Not on general popups, but misleading popups only.
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"interact with the browser to modify or control one or more of the browser functions, such that the user is directed to a predesignated site or page, instead of accessing the site or page typically associated with the selected browser function."
So he patented misleading people via a web browser...
1./. stole the phrase from fark.com, who puts in on just about every other article.
2. It's "funny" when someone you hate suffers. For example: If Bill Gates was diagnosed with a terminal cancer, the/. crowd would LOVE it. If Torvalds came down with the same cancer, it would be the biggest tragedy in geek history.
I'm reminded of the old "If people treated their cars the way tehy treat their computers" e-mail that circulated a while back.
I like the idea.
People need to know that they need certain basic skills to use a computer, and it's NOT as easy as using a VCR.
Sadly, people think computers should require zero new skills (Because they hate learning) and Microsoft agrees, so we get ever more castrated operating systems.
I think the connection issues you mentioned with AOL is one of the reasons it's a beginner's ISP. It's easy to use, but the bottom line is it's not the most reliable or functional bundle around. Even casual gamers need to get ready to move on.
I think the reasons you mentioned are more a case of being misguided than anything else. That said, whatever the reasons for buying Netscape and Winamp, they've kept them going, and apparently well funded for quite a while.
However, with Winamp 3.x, I think the argument can be made that AOL is probably setting up contingency plans in case they have to go against Microsoft's IE and Media Player. I imagine it gives them more bargaining power just to have well funded and functional alternatives, even if they ever need to use them.
Most techies who sees an AOL address assumes they're dealing with someone who is "new" or has the skill set of someone who is "new." While the "Me too" posts are annoying, they are not unique to AOL.
The example you give, dumping untrained drivers on the roads, is not the best one. On the Internet, being the average AOL user (I'm referring to the stereotype here) does not generally put the lives and property of others in danger.
AOL is more like driver's ed class. The @aol.com address is the computer equivalent of the big yellow "Student Driver" sign we put on Driving Education cars in the US. It's a warning.
At least on the Internet, you can filter @aol material to the trash bin, be it on Usenet using a decent news reader, or in your e-mail.
Besides, do you REALLY want to lock new users out? We were all new users once, why is there so much anger against the newbies? At least AOL lets us identify them with a big label, as opposed to a cable modem account, which doesn't tell us much of anything.
I am actually planning to get a region free player a friend of mine recommends. The running joke is that "It plays pancakes." Darn thing even plays mpeg videos that have been burned to CD. (Only way to see some of the now banned Disney WWII propaganda films. Find "Educated for Death" to see some disturbing old material)
I'm just annoyed that someone buying it in a few months will have better video quality, a remote that can power the damn thing down and a few other features I would have liked in my PS2.
And giving the remote its own IR port is a BIG thing.
And of course this will be another $300 for those of us who already bought the thing.
If we want the new features that is.
I'm not even THINKING about it until I hear it supports VCDs. I know the quality of a VCD is terrible compared to DVD, but a VCD is comparable to my camcorder and is sometimes the only format in which some Chinese and Japanese material is available.
I was PISSED when I tried to play a VCD of my sister's wedding in my PS2 and it didn't work.
The sickening thing is that the DVD player in the PS2 was based on hardware that CAN play VCDs, they just disabled it.
I know there is a substantial difference between theory and practice. The point is that in theory, Journalism is supposed to be the pursuit and reporting of the truth without apology.
In practice, that noble concept is generally parroted by skevy reporters trying to hide a questionable source during a libel trial.
I don't really see how the ease with which a photo can be manipulated has anything to do with it. It's always been true that creating false witnesses and misleading photographs has been possible, even easy. The Spanish - American war happened largely because Hearst drummed up support with fictional accounts of Spanish atrocities.
The point is, you're not supposed to do it. It's an ideal that we're supposed to have. Journalism is supposed to be about the truth.
Is the newspaper in question rife with bias? Probably. Most of them are.
Do most Photo Journalists frame their photos to get the impact they want? Of course.
Are the available facts worded and framed to create the message that the author intends? Yes.
Is the noble concept of Journalistic Integrity ever seen in practice? In isolated cases, I'm sure it has.
But falsifying a photographs is against the code. It's wrong. It's not the same thing as choosing to ignore certain sources, or kneeling to get an angle you want in the shot. It's the same thing as making up quotes, or even creating witnesses from scratch. It's too far beyond simply having a bias and reporting what you want to report, it's reporting what just isn't so.
Is stealing a candy bar from CVS easy? Yes it is. Is modifying a picture for publication as news easy? Yes it is. Are they both wrong? Yes they are.
As a former journalism student and someone who has been in print a few times in High School and College, I think I can say what part of the Big Deal is.
Journalism is supposed to be accurate and unbiased. In practice this rarely happens, but the theory is there. The paper has a policy forbidding the modifying of photos, and they enforce it.
It's similar to the honor code many schools use. Cheating only hurts the student in the long run, but it can still get them kicked out of the school.
The point is the moral and ethical code. Journalists have a moral imperative to report the truth, and any modification, any stretching of the truth is a step down a slippery slope towards outright lies and falsehoods.
The photographer was fired for good reason. A modified photo is fine as a piece of "art" but as journalism it brings the entire publication's integrity and honesty into question.
I could go on, but my hope is that the majority of the people reading this thread realize that what the photographer did was a violation. It's not like photoshopping a playboy shoot to remove a pimple. This is falsifying the news. It's a small fake, a minor tweak, but it's still presenting falsehood as reality.
And before you make a wise ass reply about the fallacy of journalistic integrity in the real world, keep in mind, I did say "In practice this rarely happens".
Boot form the CD. Select the cheats. Boot the game. The cheat program runs in memory changing values for you so you have lots of cash, lots of lives and so on.
Windows crashing with a mysterious error message when run under Dr. Dos instead of MS DOC. MS eventually lost the lawsuit in that one. Turned out they had designed Windows to detect the DOS vendor and crash if a non MS Dos was found.
I had wisely saved a lot of SPAM messages from my 100 a day work account, so I had a LOT of them for use in training the filter. After two days I'd say it's catching about 95% of the Spam, and all the false positives are from the Marketing department. (AKA, it's SPAM I need to white list.)
I know what you mean. It's been so good at work that I'm going to use it at home and migrate all my Pegasus and Outlook Express mail to Mozilla 1.3
I did get a great laugh though. One of the sales guys wants to send out a renewal notice. I read the text and realized it was worded like a stereotypical SPAM. I raised objections, but was ignored.
Then the Mozilla SPAM filter caught it during the test phase.
Slashdot Mirror
"interact with the browser to modify or control one or more of the browser functions, such that the user is directed to a predesignated site or page, instead of accessing the site or page typically associated with the selected browser function."
So he patented misleading people via a web browser...
Intersting.
Two reasons:
/. stole the phrase from fark.com, who puts in on just about every other article.
/. crowd would LOVE it. If Torvalds came down with the same cancer, it would be the biggest tragedy in geek history.
1.
2. It's "funny" when someone you hate suffers. For example: If Bill Gates was diagnosed with a terminal cancer, the
It would be a geek tragedy.
But does it support the ATI Radeon 9000 Pro out of the box???
That card is a monster to get up an running on Linux. Anyone manage it yet? ARG!!!!!
Oh yeah, I switched to Opera to block shiat like that. :)
Spyware?
Crap that crashed Mozilla and IE?
HA!
I fart in your general direction.
I'm reminded of the old "If people treated their cars the way tehy treat their computers" e-mail that circulated a while back.
I like the idea.
People need to know that they need certain basic skills to use a computer, and it's NOT as easy as using a VCR.
Sadly, people think computers should require zero new skills (Because they hate learning) and Microsoft agrees, so we get ever more castrated operating systems.
*sigh*
All good points.
I think the connection issues you mentioned with AOL is one of the reasons it's a beginner's ISP. It's easy to use, but the bottom line is it's not the most reliable or functional bundle around. Even casual gamers need to get ready to move on.
I think the reasons you mentioned are more a case of being misguided than anything else. That said, whatever the reasons for buying Netscape and Winamp, they've kept them going, and apparently well funded for quite a while.
However, with Winamp 3.x, I think the argument can be made that AOL is probably setting up contingency plans in case they have to go against Microsoft's IE and Media Player. I imagine it gives them more bargaining power just to have well funded and functional alternatives, even if they ever need to use them.
Because every other Player I looked at DID support it, and I didn't realize that the PS2 didn't.
That and I already knew the chipset used in the PS2 did support VCD playback. Guess they disabled it or I got bad information.
How common is VCD support for DVD players anyway?
*blush*
Well, I had an AOL account in 1993...
It wasn't until 1994 that I had real internet access.
Most techies who sees an AOL address assumes they're dealing with someone who is "new" or has the skill set of someone who is "new." While the "Me too" posts are annoying, they are not unique to AOL.
The example you give, dumping untrained drivers on the roads, is not the best one. On the Internet, being the average AOL user (I'm referring to the stereotype here) does not generally put the lives and property of others in danger.
AOL is more like driver's ed class. The @aol.com address is the computer equivalent of the big yellow "Student Driver" sign we put on Driving Education cars in the US. It's a warning.
At least on the Internet, you can filter @aol material to the trash bin, be it on Usenet using a decent news reader, or in your e-mail.
Besides, do you REALLY want to lock new users out? We were all new users once, why is there so much anger against the newbies? At least AOL lets us identify them with a big label, as opposed to a cable modem account, which doesn't tell us much of anything.
Not rude at all.
I am actually planning to get a region free player a friend of mine recommends. The running joke is that "It plays pancakes." Darn thing even plays mpeg videos that have been burned to CD. (Only way to see some of the now banned Disney WWII propaganda films. Find "Educated for Death" to see some disturbing old material)
I'm just annoyed that someone buying it in a few months will have better video quality, a remote that can power the damn thing down and a few other features I would have liked in my PS2.
And giving the remote its own IR port is a BIG thing.
And of course this will be another $300 for those of us who already bought the thing.
If we want the new features that is.
I'm not even THINKING about it until I hear it supports VCDs. I know the quality of a VCD is terrible compared to DVD, but a VCD is comparable to my camcorder and is sometimes the only format in which some Chinese and Japanese material is available.
I was PISSED when I tried to play a VCD of my sister's wedding in my PS2 and it didn't work.
The sickening thing is that the DVD player in the PS2 was based on hardware that CAN play VCDs, they just disabled it.
AOL gets a bad rap, and I've been trying to figure out why.
They are the reason Netscape is still around, and just about all the money that went into developing Mozilla came from AOL.
They pay for the development of Winamp, and distribute it free of charge.
They created and maintain the single largest FREE Instant messaging client out there. AIM cost them money.
They have a simplified system that lets people new to computers and the Internet get online with little fuss. They are a decent entry level ISP.
They are one of the few competitors Microsoft has to take seriously.
They sue Spammers, or at least try to.
So why are they so hated?
Customer service sucks, is even predatory.
All those damn coasters they send out.
They're possibly the biggest ISP out there.
Lighten up. Someone out there started hating AOL and it's snowballed since then. If AOL dies Mozilla goes with it, as does AIM, Winamp and Netscape.
Mozilla might survive as a sourceforge project, but most of the developers will be gone. For all intents and purposes, it will be dead.
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said,
"If you can only afford one newspaper, buy the opposition's."
It depends on the school.
At a good school, you learn while you're there. This is generally far more true of college than high school though.
If you didn't learn anything at school, then you went to the wrong school.
Of course, half the education you get in High School and College is what you get from interacting with other people.
If you really didn't learn anything during your school days, especially about yourself, then you went through the experience with a closed mind.
It was a minor.
I went into computer programming when I graduated.
I know there is a substantial difference between theory and practice. The point is that in theory, Journalism is supposed to be the pursuit and reporting of the truth without apology.
In practice, that noble concept is generally parroted by skevy reporters trying to hide a questionable source during a libel trial.
I don't really see how the ease with which a photo can be manipulated has anything to do with it. It's always been true that creating false witnesses and misleading photographs has been possible, even easy. The Spanish - American war happened largely because Hearst drummed up support with fictional accounts of Spanish atrocities.
The point is, you're not supposed to do it. It's an ideal that we're supposed to have. Journalism is supposed to be about the truth.
Is the newspaper in question rife with bias? Probably. Most of them are.
Do most Photo Journalists frame their photos to get the impact they want? Of course.
Are the available facts worded and framed to create the message that the author intends? Yes.
Is the noble concept of Journalistic Integrity ever seen in practice? In isolated cases, I'm sure it has.
But falsifying a photographs is against the code. It's wrong. It's not the same thing as choosing to ignore certain sources, or kneeling to get an angle you want in the shot. It's the same thing as making up quotes, or even creating witnesses from scratch. It's too far beyond simply having a bias and reporting what you want to report, it's reporting what just isn't so.
Is stealing a candy bar from CVS easy? Yes it is. Is modifying a picture for publication as news easy? Yes it is. Are they both wrong? Yes they are.
Yes, Geraldo, a perfect example of "In practice this rarely happens."
guido1 (108876) on Wednesday April 02, @03:05PM (#5646688)
Gee, I saw the 3 photographs and really don't see what the big deal is.
Directly from the article:
Journalism ethics forbid changing the content of news photographs, and it is specifically barred in the newspaper's policy.
So, he violated his employers policy, and he exercised bad ethics. Pretty simple...
As a former journalism student and someone who has been in print a few times in High School and College, I think I can say what part of the Big Deal is.
Journalism is supposed to be accurate and unbiased. In practice this rarely happens, but the theory is there. The paper has a policy forbidding the modifying of photos, and they enforce it.
It's similar to the honor code many schools use. Cheating only hurts the student in the long run, but it can still get them kicked out of the school.
The point is the moral and ethical code. Journalists have a moral imperative to report the truth, and any modification, any stretching of the truth is a step down a slippery slope towards outright lies and falsehoods.
The photographer was fired for good reason. A modified photo is fine as a piece of "art" but as journalism it brings the entire publication's integrity and honesty into question.
I could go on, but my hope is that the majority of the people reading this thread realize that what the photographer did was a violation. It's not like photoshopping a playboy shoot to remove a pimple. This is falsifying the news. It's a small fake, a minor tweak, but it's still presenting falsehood as reality.
And before you make a wise ass reply about the fallacy of journalistic integrity in the real world, keep in mind, I did say "In practice this rarely happens".
Gameshark
Codebreaker
There are others, but they do the same thing.
Boot form the CD. Select the cheats. Boot the game. The cheat program runs in memory changing values for you so you have lots of cash, lots of lives and so on.
This has been going on isnce the pre win 3.1 days
Windows crashing with a mysterious error message when run under Dr. Dos instead of MS DOC. MS eventually lost the lawsuit in that one. Turned out they had designed Windows to detect the DOS vendor and crash if a non MS Dos was found.
"Everquest on Linux"
You make that sound like a good thing.
Evercrack is more like it. *Shudder*
I had wisely saved a lot of SPAM messages from my 100 a day work account, so I had a LOT of them for use in training the filter. After two days I'd say it's catching about 95% of the Spam, and all the false positives are from the Marketing department. (AKA, it's SPAM I need to white list.)
I know what you mean. It's been so good at work that I'm going to use it at home and migrate all my Pegasus and Outlook Express mail to Mozilla 1.3
:)
I did get a great laugh though. One of the sales guys wants to send out a renewal notice. I read the text and realized it was worded like a stereotypical SPAM. I raised objections, but was ignored.
Then the Mozilla SPAM filter caught it during the test phase.
The registration notice is now being rewritten.
Sounds like a gay, transexual porn star.
(Apologies to all the real trannies out there, I know slashdot has a few. Nothing against you, Linda Lightfoot just sounds like a bad porn name.)