Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Comments

top

How Not To Launch a Gadget

Jarjarthejedi Re:Another Kickstarter failure (160 comments)

"If you aren't willing to put your own personal assets on the line, and nobody else is willing to put their assets on the line, then yes, it's probably either a bad idea, or the people starting it are incompetent."
Kickstarter is the very definition of 'other people willing to put their assets on the line'. Whether funded by kickstarter or a loan from a bank any idea that gets funded by definition has people willing to put their assets on the line.

Or is it only big name bank assets that count in your worldview?

"That's normally called "selling" a product or service. Begging for money before there is a product or service and promising to deliver (maybe) is called a hand-out."

Or a pre-order. You know, the thing businesses have been doing for decades. I've pre-ordered plenty of games from big companies before they were ready to ship, same thing.

about a year and a half ago
top

Electric Cars Won't Strain the Power Grid

Jarjarthejedi Re:Plus they could be set to charge at night (438 comments)

"Apparently you're unfamiliar with American suburbs and urban sprawl. Running errands to the city or other suburbs can easily be 60 or 70 miles round trip. Going into the city for entertainment, drinks or dining is hardly a rare thing. "

If you're regularly making 100+ mi spontaneous trips then you're an outlier and you know what, all you have to do is not buy an electric car. Problem solved.

You're arguing against scientific research with hypotheticals and anecdotes.

about 4 years ago
top

Electric Cars Won't Strain the Power Grid

Jarjarthejedi Re:Plus they could be set to charge at night (438 comments)

"More likely: drive to work for 9 am, park, plugin car and charge [along with everybody else] just so you can get home in it"

You work more than 20mi from your home? Last I heard the min mileage for these things was about 40mi per charge. So if you work, say, 15mi from your home you have 10mi a day for running errands before you have to consider a mid-day charge. Other than that allowing people to program their cars to charge only when certain circumstances are met (say, 1-6am OR battery is at 30% charge) would put most of the load on nighttime.

Really now, saying you'll have to charge for every trip is just silly. Batteries don't magically lose their charge if they sit for more than 10s...

about 4 years ago
top

ATM Vendors Threaten, Stop Research Presentation

Jarjarthejedi Re:you'd rather your bank was burgled? (134 comments)

so EVERY bad guy, including would-be bad guys, already know this? do you know it? how about you post it as an anonymous response to this comment.... i mean, it's everywhere, right?

Oh yes, because the fact that someone far removed from the problems doesn't know the details of it prove that no one could possibly already know the details. I mean, it's so obvious, no security issues exist, because I don't know about them, so if I don't know about them, then no one can, because they can't be well known. IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE LOGIC! /sarcasm

you mean the issue where more exposure can only lead to more exploitation, and degradation of the value of a dollar?

*citation needed*

are offenders currently prosecuted and convicted?

Probably not. It's kind of hard to arrest and prosecute someone for doing something you don't even know is possible...

if the specific exploit was plugged, would others ALWAYS still exist?

Ah yes, the great 'there will always be problems, so why bother fixing them' argument. Remind me never to work with you, you're the worst kind of person for working on technology. Will there always be issues? Probably, though not certainly. Should those issues be fixed as quickly as possible (prioritizing bigger issues of course). YES. Period. Not fixing the problem and silencing people to keep it hidden is the worst kind of security that exists. It's like sticking your head in the sand so you can't see the bad things happening around you, and it's bound to cause more issues than just fixing the problem would. But heck, if it's never going to be perfect, why not just open the thing up so that people can steal money whenever they want?

about 4 years ago
top

ATM Vendors Threaten, Stop Research Presentation

Jarjarthejedi Re:you'd rather your bank was burgled? (134 comments)

It seems to me that the people who understand the issue here the most have been intimidated into inaction by people who might or might not understand the issue but understand that revealing any flaws in their methods would mean less profit for them, and that's all they care about.

about 4 years ago
top

Caffeine Addicts Get No Additional Perk, Only a Return To Baseline

Jarjarthejedi Re:Makes sense (506 comments)

And if you stop drinking coffee your body will adapt to waking up on its own with no need for it. I used to drink tons of soda (even more caffeine than coffee) and always had to have a can in the morning to wake up, I stopped drinking it (well aside from about 2 cans worth a week) and suddenly it was significantly easier to get up in the morning, to the point where, going to sleep at the same time, I was waking up an hour earlier and feeling much better.

Caffeine is not a good way to start your day off, no matter what folgers may say. It's a useful drug for maintaining alertness every once in a while but used daily it reduces your overall alertness, which is bad.

more than 4 years ago
top

Chameleon-Like Behavior of Neutrino Confirmed

Jarjarthejedi Re:What if... (191 comments)

The basic idea isn't that the 'simpler' theory wins (relativity >> newton in complexity) but rather the simplest model that explains all the data. A model that adequately explains everything we've observed without resorting to special cases (i.e. "the universe does X unless these extremely specific conditions are met, in which case it does Y') is far more likely to be true than a model that resorts to special cases, since the universe doesn't exactly check to see if the planets happen to be aligned when determining the gravitational attraction of an object.

Occam's razor is less about simplicity and more about elegant simplicity, if your theory has X rules and mine has 2X but mine explains all the data without special cases and yours requires a dozen special cases mine is more likely to be true. By the same merit the odds that massless particles obey the standard model unless they happen to be neutrinos in which case they oscillate is less likely than either the assumption that neutrinos are massless or the assumption that massless particles in general can't oscillate is incorrect.

more than 4 years ago
top

The Hurt Locker Producers Sue First 5,000 File-Sharers

Jarjarthejedi Re:Not this again... (861 comments)

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 was released with full DRM. It's currently the most pirated game of all time with millions of copies pirated. DRM is code for "easy to pirate" as well.

DRM does absolutely nothing to stop or even slow piracy. It does a lot to hurt legitimate consumers however. That's by DRM-free is the way to go.

more than 4 years ago
top

"Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court

Jarjarthejedi Re:Are the Supremes likely to hear it? (213 comments)

Alright then. Let's say I release a song with no copyright, public domain. Would you download it? What if it was actually another person's song, that they had full copyright on, and I was mis-attributing and mis-tagging it? Well if the innocent infringer clause doesn't work you're responsible for the fines, regardless of the fact the song you got was tagged public domain. This case is about more than just one person having to pay fines.

more than 4 years ago
top

"Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court

Jarjarthejedi Re:Are the Supremes likely to hear it? (213 comments)

"you should probably assume that you have no permissions"

'You should' and 'You have to or you'll be hit with millions of dollars of fines' are two different things. Common sense says to treat music without an attached copyright as fully copyrighted (though that does open up the question of what happens when you get a song tagged with a free copyright type that is simply mis-tagged and should be illegal to copy, then what happens?) but common sense != the law.

more than 4 years ago
top

"Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court

Jarjarthejedi Re:Are the Supremes likely to hear it? (213 comments)

Copyrighted and illegal to download are two different things, or more specifically copyrighted + illegal to download doesn't apply to all copyrighted songs. Independent artists and even some major artists release songs for free all the time.

The existence of a single free to download mainstream song renders the argument that 'all mainstream music is illegal to download' invalid, and there's plenty of songs on torrents that are actually legal to download and listen too.

more than 4 years ago
top

"Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court

Jarjarthejedi Re:Are the Supremes likely to hear it? (213 comments)

How do you know that? I know of at least two major artists* that have released songs for free download themselves. Did I miss out on getting the 'immediately sense when someone somewhere has claimed copyright to something' sensor when they were being passed out? Or how are you telling the 'free to download' songs from the 'not free to download' songs when both are posted without copyright?

*Jonathan Coulton and Weird Al

more than 4 years ago
top

"Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court

Jarjarthejedi Re:No sign, no crime? (213 comments)

Well here in AZ she'd be looking at a fine of about the retail price ($10*number of cd's, let's assume 10 for the sake of argument) and a fine of either $100 or $250 on top of that depending on whether you're a minor or not. So somewhere in the ballpark of $200-$350 dollars if you steal the music from a store, >1 million dollars if you pirate it.

Hmm...I wonder what cd's the borders near my house has...(kidding, kidding :P)

Actually as a petty offense I don't think you can be forced to pay more than $300 for a minor shoplifting incident, like stealing 10 CD's (mind you that's ~120 songs, which is way more than the million dollar fine was for)..

IANAL, just grabbed the info from my state law.

more than 4 years ago
top

Verizon CEO Says "We Will Hunt Heavy Users Down"

Jarjarthejedi Re:Come to Verizon! (738 comments)

"So, perhaps they mean you can be online an unlimited number of minutes at high speed, but you just aren't allowed to do much."

Well if I hit my bandwidth cap and can't send any more data (assuming that's how the cap works) then I'm no longer online by any definition of the word, so it's not unlimited even by that definition.

more than 4 years ago
top

Twins' DNA Foils Police

Jarjarthejedi Re:Um, this is easy (209 comments)

"The assumption is that one of them has no cut..."

That's a ridiculous assumption. Cuts are ridiculously common.

Not to mention that your premise is flawed and dangerous. What if the guilty one got a nosebleed on the job? And the innocent one has a small papercut from a week or two ago on the job. Presence of a cut != Guilty in this case.

more than 4 years ago
top

NASA Summoned To Fix Prius Problems

Jarjarthejedi Re:So... (380 comments)

"Given NASA's experience with writing software that's just gotta work or else, I'd be very hard-pressed to think of no better team of programmers for the job."

You're right! I can't think of a better group of programmers to work on car acceleration issues than the guys who've lost 3 probes to software errors (mariner 1, mars climate orbitor and mars polar lander)!

NASA is not the organization it once was, and implying that their programmers get everything right is not only dangerous, but silly. Everyone makes mistakes, NASA is no exception, and calling them in is more of a PR boost than anything else.

more than 4 years ago
top

NASA Summoned To Fix Prius Problems

Jarjarthejedi Re:So... (380 comments)

"Almost every single piece of non-trivial software written has bugs"
"dangerous development practices that aren't catching bugs like this."

You can't have it both ways. Accusing Toyota of doing something wrong because a bug like this slipped through and then saying (correctly) that all software has bugs is just a bit silly, you're effectively accusing them of not being perfect...which isn't much of an accusation.

more than 4 years ago
top

NASA Summoned To Fix Prius Problems

Jarjarthejedi Re:So... (380 comments)

You want truth in the comments? Geez! Next you'll be expecting me to read the articles!

more than 4 years ago
top

Obama's Twitter Account "Hacked"

Jarjarthejedi Re:He shouldn't be arrested (308 comments)

"You know, bathroom locks in most homes and apartments can be opened with a straightened paper clip."

If you used bathroom locks on your front door I wouldn't be surprised if your house got broken into.

Is it still wrong to break into your house? Yeah, but making it far easier to do isn't very smart. If you want to be secure you put a secure lock on your front door, you don't accuse the person breaking in of violating your privacy. Same principal.

more than 4 years ago
top

Indian Military Hopes to Weaponize the Searing "Ghost Pepper"

Jarjarthejedi Re:Tastes great (267 comments)

I think the GP's point was that spraying this kind of stuff is no different than any other gas attack, and there's already defense against those so rather than use some silly thing like yogurt just use a standard anti-gas measure like a gas mask and covering exposed areas.

more than 4 years ago

Submissions

top

New Reboot Movie Site

Jarjarthejedi Jarjarthejedi writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Jarjarthejedi writes "Looks like a new Reboot movie is in the works, and the creators are planning an online comic series to go with it. They also seem to be asking for fan involvement to help make the movie a success. The site is still relatively new as of this posting (having just opened up) but it's certainly good news for those of us who enjoyed reboot."
Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Bane's philosophy, Palpatine, and other rambled Sith thought

Jarjarthejedi Jarjarthejedi writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Having recently finished the book Darth Bane: Path of Destruction I had a few thoughts on the matter of the Sith in the Star Wars univers, Palpatine (and Vader) in particular. There may be a few minor spoilers in here, but I'm not going to be talking much about the book itself so it shouldn't have many. These are simply rambled out from my mind, in no order whatsoever, and are based solely on what I know.

Palpatine is probably the most interesting Sith in the entire Star Wars universe because he is the only one who actually succeeds, unlike the others who tried (and in some cases can very close) but failed. At first glance it seems that he adheres to the philosophy of the Sith that Darth Bane sets down better than most others we see. However it is clear that he deviates somewhat, and that the philosophy itself is somewhat flawed, both of which lead to his eventual demise.

"Two there shall be, no more, no less. One to embody the power, the other to crave it."

The first part of Darth Bane's philosophy is the so called Rule of Two. This was first spoken, interestingly enough, by Yoda. How he learned of it is a good question in and of itself, it doesn't seem that he could have read or learned it anywhere. Why not? Bane's goal was to make the Sith appear extinct to the Jedi. From what we hear in the movies he seems to have succeeded, none of the Jedi are willing to believe that there is a Sith Lord out there until Qui-Gon dies. Since Bane himself devised the philosophy, and he had the Sith disappear to the Jedi well enough to make them doubt one of their own, how exactly did Yoda learn of this rule?

I don't plan to delve any deeper into that question, however. This is about the Sith and Palpatine, not Yoda's connection to them (interesting as that may be, it's all supposition until something is written about it). A cursory examination of Palpatine's behavior seems to show an understanding of the Rule of Two. He never has more than one active apprentice at any time. He fulfills his role of embodying the power (especially towards Vader, who's entire reason for joining the Sith is that he seeks some of that power for his own use) and his apprentices seem to crave that power. Well, most of them do. Dooku doesn't appear to have much interest in the kind of power Palpatine possesses, but Maul and Vader both desire that power for their own reasons.

The area in which Palpatine seems to differ most from Bane's views is in his lack of respect for the title Darth. This is understandable before the Empire, as he can't very well call himself Darth Palpatine, the Jedi were somewhat blind, but that would be a clear tipoff. However he seems to prefer the title Emperor after the Jedi have fallen, something that I doubt Bane would have approved of.

It's this use of the title Emperor that shows one of Palpatine's fatal flaws, he depends more on his soldiers and admirals than on the force. The Death Star is nothing compared to what some of the Sith were capable of (collapsing stars anyone?) yet it is what Palpatine chooses to use. In the end Palpatine seems to cast off the role of Sith Lord, and take on the role of Emperor completely.

The main problem with Bane's philosophy, even when it so elegantly handled by Palpatine, is that it fails to acknowledge a simple problem. If you gain power through deceit, betrayal, and cunning, how do you keep it from those who would deceive, betray, and out think you? The Sith had plenty of methods to kill, and plenty of ways to gain power, but no method of keeping it. Even the story of Plaguas tells this, with all his Dark power he had no way to ensure that he could keep it. That is the fatal flaw of the Sith, and the problem Palpatine faces once he becomes Emperor, none of the methods he honed and perfected for years can work as soon as it is well known (at least to his enemies) that he's a Sith. They'll expect betrayal, be prepared for deception (or at least they should be, they kinda mess that up in 6) and know his power.

"At last we shall reveal outselves to the Jedi. At last we shall have our revenge!"

Darth Bane took the Sith underground so that they could make full use of their abilities. Darth Sidious brought the Sith to the forefront, and in doing so robbed them of those abilities. Yet he did so in a manner that Bane would have approved of. That seems to be the fatal flaw of the Sith, they seek that which they cannot possess (at least not possess indefinitely) to the exclusion of that which they can possess. They inevitable try to grab that which they cannot hold, true power, and in doing so leave behind their power. As soon as the Sith step out of the shadows they become easy targets (relatively, compared to how hard they are to hit in the shadows). Yet they cannot help but step out of the shadows, their entire philosophy is based on letting their emotions go.

top

Buses stopping at Railroad Tracks

Jarjarthejedi Jarjarthejedi writes  |  more than 6 years ago

So I'm driving down the road today, and we're coming up to the only Train Crossing on my daily drive. The car in front of me gets the bright idea to shift into the far right lane from the middle lane, seeing it easy, however he stops after getting halfway and shifts back. I'm a little curious, and bored, so I glance over as we go over the train crossing to see a School Bus parked on the tracks, which starts moving again just as I pass it. The good old fashion 'Why is that a law?' question pops into my mind and I'm bored enough to actually analyze the costs/benefits of such an idea compared to not having that law in a coherent manor (I'm usually too tired to think and drive at the same time without crashing in the morning :P).

So I think to myself, hmm...what are all the possible situations that a bus can encounter at a train track when it stops, making up a sort of extended Truth table in my mind. Here's what I got.

(I assume there are no gates or that they'll magically malfunctioning as no bus is going to stop on the tracks if the gates are down)

1. No Train for Miles
With Law - Bus stops for no good reason, slowing traffic and making people angry in addition to causing a significant increase in the chance of an accident as people tend to pull out into the next lane to get around buses and may end up hitting other cars pulling out.
Without Law - Bus goes over tracks without slowing, no problems
ADVANTAGE - No Law
2. Train close enough to hit bus if it simply drives over
With Law - Bus stops on tracks, is hit long before fully stopping, driver likely killed, better hope your kid was in the back
Without Law - Bus tries to go straight over the tracks, train hits somewhere in the middle/back and likely kills the kids there
ADVANTAGE - Law
3. Train far enough away that it would miss the bus if it simply drives over, but close enough to hit the stopped bus
With Law - Bus stops on tracks, is hit, driver likely killed, better hope your kid was in the back
Without Law - Bus drives over tracks, is completely unaffected
ADVANTAGE - No Law
4. Train at the perfect distance to hit the bus if it stops but give the driver enough time to reverse off the track and survive
With Law - Bus stops on tracks, driver sees train, slams it into to reverse and 'guns' it (as much as you can gun it in a bus). Train near miss, good luck to any cars behind the buss
Without Law - Bus drives over tracks, unaffected
ADVANTAGE - Close, but No Law causes no traffic backup and cuts the chance of an accident down whereas Law may cause an accident, No Law

(There are a few more, but they all are pretty similar to #4 and all end up the same way)

So it seems that the only time the law is going to be helpful is if the train is close enough to hit the bus whether or not it stops, and then it's only benefit is killing the driver rather than the kids. Here's an interesting idea, why not have the bus stop BEFORE the tracks and so save both the driver and the kids in that situation?

I mean, to use some logical physics, the worst thing you can do is come to a stop in front of that which you are trying to avoid, it's much better to stop before or after you're out of it's way as it takes much longer to get out of the way from rest than it does if you have any initial velocity. Assuming you slam the accelerator in every circumstance and the train is the same distance when your front wheels hit the tracks then you have a great chance to get clear if you have a high initial velocity, a good chance if you have a low initial velocity, and an awful chance if you have no initial velocity.

I can just imagine the conversation that went on to start this law.
Bill - Okay, we had a bad train and bus accident today, we should pass a law to make it look like we're trying to help.
Ted - Well what if we had the buses stop and check if a train was coming?
Bill - That's a great idea, that way we can blame the driver for not being thorough enough if a bus does get hit! Okay, where should they stop?
Ted - Probably before the tracks, that way they won't get hit
Will - No way man, there are like, trees, that could block their sight to the train. If they park on the tracks they can see for miles in both directions
Ted - Yeah, and they can get hit much easier
Bill - Good idea guys, we'll have them stop on the track, no should they stop at gated ones?
Will - Totally
Ted - What's the point? Gates work just fine at preventing car accidents. And stopping on the tracks is dumb.
Bill - Ted, Ted, think of the children in the bus, how would you feel if they died because the bus didn't see the train coming due to a conveniently placed tree and happened to drive through a gate and not stop on the tracks? I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go, you obviously don't care about the children on those buses. Will, you get a raise.

Now I guess this law may have made a little sense when trains were slower and carrying less cargo, a bus on the tracks could be seen and allow the train to slow so the bus could get clear. With modern trains that take miles to stop, however, the difference in time between a train slowing down and a train going at a constant speed reaching the bus is pretty tiny.

One of these days I hope they revise this law to be something like:
"All Buses much stop short of the tracks and check for a train, opening the window and turning off music to hear a train coming, at any tracks that do not have gates"

Can anyone point out a flaw in my logic that shows the benefit of having buses stop on tracks? It doesn't annoy me too much, as I learned long ago to stay out of their lane if tracks are coming, but it does worry me a little and seem unnecessary.

top

An angle I've never thought of before...

Jarjarthejedi Jarjarthejedi writes  |  more than 6 years ago

So I was stumbing around with my new StumbleUpon extension, and I happened upon an interesting picture that made me pause and think. Here's a link to it on imageshack, I can't remember where I originally found it - http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4316/sharingdp6.jpg

So basically the plot of the picture is that a kid is in Kindergarten being told to share with the other kids. The next panel shows him grown up sitting at a computer, with the semi-obvious implication that he's sharing music (obvious if you assume the first and second panels are linked). The third panel has him behind bars, a slightly exaggerated way to show that he got sued for it and lost.

So I thought to myself, that's interesting. I've never even thought to compare the old childhood teaching to share toys with music sharing. There are some obvious differences, the plain-as-day one being that when you share a toy you both can't have it at the same time and the sharee can't use it without you being there (unless you lend it to them in which case you can't use it). However there are some very interesting similarities.

Allow me to bore you with a story from my childhood. I used to play with a couple of the other kids in my neighborhood when I was younger. We all liked Transformers (Beast Wars primarily, and the sequel whose name I can't remember) quite a bit and got together regularly to play with them, we all had some. One of our group, let's call him Alex for convenience, was really into them and was smart about getting his hands on them when they were on sale. One day Hasbro (I think) released the newest, greatest Transformers toy of the time, a large Optimus Primal (or with it Prime?) toy with lights, sounds, and 4 transformation modes. This was an awesome toy, something like $60 when it came out (can't find it for less than $75 on ebay, so that's something), had 4 transformation modes and was just plain cool. All my friends and myself wanted this thing. Then one day our friend Alex found it, I'm not sure if he got it on sale or what (never asked, but he usually bought all of those toys on sale) but he got it.

And he shared it with us. When we had our giant Transformer battles (we each had something like 5-20 figures, and they'd all participate in a battle, so we had 40+ figure battles weekly :) ) Optimal Optimus was always right in the fray. Occasionally alex would be busy somewhere else and so one of us would be the one using Optimal to fight, just like if we owned the toy ourselves. Suffice it to say that after that I didn't really want Optimal Optimus anymore, I still thought he was one of the coolest toys (and was actually getting hopeful that I could find him cheap when I searched ebay today) but since Alex had it and was cool about sharing I didn't really need it anymore. None of the other people in the group got that toy, in fact the only Transformers we had more than one of were the ones we'd had when we'd met, no one bought a toy someone in the group had, not because it was some kind of law, but because we didn't need it, one of our other friends had it so we got to play with it as well.

In essence Alex's sharing of his toy cost the toy industry at least $60, and probably more like $180 because I'm pretty sure my other friends would have picked one up if no one they knew had it and was willing to share. And you know what, his parents were proud of him for being so nice. No one disapproved of his sharing, that would be nuts. Now had Alex shared even a single song with us, cost the music industry $3, his parents wouldn't have been happy. My parents would have probably told me to stop hanging out with him over that.

So I say this to any Toy Industry Exec's out there, you've got to start suing your customers. They're ruthlessly sharing your toys and cutting your profits down significantly. First things first, make toy sharing illegal, I can't find any legislation that makes it legal, so this shouldn't be too hard if you do enough appeals to emotion about starving toy designers and record low profits, make sure you ignore the China lead thing though, the blame for low profits should rest squarely on these little miscreants. Second you should wipe out the 'sharing is caring' curriculum of Kindergarten, it's obviously an effort to teach children to break the law. Third, start suing kids at random, they all share so it should be easy to find a target. Just sue one kid who you're pretty sure of, or threaten it, and then get him to tattle on the other kids (won't be too hard, just threaten to take away all of his toys). Then start chaining out from there, filing actual lawsuits occasionally. Use plenty of appeals to emotion. Then you've got to work on stopping this sharing at the source, I recommend little handcuffs attached to every toy and legislation to make it illegal to use the toy without the handcuff on your arm and to allow another kid to put the handcuff on their arm, call is ARM (Analog Rights Management). Make sure you specify that you're selling the toys at the store, and leasing them in the box.

Once you do this you should start seeing record profits as kids everywhere buy their own toys. If you don't then just blame it on the sharers and go after them even more vigerously. You don't have to pay me for this idea, just don't go after me, it was that kid Alex who was sharing the toys.

top

Interesting (Friends/Foes)

Jarjarthejedi Jarjarthejedi writes  |  more than 6 years ago

So I was going through my Friends/Fans/Foes/Freaks list, found a Fan who I friended, and found a whole bunch of Freaks. Only 2 of them had journals, one didn't have a single post I could see. I didn't really see any disagreements I would have with most of them so I left them as just Freaks but one with a journal posted that he had marked all Neoconservatives as Foes, apparently the reason I was marked as his Foe. I wiki'd that term, since I wasn't familiar with it, and still really don't understand it that much as wikipedia politics pages are not known for being clear and concise. I have no problem with people calling me Neoconservative, Ultraconservative, Conservative, Left-winger (or Right, I forget which is Conservative) or any other name based on my views. I do have a problem when said person adds in their journal that they believe all Neoconservatives have no 'intellectual legitimacy' that's when I begin to consider them a little strange. Ergo he's now a Foe, my first Foe!

(Hope I stick this in the right category since it's my first Journal)

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...