for the Jewish observant geek. Besides geekly needs (jobs, bandwidth, culture), you've also got to have kosher food and places of worship and study accessible. For your observant family-oriented geek, you also need ritual baths and religious schooling.
This pretty much limits you to NYC, Boston, DC (really Silver Springs), Chicago, Cleaveland, and LA (Toronto, if you count.ca). Granted, there are Jewish communities (i.e. resource hubs) in other cities (such as Philly and Seattle), but the resources are not quite as plentiful.
(My favorites are in order, Kahn, Spock, First Contact and Undiscovered Country. The worst are Generations and last fall's total crapfest, Insurrection).
Come on, Rob. Everyone knows that the absolute worst Star Trek movie of all time has got to be ST V:Final Frontier, aka "The Quest for God". Ridiculous plot, laughable characterizations -- and it had the audacity to use the sub-title "Final Frontier", which really should have been reserved for the last ST movie.
ST:The Motion Picture isn't much better, but it's forgivable as the first attempt to bring ST back to the public (also as the by-product of the first failed ST II series).
And while it is possible to laud the merits of the ST films you've enjoyed, you've ignored ST IV:Voyage Home, which was a total joy to watch, despite making no sense.
Now I will step down off my fanatical soapbox, lest someone parody me in Galaxy Quest II...
However, it utilized MSFT's proprietary streaming video protocol. Furthermore, the Netscape plugin failed to work to any semblance of perfection, so I was forced to use IE.
Um, aren't all streaming video protocols at this time "proprietary"? Barring half-baked, homegrown Java video streaming on a few sites, the only streaming video platforms are RealPlayer, MS Media Player, and Quicktime.
Quicktime is virtually dead on non-Mac platforms due to Apple's bungled handling of QT4. Real is struggling to get G2 ported to all platforms (how long has the Linux version been in alpha?). And that leaves MS -- with money to burn and only one OS (Win32) to support. It's only natural that MS leading the pack.
Research in media compression is one of the fields of computer science that does not parallelize well. Fraunhofer poured money into research and came up with MP3. No open source team could have matched that effort. Just imagine how difficult developing a video compression scheme is. Yes, we may have various levels of MPEG, but none are designed for low-bandwidth connections.
Our only hope is that Real falls to the same fate as Netscape and, before giving up the ghost, releases the sources of the encoder and player. It would probably take a good couple of years before yielding any usable product, but the necessity for video support on non-Windows platforms and Internet appliances would give the project a big boost.
Wow, an open source project that would dwarf Mozilla... Doesn't seem possible...:)
The only complaint I have about AIM is that everything goes through the server. What the optimal protocol should be doing is using the server for finding people, and then (at the user's discretion) making direct connections. It would partially lift the guilt of putting all of this on AOL's servers, but would also reduce some traffic.
This is the classic battle in network design, between centralized and decentralized configurations. If you have a problem with all message traffic passing through AOL's servers, perhaps you should try Ding!, which uses the Ding server only as a mechanism for finding other users currently logged in, then makes a direct connection between the 2 parties having a conversation. Come to think of it, Microsoft's NetMeeting does this too (IIRC). Of course, that won't work for faked IPs or behind firewalls.
IRC can already be used as an effective decentralized network of servers (EFnet, undernet, etc.). All it needs is stronger identity checking.
I envision a future where an email address will allow you to contact a person via phone (cell?), email, IM, IM voice, and even physical post.
- Richie
How 'bout those "Natural" keyboards?
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
I had the misfortune of helping out a neighbor on a brand-new "Natural" keyboard -- you know, the ones with the huge gap in the middle between the Left-Hand Section and the Right-Hand Section. Obstensibly, this "natural" separation and ensuring curvature is healthier for your hands and wrists.
No such luck. I nearly lost my sanity trying to get anything done. The most glaring problem was the "B". I do not purport to type correctly -- just the way that gets the job done quickly (as Tom advocates here).
Upon slower reflection, I discovered that I normally (subconsciously) press the B with whichever pointer finger seems least busy. So, for example, "about" and "autoexec.bat" are right-handed Bs, but "blaster" and "obituary" are left-handed Bs. That choice is not given to natural keyboard users, and so when typing "autoexec.bat", I found my right pointer finger slamming into a ditch in the keyboard.
Ergonomics is a laudable goal, but it seems to ridiculous to make incremental improvements on the keyboard layout. It just ends up frustrating users by giving them the illusion of continuity or smaller learning curves, instead of just redesigning the whole thing and doing it The Right Way.
Then again, I have been known to try to honk the horn in my Ford Taurus by reaching for a non-existant thumb button (a habit from the Grand Marquis) while the horn is really in the center of the wheel. Sometimes I wonder how I shift from Sun keyword to Wintel keyboard with so few errors.
A non-compete only prevents you from working the in the specific market that your former employer work -- hence, you'd be working for a direct competitor. But a well-balanced geek could easily be working for a hospital, a publishing house, an advertising firm, or a brokerage house, for example.
Non-competes are particularly effective against salespeople and PR folk, since so much of their jobs are who you know much more so than what you know. There's nothing to prevent a salesperson from convincing all of his contacts that they should switch to the new product he's hawking, other than possibly some ethical considerations (if such a thing is possible for salespeople).
I've signed one non-compete (I wasn't about to work for any competitor of that company) and refused to sign another, since it was tightly bundled with an intellectual property clause. But on the whole, it's all pretty irrelevant to your average geek.
Besides, any dip who can't figure out that yahoo is located at yahoo.com, or infoseek at infoseek.com, deserves what they get.
Actually, I had a good reason for using one search engine to find another just last week.
I was at a branch of the New York Public Library. They've been switching over from dumb terminals (which you can use from home - just telnet to nyplgate.nypl.org and login as "leo") to a Windows-based GUI, hybridized with a Netscape browser. However, to prevent the average user from surfing the Web on machines obstensibly set up for searching the library catalog, URLs cannot be entered into the Location field and the Open Page dialog is disabled.
As I was on the road during my lunch hour, and needed to check an address for my next stop, I spent about 5 minutes coming to the realization I have described above. Fortunately, the NYPL GUI helpfully links you to "approved" or "recommended" web resources, such as other libraries and literary sites. It took me about another minute to find an "approved" site that got me to Yahoo. From there, I went to AltaVista. From there, I could have gone anywhere -- with or without the ability to explicitly enter the URL.
WRT to the library, this whole incident demonstrates the idiocy of the library's effort to disable normal browser usage. The web is too interconnected to give a user a tiny subsection, short of not actually connecting to the Internet and using cached/offline versions of the "accepted" pages.
But, much more importantly, WRT to search engines confusing or removing their competitors from their search databases, it runs contrary to the spirit of the web and their entire raison d'etre. You want to find out about Yahoo on Lycos? No problem! Here's Yahoo itself, here's a parody site, here's a testimonial for Oracle. Search engines are expected to rate according to relevance, but not to editorialize. It's unprofessional, and confusing as all hell to the newbies.
If a search engine wants to distinguish itself on technical merits (like Google) or excellent design, it shouldn't act like a sleazy appliance salesman ("you don't wanna shop there, buddy...I gotta great deal for you right here....")
Any time you introduce an intermediary into a process, it is impossible for it to remain objective. An overload of working condition crises at the turn of the century bore the almighty Union, obstensibly to protect the common laborer from Big Business. But instead the Union became the new boss -- to the point that the Average Joe no longer has any say and practically needs a union (a meta-union perhaps?) to protect his rights against the Union. (Thank goodness geeks are generally not unionized!)
Major news outlets will not (and cannot) serve the same vertical markets that/. speaks to (and for). Conversely,/. cannot provide a news digest readily accessible to the common mass audience. If I only read/., then I would not be able to keep up with theater or movies other than SF. One needs a collection of trusted news and analysis sources on various topics of interest. IDIC, as Spock would say.
But Katz has really missed the boat on this one. Intelligent agents are a good thing, but they cannot be all-powerful (top-down editorializing) or exclusive ("I get everything I need to read on allthenews.com!").
The greatest thing we have going for us is community.
Ebay is as successful as it is, not because of technical prowess:), but rather, because of the Web of Trust (tm). You may not know dave123, but 120 other folks say he's alright to deal with. Similarly, I've noticed/. comments that I really jive with, consistantly from the same authors. Maybe I'd be interested in dave123's (here as a/. ID) bookmark list. Maybe I'd like to know which articles dave123 thought were worthy of "Reading More" on. But that, of course, is far too granular a view -- I want an agent that allows me to add dave123 to my Buddy Web with a given weight and compute dave123's habits together with tom456, dick78 and harry9.
Before all you privacy nuts whip out your flame-throwers, let me add that dave123 has volunteered to share his clicks with the world. Or alternatively, by logging in on/., dave123 has given Rob the right to log his access and share his profile with other/.ers. This would have to be an opt-in selection. Happy now?
I am also aware that this has been tried in a more general sense, most notably by Alexa (which then got incorporated into Netscape). The difference is that Alexa didn't let you choose your community. There was/is one whole Net community. When you work with something so amorphous, you can't help it if you get tapioca.
Specialized interests demand specialized communities. I, for one, am willing to share my habits to create greater mindshare for my interests. Are you?
If we can be mature enough to set aside the usual ridiculous arguments that get thrown around every time someone mentions the possibility of a tax on Internet commerce ("No fair! Shipping makes up for no taxes!!") and defending teachers' rights to decent salaries, the entire concept of enacting a federal sales tax on Internet transactions is ludicrous.
Local sales taxes (state or city) serve to benefit the municipality in which the item was purchased. If the state is unable to collect, given the prohibition on regulating interstate commerce, that would be the inherent problem, but replacing those lost local taxes with a federal tax does very little to help the state. Yes, some small part of the money would eventually "trickle down" to the local level, but on the whole, the state loses out. The consumer loses out too, by being penalized for seeking better prices and more convenient shopping. Finally, the Internet merchant loses out when unable to compete with local brick-and-mortars. It's a classic Federalist approach which only impedes fair trade and open markets.
Of course, all of the above presumes that sales taxes are a Good Thing (tm) for local municipalities. Here in NYC, sales go through the roof during the few weeks of the year that sales tax on clothing is suspended; the rest of the time, consumers simply cross the bridge to shop in New Jersey. There's no clearer demonstration that sales taxes only hurt the economy.
If the government wants/needs to tax my income, fine. It's got to get its money from somewhere. I have no problem with high income tax in order to provide needed communal services. But to punish someone for keeping the economic flow in motion runs contrary to all logic.
What's absolutely clear from this exercise is that you can really make it uncomfortable for people who do irritating things on the Internet. And the way to do it could be a lot like what we see here.... So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination.
Episode I (part b)
THE NET MENACE
Turmoil has engulfed the Internet. The wholesale pirating of MP3s and lousy movies on outlying websites is in dispute.
Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly lawsuits, the greedy LucasFilm Federation has stopped all Internet traffic to the small ISPs....
As a religious (Jewish) geek, I know that I am clearly in the minority in the Slashdot community. Nevertheless, the part that I can't understand about libertarians is their inability to tolerate religion in any form. To the libertarian mind, no subject is off-limits except those connected to a divinity.
Want to hand out condoms or pamphlets on safe sex? Fine! Want to make a gay/lesbian/bi/trans support group in your local high school? Great!! How about Bible study? Uh....we wouldn't want to offend the atheists, now would we? I cannot understand why Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is permitted, but the Ten Commandments are unmentionable.
I would also like to point out that I am offended by the term "Judeo-Christian". Anyone who truly understands the nature and practice of Judaism or the various descendants of Christianity (Catholicism, Baptism, Protestantism, etc.) would never be so insolent as to suggest that some mutant confabulation of all practices exists and is controlling the laws and business practices of the Evil Moral Majority [sic].
Libertarians are so hung up on personal freedom that they can't see that laws and policies are needed for society's protection. If you want to let your kids watch the "South Park" movie, I agree that it's your decision (although I believe it's a bad one). In the absense of specifically stated permission, society (in the form of the MPAA) does its best to set standards. Will there be exceptions? No doubt. Will there be questionable calls? Certainly. But just because umpires will make bad calls at some point, that's no reason to remove them from the game.
But that's not what Microsoft did. Microsoft created a client that interacts with AOL servers to communicate with AIM clients. On the internet, your computer is your castle. If you own a computer on the internet, you are allowed to accept or reject any connection for any reason. It may well be illegal for Microsoft to continue to distribute a client that interacts with AOL servers against AOL's explicit wishes.
Were MS to run a CGI or Java-based app that directly contacted AOL's servers, to act a proxy for AIM conversations (as there are some users who cannot connect to any port other than 80 due to firewall restrictions), then you could make a case (which I would still disagree with) for MS abusing AOL's servers. But in this architechture, it is still the user who elects to contact AOL's server from his own desktop, and I'm willing to bet the user could select an AIM server other than oscar (not that there are any others running).
The fact is that the Net works because people are willing to agree on protocols -- TCP/IP, Web, email. Deep linking is just a side effect of that capability. The only thing that I can see abusing is blatantly copying another site's content. I must admit that I've been tempted to open a proxy site for Deja.com, to reorganize the material in a useable fashion (like before the redesign). But that's abusing the capability to steal someone else's material.
Besides, banner ads on IM clients are meaningless, since you're more likely to keep it minimized.
In affirming the district court's denial of an injunction against Diamond, the appeals court held that the Audio Home Recording Act did not apply to the Rio, which is not a "digital audio recording device" at all but rather a computer peripheral. In addition, the court held that the hard drive of a personal computer, which also makes copies of MP3 files for downloading to the Rio, is not governed by the act.
This is the crux of the battle between any purveyor of information commodities in analog/physical format and a purveyor of the very same commodity in digital format (or sometimes even between 2 digital formats!). The law is awkwardly worded to refer to a digital audio device which could be marketed to consumers, which, according to this ruling, excludes whatever bizarre things we choose do with our general-purpose digital devices. Observe:
(3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for - (A) professional model products, and (B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
I'm not quite sure how calling the Rio a "peripheral" excludes it from this law. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you can call the Rio a peripheral, since it's actually useful even without a computer, as opposed to a printer, scanner, modem, etc. Nonetheless, this law seems to apply as easily to Winamp and RealJukebox as it does to the Rio (after all, is software not a device, albeit not a physical one?)
In any event, the courts (and businesses) are going to have a hard time of determining what is the nature of any information commodity as it becomes available in digital form, and consequently, is easily accessed from any of a number of devices. Books, TV shows and movies, and phone calls will certainly cause growing pains (and quite possibly, bankruptcy) for publishers, networks, studios, cable companies, and phone companies (not to mention ISPs) as the physical media are replaced by digital formats.
One thing is certain, though: the excuse of "it's just part of a computer, not an X" is not going to hold legal weight much longer. It won't make any sense when your TV/VCR, radio, and phone are computers or network devices.
Wow, what a novel concept! Imagine -- recording your shows and watching them at your convenience!! Why, I think I'll call the device that enables this massive paradigm shift - the "VCR".
In all seriousness, as cool as the Replay and Tivo are, I already use my VCR the way they would. Any of my regular shows, I tape. This way, 1) I can't be interrupted by a phone call (I can always pause it), and 2) I can watch an hour of TV in 45 minutes. I recycle the same few tapes for my regular weekly episodes. How would my life be changed by digital VCRs?
The fact is that broadcast TV is already dead. The future is narrowcasting. Cute toys like these aren't going to save it.
We've already seen what happens when M$ gets it into their Collective mind to "embrace and extend" an accepted, (semi-)open architechure language. The short term result of Microsoft's focus on Visual J++ was a tremendous boost in Java development and usage -- even without using the Windows-specific extensions.
Of course, in the long term, VJ++ didn't help Java's progress, for the following reasons:
1. Java is/was not Open Source. Java is a business oddity, an attempt to make money off of a language. I've never understood Sun's business plans concerning Java. As much as one would like to see Microsoft take a hit in the judicial system, it's hard to see the Sun-Microsoft case as helping the development of Java. In any event, Sun's stranglehold on Java prevents developers from effectively providing true cross-platform compliance a la perl, as well as system-specific extensions that may only apply on a given system (e.g. interacting with the Registry without having to write a JNI-compliant DLL).
2. Microsoft attempted to Visual-Basic-alize Java. VJ++ 6.0 was a disaster. It tried to attract the VB crowd with drag-and-drop components and lickity-split event handling, and in the process, failed to take into consideration that people might be interested in creating applications that would work with something other than IE4+. (This is not to say that all IDEs or RAD tools are evil, only ones that force you to use proprietary language extensions.)
Perl cannot be subjected to these pressures. Perl32 hackers have already lived in a world with multiple versions available (before all versions were absorbed into ActiveState's) and will be quite willing to return a multi-version world -- and thereby use the version that suits them best. It's up to the individual developer to make their own choice, based on project and platform concerns. And choice is good.
I cannot envision a scenario in which Microsoft support (even for evil purposes) can harm the future of Perl. Let 'em take their best shot, I say. That way, we'll know what Win32:: modules need developing.:-)
The truth is that from the standpoint of the record industry, it doesn't matter which standard prevails, just that one -- and only one -- standard does..... A technical shift about now would be nice for sales, getting listeners to replace their CDs with the exact same songs in some new distribution format.
What Cringley misses completely here is the difference between physical packaging and digital formats. In digital form, it is not only possible, but advantageous to have different standards -- after all, WinAMP can play WAVs and MP3s equally well. All that is needed for the Rio to play the next-generation audio format is a firmware upgrade.
Besides, given that quality is not likely to exceed CDs, people will encode their existing CD collection to whatever the digital format of choice happens to be at that time. No sales there.
The RIAA is just to have to get used to the fact that there's only so much money you can squeeze out of a single product.
Slashdot Mirror
This pretty much limits you to NYC, Boston, DC (really Silver Springs), Chicago, Cleaveland, and LA (Toronto, if you count .ca). Granted, there are Jewish communities (i.e. resource hubs) in other cities (such as Philly and Seattle), but the resources are not quite as plentiful.
- Richie
Come on, Rob. Everyone knows that the absolute worst Star Trek movie of all time has got to be ST V:Final Frontier, aka "The Quest for God". Ridiculous plot, laughable characterizations -- and it had the audacity to use the sub-title "Final Frontier", which really should have been reserved for the last ST movie.
ST:The Motion Picture isn't much better, but it's forgivable as the first attempt to bring ST back to the public (also as the by-product of the first failed ST II series).
And while it is possible to laud the merits of the ST films you've enjoyed, you've ignored ST IV:Voyage Home, which was a total joy to watch, despite making no sense.
Now I will step down off my fanatical soapbox, lest someone parody me in Galaxy Quest II...
- Richie
Um, aren't all streaming video protocols at this time "proprietary"? Barring half-baked, homegrown Java video streaming on a few sites, the only streaming video platforms are RealPlayer, MS Media Player, and Quicktime.
Quicktime is virtually dead on non-Mac platforms due to Apple's bungled handling of QT4. Real is struggling to get G2 ported to all platforms (how long has the Linux version been in alpha?). And that leaves MS -- with money to burn and only one OS (Win32) to support. It's only natural that MS leading the pack.
Research in media compression is one of the fields of computer science that does not parallelize well. Fraunhofer poured money into research and came up with MP3. No open source team could have matched that effort. Just imagine how difficult developing a video compression scheme is. Yes, we may have various levels of MPEG, but none are designed for low-bandwidth connections.
Our only hope is that Real falls to the same fate as Netscape and, before giving up the ghost, releases the sources of the encoder and player. It would probably take a good couple of years before yielding any usable product, but the necessity for video support on non-Windows platforms and Internet appliances would give the project a big boost.
Wow, an open source project that would dwarf Mozilla... Doesn't seem possible... :)
- Richie
This is the classic battle in network design, between centralized and decentralized configurations. If you have a problem with all message traffic passing through AOL's servers, perhaps you should try Ding!, which uses the Ding server only as a mechanism for finding other users currently logged in, then makes a direct connection between the 2 parties having a conversation. Come to think of it, Microsoft's NetMeeting does this too (IIRC). Of course, that won't work for faked IPs or behind firewalls.
IRC can already be used as an effective decentralized network of servers (EFnet, undernet, etc.). All it needs is stronger identity checking.
I envision a future where an email address will allow you to contact a person via phone (cell?), email, IM, IM voice, and even physical post.
- Richie
No such luck. I nearly lost my sanity trying to get anything done. The most glaring problem was the "B". I do not purport to type correctly -- just the way that gets the job done quickly (as Tom advocates here).
Upon slower reflection, I discovered that I normally (subconsciously) press the B with whichever pointer finger seems least busy. So, for example, "about" and "autoexec.bat" are right-handed Bs, but "blaster" and "obituary" are left-handed Bs. That choice is not given to natural keyboard users, and so when typing "autoexec.bat", I found my right pointer finger slamming into a ditch in the keyboard.
Ergonomics is a laudable goal, but it seems to ridiculous to make incremental improvements on the keyboard layout. It just ends up frustrating users by giving them the illusion of continuity or smaller learning curves, instead of just redesigning the whole thing and doing it The Right Way.
Then again, I have been known to try to honk the horn in my Ford Taurus by reaching for a non-existant thumb button (a habit from the Grand Marquis) while the horn is really in the center of the wheel. Sometimes I wonder how I shift from Sun keyword to Wintel keyboard with so few errors.
- Richie
Non-competes are particularly effective against salespeople and PR folk, since so much of their jobs are who you know much more so than what you know. There's nothing to prevent a salesperson from convincing all of his contacts that they should switch to the new product he's hawking, other than possibly some ethical considerations (if such a thing is possible for salespeople).
I've signed one non-compete (I wasn't about to work for any competitor of that company) and refused to sign another, since it was tightly bundled with an intellectual property clause. But on the whole, it's all pretty irrelevant to your average geek.
- Richie
Actually, I had a good reason for using one search engine to find another just last week.
I was at a branch of the New York Public Library. They've been switching over from dumb terminals (which you can use from home - just telnet to nyplgate.nypl.org and login as "leo") to a Windows-based GUI, hybridized with a Netscape browser. However, to prevent the average user from surfing the Web on machines obstensibly set up for searching the library catalog, URLs cannot be entered into the Location field and the Open Page dialog is disabled.
As I was on the road during my lunch hour, and needed to check an address for my next stop, I spent about 5 minutes coming to the realization I have described above. Fortunately, the NYPL GUI helpfully links you to "approved" or "recommended" web resources, such as other libraries and literary sites. It took me about another minute to find an "approved" site that got me to Yahoo. From there, I went to AltaVista. From there, I could have gone anywhere -- with or without the ability to explicitly enter the URL.
WRT to the library, this whole incident demonstrates the idiocy of the library's effort to disable normal browser usage. The web is too interconnected to give a user a tiny subsection, short of not actually connecting to the Internet and using cached/offline versions of the "accepted" pages.
But, much more importantly, WRT to search engines confusing or removing their competitors from their search databases, it runs contrary to the spirit of the web and their entire raison d'etre. You want to find out about Yahoo on Lycos? No problem! Here's Yahoo itself, here's a parody site, here's a testimonial for Oracle. Search engines are expected to rate according to relevance, but not to editorialize. It's unprofessional, and confusing as all hell to the newbies.
If a search engine wants to distinguish itself on technical merits (like Google) or excellent design, it shouldn't act like a sleazy appliance salesman ("you don't wanna shop there, buddy...I gotta great deal for you right here....")
- Richie
Major news outlets will not (and cannot) serve the same vertical markets that /. speaks to (and for). Conversely, /. cannot provide a news digest readily accessible to the common mass audience. If I only read /., then I would not be able to keep up with theater or movies other than SF. One needs a collection of trusted news and analysis sources on various topics of interest. IDIC, as Spock would say.
But Katz has really missed the boat on this one. Intelligent agents are a good thing, but they cannot be all-powerful (top-down editorializing) or exclusive ("I get everything I need to read on allthenews.com!").
The greatest thing we have going for us is community.
Ebay is as successful as it is, not because of technical prowess :), but rather, because of the Web of Trust (tm). You may not know dave123, but 120 other folks say he's alright to deal with. Similarly, I've noticed /. comments that I really jive with, consistantly from the same authors. Maybe I'd be interested in dave123's (here as a /. ID) bookmark list. Maybe I'd like to know which articles dave123 thought were worthy of "Reading More" on. But that, of course, is far too granular a view -- I want an agent that allows me to add dave123 to my Buddy Web with a given weight and compute dave123's habits together with tom456, dick78 and harry9.
Before all you privacy nuts whip out your flame-throwers, let me add that dave123 has volunteered to share his clicks with the world. Or alternatively, by logging in on /., dave123 has given Rob the right to log his access and share his profile with other /.ers. This would have to be an opt-in selection. Happy now?
I am also aware that this has been tried in a more general sense, most notably by Alexa (which then got incorporated into Netscape). The difference is that Alexa didn't let you choose your community. There was/is one whole Net community. When you work with something so amorphous, you can't help it if you get tapioca.
Specialized interests demand specialized communities. I, for one, am willing to share my habits to create greater mindshare for my interests. Are you?
- Richie
Local sales taxes (state or city) serve to benefit the municipality in which the item was purchased. If the state is unable to collect, given the prohibition on regulating interstate commerce, that would be the inherent problem, but replacing those lost local taxes with a federal tax does very little to help the state. Yes, some small part of the money would eventually "trickle down" to the local level, but on the whole, the state loses out. The consumer loses out too, by being penalized for seeking better prices and more convenient shopping. Finally, the Internet merchant loses out when unable to compete with local brick-and-mortars. It's a classic Federalist approach which only impedes fair trade and open markets.
Of course, all of the above presumes that sales taxes are a Good Thing (tm) for local municipalities. Here in NYC, sales go through the roof during the few weeks of the year that sales tax on clothing is suspended; the rest of the time, consumers simply cross the bridge to shop in New Jersey. There's no clearer demonstration that sales taxes only hurt the economy.
If the government wants/needs to tax my income, fine. It's got to get its money from somewhere. I have no problem with high income tax in order to provide needed communal services. But to punish someone for keeping the economic flow in motion runs contrary to all logic.
- Richie
Episode I (part b)
THE NET MENACETurmoil has engulfed the Internet. The wholesale pirating of MP3s and lousy movies on outlying websites is in dispute.
Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly lawsuits, the greedy LucasFilm Federation has stopped all Internet traffic to the small ISPs....
- Richie
Want to hand out condoms or pamphlets on safe sex? Fine! Want to make a gay/lesbian/bi/trans support group in your local high school? Great!! How about Bible study? Uh....we wouldn't want to offend the atheists, now would we? I cannot understand why Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is permitted, but the Ten Commandments are unmentionable.
I would also like to point out that I am offended by the term "Judeo-Christian". Anyone who truly understands the nature and practice of Judaism or the various descendants of Christianity (Catholicism, Baptism, Protestantism, etc.) would never be so insolent as to suggest that some mutant confabulation of all practices exists and is controlling the laws and business practices of the Evil Moral Majority [sic].
Libertarians are so hung up on personal freedom that they can't see that laws and policies are needed for society's protection. If you want to let your kids watch the "South Park" movie, I agree that it's your decision (although I believe it's a bad one). In the absense of specifically stated permission, society (in the form of the MPAA) does its best to set standards. Will there be exceptions? No doubt. Will there be questionable calls? Certainly. But just because umpires will make bad calls at some point, that's no reason to remove them from the game.
- Richie
Were MS to run a CGI or Java-based app that directly contacted AOL's servers, to act a proxy for AIM conversations (as there are some users who cannot connect to any port other than 80 due to firewall restrictions), then you could make a case (which I would still disagree with) for MS abusing AOL's servers. But in this architechture, it is still the user who elects to contact AOL's server from his own desktop, and I'm willing to bet the user could select an AIM server other than oscar (not that there are any others running).
The fact is that the Net works because people are willing to agree on protocols -- TCP/IP, Web, email. Deep linking is just a side effect of that capability. The only thing that I can see abusing is blatantly copying another site's content. I must admit that I've been tempted to open a proxy site for Deja.com, to reorganize the material in a useable fashion (like before the redesign). But that's abusing the capability to steal someone else's material.
Besides, banner ads on IM clients are meaningless, since you're more likely to keep it minimized.
- Richie
This is the crux of the battle between any purveyor of information commodities in analog/physical format and a purveyor of the very same commodity in digital format (or sometimes even between 2 digital formats!). The law is awkwardly worded to refer to a digital audio device which could be marketed to consumers, which, according to this ruling, excludes whatever bizarre things we choose do with our general-purpose digital devices. Observe:
(3) A ''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
I'm not quite sure how calling the Rio a "peripheral" excludes it from this law. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you can call the Rio a peripheral, since it's actually useful even without a computer, as opposed to a printer, scanner, modem, etc. Nonetheless, this law seems to apply as easily to Winamp and RealJukebox as it does to the Rio (after all, is software not a device, albeit not a physical one?)
In any event, the courts (and businesses) are going to have a hard time of determining what is the nature of any information commodity as it becomes available in digital form, and consequently, is easily accessed from any of a number of devices. Books, TV shows and movies, and phone calls will certainly cause growing pains (and quite possibly, bankruptcy) for publishers, networks, studios, cable companies, and phone companies (not to mention ISPs) as the physical media are replaced by digital formats.
One thing is certain, though: the excuse of "it's just part of a computer, not an X" is not going to hold legal weight much longer. It won't make any sense when your TV/VCR, radio, and phone are computers or network devices.
- Richie (with apologies to Nicholas Negroponte)
In all seriousness, as cool as the Replay and Tivo are, I already use my VCR the way they would. Any of my regular shows, I tape. This way, 1) I can't be interrupted by a phone call (I can always pause it), and 2) I can watch an hour of TV in 45 minutes. I recycle the same few tapes for my regular weekly episodes. How would my life be changed by digital VCRs?
The fact is that broadcast TV is already dead. The future is narrowcasting. Cute toys like these aren't going to save it.
- Richie
Of course, in the long term, VJ++ didn't help Java's progress, for the following reasons:
1. Java is/was not Open Source. Java is a business oddity, an attempt to make money off of a language. I've never understood Sun's business plans concerning Java. As much as one would like to see Microsoft take a hit in the judicial system, it's hard to see the Sun-Microsoft case as helping the development of Java. In any event, Sun's stranglehold on Java prevents developers from effectively providing true cross-platform compliance a la perl, as well as system-specific extensions that may only apply on a given system (e.g. interacting with the Registry without having to write a JNI-compliant DLL).
2. Microsoft attempted to Visual-Basic-alize Java. VJ++ 6.0 was a disaster. It tried to attract the VB crowd with drag-and-drop components and lickity-split event handling, and in the process, failed to take into consideration that people might be interested in creating applications that would work with something other than IE4+. (This is not to say that all IDEs or RAD tools are evil, only ones that force you to use proprietary language extensions.)
Perl cannot be subjected to these pressures. Perl32 hackers have already lived in a world with multiple versions available (before all versions were absorbed into ActiveState's) and will be quite willing to return a multi-version world -- and thereby use the version that suits them best. It's up to the individual developer to make their own choice, based on project and platform concerns. And choice is good.
I cannot envision a scenario in which Microsoft support (even for evil purposes) can harm the future of Perl. Let 'em take their best shot, I say. That way, we'll know what Win32:: modules need developing. :-)
What Cringley misses completely here is the difference between physical packaging and digital formats. In digital form, it is not only possible, but advantageous to have different standards -- after all, WinAMP can play WAVs and MP3s equally well. All that is needed for the Rio to play the next-generation audio format is a firmware upgrade.
Besides, given that quality is not likely to exceed CDs, people will encode their existing CD collection to whatever the digital format of choice happens to be at that time. No sales there.
The RIAA is just to have to get used to the fact that there's only so much money you can squeeze out of a single product.
- Richie