The reason being perhaps that there is still a very large number of great old movies that have not been released on DVD. The only option for these is to try and pick up a second hand copy on VHS.
Does anyone else think that these terrorists' true purpose is not to kill the passengers on a few planes but to inconvenience travellers for years to come? Blowing up a plane is a one-time deal but scaring people into not taking drinks onto planes, making people take off their shoes before boarding, checking their ipods in with their luggage, these annoyances are going to be with us for decades to come! Why terrorize when irritating is so much easier?
I don't want to go all tin-foilly-hatty here. But this latest alert has a distinct aroma of rat. I really don't believe there's much truth in the liquid explosives hyperbole. I suspect official lying or exaggeration for whatever purpose - probably even wider ranging power. Or it could be that the UK and US administrations are populated by hysterical morons... (and I'm not ruling that out of course)
As regards air travel... GAME OVER! The terrorists have won. Going by plane in europe - which was never a joy to start with - is now so truly awful that it feels it'd be less painful and quicker to walk to your destination instead. At least you could listen to your iPod as you go. Airport authorities have had 5 years to come up with better security systems and ways of handling passengers. Are you, is anyone, impressed with their progress?
I simply don't understand why terrorists should be so fixated with aircraft. There's a thousand ways to cause mayhem and destruction - the IRA did so for 30 years or more in the UK without touching an airplane. Getting around the airport security is difficult, destroying part of a busy highway is really easy and the resultant chaos would last for months if not years.
Either the terrorists are really dumb, they have some sort of air fetish they need to see someone professional about, or there's a different truth out there somewhere.
So, I've never ever in my life played either a playstation, an Xbox, or anything similar in the way of gaming. I am not a market analyst, nor a gaming expert, and am not being paid by Sony or any other vested interest - as I strongly suspect the Yankee group may be...
However, despite my total lack of interest in gaming for the past 20 years, the Wii has caught my eye. I want one. The name is silly, but even so, it actually looks FUN! If it actually delivers as much as it promises then they will soar.
There's a whole non-gamer gaming market out there - just like me. Even girls would buy one if they do an OMG Ponies!!!1!! game (and they should).
If I want one so will others. Don't listen to the Sony and MS shills!
Yeah...I know... never touched a game...I'll be handing in my Geek ID card at the end of the article.
As a Lib Dem Peer he probably is a good person to ask. Although they have been shaky on many things, and ever since the days of Lloyd George have been about as electable as Screaming Lord Sutch, the Lib Dems have always been good on privacy stuff. They've (as Liberal / SDP / Lib Dem or whatever) been campaigning on Freedom of Information for at least 30 years in my memory. I don't recall the Tories or Labour ever doing that - and both parties when in power did erode privacy rights regardless of terror or pedophilia. I doubt the Lib Dems will ever get elected, though.
People proclaimed the end of EBay with time, but it is as strong as ever...
And they may well be correct...
It is not strong as ever.
Its share price is less than one half of what it was one year ago, there was talk of them buying back shares. Their US, UK and Germany (pretty much their only true strong markets) are stagnating. They are seriously getting their asses kicked in China. Competition in the form of Google and others is a constant threat. Brand Value is decreased due to rising fraud, poor customer support and ever increasing charges. It was widely criticized by analysts for overpaying for Skype, and Skype has lots and lots and lots of strong competition. And to rub salt in the wound, key management such as Jeff Jordan quit.
It is takeover fodder.
No, it is not in a strong position, it could fall hard, and fall fast, and fall soon.
That said, they have always been in a stronger position that YouTube. eBay did make money from the start but it's very hard to see where YouTube is getting its from. It's near impossible to see how it is sustainable going forward. YouTube looks much more like a Dot.com than other so called Web 2.0 companies. I think they will either be history soon enough or sucked into Yahoo, News Corp., or some similar satanic pact.
And seemingly Darknets numbers have doubled over the past 3 months...
Please. I beg you. STOP!
Slashdotters please, for the love of Linus or whomever you hold sacred, stop using Trivipedia as quoth fact. There is NO guarantee whatsoever that anything a Wikipedophile writes is true, accurate or precise. I can understand why Joe Sixpack uses Jimbo's Whacky World of Infotainment in this way, but really a Geek should know better. You might as well search Myspace for a fact.
Sorry, but I'm certain I'm not the only one who is tired of wikipedia's quality standing, and the misguided respect the site generates.
The country's name is not "Hungaria" it is "Hungary."
The country's name is. But is it the country necessarily? Like any good wikipedophile I checked some "facts" on Wikipedia and it says Hungaria is in space. Sadly no mention of elephants or bridges though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/434_Hungaria
Aha... so passengers have to pay 5 pounds for a tiny bottle of water on Ryanair flights from now on? Was Michael O'Leary perchance also captured today as part of the wider terror network? Anyone know his whereabouts recently...?
Oh, come on. Everyone knows where it is. We all had to study ancient civilizations like Phoenix and Firebird in grade school, and they were located on the same land as the modern state of Firefox.
And the State Capital is, of course, Springfield. You may not find this in older textbooks or in Encyclopedias but I'm sure a source like Wikipedia would have an in depth article on its elephant population if nothing else.
It's impossible to see how YouTube is currently profitable.
It does however, thanks to the team of legal snakes hired to draft its licence agreements, own the rights to everything posted on it. So one day, in theory, they could sift through the dreadful noise that is its video contributions for those few pearls and subsequently sell them.
Thoroughly screwing the original film maker in the process.
Now, there is no evidence that I've seen that YouTube is evil per se, however the licence agreement looks like nefarious inclinations to me. At best they've done the old fashioned Web 1.0 trick of vacuous, self-aggrandizing, self-publicising hyperbole swiftly followed by buyout by larger company. Or, at worst they are deliberately out to screw film makers in a way that makes the MPAA look like fluffy kittens.
Either way personally, I would never ever post anything on that site.
Ok, what fucking planet do they live on, and more importantly, WHY HASN'T IT BEEN DESTROYED YET?
Exactly! You know, us geeks really should stop wasting time posting here and get together and build ourselves a working Death Star. You know we need one.
Neelie Kroes doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of business. If the EU fines MS $357M, MS can simply raise the price of their European software by $357M. The net effect is that the European consumers pay the fine rather than MS itself.
Likely that is what Microsoft would do. However, this isn't a smart business practice, it's short run thinking. Although Microsoft has little competition in the world of business software, such actions will affect their brand strength and will encourage customers to think deeply about alternatives. It will cost MS a few customers immediately and even more in the longer term. That's a fundamental of business too.
What do you think the EU should do instead of a fine?
And remember many many US Corporations have divisions in the EU, so this means that US citizens will be paying the fine indirectly too.
The name ending in -pedia has the inherent danger of legitimizing the content therein.
If wikipedia was to be renamed "Jimmy's Big Bumper Box of Trivia, Factoids, Lies, Rants, Memes and Cock and Bull Stories" (or something more serious, perhaps)it might give more of an accurate picture of the integrity of some of the data.
Out of curiosity does anyone have a figure for the number of wikipedia pages that have a panel questioning the veracity of the data, or neutrality of the same? It seems to be about one in every 2 or 3 that I visit. I don't know whether this is a quality of submission issue or a overzealotry of moderation issue, or (most likely) a bit of both.
I regularly use and do enjoy wikipedia as a source for trivial information, but I am concerned that people take it far too seriously as a source for important data. I guess most folks on/. have been to University and can be discerning over data, but most people in the World haven't been there and they might be more inclined to trust information that just looks correct.
People trust encyclopedias, if the name was changed this might be less of an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason being perhaps that there is still a very large number of great old movies that have not been released on DVD. The only option for these is to try and pick up a second hand copy on VHS.
you must be new here...
In Soviet Tibet mesh frees you...
Sorry!!!
As regards air travel... GAME OVER! The terrorists have won. Going by plane in europe - which was never a joy to start with - is now so truly awful that it feels it'd be less painful and quicker to walk to your destination instead. At least you could listen to your iPod as you go. Airport authorities have had 5 years to come up with better security systems and ways of handling passengers. Are you, is anyone, impressed with their progress?
I simply don't understand why terrorists should be so fixated with aircraft. There's a thousand ways to cause mayhem and destruction - the IRA did so for 30 years or more in the UK without touching an airplane. Getting around the airport security is difficult, destroying part of a busy highway is really easy and the resultant chaos would last for months if not years.
Either the terrorists are really dumb, they have some sort of air fetish they need to see someone professional about, or there's a different truth out there somewhere.
So, I've never ever in my life played either a playstation, an Xbox, or anything similar in the way of gaming. I am not a market analyst, nor a gaming expert, and am not being paid by Sony or any other vested interest - as I strongly suspect the Yankee group may be...
However, despite my total lack of interest in gaming for the past 20 years, the Wii has caught my eye. I want one. The name is silly, but even so, it actually looks FUN! If it actually delivers as much as it promises then they will soar.
There's a whole non-gamer gaming market out there - just like me. Even girls would buy one if they do an OMG Ponies!!!1!! game (and they should).
If I want one so will others. Don't listen to the Sony and MS shills!
Yeah...I know... never touched a game...I'll be handing in my Geek ID card at the end of the article.
I propose this controversy is solved by forming a committee. It could be called the:
Committee for the Renaming of Astronomical Phenomena
An appropriate acronym for such an important thing.
As a Lib Dem Peer he probably is a good person to ask. Although they have been shaky on many things, and ever since the days of Lloyd George have been about as electable as Screaming Lord Sutch, the Lib Dems have always been good on privacy stuff. They've (as Liberal / SDP / Lib Dem or whatever) been campaigning on Freedom of Information for at least 30 years in my memory. I don't recall the Tories or Labour ever doing that - and both parties when in power did erode privacy rights regardless of terror or pedophilia. I doubt the Lib Dems will ever get elected, though.
It is not strong as ever.
Its share price is less than one half of what it was one year ago, there was talk of them buying back shares. Their US, UK and Germany (pretty much their only true strong markets) are stagnating. They are seriously getting their asses kicked in China. Competition in the form of Google and others is a constant threat. Brand Value is decreased due to rising fraud, poor customer support and ever increasing charges. It was widely criticized by analysts for overpaying for Skype, and Skype has lots and lots and lots of strong competition. And to rub salt in the wound, key management such as Jeff Jordan quit.
It is takeover fodder.
No, it is not in a strong position, it could fall hard, and fall fast, and fall soon.
That said, they have always been in a stronger position that YouTube. eBay did make money from the start but it's very hard to see where YouTube is getting its from. It's near impossible to see how it is sustainable going forward. YouTube looks much more like a Dot.com than other so called Web 2.0 companies. I think they will either be history soon enough or sucked into Yahoo, News Corp., or some similar satanic pact.
And seemingly Darknets numbers have doubled over the past 3 months...
Please. I beg you. STOP!
Slashdotters please, for the love of Linus or whomever you hold sacred, stop using Trivipedia as quoth fact. There is NO guarantee whatsoever that anything a Wikipedophile writes is true, accurate or precise. I can understand why Joe Sixpack uses Jimbo's Whacky World of Infotainment in this way, but really a Geek should know better. You might as well search Myspace for a fact.
Sorry, but I'm certain I'm not the only one who is tired of wikipedia's quality standing, and the misguided respect the site generates.
It's impossible to see how YouTube is currently profitable.
It does however, thanks to the team of legal snakes hired to draft its licence agreements, own the rights to everything posted on it. So one day, in theory, they could sift through the dreadful noise that is its video contributions for those few pearls and subsequently sell them.
Thoroughly screwing the original film maker in the process.
Now, there is no evidence that I've seen that YouTube is evil per se, however the licence agreement looks like nefarious inclinations to me. At best they've done the old fashioned Web 1.0 trick of vacuous, self-aggrandizing, self-publicising hyperbole swiftly followed by buyout by larger company. Or, at worst they are deliberately out to screw film makers in a way that makes the MPAA look like fluffy kittens.
Either way personally, I would never ever post anything on that site.
mmm thanks, but you know we usually warn people about PDF based links here?
Instead of sending children up chimneys they're sending them down the internet pipes. Such cruelty.
Of course any company they form should be called "ACME".
What do you think the EU should do instead of a fine?
And remember many many US Corporations have divisions in the EU, so this means that US citizens will be paying the fine indirectly too.
The name ending in -pedia has the inherent danger of legitimizing the content therein.
/. have been to University and can be discerning over data, but most people in the World haven't been there and they might be more inclined to trust information that just looks correct.
If wikipedia was to be renamed "Jimmy's Big Bumper Box of Trivia, Factoids, Lies, Rants, Memes and Cock and Bull Stories" (or something more serious, perhaps)it might give more of an accurate picture of the integrity of some of the data.
Out of curiosity does anyone have a figure for the number of wikipedia pages that have a panel questioning the veracity of the data, or neutrality of the same? It seems to be about one in every 2 or 3 that I visit. I don't know whether this is a quality of submission issue or a overzealotry of moderation issue, or (most likely) a bit of both.
I regularly use and do enjoy wikipedia as a source for trivial information, but I am concerned that people take it far too seriously as a source for important data. I guess most folks on
People trust encyclopedias, if the name was changed this might be less of an issue.