This could spell the end for Chinese society and economic power, if they aren't warned of the dangers of blogging. Although maybe we should let blogging take its course, and allow it to rot away all the powerful countries. America hasn't got long if the blogging continues.
What happens when blogging rates reach 90%, do people just die in their bedrooms from malnutrition, while the economy implodes, and farmland is left to go fallow?
Just like/. exists. Isn't/. just a massive moderated blog anyway?
No, slashdot is not a blog, it is not a personal journal. And this is one of the things that pisses me off about the fanatical bloggers. They wish to retroactively define practically everything as part of the "blogosphere." Why is this necessary? Why lose descriptive precision, in favor of a very stupid word?
Discussion boards like slashdot were around long before the term "blog" was coined. Why the need to label eveything user-generated with the blog label? And why can't they just calls blogs "journals" or something? This need to invent silly terms is one of the reasons why the 90s were so silly.
Above all, blogs have fostered a culture of narcissism and ego.
Cowboy hats are superfluous at best, a nuisance in the way at worst, when you live in Houston, because the weather is so bad here, you never ever go outside unless you absolutely have to, so it's always in the way, especially in the car (and one never walks anywhere here, since it's so hot). Jeans are good, but, unfortunately, most office jobs don't allow them at work.
Wow, that must suck. Confined to cars and buildings with air-conditioning. Not allowed to wear jeans at work. I wonder how the original cowboys ever survived without air-conditioning and SUVs.
Cowboy boots, having pointed toes and high heels are just the thing when you're trying to get your foot back through the stirrup while riding your cayuse,
Well, you don't have to buy "X-treme" cowboy boots, you know. And you can get them custom fitted. But I do like decent (adidas) sneakers as well as boots.
Er, how does a *store* choosing what merchandise to sell to *customers* who choose to shop there constitute censorship again?
Given that governments often give financial incentive to companies like Wal-Mart to move into town, and use eminent domain to acquire land for Wal-Mart. Once Wal-Mart is in town, it drives other businesses out.
So, in places where the government has helped Wal-Mart it does amount to censorship indirectly, because the government has no place funding that kind of activity.
That's such bullshit. The collapse of IT jobs had almost nothing to do with outsourcing or migrant workers. It was more the result of bad planning, over-optimistic estimates, greedy motherfuckers, stock-driven companies, and a lack of good ideas.
Outsourcing and foreign workers are just the new excuse that's in fashion.
Hardware is getting cheaper and will continue to do so. I built a computer for $1500 in 2000. Today, it's probably worth $100 (maybe not that much) today.
That's why Macs are a much better investment. Even after years of use, you can still sell them for good money.
I lived through both the 80s and 90s using computers, and became involved in online companies during the boom. I'd hardly say the times were that great for technology. Sure, there was lots of money around - but that's not a good thing. Most of the money was totally wasted. And it could be easily seen at the time that the "dot-com" boom was extremely shallow. It was more about business than technology.
By selling out so easily to business, technology has been held back in many ways. It was a matter of offering the brains and the creative geeks some money, so they would use their knowledge for evil, rather than good. I think I prefer the 80s, where at least there was still some idealism.
What did the 90s boom give us? Fucking internet advertising and banner ads. Overpaid HTML jockeys with no skill. Trolls, script-kiddies and fools. Pyramid schemes. "Bloggers." And we can never go back to those blissful ad-free, blog-free days.
Patenting a software controlled system that influences the physical world, like an alram panel, or a mechanism to open/close a garage door with software somehow *is* allowed.
Microsoft Word 2006: Now comes with free garage door and opening software.
They just have to word the laws right. Something along the lines of under no circumstances whatsoever shall patents be granted software, algorithms, business methods, or mathematical expressions, techniques or constructs.
Do they really need a gathering of lawyers to come up with that? It's not exactly rocket science.
So, your wording would ban patents on any technique or construct? Be careful with the punctuation.
prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.
Or selling a small amount of marijuana (how is that a crime against society?)... Not to mention that many prisoners are actually innocent, and the justice system is highly corrupt, biased and unreliable. You could easily find yourself in prison, having committed no crime whatsoever. Even many of the "terrorists" at Guantanamo were actually innocent, and have been released.
cowboy hats, boots and jeans right off, and wear that rig for the rest of their stay, never noticing that none of us are doing so...
Could I ask why you don't wear them? Cowboy hats, boots and jeans are awesome clothes. I wear them, and don't even live in a farming region. Doesn't it get kind of hot in Texas? Wouldn't you want to wear a cowboy hat for protection from the sun?
OK, I've never been that interested in TV on my computer, until my VCR broke down, and I started using Bittorrent. Now I am somewhat interested in MythTV, but know nothing about TV tuner cards. A few questions:
How many of the cards on the market support PAL? All of them, or are some NTSC-only?
Are there any cards which can tune and change the channels on our local cable networks like Foxtel or Optus? Not that I really want cable here, but I have friends who do, and I could build a box for them, so I can get share cable content with them.
You might be right about the UI to some extant - it's mostly ok for the techie but probably not so suitable for the general public
I don't understand this idea that poor UI design is "OK for techies." We all benefit from good design, even power users. And in many cases, a power-user will notice a poor UI more, because they can easily see what is wrong with it. Guess it depends on what kind of "techie" you are.
What really happened at LinuxWorld is described here, by Martin Brown, one of the staff who resigned. LinuxWorld's web site has been automated
That article doesn't actually explain anything about what happened at LinuxWorld. It appears to be a writer complaining about being treated badly by a magazine. Now, I am not willing to click on a link to a Dvorak article, I don't want to give him the traffic. So how am I supposed to know what the heck this is all about? One would think the slashdot writeup or comments would expound on this, but I'm still left in the dark.
Is "what happened at LinuxWorld" supposed to be universal knowledge? Why won't anybody give a straightforward explanation of what all the fuss is about?
If you think GTA3 was the first "truly mass market game", I guess you're not around that long. I think that title belongs to Tetris on the Gameboy,
Gameboy? What's that? The first mass market game was probably Monopoly by Parker Bros. The first mass-market video game was probably Pac-Man. Anyone care to guess what the first mass-market home-computer game was? Was it on the Apple ][ or the Commodore 64?
Dude... ever consider it might just be a fscking TYPO?
Perhaps it is - but why are slashdot editors allowing typos to get through to front-page articles? Haven't they ever hear dof proofreading and correcting? It's one of the jobs of an editor.
Having the 0wnx0rz gaming PC won't be all that helpful (nor easy or cheap to power). Lower powered desktops and laptops will be hip for the first time.
That's a rather strange comment. Low-powered desktops and laptops have been very hip (see Mac Mini, iBook and mini-ATX or whatever) for the last few years. Meanwhile, having the 0wnx0rz gaming PC has never been hip - it is the true symbol of a dork without a social life.
It seems that you Mac defenders are more than eager to admit this machine was designed for style over functionality.
But size isn't just about functionality. Size is very important for some people for reasons beyond size. Do you think laptops are made small for "style"? Of course not - they are made small, because smallness is a feature.
Only weak people would be happy having a central authority handle more than half of their lives. It's not that I have a problem with it inherently,
When did I ever suggest "a central authority controlling half our lives?" Talk about a straw-man.
it's just that whenever you give the government your money, they invariably use it in ways you didn't intend. It's best not to give it to them in the first place and put it up for political grabs.
So, why not demand accountability from the government, so this doesn't happen? Not paying taxes isn't going to stop this. If there was accountability, the government could provide twice as many services for half the tax money. Whining about taxes isn't going to change anything. not to mention, that money wouldn't exist if the government didn't issue it in the first place. Where do you think the currency system comes from?
That's a really scary thing to say. Would you feel the same way knowing the majority of people currently might like to impose religious laws, or outlaw abortion?
That's an entirely different issue, and you know it. We are talking about providing services, not telling people what they can do with their bodies. We're talking about money (issued by the government) - not human rights.
I think you're thinking of another continent if you think whatever the majority wants is what should go.
Not entirely. The government should not be in the business of what people do with their lives, until it hurts other people. They should be in the business of providing services and security to realize the full potential of a society.
Bush couldn't do the crazy shit you probably hate him for were it not for people like you why think of the government as the answer to so many things. You just complain when the government becomes controlled by people you disagree with, but don't see how having the government do everything is the flip side of the same coin.
Wrong. I'm for accountability of all governments. I don't trust them either. So keep them on a short leash. Bush would not be able to get away with these things if there was transparency. It also has a lot to do with the two-party system and the absurd "electoral college." A proportional representative parliamentary system would work a lot better than the current set-up. Bush doesn't even have to answer questions on the parliament floor! 49% of people didn't vote for him, but he still has total power.
Having the government provide services doesn't mean we have to let them get away with everything.
No, because people a lot smarter than you or me discovered it through experience.
Gosh, they had experience of all the different forms of government that could possibly exist? By the way, amking ad hominem attacks doesn't make your argument any more credible.
So, are you saying, that no other form of government could possibly work, except for that envisaged by Jefferson and co? That doesn't really make sense, as the US is having massive problems with its form of government, and disenfranchisement of voters. Other governments around the world are far more representational. The founders' system isn't exactly working.
I've lived in places with low taxes (Golden, CO) and high as hell (Boston, MA) and there is no correlation between tax rate and quality of life.
That's because the US doesn't spend taxes to help the people. If some of the tax money were used for things like public health care, then you would get better value from your taxes. One of the biggest problems is not having decent welfare. This means crime and poverty is high - which reduces everyone's standard of living.
Don't fall for the statist BS about our standard of living having anything to do with our government. We have a high standard DESPITE our government, and only because of technology and scientific progress.
Sorry, you're the one buying the bullshit. The government has helped your standard of living so much that you can't even see it. How the heck do you think you get strong technological and service industries? Do you think it would have happened without public education? What about The New Deal? What about the massive infrastructure projects like the railways that helped make America what it is?
As a geek, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking a bunch of fucking lawyers had anything to do with our improved quality of life.
No, I don't think a "bunch of lawyers" did - but the visionary politicians who actually cared, did make a big difference.
I can't even fathom how many great things we could do if even a quarter of the overall government budgets were returned to the people,
I'm not surprised you can't fathom it, because it wouldn't really make any difference. Most people would just spend the money on consumer crap. meanwhile, that money will have to be paid anyway - to privately provide the services the government was subsidizing. So, you could possibly end up with even less money, if we had to pay for everything individually.
The people in Boston are self absorbed and miserable to each other (so much for liberalism being the politics of niceness) the infrastructure is rotting (isn't that the main purpose of government?) and the cost of living is horrendous (liberals will only help the poor if it won't hurt their inflated home prices).
Uhhh, what the hell does this have to do with liberalism?
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when blogging rates reach 90%, do people just die in their bedrooms from malnutrition, while the economy implodes, and farmland is left to go fallow?
No, slashdot is not a blog, it is not a personal journal. And this is one of the things that pisses me off about the fanatical bloggers. They wish to retroactively define practically everything as part of the "blogosphere." Why is this necessary? Why lose descriptive precision, in favor of a very stupid word?
Discussion boards like slashdot were around long before the term "blog" was coined. Why the need to label eveything user-generated with the blog label? And why can't they just calls blogs "journals" or something? This need to invent silly terms is one of the reasons why the 90s were so silly.
Above all, blogs have fostered a culture of narcissism and ego.
Wow, that must suck. Confined to cars and buildings with air-conditioning. Not allowed to wear jeans at work. I wonder how the original cowboys ever survived without air-conditioning and SUVs.
Cowboy boots, having pointed toes and high heels are just the thing when you're trying to get your foot back through the stirrup while riding your cayuse,
Well, you don't have to buy "X-treme" cowboy boots, you know. And you can get them custom fitted. But I do like decent (adidas) sneakers as well as boots.
No, this is a discussion board. I'm slashdotting. Blogging is when you have your own journal online, and it's all about you, you, YOU!
Given that governments often give financial incentive to companies like Wal-Mart to move into town, and use eminent domain to acquire land for Wal-Mart. Once Wal-Mart is in town, it drives other businesses out.
So, in places where the government has helped Wal-Mart it does amount to censorship indirectly, because the government has no place funding that kind of activity.
Outsourcing and foreign workers are just the new excuse that's in fashion.
Ellen Feiss. Didn't things go downhill after she seductively hypnotized geeks around the world?
That's why Macs are a much better investment. Even after years of use, you can still sell them for good money.
By selling out so easily to business, technology has been held back in many ways. It was a matter of offering the brains and the creative geeks some money, so they would use their knowledge for evil, rather than good. I think I prefer the 80s, where at least there was still some idealism.
What did the 90s boom give us? Fucking internet advertising and banner ads. Overpaid HTML jockeys with no skill. Trolls, script-kiddies and fools. Pyramid schemes. "Bloggers." And we can never go back to those blissful ad-free, blog-free days.
Microsoft Word 2006: Now comes with free garage door and opening software.
So, your wording would ban patents on any technique or construct? Be careful with the punctuation.
Or selling a small amount of marijuana (how is that a crime against society?) ... Not to mention that many prisoners are actually innocent, and the justice system is highly corrupt, biased and unreliable. You could easily find yourself in prison, having committed no crime whatsoever. Even many of the "terrorists" at Guantanamo were actually innocent, and have been released.
Isn't absurdity what patents are for?
Could I ask why you don't wear them? Cowboy hats, boots and jeans are awesome clothes. I wear them, and don't even live in a farming region. Doesn't it get kind of hot in Texas? Wouldn't you want to wear a cowboy hat for protection from the sun?
How many of the cards on the market support PAL? All of them, or are some NTSC-only?
Are there any cards which can tune and change the channels on our local cable networks like Foxtel or Optus? Not that I really want cable here, but I have friends who do, and I could build a box for them, so I can get share cable content with them.
I don't understand this idea that poor UI design is "OK for techies." We all benefit from good design, even power users. And in many cases, a power-user will notice a poor UI more, because they can easily see what is wrong with it. Guess it depends on what kind of "techie" you are.
Wouldn't the more appropriate term in this case be "rough trade" your arse?
That article doesn't actually explain anything about what happened at LinuxWorld. It appears to be a writer complaining about being treated badly by a magazine. Now, I am not willing to click on a link to a Dvorak article, I don't want to give him the traffic. So how am I supposed to know what the heck this is all about? One would think the slashdot writeup or comments would expound on this, but I'm still left in the dark.
Is "what happened at LinuxWorld" supposed to be universal knowledge? Why won't anybody give a straightforward explanation of what all the fuss is about?
Gameboy? What's that? The first mass market game was probably Monopoly by Parker Bros. The first mass-market video game was probably Pac-Man. Anyone care to guess what the first mass-market home-computer game was? Was it on the Apple ][ or the Commodore 64?
Perhaps it is - but why are slashdot editors allowing typos to get through to front-page articles? Haven't they ever hear dof proofreading and correcting? It's one of the jobs of an editor.
That's a rather strange comment. Low-powered desktops and laptops have been very hip (see Mac Mini, iBook and mini-ATX or whatever) for the last few years. Meanwhile, having the 0wnx0rz gaming PC has never been hip - it is the true symbol of a dork without a social life.
But size isn't just about functionality. Size is very important for some people for reasons beyond size. Do you think laptops are made small for "style"? Of course not - they are made small, because smallness is a feature.
But that doesn't mean they are "open" - you will still get sued into oblivion if you try to copy one of their processor designs.
When did I ever suggest "a central authority controlling half our lives?" Talk about a straw-man.
it's just that whenever you give the government your money, they invariably use it in ways you didn't intend. It's best not to give it to them in the first place and put it up for political grabs.
So, why not demand accountability from the government, so this doesn't happen? Not paying taxes isn't going to stop this. If there was accountability, the government could provide twice as many services for half the tax money. Whining about taxes isn't going to change anything. not to mention, that money wouldn't exist if the government didn't issue it in the first place. Where do you think the currency system comes from?
That's a really scary thing to say. Would you feel the same way knowing the majority of people currently might like to impose religious laws, or outlaw abortion?
That's an entirely different issue, and you know it. We are talking about providing services, not telling people what they can do with their bodies. We're talking about money (issued by the government) - not human rights.
I think you're thinking of another continent if you think whatever the majority wants is what should go.
Not entirely. The government should not be in the business of what people do with their lives, until it hurts other people. They should be in the business of providing services and security to realize the full potential of a society.
Bush couldn't do the crazy shit you probably hate him for were it not for people like you why think of the government as the answer to so many things. You just complain when the government becomes controlled by people you disagree with, but don't see how having the government do everything is the flip side of the same coin.
Wrong. I'm for accountability of all governments. I don't trust them either. So keep them on a short leash. Bush would not be able to get away with these things if there was transparency. It also has a lot to do with the two-party system and the absurd "electoral college." A proportional representative parliamentary system would work a lot better than the current set-up. Bush doesn't even have to answer questions on the parliament floor! 49% of people didn't vote for him, but he still has total power.
Having the government provide services doesn't mean we have to let them get away with everything.
Gosh, they had experience of all the different forms of government that could possibly exist? By the way, amking ad hominem attacks doesn't make your argument any more credible.
So, are you saying, that no other form of government could possibly work, except for that envisaged by Jefferson and co? That doesn't really make sense, as the US is having massive problems with its form of government, and disenfranchisement of voters. Other governments around the world are far more representational. The founders' system isn't exactly working.
I've lived in places with low taxes (Golden, CO) and high as hell (Boston, MA) and there is no correlation between tax rate and quality of life.
That's because the US doesn't spend taxes to help the people. If some of the tax money were used for things like public health care, then you would get better value from your taxes. One of the biggest problems is not having decent welfare. This means crime and poverty is high - which reduces everyone's standard of living.
Don't fall for the statist BS about our standard of living having anything to do with our government. We have a high standard DESPITE our government, and only because of technology and scientific progress.
Sorry, you're the one buying the bullshit. The government has helped your standard of living so much that you can't even see it. How the heck do you think you get strong technological and service industries? Do you think it would have happened without public education? What about The New Deal? What about the massive infrastructure projects like the railways that helped make America what it is?
As a geek, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking a bunch of fucking lawyers had anything to do with our improved quality of life.
No, I don't think a "bunch of lawyers" did - but the visionary politicians who actually cared, did make a big difference.
I can't even fathom how many great things we could do if even a quarter of the overall government budgets were returned to the people,
I'm not surprised you can't fathom it, because it wouldn't really make any difference. Most people would just spend the money on consumer crap. meanwhile, that money will have to be paid anyway - to privately provide the services the government was subsidizing. So, you could possibly end up with even less money, if we had to pay for everything individually.
The people in Boston are self absorbed and miserable to each other (so much for liberalism being the politics of niceness) the infrastructure is rotting (isn't that the main purpose of government?) and the cost of living is horrendous (liberals will only help the poor if it won't hurt their inflated home prices).
Uhhh, what the hell does this have to do with liberalism?