 2 terrabytes of storage today.. so that was pretty cool.
I have to agree. It's a real shame that I do too, because Joshua Davis is one hell of an interface expert. He's done some real cutting edge interfaces of at praystation.com in the past. But I suppose even a genius can't improve on something that is virtualy perfect to begin with.
The only way I could possibly think of making google any better would be to get rid of that stupid googlebar advertisment they've been sticking on the front page. Just an input box and search results, thank you so much.
Enterprise enterprise enterprise?
- Enterprise
Err, Michael Jackson gets cash for all Beatles music sold. Paul and Ringo don't get a dime as they sold the entire Beatles catalog back in the early 80's.
So when you buy a Beatles record, your money goes to out of court setelements for a (alleged) child molester.
If you have any sense of moral decency you download beatles songs from the net.
Crap, seems to be slashdotted already. Damn.
I gobble up stories like these, and I'm sure I'll read Mitnicks compiled book when it comes out. For me, and I'm sure many others who were involved in the "scene" in the late 80's, early 90's this stuff is pure war story material. It's much like how people that were involved in any major war (WWII, Vietnam) get obsessive over movies like Full Metal Jacket and whatnot. You can see yourself in the people depicted in the stories.
Back in the day, as another poster pointed out, security was next to nill and people were getting away with anything they wanted. I would guess that somewhere around 9,000 former hackers got away with all sorts of interesting exploits and were never caught. Reading those stories today would be great.
Gotta go. This telenet account I dialed into from a PBX is about to wrap around it's billing cycle and die. Keep it k-rad.
Hot Grits Wells?
Out of curiosity, I just launched Photoshop on my windows machine (1700+ Athlon XP- 512 Megs Ram - Ultra-100 7000 RPM HD - Windows XP Professional).
Total time to launch? 4 Seconds.
So, the new Dual G5 2 Ghz's launch at the same speed as my Quasi-Old Athlon box. Granted, I wouldn't mark performace by how long it takes an application to launch, but those are the numbers in an apples to apples comparison.
I've been working on the Q-link angle, actualy:
p l? sday=28&syear=2003&smonth=4
p l? sday=29&syear=2003&smonth=4
p l? sday=27&syear=2003&smonth=4
http://www.circleofthunder.com/q-link/
Basicly, what I've been doing is writing a c64 c/g emulator in flash, and using XML sockets to connect to a jabber server.
Here's the details of my strugle:
http://www.circleofthunder.com/journal/journal.
http://www.circleofthunder.com/journal/journal.
http://www.circleofthunder.com/journal/journal.
This ethernet card is just the ticket I've been looking for actually. I was searching for a proper rs-232 adapter to use with my 64 to connect it as a dumb term to my network, but a bonafide ethernet card is just what the doctor ordered. Too bad it's a little pricey.
RIAA/MPAA to KaZaa:
Wow. That sounds like a really good deal. I've got a better one. How about I give you the finger, and you give me the unique IP of all your users?
The Corporation's interests must be protected above the people's. After all, where else are you going to get campaign contributions and "gifts" from?
Nuff Said.
> really wish that IBM would just buy these whiney babies out and open source Unix. Well, first IBM collects some payments from Microsoft for the "Unix license" that they "bought" from SCO, and then IBM makes it open source.
I think that is the worse thing IBM could possibly do. First, that is exactly what SCO wants (to be purchased to save the sinking ship). Second, that would (in some ways) admit guilt on IBM's part, making them look bad, and justifying further retarded lawsuits. Third, it's the principal of the matter. SCO *SHOULD* take this to court so they can loose, and IBM can counter sue for damages. Now that would be a win win.
My 2 Paseo's
As long as we get pornographic sim-stim and I can choke down handfulls of Loney Zone's Dex, it's all good.
As long as there is a gigantic jiffy pop located in the center of the livingroom, it's all good by me.
"Chris, this is Jesus. Have you been touching yourself?"
*RANT*
It's pretty simple, actually. All this talk of writting your congressmen, protests -- it's all worthless folks.
What WILL make a diffrence is this:
1) Next chance you get, vote all of these clowns out of office. And for those you can't vote out of office since they are appointed (Ashcroft), vote against those that appointed them.
2) Stop spending money! Since politicions that make and pass laws like these are bought and paid for by corporations for the corporations interests, the best way to nip it in the bud is to stop feeding the machine. Since this war has started, I haven't driven my car. Why? Because I haven't bought any GODAMN GAS.
Flame on.