Talk:Cult of the Dead Cow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sassy Magazine?[edit]

In the 19 November 2004 edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult_of_the_Dead_Cow&oldid=9180336 somebody added that bit about Sassy Magazine with no cite. AFAICT it's been sitting in there with no cite for all these years, and a quick googling only turns up refs to this page. If its real it should be pretty easy for someone to link to a scan or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.170.59 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

"Spelled in all capital letters by the group?" Yes, because that is the correct spelling. It's not worth arguing over, and I won't revert your edits, but it seems to me that whoever "owns" the name should be able to determine how it's spelled, including capitalization. --Myles Long/cDc 01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I lied. I'm going to revert the spelling in the article, but I won't move the article back to the correct title. --Myles Long/cDc 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is like USA Today and PGA Tour, where they insist that their names are spelled in all caps, but they are the only ones who do it. tregoweth 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is exactly like USA TODAY and PGA TOUR. Those articles should be in all caps, too, since those are the correct names of what the article is describing. It doesn't matter if "they are the only ones who do it;" they have the right to say how their name should be spelled, just as cDc does. It's not wrong just because you don't agree or don't get it. Next, you're going to tell me that Ralph Fiennes should pronounce his name "ralf" like everyone else who uses that spelling. --Myles Long/cDc 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal[edit]

All of the categories that this article was in are legitimate. cDc has a blog, linked from the article. It is a netlabel (several singles and albums released, also linked from the article. It is part of DIY culture, so that category is legit. It has a forum, linked from the article (so that's legit). It is a hacker magazine; this is a no-brainer. cDc also relates to politics and technology, see the article for details. I've reinstated the categories removed by Ashibaka. These are not "catspam." --Myles Long 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the article is primarily about those subjects. And it is not. Something Awful is a blog but it's not listed in the blogs category. See WP:CAT. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing relevant to this discussion at WP:CAT; perhaps you meant WP:CG? All that's relevant there, imo, is "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." That's definitely true; including too many categories is silly. I think that restraint has been used in categorizing this article; it could be placed in categories related to activism, human rights, etc., etc., but these are probably overkill. However, I stand by my statement that all of the categories it is currently in are relevant. The article could probably use some work to further explain their relevance, but there is nothing wrong with it the way it is. --Myles Long 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you make an article about the Cult of the Dead Cow's blog, the blog category would be relevant to that. But this article is about the organization, which is not primarily a blog. Ashibaka tock 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...in your opinion. --Myles Long 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we ask for a WP:3O? Ashibaka tock 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the categories appropriate. Quatloo 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we just got one. --Myles Long 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is CotDC?[edit]

The stuff we have here is interesting, but to get this article up to the average Wikipedia standards, could someone please give a basic explanation of who the group is, what they do, and what has made them famous early on in the article? Thanks! ==Quadraxis 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to explain the cDc's purpose and history pretty well. They were mostly famous with the United States (and perhaps abroad) BBS culture back in the 1980's and 1990's. They wrote entertaining and often tasteless articles on a wide variety of topics. Later on in the 1990's and early 2000's they were notorious for their media stunts and cool software (especially Back Orifice, Back Orifice 2k, and some of Sir Dystic's cool ass NetBIOS/CIFS tools). Additionally, several members released cool electronic music. In more recent years, they've kind of fallen in the background (probably because we're all getting older, married, childed, and don't have as much time for teh Internetz). Hope that helps. Jgw (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Blondes[edit]

Out of curiousity, has there been any independent (non-cDc/Hactivismo) confirmation that the Hong Kong Blondes & Blondie Wong even exist? and that it isn't some cDc "social engineering of the media" project? Jgw 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 1+ years, it appears there still isn't any truly independent confirmation that the HKBs aren't a cDc prank. I'm not sure what the anonymous crackpot below is trying to say. I have edited the article to be a bit more accurate in lieu of citations. Jgw (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cdc guys are good American guys. While they ignore the wrongs inside their country and the wrongs forced upon other countries by their beloved country, I would not be surprised if the entire hong kong blondes story was a hoax supported by an anti-China propaganda hack-strike financed by Corporate America or simply a result of the political idiocy of those guys. I like this last option best.
The Hong Kong Blondes never existed. Read Joe Menn's book. Mudge admitted it to President Clinton's face. End of story. Oxblood lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.136.227 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology[edit]

I don't see exactly why a quote by the group isn't reliable. What they stated about Scientology clearly states their opinion on the matter.

How is a quote by them unreliable? SmackTacular (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPS. The basic issue is that we do not publish such spew just because the subject of the article indeed posted it on their website. In limited circumstances we can use the subject's sites but only in relation to themselves, i.e. "it does not involve claims about third parties". Clearly the material I am removing violates those rules. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, all the self references have to go. These are against policy.--Dacium (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Vicious[edit]

Surely this isn't the same Mr. Vicious as the link directs us too? Was it a different Sid? Or did someone just slip this in? Correct me if I'm wrong... just didn't think he was so into computers.--Matt D (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally different Sid Vicious, of course (The Sex Pistols' Sid Vicious died several years before the formation of the cDc). I've edited the article to prevent confusion. Jgw (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happen?[edit]

Their sites appear to be down... cultdeadcow, ninjastrikeforce, goolag... somebody set up them the bomb? 24.126.102.48 (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Strike Force[edit]

Ninja Strike Force should redirect here instead of to Godfrey Ho. Rainjar (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed[edit]

I don't understand what this sentence from the lead paragraph means:

New media are released first through the blog, which also features thoughts and opinions of the group's members.

What is meant here by media? Like the topic of our article Media (communication)? But how can communication outlets or tools used to store and deliver information or data be released "through" a blog? Or like Media (computer)? Same question, how can CDs or DVDs be released through a blog? Announced in a blog, perhaps, but not released through it. Or is "new media" like the topic of our article on New media? But how do you release on-demand access to content anytime, anywhere, on any digital device, as well as interactive user feedback, and creative participation through a blog? It remains unclear.  --Lambiam 19:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it is short for multimedia files. 213.86.40.182 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cult of the Dead Cow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cult of the Dead Cow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IamJiva> :-( ... :-| 

   It is irrational to kill cows. As everyone is not aware, Indian cows eat cannabis bushes on the roadside unrestricted by the laws of charlatans. Combined with a low income to the government budget from the sale of alcohol, this eliminates the effect of the prematurely killed grandfather (as well as a bunch of disadvantaged and mentally affected single grannies - widows)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJiva (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cult of the Dead Cow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add info about the Veilid project[edit]

So far, no mention of this yet. From The Washington Post:

Hacking group plans system to encrypt social media and other apps

The latest effort, to be detailed at the massive annual Def Con hacking conference in Las Vegas next week, seeks to provide a foundation for messaging, file sharing and even social networking apps without harvesting any data, all secured by the kind of end-to-end encryption that makes interception hard even for governments.

Called Veilid, pronounced vay-lid, the code can be used by developers to build applications for mobile devices or the web. Those apps will pass fully encrypted content to one another using the Veilid protocol, its developers say. As with the file-sharing software BitTorrent, which distributes different pieces of the same content simultaneously, the network will get faster as more devices join and share the load, the developers say. In such decentralized "peer-to-peer" networks, users download data from one another instead of from a central machine.

Will add more sources here, as I find them. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult_of_the_Dead_Cow&oldid=1206841321"