This is one of the funniest things I've read on/. in a while. It's original, it's parody, and it's GOOD! Bloody good, in fact. Only failing is that there aren't enough paragraph breaks.
My compliments to the author. Pay no attention to the humour-deprived moderators.
You make some good points. Most of the people I know who call themselves Christians would agree with you.
Unfortunately, it's the self-serving evangelists and their brainless flocks who make their religion everyone else's business, and are most likely to riot at any evidence of extraterrestrial life. All of the intelligent, peaceful, thoughtful people in the world (Christians or not) will have much luck stopping an angry mob.
Furthermore, it seems like the religious hucksters almost always portray themselves as Christians, which (given the media attention they command) gives Christianity a bad name. In other words, when was the last time you turned on the TV and saw, "Phone the good Rabbi NOW with your pledge if you want to get into heaven!" It just doesn't happen for whatever reason. (I can think of several reasons why that might be the case, but that's too far afield for this thread)
Dislaimer: I am an avowed agnostic. Take the above as you see fit.
can go to the archives somewhere (presumably in Vienna), and with appropriate permission, get access to the original Vivaldi scores. You can then copy these out (by hand, into your computer, whatever, if the curators agree to it), and copyright your transcription of it.
See that? You can obtain a copyright on your expression of a work that is out of copyright. That's why, for instance, you can go to the store and buy a (copywritten) copy of Fanny Hill, or go online and download a plaintext, freely distributable copy of it. The original work isn't under copyright anymore. The expression of it (i.e. a given publisher's edition) can be given a copyright. Does that make sense?
Just goes to show that it's possible to dumb down science without making it any easier to read.
This is _neat_ stuff, and what do we get from the Yahoo(tm) who wrote it? "Weird gases from outer space arrived on Earth during a dinosaur-killing asteroid strike 65 million years ago."
Weird Gases? The Big Space Rock? The Killer Asteroid? Come ON Yahoo, surely you can get a reporter who doesn't have to insult us with Sunday tabloid-style writing. (Not to mention that most of the hypotheses are reported as incontrovertible facts)
Bottom line: This story could have been written clearly, informatively, and intelligently while being just as understandable (or more so). It wasn't, by a country mile.
OK, on the one hand, I don't like predatory companies. On the other hand, it does tread fairly close.
Who's right? Let's take a few arguements on both sides.
1) Does Coca-Cola own the trademark to the name, "Coke" in Switzerland? If not, one point against Coke.
2) Have you been using the address? Regardless of original intent, if you haven't been using it, it looks like cybersquatting. Half a point against the current owner.
3) How much will you relinquish it to Coke for? Registration costs for a new domain? Some annoyance at having to switch? Or, the amount of money that it's going to make for Coke. If it's the latter, chalk it up as cybersquatting again, and half a point in favour of Coke.
(aside: Naturally, if these all go in the opposite direction, then switch the points around appropriately)
Maybe you could suggest to Coke that if they let you keep your domain name, you'll put a link to their real web site on your home page. (i.e.: "Looking for Coca-Cola? Click here!!!")
And as someone else very astutely mentioned, remember that you're dealing with businessmen, not goons or a faceless corporate entity.
OK, I know how lovely the Amiga was as a platform.
Question is, is there really much point in releasing new machines on it? I mean, it was around before Win3.0, when the 68000 was a hip processor.
Computers are enormously more powerful, and interfaces are (really they are!) substantially more advanced. Is there much call for reviving a dead platform, other than nostalgia?
Not trying to flame anyone here, but I just don't see that reviving the Amiga makes any more sense than reviving the Atari ST. (and only marginally more than the Atari 400)
OK, I swear I'm going to reply to a JonKatz article without slagging his longwindedness or irrelevance, mostly because this is one of his more interesting articles.
But, I honestly don't understand his point(s). He says that paper publishing is dying, and that paper publishers are driving themselves into the ground by not adapting to the internet. Then he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by trying to get onto the internet, and not doing it perfectly. Then he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by turning their backs on their lifeblood--print media. THEN he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by giving away their content, which tells their customers that said content isn't worthwhile. (aside: have you ever considered the cost of the Sunday newspaper? They're already essentially giving it away, with advertising paying for the bulk of the cost)
Frankly, I don't see it. News will still have to be reported on, and stories will still have to be written. Joe Schmuck can't be a professional reporter any more than he can be a professional fiction author. There will ALWAYS be a need for professional reporters, editors, and authors; and as a result, there will ALWAYS be a need for publishers and publishing in some form.
Ya gotta give 'em a bit of a break. They've spent over a century making a living off of print media--something the internet makes a mockery of. It's not at all surprising that they're hesitant to jump into it, and blinkered by their preconceived notions of how news/publishing "should" work. Besides, the internet (really, the web) is still evolving--what we would have loved a few years ago now qualifies as SUCKY! In a few years from now, the layout of/. will be considered ugly, difficult, and obsolete. (some would say it already is:-) At the speed a big, old, conservative industry moves, by the time they get online, online will have changed.
One other subtle point. The publishing industry doesn't ignore its public as a matter of pride, policy, or philosophy. It ignores them (if it really does) because it's making money just fine the way things are. Listening to the public takes time and effort, and if you're doing fine without it, why change?
Bottom line: Publishers and the news media will continue to exist in one form or another, and they'll probably be surprisingly close in content and delivery (but not necessarily form) to what they are right now. TV didn't destroy print media, and neither will the web. Furthermore, the 'power and freedom' that the web gives people to be independent from said media will probably be short lived--two more years or so--after which the professional media will get their legs back under them.
Rereading this article, I sincerely wonder if Jon "I wrote for Wired!" Katz has an axe to grind with the world of print media and publishing. Maybe he doesn't, but it sorta sounds that way.
Hey, now that's a cool idea! To some extent, the organisation of directories creates a sense of depth (i.e. config scripts are in/etc, so if you're a beginner, you don't go there) However, that sense of depth tends to show up to experienced users, pretty much defeating the purpose.
Part of the problem, as near as I can see, is that Windows (particularly, but also *ix) creates a user's "home" in the middle of the file system. In other words, your top-down view is from the middle of the stack. It's particularly bad in Windows, where your desktop, which appears to be _above_ the file system, is actually stored in the middle of it.
But a true mapping-style interface, that has potential.
First of all, write, fax, or phone the traditional news media. Explain what Mattel is doing, why it's wrong, and how this is only the latest in an increasing string of abuses by major companies over the last few years. Explain that fair criticism of companies is rapily becoming impossible. Make it clear that the general public has GOT to know about this!
Second of all, get other people to contact the same organisation with similar information. If every local TV station gets one letter, they won't think it's a concern. If the national news shows get a thousand letters, it should at least be enough to get them to look into it.
I just wrote a letter to The National (CBC-TV) covering the above. If anyone else out there in Canada is going to write to CBC, send it to the National as well. Let's get this NOTICED!
First of all, how long before Gnome or some other OSS interface get recognised as the 'leader in the field?' Likely never, and good riddance! Someone pointed out that OSS doesn't have the research backing to really evolve a good interface. Someone else asked why should we even consider (or hope for) a 'winner'?
More to the point, why is the open source movement, a group supposedly excited about individualism and so forth, be so hyped about winning and (implicitly) taking over the world?
Lots of other good comments have already been made, but no one has specificly addressed one that's been nagging me lately. Consider this if you will:
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that a useful and intuitive GUI is ***impossible***.
Impossible. Not Possible. Undoable. Forget it. Wasted effort.
Why would I say such a heretical thing? A few weeks ago, I watched a cyber-illiterate couple struggle with their brand new computer, running Win98. After a few days, I realised a few things.
1) No matter how pretty the interface, the guts of the system are still files in a hereditary hierarchy. (i.e. directories, subdirectories, and eventually files)
2) The GUI can disguise, but not _change_ the fact in (1).
3) The GUI, by making the file system structure less apparent, makes understanding the computer itself HARDER, not easier!
Summary: Because of (3) (which comes from (1) and (2)), the GUI is doomed to fall vastly short of what it should be (and in many ways be a hinderance) until A WHOLE NEW DATA PARADIGM IS CREATED!
I used Windows as an example, but Unix (and company), with its similar file structure, inherently suffers the same faults with any attempt at imposing a GUI on it, as long as that GUI works to hide or minimise the inherent file structure.
In other words, Gnome, Enlighten, KDE, Windows, BeOS, CDE, and so forth all FAIL in major ways, at what they were created to do! Worse, no amount of redesign or patching will fix that failure.
So maybe it's time to quit trying to make Gnome (or whatever) the king of a crumbling castle, and rewrite computing from the ground on up. No preconceived notions, no borrowing from everyone else (which is normally the most efficient way to develop things), but something as revolutionary as the original idea at Xerox, of a graphical environment.
Damn! I used up the last of my moderation points last night, otherwise I'd give this a +1(funny) and +1(informative).
Ah well.
Re:If I could have only cheated this way...
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 2
In a word, "Nah."
When I was in university (about a decade ago), we were usually allowed a 'cheat sheet' with formulas, constants, etc. on it. If you needed more than a few things from it, you were doomed anyways. Some exams were open book--bring in anything you want, except for a live person. Same results--if you really needed those textbooks, you probably weren't going to pass with or without them.
A good exam will test your knowledge, and even having a person on the other end of a phone or computer won't help that much if you don't know your stuff. There will be a few people who can successfully cheat and pass, just like there always have been. They'll continue to be in the minority.
Besides, when you get past first or second year university, there aren't many cheats left because the people remaining are paying LOTS OF MONEY to suffer through hell--they usually want to know the stuff they're supposed to be learning.
Well, it helps if you search for topclick, the way they spell it themselves. (note: no space)
Not a flame, though. It's still a weakness, especially when "top click" (just like that, with the quotes and all" doesn't work either. Don't know that any other search engine would work better, though.
Oh, very cool! A perfect example of where decades-old technology can still be the best solution to a problem. The obvious moral here is that new technology shouldn't be adapted solely because it's new.
(of course, I'm suffering with a client who refuses to upgrade from SunOS 4.1.4. Ugh)
Well, you're perfectly right; this is a company trying to cash in on the dissillusioned masses, namely us.
Know what? As someone who typically dislikes the way many companies make a profit (no problems with profit per se, just obtaining them unconscionably), I don't have much of a problem with this.
If there end up being two companies with the same search engine, and the only difference is that one guarantees my privacy while the other tracks my every moment, then sure--the one is using privacy as a 'hook' to get me to use them. BUT, I'm likely to do just that--if they make more money as a result, then so be it. If they dump their privacy policy, then someone else will probably come along to fill the gap, and I'll switch over there (assuming all else is equal).
Bottom line is that the privacy of this site is exactly what you said--one of the various features of this product, and as one of the dissillusioned (actually not--I never had any illusions about the corporate world to be shattered), it's a feature I'm willing to support, even explicitly knowing that it's been created as a draw for me.
Fundamentally, less bitter, but just as cynical as you tonight.
Don't know if I'd call it a comeback, but they're definitely still in use. Costco has 'em, Home Depot has 'em, and so on. They're great in an environment like that--big warehouse and a need to move items (i.e. money from the cash registers) around quickly.
Besides that, they're kind of cool. Good enough for Grim Fandango at any rate.:-)
I still say that JK's use of the word 'firewall' is backwards, especially after his implied comparison with China.
BUT...
"People have a disturbing tendency to nit-pick the details of his articles without listening to the general idea of what he's saying."
Guilty as charged. I'm a terrible nitpicker when it comes to JK. Still, most of it stems from the fact that his articles are so poorly researched and contentless. Reduce his enormous mounds of text down to the crux, and you end up with:
"The little guy is being trod upon!"
This is not news, and frequently his articles try to prove this point from evidence or stories that don't support it. In this case, he took a marketing drone's statement at face value and made a big issue out of it, using 7k of text to do so. Honestly, aren't there more significant, relevant to the issue stories that could be researched and written about instead?
While what you say is true, the idea of a metaphor (or methphor:-) is to use the idea of one item in another area where it makes intuitive sense. Knowing what a stronghold is, we can understand how MS has created a situation which is analogous to it in the marketplace. When JK talks about a firewall in Canada, how is that analogous to a real firewall? It just doesn't make sense!
Well, that's my thought at least.
Re:what i dont understand, please enlighten me
on
Geographic Screening
·
· Score: 2
Well, on the one hand, there's an extradition treaty between the US and Canada. I don't think that would take effect in this case, though.
Regardless, there are several 'reciprocal' agreements across the borders, and general international agreements that limit what a company can or can't do. In this particular case, iCrave was violating US laws in US jurisdiction, because their (re)broadcasts were accessable in the US. In other words, they were breaking US laws in the US.
Aside from that, the 'regional access' that iCrave is talking about seems to be mostly hot air.
OK, I won't even touch on the fact that Jon Katz doesn't even begin to understand the iCrave story. What he wrote is SOOOO far from the way things are unfolding that I can't even begin to correct it.
However...
"This time the firewalls aren't coming from the People's Republic of China, but out of Canada."
Don't you even know what a firewall is Jon? You have a lot of gall to post articles on/. when you appear to know so little about computers.
To quote a manager, "I don't want excuses--I want results!"
So Linux is a better solution than MS. Why? What makes it a better solution? Sure, it's a better OS. HOWEVER, if I'm implementing a platform, my idea of a "solution" goes far beyond just the OS. I'm looking at TCO, uptime, training, service, and support. If Red Hat can't provide me with these things at levels I consider acceptable, then maybe MS really is (gasp!) the better solution. (man, that was hard to say!) If they're going to charge me more for the poorer service, and then throw up stats (4% market share) at me, then screw 'em. Either give me a working, cost-effective solution, or don't waste my time.
Consider; I run linux at home. I really dislike MS products. For clients, I tend to recommend Solaris as a PC platform, because it's a stable, mature OS, with good support. Linux doesn't cut it in a lot of environments, and the support is a big reason!
"Didn't anyone ever read the first fundamental of theatrical entertainment: Suspension of disbelief."
Ah, but the idea there is that the movie is supposed to make you suspend your disbelief. It should be good enough (i.e. good enough plot, acting, etc.) that we're willing to believe things we know to be wrong.
In other words, suspension of disbelief is something that the movie is supposed to achieve--not something we shoud have to consciously do to make the movie survivable.
"Imagine the bad press and negative mindshare it'd get them..."
<p>I hate to disagree, but 'negative mindshare' with who? With the people who have let eBay get away with appalling uptime? With the majority of the public who think MS and Bill Gates personify Noble American Ideals(tm)? With the people who support RealTrojan Theftware, the Spamazon Patent and Lawsuit Company, and DoubleCross?
The general public doesn't care about this sort of stuff. No matter how much they talk about censorship and privacy online, they don't understand the issues, nor do they _want_ to, unless their credit card number is stolen. Fair enough--people don't care about the details of how their power gets to the light switch either. BUT, the end result is that only a tiny minority--us--will give a rat's ass about ANY level of corporate abuse as it pertains to the internet.
Or in short, it's nigh impossible to generate negative mindshare in a flock of sheep.
Anyone can write a blank, ugly (sorry but it's true), useless page in under 5kB. The point, and the unwritten intent of such a contest is to do the _best_ possible in the limit.
I mean honestly, what's the point of writing a web page in under 5kB that no one is going to want to read? I'm not just looking at yours here--there are a LOT of (serious) suggestions in this discussion about ways to get around the rules, or the easiest (but most useless) way to achieve the stated goal. Why bother?
As an aside, 5093 bytes is 4.97kB. 4.73kB gives you 276 bytes to play with.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh.
/. in a while. It's original, it's parody, and it's GOOD! Bloody good, in fact. Only failing is that there aren't enough paragraph breaks.
*chuckle*
Hee, hee HEEE!
This is one of the funniest things I've read on
My compliments to the author. Pay no attention to the humour-deprived moderators.
You make some good points. Most of the people I know who call themselves Christians would agree with you.
Unfortunately, it's the self-serving evangelists and their brainless flocks who make their religion everyone else's business, and are most likely to riot at any evidence of extraterrestrial life. All of the intelligent, peaceful, thoughtful people in the world (Christians or not) will have much luck stopping an angry mob.
Furthermore, it seems like the religious hucksters almost always portray themselves as Christians, which (given the media attention they command) gives Christianity a bad name. In other words, when was the last time you turned on the TV and saw, "Phone the good Rabbi NOW with your pledge if you want to get into heaven!" It just doesn't happen for whatever reason. (I can think of several reasons why that might be the case, but that's too far afield for this thread)
Dislaimer: I am an avowed agnostic. Take the above as you see fit.
this is a fine distinction that bears mention.
can go to the archives somewhere (presumably in Vienna), and with appropriate permission, get access to the original Vivaldi scores. You can then copy these out (by hand, into your computer, whatever, if the curators agree to it), and copyright your transcription of it.
See that? You can obtain a copyright on your expression of a work that is out of copyright. That's why, for instance, you can go to the store and buy a (copywritten) copy of Fanny Hill, or go online and download a plaintext, freely distributable copy of it. The original work isn't under copyright anymore. The expression of it (i.e. a given publisher's edition) can be given a copyright. Does that make sense?
Just goes to show that it's possible to dumb down science without making it any easier to read.
This is _neat_ stuff, and what do we get from the Yahoo(tm) who wrote it? "Weird gases from outer space arrived on Earth during a dinosaur-killing asteroid strike 65 million years ago."
Weird Gases? The Big Space Rock? The Killer Asteroid? Come ON Yahoo, surely you can get a reporter who doesn't have to insult us with Sunday tabloid-style writing. (Not to mention that most of the hypotheses are reported as incontrovertible facts)
Bottom line: This story could have been written clearly, informatively, and intelligently while being just as understandable (or more so). It wasn't, by a country mile.
Am I the only one bothered by this?
Ah well. Off to find some coffee.
OK, on the one hand, I don't like predatory companies. On the other hand, it does tread fairly close.
Who's right? Let's take a few arguements on both sides.
1) Does Coca-Cola own the trademark to the name, "Coke" in Switzerland? If not, one point against Coke.
2) Have you been using the address? Regardless of original intent, if you haven't been using it, it looks like cybersquatting. Half a point against the current owner.
3) How much will you relinquish it to Coke for? Registration costs for a new domain? Some annoyance at having to switch? Or, the amount of money that it's going to make for Coke. If it's the latter, chalk it up as cybersquatting again, and half a point in favour of Coke.
(aside: Naturally, if these all go in the opposite direction, then switch the points around appropriately)
Maybe you could suggest to Coke that if they let you keep your domain name, you'll put a link to their real web site on your home page. (i.e.: "Looking for Coca-Cola? Click here!!!")
And as someone else very astutely mentioned, remember that you're dealing with businessmen, not goons or a faceless corporate entity.
OK, I know how lovely the Amiga was as a platform.
Question is, is there really much point in releasing new machines on it? I mean, it was around before Win3.0, when the 68000 was a hip processor.
Computers are enormously more powerful, and interfaces are (really they are!) substantially more advanced. Is there much call for reviving a dead platform, other than nostalgia?
Not trying to flame anyone here, but I just don't see that reviving the Amiga makes any more sense than reviving the Atari ST. (and only marginally more than the Atari 400)
OK, I swear I'm going to reply to a JonKatz article without slagging his longwindedness or irrelevance, mostly because this is one of his more interesting articles.
But, I honestly don't understand his point(s). He says that paper publishing is dying, and that paper publishers are driving themselves into the ground by not adapting to the internet. Then he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by trying to get onto the internet, and not doing it perfectly. Then he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by turning their backs on their lifeblood--print media. THEN he says that publishers are driving themselves into the ground by giving away their content, which tells their customers that said content isn't worthwhile. (aside: have you ever considered the cost of the Sunday newspaper? They're already essentially giving it away, with advertising paying for the bulk of the cost)
Frankly, I don't see it. News will still have to be reported on, and stories will still have to be written. Joe Schmuck can't be a professional reporter any more than he can be a professional fiction author. There will ALWAYS be a need for professional reporters, editors, and authors; and as a result, there will ALWAYS be a need for publishers and publishing in some form.
Ya gotta give 'em a bit of a break. They've spent over a century making a living off of print media--something the internet makes a mockery of. It's not at all surprising that they're hesitant to jump into it, and blinkered by their preconceived notions of how news/publishing "should" work. Besides, the internet (really, the web) is still evolving--what we would have loved a few years ago now qualifies as SUCKY! In a few years from now, the layout of /. will be considered ugly, difficult, and obsolete. (some would say it already is :-) At the speed a big, old, conservative industry moves, by the time they get online, online will have changed.
One other subtle point. The publishing industry doesn't ignore its public as a matter of pride, policy, or philosophy. It ignores them (if it really does) because it's making money just fine the way things are. Listening to the public takes time and effort, and if you're doing fine without it, why change?
Bottom line: Publishers and the news media will continue to exist in one form or another, and they'll probably be surprisingly close in content and delivery (but not necessarily form) to what they are right now. TV didn't destroy print media, and neither will the web. Furthermore, the 'power and freedom' that the web gives people to be independent from said media will probably be short lived--two more years or so--after which the professional media will get their legs back under them.
Rereading this article, I sincerely wonder if Jon "I wrote for Wired!" Katz has an axe to grind with the world of print media and publishing. Maybe he doesn't, but it sorta sounds that way.
Hey, now that's a cool idea! To some extent, the organisation of directories creates a sense of depth (i.e. config scripts are in /etc, so if you're a beginner, you don't go there) However, that sense of depth tends to show up to experienced users, pretty much defeating the purpose.
Part of the problem, as near as I can see, is that Windows (particularly, but also *ix) creates a user's "home" in the middle of the file system. In other words, your top-down view is from the middle of the stack. It's particularly bad in Windows, where your desktop, which appears to be _above_ the file system, is actually stored in the middle of it.
But a true mapping-style interface, that has potential.
First of all, write, fax, or phone the traditional news media. Explain what Mattel is doing, why it's wrong, and how this is only the latest in an increasing string of abuses by major companies over the last few years. Explain that fair criticism of companies is rapily becoming impossible. Make it clear that the general public has GOT to know about this!
Second of all, get other people to contact the same organisation with similar information. If every local TV station gets one letter, they won't think it's a concern. If the national news shows get a thousand letters, it should at least be enough to get them to look into it.
I just wrote a letter to The National (CBC-TV) covering the above. If anyone else out there in Canada is going to write to CBC, send it to the National as well. Let's get this NOTICED!
OK, lots of things come to mind here.
First of all, how long before Gnome or some other OSS interface get recognised as the 'leader in the field?' Likely never, and good riddance! Someone pointed out that OSS doesn't have the research backing to really evolve a good interface. Someone else asked why should we even consider (or hope for) a 'winner'?
More to the point, why is the open source movement, a group supposedly excited about individualism and so forth, be so hyped about winning and (implicitly) taking over the world?
Lots of other good comments have already been made, but no one has specificly addressed one that's been nagging me lately. Consider this if you will:
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that a useful and intuitive GUI is ***impossible***.
Impossible. Not Possible. Undoable. Forget it. Wasted effort.
Why would I say such a heretical thing? A few weeks ago, I watched a cyber-illiterate couple struggle with their brand new computer, running Win98. After a few days, I realised a few things.
1) No matter how pretty the interface, the guts of the system are still files in a hereditary hierarchy. (i.e. directories, subdirectories, and eventually files)
2) The GUI can disguise, but not _change_ the fact in (1).
3) The GUI, by making the file system structure less apparent, makes understanding the computer itself HARDER, not easier!
Summary: Because of (3) (which comes from (1) and (2)), the GUI is doomed to fall vastly short of what it should be (and in many ways be a hinderance) until A WHOLE NEW DATA PARADIGM IS CREATED!
I used Windows as an example, but Unix (and company), with its similar file structure, inherently suffers the same faults with any attempt at imposing a GUI on it, as long as that GUI works to hide or minimise the inherent file structure.
In other words, Gnome, Enlighten, KDE, Windows, BeOS, CDE, and so forth all FAIL in major ways, at what they were created to do! Worse, no amount of redesign or patching will fix that failure.
So maybe it's time to quit trying to make Gnome (or whatever) the king of a crumbling castle, and rewrite computing from the ground on up. No preconceived notions, no borrowing from everyone else (which is normally the most efficient way to develop things), but something as revolutionary as the original idea at Xerox, of a graphical environment.
Damn! I used up the last of my moderation points last night, otherwise I'd give this a +1(funny) and +1(informative).
Ah well.
In a word, "Nah."
When I was in university (about a decade ago), we were usually allowed a 'cheat sheet' with formulas, constants, etc. on it. If you needed more than a few things from it, you were doomed anyways. Some exams were open book--bring in anything you want, except for a live person. Same results--if you really needed those textbooks, you probably weren't going to pass with or without them.
A good exam will test your knowledge, and even having a person on the other end of a phone or computer won't help that much if you don't know your stuff. There will be a few people who can successfully cheat and pass, just like there always have been. They'll continue to be in the minority.
Besides, when you get past first or second year university, there aren't many cheats left because the people remaining are paying LOTS OF MONEY to suffer through hell--they usually want to know the stuff they're supposed to be learning.
Well, it helps if you search for topclick, the way they spell it themselves. (note: no space)
Not a flame, though. It's still a weakness, especially when "top click" (just like that, with the quotes and all" doesn't work either. Don't know that any other search engine would work better, though.
Oh, very cool! A perfect example of where decades-old technology can still be the best solution to a problem. The obvious moral here is that new technology shouldn't be adapted solely because it's new.
(of course, I'm suffering with a client who refuses to upgrade from SunOS 4.1.4. Ugh)
Well, you're perfectly right; this is a company trying to cash in on the dissillusioned masses, namely us.
Know what? As someone who typically dislikes the way many companies make a profit (no problems with profit per se, just obtaining them unconscionably), I don't have much of a problem with this.
If there end up being two companies with the same search engine, and the only difference is that one guarantees my privacy while the other tracks my every moment, then sure--the one is using privacy as a 'hook' to get me to use them. BUT, I'm likely to do just that--if they make more money as a result, then so be it. If they dump their privacy policy, then someone else will probably come along to fill the gap, and I'll switch over there (assuming all else is equal).
Bottom line is that the privacy of this site is exactly what you said--one of the various features of this product, and as one of the dissillusioned (actually not--I never had any illusions about the corporate world to be shattered), it's a feature I'm willing to support, even explicitly knowing that it's been created as a draw for me.
Fundamentally, less bitter, but just as cynical as you tonight.
Don't know if I'd call it a comeback, but they're definitely still in use. Costco has 'em, Home Depot has 'em, and so on. They're great in an environment like that--big warehouse and a need to move items (i.e. money from the cash registers) around quickly.
:-)
Besides that, they're kind of cool. Good enough for Grim Fandango at any rate.
I still say that JK's use of the word 'firewall' is backwards, especially after his implied comparison with China.
BUT...
"People have a disturbing tendency to nit-pick the details of his articles without listening to the general idea of what he's saying."
Guilty as charged. I'm a terrible nitpicker when it comes to JK. Still, most of it stems from the fact that his articles are so poorly researched and contentless. Reduce his enormous mounds of text down to the crux, and you end up with:
"The little guy is being trod upon!"
This is not news, and frequently his articles try to prove this point from evidence or stories that don't support it. In this case, he took a marketing drone's statement at face value and made a big issue out of it, using 7k of text to do so. Honestly, aren't there more significant, relevant to the issue stories that could be researched and written about instead?
While what you say is true, the idea of a metaphor (or methphor :-) is to use the idea of one item in another area where it makes intuitive sense. Knowing what a stronghold is, we can understand how MS has created a situation which is analogous to it in the marketplace. When JK talks about a firewall in Canada, how is that analogous to a real firewall? It just doesn't make sense!
Well, that's my thought at least.
Well, on the one hand, there's an extradition treaty between the US and Canada. I don't think that would take effect in this case, though.
Regardless, there are several 'reciprocal' agreements across the borders, and general international agreements that limit what a company can or can't do. In this particular case, iCrave was violating US laws in US jurisdiction, because their (re)broadcasts were accessable in the US. In other words, they were breaking US laws in the US.
Aside from that, the 'regional access' that iCrave is talking about seems to be mostly hot air.
OK, I won't even touch on the fact that Jon Katz doesn't even begin to understand the iCrave story. What he wrote is SOOOO far from the way things are unfolding that I can't even begin to correct it.
/. when you appear to know so little about computers.
However...
"This time the firewalls aren't coming from the People's Republic of China, but out of Canada."
Don't you even know what a firewall is Jon? You have a lot of gall to post articles on
To quote a manager, "I don't want excuses--I want results!"
So Linux is a better solution than MS. Why? What makes it a better solution? Sure, it's a better OS. HOWEVER, if I'm implementing a platform, my idea of a "solution" goes far beyond just the OS. I'm looking at TCO, uptime, training, service, and support. If Red Hat can't provide me with these things at levels I consider acceptable, then maybe MS really is (gasp!) the better solution. (man, that was hard to say!) If they're going to charge me more for the poorer service, and then throw up stats (4% market share) at me, then screw 'em. Either give me a working, cost-effective solution, or don't waste my time.
Consider; I run linux at home. I really dislike MS products. For clients, I tend to recommend Solaris as a PC platform, because it's a stable, mature OS, with good support. Linux doesn't cut it in a lot of environments, and the support is a big reason!
OK, end of rant.
"Didn't anyone ever read the first fundamental of theatrical entertainment: Suspension of disbelief."
Ah, but the idea there is that the movie is supposed to make you suspend your disbelief. It should be good enough (i.e. good enough plot, acting, etc.) that we're willing to believe things we know to be wrong.
In other words, suspension of disbelief is something that the movie is supposed to achieve--not something we shoud have to consciously do to make the movie survivable.
"Uh, about this dialog, either re-write, or give me another million, because this is humiliating!"
Exactly! Why do you think actors get paid obscene amounts of money for bad movies like this?
What we really need is to make a bunch of movies with good actors who get paid like mortals.
"Imagine the bad press and negative mindshare it'd get them..."
<p>I hate to disagree, but 'negative mindshare' with who? With the people who have let eBay get away with appalling uptime? With the majority of the public who think MS and Bill Gates personify Noble American Ideals(tm)? With the people who support RealTrojan Theftware, the Spamazon Patent and Lawsuit Company, and DoubleCross?
The general public doesn't care about this sort of stuff. No matter how much they talk about censorship and privacy online, they don't understand the issues, nor do they _want_ to, unless their credit card number is stolen. Fair enough--people don't care about the details of how their power gets to the light switch either. BUT, the end result is that only a tiny minority--us--will give a rat's ass about ANY level of corporate abuse as it pertains to the internet.
Or in short, it's nigh impossible to generate negative mindshare in a flock of sheep.
No offense here, but so what?
Anyone can write a blank, ugly (sorry but it's true), useless page in under 5kB. The point, and the unwritten intent of such a contest is to do the _best_ possible in the limit.
I mean honestly, what's the point of writing a web page in under 5kB that no one is going to want to read? I'm not just looking at yours here--there are a LOT of (serious) suggestions in this discussion about ways to get around the rules, or the easiest (but most useless) way to achieve the stated goal. Why bother?
As an aside, 5093 bytes is 4.97kB. 4.73kB gives you 276 bytes to play with.