The Web is very different from television: it is mainly a cognitive medium, whereas TV is mainly an emotional
medium.
That porn is the one known wokring web business model argues against this. People are people in front of TVs or web browsers.
Somoene else has pointed pout that the TV equivalent of click through (people going to your shop etc.) is also low rate.
However, this doesn't affect my point which was that the advertising has to fit into the medium so that when tit gets in the way it is not percieved as doing so.
A good Tv advert is a tiny programme in it's own right which some proportion of the audience is happy to watch on the same basis as the `real' programming.
A web equivalnt is to fit your advert in as a page on the relevent site which can be used by the browser in the same way hey use the surrouning pages.
For example, imagine one/. headline a day was put there by an advertiser.
A naive advertiser, equivalent to the people who think banner adds are a good idea, would put `Bloonet hubs are K00lL', and no one would click onto the page except the firstposters.
A good advertising agency would craft a story which was relevent to the/. audience, drew people in and caused them to want to argue... oops I mean discuss at great length with some force. Perhaps not directly mentioning `bloonet' at all, perhaps making it incidental (as the Budweiser frogs followups with the chamelians never mention beer). Lots of people click onto the page an absorb the message. Next time one of them wants to buy a hub, `bloonet' springs to mind as a supplier to check out.
BTW if/. starts doing this don't blame me, just send me a cut of the income:-) _O_
The problem with (effective) advertising on the Web is that it gets in the way of content, which is what the user is looking for.
Same can be said for TV advertising.
TV advertisers learned the lesson and tried to make the adverts worth watching. Indeed, on most of the cable channels I get the adverts are the only good programming.
_O_
Gibson is wooried about the upcoming Windoze versions having the ability to spoof the source IP.
Clearly this is not an issue. All it takes is one compitent programmer in the cracker community or elsewhere to write a modified TCP stack for Windoze which can spoof the source IP and all the zombies can bring it with them. what Microcruft supplies for free only speeds things up very slightly.
Remember most of the compromised machines are on cable connections, so downloading their own TCP stack wouldn't take much time. _O_
Sure you can make a server or firewall out of pre-pentium computer. But how many people need those?
Anyone with am always on cable connection. It's frightening how much cracker activity my firewall sees.
And can you really do anything else with them?
Web browsing/mail reading seat. The imfamous central heating/home control project. Gerbil feeder.
In my experience, a 486 (or 68040) or below isn't worth the energy it takes to run them (especially considering today's energy
situation),
We don't all live in California. As I've been getting more machines my electricity bill has been falling (i.e. energy is getting cheaper faster than my network is growing). _O_
If you send away an old computer to a school they might initially do a small saving compared to buy new equipment, but in the
long run I believe the school will suffer enormously from having a diverse range of out of date hardware. The service costs must get
enormous since all computers are very different and old parts keeps breaking down and have to be replaced so things will have to be
reinstalled
Computers are remarkably resiliant. That's why so many of us have so many hanging around in cupboards etc. So I don't think the repair cost is really an issue. And when they really break, then you throw them away.
Actually the most useful thing a school could do with old donated machines would be to tlet the kids manage them. More useful than anythign they're likely to learn in a computer literacy class. _O_
Re:A better solution: eliminate TLDs entirely
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 1
A new TLD, "www" is created.
Why should my machine which doesn't have a web server n it have a name exnding.www? Clearly stupid.
Besides which, if you make there be only one top level node, then you are effectively saing that all of the second level domans are the real top level domains - the bit after the last . is redundant and no one will ever use it., software authors will just add.www automagically.
So your proposal is effectively to have thousands of top level domains.
.com,.org etc are what they are because they were chosen by accademics and government employees. For both these groups the profit/non profit distinction is a real and important one which colours their view of the world. It's not so relevent to most people.
The obvious way to get a new set is parallel to the way the national tlds were defined, look for an existing division. I'm sure some big and disinterested organisation exists which lready has a way to divide up the world in a relevent manner. The World bank of Lloyds or one of the big stock markets might be a place to look first.
A more geek friedly way would be to allow everyone who has registered or who registers a domain in future to nominate 3 places they'd like to be.
An existing domain (.com etc) this is where
they will be put for now.
A proposed domain from a list of the most popular entries for the next entry
Anything they like.
Then any number 3 choice which gets enough people suggeting it is added to the part 2 list. Any number 2 choice with enough entries gets added as a new official TLD, andthe people who requested it get added. This is self organising. If there are enough medical organisations out there for it to make sense.med will be created. _O_
Only
those "skilled in the art" (as the US PTO would say) are able to change it.
Anyone can hire a programmer.
Not everyone can or wants to fix their own car, but the availability of workshop manuals etc. means you can hire someone to do so if you don't lik ethe local official dealer or they go out of business.
To take the recipe example again (even if it is somewhat innacurate, since software is infinately replicable at zero effort, food is not.
But recipes are. It's the text, not the results of applying the text which are the issue. If you use the software to drive a robot arm which makes lunch, then the lunch is not replicable but the software still is. _O_
What Stallman said about the recipes awakens some interesting thoughts.
Among them the fact that the text of a recipe can be copyright but the underlying methods can not be.
There is a lot of precident for recipe copyright which fits quite well (eg that you can't copyright just a trivial expression of a well known recipe becuase there is not significant work in creating it, but you can if you have clearly put effort into making the text special).
Applying it to software would give us something between the current situation and what the `no-ipr' extreme position would like, which is probably healthy. _O_
Microsoft may not be very responsive to public opinion, but the British Government sure is.
ROTFL
Tony Blair was wandering around kissing M$ arse yesterday. Bill bought the Uk government a few years ago with a scheme fro putting M$ products into schools. _O_
I think basing the decision on whther a n organiasation is notionally `for profit' is a little shakey.
Imagine I set up a company packaging FBSD with a user obsequious installer. I could setthis up as a normal for-profit company and hope to eat from the profits, or I could set it up as a not for profit organisation and hire myself to run it at a sallary. In both cases I get the money.
profit and income only become interestingly different when the ownership of an organisation is wider.
Better to look at what the organisation is doing than it's notionla status wrt profit. _O_
He _brags_ that he hasn't read
script notes, etc. [...]
This jibes poorly with the practical minded (read: engineers, programmers, and general tech geeks) Slashdot audience,
Completely arse over tit. Any geek will tell you that the notes and documents are not where the true meaning is to be found. The program is definitive, the supporting documentation is at best a way to get up to speed.
Use the source luke.
I suspect what is pushing buttons around here is that Wheat is taking the most ridiculously obvious feature of the film (watchthe opening credits, it says Odessy and they are playing Zarathustra) and rushing off with `to a man with a hammer evyerthing looks like a nail' syndrome.
For example, trying to make HAL/discoverry a god symbol. HAL is not godlike and is not treated as godlike by anyone in the movie, the only reason to try to make him a god symbol is a desperate need by the viewer to see that symbol no matter what.
HAL isn't a figment holding men back, he is an innocent corrupted by men. That is a long way from the Zarathustra god.
Now, there is a figment created by men at the start and trancended by Bowman at the end. Spotting it is left as an excercise for the interested reader:-) _O_
TMA-1 as trojan horse doens't even vaguely work. It doesn't occupy the right point in the plot.
There is a war at the start of this odessy, it's back where one would expect when running the Odessy in parallel with Zarathustra, down in the rift valley with the apes. If you need a horse, then look at it this way, the apes are the horse, they have people riding around inside them, and when the people get out get out all hell breaks loose.
In general I think this searching for Joycean symbols is misguided. We should remember that Kubrik wanted to make `the proverbial good science fiction movie', to assme that Kubrik was too ham-fisted to be able to handle the tools he chose is, IMO, to underestimate the man.
SF exists to tackle big ideas head on, not via allusion and metaphor. 2001 paralels Nietzsche and Homer not because Kubrik and Clarke were trying for literrary effect, but because they were tackling the same big questions. A fact which Kubrik and Clarke recognised as the project grew hence the choice of music and subtitle.
If Kubrik had wanted to go the other way he'd have made a movie of Ulysses. _O_
It's clearly an OPEC plot. Making enough AOL CDs to give the population of China the same share as the rest of us will eat the entire world production of petrolium for a year. _O_
This action is a chemical reaction that probably would not allow the bacteria to develop a resistance, such as happens
with antibiotics.
Bacteria have evolved to live in fission reactors and in other such homely environments, you we are to imagine they won't be able to cope with plastic.
Simply because language is defined by usage does not give you the right to simply make up a "convention" that only you
understand.
This would imply language should never change. Someone has to be the first to use a enw construction.
However, `could of' for `could have' is hardly something made up for this thread. It's perfectly normal in some dialects (including the one I grew up with). _O_
And I'm not talking graffiti taggers, these were serious artists with no other way to
reach the public except directly.
Er, you go and ask the person who owns the wall, then you paint. End of problem. If it's any good businesses will jump at it (there's nothing a business wants more than to attract attention).
If you think this stuff is so great and needs to be seen, let them paint on your wall. Or your car or whatever. _O_
You're comparing corporations and professionals to 14 year olds when it comes to knowledge of these systems?
No, I was comparing their expected level of gullability. It's easier to sell crap to teenagers than to professionals I would think (how many Nike trainers get sold to MDs? I wonder).
I find it somewhat amazing that there are Lawyers offices out there running Windows. I'd expect the first BSOD to result in a case for sale of shoddy goods. The only explanation is that M$ has convinced even these most stroppy of consumers that shoddy is to be expected in this market. You've got to admire that kind of success. _O_
Slashdot Mirror
That porn is the one known wokring web business model argues against this. People are people in front of TVs or web browsers.
Somoene else has pointed pout that the TV equivalent of click through (people going to your shop etc.) is also low rate.
However, this doesn't affect my point which was that the advertising has to fit into the medium so that when tit gets in the way it is not percieved as doing so.
A good Tv advert is a tiny programme in it's own right which some proportion of the audience is happy to watch on the same basis as the `real' programming.
A web equivalnt is to fit your advert in as a page on the relevent site which can be used by the browser in the same way hey use the surrouning pages.
For example, imagine one /. headline a day was put there by an advertiser.
A naive advertiser, equivalent to the people who think banner adds are a good idea, would put `Bloonet hubs are K00lL', and no one would click onto the page except the firstposters.
A good advertising agency would craft a story which was relevent to the /. audience, drew people in and caused them to want to argue... oops I mean discuss at great length with some force. Perhaps not directly mentioning `bloonet' at all, perhaps making it incidental (as the Budweiser frogs followups with the chamelians never mention beer). Lots of people click onto the page an absorb the message. Next time one of them wants to buy a hub, `bloonet' springs to mind as a supplier to check out.
BTW if /. starts doing this don't blame me, just send me a cut of the income:-)
_O_
Same can be said for TV advertising.
TV advertisers learned the lesson and tried to make the adverts worth watching. Indeed, on most of the cable channels I get the adverts are the only good programming.
_O_
Clearly this is not an issue. All it takes is one compitent programmer in the cracker community or elsewhere to write a modified TCP stack for Windoze which can spoof the source IP and all the zombies can bring it with them. what Microcruft supplies for free only speeds things up very slightly.
Remember most of the compromised machines are on cable connections, so downloading their own TCP stack wouldn't take much time.
_O_
I'm suprised he didn't write his entire note in assembly language.
_O_
Anyone with am always on cable connection. It's frightening how much cracker activity my firewall sees.
And can you really do anything else with them?
Web browsing/mail reading seat. The imfamous central heating/home control project. Gerbil feeder.
In my experience, a 486 (or 68040) or below isn't worth the energy it takes to run them (especially considering today's energy situation),
We don't all live in California. As I've been getting more machines my electricity bill has been falling (i.e. energy is getting cheaper faster than my network is growing).
_O_
Computers are remarkably resiliant. That's why so many of us have so many hanging around in cupboards etc. So I don't think the repair cost is really an issue. And when they really break, then you throw them away.
Actually the most useful thing a school could do with old donated machines would be to tlet the kids manage them. More useful than anythign they're likely to learn in a computer literacy class.
_O_
Why should my machine which doesn't have a web server n it have a name exnding .www? Clearly stupid.
Besides which, if you make there be only one top level node, then you are effectively saing that all of the second level domans are the real top level domains - the bit after the last . is redundant and no one will ever use it., software authors will just add .www automagically.
So your proposal is effectively to have thousands of top level domains.
The obvious way to get a new set is parallel to the way the national tlds were defined, look for an existing division. I'm sure some big and disinterested organisation exists which lready has a way to divide up the world in a relevent manner. The World bank of Lloyds or one of the big stock markets might be a place to look first.
A more geek friedly way would be to allow everyone who has registered or who registers a domain in future to nominate 3 places they'd like to be.
- An existing domain (.com etc) this is where
they will be put for now.
- A proposed domain from a list of the most popular entries for the next entry
- Anything they like.
Then any number 3 choice which gets enough people suggeting it is added to the part 2 list. Any number 2 choice with enough entries gets added as a new official TLD, andthe people who requested it get added. This is self organising. If there are enough medical organisations out there for it to make sense_O_
Anyone can hire a programmer.
Not everyone can or wants to fix their own car, but the availability of workshop manuals etc. means you can hire someone to do so if you don't lik ethe local official dealer or they go out of business.
To take the recipe example again (even if it is somewhat innacurate, since software is infinately replicable at zero effort, food is not.
But recipes are. It's the text, not the results of applying the text which are the issue. If you use the software to drive a robot arm which makes lunch, then the lunch is not replicable but the software still is.
_O_
Among them the fact that the text of a recipe can be copyright but the underlying methods can not be.
There is a lot of precident for recipe copyright which fits quite well (eg that you can't copyright just a trivial expression of a well known recipe becuase there is not significant work in creating it, but you can if you have clearly put effort into making the text special).
Applying it to software would give us something between the current situation and what the `no-ipr' extreme position would like, which is probably healthy.
_O_
There is a world of difference between reading a bpook which tells you how to drive a car and winning a grand-prix.
_O_
ROTFL
Tony Blair was wandering around kissing M$ arse yesterday. Bill bought the Uk government a few years ago with a scheme fro putting M$ products into schools.
_O_
I remember when we had the ability to put men on the moon. makes me feel old.
_O_
Imagine I set up a company packaging FBSD with a user obsequious installer. I could setthis up as a normal for-profit company and hope to eat from the profits, or I could set it up as a not for profit organisation and hire myself to run it at a sallary. In both cases I get the money.
profit and income only become interestingly different when the ownership of an organisation is wider.
Better to look at what the organisation is doing than it's notionla status wrt profit.
_O_
This jibes poorly with the practical minded (read: engineers, programmers, and general tech geeks) Slashdot audience,
Completely arse over tit. Any geek will tell you that the notes and documents are not where the true meaning is to be found. The program is definitive, the supporting documentation is at best a way to get up to speed.
Use the source luke.
I suspect what is pushing buttons around here is that Wheat is taking the most ridiculously obvious feature of the film (watchthe opening credits, it says Odessy and they are playing Zarathustra) and rushing off with `to a man with a hammer evyerthing looks like a nail' syndrome.
For example, trying to make HAL/discoverry a god symbol. HAL is not godlike and is not treated as godlike by anyone in the movie, the only reason to try to make him a god symbol is a desperate need by the viewer to see that symbol no matter what.
HAL isn't a figment holding men back, he is an innocent corrupted by men. That is a long way from the Zarathustra god.
Now, there is a figment created by men at the start and trancended by Bowman at the end. Spotting it is left as an excercise for the interested reader:-)
_O_
There is a war at the start of this odessy, it's back where one would expect when running the Odessy in parallel with Zarathustra, down in the rift valley with the apes. If you need a horse, then look at it this way, the apes are the horse, they have people riding around inside them, and when the people get out get out all hell breaks loose.
In general I think this searching for Joycean symbols is misguided. We should remember that Kubrik wanted to make `the proverbial good science fiction movie', to assme that Kubrik was too ham-fisted to be able to handle the tools he chose is, IMO, to underestimate the man.
SF exists to tackle big ideas head on, not via allusion and metaphor. 2001 paralels Nietzsche and Homer not because Kubrik and Clarke were trying for literrary effect, but because they were tackling the same big questions. A fact which Kubrik and Clarke recognised as the project grew hence the choice of music and subtitle.
If Kubrik had wanted to go the other way he'd have made a movie of Ulysses.
_O_
It's clearly an OPEC plot. Making enough AOL CDs to give the population of China the same share as the rest of us will eat the entire world production of petrolium for a year.
_O_
From long observation I have determined that `American' as a qualifier means `with much more sugar and far less of the real ingreedients'.
So AOL is conforming to brand values.
_O_
Do the poor chinese government know what they are getting into?
_O_
Bacteria have evolved to live in fission reactors and in other such homely environments, you we are to imagine they won't be able to cope with plastic.
Er, yeah, right.
_O_
No, but that's probably thederivation.
_O_
This would imply language should never change. Someone has to be the first to use a enw construction.
However, `could of' for `could have' is hardly something made up for this thread. It's perfectly normal in some dialects (including the one I grew up with).
_O_
Er, you go and ask the person who owns the wall, then you paint. End of problem. If it's any good businesses will jump at it (there's nothing a business wants more than to attract attention).
If you think this stuff is so great and needs to be seen, let them paint on your wall. Or your car or whatever.
_O_
Don't fuck the trolls (the offspring often run for office).
_O_
Spray your message in latex glue or similar substance onto the dress of a white house intern.
Paint it onto the roof of a sports personality who wants to kill their wife.
_O_
No, I was comparing their expected level of gullability. It's easier to sell crap to teenagers than to professionals I would think (how many Nike trainers get sold to MDs? I wonder).
I find it somewhat amazing that there are Lawyers offices out there running Windows. I'd expect the first BSOD to result in a case for sale of shoddy goods. The only explanation is that M$ has convinced even these most stroppy of consumers that shoddy is to be expected in this market. You've got to admire that kind of success.
_O_