Don't ask me what the roots are, I think vir has something to do with being very small.
No, that would be "micro" (or is that Greek?). Anyhow, IANAR, but I'm pretty sure the the "vi" root is the same one we find in "virile", "vital", "vitamin", "revive", "viable", &. The root can also be seen in the romance languages (which evolved in part from ancient latin), where it appears almost universally in common nouns and verbs having to do with the concept of "life".
If, as posted elswhere, "virus" is latin for "poison", then it probably had a literal meaning closer to "anti-life"--or maybe carried cultural connotations of "disease" rather than the modern concept of "poison".
Which is just my long-winded way of saying, "no, I 'm pretty sure it doesn't mean 'small'".
Hrm. I guess I should start by explaining that the anime I enjoy generally follows a Rule of Threes; that is, "good anime should have at least two of the following three elements: Concept, Comedy, Kicking Ass".
Recommended Anime:
Akira: Concept--both Visual and Narrative--carries the day on this one. The animation was incredible in its day, and sets a high standard even now. And of course there's ample (dark) comedy, seasoned with a dash of ass-kicking action. I'm surprised it isn't at the top of everybody's list!
Wings of Honneamise: Again, it's about concept. A space race, a cold-to-hot war, a religious discussion, and some of the most visually stunning art that I've ever seen in any animation, Nipponese or otherwise. Also some dark and light comedy, and quite a bit of action.
Bubblegum Crisis/Crash: What can I say? It's the first anime I ever saw, and I've been in love with the Knight Sabers ever since. The obviously derivative ideas and stories are balanced by a fresh treatement that gives the whole series the feel of an homage, rather than the sour taste of "rip-off" that Armitage III left in my mouth. Concept isn't quite as strong here, but there's enough comedy and action to make up for it.
Ninja Scroll: Everybody's recommended this already, so I don't have to sing its praises here. I would like to mention that there is a sequel of sorts, titled Jubei's Revenge or something (at least when presented by the US vendors), that I still haven't seen, much to my regret.
Gunnm (Battle Angel Alita): A rare case of the anime being as good as--though different from--the original manga.
Neon Genesis Evangelion: This series is indescribable, but absolutely mandatory. Go watch it now!
Lupin III: I never really liked it, but there's no denying it's an anime classic. You can't really appreciate the genre without being exposed to this grandmaster funk of anime, from what I tend to think of as the "Speed Racer era".
My Anime To-Do List
Lain: Everybody I've spoken to says this is a must see. It's been so long since I've seen any really good anime that I'm willing to succumb to peer pressure on this one.
Sukeban Deka: I'm not sure I've spelled this correctly, but from what I understand this anime is unique in the Street-Fighter-Schoolgirl-Ninja-Yo-Yo category. The animation looks good in all the previews, and I keep pressuring my local dealer to put a copy on the rental shelf. As soon as he does, I'm there, man!
Not Recommended
Ghost in the Shell: I know this sounds heretical, but it really sucked, IMHO. I'd just finished the manga, which is absolutely Masamune Shirow's best work so far, and was horrified with the way the movie mangled all the concepts. Where the manga had deep, insightful dialog about the nature of consciousness and the values of an info/tech-based society, the anime had plodding, obfuscated drivel. All the neato visual tricks in the world couldn't make up for a total loss of meaning. It's really sad, too, since the story is actually very meaningful. Some people may argue that I'm just bent out of shape because the movie didn't spell out the concepts in small words for me to understand, but I know this isn't true. Shirow is always abstruse, and the best thing about his comics is that they contain so many layers if meaning that multiple readings are necessary. The movie was just clumsy where Shirow is deft and subtle.
Argh. This is turning into a rant. I'd apologise, but then you'd ask me why I didn't just delete the forgoing instead. What I will do, however, is recommend that you acquire and devour Shirow's Appleseed manga series as quickly as possible. It's a stunning analysis of humanity's relationship with technology, evolution, and apotheosis. And the art is good, too.
Anyhow, it's way past time for me to take my opinionated ass offline.
Not many people can claim "I conceived the use of a purpose-designed network employing packet switching in which the stream of bits is broken up into short messages, or 'packets', that find their way individually to the destination, where they are reassembled into the original stream."
Actually, Nobody can claim that, since I beleive Allan Konrad already holds the patent for that technology.
It seems to me, both from the wording of the document and from the responses of Apogee bigwigs to/.'s self-righteous indignation, that what Apogee intends with this policy is actually both straightforward and legal:
To wit, Apogee reserves the right to sue you for trademark infringement if you claim to be an "official" Apogee fansite, in the event that you a) use their trademarks on your site (e.g., to make a clear association in readers' minds between your site and Apogee's products), and b) post negative or derogatory comments about Apogee products.
I don't think anybody at Apogee expects this policy to trump "Fair Use" or the 1st Amendment. I don't even think they plan to use it this way--though, admittedly, they might.
But who cares? Don't you people have anything more germane to be so fscking rabid about?
Right. So what we really want to know is: What was Fermat's proof? Did he prove it by way of the so-called "Taniyama-Shimura conjecture", or did he have some other, more elegant (or simply more spooky) proof in mind?
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material.
#disclaimer=IANAL Not true. The fact is that the material is allegedly copyrighted. The law may be unclear in this case, and is anyway certainly open to interpretation. Ultimately, the arguments for and against M$ claim would be heard in a court of law, and judged by legal experts according to their merits.
Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
Again, not true. The response has been to challenge M$'s claim of trade secrecy, which I understand to be a condition mutually exclusive of copyright. And keep in mind that this response doens't preclude Andover from arguing against the copyright claim at a later date.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Well, they claimed they had copyrighted it. Slashdot may be in the wrong. Then again, maybe not. If neither side backs down, then the courts will decide whether or not this is in fact the case.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
I think this has always been Slashdot's policy, whether "official" or not. As implied in Roblimo's initial reply, and at the top of this legal response, and in the ongoing discussion in this and other forums, Slashdot may in fact have no duty under the law to remove any copyrighted material posted by users.
It seems to me that HTML is functionally similar to page-layout protocols in print media.
Thus the question should not be "Does the NYT have the rights to its content", but instead "Does the NYT hold the rights to its particular combination of column width, font size, gutter width, and headline/text/image ratios".
a temporary economic quirk that was renderred irrelevant by the progress of electronic communications technology.
Hmm... But what happens when the progress of "electronic communications technology" allows bands to perform "live" over the internet?
I expect that in the future we will see a convergence of album releases and live performances, where the two are a single event, your personal collection is assembled from the "concert", or from the "concert" archive, and you'd still pay for each instance of the music you acquire (i.e., you'd pay for the concert, and you'd also pay to download the music later).
One change I see is that by paying to experience the broadcast performance, you'd also be paying for the right to keep a copy of that performance--the "album"--locally. The other change would be that you'd be paying the artist directly, rather than the record-publishing industry.
Re:After Skimming the Article...
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 1
Wow. I've been opinionated at times, but this is really embarassing. I crafted my original post late last night, when it seemed like a good idea.
Looking at it now, 10 hours later, it's obvious to me that I had no clue... even without reading the responses.
And the responses are truly excellent; they put me to shame. I'm emberassed to be in this thread, and probably deserve to be moderated down severely.
About the only mitigating factor is that my post spawned a discussion thread that is interesting to me--which makes me a troll, I guess.
"Oh, the funky horror!"
After Skimming the Article...
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 5
I get the feeling this is more likely yellow journalism than a thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons...
My impression is that this article could be reduced to: "An industrial accident at FooCorp. injured x workers and exposed many more to hazardous materials. Does this remind us of the old 'ends vs. means' question and the dangers of exploiting advanced technology? Yes. Do I, as yet another journalist re-hashing this question have an answer? No."
What frustrates me is that stories like this run not to raise awareness so much as to sell copy. It's FUD, pure and simple.
I guess the only difference here is that the "computer industry" allegedly claims to be "cleaner" and "safer" than other industries.
Sure, I guess. I mean, I've never really heard any of those claims, while I am aware of the hazmats and pollution attendant on high-tech manufacturing. So I'm unaware of any hypocrisy here--this feels more like FUD to me.
Every industry has demonstrated clear hazards to life and limb for those involved in it, and while people have often questioned the "goodness" of those industries, it's interesting to note that we continued to [mine coal|manufacture plastics|hunt whales|&c.] until the economic factors dictated otherwise--safety, both personal and environmental, has always been a secondary consideration.
This threat from the "computer is either a) a non-issue, relatively speaking, or b) suitable for serious discussion outside of random slow-news-day pseudo-editorials.
But then, I'm a cynical bastard with little or no moral conscience, so what do I know?
So it seems that Pinkerton is using the following defense:
"It's not our idea, we've just been hired to implement it. If we don't someone else will, and why should we give up market share? Besides, someone else has already made the moral and ethical decisions--those decisions are not ours to make in this case."
Jon Katz should have taken his well-researched, reasonable discussion to the real decision-makers, not the hired gun who's just doing the job.
Is it wrong to commit immoral acts for money? By definition, yes. Is Pinkerton doing just that? Probably. Is it more effective to dispute with the hired gun, or the guy who did the hiring? In this case, I'd have to say the latter.
I applaud Katz, and/., but clearly this issue needs to be debated at a higher level before any policy changes are made.
So historically citizens of oppresive regimes have asserted their right to overthrow those regimes.
It is important in any society to have the means to effect change, and fight off oppression.
Many modern nations have ample legal, nonviolent means to combat injustice. We may complain at length about the efficacy of these means, but they are there, and well-used.
I believe that when a government infringes upon your rights, you should avail yourself of all legal, nonviolent means to eliminate that infringement. In the event that these means fail, then it is time to consider revolution and overthrow of the oppressive regime.
For this reason, I think it is necessary to defend the right to bear arms at all costs. Any government that reserves to itself the tools and methods for effecting drastic, violent change is virtually unassailable by its subjects. The people must have access to these tools, or they lose their last line of defense against tyranny.
Before the flames begin (or am I just flattering myself, and this post will be ignored:), please note that I see armed revolt as the last line of defense, not the first--but once that final option is eliminated, then tyrants are free to eliminate all other freedoms as well.
One could argue that this applies to control of information as well, and extend this theory to the Internet, Patent/Copyright law, &c. On the other hand, one could also that my argument is utter crap and proceed to poke large chunks of logic and data through its gaping holes.
These two courses of action are left as an excercise to the thoughtful reader.
Here's a conundrum, taken from the world of Cable Television:
Network Television: You pay for the shampoo, and the shampoo pays for your T.J.Hooker. Downside: Shampoo ads in the middle of T.J. Hooker.
Ideal Cable Television: You pay for the shampoo, and you pay for T.J.Hooker. Upside: No shampoo ads interrupting your program.
Typical Cable Television: You pay for the shampoo, you pay for the Shatner, and you still get shampoo commercials in the middle of your programs.
Which implementation is the best?
The Point: How do you want to pay for your Internet and World Wide Web? How much service do you want for what you pay? How many of you are perfectly willing to put up with cable bills and commercials in order to get extra spiffy programming? How is this very different for current e-service funding schemes? Discuss.
Let's say that there is a set standard for education in a particular field. For example, let's say that the English 1A class is standardized across all the Universities, so that when a student graduates from this class, no matter where he took it, he will have the same understanding and command of English as any other student who graduated from this class with the same grade.
Let's say further that this standard is reasonable: it is neither too lenient (i.e., crediting students for comprehension they do not have or else failing to require a necessary level of comprhension), nor too strict (i.e., it does not demand of students an unnecessary or excessive level of comprehension).
So we have a universal standard, and we agree that the standard is reasonable. This results in a curriculum that reflects this standard, and it results in a requirement that the teachers teach this curriculum. Any teacher who teaches to a lower standard does their students a grave disservice, especially if they then pass these students as having met the standard. Teachers who teach to a higher standard may not fail their students, if they raise their students to the standard (and possibly above it). Teachers that teach to a higher standard, and abandon the laggards in their classroom, and finally fail them, are as bad as those that teach too leniently. Finally, teachers that are just plain incompetent also fail their students--though arguably no more or less than teachers too strict or too lenient.
But what about teachers who rigorously and competently teach the standard, but are burdened by unprepared students? There are a number of memes out there relating to the abysmal education our high-school students receive. This education supposedly prepares them to achieve the college-level standards, but may in fact fail to do so.
Is it the good teacher's fault that so many of his students fail? Should he call his class English 1A, but actually teach a remedial course? Wouldn't this be the same sort of teaching that allegedly goes on at the high-school level, where students are passed, for whatever reason except the only reason that matters: because they have learned the material?
Looking to the students who fail may provide some insight into the skill of the teacher, but disgruntlement should never be taken seriously in a vacuum.
IMHO, the solution to apparent bad teaching is obvious: if a teacher is failing a disproportionate number of students, this is immediately and painfully obvious to anyone who might care--the University administration, for example. In theory, this should be enough to warrant a review of the standard, the curriculum, and the teaching methods of the instructor. The administration can interview, survey, and poll the students, and draw rational conclusions both from their own observations and the data collected.
Websites like the one discussed here are almost completely beside the point.
Bah. Until search engines become a lot smarter, and have much better interfaces, nobody will "discover search engines".
[factoid alert] Out there in the real world, most people are technophobes; they will find one thing and one thing only that works for them, and will use it exlusively forever.
They will also pass along knowledge of their discovery by word-of-mouth to other consumers (also technophobes). None of them will be recommending search engines anytime soon. Mindshare is Amazon's greatest asset, IMHO.
Pokemon Butts + Battery-Powered Birdies + Plasma Laces + Glowing Electric Wire + TCIP/IP Tunneling Over Mail =A Hyper-Lightspeed Antenna!
The Pokemon Butts react with the Battery-Powered Birdies to generate the opposing planes of force, while the Plasma Laces and the Glowing Electric Wire provide the parallel heat sources and the "input" and "output" "ports".
TCP/IP Tunneling over Mail is the obvious protocol to use for communication: with negative latency, no less!
Re:The Other Applications Are Better
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 1
Unless there's a popular web-site that specifies the format of each check-box so that everyone can play on an even field.
Why wouldn't the service provider ("Geeklife.com" or something:) simply put up a website?
The more I think about this, the more I like it...God, what I wouldn't give for 100k US "angel money" and 3-4 key knowledge workers right now!
The Other Applications Are Better
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 5
The real thing here is to be able to list not just optimal "dating configurations" but configs for other things as well:
2-Hour layover? No worries! You'll be automatically notified if any Linux-minded persons enter your area!
Comdex sucks rocks this year? Link up with everyone else who agrees with you, and go get tanked somewhere fun!
Car battery died? Let everyone in the parking lot know that you could use a jump, without having to raise your voice!
Okay, I probably made the whole thing look even stupider, but there's a lot of networking potential here. Society (and population density in some areas) gets in the way of getting to know our neighbors--with the right application this system could introduce us to the true "neighbors" we might never otherwise become aware of.
But that's just my own spur-of-the-moment, ill-considered.02gp
You know what? I owe you an apology: after taking you to task for posting an opinion without giving any indication that you'd read the relevant articles, I realized that I'd not read O'Reilly's response myself!
I acted like an idiot and an asshole. I'm sorry.
Now that I've read O'Reilly's response to Bezos' letter, I realize that Tim did not actually agree with Bezos. On some points, yes, but on some key issues O'Reilly clearly and strongly disagreed. Lackwit.
Amazon has managed to enforce a patent on using cookies to streamline user interaction with websites. Tim O'Reilly has agreed that this is reasonable. End of story.
TRANSLATION: Hi, I have an extremely biased and under-specified opinion that I'd like to present without any supporting arguments or evidence of basic knowledge of the real context.
This is actually only the beginning of the story, you lackwit. Have you asked yourself--or anybody else, for that matter, why O'Reilly agrees that this is reasonable?
Have you read any of the previous discussion posted by O'Reilly, describing with considerable detail and clarity the thinking behind both his position and Bezos' position (as presented by Bezos to O'Reilly)?
Clearly you have "strong heart, weak head" if this is the best way you can frame the issue!
Designing a windows-like interface on the assumption that even your grandmother will be able to use it (presumably because it's "intuitive") flatly ignores the fact that your grandmother--er, my grandfather--doesn't actually find windows very intuitive at all!
IMHO, Microsoft attempted to kill two birds w/ one stone when they released their windows GUI:
1. Compete with the innovative and relatively non-counterintuitive Mac UI.
2. Provide some sort of intuitive interface to their own OS, filesystem, and utilities.
I've listed them in order of (presumed) importance:)
I think (1) was accomplished more through MS' now-legendary strongarm business style, and (2) was never accomplished at all, really. Once MS dominated the UI market, any need to improve the UI to the point where any end-user could actually use it more or less vanished--and windows has failed to become significantly more intuitive since then. It's interesting to note that neither has the MacOS, and that all attempts since then have been simple variations on the same Xerox PARC theme.
I know that the above statements are probably tasty flamebait for all you OS zealots out there, but keep in mind that most of the "rilly rilly cool sh1+" that has been added to your fave OS/UI is not "improvements that make the UI more intuitive to the new user" but "bitchin' shortcuts and utilities for the experienced user/geek".
My question is this: since the issue is clear, where is the Open Source UI development initiative? Why is everyone sitting around complaining that "intuitive means copying windows, even though windows sucks" while continuing to code for the cognoscenti?
My answer is this: I'll be glad to use any OS/UI that/. gives me, and provide end-user feedback. I'm not a coder--but that's okay, since I'm more interested in an OS that works, and a UI that is easy to use. I do do work in a computer-technical field, so I do have some knowledge of the power-user's needs, though:)
If you're interested in forming a developer/user relationship for the purpose of researching and designing a truly new and useful interface, drop me a line at otteratkmfmsdotcom.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't ask me what the roots are, I think vir has something to do with being very small.
No, that would be "micro" (or is that Greek?). Anyhow, IANAR, but I'm pretty sure the the "vi" root is the same one we find in "virile", "vital", "vitamin", "revive", "viable", &. The root can also be seen in the romance languages (which evolved in part from ancient latin), where it appears almost universally in common nouns and verbs having to do with the concept of "life".
If, as posted elswhere, "virus" is latin for "poison", then it probably had a literal meaning closer to "anti-life"--or maybe carried cultural connotations of "disease" rather than the modern concept of "poison".
Which is just my long-winded way of saying, "no, I 'm pretty sure it doesn't mean 'small'".
Hrm. I guess I should start by explaining that the anime I enjoy generally follows a Rule of Threes; that is, "good anime should have at least two of the following three elements: Concept, Comedy, Kicking Ass".
Recommended Anime:
Akira: Concept--both Visual and Narrative--carries the day on this one. The animation was incredible in its day, and sets a high standard even now. And of course there's ample (dark) comedy, seasoned with a dash of ass-kicking action. I'm surprised it isn't at the top of everybody's list!
Wings of Honneamise: Again, it's about concept. A space race, a cold-to-hot war, a religious discussion, and some of the most visually stunning art that I've ever seen in any animation, Nipponese or otherwise. Also some dark and light comedy, and quite a bit of action.
Bubblegum Crisis/Crash: What can I say? It's the first anime I ever saw, and I've been in love with the Knight Sabers ever since. The obviously derivative ideas and stories are balanced by a fresh treatement that gives the whole series the feel of an homage, rather than the sour taste of "rip-off" that Armitage III left in my mouth. Concept isn't quite as strong here, but there's enough comedy and action to make up for it.
Ninja Scroll: Everybody's recommended this already, so I don't have to sing its praises here. I would like to mention that there is a sequel of sorts, titled Jubei's Revenge or something (at least when presented by the US vendors), that I still haven't seen, much to my regret.
Gunnm (Battle Angel Alita): A rare case of the anime being as good as--though different from--the original manga.
Neon Genesis Evangelion: This series is indescribable, but absolutely mandatory. Go watch it now!
Lupin III: I never really liked it, but there's no denying it's an anime classic. You can't really appreciate the genre without being exposed to this grandmaster funk of anime, from what I tend to think of as the "Speed Racer era".
My Anime To-Do List
Lain: Everybody I've spoken to says this is a must see. It's been so long since I've seen any really good anime that I'm willing to succumb to peer pressure on this one.
Sukeban Deka: I'm not sure I've spelled this correctly, but from what I understand this anime is unique in the Street-Fighter-Schoolgirl-Ninja-Yo-Yo category. The animation looks good in all the previews, and I keep pressuring my local dealer to put a copy on the rental shelf. As soon as he does, I'm there, man!
Not Recommended
Ghost in the Shell: I know this sounds heretical, but it really sucked, IMHO. I'd just finished the manga, which is absolutely Masamune Shirow's best work so far, and was horrified with the way the movie mangled all the concepts. Where the manga had deep, insightful dialog about the nature of consciousness and the values of an info/tech-based society, the anime had plodding, obfuscated drivel. All the neato visual tricks in the world couldn't make up for a total loss of meaning. It's really sad, too, since the story is actually very meaningful. Some people may argue that I'm just bent out of shape because the movie didn't spell out the concepts in small words for me to understand, but I know this isn't true. Shirow is always abstruse, and the best thing about his comics is that they contain so many layers if meaning that multiple readings are necessary. The movie was just clumsy where Shirow is deft and subtle.
Argh. This is turning into a rant. I'd apologise, but then you'd ask me why I didn't just delete the forgoing instead. What I will do, however, is recommend that you acquire and devour Shirow's Appleseed manga series as quickly as possible. It's a stunning analysis of humanity's relationship with technology, evolution, and apotheosis. And the art is good, too.
Anyhow, it's way past time for me to take my opinionated ass offline.
Not many people can claim "I conceived the use of a purpose-designed network employing packet switching in which the stream of bits is broken up into short messages, or 'packets', that find their way individually to the destination, where they are reassembled into the original stream."
Actually, Nobody can claim that, since I beleive Allan Konrad already holds the patent for that technology.
It seems to me, both from the wording of the document and from the responses of Apogee bigwigs to /.'s self-righteous indignation, that what Apogee intends with this policy is actually both straightforward and legal:
To wit, Apogee reserves the right to sue you for trademark infringement if you claim to be an "official" Apogee fansite, in the event that you
a) use their trademarks on your site (e.g., to make a clear association in readers' minds between your site and Apogee's products),
and
b) post negative or derogatory comments about Apogee products.
I don't think anybody at Apogee expects this policy to trump "Fair Use" or the 1st Amendment. I don't even think they plan to use it this way--though, admittedly, they might.
But who cares? Don't you people have anything more germane to be so fscking rabid about?
Right. So what we really want to know is: What was Fermat's proof? Did he prove it by way of the so-called "Taniyama-Shimura conjecture", or did he have some other, more elegant (or simply more spooky) proof in mind?
Well, that's what I want to know, anyway...
Am I the only one here who read Pirates of the Universe?
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material.
#disclaimer=IANAL
Not true. The fact is that the material is allegedly copyrighted. The law may be unclear in this case, and is anyway certainly open to interpretation. Ultimately, the arguments for and against M$ claim would be heard in a court of law, and judged by legal experts according to their merits.
Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
Again, not true. The response has been to challenge M$'s claim of trade secrecy, which I understand to be a condition mutually exclusive of copyright. And keep in mind that this response doens't preclude Andover from arguing against the copyright claim at a later date.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Well, they claimed they had copyrighted it. Slashdot may be in the wrong. Then again, maybe not. If neither side backs down, then the courts will decide whether or not this is in fact the case.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
I think this has always been Slashdot's policy, whether "official" or not. As implied in Roblimo's initial reply, and at the top of this legal response, and in the ongoing discussion in this and other forums, Slashdot may in fact have no duty under the law to remove any copyrighted material posted by users.
Isn't this precisely the sort of "copy sans commentary" that M$ is currently complaining about?
This post is certainly redundant at best, grievously irresponsible at worst.
So what I want to know is, am I protected under the freedom of the press (as a "journalist|reporter") by virtue of posting my commentary on /.?
It seems to me that HTML is functionally similar to page-layout protocols in print media.
Thus the question should not be "Does the NYT have the rights to its content", but instead "Does the NYT hold the rights to its particular combination of column width, font size, gutter width, and headline/text/image ratios".
a temporary economic quirk that was renderred irrelevant by the progress of electronic communications technology.
Hmm... But what happens when the progress of "electronic communications technology" allows bands to perform "live" over the internet?
I expect that in the future we will see a convergence of album releases and live performances, where the two are a single event, your personal collection is assembled from the "concert", or from the "concert" archive, and you'd still pay for each instance of the music you acquire (i.e., you'd pay for the concert, and you'd also pay to download the music later).
One change I see is that by paying to experience the broadcast performance, you'd also be paying for the right to keep a copy of that performance--the "album"--locally. The other change would be that you'd be paying the artist directly, rather than the record-publishing industry.
Wow. I've been opinionated at times, but this is really embarassing. I crafted my original post late last night, when it seemed like a good idea.
Looking at it now, 10 hours later, it's obvious to me that I had no clue... even without reading the responses.
And the responses are truly excellent; they put me to shame. I'm emberassed to be in this thread, and probably deserve to be moderated down severely.
About the only mitigating factor is that my post spawned a discussion thread that is interesting to me--which makes me a troll, I guess.
"Oh, the funky horror!"
I get the feeling this is more likely yellow journalism than a thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons...
My impression is that this article could be reduced to:
"An industrial accident at FooCorp. injured x workers and exposed many more to hazardous materials. Does this remind us of the old 'ends vs. means' question and the dangers of exploiting advanced technology? Yes. Do I, as yet another journalist re-hashing this question have an answer? No."
What frustrates me is that stories like this run not to raise awareness so much as to sell copy. It's FUD, pure and simple.
I guess the only difference here is that the "computer industry" allegedly claims to be "cleaner" and "safer" than other industries.
Sure, I guess. I mean, I've never really heard any of those claims, while I am aware of the hazmats and pollution attendant on high-tech manufacturing. So I'm unaware of any hypocrisy here--this feels more like FUD to me.
Every industry has demonstrated clear hazards to life and limb for those involved in it, and while people have often questioned the "goodness" of those industries, it's interesting to note that we continued to [mine coal|manufacture plastics|hunt whales|&c.] until the economic factors dictated otherwise--safety, both personal and environmental, has always been a secondary consideration.
This threat from the "computer is either a) a non-issue, relatively speaking, or b) suitable for serious discussion outside of random slow-news-day pseudo-editorials.
But then, I'm a cynical bastard with little or no moral conscience, so what do I know?
Clearly these people didn't see the commercial and think "Uh-oh...a commercial with a hyperrealistic cockroach: time to break the TV!"
Rather, they thought "Uh-oh...there's a cockroach in my TV: I'd better kill it!"
It's not like you've never been taken in by a clever ruse that caught you by surprise.
So it seems that Pinkerton is using the following defense:
"It's not our idea, we've just been hired to implement it. If we don't someone else will, and why should we give up market share? Besides, someone else has already made the moral and ethical decisions--those decisions are not ours to make in this case."
Jon Katz should have taken his well-researched, reasonable discussion to the real decision-makers, not the hired gun who's just doing the job.
Is it wrong to commit immoral acts for money? By definition, yes. Is Pinkerton doing just that? Probably. Is it more effective to dispute with the hired gun, or the guy who did the hiring? In this case, I'd have to say the latter.
I applaud Katz, and /., but clearly this issue needs to be debated at a higher level before any policy changes are made.
So historically citizens of oppresive regimes have asserted their right to overthrow those regimes.
It is important in any society to have the means to effect change, and fight off oppression.
Many modern nations have ample legal, nonviolent means to combat injustice. We may complain at length about the efficacy of these means, but they are there, and well-used.
I believe that when a government infringes upon your rights, you should avail yourself of all legal, nonviolent means to eliminate that infringement. In the event that these means fail, then it is time to consider revolution and overthrow of the oppressive regime.
For this reason, I think it is necessary to defend the right to bear arms at all costs. Any government that reserves to itself the tools and methods for effecting drastic, violent change is virtually unassailable by its subjects. The people must have access to these tools, or they lose their last line of defense against tyranny.
Before the flames begin (or am I just flattering myself, and this post will be ignored :), please note that I see armed revolt as the last line of defense, not the first--but once that final option is eliminated, then tyrants are free to eliminate all other freedoms as well.
One could argue that this applies to control of information as well, and extend this theory to the Internet, Patent/Copyright law, &c. On the other hand, one could also that my argument is utter crap and proceed to poke large chunks of logic and data through its gaping holes.
These two courses of action are left as an excercise to the thoughtful reader.
Here's a conundrum, taken from the world of Cable Television:
Network Television: You pay for the shampoo, and the shampoo pays for your T.J.Hooker. Downside: Shampoo ads in the middle of T.J. Hooker.
Ideal Cable Television: You pay for the shampoo, and you pay for T.J.Hooker. Upside: No shampoo ads interrupting your program.
Typical Cable Television: You pay for the shampoo, you pay for the Shatner, and you still get shampoo commercials in the middle of your programs.
Which implementation is the best?
The Point: How do you want to pay for your Internet and World Wide Web? How much service do you want for what you pay? How many of you are perfectly willing to put up with cable bills and commercials in order to get extra spiffy programming? How is this very different for current e-service funding schemes? Discuss.
What is really going on here?
Let's say that there is a set standard for education in a particular field. For example, let's say that the English 1A class is standardized across all the Universities, so that when a student graduates from this class, no matter where he took it, he will have the same understanding and command of English as any other student who graduated from this class with the same grade.
Let's say further that this standard is reasonable: it is neither too lenient (i.e., crediting students for comprehension they do not have or else failing to require a necessary level of comprhension), nor too strict (i.e., it does not demand of students an unnecessary or excessive level of comprehension).
So we have a universal standard, and we agree that the standard is reasonable. This results in a curriculum that reflects this standard, and it results in a requirement that the teachers teach this curriculum. Any teacher who teaches to a lower standard does their students a grave disservice, especially if they then pass these students as having met the standard. Teachers who teach to a higher standard may not fail their students, if they raise their students to the standard (and possibly above it). Teachers that teach to a higher standard, and abandon the laggards in their classroom, and finally fail them, are as bad as those that teach too leniently. Finally, teachers that are just plain incompetent also fail their students--though arguably no more or less than teachers too strict or too lenient.
But what about teachers who rigorously and competently teach the standard, but are burdened by unprepared students? There are a number of memes out there relating to the abysmal education our high-school students receive. This education supposedly prepares them to achieve the college-level standards, but may in fact fail to do so.
Is it the good teacher's fault that so many of his students fail? Should he call his class English 1A, but actually teach a remedial course? Wouldn't this be the same sort of teaching that allegedly goes on at the high-school level, where students are passed, for whatever reason except the only reason that matters: because they have learned the material?
Looking to the students who fail may provide some insight into the skill of the teacher, but disgruntlement should never be taken seriously in a vacuum.
IMHO, the solution to apparent bad teaching is obvious: if a teacher is failing a disproportionate number of students, this is immediately and painfully obvious to anyone who might care--the University administration, for example. In theory, this should be enough to warrant a review of the standard, the curriculum, and the teaching methods of the instructor. The administration can interview, survey, and poll the students, and draw rational conclusions both from their own observations and the data collected.
Websites like the one discussed here are almost completely beside the point.
Bah. Until search engines become a lot smarter, and have much better interfaces, nobody will "discover search engines".
[factoid alert] Out there in the real world, most people are technophobes; they will find one thing and one thing only that works for them, and will use it exlusively forever.
They will also pass along knowledge of their discovery by word-of-mouth to other consumers (also technophobes). None of them will be recommending search engines anytime soon. Mindshare is Amazon's greatest asset, IMHO.
Hrm. Perhaps you were thinking of:
Pokemon Butts
+ Battery-Powered Birdies
+ Plasma Laces
+ Glowing Electric Wire
+ TCIP/IP Tunneling Over Mail
=A Hyper-Lightspeed Antenna!
The Pokemon Butts react with the Battery-Powered Birdies to generate the opposing planes of force, while the Plasma Laces and the Glowing Electric Wire provide the parallel heat sources and the "input" and "output" "ports".
TCP/IP Tunneling over Mail is the obvious protocol to use for communication: with negative latency, no less!
Unless there's a popular web-site that specifies the format of each check-box so that everyone can play on an even field.
Why wouldn't the service provider ("Geeklife.com" or something :) simply put up a website?
The more I think about this, the more I like it...God, what I wouldn't give for 100k US "angel money" and 3-4 key knowledge workers right now!
The real thing here is to be able to list not just optimal "dating configurations" but configs for other things as well:
2-Hour layover? No worries! You'll be automatically notified if any Linux-minded persons enter your area!
Comdex sucks rocks this year? Link up with everyone else who agrees with you, and go get tanked somewhere fun!
Car battery died? Let everyone in the parking lot know that you could use a jump, without having to raise your voice!
Okay, I probably made the whole thing look even stupider, but there's a lot of networking potential here. Society (and population density in some areas) gets in the way of getting to know our neighbors--with the right application this system could introduce us to the true "neighbors" we might never otherwise become aware of.
But that's just my own spur-of-the-moment, ill-considered .02gp
You know what? I owe you an apology: after taking you to task for posting an opinion without giving any indication that you'd read the relevant articles, I realized that I'd not read O'Reilly's response myself!
I acted like an idiot and an asshole. I'm sorry.
Now that I've read O'Reilly's response to Bezos' letter, I realize that Tim did not actually agree with Bezos. On some points, yes, but on some key issues O'Reilly clearly and strongly disagreed. Lackwit.
Amazon has managed to enforce a patent on using cookies to streamline user interaction with websites. Tim O'Reilly has agreed that this is reasonable. End of story.
TRANSLATION:
Hi, I have an extremely biased and under-specified opinion that I'd like to present without any supporting arguments or evidence of basic knowledge of the real context.
This is actually only the beginning of the story, you lackwit. Have you asked yourself--or anybody else, for that matter, why O'Reilly agrees that this is reasonable?
Have you read any of the previous discussion posted by O'Reilly, describing with considerable detail and clarity the thinking behind both his position and Bezos' position (as presented by Bezos to O'Reilly)?
Clearly you have "strong heart, weak head" if this is the best way you can frame the issue!
Well, I question your grandmother reference.
Designing a windows-like interface on the assumption that even your grandmother will be able to use it (presumably because it's "intuitive") flatly ignores the fact that your grandmother--er, my grandfather--doesn't actually find windows very intuitive at all!
IMHO, Microsoft attempted to kill two birds w/ one stone when they released their windows GUI:
1. Compete with the innovative and relatively non-counterintuitive Mac UI.
2. Provide some sort of intuitive interface to their own OS, filesystem, and utilities.
I've listed them in order of (presumed) importance :)
I think (1) was accomplished more through MS' now-legendary strongarm business style, and (2) was never accomplished at all, really. Once MS dominated the UI market, any need to improve the UI to the point where any end-user could actually use it more or less vanished--and windows has failed to become significantly more intuitive since then. It's interesting to note that neither has the MacOS, and that all attempts since then have been simple variations on the same Xerox PARC theme.
I know that the above statements are probably tasty flamebait for all you OS zealots out there, but keep in mind that most of the "rilly rilly cool sh1+" that has been added to your fave OS/UI is not "improvements that make the UI more intuitive to the new user" but "bitchin' shortcuts and utilities for the experienced user/geek".
My question is this: since the issue is clear, where is the Open Source UI development initiative? Why is everyone sitting around complaining that "intuitive means copying windows, even though windows sucks" while continuing to code for the cognoscenti?
My answer is this: I'll be glad to use any OS/UI that /. gives me, and provide end-user feedback. I'm not a coder--but that's okay, since I'm more interested in an OS that works, and a UI that is easy to use. I do do work in a computer-technical field, so I do have some knowledge of the power-user's needs, though :)
If you're interested in forming a developer/user relationship for the purpose of researching and designing a truly new and useful interface, drop me a line at otteratkmfmsdotcom.