A lot of people have stated the sentiment that they don't want to pay to play online. Or they've said it should all be free, or that they don't like the games. So let's get down to the crux of it:
What WOULD you pay to play online?
What would you be willing to pay for it?
How would you be willing to pay?
They would never put this feature in say MS Word or Excel
Actually, they already have. Smart Tags ship standard with Office XP, BUT they aren't what you seem to think they are. The are not a vehicle for advertising. They are intended to link to content or applications. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Smart Tags do not "edit" or "re-edit" a site. People who are alarmed that Microsoft is going to start adding and removing content from their site are barking up the wrong tree. The article linked above did not do a good job explaining Smart Tags at all.
Here's a technical outline of what smart tags are:
A Smart Tag has two parts, a recognizer and an action item. The recognizer spots words or phrases in a document (like the sports teams mentioned in the article). The action item add action (like browsing to a web page) to those words. Though it does add some XML to the document, it doesn't change the HTML. Smart Tagged words don't look like regual HTML links. Instead they have a small squiggly purple underline. Also, they can be turned off at the browser. You can turn all smart tags off, or just turn off the ones you don't like. I know, because I've been developing with smart tags in Office XP for three months now.
Personally, I think smart tags are very useful in some contexts. If I'm doing stock research, for example, I'd love a smart tag that recognizes when I type in a publicly traded company's name. I must admit I'm not sure they belong in every web page I view. I don't want to be directed to a mediocre search page every time I read a web page.
If you're really interested in Smart Tags you should check out the Smart Tag SDK or the Smart Tags FAQ. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
In case it's not unbeleivably obvious to everyone, Slashdot is a weblog (not to mention others like NetSlaves and so on). Yeah, it's not the rantings of an angst ridden 13 year old, but who said weblogs have to be personal? I started up my weblog to post up news and pictures for family members who couldn't come to my wedding earlier this year and because Blogger makes it very easy to do so. It quickly evolved past that. The response included old college friends turning up in the discussion forum and some good technical discussions with total strangers. I've kept a website for 5 years, and never had that kind of response. Now some friends from my writing group have approached me about setting up a literary zine online through Blogger. It seems clear to me that weblogs are one of the main ways that people are going to use the web to communicate.
Blog on! _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Re:Why is it only psychotics post stuff online?
on
Online Journals
·
· Score: 1
uh... scratches head, has it occured to you that by posting to this forum, you beg the question? Now that you're on the psychos who posts online, maybe you can answer your own question. Maybe the people you're meeting are a function of how you go about meeting them. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
It seems to be a characteristic of the "mainstream" media that they feel compelled to spout nonsense about thing regarding which they have not the slightest clue. This article reads as though the writer did a Google search on "weblogs" at 9 and had the article finished by 10. It has that "look what those wacky Internet people are doing now" look I've come to abhor. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Well I don't agree with everything you've said, but at least you've got a well thought out and informed opinion. Given it's inevitable, I guess the question uppermost in my mind is "Who should to decide how cloning gets done?" and alongside it the practical question "Who IS going to decide how cloning gets done?". Maybe if we can answer the first one, we can influence the answer to the second one.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Have we really finally reached the point where we're capable of asking about a technology "should we do that"? I don't think so. Cloning is making it pretty clear that there's always _someone_ willing to take the chance. So if we can't rule out a technology, once it becomes possible, what do we do with it? Wait for government to figure out how to regulate it? Take to the streets with placards and gasmasks? What? _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
I am always bemused by these claims to a "back door" in windows. Why bother with back doors when there are holes in the front one? _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Slightly OT: has anyone seen the movie Kafka? Kafka was a brilliant sort of surrealistic film where Franz Kafka gets caught up in some bizarre themes taken from his own work. The brain-scope scene pops right into my mind. The "powers that be" build a huge lens so that they can look into the brain and figure out how people work. Kafka plays the role of physical hacker, literally breaking into the Castle through the file system and cracking the lens.
See it.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
There's a game called 1000 Blank White Cards that's pretty interesting. Basically you take a stack of blank cards, draw pictures on them and then away you go. It definitely blurs the line between "games" and "play" since the object of the game is entirely up to the players. It might work very well with children because they are so attuned to the concept of "pretend".
Tony _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
I'm not sure how much Buchanan spent, but the total gov't money was 12 million. Nader spent 6 million TOTAL. For perspective, Maria Cantwell and Slade Gorton both spend more than 12 million each on the Senatorial race here in Washington state.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
...according to exit polls. I think that many of Nader's supporters are new voters and people who might not have voted otherwise, so his impact on the result may not be that big at all.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
The answers posted above were gleaned from Nader's interviews and platform. He didn't reply to Slashdot personally. The blank questions are issues he hasn't addressed directly.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Don't jump to conclusions. Nader's answers to Slashdot were not custom created to appeal to this forum. The answers above are all taken from Nader's platform and from interviews he's given elsewhere, especially Here. This stuff is what the man beleives and stands for. He has nothing to gain by pandering to a fringe website, even one that gets the traffic that slashdot gets. Compare this to Gore, who advertised his "Open Source" web site, and Bush, who has no high-tech policy at all as far as I can tell. Respectfuly, _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Don't be too hasty about Gore and Bush! Remeber, these are just the two candidate who answered most quickly, i.e. the ones with the most time on their hands. (I'm holding out for Nader's reply myself).
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
It's worth noting, though, that at the time a lot of people read the newspapers and attended debates and speeches from candidates who travelled around the nation. For example, The Federalist Papers were published serially in newspapers around the country, and people read them avidly. Abraham Lincoln travelled from the bottom of the Mississippi to Chicago debating his opponent Douglas (can't recall his first name). The debates are published and you can still read them today as an amazing example of real and informative political rhetoric.
I guess my point is, if you wanted to be informed in days of yore, you could get informed. If you prefered to be ignorant, you had plenty of opportunity to remain so. Just like today. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Democrat: Vote for me and I'll give you lots of nice stuff.
Republican: Vote for me and some big corporations will give ME lots of nice stuff.
3rd Party: Donte $10 to my campaign, and I'll make you my running mate.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
I would have to disagree with your portrayal of Internet as being equivalent to radio, television and telephone. The idea is to provide acces to electronic repositories of information that may not be available in paper form. In the case of television, I can't go down to the library to watch the latest episode of "Friends", true. But I can order video tapes of many useful documentaries. Just so, most public libraries will not let me check my Hotmail account at their terminals, but they will let me access the Internet archives of magazines and newspapers that the library might not carry. IMHO, a highly valuable service, and one that is cheaper in public dollars than storing all that information in paper form. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
The purpose of having libraries is to provide the public access to information, and Internet filtering attacks this mission. There's no reliable way to filter out, for example, Porn, without denying library patrons access to: health information, information for survivors and victims of sexual abuse, scientific papers about human reproduction, discussions about sexual ethics and morals. The list goes on. There's no reliable way to filter bad information without filtering good information Not everyone has, or can afford, Internet access. For many people, libraries are their only free access to this information. They are also, for the most part, free of censorship. Every library I know anything about has policies against using library resources to access porn, or play games. This is reinforced by the library staff far more effectively than can be done by software. Some libraries have porn filters in the childrens secion, but allow full access from machines in other sections of the library, which seems to be a decent compromise. It's easy for Bush and Gore to talk about Internet censorship, they're just preaching to the reactionary and the ignorant.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
The problem here is deciding WHAT to block. For example, lets say you decide to block any site that uses words related to sex. This will include scientific articles about health and reproduction, public information about sexully transmitted diseases, public sites designed to provide help for people suffering sexual and physical abuse. Also of note, many public access internet terminals, i.e. those in libraries and schools, serve people who may not have the resources to get internet access at home. How many families in the Bronx don't have a computer in the house.
Then again, let them eat cake. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Now THAT'S why I read Slashdot. I am ashamed to admit that I wasn't aware the Libertarians were doing anything worth noting this year. Seems I was wrong. Now begins the mad flurry to find out everything I can about Harry Browne.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
To find the real meat in modern politics as in modern everything. This article looks to me like the work of someone who's just skimmed the surface. You should take a look at Ralph Nader's candidacy (www.votenader.org).
1) He's well poised to shake up the process
2) He's the only one who's blowing the whistle on how indistinguishable the two parties have become
3) He's completely funded by private individuals (like us).
4) Most important, (IMHO) he's showing us all what a political candidacy can look like in the 21st century, rather than the 18th.
Is Nader going to win this election? No, of course not. But he's already way ahead of Buchanan in the polls and I think he has a clue about the future. _____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people have stated the sentiment that they don't want to pay to play online. Or they've said it should all be free, or that they don't like the games. So let's get down to the crux of it:
What WOULD you pay to play online?
What would you be willing to pay for it?
How would you be willing to pay?
They would never put this feature in say MS Word or Excel Actually, they already have. Smart Tags ship standard with Office XP, BUT they aren't what you seem to think they are. The are not a vehicle for advertising. They are intended to link to content or applications.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Smart Tags do not "edit" or "re-edit" a site. People who are alarmed that Microsoft is going to start adding and removing content from their site are barking up the wrong tree. The article linked above did not do a good job explaining Smart Tags at all.
Here's a technical outline of what smart tags are: A Smart Tag has two parts, a recognizer and an action item. The recognizer spots words or phrases in a document (like the sports teams mentioned in the article). The action item add action (like browsing to a web page) to those words. Though it does add some XML to the document, it doesn't change the HTML. Smart Tagged words don't look like regual HTML links. Instead they have a small squiggly purple underline. Also, they can be turned off at the browser. You can turn all smart tags off, or just turn off the ones you don't like. I know, because I've been developing with smart tags in Office XP for three months now.
Personally, I think smart tags are very useful in some contexts. If I'm doing stock research, for example, I'd love a smart tag that recognizes when I type in a publicly traded company's name. I must admit I'm not sure they belong in every web page I view. I don't want to be directed to a mediocre search page every time I read a web page.
If you're really interested in Smart Tags you should check out the Smart Tag SDK or the Smart Tags FAQ.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
In case it's not unbeleivably obvious to everyone, Slashdot is a weblog (not to mention others like NetSlaves and so on). Yeah, it's not the rantings of an angst ridden 13 year old, but who said weblogs have to be personal? I started up my weblog to post up news and pictures for family members who couldn't come to my wedding earlier this year and because Blogger makes it very easy to do so. It quickly evolved past that. The response included old college friends turning up in the discussion forum and some good technical discussions with total strangers. I've kept a website for 5 years, and never had that kind of response. Now some friends from my writing group have approached me about setting up a literary zine online through Blogger. It seems clear to me that weblogs are one of the main ways that people are going to use the web to communicate. Blog on!
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
uh... scratches head, has it occured to you that by posting to this forum, you beg the question? Now that you're on the psychos who posts online, maybe you can answer your own question. Maybe the people you're meeting are a function of how you go about meeting them.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
It seems to be a characteristic of the "mainstream" media that they feel compelled to spout nonsense about thing regarding which they have not the slightest clue. This article reads as though the writer did a Google search on "weblogs" at 9 and had the article finished by 10. It has that "look what those wacky Internet people are doing now" look I've come to abhor.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Well I don't agree with everything you've said, but at least you've got a well thought out and informed opinion. Given it's inevitable, I guess the question uppermost in my mind is "Who should to decide how cloning gets done?" and alongside it the practical question "Who IS going to decide how cloning gets done?". Maybe if we can answer the first one, we can influence the answer to the second one.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Have we really finally reached the point where we're capable of asking about a technology "should we do that"? I don't think so. Cloning is making it pretty clear that there's always _someone_ willing to take the chance. So if we can't rule out a technology, once it becomes possible, what do we do with it? Wait for government to figure out how to regulate it? Take to the streets with placards and gasmasks? What?
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
I am always bemused by these claims to a "back door" in windows. Why bother with back doors when there are holes in the front one?
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Slightly OT: has anyone seen the movie Kafka?
Kafka was a brilliant sort of surrealistic film where Franz Kafka gets caught up in some bizarre themes taken from his own work. The brain-scope scene pops right into my mind. The "powers that be" build a huge lens so that they can look into the brain and figure out how people work. Kafka plays the role of physical hacker, literally breaking into the Castle through the file system and cracking the lens.
See it.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
There's a game called 1000 Blank White Cards that's pretty interesting. Basically you take a stack of blank cards, draw pictures on them and then away you go. It definitely blurs the line between "games" and "play" since the object of the game is entirely up to the players. It might work very well with children because they are so attuned to the concept of "pretend".
Tony
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
I'm not sure how much Buchanan spent, but the total gov't money was 12 million. Nader spent 6 million TOTAL. For perspective, Maria Cantwell and Slade Gorton both spend more than 12 million each on the Senatorial race here in Washington state.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
...according to exit polls. I think that many of Nader's supporters are new voters and people who might not have voted otherwise, so his impact on the result may not be that big at all.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
The answers posted above were gleaned from Nader's interviews and platform. He didn't reply to Slashdot personally. The blank questions are issues he hasn't addressed directly.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Don't jump to conclusions. Nader's answers to Slashdot were not custom created to appeal to this forum. The answers above are all taken from Nader's platform and from interviews he's given elsewhere, especially Here. This stuff is what the man beleives and stands for. He has nothing to gain by pandering to a fringe website, even one that gets the traffic that slashdot gets. Compare this to Gore, who advertised his "Open Source" web site, and Bush, who has no high-tech policy at all as far as I can tell.
Respectfuly,
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Don't be too hasty about Gore and Bush! Remeber, these are just the two candidate who answered most quickly, i.e. the ones with the most time on their hands. (I'm holding out for Nader's reply myself).
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
It's worth noting, though, that at the time a lot of people read the newspapers and attended debates and speeches from candidates who travelled around the nation. For example, The Federalist Papers were published serially in newspapers around the country, and people read them avidly. Abraham Lincoln travelled from the bottom of the Mississippi to Chicago debating his opponent Douglas (can't recall his first name). The debates are published and you can still read them today as an amazing example of real and informative political rhetoric.
I guess my point is, if you wanted to be informed in days of yore, you could get informed. If you prefered to be ignorant, you had plenty of opportunity to remain so. Just like today.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Someone asked Douglas Coupland, "What will the most popular activies in America be in 10 years?" He answered "Shopping and going to jail."
T
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Democrat: Vote for me and I'll give you lots of nice stuff. Republican: Vote for me and some big corporations will give ME lots of nice stuff. 3rd Party: Donte $10 to my campaign, and I'll make you my running mate.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
I would have to disagree with your portrayal of Internet as being equivalent to radio, television and telephone. The idea is to provide acces to electronic repositories of information that may not be available in paper form.
In the case of television, I can't go down to the library to watch the latest episode of "Friends", true. But I can order video tapes of many useful documentaries. Just so, most public libraries will not let me check my Hotmail account at their terminals, but they will let me access the Internet archives of magazines and newspapers that the library might not carry. IMHO, a highly valuable service, and one that is cheaper in public dollars than storing all that information in paper form.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
The purpose of having libraries is to provide the public access to information, and Internet filtering attacks this mission. There's no reliable way to filter out, for example, Porn, without denying library patrons access to: health information, information for survivors and victims of sexual abuse, scientific papers about human reproduction, discussions about sexual ethics and morals. The list goes on. There's no reliable way to filter bad information without filtering good information
Not everyone has, or can afford, Internet access. For many people, libraries are their only free access to this information. They are also, for the most part, free of censorship.
Every library I know anything about has policies against using library resources to access porn, or play games. This is reinforced by the library staff far more effectively than can be done by software. Some libraries have porn filters in the childrens secion, but allow full access from machines in other sections of the library, which seems to be a decent compromise.
It's easy for Bush and Gore to talk about Internet censorship, they're just preaching to the reactionary and the ignorant.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
The problem here is deciding WHAT to block. For example, lets say you decide to block any site that uses words related to sex. This will include scientific articles about health and reproduction, public information about sexully transmitted diseases, public sites designed to provide help for people suffering sexual and physical abuse.
Also of note, many public access internet terminals, i.e. those in libraries and schools, serve people who may not have the resources to get internet access at home. How many families in the Bronx don't have a computer in the house.
Then again, let them eat cake.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Now THAT'S why I read Slashdot. I am ashamed to admit that I wasn't aware the Libertarians were doing anything worth noting this year. Seems I was wrong. Now begins the mad flurry to find out everything I can about Harry Browne.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
To find the real meat in modern politics as in modern everything. This article looks to me like the work of someone who's just skimmed the surface. You should take a look at Ralph Nader's candidacy (www.votenader.org). 1) He's well poised to shake up the process 2) He's the only one who's blowing the whistle on how indistinguishable the two parties have become 3) He's completely funded by private individuals (like us). 4) Most important, (IMHO) he's showing us all what a political candidacy can look like in the 21st century, rather than the 18th. Is Nader going to win this election? No, of course not. But he's already way ahead of Buchanan in the polls and I think he has a clue about the future.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.