This item and the 'best hacker flick' poll made me wonder, why is The Matrix such a big deal to some people? It was a good movie--the acting STANK, the special effects were excellent, the plot was well-worn ground, the point was...well, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt and just say it was nice eye candy with no point.
So how does a film with no hacking get voted best hacker flick? (Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking, any more than a paper MCSE is a sys admin. Yes, I'm comparing everyone who voted for The Matrix as a hacker flick to a paper MCSE. The answer is: War Games. (credit given for Tron and Real Genius))
My conclusion: The Matrix is the best SLACKER flick. The whole Neo story line is basically, why do you stay up all night downloading pr0n and mp3z? Why can't you come to work on time and do your job? (Geeks know if you know your shit and get the job done, no one hassles you about what time you come in.) No, it's not because you're a loser; it's because you're the savior of mankind!
Neo is a geek in the pejorative sense. He's a loser. And on day he finds someone to tell him he is 'The One.' In War Games, Tron, heck, even The Net, you see people actually considering an issue, going through a thought process to find a solution, aka hacking. Neo is handed a magic pill. That's not hacking, it's slacking.
Is it just me, or is this stuff just not impressive? It's nice to see who can write the biggest check, but how much of this stuff works, let alone is really useful?
Come on now, network hook-ups in every room? Didn't/. do a story on that a few weeks ago...only then it was people talking about frat houses and apartments? It just doesn't cost that much to wire up a house.
The only visible evidence of Brown's bandwidth fixation is the plethora of color-coded, four-prong jacks -- "network jacks" is a better description -- scattered throughout the house.
Puh-lease, nigga. If I spend enough money on my home network that someone is writing an article about it, don't bring me "network jacks"--that mother better be wireless. (As an aside, does he use those "network jacks" with one of them there new "computers"? Network jacks are not that obscure or bleeding edge. Quotes are entirely unnecessary.)
And what is up with Larry?
According to Green, when Ellison had trouble reading the fine print on the touch screens, an assistant purchased more than 20 pairs of glasses and hung them by each screen.
And that's the home that "surpasses all others" *gasp*
I have the ability to change screen resolution and font size with my junk celeron system. Can we get Larry a UI make-over?
And my favorite:
Because Nicholas sleeps only about four hours a night, his AudioVisions crew is accustomed to being summoned in the middle of the night. "It's not unusual to get a call from him at 2 a.m. saying, 'It doesn't work,' " Hoffenberg says. "Sometimes, it's an obscure feature like a push button."
Ooh...his house has...push buttons! They may not work, but boy are they obscure. Of course that's not as good as the guy who strapped a monitor onto his exercise bike. That must of cost millions.
The guys from eXcite seem to be the only ones in the bunch with any clue.
Sean "I may be poor, but I don't have to change glasses just to read my screen"
Where are they going to get a base tower 50 Km tall? The tallest buildings are the Petronas Towers, both under.5 Km, so they're talking about something 100 times taller.
In the 60-odd years between the Empire State Building (1931) and the Petronas(1996), the height of the tallest building increased less than 20%. So...last 70 years, 20% growth, next 50 years, 10000% growth.
And what happens when something flies into this thing? Heck, birds have trouble avoiding wind mills, so I expect this will generate a fair amount of road kill. I certainly wouldn't want to be on my way up when an airplane hits.
No, thank you. I'll reach orbit the old fashioned way. Now pass me that bong.
Not that it's important, but isn't the custom to put a *spoiler* warning on such a story for anyone who might be interested in the hack without knowing the supposed winner?
Last night's 20/20 on ABC in the US of A had two contrasting stories to illustrate this point.
The first story was on a guy with a 195 IQ. He legitimately scores off the chart on standard intelligence tests. He's mid-40s, lives alone, and has no children (yet).
The second story was on a couple with 18 children. (They had 17 when the story was taped but managed to squeeze out another one between taping and air time.) The father is out of work but will take any job, "that comes my way." Their IQs weren't announced, but I got the impression the couple's IQs might add up to 195.
Most current studies on the subject confirm more education generally means fewer children.
To paraphrase the country song, we may be smarter, but there's a heck of a lot more of them than there are of us.
Perhaps our inability to even ponder these notions has resulted in the opposite: our actively breeding "homo idiotus." The self-acclaimed geek you responded to may achieve the advantages s/he would have had had s/he become "homo superior," simply by remaining "homo sapiens" in a world populated by humans of ever decreasing intelligence.
One way to look at this trend is, "Wow, we get ahead just be standing still. The geeks will rule the world of idiots with an iron slide rule."
The correct way to look at this trend is, "Wow, we are all doomed." You may not enjoy Ayn Rand's fiction, you may not respect her philosophy, but the forfeit of society to homo idiotus depicted in Atlas Shrugged is being played out around us every day.
While your anecdotal evidence is nice, here's a scientific study referenced by the RIAA that contradicts your conclusion.
Quote, "As reported earlier, SoundScan division VNU Marketing tested the theory by looking specifically at sales in stores near universities, where online music has been more widely adopted than in the general public. In those stores, SoundScan data shows that record sales have actually dropped 4 percent in the past two years. In stores near the 67 colleges that have banned Napster, citing an overload on their internal networks, sales have dropped 7 percent in two years."
Record stores near colleges that have access to Napster do better than record stores near colleges that do not allow access to Napster.
The "ILOVEYOU" virus infected computers around the world Thursday -- overloading e-mail systems, deleting files and causing an $100 million in damage in North America alone.
Where does this number come from? Seriously, considering Thursday isn't over yet, are $ damage figures like this one pure fiction?
Given what we know about the relationship of matter and energy (the path of photons are affected by gravity, E=mc^2, etc.) and the relationship of energy and entropy (techniques to achieve close-to-absolute-zero temperatures involve the re-ordering of particles, can we say removing information energy where it is not practical to remove thermal energy?), and given what we know about areas of high matter density (black holes, et al.), can you envision a singularity of such high informational density an event horizon forms beyond which no information can escape?
(And I'm not referring to Microsoft tech support.)
Is it possible to know too much-to have a computer too powerful or too small, to have too much information in too small a volume-and what would such a singularity look like?
"There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between murderring a bad man and murderring a good one."
That may be true, but that has nothing to do with this story. I agree, just because something is legal does not make it right. But I also know, just because a deal seems to favor one party more than the other does not make it wrong.
It is MS's job to decide how it values its products and services. It is my job as a consumer to decide the value to me of those products and services. In this case, MS thought getting someone signed up for MSN was worth $400 in rebates. Some consumers thought signing up for MSN was worth $400 in rebates. Not only is this not unethical, such behavior is VERY ethical.
For example, a friend of mine took advantage of a similar deal with MSN. (This is a real friend, not a friend-of-a-friend, or I heard about this guy who...) He buys an e-machine for $399 and at that time signs up for a 3-year term with MSN for a $400 rebate. So basically for the out-of-pocket expense of sales tax, he gets a decent computer for web surfing complete with speakers, printer, scanner, etc.
The next day, he can't log in to MSN. He calls MSN tech support. They have no record of his account. He says, 'thank you,' and hangs up. He is never billed for the MSN service. My friend went into this deal with the honest intention of receiving and paying for 3-years of MSN service. I haven't read his service agreement, but we can presume the terms include a penalty clause in the event he cancels the service before the 3-years are up. My friend does not live in CA or OR.
However, we can also presume the agreement also contains a clause specifying MS can change the terms of deals. (For example, I cannot decide to stop paying my credit card bills, but the company can change the interest rate I am charged at any time as long as they give me proper notice. If MS bought out AOL and decided to provide AOL service in place of MSN, I suspect that change would be allowed under the terms of the agreement.) It seems in this case MS changed the terms of the deal. Since the change works to the advantage of my friend, he agreed to the new terms. My friend did not murder any man, good or otherwise. He entered into a deal in which both sides had fair notice of the terms.
Kozmo.com is another example. Kozmo.com delivers movie and video game rentals in my area. They charge less than Blockbuster and provide delivery in less than 1 hour. How can they charge less and deliver the goods and make a profit? I have no idea. And since I usually only order 1 rental at a time, and there is no delivery charge, I suspect they lose money every time I use their service. Am I now guilty of murderring? [sic]
No. I am guilty of nothing. Maybe delivery is cheap because they use homeless people with rickshaws. Maybe the whole operation is a mob front and designed to lose money as a way of laundering money. I don't know, and I don't care. I know the use of a video game for 4 days is worth $3.79 to me, and that is the price I pay.
Another example--I bought a car. I borrowed the money to pay for that car. I agreed to pay back that money over the course of 5 years and to pay interest for that time. I ended up paying off loan in about 3 years. The company that provided the loan received less money from me than they could have. The contact included a provision for paying off the loan early. If they didn't want to take the chance of me paying less interest by paying off the loan early, then they should not have agreed to the contract. If MS did not want to take the chance people would cancel the MSN service after receiving the $400 rebate, then they should not of agreed to the contract.
"Let's face it; if Red Hat or Corel or Caldera offered a service deal in a loan, as Microsoft did it's MSN deal, then suddenly morality changes? "
Now you're just spouting gibberish. The morality of this type of deal does not change depending on the company involved. Now I personally did not take advantage of deal in discussion here, nor do I personally know anyone who did. (My friend is in NJ, not CA or OR, and did not cancel MSN.) But from what I gather, the case in which someone signs up for MSN, gets the $400 rebate, and then cancels the service the next day is provided for in the terms of the agreement and in the law covering this type of contract. If MS can not abide by those terms it should not offer such a deal.
At the same I as a consumer, if I feel the terms are not in my favor, should not agree to such a deal. Come on guy, how many people are going to be using a 56K dial-up in 3 years? And those that do, is it going to cost the same as it does today? The only way I'd ever agree to this kind of deal with that long of a term is if I could cancel at any time without penalty.
To completely digress for a moment and end on an off topic note, how did by Benjamin's unrelated comments score a 3? The moral difference between murderring[sic] a bad man and murderring[sic] a good one, while an interesting topic for discussion, has nothing to do with this story. MS agreed to a deal. Thought that deal worked in its favor. Later realized it was not such a good deal. Consumers agreed to a deal. Thought that deal worked in their favor. Seems they were right.
"Mr. Lucas, this is not the way you respect your customers."
I don't see what any of the above has to do with the DVD release of TPM. Lucas didn't start the rumor. Don't blame him if some people will believe/repeat anything they hear.
Heck, I could start a rumor there's a new version of Windows coming out that is completely stable, never crashes, and only takes up 10 megs of your hard drive. Hopefully that rumor would never be the lead story on/. because simply is not credible. And neither is a rumor about TPM coming out on DVD when 1) Mr. Lucas has a history of holding back Star Wars movies for long periods before releasing to the home market 2) Mr. Lucas is known to not be a huge fan of the current DVD format and 3) TPM was just in theatres earlier this month!
If you REALLY thought TPM was going to be out on DVD in a legit release in the next year, then, while mommy and daddy are sleeping, sneak into their purse or wallet, take those little pieces of green and white paper, and mail them to me.
Geesh, I expect more/. and its audience. I know a lot facts start out as rumor, but if G-d himself came down from the heavens to tell me this one, I'd call him a liar to his face.
Actually, 'some kinda' arrangement does exist. Most (all?) credit card merchant agreements state the product must be delivered or shipped before the account is charged.
My own experience--about 100 purchases made through the web from merchants ranging from brick-and-mortar shops to online auctions to Amazon (boo) and eToys (hiss), I've only had 2 bad experiences and both were due to deliberate deception by the merchant. (One claimed the product had features it did not, and the other charged me twice.)
Slashdot Mirror
Make a bong out of it.
This item and the 'best hacker flick' poll made me wonder, why is The Matrix such a big deal to some people? It was a good movie--the acting STANK, the special effects were excellent, the plot was well-worn ground, the point was...well, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt and just say it was nice eye candy with no point.
So how does a film with no hacking get voted best hacker flick? (Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking, any more than a paper MCSE is a sys admin. Yes, I'm comparing everyone who voted for The Matrix as a hacker flick to a paper MCSE. The answer is: War Games. (credit given for Tron and Real Genius))
My conclusion: The Matrix is the best SLACKER flick. The whole Neo story line is basically, why do you stay up all night downloading pr0n and mp3z? Why can't you come to work on time and do your job? (Geeks know if you know your shit and get the job done, no one hassles you about what time you come in.) No, it's not because you're a loser; it's because you're the savior of mankind!
Neo is a geek in the pejorative sense. He's a loser. And on day he finds someone to tell him he is 'The One.' In War Games, Tron, heck, even The Net, you see people actually considering an issue, going through a thought process to find a solution, aka hacking. Neo is handed a magic pill. That's not hacking, it's slacking.
To make a house full of pop corn!
Why would you buy a hard disk from Apple?
Because Mac OS updates will trash non-apple drives.
Remember that?
Is it just me, or is this stuff just not impressive? It's nice to see who can write the biggest check, but how much of this stuff works, let alone is really useful?
Come on now, network hook-ups in every room? Didn't /. do a story on that a few weeks ago...only then it was people talking about frat houses and apartments? It just doesn't cost that much to wire up a house.
Puh-lease, nigga. If I spend enough money on my home network that someone is writing an article about it, don't bring me "network jacks"--that mother better be wireless. (As an aside, does he use those "network jacks" with one of them there new "computers"? Network jacks are not that obscure or bleeding edge. Quotes are entirely unnecessary.)And what is up with Larry?
And that's the home that "surpasses all others" *gasp*I have the ability to change screen resolution and font size with my junk celeron system. Can we get Larry a UI make-over?
And my favorite:
Ooh...his house has...push buttons! They may not work, but boy are they obscure. Of course that's not as good as the guy who strapped a monitor onto his exercise bike. That must of cost millions.The guys from eXcite seem to be the only ones in the bunch with any clue.
Sean "I may be poor, but I don't have to change glasses just to read my screen"
Gotta watch out for the medical waste.
>> < Signal_11 > So what, stats are like bikini's.. they're just suggestive.
Is that a great line or what?
Where are they going to get a base tower 50 Km tall? The tallest buildings are the Petronas Towers, both under .5 Km, so they're talking about something 100 times taller.
In the 60-odd years between the Empire State Building (1931) and the Petronas(1996), the height of the tallest building increased less than 20%. So...last 70 years, 20% growth, next 50 years, 10000% growth.
And what happens when something flies into this thing? Heck, birds have trouble avoiding wind mills, so I expect this will generate a fair amount of road kill. I certainly wouldn't want to be on my way up when an airplane hits.
No, thank you. I'll reach orbit the old fashioned way. Now pass me that bong.
Not that it's important, but isn't the custom to put a *spoiler* warning on such a story for anyone who might be interested in the hack without knowing the supposed winner?
Last night's 20/20 on ABC in the US of A had two contrasting stories to illustrate this point.
The first story was on a guy with a 195 IQ. He legitimately scores off the chart on standard intelligence tests. He's mid-40s, lives alone, and has no children (yet).
The second story was on a couple with 18 children. (They had 17 when the story was taped but managed to squeeze out another one between taping and air time.) The father is out of work but will take any job, "that comes my way." Their IQs weren't announced, but I got the impression the couple's IQs might add up to 195.
Most current studies on the subject confirm more education generally means fewer children.
To paraphrase the country song, we may be smarter, but there's a heck of a lot more of them than there are of us.
One way to look at this trend is, "Wow, we get ahead just be standing still. The geeks will rule the world of idiots with an iron slide rule."
The correct way to look at this trend is, "Wow, we are all doomed." You may not enjoy Ayn Rand's fiction, you may not respect her philosophy, but the forfeit of society to homo idiotus depicted in Atlas Shrugged is being played out around us every day.
Have a nice day. =)
While your anecdotal evidence is nice, here's a scientific study referenced by the RIAA that contradicts your conclusion.
Quote, "As reported earlier, SoundScan division VNU Marketing tested the theory by looking specifically at sales in stores near universities, where online music has been more widely adopted than in the general public. In those stores, SoundScan data shows that record sales have actually dropped 4 percent in the past two years. In stores near the 67 colleges that have banned Napster, citing an overload on their internal networks, sales have dropped 7 percent in two years."
Record stores near colleges that have access to Napster do better than record stores near colleges that do not allow access to Napster.
Given what we know about the relationship of matter and energy (the path of photons are affected by gravity, E=mc^2, etc.) and the relationship of energy and entropy (techniques to achieve close-to-absolute-zero temperatures involve the re-ordering of particles, can we say removing information energy where it is not practical to remove thermal energy?), and given what we know about areas of high matter density (black holes, et al.), can you envision a singularity of such high informational density an event horizon forms beyond which no information can escape?
(And I'm not referring to Microsoft tech support.)
Is it possible to know too much-to have a computer too powerful or too small, to have too much information in too small a volume-and what would such a singularity look like?
"There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between murderring a bad man and murderring a good one."
That may be true, but that has nothing to do with this story. I agree, just because something is legal does not make it right. But I also know, just because a deal seems to favor one party more than the other does not make it wrong.
It is MS's job to decide how it values its products and services. It is my job as a consumer to decide the value to me of those products and services. In this case, MS thought getting someone signed up for MSN was worth $400 in rebates. Some consumers thought signing up for MSN was worth $400 in rebates. Not only is this not unethical, such behavior is VERY ethical.
For example, a friend of mine took advantage of a similar deal with MSN. (This is a real friend, not a friend-of-a-friend, or I heard about this guy who...) He buys an e-machine for $399 and at that time signs up for a 3-year term with MSN for a $400 rebate. So basically for the out-of-pocket expense of sales tax, he gets a decent computer for web surfing complete with speakers, printer, scanner, etc.
The next day, he can't log in to MSN. He calls MSN tech support. They have no record of his account. He says, 'thank you,' and hangs up. He is never billed for the MSN service. My friend went into this deal with the honest intention of receiving and paying for 3-years of MSN service. I haven't read his service agreement, but we can presume the terms include a penalty clause in the event he cancels the service before the 3-years are up. My friend does not live in CA or OR.
However, we can also presume the agreement also contains a clause specifying MS can change the terms of deals. (For example, I cannot decide to stop paying my credit card bills, but the company can change the interest rate I am charged at any time as long as they give me proper notice. If MS bought out AOL and decided to provide AOL service in place of MSN, I suspect that change would be allowed under the terms of the agreement.) It seems in this case MS changed the terms of the deal. Since the change works to the advantage of my friend, he agreed to the new terms. My friend did not murder any man, good or otherwise. He entered into a deal in which both sides had fair notice of the terms.
Kozmo.com is another example. Kozmo.com delivers movie and video game rentals in my area. They charge less than Blockbuster and provide delivery in less than 1 hour. How can they charge less and deliver the goods and make a profit? I have no idea. And since I usually only order 1 rental at a time, and there is no delivery charge, I suspect they lose money every time I use their service. Am I now guilty of murderring? [sic]
No. I am guilty of nothing. Maybe delivery is cheap because they use homeless people with rickshaws. Maybe the whole operation is a mob front and designed to lose money as a way of laundering money. I don't know, and I don't care. I know the use of a video game for 4 days is worth $3.79 to me, and that is the price I pay.
Another example--I bought a car. I borrowed the money to pay for that car. I agreed to pay back that money over the course of 5 years and to pay interest for that time. I ended up paying off loan in about 3 years. The company that provided the loan received less money from me than they could have. The contact included a provision for paying off the loan early. If they didn't want to take the chance of me paying less interest by paying off the loan early, then they should not have agreed to the contract. If MS did not want to take the chance people would cancel the MSN service after receiving the $400 rebate, then they should not of agreed to the contract.
"Let's face it; if Red Hat or Corel or Caldera offered a service deal in a loan, as Microsoft did it's MSN deal, then suddenly morality changes? "
Now you're just spouting gibberish. The morality of this type of deal does not change depending on the company involved. Now I personally did not take advantage of deal in discussion here, nor do I personally know anyone who did. (My friend is in NJ, not CA or OR, and did not cancel MSN.) But from what I gather, the case in which someone signs up for MSN, gets the $400 rebate, and then cancels the service the next day is provided for in the terms of the agreement and in the law covering this type of contract. If MS can not abide by those terms it should not offer such a deal.
At the same I as a consumer, if I feel the terms are not in my favor, should not agree to such a deal. Come on guy, how many people are going to be using a 56K dial-up in 3 years? And those that do, is it going to cost the same as it does today? The only way I'd ever agree to this kind of deal with that long of a term is if I could cancel at any time without penalty.
To completely digress for a moment and end on an off topic note, how did by Benjamin's unrelated comments score a 3? The moral difference between murderring[sic] a bad man and murderring[sic] a good one, while an interesting topic for discussion, has nothing to do with this story. MS agreed to a deal. Thought that deal worked in its favor. Later realized it was not such a good deal. Consumers agreed to a deal. Thought that deal worked in their favor. Seems they were right.
Sean.
"Mr. Lucas, this is not the way you respect your customers."
/. because simply is not credible. And neither is a rumor about TPM coming out on DVD when 1) Mr. Lucas has a history of holding back Star Wars movies for long periods before releasing to the home market 2) Mr. Lucas is known to not be a huge fan of the current DVD format and 3) TPM was just in theatres earlier this month!
/. and its audience. I know a lot facts start out as rumor, but if G-d himself came down from the heavens to tell me this one, I'd call him a liar to his face.
I don't see what any of the above has to do with the DVD release of TPM. Lucas didn't start the rumor. Don't blame him if some people will believe/repeat anything they hear.
Heck, I could start a rumor there's a new version of Windows coming out that is completely stable, never crashes, and only takes up 10 megs of your hard drive. Hopefully that rumor would never be the lead story on
If you REALLY thought TPM was going to be out on DVD in a legit release in the next year, then, while mommy and daddy are sleeping, sneak into their purse or wallet, take those little pieces of green and white paper, and mail them to me.
Geesh, I expect more
Actually, 'some kinda' arrangement does exist. Most (all?) credit card merchant agreements state the product must be delivered or shipped before the account is charged.
My own experience--about 100 purchases made through the web from merchants ranging from brick-and-mortar shops to online auctions to Amazon (boo) and eToys (hiss), I've only had 2 bad experiences and both were due to deliberate deception by the merchant. (One claimed the product had features it did not, and the other charged me twice.)