Orkut

Darryl L. Pierce said:

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

It is not a more exclusive RFC. Think about it this way.
If there were a few RCF'ers living in the same city,
would they just ignore each other, or would they hang out
together? This is a similar idea, but online.

There are local food groups exist: ba.food, chi.foot,
sdnet.eats, phl.food, etc... In most of those groups,
those that want to hang out together, indeed do - in
person.

Again, it's just another way to commercialize, quantify,
and moderate Usenet.

Orkut has *nothing* to do with Usenet. What makes you think
it's an attempt to "moderate Usenet" when it's completely
*unrelated* to NNTP/Usenet?

It may be unrelated to the protocol that runs Usenet/NNTP,
but how is it fundamentally or socially different than
Usentnet or any other web-based bulletin board?

What can you do on Orkut that you can't do on Usenet (that I
haven't already mentioned)?

Maybe I'm FOS, because I haven't seen it, so I'm willing
to listen.

-sw

Darryl L. Pierce said:

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

> Again, it's just another way to commercialize,
> quantify, and moderate Usenet.

Orkut has *nothing* to do with Usenet. What makes you
think it's an attempt to "moderate Usenet" when it's
completely *unrelated* to NNTP/Usenet?

It may be unrelated to the protocol that runs
Usenet/NNTP, but how is it fundamentally or socially
different than Usentnet or any other web-based
bulletin board?

You said "it's just another way to...moderate Usenet". I'm
saying that it's completely *unrelated* to Usenet. They are
two completely different technologies with different
fundamentals.

Whatever. You're talking protocols, I'm talking social
fundamentals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What can you do on Orkut that you can't do on Usenet
(that I haven't already mentioned)?

Orkut's not just about the communities, though they're
pretty central to it. What can you do on *any* web-based
messaging system that you can't do in Usenet? The only
difference with Orkut is that you can search for other
users, find who is in your area, read about the poster
themselves via a profile (which you can't do in Usenet
unless you know the person's website, etc.).

So they both accomplish the same thing. Got it.

Quoted message said:

I don't think of Orkut as being something great or
innovative. It's just a convergence of some rather nice
technologies and ideas in one coherent system.

A re-invention of what we already have. More dumbing-down of
the Internet. It's like creating a big social Walmart for
the Internet.

-sw

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, it's just another way to commercialize, quantify,
and moderate Usenet.

Orkut has *nothing* to do with Usenet. What makes you
think it's an attempt to "moderate Usenet" when it's
completely *unrelated* to NNTP/Usenet?

It may be unrelated to the protocol that runs Usenet/NNTP,
but how is it fundamentally or socially different than
Usentnet or any other web-based bulletin board?

You said "it's just another way to...moderate Usenet". I'm
saying that it's completely *unrelated* to Usenet. They are
two completely different technologies with different
fundamentals.

Quoted message said:

What can you do on Orkut that you can't do on Usenet (that
I haven't already mentioned)?

Orkut's not just about the communities, though they're
pretty central to it. What can you do on *any* web-based
messaging system that you can't do in Usenet? The only
difference with Orkut is that you can search for other
users, find who is in your area, read about the poster
themselves via a profile (which you can't do in Usenet
unless you know the person's website, etc.).

Quoted message said:

Maybe I'm FOS, because I haven't seen it, so I'm willing
to listen.

I don't think of Orkut as being something great or
innovative. It's just a convergence of some rather nice
technologies and ideas in one coherent system.

Steve Wertz said:

Whatever. You're talking protocols, I'm talking social
fundamentals.

No, you are talking about them doing the same thing, i.e.
orkut being a gateway to Usenet but making it worse. At
least that is what I gather from what you said.

Quoted message said:

So they both accomplish the same thing. Got it.

No, they accomplish different things.

Quoted message said:

A re-invention of what we already have. More dumbing-down
of the Internet. It's like creating a big social Walmart
for the Internet.

It shares some similarities, but is not a reinvention.
Overall I think it is okay, certainly nothing great, but
worth using. You disagree. That is good. I am free to use
it, you are free not to use it. We are both happy.

--
John Gaughan johngaughan.netjohngaughan.netOpen ↗
[email hidden]

John Gaughan said:

Steve Wertz said:

Whatever. You're talking protocols, I'm talking social
fundamentals.

No, you are talking about them doing the same thing, i.e.
orkut being a gateway to Usenet but making it worse. At
least that is what I gather from what you said.

No, not at all. I wasn't speaking of any sort of gateway.
I'm comp[aring it to Yahoo! Groups, and the like (one of
which is Usenet).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So they both accomplish the same thing. Got it.

No, they accomplish different things.

Whihc is what I';m trying to figure out. What different
things? It's all user-contributed material (except for ads -
eventually if not already - and data collection for
marketing purposes).

-sw

Rona Yuthasastrakosol said:

I swear I'm not trying to be dense but what are the
differences between orkut and rec.food.cooking (not Usenet
in general, but rec.food.cooking specifically)? What will
Orkut rec.food.cooking be used for that is different from
what Usenet's rec.food.cooking is used for?

That's a better way to narrow down what I'm trying to ask,
as well. It's something we can relate to, at least. Rather
than USENET in general (and their protocols - which is not
what I'm talking about).

-sw

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Orkut has *nothing* to do with Usenet. What makes you
>think it's an attempt to "moderate Usenet" when it's
>completely *unrelated* to NNTP/Usenet?

It may be unrelated to the protocol that runs
Usenet/NNTP, but how is it fundamentally or socially
different than Usentnet or any other web-based bulletin
board?

You said "it's just another way to...moderate Usenet". I'm
saying that it's completely *unrelated* to Usenet. They
are two completely different technologies with different
fundamentals.

Whatever. You're talking protocols, I'm talking social
fundamentals.

You said something very specific, and that something made
absolutely no sense. If you meant other than what you said,
that's fine. But, if you meant what you said, then you
might want to consider what I was saying. (boy, that was a
tongue twister)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What can you do on Orkut that you can't do on Usenet
(that I haven't already mentioned)?

Orkut's not just about the communities, though they're
pretty central to
it. What can you do on *any* web-based messaging system
that you can't do in Usenet? The only difference with
Orkut is that you can search for other users, find who
is in your area, read about the poster themselves via
a profile (which you can't do in Usenet unless you
know the person's website, etc.).

So they both accomplish the same thing. Got it.

No, not really. Unless you know the person's website, you
can't find out any information about them. On Orkut as well
as other web-based systems you can usually go to a person's
profile and see what they have to say about themselves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think of Orkut as being something great or
innovative. It's just a convergence of some rather nice
technologies and ideas in one coherent system.

A re-invention of what we already have. More dumbing-down
of the Internet.

Non sequitor. A new combination of things is not
automatically "dumbing-down".

Quoted message said:

It's like creating a big social Walmart for the Internet.

Dude, if you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody cares.

Darryl L. Pierce said:

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

I swear I'm not trying to be dense but what are the
differences between orkut and rec.food.cooking (not
Usenet in general, but rec.food.cooking
specifically)? What will Orkut rec.food.cooking be
used for that is different from what Usenet's
rec.food.cooking is used for?

That's a better way to narrow down what I'm trying to
ask, as well. It's something we can relate to, at least.
Rather than USENET in general (and their protocols -
which is not what I'm talking about).

Mate, you said Orkut was trying to "moderate Usenet".

Dude, you're taking me way too literally. Stop being so
anal.

Sheesh.

-sw

Rona Yuthasastrakosol said:

"Darryl L. Pierce" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message -"]news:[email hidden]-
ews.com...

Quoted message said:

With Orkut, you can access your account from any
computer with a web browser. With Usenet, you have to
be on the machine with your news reader.

When away from my computer I use Google Groups--
accessible from any computer anywhere. While at grad
school I used Google Groups exclusively since my college
did not have Usenet access and while in Japan, I used
deja.com (I still use deja.com technically, since that's
always the address I use :-))

You can bring me up to speed. Wasn't DejaNews bought out
(or taken over) by Google? I was confused by the sudden
demise of Deja.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why a new for rec.food.cooking in Usenet? Some people
prefer a web-based system. I've tried for *years* to
get my wife involved in Usenet, but she and her friends
are more comfortable with things like Delphi since they

can

Quoted message said:

control the who sees their conversations without having
to go to email and CC'ing everybody they want to
include.

Woah... old school, bulletin board mentality.

There are people who like "lists" and people who don't. I'm
in the "don't" camp.

Quoted message said:

Does Orkut let you do all that? I can see how that would
be a benefit over rec.food.cooking the Usenet group.
Though doesn't rfc chat let you do that, too?

RFC doesn't "let" you do anything. You are at the mercy of
your news reader... stand alone , ISP or bowser based.

Much good luck and happiness to those who think that reading
rfc on Google is easy.

LOL!

Practice safe eating - always use condiments

"John Gaughan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No, they accomplish different things.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It shares some similarities, but is not a reinvention.
Overall I think it is okay, certainly nothing great, but
worth using. You disagree. That is good. I am free to use
it, you are free not to use it. We are both

happy.

Quoted message said:

I swear I'm not trying to be dense but what are the
differences between orkut and rec.food.cooking (not Usenet
in general, but rec.food.cooking specifically)? What will
Orkut rec.food.cooking be used for that is different from
what Usenet's rec.food.cooking is used for?

Or as I asked in my previous post but to which I did not
receive an answer, "What's the purpose of the group? Is it
to talk about food and cooking or is it for more personal
topics (for those frequently OT posters)? And sure you can
accept anyone you want into the group, but what about the
people you don't like? Would you still allow them to join if
they pick your ass? Just wondering..."

I can see why people wanted a chat group(? forum?) but I
still don't understand the need for an orkut group.

rona
--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the
inconvenience!***

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

I swear I'm not trying to be dense but what are the
differences between orkut and rec.food.cooking (not Usenet
in general, but rec.food.cooking specifically)? What will
Orkut rec.food.cooking be used for that is different from
what Usenet's rec.food.cooking is used for?

That's a better way to narrow down what I'm trying to ask,
as well. It's something we can relate to, at least. Rather
than USENET in general (and their protocols - which is not
what I'm talking about).

Mate, you said Orkut was trying to "moderate Usenet". If you
didn't mean that Orkut was trying to actually moderate
Usenet (which is why I felt the need to explain to you that
a browser-based system and an NNTP based system are two
exclusive and separate things) then why did you say it?

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

Mate, you said Orkut was trying to "moderate Usenet".

Dude, you're taking me way too literally. Stop being
so anal.

You did say that. Orkut is unmoderated. I do not know where
you got that from, but Darryl is not being anal.

--
John Gaughan johngaughan.netjohngaughan.netOpen ↗
[email hidden]

Rona Yuthasastrakosol said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

It shares some similarities, but is not a reinvention.
Overall I think it is okay, certainly nothing great, but
worth using. You disagree. That is good. I am free to use
it, you are free not to use it. We are both

happy.

I swear I'm not trying to be dense but what are the
differences between orkut and rec.food.cooking (not Usenet
in general, but rec.food.cooking specifically)?

With Orkut, you can access your account from any computer
with a web browser. With Usenet, you have to be on the
machine with your news reader.

Quoted message said:

What will Orkut rec.food.cooking be used for that is
different from what Usenet's rec.food.cooking is used for?

I think it's just going to be different people. It, like any
other product or service, will have people who prefer it
over Usenet, just as Usenet will have people who prefer it
over Orkut.

Quoted message said:

Or as I asked in my previous post but to which I did not
receive an answer, "What's the purpose of the group? Is it
to talk about food and cooking or is it for more personal
topics (for those frequently OT posters)? And sure you can
accept anyone you want into the group, but what about the
people you don't like? Would you still allow them to join
if they pick your ass? Just wondering..."

I can see why people wanted a chat group(? forum?) but I
still don't understand the need for an orkut group.

Why a new for rec.food.cooking in Usenet? Some people prefer
a web-based system. I've tried for *years* to get my wife
involved in Usenet, but she and her friends are more
comfortable with things like Delphi since they can control
the who sees their conversations without having to go to
email and CC'ing everybody they want to include.

"Darryl L. Pierce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

With Orkut, you can access your account from any computer
with a web browser. With Usenet, you have to be on the
machine with your news reader.

When away from my computer I use Google Groups--accessible
from any computer anywhere. While at grad school I used
Google Groups exclusively since my college did not have
Usenet access and while in Japan, I used deja.com (I still
use deja.com technically, since that's always the address I
use :-)) *and* my news reader since my news service sucked.

Quoted message said:

Why a new for rec.food.cooking in Usenet? Some people
prefer a web-based system. I've tried for *years* to get
my wife involved in Usenet, but she and her friends are
more comfortable with things like Delphi since they

can

Quoted message said:

control the who sees their conversations without having to
go to email and CC'ing everybody they want to include.

Does Orkut let you do all that? I can see how that would be
a benefit over rec.food.cooking the Usenet group. Though
doesn't rfc chat let you do that, too?

rona

--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the
inconvenience!***

John Gaughan said:

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

Mate, you said Orkut was trying to "moderate Usenet".

Dude, you're taking me way too literally. Stop being
so anal.

You did say that. Orkut is unmoderated.

It's moderated in the sense that you need an invitation. And
if someone starts to go Sheldon on the community - there's
no way to remove him?

Quoted message said:

I do not know where you got that from, but Darryl is not
being anal.

Yes - he is.

-sw

Darryl L. Pierce said:

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

> That's a better way to narrow down what I'm trying to
> ask, as well. It's something we can relate to, at
> least. Rather than USENET in general (and their
> protocols - which is not what I'm talking about).

Mate, you said Orkut was trying to "moderate Usenet".

Dude, you're taking me way too literally.

I took you at your word. I didn't realize you were ignorant
of what Usenet means.

Quoted message said:

Stop being so anal.

Then try being less incorrect. If you don't understand a
word, try not to use it in a conversation.

Listen - When I compared it to Usenet, I meant that it's a
service like USENET and a replacement for it - just like all
the other Chowhounds, eGullet and Yahoo! groups. It does the
same thing.

Now go back and re-read my posts and you'll see this.
Actually *you* won't, since you're so precise and anal.
Everybody else will, though.

-sw

Darryl L. Pierce said:

sf said:

You can bring me up to speed. Wasn't DejaNews bought out
(or taken over) by Google? I was confused by the sudden
demise of Deja.

Yes, a few years ago.

It's just easier typing deja.com instead of
groups.google.com. Boith URLS's lead to the same place.

-sw

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stop being so anal.

Then try being less incorrect. If you don't understand a
word, try not to use it in a conversation.

Listen - When I compared it to Usenet, I meant that it's a
service like USENET and a replacement for it - just like
all the other Chowhounds, eGullet and Yahoo! groups. It
does the same thing.

Now go back and re-read my posts and you'll see this.

I see what you meant. What you said is different. No big.

Quoted message said:

Actually *you* won't, since you're so precise and anal.

So, as well as being incorrect, you're also a mind reader?
Good to know.

Quoted message said:

Everybody else will, though.

Yeah, 'cause everybody's hanging on your words, aren't they?
Why do you want to turn your previous mistake into an insult-
fest? Why so defensive?

sf said:

You can bring me up to speed. Wasn't DejaNews bought out
(or taken over) by Google? I was confused by the sudden
demise of Deja.

Yes, a few years ago.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why a new for rec.food.cooking in Usenet? Some people
prefer a web-based system. I've tried for *years* to
get my wife involved in Usenet, but she and her
friends are more comfortable with things like Delphi
since they

can

Quoted message said:

control the who sees their conversations without
having to go to email and CC'ing everybody they want
to include.

Woah... old school, bulletin board mentality.

There are people who like "lists" and people who don't.
I'm in the "don't" camp.

Right, so that's why there exists all the different ways to
communicate: not everybody wants to use a newsreader, not
everybody wants to use a web browser, and not everybody
wants to use a mailing list.

<snip

Steve Wertz said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's a better way to narrow down what I'm trying to
ask, as well. It's something we can relate to, at least.
Rather than USENET in general (and their protocols -
which is not what I'm talking about).

Mate, you said Orkut was trying to "moderate Usenet".

Dude, you're taking me way too literally.

I took you at your word. I didn't realize you were ignorant
of what Usenet means.

Quoted message said:

Stop being so anal.

Then try being less incorrect. If you don't understand a
word, try not to use it in a conversation.