Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Charity Buyers Donate Over $10,000 To the EFF

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the way-to-everyone dept.

119

The Slashdot 10 Year Anniversary Charity Auction for the EFF is at an end and the numbers are in. We are still waiting for payment on one of the six items, but the grand total for the auctions is $9186.83. The big surprise was the anonymous reader who bought the Swag Bag AND the Low UID: he decided to donate an extra $1200 beyond his bids! Thanks to Daniel Peacock (who bought Hemos's burnt copy of Watchmen) and Michael Ravnitzk who bought Triton, the case of the first x86 that ran Slashdot in Feb 1998. He then turned around and told us to shelve it, to try to sell it again later. Instead he got a box of shirts. We're still waiting for payment on the email address, but hopefully nobody would be so crappy that they would scam a charity auction. And lastly, we would like to give special thanks to the University of Advancing Technology (here's a Coral Cache link) who paid $3,550.00 for that hyperlink you just read past. They wanted to express their support for Slashdot and for the EFF, and I think both of us appreciate it. Thanks to everyone who bid on items and congratulations to the winners. And the rest of you - don't feel bad that you missed it. You can always make a donation later - the EFF does good work. Tell them Slashdot sent you.

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did low UID purchaser get a ## or ### ? (4, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172755)

Hats off to the dude who chipped in an extra $1,200 for the low UID ... and hopefully he got a two-digit (rather than three digit) UID for his extra $$$ ... ;-)

Re:Did low UID purchaser get a ## or ### ? (1, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173229)

Eitherway I am going to discredit comments saying how you waisted your money by buying a Mac from anyone with a 2 or 3 didgit ID. Being they spent thousands of dollars on the ability to lie about being there before the rest of us.

Re:Did low UID purchaser get a ## or ### ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21173997)

I can't wait until the slackers eBay id is posted. 1 million angry geeks after him!

yep, 3 digit uids have no cachet (4, Funny)

toby (759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174087)

3 digits never got me laid. But with a 2 digit... I'd be dating Natalie Portman AND Giselle Bundchen for sure, and I'd know what to do with both digits.

Re:yep, 3 digit uids have no cachet (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#21175169)

Obviously you weren't really 'here' in the cool sense.

So Mae Ling Mak won't even look your way.

Re:yep, 3 digit uids have no cachet (2, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176741)

Sorry to break it to you, but the TOS clearly states that if you use the uid for scoring purposes, Cowboy Neal must be involved.

Re:yep, 3 digit uids have no cachet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21176825)

if you use the uid for scoring purposes, Cowboy Neal must be involved.

I'm just sure that CowboyNeal wrote that clause in to guarantee himself a cut of any hot grits action.

Re:yep, 3 digit uids have no cachet (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177251)

That's because you just bought yours.

ORLY? (n/t) (1)

toby (759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177467)

n/t

Damn (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21172769)

I knew I should have bid more than $3500 for that goatse link.

Re:Damn (3, Insightful)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173357)

You could have put in the meaning of life in that hyperlink, wouldn't matter, no one here reads the articles anyway.

Re:Damn (1)

ConcreteJungle (1177207) | more than 6 years ago | (#21178075)

You could have put in the meaning of life in that hyperlink, wouldn't matter, no one here reads the articles anyway.

Why would anyone pay to get a link saying 42? :-)

Re:Damn (2, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174669)

Save your money. Maybe in 2017 they'll auction off an IMG tag.

Re:Damn (2, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174833)

Maybe in 2017 they'll auction off an IMG tag.

Ha. Funny. I'll tell you what, though, I'd donate some money - hundreds of dollars at least - to a good cause of slashdot's choosing if they would permanently fix the moderation so that moderation isn't anonymous; everyone could see *exactly* who modded what up or down, your average moderator or a slashdot editor/authority. The "low UID" and so forth are essentially useless and require nothing of slashdot either; but they could actually earn a donation from me if they were of a mind to. Not that I think they would, but still, I'll commit to my end of it right here, right now. The worst thing on slashdot is the way the moderation works as a punitive and ideologically driven censorship mechanism. They've been coasting at the user's expense on the current crappy-assed setup for years.

Re:Damn (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176041)

Did someone not get enough mod points in their halloween loot bag? Will some please give this guy an insightful? He's clearly dying over here.

Re:Damn (2, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176197)

Agreed. Other problems:
- Someone finds a sarcastic joke unfunny and it gets modded "troll" or "flamebait."
- 3 people think I'm funny and I get a nice "+5, Funny" but one person thinks I'm not that funny and hits me with a "-1, Overrated." What crap. The guidelines say "focus on promoting, not demoting" but I don't think anyone reads those. Everyone just wants to form Slashdot into what they want to see, not realizing that it's (everyone hold hands now) all our differences that make Slashdot great. I see ideas and points-of-view here that I would never see in my own little world. (Usually by browsing at +3 early on.)

While they're at it, they need to add some new ratings like "-1, Factually incorrect."

Re:Damn (4, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176407)

Once moderation becomes non-anonymous, you'll end up with mod wars. Person X mods down person Y, person Y takes it personally and mods down all of person X's comments. This results in person X retaliating, a fuckload of emails to slashdot with the subject "MOD ABUSE!!", and every single user on slashdot is forced to sift though the comments themselves so see which are good and got modded down due to pissing contests, and which are bad and got left at 1-2 because all the mod points were used by people throwing their shit at each other.

This wouldn't fix the system at all, it would make it worse than useless.

I had a better link. :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21177793)

I figure that there is one perfect place [nsa.gov] for a link auctioned to benefit the EFF.


(come on, this'll help get you moved out of Mom's basement)

I'd support the EFF but ... (5, Funny)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172837)

[ ] I'm selfish and hate others
[ ] I like big monopolies
[X] I'm Canadian and not represented by the EFF in any which way shape or form
[ ] The EFF tried to kill my daddy
[ ] I'm paid by the EFF so donating to the EFF is like donating to myself
[ ] Hey look!

However,

[ ] I've started an equivalent EFF in Canada
[ ] I Joined the equivalent EFF in Canada
[X] I Bought an EFF hat at Defcon
[X] I Lost said hat at Toorcon the same year
[X] I Bought another hat off their website
[ ] I Regret dealing with the EFF

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (1)

backbyter (896397) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172927)

...except I believe it was a Canadian "anonymous reader who bought the Swag Bag AND the Low UID", so you've gotta select a different option other than "[X] I'm Canadian and not represented by the EFF in any which way shape or form".

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (2, Funny)

tearmeapart (674637) | more than 6 years ago | (#21175205)

...and I have it on good authority* that a Canadian also bought the email address, which was paid for today. Since Canadians appear to be the only people winning these auctions, I guess Canadians care more about what happens in the US more than Americans do.

* I am assuming I do not have multiple personalities that lie to each other.

(I realize that my statement of "Canadians care more" will be marked as flamebait, but prove me wrong, d*mnit!)

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (2, Informative)

leoxx (992) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173001)

Online Rights Canada [onlinerights.ca] , sponsored by the EFF

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21173161)

Hey, your low UID is awesome!

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (1)

dextromulous (627459) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173835)

Adding some of my own experiences... [ ] I'm selfish and hate others
[ ] I like big monopolies
[X] I'm Canadian and not represented by the EFF in any which way shape or form
[ ] The EFF tried to kill my daddy
[ ] I'm paid by the EFF so donating to the EFF is like donating to myself
[ ] Hey look!

However,

[ ] I've started an equivalent EFF in Canada
[ ] I Joined the equivalent EFF in Canada
[ ] I Bought an EFF hat at Defcon
[ ] I Lost said hat at Toorcon the same year
[ ] I Bought another hat off their website
[ ] I Regret dealing with the EFF
[X] I donated money to the EFF while promoting nude dunk-tanking (at Defcon, twice)
[X] I donated money to the EFF while getting someone to freestyle rap about binary blobs (at Defcon)

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21175157)

You forgot:

[ ] "Digital Fortress" [slashdot.org] convinced me that the EFF is a terrorist organization.

Re:I'd support the EFF but ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21175439)

[X] I'm Canadian but I still donated to the EFF. You can legally claim it on your Cdn income tax.

EFF? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21172853)

The EFF is basically the ACLU of the Internet. Plus they manage to lose most of their cases. Should so much money be donated to a far-left/unAmerican organization like that? They get an awful lot of money with little to show for it, could there be a terrorism connection?

-1: Not funny (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172889)

I have mod points but I'm not wasting them on this. You need a lot more practice trolling.

Re:-1: Not funny (1)

el americano (799629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173435)

Yeah, that terrorism connection was a bridge too far.

Re:-1: Not funny (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176063)

Yep, exactly what I was thinking.

Re:-1: Not funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21174675)

You don't like to laugh, do you?

did I read that right? (4, Funny)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172857)

Did UAT just pay to be slashdotted? Did they factor in the cost of the melting server into their bid?

Re:did I read that right? (5, Funny)

backbyter (896397) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172967)

Psst. (There'll be another auction to remove the link from /.)

Re:did I read that right? (1)

Devv (992734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173013)

1. Choose to donate to EFF at slashdots charity auction.
2. Choose the auctioned object that suits you the best.
3. Fail to account for the massive traffic your choice will generate.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:did I read that right? (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173019)

some people enjoy pain so much, they have to pay for it.
"please sir, may I have some more?"

Re:did I read that right? (2, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173147)

I just wonder if it was more or less than the usual price for a slashvertisement ;) j/k j/k

Nice of UAT (4, Interesting)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172871)

When I attended the school a couple years back they had a great relationship with the EFF. It is nice to see the school investing in the industry while showing that it is finally moving away from the game design program that consumed much of the schools resources while I attended. I have heard good things about UAT as of late and I hope this only continues that great new trend.

Re:Nice of UAT (1)

MrMunkey (1039894) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173213)

I attended UAT during their transition from UACT to UAT. It was a great experience, and I wouldn't have gotten my desired career without it, but tuition is pretty spendy. I suppose most private schools are spendy in comparison to public schools though.

Re:Nice of UAT (1)

DenDude (922896) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177921)

psh! I attended when it was still "The Cad Institute". now get off my lawn ya whippersnappers!

too little ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172873)

come on. we have many million dollar people hanging out in here. why only $10k ? rats in pockets ?

Re:too little ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21172961)

You don't get to be rich by giving away your money.

you dont (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173197)

go poor by donating to something very important in your life either

Re:too little ? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173233)

Those funds might not be liquid necessarily (I wouldn't sell any stock in my company for slashdot swag, no offense), and also, they may have better things to do with their time/money?

Re:too little ? (3, Informative)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173415)

Precisely. I have no more than $2000 in the bank at any point in time, my money is in my 401k, roth IRA, kids college funds, overfunded life insurance, home, etc. I do allright but I couldn't cough up more than a few hundred bucks at a time unless it was an emergency ... the secret to being financially secure is not working for money, but making your money work for you.

Re:too little ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21175481)

1. I don't give a shit about the EFF
2. I wouldn't be likely to give a shit about any "charity" that slashdot would choose. I'd rather donate to real charities, not some OSS/piracy advocacy group.

you lack vision (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176855)

internet is changing the world to the extent that in 50 years, the people who will be in charge of their countries by then will have grown up together, playing same games, doing same stuff on the internet at nights. which will totally eliminate interracial, international enmity, differences, and eventually uncooperativeness and ultimately wars. which will be a major step towards the utopia.

additionally, in local and general sense, the internet is what is making all people to get informed about anything happening anywhere. this is only due to the free nature and accessibility of the internet.

such foundations like EFF are providing it to stay as it is, rather than turning into a telco fucked cable tv in which all people will be limited to whatever some fat butts choose for them to see. it affects everything, internet and software alike.

also remember that the freedom in the internet have created this boom and many jobs that never existed before, and we are actually reaping the fruits of that. if the fat bastards succeed in turning internet into a cable tv clone, many of us, and indirectly many more will be losing our jobs.

it affects everyone. even those who lack vision and dont give a shit. realities dont care whether someone gives them a shit or not. they affect all.

Re:you lack vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21177235)

"the people who will be in charge of their countries by then will have grown up together, playing same games"
Great so now the speed hacker, aimboter etc that just stood over my corpse and said "PWNED you just got fucked in the ass n*****" will be the president.

jeez I feel a whole lot better about the future now.

exactly (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177705)

just remember how you were when grown up. what you speak of are stuff done when one's a kid. not mature. back then there were different shit we were all doing. today there is 'hacking'. tomorrow there will be some different shit.

Congratulations University of Advanced Technology. (3, Funny)

etedronai (35656) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172877)

... You just paid to have your web site brought to it's knees.

UAT should have invested in a more advanced web sh (0, Redundant)

QuantumSlip (613532) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172881)

the site is already slowing down

$3550 for a link *and a Slashdotting!* (0, Redundant)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172887)

Looks like the UAT guys are getting a little more than they bargained for... the site is still up, but took ~30 seconds to load... looks like it's slowing down. Plus no text version of the main site = they lose.

UAT (4, Funny)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21172907)

Funny, the story talks about the University of Advanced Technology, but the website calls it the University of Advancing Technology.

It's almost right, which is pretty good, by Slashdot editing standards ;-)

Re:UAT (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21173037)

Link to your page on Slashdot: $3500

Extra bandwith cost from Slashdotting: $???? (Thousands? millions?)

Getting your name messed up by CmdrTaco himself: Priceless!

Re:UAT (3, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173633)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation should start their own school so they could call it EFF-U.

This might be useful during congressional testimony.

LOL (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21172979)

Self inflicted slashdotting and paid for the privellege of it too !

Re:LOL (2, Funny)

milgr (726027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173089)

Perhaps they should have paid for some advanced technology to handle the slashdot effect.

A view from a cynical bastard. (5, Insightful)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173049)

I looked at the links and I didn't see any accounting of the money: how much received, how it was spent, how much for administration (a perfectly legitimate cost - BUT [see below]), etc....

I don't mean to make accusations, but where's the money going. I didn't see anything on the links.

Are the administrators buying Mercedes Benz's with their "pay"?

Just asking.

P.S. I have plenty of karma - don't be shy about modding me down. I'm using my karma for good - I think.

Re:A view from a cynical bastard. (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173183)

If you found a Benz for under $10k let me know.

Re:A view from a cynical bastard. (4, Funny)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173209)

Are the administrators buying a Kia Spectra with their "pay"?
There ya go. Remember, it's only $10k.

Re:A view from a cynical bastard. (5, Informative)

StinkiePhish (891084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173547)

For what it's worth, the EFF achieved 4 out of 5 stars for "financial efficiency and capacity" by Charity Navigator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_Navigator). Even though they are a bunch of lawyers, they are a bunch of lawyers on our side. And frankly, when I donate to them, I don't care if they are buying themselves Benz's. They produce good results.

Check parent. (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174035)

I didn't, but if he's right mod him up to heaven.

Re:A view from a cynical bastard. (3, Informative)

StinkiePhish (891084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174217)

EFF has four of five stars according to Charity Navigator for "financial efficiency and capacity." Here's a direct link: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/7576.htm [charitynavigator.org] (My apologies for not including this in my first post.)

$10,000 (4, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173119)

How many minutes of lawyer time does that buy?

Re:$10,000 (2, Funny)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173417)

Well, if you're hiring Lionel Hutz, the question is, how many sandwiches does that buy? I hear he works on three sandwiches a day. Also, he might live in your car.

Re:$10,000 (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176827)

Alas, not anymore. R.I.P.

Re:$10,000 (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173993)

In my experience about 600.
(at least at the billing rate that the lawyer who handled my gripe site C&D letter analysis charges).

-nB

Support the EFF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21173203)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States with the stated purpose of being dedicated to preserving free speech rights such as those protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in the context of today's digital age.

They protect your freedom!

Join EFF today: https://secure.eff.org/ [eff.org]

I don't support socialists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21173371)

Isn't this the group that wants me to pay a tax on my internet service so people can download music for free? Isn't this the same group that staunchly defends GPL copyright? No thank, socialists.

Anonymous Coward (87) (0)

ecklesweb (713901) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173647)

The big surprise was the anonymous reader who bought the Swag Bag AND the Low UID:


Since when do anonymous cowards have UIDs?

Re:Anonymous Coward (87) (2, Informative)

CJ145 (1110297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174647)

AC's UID is 666.

Rush Limbaugh raises $4,200,200 6 days (1)

Adam8g (1181859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173653)

Looks like rational folks beat out geeks - especially when it comes to a great charity.

Re:Rush Limbaugh raises $4,200,200 6 days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21173741)

Hahahah you said rational and limbaugh in the same sentence.

People like you never seem to realize until it's too late: you reap what you sow.

Re:Rush Limbaugh raises $4,200,200 6 days (1)

Adam8g (1181859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21173797)

Ahhh, contributing $4,200,200 for the benefit of orphans. If more of us sowed like this - we'd all reap the benefits.

Re:Rush Limbaugh raises $4,200,200 6 days (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176877)

Who replies to their own comment?

Oh I know, some idiot astroturfer who just signed up today. Silly me. Weird kind of astroturfing though.

Re:Rush Limbaugh raises $4,200,200 6 days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21177513)

And who fails to realise that anonymous comments start at score 0 by default, and are thus not shown by default.

AC's are good now? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174047)

And what point is there in being an AC with a low /. ID? I'm confused. Ah, I got it, they don't say which ID, so it's an anonymous ID!

Re:AC's are good now? (1)

Hymer (856453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174195)

I'm not even sure there is any lower UID than the one for AC which obviously must be 0...

Re:AC's are good now? (2, Informative)

Zashi (992673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174415)

ACs have UIDs of 666.

Anonomous Reader = netelder (0, Flamebait)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174139)

The "anonymous reader" was netelder [slashdot.org] who dropped from a large uid (immediately after auction) to 41 (current). (His/her ebay and slashdot user names were the same).

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (2, Funny)

Nushio (951488) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174595)

41? I would have payed an extra $1200 just to have UID 42.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174809)

Backup for this

Google results shows 1 posting from netelder (655766):

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aslashdot.org+netelder [google.com]

Following this link now shows things slightly differently with the UID 655766 being taken by "netolder [slashdot.org] " whilst the archive still shows the old one.

The new netelder [slashdot.org] (41) now has no comments.

I did wonder how the transplant would occur, and tbh now I think I wouldn't want to leave my comments behind and do it this way.

resigned to a long uid forever :(

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176229)

I wondered a bit about how the transplant would work, too. I would've wanted to work with the slashdot folks a little slower and see if I could persuade them to do things right. Maybe I could write the SQL for them, or something. :) But it sounds like this guy had so few comments he may not have felt it was worth it.

I for one think it's really cool, and I was one of the first bidders on the auction, and if I'd won I wouldn't have been anonymous about it. I would've bragged not just about the low UID, but about the fact that I got it under such unique circumstances.

I'm really curious how people found out who it was.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176991)

If you read my post (grandfather) you'd have seen - ebay shows the winner of an auction and the slashdot and ebay userids were both 'netelder'.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (4, Insightful)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174843)

They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden.

With all the concern about the right to remain anonymous on /., I don't see why you would purposely go out of your way to lift that veil off of someone else.

But hey, your curiousity is sated. What do you care. Mod me troll, mod me whatever you like. I think it was irresponsible and inconsiderate to do that.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

archen (447353) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176019)

While true, he also donated the extra cash to the EFF so seriously, who is going to give this guy crap? For that matter even if I had an extra $10k I don't think I'd shell out to the EFF even with low uid, Natalie Portman and the hot grits included. So cheers to user id 41. You've probably helped defend our digital freedoms more than any other two digit id.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (0)

fuzz6y (240555) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176111)

They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden.
It's not like GP promised to keep it a secret. The slashdot editors did, and they kept their promise. GP doesn't owe netelder anything, and you can hardly pretend that mentioning someone's slashdot uid is a breach of courtesy. It's not like he posted his phone number.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21176925)

(571) 205-7416

Damned it - I can't help myself

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

daybot (911557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177319)

I think it was irresponsible and inconsiderate to do that.

Come on - do you think any self-respecting Slashdotter wouldn't know full well that this would be easy to discover and the winner would be outed within minutes in the comments?

Besides, there's no shame in buying a low /. UID at a charity auction. It's doing something that's cool, to get something that's, well, arguably cool.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (0)

daybot (911557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177411)

If he cared, why would he use an ebay account with the same name [ebay.com] to submit the winning bid?

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

baseballjones (185171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21178233)

hehe, i like how "PINBALL SCIENCE--WINDOWS 95/98" was listed as a similar item

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (0, Troll)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177511)

They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden.
 
With all the concern about the right to remain anonymous on /., I don't see why you would purposely go out of your way to lift that veil off of someone else.

It's pretty much standard Slashdot behavior after all. How many times have you seen someone's contact info posted with readers being encouraged to flood his mail and email boxes with correspondence - even though few if any Slashdot readers have any standing? Most of the prattle about rights on Slashdot is just hot air - rights apply to Slashdot readers and not to anyone else. (Especially if that anyone else is a corporation, unless the corporation in question is Google.)

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176491)

Looks like he thought ahead with the netelder name. Yes, it was a devious master plan. But, it does point out how elders just buy their position.

On another note, lookout dabman (462) [slashdot.org] , I am coming for you.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21176559)

Ok, so he just changed a vewel.

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21176635)

So how did netelder get to UID 41.
Did some superstitious chinese zen master die because the number 4 was in his /.UID?

Re:Anonomous Reader = netelder (1)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 6 years ago | (#21177461)

patrikf must be pissed!

The University of Advancing Technology is NOT (1)

TheBrutalTruth (890948) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174199)

"advancing technology" by running .aspx pages, IMHO. Advanced technology should not make my browser (latest stable Firefox) barf.

Only /.ers (1)

TheWingThing (686802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21174361)

...will pay for a DDoS attack of their own webservers. In any case, good work mates!

Tr0ll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21176725)

can no longer be of business and was no8-fucking-existant. long term survival w0uld take about 2 to the crowd in
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>