And even though most people in recent years used Macs at their high school, most of them went on to use.. what, Macintosh, you say? Of course not.. Windows!
When I was in college, we had two large Mac computer labs, and people were using (and buying Macs) to use for their schoolwork. (There was also a PC lab, for people who had their own PCs at home or that they brought with them). I was friends with the IT person at my college, because one of my roommates worked for him helping to keep them maintained and we were all Apple enthusiasts. We not only helped people to use them, we were helping people to use them beyond "how do I change the font for my report?"
Near the end of my college career, I began to hear comments like "why don't we use the machines that we'll be encountering in the real world?" I assume that someone in the administration took these comments to heart; I went back to visit this past summer and the two Mac labs are now PC labs, and the old PC lab is now the Mac lab.
You'll have the current structure, which will consist of homogenized "Appropriate for viewers of all ages" tripe and dominated by commercial entities. Then you'll have an underground Internet which will be built by people who have left all that behind in disgust.
Which, unfortunately, won't be as many people as we hope.
This Internet will either run on top of the current internet in the form of an invitation-only VPN (Quite feasible with the higher speed lines becoming available) or done with dial-up hardware of various sorts (Possibly even store-and-forward only.) Being effectively a private entity, it will be beyond regulation of the ISP's.
I see two problems with this:
The "anything goes" side of the net will become categorized as a "haven for pornography and trash" and stigmatized. ("Ew! Your website is from that side of the tracks?")
If I end up on this "anything goes" side of the internet due to my refusal to rate any of my sites, will I be able to link to stuff on the "kiddie-net"? Will they be able to link to me?
Here's more of the "chilling effect on free speech" at work; since many people want to reach the widest possible audience, they will elect to rate their sites -- and therefore, want to strive for that PG rating to get past all of the filters.
Again, we see the framing of the problem incorrectly. Instead of saying, properly, "Self-Rating Will Allow Users to See what they Wish" they frame this as censorship.
Users will be able to see what they wish?
Tell that to Germans (who won't be able to view "hate speech") or Australians (who won't be able to view anything that the Australia Broadcasting Authority turns its nose up at).
Created by a Finnish graduate student named Linus Torvalls in 1991, Linux's open code is relentlessly scrutinized and tested by tens of thousands of systems analysts worldwide, who constantly recommend improvements, Klosowski said.
Congratulations! Now every teenage hacker type who works on a kernel patch or device driver is a "system analyst"!
Remember that Richard Garfield owns the patent on collectable card games. So as far as CCGs go, WotC is the only game in town.
Blatantly untrue.
Decipher does the Star Trek CCG, the Star Wars CCG, and the Episode I-themed "Young Jedi" card game -- not necessarily as huge as Magic or Pokemon, but solid contenders in their own right.
Precedence Publishing puts out a Babylon 5 CCG and will be doing a Tomb Raider game.
And these are just the games selling well enough to merit a blip on the radar; there's a new pirate-themed CCG coming out from Alderac Entertainment, and Iron Crown Entertainment put out their final expansion for a Lord of the Rings CCG a couple of months back.
It's too bad the only other solid contender for CCGs was acquired by WotC; Five Rings Publishing has a great stable of games -- Legend of Five Rings and Deadlands: Doomtown are both great games. They even acquired the Battletech CCG from WotC (though this is after WotC bought them) and the Rage CCG based on White Wolf's World of Darkness werewolves.
I haven't actually seen Pokemon cards, but I was wondering if WotC were the makers. I have a friend who owns a bookstore, and she sells out of their Pokemon allocation within an hour of getting it from the delivery truck.
Technically, WotC is licensing and translating the card game from Nintendo of Japan -- it's called "Pocket Monsters" over there (which became pseudo-abbreviated in that odd Japanese way to "Pokemon").
As for your considering selling them? Good luck. I don't know what kind of distributor you'd find for the product, but I have three (two for games, one for comics) and only recently started getting them on even a weekly basis.
And that's because my distributors are -- and therefore, I am -- willing to pay extra for the boxes, so I have to sell them at around 30% over suggested retail. Luckily, my customers tell me my prices are lower than many stores in the area.
I disagree with you. Historically this site is here supporting Linux & OSS & other interesting technical and scientific bits. Recently - in the last 12 months - this has been overrun with the paid trolls from M$. That is a problem.
A solution, in addition to moderation, is good, informed replies to fight the MS FUD processors. I don't claim to know everything (hell, ANYTHING) about the ins and outs of software design, networking, etc. But if I see a troll, I'll usually skip to the replies to see if there are any good rebuttals.
Toting a file from home to office to classroom and legacy machines is a whole lot easier with a floppy.
Easier? I have such bad luck with floppies that I have to carry three of them with me, and copy the file three times. It's much easier for me to email the file to myself (if it's small enough) and read my email at work.
They don't have to do it, but wouldn't it be nice if they did for a change. The customer is always right, and the customers immediately hated the lack of support for floppies in the iMac.
You're right; the iMac sold horribly. Apple still hasn't recovered from that fiasco. And those new Blue and White G3s? Those were a flop as well.
Raise your hand if the lack of a built-in floppy drive (and unwillingness and/or inability to purchase one of the cheap USB drives) was the main factor preventing you from buying any non-floppy Mac.
I can understand that with Linux, you can built a "root/boot" floppy setup to resurrect a crashed machine, but I think System 7 was the last Mac OS that could fit a System Folder and Disk First Aid (or something comparable) onto a 1.4 MB floppy. Every piece of software I've bought for my Mac in the past two years has come on a CD-ROM.
Sure, Apple was bold in saying "no more floppy drive" but in an increasingly wired world, where disk requirements for software keep growing (well, for most non-open software anyways) the floppy is going the way of the cassette drive.
Apple is making the same mistake it made back in the 80's. I won't buy a new computer that can only run MacOS just because it looks nice.
I don't know about anyone else, but my Power Mac runs Linux/PPC. It may take a while to get the bugs worked out, but these new machines will run it as well...
Jay (= (Out of curiosity, what color is the G4 machine? Ice and what?)
Even if the movie sucks, it may be enough publicity to warrant a sequel to the book!
There are three sequels -- "Children of the Mind", "Xenocide" and "Speaker For The Dead" (I don't know the order, though) -- and a new "parallel book" called "Ender's Shadow"; I don't know anything about it except that it takes place at the same time as "Ender's Game" but doesn't involve Ender (maybe about his siblings?)
"Companies are increasing their use of the upstart operating system while delaying deployment of Microsoft's latest operating system for businesses, according to International Data Corporation (IDC)." Of course people are delaying deployment of Win2K. ITS NOT RELEASED YET!
That's not what they're talking about when they say "delaying deployment". According to the article, these companies are saying they will deplay deployment of Win2000 for 6 to 18 months after Win2000 is released.
Since it seems like 90% of the replies are among the lines of "Oh no! He can't own a digital watch! Where has happened to the Constitution?" I figured I'd do some research and find out the facts.
A. Absent prior express written approval from the Probation Officer, the Petitioner shall not possess or use, for any purpose, the following:
1. any computer hardware equipment;
2. any computer software programs;
3. modems;
4. any computer related peripheral or support equipment;
5. portable laptop computer, 'personal information assistants,' and derivatives;
6. cellular telephones;
7. televisions or other instruments of communication equipped with on-line, internet, world-wide web or other computer network access;
8. any other electronic equipment, presently available or new technology that becomes available, that can be converted to or has as its function the ability to act as a computer system or to access a computer system, computer network or telecommunications network (except defendant may possess a 'land line' telephone);
B. The defendant shall not be employed in or perform services for any entity engaged in the computer, computer software, or telecommunications business and shall not be employed in any capacity wherein he has access to computers or computer related equipment or software;
C. The defendant shall not access computers, computer networks or other forms of wireless communications himself or through third parties;
D. The defendant shall not acts as a consultant or advisor to individuals or groups engaged in any computer related activity;
E. The defendant shall not acquire or possess any computer codes (including computer passwords), cellular phone access codes or other access devices that enable the defendant to use, acquire, exchange or alter information in a computer or telecommunications database system;
F. The defendant shall not use any data encryption device, program or technique for computers;
G. The defendant shall not alter or possess any altered telephone, telephone equipment or any other communications related equipment.
If redhat^H^H^H^H^H^Hany distribution were to become a "standard", they could exist comfortably, due to the nature of the GPL. Sure, release your code, freely distribute your software -- but strike deals with companies to only guarantee compliance/compatibility with your software. You're still adhering to the GPL, but this still comes at the cost of the linux community as a whole.
How so?
I guess I'm shaky on the whole "distro-specific" thing. I know Codewarrior is supposedly released for RedHat Linux only, but what does that mean? Why couldn't I load it into a Caldera machine?
Anything Microsoft releases under the GPL will, if it's good enough, be adopted by the other distros. If it's still proprietary code, then the people who want to use Linux aren't necessarily going to use it -- Apache will still beat a comparable MS product if I am required to pay for MS's product, even if the performance and stability are equal.
Imagine that Wired magazine (for example) has a great article about Linux in its latest print issue, and I want readers of my web site to know about it. Obviously, I couldn't post a verbatim copy of the article on my site -- that would be copyright infringement. But I would be able to write, "There's a great article about Linux on page 50 of Wired." Should Wired be able to sue me because people wouldn't read the ads on pages 1-49? Of course not.
First, the Universal site doesn't have banner ads. I think the confusion is coming from the Wired article about the case, which refers to a case where Ticketmaster sued Microsoft, and one of the complaints was that Microsoft was allowing people to dodge Ticketmaster's banners. (At the same time, I think Universal's position is a bit unclear; they sound like they don't want you to link to anything on their site at all without their permission, when I think all they want to do is stop Movie-List from poaching their trailers.)
Second, your magazine analogy is a bit flawed. A better example would be you scissoring the article out of Wired and pasting it into your magazine around your ads. Movie-List, as far as I can tell, is not saying "view the trailer at the Universal Pictures site"; it's making it look like the trailer is part of the Movie-List site.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I said elsewhere my gut feeling is that Universal is in the right.
First off, where did this term "deep linking" come from? I wouldn't be surprised to find some lawyer somewhere coined the term. Links are just links; they're what make the World Wide Web work.
Sure, most sites just use links as navigation controls ("Next Page", "Top", "Home", or even "click here"), but good sites also use them to direct a user to more information on a topic within the context of the page itself.
Where I think the problem arises is not "how do I ensure that my valuable ad banners get seen?" (Jakob Neilsen wrote in 1997 that advertising doesn't work on the web and in another article about research on web users' behavior that while ad banners are the most-used form of advertising on the web, it is the least successful.) but "how do I protect my intellectual property on the Web?"
In this case, I went to Movie-List to check it out, and it is a banner-driven (hence, I assume, ad-supported) site that is, essentially, a "link farm". He takes the trailers for movies and wraps his own HTML around them (complete with banner ad), and doesn't even acknowledge the movie studios the trailers are coming from. If I see a trailer from Universal's web site, I should have the option of hitting a link to their site to look around; Movie-List traps you there so you can look at his banner ads.
I would think that this is a violation of fair use (which is going to have to be redefined somewhat, if it hasn't already, to handle the Web) made worse by the fact that he's not incurring any bandwidth penalty himself; he's using their servers to host the information he's supposedly getting ad money off of, the trailers. My gut feeling is that Universal is in the right on this one.
Obviously, the concept of "fair use" on the Web is going to need to protect both the rights of the person who makes their intellectual property available on the web and the right of the person who wants to provide a link to it.
I would think that a good "fair use" policy for the Web should have the following requirements:
1) People should be allowed to point to copyrighted material on another site without obtaining explicit permission if they acknowledge the copyright holder of the material (either by providing the link in the context of their site, as my Alertbox examples do, or in the case of an image or movie, providing a link to the source of the copyrighted material). If search engines were to use the "copyright" LINK attribute (if properly set) on a page, I'd think that covers their backsides neatly.
2) People should only be able to place a page from another site within their own frame if the owner of the content of that site gives their permission (as I did when I set up my home page at XOOM) or for educational or informative purposes (a site that teaches good/bad web design, or a live "portfolio" of a webmaster's work). In the latter case, the frame should not have any ads on it.
3) A subscription-based site shouldn't include any copyrighted material from another source without that source's permission, period. Just live a print magazine.
This is just off of the top of my head; what else should go into a decent "Fair Web Use" policy?
I don't have an iMac to test it on, but LinuxPPC 1999 (R5) is supposed to run on iMacs.
If I recall correctly, the iBook uses a similar motherboard to the iMac, so hopefully getting Linux support for the iBook won't take too long. Especially if they can add AirPort support! Yum...
only two: blueberry and tangerine? i'm disappointed; i was hoping for a gray. too bad.
According to the AppleInsider link in the original article, Apple rushed a batch of them out so they'd have a model to show at this week's MacWorld expo.
It's possible that the blueberry and tangerine ones are the only ones they made in this run; the AppleInsider article says they've been seen "in all five flavors of the iMac, [as well as] in a mysterious smoke gray flavor (totaling 6)".
At least, I hope this is the case; otherwise, I'm getting a blueberry one...
Jay (= (Who has been waiting for months for this machine to be released -- well, that and geting my credit card paid off...)
A little enclave of South American Nazis produces these people, as part of their ongoing efforts to produce a Master Race.
As you can see, the process is still in alpha testing. The brain in particular is very difficult to get just right, but they say they'll have the IQ up to 50 Real Soon Now...
If they'd only open up their processes and code to peer review and outside bug-fixing, they'd be farther along.
We could correct those unintended social gaffes ("The evil Jewish conspiracy is everywhere! run!") although the process is akin to "fixing" Mozilla's original layout engine...
Slashdot Mirror
And even though most people in recent years used Macs at their high school, most of them went on to use.. what, Macintosh, you say? Of course not.. Windows!
When I was in college, we had two large Mac computer labs, and people were using (and buying Macs) to use for their schoolwork. (There was also a PC lab, for people who had their own PCs at home or that they brought with them). I was friends with the IT person at my college, because one of my roommates worked for him helping to keep them maintained and we were all Apple enthusiasts. We not only helped people to use them, we were helping people to use them beyond "how do I change the font for my report?"
Near the end of my college career, I began to hear comments like "why don't we use the machines that we'll be encountering in the real world?" I assume that someone in the administration took these comments to heart; I went back to visit this past summer and the two Mac labs are now PC labs, and the old PC lab is now the Mac lab.
Jay (=
I think there will be a division in the Internet of the future.
Which would be a bad thing; Jakob Neilsen's article on "Metcalfe's law in Reverse" suggests "the value of partitioning a network into N isolated components is 1/N'th the value of the original network."
You'll have the current structure, which will consist of homogenized "Appropriate for viewers of all ages" tripe and dominated by commercial entities. Then you'll have an underground Internet which will be built by people who have left all that behind in disgust.
Which, unfortunately, won't be as many people as we hope.
This Internet will either run on top of the current internet in the form of an invitation-only VPN (Quite feasible with the higher speed lines becoming available) or done with dial-up hardware of various sorts (Possibly even store-and-forward only.) Being effectively a private entity, it will be beyond regulation of the ISP's.
I see two problems with this:
Here's more of the "chilling effect on free speech" at work; since many people want to reach the widest possible audience, they will elect to rate their sites -- and therefore, want to strive for that PG rating to get past all of the filters.
Jay (=
Again, we see the framing of the problem incorrectly. Instead of saying, properly, "Self-Rating Will Allow Users to See what they Wish" they frame this as censorship.
Users will be able to see what they wish?
Tell that to Germans (who won't be able to view "hate speech") or Australians (who won't be able to view anything that the Australia Broadcasting Authority turns its nose up at).
Jay (=
Created by a Finnish graduate student named Linus Torvalls in 1991, Linux's open code is relentlessly scrutinized and tested by tens of thousands of systems analysts worldwide, who constantly recommend improvements, Klosowski said.
Congratulations! Now every teenage hacker type who works on a kernel patch or device driver is a "system analyst"!
You oughtta put that on your resumé...
Jay (=
Remember that Richard Garfield owns the patent on collectable card games. So as far as CCGs go, WotC is the only game in town.
Blatantly untrue.
Decipher does the Star Trek CCG, the Star Wars CCG, and the Episode I-themed "Young Jedi" card game -- not necessarily as huge as Magic or Pokemon, but solid contenders in their own right.
Precedence Publishing puts out a Babylon 5 CCG and will be doing a Tomb Raider game.
And these are just the games selling well enough to merit a blip on the radar; there's a new pirate-themed CCG coming out from Alderac Entertainment, and Iron Crown Entertainment put out their final expansion for a Lord of the Rings CCG a couple of months back.
It's too bad the only other solid contender for CCGs was acquired by WotC; Five Rings Publishing has a great stable of games -- Legend of Five Rings and Deadlands: Doomtown are both great games. They even acquired the Battletech CCG from WotC (though this is after WotC bought them) and the Rage CCG based on White Wolf's World of Darkness werewolves.
Jay (=
I haven't actually seen Pokemon cards, but I was wondering if WotC were the makers. I have a friend who owns a bookstore, and she sells out of their Pokemon allocation within an hour of getting it from the delivery truck.
Technically, WotC is licensing and translating the card game from Nintendo of Japan -- it's called "Pocket Monsters" over there (which became pseudo-abbreviated in that odd Japanese way to "Pokemon").
As for your considering selling them? Good luck. I don't know what kind of distributor you'd find for the product, but I have three (two for games, one for comics) and only recently started getting them on even a weekly basis.
And that's because my distributors are -- and therefore, I am -- willing to pay extra for the boxes, so I have to sell them at around 30% over suggested retail. Luckily, my customers tell me my prices are lower than many stores in the area.
Jay (=
I disagree with you. Historically this site is here supporting Linux & OSS & other interesting technical and scientific bits. Recently - in the last 12 months - this has been overrun with the paid trolls from M$. That is a problem.
A solution, in addition to moderation, is good, informed replies to fight the MS FUD processors. I don't claim to know everything (hell, ANYTHING) about the ins and outs of software design, networking, etc. But if I see a troll, I'll usually skip to the replies to see if there are any good rebuttals.
Jay (=
So someone figured out how to keep their overclocked PII from overheating...
(What, it's a real refrigerator? My bad...)
Jay (=
Toting a file from home to office to classroom and legacy machines is a whole lot easier with a floppy.
Easier? I have such bad luck with floppies that I have to carry three of them with me, and copy the file three times. It's much easier for me to email the file to myself (if it's small enough) and read my email at work.
They don't have to do it, but wouldn't it be nice if they did for a change. The customer is always right, and the customers immediately hated the lack of support for floppies in the iMac.
You're right; the iMac sold horribly. Apple still hasn't recovered from that fiasco. And those new Blue and White G3s? Those were a flop as well.
Raise your hand if the lack of a built-in floppy drive (and unwillingness and/or inability to purchase one of the cheap USB drives) was the main factor preventing you from buying any non-floppy Mac.
I can understand that with Linux, you can built a "root/boot" floppy setup to resurrect a crashed machine, but I think System 7 was the last Mac OS that could fit a System Folder and Disk First Aid (or something comparable) onto a 1.4 MB floppy. Every piece of software I've bought for my Mac in the past two years has come on a CD-ROM.
Sure, Apple was bold in saying "no more floppy drive" but in an increasingly wired world, where disk requirements for software keep growing (well, for most non-open software anyways) the floppy is going the way of the cassette drive.
And good riddance.
Jay (=
Apple is making the same mistake it made back in the 80's. I won't buy a new computer that can only run MacOS just because it looks nice.
I don't know about anyone else, but my Power Mac runs Linux/PPC. It may take a while to get the bugs worked out, but these new machines will run it as well...
Jay (=
(Out of curiosity, what color is the G4 machine? Ice and what?)
Even if the movie sucks, it may be enough publicity to warrant a sequel to the book!
There are three sequels -- "Children of the Mind", "Xenocide" and "Speaker For The Dead" (I don't know the order, though) -- and a new "parallel book" called "Ender's Shadow"; I don't know anything about it except that it takes place at the same time as "Ender's Game" but doesn't involve Ender (maybe about his siblings?)
You can find info for the movie (including an excerpt from one of Card's scripts) at the Fresco Pictures Ender's Game site.
Jay (=
(Who just discovered this site yesterday -- gotta love synchronicity...)
I agree. I run Apache for Win32 on my machine here and i've NEVER had a single problem.
Until you posted the URL on Slashdot that is; I hit your link just to see and it wasn't up.
Jay (=
(Maybe calling the machine "coredump" wasn't a good idea?)
"Companies are increasing their use of the upstart operating system while delaying deployment of Microsoft's latest operating system for businesses, according to International Data Corporation (IDC)." Of course people are delaying deployment of Win2K. ITS NOT RELEASED YET!
That's not what they're talking about when they say "delaying deployment". According to the article, these companies are saying they will deplay deployment of Win2000 for 6 to 18 months after Win2000 is released.
Jay (=
even this garbage theory (you know when you close a garbage can for a few days and magically some flys appear when you open it back up.)
For the record, that's called abiogenesis.
Jay (=
(Who picked that word for a "learn a new word" thing back in elementary school; ain't trivia great?)
Since it seems like 90% of the replies are among the lines of "Oh no! He can't own a digital watch! Where has happened to the Constitution?" I figured I'd do some research and find out the facts.
This is an excerpt from the Petition For Writ of Ceratori in this case (the Free Kevin Mitnick site is citing this as "evidence" of cruel and unusual punishment):
A. Absent prior express written approval from the Probation Officer, the Petitioner shall not possess or use, for any purpose, the following:
1. any computer hardware equipment;
2. any computer software programs;
3. modems;
4. any computer related peripheral or support equipment;
5. portable laptop computer, 'personal information assistants,' and derivatives;
6. cellular telephones;
7. televisions or other instruments of communication equipped with on-line, internet, world-wide web or other computer network access;
8. any other electronic equipment, presently available or new technology that becomes available, that can be converted to or has as its function the ability to act as a computer system or to access a computer system, computer network or telecommunications network (except defendant may possess a 'land line' telephone);
B. The defendant shall not be employed in or perform services for any entity engaged in the computer, computer software, or telecommunications business and shall not be employed in any capacity wherein he has access to computers or computer related equipment or software;
C. The defendant shall not access computers, computer networks or other forms of wireless communications himself or through third parties;
D. The defendant shall not acts as a consultant or advisor to individuals or groups engaged in any computer related activity;
E. The defendant shall not acquire or possess any computer codes (including computer passwords), cellular phone access codes or other access devices that enable the defendant to use, acquire, exchange or alter information in a computer or telecommunications database system;
F. The defendant shall not use any data encryption device, program or technique for computers;
G. The defendant shall not alter or possess any altered telephone, telephone equipment or any other communications related equipment.
Jay (=
If redhat^H^H^H^H^H^Hany distribution were to become a "standard", they could exist comfortably, due to the nature of the GPL. Sure, release your code, freely distribute your software -- but strike deals with companies to only guarantee compliance/compatibility with your software. You're still adhering to the GPL, but this still comes at the cost of the linux community as a whole.
How so?
I guess I'm shaky on the whole "distro-specific" thing. I know Codewarrior is supposedly released for RedHat Linux only, but what does that mean? Why couldn't I load it into a Caldera machine?
Anything Microsoft releases under the GPL will, if it's good enough, be adopted by the other distros. If it's still proprietary code, then the people who want to use Linux aren't necessarily going to use it -- Apache will still beat a comparable MS product if I am required to pay for MS's product, even if the performance and stability are equal.
Jay (=
... not "Intellectual Propety Owners".
Maybe that will aid your research.
Jay (=
Everyone who didn't get a refund on their Win95 CDs should donate them to help run this "Y2K Bunker".
Nothing but the best for our leaders...
Jay (=
Imagine that Wired magazine (for example) has a great article about Linux in its latest print issue, and I want readers of my web site to know about it. Obviously, I couldn't post a verbatim copy of the article on my site -- that would be copyright infringement. But I would be able to write, "There's a great article about Linux on page 50 of Wired." Should Wired be able to sue me because people wouldn't read the ads on pages 1-49? Of course not.
First, the Universal site doesn't have banner ads. I think the confusion is coming from the Wired article about the case, which refers to a case where Ticketmaster sued Microsoft, and one of the complaints was that Microsoft was allowing people to dodge Ticketmaster's banners. (At the same time, I think Universal's position is a bit unclear; they sound like they don't want you to link to anything on their site at all without their permission, when I think all they want to do is stop Movie-List from poaching their trailers.)
Second, your magazine analogy is a bit flawed. A better example would be you scissoring the article out of Wired and pasting it into your magazine around your ads. Movie-List, as far as I can tell, is not saying "view the trailer at the Universal Pictures site"; it's making it look like the trailer is part of the Movie-List site.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I said elsewhere my gut feeling is that Universal is in the right.
Jay (=
First off, where did this term "deep linking" come from? I wouldn't be surprised to find some lawyer somewhere coined the term. Links are just links; they're what make the World Wide Web work.
Sure, most sites just use links as navigation controls ("Next Page", "Top", "Home", or even "click here"), but good sites also use them to direct a user to more information on a topic within the context of the page itself.
Where I think the problem arises is not "how do I ensure that my valuable ad banners get seen?" (Jakob Neilsen wrote in 1997 that advertising doesn't work on the web and in another article about research on web users' behavior that while ad banners are the most-used form of advertising on the web, it is the least successful.) but "how do I protect my intellectual property on the Web?"
In this case, I went to Movie-List to check it out, and it is a banner-driven (hence, I assume, ad-supported) site that is, essentially, a "link farm". He takes the trailers for movies and wraps his own HTML around them (complete with banner ad), and doesn't even acknowledge the movie studios the trailers are coming from. If I see a trailer from Universal's web site, I should have the option of hitting a link to their site to look around; Movie-List traps you there so you can look at his banner ads.
I would think that this is a violation of fair use (which is going to have to be redefined somewhat, if it hasn't already, to handle the Web) made worse by the fact that he's not incurring any bandwidth penalty himself; he's using their servers to host the information he's supposedly getting ad money off of, the trailers. My gut feeling is that Universal is in the right on this one.
Obviously, the concept of "fair use" on the Web is going to need to protect both the rights of the person who makes their intellectual property available on the web and the right of the person who wants to provide a link to it.
I would think that a good "fair use" policy for the Web should have the following requirements:
1) People should be allowed to point to copyrighted material on another site without obtaining explicit permission if they acknowledge the copyright holder of the material (either by providing the link in the context of their site, as my Alertbox examples do, or in the case of an image or movie, providing a link to the source of the copyrighted material). If search engines were to use the "copyright" LINK attribute (if properly set) on a page, I'd think that covers their backsides neatly.
2) People should only be able to place a page from another site within their own frame if the owner of the content of that site gives their permission (as I did when I set up my home page at XOOM) or for educational or informative purposes (a site that teaches good/bad web design, or a live "portfolio" of a webmaster's work). In the latter case, the frame should not have any ads on it.
3) A subscription-based site shouldn't include any copyrighted material from another source without that source's permission, period. Just live a print magazine.
This is just off of the top of my head; what else should go into a decent "Fair Web Use" policy?
Jay (=
I was telling my girlfriend about this story, and she said "But our driver's licenses don't have SSNs on them."
I looked; she was right (unless it's encoded in that funky barcode on the back).
Jay (=
Does it run linux easily?
I don't have an iMac to test it on, but LinuxPPC 1999 (R5) is supposed to run on iMacs.
If I recall correctly, the iBook uses a similar motherboard to the iMac, so hopefully getting Linux support for the iBook won't take too long. Especially if they can add AirPort support! Yum...
Jay (=
What the hell do they mean by data capture probes?
They're just doing their part to keep Echelon in business...
Jay (=
only two: blueberry and tangerine?
i'm disappointed; i was hoping for a gray. too bad.
According to the AppleInsider link in the original article, Apple rushed a batch of them out so they'd have a model to show at this week's MacWorld expo.
It's possible that the blueberry and tangerine ones are the only ones they made in this run; the AppleInsider article says they've been seen "in all five flavors of the iMac, [as well as] in a mysterious smoke gray flavor (totaling 6)".
At least, I hope this is the case; otherwise, I'm getting a blueberry one...
Jay (=
(Who has been waiting for months for this machine to be released -- well, that and geting my credit card paid off...)
where *do* people like you come from anyway?
A little enclave of South American Nazis produces these people, as part of their ongoing efforts to produce a Master Race.
As you can see, the process is still in alpha testing. The brain in particular is very difficult to get just right, but they say they'll have the IQ up to 50 Real Soon Now...
If they'd only open up their processes and code to peer review and outside bug-fixing, they'd be farther along.
We could correct those unintended social gaffes ("The evil Jewish conspiracy is everywhere! run!") although the process is akin to "fixing" Mozilla's original layout engine...
Jay (=