PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
The Internet, Like Camelot, Is A Silly Place
May 16th 2000, 16:00 CEST by jeet

Ah, the glorious revolution of the Internet. It was to bring about world equality. It would destroy racial boundries and create a level playing field for all to romp freely on. People would think on it and smile and think happy, fluffy bunny thoughts. However, much like the hippies of yesteryear, the Internet turned into nothing more than a large corporate playground with only a few scattered remnants of the olden days. What's funny, though, is that most of the silly damage brought about by the Internet is caused by the imitators of these leftovers.



Anybody hear about Tommy Hilfiger trashing African-American people on Oprah? Oprah booted his ass off the show faster than you can say "Rosa Parks, hop on board!" This has, subsequently, led to the plummeting of Tommy Hilfiger's stock. Serves him right, too. That bastard.

Only thing, is...it never happened. Hilfiger was never on Oprah. Oprah has never talked to Tommy. They've never even met. Ah, but some clever soul decided to plant this little moist nugget of a rumor on the Internet, and people ran with it. Now a man and his company must suffer the backlash of something that never happened, but that many people take as gospel because they read it on Ye Olde Nette.

Then there are sites like PlanetCrap. We're pretty bad offenders in the whole rumor-mill area. Sure, most often we're right - at least at the core of whatever issue is being discussed. Still, every so often, we get so damned pissed off about a subject that we attack it a bit too aggressively. (What? Me? Aggressive?!) This is why I, personally, stay away from the "news post" type of discussions. I prefer my long winded essays. At least this way I can ramble on about whatever I damned well feel like, and I usually don't get e-mail from some corporate mouth polisher about how I'm reporting inaccurate facts.

And that's what people sometimes just don't get about sites like the 'Crap. We don't report news. We don't report anything. We discuss. Something rears its head in the news, or just in current events in general, and we talk about it. Should anybody get worked up about shit we start over here, it usually means that whoever posted the topic in question was more right than he knew.

But still, take a step back and look at the Internet. Look at it five years ago, and look at it fifteen years from now. In the early days, there was the whole freedom idea. A distribution of knowledge and information, free for anyone and everyone to share. Now the greenbacks are in the fray, and the 'net has become a corporate zone. Yet, we have little folks here and there attempting to hold on to the ideal. Then, we have even littler folks that pretend to hold on to the ideal, just so long as they look trendy enough to get enough people to pay attention to them. The 'net has quickly become distilled into three parts: the old tech-hippie, the commercial megaphone, and the look-at-me-I'm-cool-honest-I-am peon.

I have no problem with hippies. I have no problem with companies using the 'net to turn a buck. But, for the love of God and all things Holy - can we just, please, kill all of the rest of you annoying little fuckers? Seriously, if we could just remove all of the stupid people from the world, for just one hour out of every day - think of how much we, as a race of human beings, could accomplish! Granted, life would be a lot less fun since it is so damned enjoyable to trounce the Moron Club - but hey, we all gotta do our part for the common good, right?

Well, that's it. I'm done. You can all go back to your regular surfing now and ignore the freak. Oh, and anybody out there still preaching about the free exchange of ideas and thought...I don't think Brittney Spears mp3's and MPEG porn count. Just a hunch, though.

Uncle I was a good boy and didn't single out anyone! Jeet
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: The Internet, Like Camelot, Is A Silly Place

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-16 16:19:21
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
Oh dear god... I can feel the toasty goodness already.
Hope you remembered your asbestos gorilla suit...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "Fyrewolf"
2000-05-16 16:19:37
Slashdot often tries to hide behind the "we don't report, we discuss" motto as well.  It's a copout, plain and simple.  Just admit that you're disseminating information, and forget this whole "we're not a news organization, we just repeat what other people say and talk about it."  After all, that's what the majority of real news organizations do anyways.  Instead what we need to do is get people to think critically.  If they read a news article with no names, no dates, and an outlandish premise, they should question whether or not it's true, regardless of whether it came down the AP wire.

f.
#3 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-16 16:28:18
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
Preach it brother Jeet, preach on loud !


Ds
#4 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-16 16:34:45
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net/
Fyrewolf, where did you hear that:
<quote>"we're not a news organization, we just repeat what other people say and talk about it."?</quote>

I'm lurking around PC for almost a year and the fact that I and alot of other readers, I believe, are still here is because I had seen more fresh opinions and food for thought here than on all other news sites combined; if this one is not a discussion site then I don't know which one is.
#5 by "El Asso Wipo!"
2000-05-16 16:41:59
dickcheese@hotmail.com http://www.bluesnews.com
God must love stupid people, look at how many he made!  

I love my Planet of Crap!
#6 by "Fyrewolf"
2000-05-16 17:02:28
<quote>if this one is not a discussion site then I don't know which one is. </quote>

Er, where did I claim that this is not a discussion site?  That wasn't what Jeet was talking about.  He's talking about rumors (or out and out false stories) showing up on sites like Planetcrap and Slashdot.  Whenever that happens, everyone hides behind the rationalization that they're not a news site, therefore the have no culpability, and it's total bullshit.  When a false story or a rumor that turns out to be false is run on a discussion site, they should take their lumps just like a news site should.  They should admit they're wrong, and apologize.  Perhaps this happens occasionally (see below), but most of the time we get backpedalling and blame-shifting.

On a side note, I can't think of any time that Andy has been guilty of this.  If he makes a mistake in his articles, he'll admit it.  Of course, I don't think Andy has any illusions of Planetcrap not being a site that disseminates news.  He may feel differently, of course.

f.
#7 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-16 17:22:04
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net/
Fyrewolf:

oops, missed the point then; excuse me :)
#8 by "Andy"
2000-05-16 17:56:57
andy@planetcrap.com
Blimey, the first Jeet article I've managed to read all the way through and I agree with the sentiment, if not some of the details.

Planetcrap is... whatever we want it to be. (That's "we", btw - it doesn't include you.) If Jeet wants to post an essay about morons, the Net or what he found down the back of his settee then that's what gets posted. If I want to start two threads about a license agreement then you're getting two threads about a license agreement. Maybe you'll get a third one, who knows? Or a fourth. A fifth is unlikely but I'm looking into it...

Many people seem to still be under the illusion that visiting this site gives them editorial control over it. It doesn't. Get over it. (Is that clear enough?)

People are never going to stop complaining about topics that they don't like, I realise that and I accept it, but the sad fact is that those people are complaining because they've got nothing better to do and nothing interesting to contribute. And they are <b>never</b> going to make <b>any</b> difference to what gets posted here, but you just watch, they'll still carry on bitching and nothing anyone says will stop them. It's just their funny little way. It makes them feel good.

The only thing I'd take issue with in Jeet's topic is the idea that Planetcrap sometimes posts stories about rumours. I'm not sure that we ever have, have we? If anyone can give me an example, I'd be interested to hear it.
#9 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-16 18:01:48
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<QUOTE>Seriously, if we could just remove all of the stupid people from the world, for just one hour out of every day </QUOTE>

It would be awful quiet for that one hour, that's for sure.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-16 18:04:13
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#8</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>The only thing I'd take issue with in Jeet's topic is the idea that Planetcrap sometimes posts stories about rumours. I'm not sure that we ever have, have we? If anyone can give me an example, I'd be interested to hear it. </QUOTE>

Look back through the old articles from last year. My memory may not be right on this, but I seem to remember some of the topics carrying disclaimers like "Now, this is all just wild speculation, but..."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Andy"
2000-05-16 18:21:15
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#6</b>, Fyrewolf:
<QUOTE>
On a side note, I can't think of any time that Andy has been guilty of this. If he makes a mistake in his articles, he'll admit it.
</QUOTE>
Shh, you'll ruin people's fantasy. :)
<QUOTE>
Of course, I don't think Andy has any illusions of Planetcrap not being a site that disseminates news. He may feel differently, of course.
</QUOTE>
Well, I stand behind everything I post as being either philosophical or factual, if that counts. Planetcrap, as far as I'm concerned, is definitely not one of those pathetic "provided for entertainment purposes only" sites. If people want that sort of thing, we all know where they can find it. :)
#12 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-05-16 18:22:18
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Andy
<quote>Many people seem to still be under the illusion that visiting this site gives them editorial control over it. It doesn't. Get over it. (Is that clear enough?)</quote>

So this site is your own personal little soapbox?  It's the people who visit this site that make it what it is Andy, not just the people who post topics.

Without the people that come here, it would just be you, Jeet and whoever else yelling into the wind about topics that interest you.

If you truly feel this way, why not just open a site on Geocities, don't give anyone the URL and post your articles there?

The discussion is what makes this site, and it might be a good idea to start giving a shit about the people who frequent the site and try to respect their opinions.  If they think the topics suck, maybe they do.
#13 by "Andy"
2000-05-16 18:22:45
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#10</b>, Serpwidgets:
<QUOTE>
Look back through the old articles from last year. My memory may not be right on this, but I seem to remember some of the topics carrying disclaimers like "Now, this is all just wild speculation, but..."
</QUOTE>
Speculation isn't rumour.
#14 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-16 18:44:11
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#13</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>Speculation isn't rumour.</QUOTE>

Let's not get into semantics. I think the point was that PC does (or did, anyway) have topics that were designed to discuss things that weren't entirely factual or provable. I believe one of them involved Joost, for example.

I was not making a value judgement about the style, though. Personally, I think the more important thing is the philosophical aspect of the point, not the specific topic. Maybe that's why I tend to drift off-topic so much...

Speaking of off-topic, this thread has already drifted.

<QUOTE>Many people seem to still be under the illusion that visiting this site gives them editorial control over it. It doesn't. Get over it. (Is that clear enough?)</QUOTE>

This is certainly debatable. Although you guys could just shut it down, the fact remains that the topics, no matter what they were originally intended to discuss, go wherever the masses lead them. I would think that would qualify as a measure of editorial control, at least indirectly.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "MCorleone"
2000-05-16 18:59:56
john_st123@hotmail.com
I was formerly (circa University, 5 years ago) dismayed when I began to see the "banner-ad" crop up all over the world-wide-web.  (Yes, not the INTERNET, as HTTP is only one protocol of many).  

Now that I've been in the real world, that romantic little fantasy is gone.  

The internet is a media.  Pure and simple.  It would not be POSSIBLE for it to be non-corporate.  It's a service.  People have to pay to make this thing run, so someone wants to make a profit.  Think about all of the advancements in speed, etc. that either have happened or will be happening soon to this thing we call the internet.  Do you think that companies such as Nortel, Cisco, etc. would invest this much if they weren't going to make a return??  If it was simply approx. 5000 people in Universities around the world sharing research data??  Nope, sorry.  

If you want information at your fingertips, you have to pay for it.  Of course, you could also just book your 5 minutes next June18th on the terminal in your local public library if you don't want to pay.

Capitalism:  It sucks but it works.
#16 by "Andy"
2000-05-16 19:11:41
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#14</b>, Serpwidgets:
<QUOTE>
Let's not get into semantics.
</QUOTE>
I'm not getting into semantics - speculation isn't rumour. They are different things.
<QUOTE>
This is certainly debatable. Although you guys could just shut it down, the fact remains that the topics, no matter what they were originally intended to discuss, go wherever the masses lead them. I would think that would qualify as a measure of editorial control, at least indirectly.
</QUOTE>
People have no editorial control over the topics.
#17 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-05-16 19:28:36
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Andy
<quote>People have no editorial control over the topics.</quote>

Why not?
#18 by "RandoM"
2000-05-16 19:29:21
random1@speakeasy.org http://www.clan51.com
<QUOTE>The internet is a media. Pure and simple. It would not be POSSIBLE for it to be non-corporate.</QUOTE>


Funny, I remember a time when the Internet was NON-corporate.  A time when the only cost associated with 'net use was figuring out how to get an account on a Unix box attached to the 'net.

Also in that day, USENET was a quick and reliable information source that had a really good wheat to chaff ratio.  At one point in time you had to be somewhat intelligent to access the 'net and that helped limit the idiot aspect.  Now, USENET is merely a binary transport network, utilized primarily to infringe copyright.  You have to wade through 100 trolls to find one nugget of valuable data.  Without sites like www.deja.com, USENET would be USEless for other than porno/pirates.

Lets talk about the WWW for a second or two.  The WWW used to have an HTML standard that wasn't bastardized with either MS or Netscape extensions to HTML, extensions that, curiously enough work great in their browsers, but screw up their competitors.  There were no banner ads, hell, there weren't any ads of any type.  But hey, without all these ads, we couldn't have all this great content? right? WRONG.  Do I really need to see the same review or news tidbit on 15 different sites? NO.  If you look at the sites that cover gaming/hardware/etc. it is all the same stuff, just with a different coat of whitewash.

Today's Internet is not all bad, of course.  Without the commercialization of the 'net, we'd not have broadband access from home becoming commonplace.  We'd also not have "e-commerce", be it banking, shopping, or stock trading.

The Internet has had its "Good old days" already, and they were very good ones at that, IMHO.
#19 by "Apache"
2000-05-16 19:35:05
apache@warzone.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
Warren Sez

<quote>People have no editorial control over the topics.</quote>

If you make a website, then you can have editorial control of the topics :)
#20 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-16 19:45:38
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
<b>Warren Marshall:</b>
<QUOTE>Andy

People have no editorial control over the topics.


Why not? </QUOTE>

Because then the site would be no different from Usenet. A select few are able to log in to the server and post new topics - not everyone. Therefore, 'People have no editorial control over the topics.'<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#21 by "Jafd"
2000-05-16 19:50:01
jafd@whatthefuck.com
Frankly I have a hard time believing that anyone is _really_ complaining about the quality of the topics being posted at all. It must be just general bitching for the sake of bitching; if you really really thought that there was a dearth of 'good topics,' the wise thing to do would be to write your own well-written topic and sit back smugly as the posters flocked to it, and wait for a comment to show up like, "Hey this topic is so much more interesting than those other topics posted by that other wanker!" or something.

If a topic bores you.... hey! Don't click on it! You think?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "MCorleone"
2000-05-16 20:13:31
john_st123@hotmail.com
Yes, Random, you do remember that day.  Those were the days when only governments and Universities had access, and those were also the days before your friendly neighbourhood ISP was ppp'ing everyone online.  Those were the days that the GOVERNMENT gave grants to Universities to keep the internet running.

Gone are those days, as the government would not be able to mass-subsidize everyone that's online.  Coupled with the fact that in a Capitalist society, that businesses, provided they knew what they were doing, could make returns UNHEARD of with a small business using the internet, and my friend, you have your little golden age of Unix and Usenet.  

I used to skip school and play in the arcades during classes, too.

Party's over, and business is here.
#23 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-16 20:15:51
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
I think there's been a little confusion lately because of some comments I made about the previous two or three topics.

The sole point was that there are A LOT of topics out there that people could be discussing.  Rather than pick a "legitimate" topic, it felt, TO ME, that topics had been picked for other reasons.

If you post a "joke" topic, then follow it up with a "real" topic on the same subject and then find out that both of them were based on a simple misunderstanding that could have been cleared up with a few e-mails and an ounce of common sense, you have to expect someone to call it out.

There are several topics that I simply don't bother to comment on, whether it's because I don't know anything about them, don't have an opinion about them or just find them pointless.  If, however, I see potential harm coming from a thread that's simply wrong, I'm going to point it out.

-Valeyard
#24 by "MCorleone"
2000-05-16 20:16:51
john_st123@hotmail.com
And sorry, I just noticed that at the end of your post you got my point:  

If the internet was non-commercial, you'd be dreaming of something faster than a 14.4 to access it...  A very localized example that's scalable all the way up to the Pilot, email-capable cell phones, etc.
#25 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-05-16 20:17:04
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Jafd
<quote>If a topic bores you.... hey! Don't click on it! You think?</quote>

Sure ... because threads never go off topic and enter into other areas which people might find interesting ... do they?  :)
#26 by "Jafd"
2000-05-16 20:19:42
jafd@whatthefuck.com
Exactly. :)

Only boring people get bored anyway...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-16 20:21:36
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
To expound on something Warren pointed out:

We (the visiting masses) may not have editorial control over the topics that are posted, but we do have control over what's actually DISCUSSED.

When you see a thread drift miles away from the topic, yet people are still discussing it,  that's a big hint that the original topic wasn't interesting enough to sustain a discussion.

Why not look into an actual topic that addresses the concerns people are commenting on?  In most cases, you have to cater to your audience.  At PC you don't HAVE to, because we'll discuss whatever we want, but it sure would be nice if someone would try.

-Valeyard
#28 by "Jafd"
2000-05-16 20:31:16
jafd@whatthefuck.com
Honest question:

<b>#27</b> "Valeyard" wrote...
<QUOTE>sure would be nice if someone would try</QUOTE>

Why don't you?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "legion88@yahoo.com"
2000-05-16 20:51:26
legion88@yahoo.com
I don't what you guys have been smoking.  What do you mean "editorial control"?  Mr. Smith can post whatever topic in whatever thread he wants.  That is it.  It does not mean that the rest of the group will discuss it.  Many times in the past the thread would quickly go "off-topic".  Here let me show you.


Just recently 3dfx at a recent convention (E3?) showed off their hardware comparing their 2X FSAA on a Voodoo5 5500 to 4X FSAA of the GeForce2 GTS.  An unknown number of participants were asked to pick which one look better.  They were not told beforehand which machine was using the GTS or the 5500.  The game they used was Quake III.

They picked the 5500.  From this, we can gather that the 5500's 2X FSAA provided better image quality than the GTS' 4X FSAA.  Right?

Now here's some other facts--the test was rigged so that people would end up picking the 5500.

First, 2X FSAA runs faster than 4X FSAA.  According to 3dfx, demos running at faster frame rates are sharper than slower demos.  Well, duh. GTS is running at 4X FSAA thus running a lot slower than the 5500.  This means the 5500's image quality would be sharper because it is running at a faster frame rate.

Why wouldn't people pick the sharper image of the 5500?

Second, 3dfx set the color depth to 16-bit.  This means that the 2X FSAA is actually enhanced by 5500's 22-bit filtering.  Such a filtering is not present on NVIDIA cards like the GTS.  NVIDIA's FSAA is stuck at 16-bit.

The issue here is who provides the better FSAA, not who has the better 16-bit output.

Third, texture compression is on by default in Quake III.  5500 uses FXTC and GTS uses S3TC.  Some claim that FXTC provides better quality than S3TC.

All these factors (plus any others that I've overlooked) influenced the participants to pick the machine running the 5500.  Using this "data", we then have people claim that 3dfx's 2X FSAA is just "about" as good or better than NVIDIA's 4X FSAA.
#30 by "UncleJeet"
2000-05-16 20:59:12
jeet@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Ok, let me clear just a couple of things up.  I don't remember exactly who has said what, but you know who you are.  (That's my excuse for being too lazy to quote.)  Anyway, here's the deal.  I wasn't really talking about PlanetCrap, per say.  I sure as hell wasn't talking about our topics or the discussions that follow them.  I was, well, just rambling.  Any old timers from the 'Crap will know that I tend to do that a lot.  Often times, it sparks great discussion that flies wildly all over the place, with no one being able to predict what's going to be discussed next.

I do not now, never have, and never will view PC as a news site.  It's simply not.  If it were, there would be a shitload more topics, and each topic would be considerably shorter in length.  Andy may get close to news reporting at times, but basically what he does is wait for something interesting to happen.  Then he writes it down, and starts talking about it right away - in the body of the topic.  This is what is known as an essay - not a news article.  Granted, Andy's essays are usually riddled with statistics and whatnot so they sound news-ish (and so he gets the facts in there), but there's a big difference between explaining the facts to people and to explaining the facts alongside telling folks what you like or don't like about them.

I rarely, if ever post news.  I just don't do it.  I hate it.  I write essays.  I sometimes write about games, most times I don't.  I just pick something I want to talk about, and I let it go.  If people don't find it interesting, or don't get it, though - the oddest little thing seems to happen.  They post comments anyway and take the discussion in their own direction.  This is what PC is all about.

Andy likes to watchdog companies that he feels want to screw people in one way or another.  He also watches for ludicrously silly happenings such as the id EULA snafu.  (And no, it's not a misunderstanding.  Unless, of course, you allow a mistake on id's part (or at least a severe shortcoming) to be a misunderstanding.  I call it, more or less, and oversight that they don't want to admit.)  This kind of stuff is not only funny, but it helps to put certain companies in a light that they don't always want to be in, because it reveals aspects that they try hard to mask.  But anyway, enough of that.

In contrast, I like to write pure essays about whatever the hell I feel like.  Usually I borderline on sarcastic abuse, and I like it.  It's fun.  If you don't, then you let me know about it.  Believe me.  And then you put your own spin on whatever the hell I was babbling about in the first place, and before you know it - VOILA!  A discussion ensues.

Just to make a point, though, I was talking more about people who abuse the gullibility of people that read stories on the internet just to get attention and site hits.  Sites like.....oops!  almost named names, again!

<b>Uncle</b> <i>Sometimes my fingers refuse to cease their typing rampages</i> <b>Jeet</b>
#31 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-16 21:16:17
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
JafD:
"Why don't you?"

Because I'm not able to post topics.  All I can do is send them in (which I've done) and hope that they get posted.

-Valeyard
#32 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-16 21:49:12
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#27</b> "Valeyard" wrote...

<QUOTE>We (the visiting masses) may not have editorial control over the topics that are posted, but we do have control over what's actually DISCUSSED.</QUOTE>

That was the point I was trying to make. Andy, you can pick the words to describe it. Call it what you like, but the above is true.

<QUOTE>When you see a thread drift miles away from the topic, yet people are still discussing it, that's a big hint that the original topic wasn't interesting enough to sustain a discussion. </QUOTE>

Precisely. I said the same thing a few topics ago. So what it comes down to is that even with a lack of "good" topics, the board still finds a way to discuss something. It may not be as easy with no explicit topic, but it still happens.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Andy"
2000-05-16 22:03:34
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#30</b>, UncleJeet:
<QUOTE>
Sites like.....oops! almost named names, again!
</QUOTE>
Come on, cough it, which sites do you have in mind?


<b>#31</b>, Valeyard:
<QUOTE>
Because I'm not able to post topics.
</QUOTE>
Did you ask Morn for an admin account when I suggested it?
<QUOTE>
All I can do is send them in (which I've done)
</QUOTE>
You have? When?

Not saying you haven't, I just can't for the life of me remember when you have. Who did you send it/them to?
#34 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-16 22:07:30
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#30</b> "Uncle <i>Fear my block paragraphs! FEAR THEM!</i> Jeet" wrote...
<QUOTE>Andy likes to watchdog companies that he feels want to screw people in one way or another. He also watches for ludicrously silly happenings such as the id EULA snafu.</QUOTE>
Between the above and your rantings, the place tends to have a good variety of interesting things going on, too. :)


<QUOTE>The only thing I'd take issue with in Jeet's topic is the idea that Planetcrap sometimes posts stories about rumours...

I'm not getting into semantics - speculation isn't rumour. They are different things.
</QUOTE>

Maybe I was taking your statement out of context then. The context I was taking it in was <i>"When we talk about news, it is proven news, not just stuff that we suspect may have happened."</i> In that context, what I'm talking about is that there is little difference, conceptually, between saying, <i>"There's a rumor going around that this has happened,"</i> and, <i>"This is just wild speculation, but it looks like (or I think that) this may have happened."</i><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Bad_CRC"
2000-05-16 22:30:24
I think this site is giving me ADD.
 
I tried to read through this topic.  I really did.
 
but couldn't make it the whole way.
 
maybe I need a nap.    wonder if my boss will mind?


_______________________________________
<i>"Every time I see Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer on television, spouting the Microsoft party line  about the 'freedom to innovate,' I can't help but think of Inigo Montoya in the movie the Princess Bride, saying "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."</i><I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#36 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-16 22:55:02
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
Andy:
"Did you ask Morn for an admin account when I suggested it?"

Don't remember you suggesting it, though I'm sure you did.  (Was this during PC2?  That sounds familiar, I'd hate to think I've forgotten this from PC3 already...though I wouldn't be surprised.)

I don't think I really need an Admin account, though it might be nice to have.  There are already plenty of admins, I'll just send ideas to them when I get them.

"You have? When?

Not saying you haven't, I just can't for the life of me remember when you have. Who did you send it/them to?"

During the last incarnation I submitted several, to you and others...some made it, some didn't.

Since PC3, I've only submitted one, to Tom.  It didn't get posted...and it's probably a good thing. :)

-Valeyard
 Sorry for the crappy (or un-crappy) quotes...can't use crapspy at work, and I don't feel like bothering with the tags. :)
#37 by "RedLine"
2000-05-16 23:18:03
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/
Okaaaay.... /me hugs Jeet... Something to really sink the ole teeth into. ;-)

I guess it really depends on the type of commercialism you are talking about.

I own three things right now that, if the Internet did not exist, I would not be able to own.  Two of them are things I have been trying to find for quite some time... one for about 5 years, one for a little over a year.

I was able to find these items on a website and purchase all three of them from the USA (I live in the UK)... where previously I have not been able to find them anywhere in the UK, yet I have looked in several "very big towns" when visiting friends or relatives (I live waaay out in the middle of nowhere right now)...

If it were not for the Internet and for on-line ordering (And overseas delivery, but that's been around for a while), the time, money and effort it would have taken to track these items down by conventional means, eg, by letter, telephone and in some cases personal appearences, would have meant that I just would not have been able to justify expending the time/money/effot, and so I would never have got hold of these things I was looking for, except perhaps by chance.

So that side of the commercalism I welcome.  Now to the other side.

I run a small website about a game along with some other stuff... it's hosted on someone elses server and I pay around $30 a month for their time, effort, costs and bandwidth.  I don't charge the visitors to my website a penny.... not even indirectly in the form of banners... that's right, you won't see one banner on my site, and I get no money in return, yet I shell out $30 a month to keep it running.

Why do I do this ?  Simply because I ejnoy doing it.  A lot of people have said that I should stick banner ads and stuff like that on the site in any case, then I could have fun and get paid... my response is usually that I abhor banner ads for a number of reasons, technical, as in they just add (no pun intended) to the bandwidth and the load time it takes to view the website, and philosophical because I always feel like someone, somewhere down the chain is getting ripped off.

Ok.. before I get too far off the line...  I run my website because I have fun... it is also a service to the other people that play the partcular game which the website is about... I have all sorts of stuff there, a history of the game, news, a pretty big Help / FAQ section, and a lot of other misc stuff besides... I'm also a big fan of the game, and I used to play a hell of a lot, though these days no so much.

(Before I carry on, I just want to say that the below is a totally fictional example, and has not (thankfully) happened to me)

Now say for arguments sake I have my site running in the height of the games popularity (In reality, this particular game is pretty much dead now, but just give me some rope here (And I might just hang myself, Andy, Valeyard, stop grinning :-))) and it has all the content I describe above... I'm also not charging for any of it either directly or indirectly, through banner ads.

Now lets say someone looks at all the hits my site is generating, and thinks, "Wow, if I could make a site as good as that, but put banner ads on it, I could make a lot of money here"

Now lets say this guy knows someone who owns a hardware shop, and he can get cost price hardware... so he shells out a couple hundred for some good hardware, spends weeks working on his new website, and lands himself a deal with a couple of ad companies...

He starts his site off with a bang... a competition for some hardware, so he gets a big hit spike because his site is new and he has a competition... wrapping the story up quickly, this person manages the site pretty well, and gets a lot of hits for a couple of months... at the moment we are existing together, I don't see that much of a change in my traffic... but lets say that while my traffic is staying the same, his site - which is slightly more professional, and has much of the same content, but is not as "personal", it's more refined and glossy - is soaking up all the new people... he has paid to get his site further up the search engine lists, so the first site people see is his.

Now the site is big enough that he scores an interview with one of the dev team who made the game... because of this, he gets linked up from a couple of major news sites, his traffic spikes like crazy, BUT, a lot of those people stay there.... Now he has enough regular traffic to get into one of the big networks... and now he starts to branch out......

And me ?  Well, I can't compete with his huge monster site, and since hardly anyone ever comes to the site, I basically stop adding content, and after a while take the site down completely.

Ok, once again that is all fiction and didn't happen to me.

Where is the relevance to the topic ?  The big site used commercialism to force the little site out of the picture.

Imagine that the person or people who run the little site are avid fans of the game who constantly play it, and have their "finger on the pulse" while the person or people who run the big site are capable of doing slicker site designs and have a more "professional" style, but they don't play the game half as much and are a bit out-of-touch with the rest of the fans, and you start to see what I'm aiming at...

People visit the big site because of stuff like competitions and exclusives... the site can get those because it is big... all it needs to do is reach a certain critical mass (Andy has gotta be ROFL about now... if not he isn't paying attention ;-)) and it can keep expanding simply because of it's size...  It doesn't really matter that the little guy was "Doing The Right Thing" and a lot of people liked what he was doing... someone came along and did things on the surface slicker, but people were really wooed away by that glossy surface and kinda didn't notice the content underneath wasn't as good as other people's.

That kind of commercialism sucks.
#38 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-05-16 23:32:56
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
<b>#37</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>It doesn't really matter that the little guy was "Doing The Right Thing" and a lot of people liked what he was doing... someone came along and did things on the surface slicker, but people were really wooed away by that glossy surface and kinda didn't notice the content underneath wasn't as good as other people's.
</QUOTE>

You are generally right, but I have to note - if the guy running small site has the guts to keep on going, and he has content, and he is doing the right thing, design and appreciation would come along; I've seen it many times, the ugly duckling homepage changing to a beautifull site when it has enough interesting information in it and a dedicated webmaster to keep it going... Even without millions spent on ads.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-16 23:56:24
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
<b>Valeyard:</b>
<QUOTE>Since PC3, I've only submitted one, to Tom. It didn't get posted...and it's probably a good thing.</QUOTE>
Eep :)

I did mean to post that, but revision and stuff and argh! :)
My bad.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "Flamethrower"
2000-05-16 23:58:34
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
Legion88 - as in "Inside3D Legion"? ;)

I'd just like to put my weekly reminder that be it news or opinion, essay, or Industrial Military Complex Scheme, I'm over the damned moon PC is back!

As I said on a Hulka forum (what? you mean you don't read them? PEASANTS!) you wait to see how long is is before you need a licence to run a website. Jack Straw, UK Home Secretary, was quoted in the New Statesman (left-leaning UK weekly political magazine) as saying "The Internet cannot be allowed to continue in the anarchistic free-for-all it currently is".

Just you wait... when the "dot com companies" start to REALLY fall apart, taking the Western World's pension contributions with them, we'll have licences for websites. You'll see...
#41 by "RedLine"
2000-05-17 00:02:20
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/
[38] PiRaMidA

Yeah, that is also true... my point wasn't really about that specific case, just the general observation that commercialism can be used as a club to beat "good people" into submission... I'll resist the temptation to use Microsoft as an example since that's just too damn obvious, and not entirely accurate. ;-)

Yeah you don't always need to have "the best" solution, just one that looks good and gets peoples attention, and things hardly ever succeed simply on their own merits, of course, like anything, there are exceptions.
#42 by "RedLine"
2000-05-17 00:09:30
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/
[40] Flamethrower

<quote>Just you wait... when the "dot com companies" start to REALLY fall apart, taking the Western World's pension contributions with them, we'll have licences for websites. You'll see...</quote>

You say it like it is a bad thing.....
#43 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-17 00:12:23
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#37</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>It doesn't really matter that the little guy was "Doing The Right Thing" and a lot of people liked what he was doing... </QUOTE>

Sounds like WalMart, and a certain three letter word I'd rather not mention.

<QUOTE>As I said on a Hulka forum (what? you mean you don't read them? PEASANTS!) you wait to see how long is is before you need a licence to run a website. Jack Straw, UK Home Secretary, was quoted in the New Statesman (left-leaning UK weekly political magazine) as saying "The Internet cannot be allowed to continue in the anarchistic free-for-all it currently is".</QUOTE>

No doubt this will at some point involve a bunch of overbearing right-wing freaks (you know, the ones who claim that freedom is so precious and responsibility is of utmost importance?) using "trying to stop anything naughty from reaching their kids' eyes" as justification for taking away our freedoms in order to avoid their responsibilities as parents.

Ugh.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "Valeyard"
2000-05-17 00:16:34
valeyard@ck3.net http://www.ck3.net
<b>#39</b> "Tom Cleghorn" wrote...
<QUOTE>
I did mean to post that, but revision and stuff and argh! :)
My bad.</QUOTE>

No worries.

-Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Andy"
2000-05-17 00:21:06
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#40</b>, Flamethrower:
<QUOTE>
Legion88 - as in "Inside3D Legion"? ;)
</QUOTE>
Yep. He's baaaack!
<QUOTE>
we'll have licences for websites. You'll see...
</QUOTE>
Good, I hope we do, so long as they are given indiscriminately (with provision for revocation) and don't cost anything more than a reasonable administration fee.

Almost immediately you'd see a mass cull of all the warez, mp3, divx and illegal porn sites. Everyone running a site would become accountable for the content they provide. People who repeatedly libel, mislead or are negligent could have their license revoked after due legal process.

Licenses would clean all the crap off the net and do nothing to hurt good people running legitimate, well-meaning sites. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned, although I'm sure a bunch of whining liberals will now step up and start spilling some boring old clichés about freedom of speech and oppressive regimes.

The net is currently a playground for criminals and idiots. Get rid of them and we'll all be a lot happier.
#46 by "Rantage"
2000-05-17 00:22:36
rantage@hotmail.com http://www.steelmaelstrom.org
<b>#40</b> "Flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>
Jack Straw, UK Home Secretary, was quoted in the New Statesman (left-leaning UK weekly political magazine) as saying "The Internet cannot be allowed to continue in the anarchistic free-for-all it currently is".
</QUOTE>

Amazing.  As is the case in the US, it's suprising how close both the extreme right- and left-wing think when it comes to controlling the flow of information.

Well let's hope Mr. Straw doesn't get his wish, otherwise the only place we'll be able to go on the Net is <I>www.duckspeak.org</I> (any Orwell fans out there)?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "Andy"
2000-05-17 00:24:38
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#45</b>, Andy:
<QUOTE>
The net is currently a playground for criminals and idiots. Get rid of them and we'll all be a lot happier.
</QUOTE>
Scratch that - <b>I'll</b> be a lot happier. Your mileage may vary. :)
#48 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-17 00:33:39
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#45</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>Licenses would clean all the crap off the net and do nothing to hurt good people running legitimate, well-meaning sites. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned, although I'm sure a bunch of whining liberals will now step up and start spilling some boring old clichés about freedom of speech and oppressive regimes. </QUOTE>

Andy, you need to take a lesson from history. Whenever you give a small group of people power to enforce laws at their own discretion, which is exactly what this will turn into, you end up with persecution. It reminds me of a lot of, for just one small example, the methods that the "good old boys" in this country (the US) has been using to keep the freed slaves "in their place" for over 100 years.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-05-17 01:09:45
Darkseid@captured.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
yeah clean all the objectional material off the net

better kiss byebye to PC as well Andy, or have you forgotten who objected to some of your posts in the last incarnation ?

Kiss goodbye Voodooextreme, kiss goodbye Hardocp, kiss goodbye The Onion, kiss goodbye any site thats in any way objectional to the 'christian moralists or 'for the children' or for the 'politically correct'. Say byebye to Slashdot, to aint it cool news, to arstechnica, to just about any site you can mention thats _NOT_ mainstream commercially lead.  Groovy the net becomes just like television and the newspapers. Wooopdiefuckingding (oops there goes my license).

Say goodbye to everything that makes the net such a wonderful place.  Sure theres some sick stuff out there, sure theres illegality, your point is?  Take a look outside, see the guy doing 34 in a 30 zone, want to strip him of his license? The guy whos just spat in the street (breaking contamination laws from the 1800s).

Ds
#50 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-17 01:14:16
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
<b>Serpwidgets:</b>
<QUOTE>Whenever you give a small group of people power to enforce laws at their own discretion...</QUOTE>
Hmm... that sounds like a description of a Government to me... dunno about you, but I'd be mildly of the opinion that one of those is a fairly good thing to have.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: The Internet, Like Camelot, Is A Silly Place

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]