Sun is shooting themselves in the foot here. First, this is going to weaken their case against Microsoft, at least in terms of Microsoft developing derivative productions (J++ for example). Secondly, this also will open the door for others to cleanroom-develop a Java compatiable language (but not called Java or necessarily conforming to the Java specs), and then make derivatives of it, as to further pollute the Java landscape. At least during the ISO review process of C++, most of the problems were with vendor-additions to the language which were quickly pulled once the standard came out-- here, we have a possibility of several different Java-like languages that will never be sorted out.
At any rate, since the soundtrack's not available yet anyway, and since it undoubtedly will not be released in singles form, I don't see who this is hurting.
So it might be right for this one track? Does that it mean it's right for other music? For example, what if "One Week" was leaked on MP3 before BNL's Stunt came out? Would more people buy the album? Probably not, as that's the only real good song on that, and thus the sales of the album would go down, and BNL's final profits would be hurt.
You can't justify it for one case, and then say its wrong for every other one. Piracy is piracy, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Obviously, based on the reports that people have given here about the quality of the mp3, it sounds like it was done poorly and rushed, which implies to me that the original recorder obtained this illegally. Then they distributed it.
I know that I do agree that the RIAA needs to change their vision of music distribution, but it is not our right to steal the work of artists underneath them just because we disagree with their ideals. Piracy of music means, in the end, *less* money for the artists themselves (in addition to less money for RIAA), and that's not how to show support for artists and dissent for RIAA. Instead, write letters to the artists and the people that make the music (in this case, John Williams and George Lucas), and explain the benefits of the MP3 format for music distribution.
I think that there is a good possibility for this being a good model for software distribution, but requires some ground rules that can only be industry regulated to make this work [*].
First, one option that should be seriously considered by companies thinking about this is a free version that will display ads (that cannot be turned off at the user's end), and then releasing a version that will cost the user money but will not display the ads. The amount of programming time to create two executables should be negliable, so it's not a problem from a developer's POV. However, the only question that can remain is that with one, profits can continue to roll it, but you would have no idea of the amount that it might generate (based on number of uses & cost of an ad), while on the other side, you can only recover a fixed cost if the end user over-uses the program. However, in the end I think having both models, with the one appropriately priced based on expected uses, will be ideal; those users that do not want the ads can pay for the software to remove them. (There's already one good program that I've used on Windows, called Copunric, a search engine front-end that is free but with ads to dl, and that you can pay $30 or so to get rid of them).
Secondly, the ads cannot be thrust at the user; they need to be visible at all time, I agree, but they should not require the user to be online at all times, they should not be like shareware nag boxes, popping up at random times when the user is working with the software, etc. A 100x50 box in the corner of the window, for example, displaying ads from a cache that might be updated weekly, for example, would be ideal for this.
[*] If a company decides to put in-your-face ads this way, I think that other companies will be able to take advantage of this by releasing their own programs that perform the same function but with more passive ads, and knowing most users, this will lead to the reduction in the use of the offending program, which might later rerelease their program without the active ads and instead with passive ads. This is a sort of automatic regulation that may be inherint in this model.
Finally, this might allow shareware to become a bit more popular. Practically, a lot of shareware is nag screens, or a one time ad strictly for their product, but it's still an ad. There model already works well, but if shareware authors can access a service that pays them for ads as well, there could be a resurgance of good shareware programs again (lately, IMO, the market in that direction has been rather stagent, because of the lack of money that it brings in unless you really have an outstanding product).
And of course, this might make Linux more favorable -- I doubt we'll see linux programs with ads like this, and it could be advertized as the free but ad free OS...:-)
As others undoubtably have said, the press is completely ignoring the side of the story of the outcasts, casting them as anything from crazed students to white supremists. But what is not realized is how backwards high school can be in terms of morals -- and part of the problem is that the people involved at this point (teachers, adminstrators, the press) are *NOT* the ones that faced this stuff when they went to school -- AFAICR, most of the people that were the in-crowd went to college degrees in social sciences, not hard-core science. And until this point is made clear to the press, which will then be distributed to the public, it will be buried.
JohKatz, you should prepare all these stories, including those of the students that spoke up about this in school and suddenly found themselves in trouble, and send them to all the major press houses. Keep the letters anonymous as you have done here, of course, but make sure that the letters are clear examples that the public high school envirnoment is terrible.
Also, someone else made the point that while the in-crowd people will end up with lousy jobs while the nerds/geeks will get those jobs to rule the world: the nerd/geek has been around for at least 40 years (take a look at classic TV; Eddie Haskle from 'Leave it to Beaver'). The bully has also been around. If nerd jobs automatically lead to jobs of power, you'd think we would already control this world; unfortunately, this is not true. Yes, the nerd jobs are generally more prestigious and make more money, but certainly have little power behind them. It's people with MBAs (CEOs, for example), and Pol Sci degrees (gov't ppl) and Law School degrees that end up with control over this world -- and those areas are generally ones were you will find a large lack of nerds/geeks, and a larger percentage of the in-crowd.
In experiementing with problems with the Appletalk module in kernel 2.0.x, I tried to use RawHide 5.9 to get up to kernel 2.2 with the appropriate package modifications; however, the kerner RPM as shipped was larger than 640k, and nearly blew my 486 to chunks. Does anyone know if 6.0 kernel RPM is made safe for 486 or lower users?
This goes back to making the web accessiable. Javascript is not a guarentee by the end user (whether he has turned it off, or is using a browser without it).
Mind you, JavaScript can be used nicely to enhance a page, but requiring people to use Javascript to navigate your pages is a *Bad* thing.
Plus, with all the different implementations out there (notice that some browsers have to fake their identity to get JS to work right), and with the potental security loopholes out there, JavaScript is just not a good thing right now. It can be if the browser makers buckled down and secured it, but I don't see that happening for a while.
Moral is is to use JavaScript as additional flavor to a page, but not as a requirement to use it.
This is at the macro scale, how a scanning tunnelling electron microscope works (scan the x-y plane, using an atomic force diamond tip (atomic widths wide) to get the elevation of an atomic surfaces). So this is truely a scanner as opposed to a plotter.
Let's chalk this one up to clueless ISP
on
ISP Sues Spammer
·
· Score: 1
I do agree that spam and large email distribution lists are very close (I run my own email lists, so I do care how spam is treated to make sure that I won't be affected). However, I would think in today's day and age that if you are an ISP, you would block large mass emailings, and then have your customers come to you to ask to unblock this feature so they can run legit email lists, with explicit explaination of why such large lists are needed. If that later turns to spam, then the ISP can easily pull the account.
And again, in this particular case, the ISP failed 4 times to stop this from happening. The lawsuit is there to close the barn doors after the cows have all fled.
Let's chalk this one up to clueless ISP
on
ISP Sues Spammer
·
· Score: 2
According to the article, the spammer had *4* opportunities (not simulataneously) to spam the number of messages that he did.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
The ISP should have kicked in a mail filter that would block such large numbers of message being sent at nearly the same time. The fact they didn't implies they didn't really care then, and only until *they* were blacklisted did they seem to take steps (and as indicated elsewhere, one spam abuse doesn't get you on the list; it's the repeated spam abuse).
this sounds similar to the women suing credit card companies for money she lost by internet gambling; not seeing the light until all was said and done.
HTML compliance, while not explicitly stated, is there in the fact that many pages that are layed out using Tables (as opposed to CSS) come out as gobblitygook on most browsers used by the handicapped (specifically, ones for the blind). Also, this will require those that use images to include ALT tags to make sure that the pages are navigatable.
And in the end, this makes it a better web for all of us.
There is obviously some material that cannot be presented to handicapped users in any valid format. There's no way to change this. But the article is not about making music available to deaf people, or graphics available to the blind; instead, it's making content that *can* be represented in words and sentances (Such as tax forms, new bills in Congress, contracts, EULAs, documentation for software products, etc etc) into a form that all web users will be able to access. And this form already exists: It's called HTML (at least, as defined by the W3C). If a page is written in an HTML 4.0 compatible manner, then those with disabilities will be able to use the page without hassle by the browsers specifically made for them.
If you have Real Audio or Flash or other A/V content on a site, then it should be possible to present a text-version of the above without too much extra work. For example, if a.gov site made available Clinton's State of the Union address as an RA stream, they can also make it text only and present that as well. If, on the other hand, the A/V material is eye or ear candy, as opposed to useful content, then you can simply provide, as ALT text, that the material is only for presentation only, and need not be heard or seen to appriciate the rest of the content on the sight (Namely, this can be done with ALT="").
But in all serious, this is a *good good good* thing. The HTML and the Web space in general has been polluted by the Browser Wars, and taking steps to finally distill the waters such that there is one standard that *all* browsers on *all* platforms for *all* users can understand and present without difficulty.
(And if you want some more fun, read up in comp.infosystems.web.authoring.html, and look for a loon called Schlake who thinks the entire ng is out to get him.)
Obviously, there's a major ripply going through the distributors of music, with RIAA being one side, and independant labels or such on the other, and it looks like GDP is picking their side, without being informed of what MP3 is, or if they are informed, they are doing this to 'protest' the use of MP3 for music piracy, even though it's well known the Grateful Dead encouraged free music themselves.
Oh well, we already know the revolution has started, and most likely what the winning side will be.
While seeing support for MP3 or other form of digital music distribution, I don't think that online-only is the best choice. America is still less than 50% of the households with computers, while certainly much more than that have CD players or other audio device. Secondly, if I just want to listen to music, I don't want to boot up my computer to do that, and possibly have to be online to confirm the digital signal on the file. And there still is the problem with piracy and other online problems.
The better solution would to be to offer the choice of the CD or the online version, of course, allowing the CD user to download the digital version. Also, don't force the user to download the entire album; if PE is selling an album of , say , 12 songs, for $10, then sell individual songs at $1, so that it's a deal to buy the whole album for an savings of $2.
But again, this is probably the first venture into true online music distribution by a major artist, so it's experimental at this time. Just hope the RIAA doesn't get all upset about this.
I think GB holds a place in the hearts of many of us 'Gen Y'ers as it was the first movie of our generation that had more that it's fair share of catchphrases. In addition, it was one of the best early mixes of sci-fi/horror and comedy (which led later to movies like Back to the Future and the 5th Element in terms of that genre), and the actors that were used worked quite well together. The SFX were just a tad ahead of its time (yes, looking back now I can laugh, but back then, it was damned good.) Plus, it had Ed Koch!
I think that a movie like GB is to nerds as movies like 16 Candles and the Breakfast Club are to Gen X'ers. It's not high quality cimena, but, damnit, we *liked* it!
AV is selling the top words to the *highest bidder*, relavent or not. Therefore, what's to stop, say, Microsoft from getting the top position for any hits on "sex", beyond ethics?
Or, even better, Microsoft getting the top position for any hits on "linux"...
(I would not have a problem if the hit was marked as an ad, and such that I could still search AV with an option to ignore ad hits.)
I remember that when the web just started to be in the public eye (93, 94) reading that the intent of domain names was to continue on like they had been for years earlier (that is, a second, human-readable version of the IP #), and that when the net would be used by Joe Public, these domain names would be essentially hidden to the user; instead, the user would access other computers via bookmarks and search engines without the knowledge of the end hostname.
Unfortunately, I think the web got pushed into the mainstream too fast that the above ideas had to be abandoned when ecommerce actively started up...
While I certainly agree that the way 3dfx is unsupportive of anything but Glide(R), etc., the programs as listed at glideunderground.com do go against the EULA of the Glide SDK, and this is illegal. As I read this site, I get the impression that the author's own efforts with clide, which is a clean room implementation of Glide, was done because he didn't want to get in trouble for breaking the EULA.
So 3dfx has every right to request the removal of those files. And just because a company acts unethically as 3dfx appears to have done with this situation, it does not give anyone else the right to break legal contracts in order to acheive better goals.
The better solution for those bothered by this would be to have petitioned 3dfx to be more open, or contact the makes of big games (id, Valve, etc) and petition them to *not* support 3dfx unless they become more open, and to possibly contact the bigger press at large to alert them to these issues. 3dfx's financal and market position is very fragile right now, and a bit of bad press such as the propriatary nature of 3dfx Glide(R) can be bad -- and can possibly cause a quick change of heart at 3dfx.
IMO & IANAL.
Lack of dynamically loaded classes may be a proble
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 2
While I think this is all good news for the java community, and as long as careful consideration is given to these system-dependant binaries, this still isn't going to be fully acceptable for all java users. One of the things this can't do is the dynamic loading of classes, which is very much necessary for doing anything along the lines of plugins (Yes, I've programmed a java plugin routine for a program that's sitting on the back burner. The language has it all). I doubt this will be a setback for very long; I'm sure that someone will discover a way to still dynamically load code with this compiler with the help of native functions or such. However, the VM will still have it's place (and once Sun and others push the speed up in it, then Java will provide the serious blow it needs to deliever to a certain Redmond-based company).
Deep down, I'm pretty sure this is a 4/1 hoax. However, here's another bit of evidence that it might be the case:
Last year, several major comic strip artists got together and did a switcheroo of their strip, with the classic example of Scott Adams drawing Family Circus, and Bill Keane drawing Dilbert.
This year, several on-line strips are repeating the same thing (The main page for this can be found here: http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal/switch.html
If you look at the bottom of the page, apparently Illad and UF was supposed to participate (swapping with 'The Deep End', which incidently is still up with no noted problems). Did this 'gag' by UF, segfault and bedope have more priority for Illad than this comic switch, or did UF really get C&D'ed?
(Also, I do find it ironic that all 3 sites have completely shut down, instead of just removing the offending material, which is generally what is done in the C&D type cases...)
While I am probably being paranoid and overly sceptical, it's way too convinent that the Win98 ID bug, only uncovered recently, is suddenly going to be the life saver for solving the Melissa problem. And all only 2 weeks before the anti-trust trial resumes.
But, even if this is the case, I really wish there was something that could be done against M$ for introducing the entire concept of Word viruses to the world; if they had introduced the security needed into the vis basic routines when they first put out Word 6, things wouldn't be as rampent now.
Plus, this only goes to show that when only one company makes all the programs that you use, it's rather easy to find all the loopholes between them all. (Hint, there's better, more established ways to do interprocess communiction that a propriatary system).
Given the recent number of hupplas regarding trademarked names, it might be a wise idea to change the name from "freecddb" to something else. If this truely takes off, such that CDDB starts to lose money on it, "freecddb" might find itself in a lawsuit. (of course, IANAL).
(This from my sig, which I pulled from duh-2000.com...
"How could this [y2k bug] be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?"
And imagine the implications of Gore getting Gates as Veep. Those two could rewrite the whole of history, even down to the missing 11th Commandment "Thou must use MS Windows"
How about if someone wishes to post anonymously, that their post has to be approved by the moderator, more so than a registered user? Thus, if the AC post is worthy of being posted *and* posted anonymously, *and* won't harm/. in any way it's ok, but otherwise, the post hits the bin bucket?
Slashdot Mirror
Sun is shooting themselves in the foot here.
First, this is going to weaken their case against
Microsoft, at least in terms of Microsoft
developing derivative productions (J++ for example). Secondly, this also will open the
door for others to cleanroom-develop a Java
compatiable language (but not called Java or
necessarily conforming to the Java specs), and
then make derivatives of it, as to further
pollute the Java landscape. At least during
the ISO review process of C++, most of the problems
were with vendor-additions to the language
which were quickly pulled once the standard came
out-- here, we have a possibility of several
different Java-like languages that will never
be sorted out.
At any rate, since the soundtrack's not available yet anyway, and since it undoubtedly will not be released in singles form, I don't see who this is hurting.
So it might be right for this one track? Does
that it mean it's right for other music? For
example, what if "One Week" was leaked on MP3
before BNL's Stunt came out? Would more people
buy the album? Probably not, as that's the
only real good song on that, and thus the
sales of the album would go down, and BNL's
final profits would be hurt.
You can't justify it for one case, and then
say its wrong for every other one. Piracy
is piracy, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Obviously, based on the reports that people have
given here about the quality of the mp3, it sounds
like it was done poorly and rushed, which implies
to me that the original recorder obtained this
illegally. Then they distributed it.
I know that I do agree that the RIAA needs to
change their vision of music distribution, but
it is not our right to steal the work of artists
underneath them just because we disagree with
their ideals. Piracy of music means, in the
end, *less* money for the artists themselves
(in addition to less money for RIAA), and that's
not how to show support for artists and dissent
for RIAA. Instead, write letters to the artists
and the people that make the music (in this
case, John Williams and George Lucas), and
explain the benefits of the MP3 format for
music distribution.
I think that there is a good possibility for this
:-)
being a good model for software distribution,
but requires some ground rules that can only
be industry regulated to make this work [*].
First, one option that should be seriously
considered by companies thinking about this is
a free version that will display ads (that
cannot be turned off at the user's end), and then
releasing a version that will cost the user
money but will not display the ads. The
amount of programming time to create two
executables should be negliable, so it's not
a problem from a developer's POV. However,
the only question that can remain is that
with one, profits can continue to roll it, but
you would have no idea of the amount that it
might generate (based on number of uses &
cost of an ad), while on the other side, you
can only recover a fixed cost if the end user
over-uses the program. However, in the end
I think having both models, with the one
appropriately priced based on expected uses,
will be ideal; those users that do not want the
ads can pay for the software to remove them.
(There's already one good program that I've
used on Windows, called Copunric, a search
engine front-end that is free but with ads
to dl, and that you can pay $30 or so to get
rid of them).
Secondly, the ads cannot be thrust at the user;
they need to be visible at all time, I agree,
but they should not require the user to be
online at all times, they should not be like
shareware nag boxes, popping up at random times
when the user is working with the software, etc.
A 100x50 box in the corner of the window, for
example, displaying ads from a cache that might
be updated weekly, for example, would be ideal
for this.
[*] If a company decides to put in-your-face
ads this way, I think that other companies will
be able to take advantage of this by releasing
their own programs that perform the same function
but with more passive ads, and knowing most
users, this will lead to the reduction in the
use of the offending program, which might later
rerelease their program without the active ads
and instead with passive ads. This is a sort
of automatic regulation that may be inherint
in this model.
Finally, this might allow shareware to become
a bit more popular. Practically, a lot
of shareware is nag screens, or a one time ad
strictly for their product, but it's still an
ad. There model already works well, but if
shareware authors can access a service that pays
them for ads as well, there could be a resurgance
of good shareware programs again (lately, IMO,
the market in that direction has been rather
stagent, because of the lack of money that
it brings in unless you really have an outstanding
product).
And of course, this might make Linux more
favorable -- I doubt we'll see linux programs
with ads like this, and it could be advertized
as the free but ad free OS...
As others undoubtably have said, the press
is completely ignoring the side of the story
of the outcasts, casting them as anything
from crazed students to white supremists. But
what is not realized is how backwards
high school can be in terms of morals -- and
part of the problem is that the people involved
at this point (teachers, adminstrators, the
press) are *NOT* the ones that faced this stuff
when they went to school -- AFAICR, most of
the people that were the in-crowd went to
college degrees in social sciences, not
hard-core science. And until this point is
made clear to the press, which will then be
distributed to the public, it will be buried.
JohKatz, you should prepare all these stories,
including those of the students that spoke
up about this in school and suddenly found
themselves in trouble, and send them to
all the major press houses. Keep the letters
anonymous as you have done here, of
course, but make sure that the letters are
clear examples that the public high school
envirnoment is terrible.
Also, someone else made the point that while
the in-crowd people will end up with lousy
jobs while the nerds/geeks will get those jobs
to rule the world: the nerd/geek has been around
for at least 40 years (take a look at classic
TV; Eddie Haskle from 'Leave it to Beaver').
The bully has also been around. If nerd jobs
automatically lead to jobs of power, you'd think
we would already control this world; unfortunately, this is not true. Yes,
the nerd jobs are generally more prestigious
and make more money, but certainly have little
power behind them. It's people with MBAs
(CEOs, for example), and Pol Sci degrees
(gov't ppl) and Law School degrees that end
up with control over this world -- and those
areas are generally ones were you will find a
large lack of nerds/geeks, and a larger percentage
of the in-crowd.
In experiementing with problems
with the Appletalk module in kernel 2.0.x,
I tried to use RawHide 5.9 to get up to kernel
2.2 with the appropriate package modifications;
however, the kerner RPM as shipped was larger
than 640k, and nearly blew my 486 to chunks.
Does anyone know if 6.0 kernel RPM is made
safe for 486 or lower users?
This goes back to making the web accessiable.
Javascript is not a guarentee by the end user
(whether he has turned it off, or is using
a browser without it).
Mind you, JavaScript can be used nicely
to enhance a page, but requiring people to
use Javascript to navigate your pages is
a *Bad* thing.
Plus, with all the different implementations out
there (notice that some browsers have to fake
their identity to get JS to work right), and
with the potental security loopholes out there,
JavaScript is just not a good thing right now.
It can be if the browser makers buckled down
and secured it, but I don't see that happening
for a while.
Moral is is to use JavaScript as additional
flavor to a page, but not as a requirement
to use it.
This is at the macro scale, how a scanning tunnelling electron microscope works (scan the x-y plane, using an atomic force diamond tip (atomic
widths wide) to get the elevation of an atomic
surfaces). So this is truely a scanner as
opposed to a plotter.
I do agree that spam and large email distribution
lists are very close (I run my own email
lists, so I do care how spam is treated to make
sure that I won't be affected). However, I would
think in today's day and age that if you are an
ISP, you would block large mass emailings, and
then have your customers come to you to ask to
unblock this feature so they can run legit
email lists, with explicit explaination of
why such large lists are needed. If that
later turns to spam, then the ISP can easily
pull the account.
And again, in this particular case, the ISP
failed 4 times to stop this from happening.
The lawsuit is there to close the barn doors
after the cows have all fled.
According to the article, the spammer had *4*
opportunities (not simulataneously) to spam
the number of messages that he did.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice,
shame on me.
The ISP should have kicked in a mail filter that
would block such large numbers of message being
sent at nearly the same time. The fact
they didn't implies they didn't really care
then, and only until *they* were blacklisted
did they seem to take steps (and as indicated
elsewhere, one spam abuse doesn't get you on
the list; it's the repeated spam abuse).
this sounds similar to the women suing credit
card companies for money she lost by internet
gambling; not seeing the light until all was
said and done.
Soooo... the net is a giant shoestore? :-) (Sorry couldn't resist!)
HTML compliance, while not explicitly stated, is
there in the fact that many pages that are layed
out using Tables (as opposed to CSS) come out
as gobblitygook on most browsers used by the
handicapped (specifically, ones for the blind).
Also, this will require those that use images
to include ALT tags to make sure that the pages
are navigatable.
And in the end, this makes it a better web for all
of us.
There is obviously some material that cannot be
.gov
presented to handicapped users in any valid format.
There's no way to change this. But the article
is not about making music available to deaf people,
or graphics available to the blind; instead, it's making content that *can* be represented in words
and sentances (Such as tax forms, new bills in
Congress, contracts, EULAs, documentation for
software products, etc etc) into a form that all
web users will be able to access. And this form
already exists: It's called HTML (at least,
as defined by the W3C). If a page is written
in an HTML 4.0 compatible manner, then those with
disabilities will be able to use the page
without hassle by the browsers specifically made
for them.
If you have Real Audio or Flash or other A/V content on a site, then it should be possible
to present a text-version of the above without
too much extra work. For example, if a
site made available Clinton's State of the Union
address as an RA stream, they can also make it
text only and present that as well. If, on
the other hand, the A/V material is eye or
ear candy, as opposed to useful content, then you
can simply provide, as ALT text, that the material
is only for presentation only, and need not be
heard or seen to appriciate the rest of the content
on the sight (Namely, this can be done with ALT="").
But in all serious, this is a *good good good* thing. The HTML and the Web space in general has
been polluted by the Browser Wars, and taking
steps to finally distill the waters such that
there is one standard that *all* browsers on
*all* platforms for *all* users can understand
and present without difficulty.
(And if you want some more fun, read up in
comp.infosystems.web.authoring.html, and look
for a loon called Schlake who thinks the entire
ng is out to get him.)
Obviously, there's a major ripply going through
the distributors of music, with RIAA being
one side, and independant labels or such on the
other, and it looks like GDP is picking their
side, without being informed of what MP3 is,
or if they are informed, they are doing this
to 'protest' the use of MP3 for music piracy,
even though it's well known the Grateful Dead
encouraged free music themselves.
Oh well, we already know the revolution has started, and most likely what the winning side
will be.
While seeing support for MP3 or other form of
digital music distribution, I don't think that
online-only is the best choice. America is still
less than 50% of the households with computers,
while certainly much more than that have CD players or other audio device. Secondly, if I
just want to listen to music, I don't want to
boot up my computer to do that, and possibly
have to be online to confirm the digital signal on the file. And there still is the problem
with piracy and other online problems.
The better solution would to be to offer
the choice of the CD or the online version,
of course, allowing the CD user to download
the digital version. Also, don't force the
user to download the entire album; if PE is
selling an album of , say , 12 songs, for
$10, then sell individual songs at $1, so that
it's a deal to buy the whole album for an
savings of $2.
But again, this is probably the first venture
into true online music distribution by a major
artist, so it's experimental at this time.
Just hope the RIAA doesn't get all upset about
this.
I think GB holds a place in the hearts of many
of us 'Gen Y'ers as it was the first movie of
our generation that had more that it's fair
share of catchphrases. In addition, it was
one of the best early mixes of sci-fi/horror and
comedy (which led later to movies like Back
to the Future and the 5th Element in terms of
that genre), and the actors that were used worked
quite well together. The SFX were just a
tad ahead of its time (yes, looking back now
I can laugh, but back then, it was damned good.)
Plus, it had Ed Koch!
I think that a movie like GB is to nerds
as movies like 16 Candles and the Breakfast
Club are to Gen X'ers. It's not high quality
cimena, but, damnit, we *liked* it!
AV is selling the top words to the *highest bidder*, relavent or not. Therefore, what's
to stop, say, Microsoft from getting the
top position for any hits on "sex", beyond
ethics?
Or, even better, Microsoft getting the
top position for any hits on "linux"...
(I would not have a problem if the hit was
marked as an ad, and such that I could still
search AV with an option to ignore ad hits.)
I remember that when the web just started to
be in the public eye (93, 94) reading that the
intent of domain names was to continue on like
they had been for years earlier (that is,
a second, human-readable version of the IP #),
and that when the net would be used by Joe
Public, these domain names would be essentially
hidden to the user; instead, the user would access
other computers via bookmarks and search engines without the knowledge of the end hostname.
Unfortunately, I think the web got pushed into
the mainstream too fast that the above ideas
had to be abandoned when ecommerce actively
started up...
While I certainly agree that the way 3dfx
is unsupportive of anything but Glide(R), etc.,
the programs as listed at glideunderground.com
do go against the EULA of the Glide SDK, and this
is illegal. As I read this site, I get the impression that the author's own efforts with
clide, which is a clean room implementation
of Glide, was done because he didn't want to
get in trouble for breaking the EULA.
So 3dfx has every right to request the removal
of those files. And just because a company
acts unethically as 3dfx appears to have done
with this situation, it does not give anyone
else the right to break legal contracts in order
to acheive better goals.
The better solution for those bothered by this
would be to have petitioned 3dfx to be more open,
or contact the makes of big games (id, Valve, etc)
and petition them to *not* support 3dfx unless
they become more open, and to possibly contact
the bigger press at large to alert them to these
issues. 3dfx's financal and market position is
very fragile right now, and a bit of bad press
such as the propriatary nature of 3dfx Glide(R)
can be bad -- and can possibly cause a quick
change of heart at 3dfx.
IMO & IANAL.
While I think this is all good news for the java
community, and as long as careful consideration is
given to these system-dependant binaries, this
still isn't going to be fully acceptable for
all java users. One of the things this can't
do is the dynamic loading of classes, which is
very much necessary for doing anything along
the lines of plugins (Yes, I've programmed a
java plugin routine for a program that's sitting
on the back burner. The language has it all).
I doubt this will be a setback for very long;
I'm sure that someone will discover a way to
still dynamically load code with this compiler
with the help of native functions or such.
However, the VM will still have it's place (and
once Sun and others push the speed up in it,
then Java will provide the serious blow it needs
to deliever to a certain Redmond-based company).
Deep down, I'm pretty sure this is a 4/1 hoax.
However, here's another bit of evidence that
it might be the case:
Last year, several major comic strip artists
got together and did a switcheroo of their strip,
with the classic example of Scott Adams drawing
Family Circus, and Bill Keane drawing Dilbert.
This year, several on-line strips are repeating
the same thing (The main page for this can
be found here: http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal/switch.html
If you look at the bottom of the page, apparently
Illad and UF was supposed to participate (swapping
with 'The Deep End', which incidently is still
up with no noted problems). Did this 'gag' by
UF, segfault and bedope have more priority for
Illad than this comic switch, or did UF really
get C&D'ed?
(Also, I do find it ironic that all 3 sites have
completely shut down, instead of just removing
the offending material, which is generally what
is done in the C&D type cases...)
While I am probably being paranoid and overly
sceptical, it's way too convinent that the
Win98 ID bug, only uncovered recently, is
suddenly going to be the life saver for solving
the Melissa problem. And all only 2 weeks
before the anti-trust trial resumes.
But, even if this is the case, I really wish
there was something that could be done against
M$ for introducing the entire concept of Word
viruses to the world; if they had introduced
the security needed into the vis basic routines
when they first put out Word 6, things wouldn't
be as rampent now.
Plus, this only goes to show that when only
one company makes all the programs that you use,
it's rather easy to find all the loopholes between
them all. (Hint, there's better, more
established ways to do interprocess communiction
that a propriatary system).
Given the recent number of hupplas regarding trademarked names, it might be a wise idea to
change the name from "freecddb" to something
else. If this truely takes off, such that CDDB
starts to lose money on it, "freecddb" might
find itself in a lawsuit. (of course, IANAL).
Otherwise, full steam ahead!
(This from my sig, which I pulled from duh-2000.com...
"How could this [y2k bug] be a problem in a
country where we have Intel and Microsoft?"
And imagine the implications of Gore getting
Gates as Veep. Those two could rewrite the whole
of history, even down to the missing 11th
Commandment "Thou must use MS Windows"
How about if someone wishes to post anonymously, /. in any way it's ok, but otherwise,
that their post has to be approved by the moderator, more so than a registered user?
Thus, if the AC post is worthy of being
posted *and* posted anonymously, *and* won't
harm
the post hits the bin bucket?