I'm just glad that they managed to write the article without once mentioning "God Particle."
That phrase would have been far less offensive if the newspaper prudes hadn't censored it. I was "God damned particle, because it was so elusive it pissed the researchers off that they hadn't found it. When the term was published in the popular press, "damned" was censored out.
God damned prudes and their contempt for clear communication...
I'm sorry, it's my fault. They must have gotten the idea here. a year and a half ago.
"Ok, asshole. Let me read up on it." He held his hand out, and a book appeared in it, seemingly, again, out of thin air, assembling itself out of the microscopic networked robots. Almost everything but food and drink was made out of nobots. A protohuman would have thought it magic, rather than technology. Rority read the book -- which was, of course, nothing like the books we protohumans have. Neither paper nor an electronic device, it appeared to be a single, thin cardboard which changed its text and illustrations with the movement of the user's eyes.
Damn it, MS, if you're going to use my sci-fi ideas, invent the stratodoober!
Oh, for fuck's sake, mods, you can't get any more offtopic than that! MOD DOWN PLEASE. And kurt, your journal is the place for that particular observation, not in a completely unrelated first page story.
I hope the editors notice the moderation and ban whoever thought the GNAA was in any way interesting from ever again getting mod points. I do not come to slashdot to see comments about the GNAA!
What the fuck, people? Is slashdot going the way of K5? STOP THIS NONSENSE!
Two observations: 1, W8 won't fly. 2, "gorilla arm" is something wimps and pussies fear. Know anyone in home construction? They not only have their arms in front of them eight hours a day, but those arms are holding heavy tools.
It isn't the physical discomfort, it's the inconvinience. Moving your hand from the mouse to the keyboard is bad enough, but reaching past the keyboard to the screen (which your arm now partly blocks) is worse. It's a really,k really stupid concept for a PC. If a device has a mouse and keyboard, it doesn't need a touch screen at all. What kind of idiots does MS employ, anyway??
Perhaps "information should be free, while the container may or may not be"? Because the Internet is full of content released for free by their authors
Content on the internet has no container, which was my point -- sell give your novels away and sell books. Give your songs away and sell CDs. The only downside to a producer for "free" is if your wares suck, nobody's going to buy them, unlike how it is now, where I may hear a nice 30 second snippt of a song that sucks donkey balls.
Depending on the personal opinion, it may or may not be ethical to charge whatever you want, but doing so's not a property of the Adam Smith style "Free market", particularly in this case.
I have no respect for Adam Smith or any other economist. Economics is the astrology of the 21st century. There isn't an economist who ever lived that there wasn't another economist calling him a gold-studded liar.
As I said, just because I demand a million dollars for a 1972 Ford Pinto doesn't mean anyone has to or is willing to pay it. As to "free market," the markets for music, books, and movies is hardly free considering that these works' authors have been granted monopolies.
I personally don't think digital works should be covered by copyright; only the publication of those works in an affixed medium, like a book, DVD, or CD.
If they try to bend the whole system more and more towards something that isn't even close to that theoretical 'perfect' free market, and yet they think that being able to set the price they want is part of a free market, isn't that pretty much like throwing a bowling ball straight up at that aggrievating spider on the ceiling, and then complaining that the spider is solely responsible for your headaches?
I'm in no way siding with the media, I'm saying they can charge what they want, even if it means they shoot themselves in the feet.
Someone "pirating" the industry's work may be partly to blame for lower profits
Studies all show the opposite, that free sells. Because of reading Asimov for free in the library I now have two dozen of his books on my shelf. I would never have bought Are You Experienced as a teenager if my friend Tom hadn't given me a cassette of it, because that album got no airplay. As Doctorow notes, nobody ever lost money because of piracy (not to be confused with counterfeit goods, which do cost the legit producer) but many an artist has starved because of obscurity.
In this case I agree, folks were paying for these downloads. I mentioned in another comment that this was in fact wrong, that the money paid should have gone to the studios. TPB is entirely different; studies all show that piracy sells content, although counterfeiting does not. Piracy and counterfeiting are two didfferent things.
IIRC it was the TV news link. They mentioned both that the dead Foster's name wasn't "Rusty" but "Russell", he was 80 years old, and lived in the south.
As long as they track who send in the obit, I think think that should be sufficient. As I said, it should be trivial to make someone dead, and a crime (fraud) to do so maliciously.
What about done in error? It should be hard to make someone dead, and it should be easy to come back to life if you're declared dead but aren't. Malice is hard to prove, but I agree when malice is proven there should be penalties.
I was one of the first to be at HuSi, but didn't stay long. Like you, between 2002 and 2005 I'm not sure I came to/. at all, I was away long enough that when I came back I had to get a new account because I couldn't remember the PW or remember what ISP and email I was using (/. staff cleared it up and I'm using the original account now).
They used to call my diary "the mansion in the middle of the diary ghetto." I still link some of the old diaries and stories there.
32.7% of Indians live on less than $1.25 per day. 68.7% of Indians live on less than $2.00 per day.
That's meaningless without knowing the cost of living there. If rent is $1 per week and food is likewise cheap, that's good money. See, I was in a third world country in 1974 and saw how it works.
Poor is indeed relative. If you can't afford to not be hungry, cold, and/or sick, you're poor. Meaning that people who work in WalMart and McDonalds are poor.
Although I agree that commercial infringement like this deserves the slammer, I don't agree that anyone lost any money. The only way copyright infringement costs sales is if the book or movie sucks and people are warned that it sucks. On the other hand, there are many fine books and films that will lose money because nobody heard of them. Nobody but bad authors ever lost money from copyright infringement (in this case I'd say the money the guy made belongs to the studios) but many artists starve from obscurity.
One gets to set the price on the products one labors to produce
Since when?
Since forever, with the exception of communist countries and Nixon's wage-price freeze in the seventies, and imminent domain. I can charge what I want. That doesn't mean you'll pay it, though.
Copyright makes no sense in an age where people have the methods and apparatus needed to distribute information on a global scale in their house.
US copyright law once said a work had to be "affixed to a tangible medium". You didn't buy a novel, you bought a book. Tyou didn't buy a song, you bought a record. When you "buy" a song from iTunes you own nothing. Meanwhile I own hundreds of books that I would never have bought had I not read the authors' works for free at the library. It works for Corey Doctorow, who credits posting his books at boingboing for his status as a NYT Best Seller. Content should sell product, it should not be the product.
Information should be free. The container should not.
The headline didn't tip you off? I wish the mods would moderate stupid, pointless comments like yours to the "-1, offtopic" they ALL deserve. If you want to bitch about what stories are posted, do it in your journal so we don't have to see it.
I haven't flown since the mod eighties, but there was no screening at all. You paid your cash, got your ticket, and boarded. No ID checks, no x-ray scanners, no groping, no taking off your shoes, no emptying your pepsis..
All I can think of is that the young people today are cowardly pussies, being so afraid of terrorists they'll allow this indignity.
It wasn't just Rusty, the admins were retards. I was once banned for crapflooding (Pete Jongular is a retarded asshole). Rusty told me he didn't know how it happened and blamed a bug when I posted six stories at once and five were voted to the front page.
How to kill a web site: piss off your users. Sites are a dime a dozen, eyeballs are precious.
I left in '05 after being continually annoyed by admin Pete Jongular, nigga, and a few other trolls and assholes. Plus, after/. instituted user journals there just wasn't any reason to go there any more.
Did you even read the article?? Facebook's methods are retarded. Send an obit of someone with a similar (not same) name, wildly different age and place of residence and that's that. They couldn't have made a more stupid design if they tried.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think the first step is to change their uniform shirts to a sort of a chocolate brown color, that has a "calming" effect.
No, the deep black SS Imperial Storm Trooper look they have here in Springfield works well, perfect for a police state.
I'm just glad that they managed to write the article without once mentioning "God Particle."
That phrase would have been far less offensive if the newspaper prudes hadn't censored it. I was "God damned particle, because it was so elusive it pissed the researchers off that they hadn't found it. When the term was published in the popular press, "damned" was censored out.
God damned prudes and their contempt for clear communication...
I've always heard it called the Song of Solomon.
This is very similar to the comments the last time this exact story was on slashdot. Also, it is a waste of money.
Yes, it's a dupe, but if slashdot wants to waste its money on dupes...
I'm sorry, it's my fault. They must have gotten the idea here. a year and a half ago.
Damn it, MS, if you're going to use my sci-fi ideas, invent the stratodoober!
Betterage's law is complete and utter bullshit (he broke his own law himself), but in this case it does apply -- Polaroid is history.
Oh, for fuck's sake, mods, you can't get any more offtopic than that! MOD DOWN PLEASE. And kurt, your journal is the place for that particular observation, not in a completely unrelated first page story.
I hope the editors notice the moderation and ban whoever thought the GNAA was in any way interesting from ever again getting mod points. I do not come to slashdot to see comments about the GNAA!
What the fuck, people? Is slashdot going the way of K5? STOP THIS NONSENSE!
How is harming an evil monster like MS in any way evil? You blame the townspeople with pitchforks and torches who are chasing Frankenstein's monster?
Two observations: 1, W8 won't fly. 2, "gorilla arm" is something wimps and pussies fear. Know anyone in home construction? They not only have their arms in front of them eight hours a day, but those arms are holding heavy tools.
It isn't the physical discomfort, it's the inconvinience. Moving your hand from the mouse to the keyboard is bad enough, but reaching past the keyboard to the screen (which your arm now partly blocks) is worse. It's a really,k really stupid concept for a PC. If a device has a mouse and keyboard, it doesn't need a touch screen at all. What kind of idiots does MS employ, anyway??
Perhaps "information should be free, while the container may or may not be"? Because the Internet is full of content released for free by their authors
Content on the internet has no container, which was my point -- sell give your novels away and sell books. Give your songs away and sell CDs. The only downside to a producer for "free" is if your wares suck, nobody's going to buy them, unlike how it is now, where I may hear a nice 30 second snippt of a song that sucks donkey balls.
Depending on the personal opinion, it may or may not be ethical to charge whatever you want, but doing so's not a property of the Adam Smith style "Free market", particularly in this case.
I have no respect for Adam Smith or any other economist. Economics is the astrology of the 21st century. There isn't an economist who ever lived that there wasn't another economist calling him a gold-studded liar.
As I said, just because I demand a million dollars for a 1972 Ford Pinto doesn't mean anyone has to or is willing to pay it. As to "free market," the markets for music, books, and movies is hardly free considering that these works' authors have been granted monopolies.
I personally don't think digital works should be covered by copyright; only the publication of those works in an affixed medium, like a book, DVD, or CD.
If they try to bend the whole system more and more towards something that isn't even close to that theoretical 'perfect' free market, and yet they think that being able to set the price they want is part of a free market, isn't that pretty much like throwing a bowling ball straight up at that aggrievating spider on the ceiling, and then complaining that the spider is solely responsible for your headaches?
I'm in no way siding with the media, I'm saying they can charge what they want, even if it means they shoot themselves in the feet.
Someone "pirating" the industry's work may be partly to blame for lower profits
Studies all show the opposite, that free sells. Because of reading Asimov for free in the library I now have two dozen of his books on my shelf. I would never have bought Are You Experienced as a teenager if my friend Tom hadn't given me a cassette of it, because that album got no airplay. As Doctorow notes, nobody ever lost money because of piracy (not to be confused with counterfeit goods, which do cost the legit producer) but many an artist has starved because of obscurity.
In this case I agree, folks were paying for these downloads. I mentioned in another comment that this was in fact wrong, that the money paid should have gone to the studios. TPB is entirely different; studies all show that piracy sells content, although counterfeiting does not. Piracy and counterfeiting are two didfferent things.
The title didn't tip you off?
I didn't have to click a link to see the comment, plus I had to scroll past all the other pointless comments responding to you.
IIRC it was the TV news link. They mentioned both that the dead Foster's name wasn't "Rusty" but "Russell", he was 80 years old, and lived in the south.
As long as they track who send in the obit, I think think that should be sufficient. As I said, it should be trivial to make someone dead, and a crime (fraud) to do so maliciously.
What about done in error? It should be hard to make someone dead, and it should be easy to come back to life if you're declared dead but aren't. Malice is hard to prove, but I agree when malice is proven there should be penalties.
I was one of the first to be at HuSi, but didn't stay long. Like you, between 2002 and 2005 I'm not sure I came to /. at all, I was away long enough that when I came back I had to get a new account because I couldn't remember the PW or remember what ISP and email I was using (/. staff cleared it up and I'm using the original account now).
They used to call my diary "the mansion in the middle of the diary ghetto." I still link some of the old diaries and stories there.
32.7% of Indians live on less than $1.25 per day.
68.7% of Indians live on less than $2.00 per day.
That's meaningless without knowing the cost of living there. If rent is $1 per week and food is likewise cheap, that's good money. See, I was in a third world country in 1974 and saw how it works.
Poor is indeed relative. If you can't afford to not be hungry, cold, and/or sick, you're poor. Meaning that people who work in WalMart and McDonalds are poor.
Although I agree that commercial infringement like this deserves the slammer, I don't agree that anyone lost any money. The only way copyright infringement costs sales is if the book or movie sucks and people are warned that it sucks. On the other hand, there are many fine books and films that will lose money because nobody heard of them. Nobody but bad authors ever lost money from copyright infringement (in this case I'd say the money the guy made belongs to the studios) but many artists starve from obscurity.
Since forever, with the exception of communist countries and Nixon's wage-price freeze in the seventies, and imminent domain. I can charge what I want. That doesn't mean you'll pay it, though.
Copyright makes no sense in an age where people have the methods and apparatus needed to distribute information on a global scale in their house.
US copyright law once said a work had to be "affixed to a tangible medium". You didn't buy a novel, you bought a book. Tyou didn't buy a song, you bought a record. When you "buy" a song from iTunes you own nothing. Meanwhile I own hundreds of books that I would never have bought had I not read the authors' works for free at the library. It works for Corey Doctorow, who credits posting his books at boingboing for his status as a NYT Best Seller. Content should sell product, it should not be the product.
Information should be free. The container should not.
The headline didn't tip you off? I wish the mods would moderate stupid, pointless comments like yours to the "-1, offtopic" they ALL deserve. If you want to bitch about what stories are posted, do it in your journal so we don't have to see it.
I haven't flown since the mod eighties, but there was no screening at all. You paid your cash, got your ticket, and boarded. No ID checks, no x-ray scanners, no groping, no taking off your shoes, no emptying your pepsis..
All I can think of is that the young people today are cowardly pussies, being so afraid of terrorists they'll allow this indignity.
I would have modded it down, too. Nice try but it just wasn't funny.
Heck sometimes I think they purposely leave in or even add editing errors to generate more comments.
Why would they do that? It's not like they collect money every time a comment is posted.
It wasn't just Rusty, the admins were retards. I was once banned for crapflooding (Pete Jongular is a retarded asshole). Rusty told me he didn't know how it happened and blamed a bug when I posted six stories at once and five were voted to the front page.
How to kill a web site: piss off your users. Sites are a dime a dozen, eyeballs are precious.
I left in '05 after being continually annoyed by admin Pete Jongular, nigga, and a few other trolls and assholes. Plus, after /. instituted user journals there just wasn't any reason to go there any more.
Did you even read the article?? Facebook's methods are retarded. Send an obit of someone with a similar (not same) name, wildly different age and place of residence and that's that. They couldn't have made a more stupid design if they tried.
If you're really dead, so is your password.