Whether or not the court's action is a good one (and I think there are good arguments for both sides), I can't help but figure that if this were done in the US (against a Canadian or European paper), we'd never hear the end of how the "arrogant US is spreading its laws across the world!" and how "that usurper Bush is taking away the last of our rights!"
Once again, it would seem that even the (supposedly) brightest among us cannot distinguish between "I won/lost" and "the system worked/failed."
Today, my side lost, but the system worked. A large majority of justices, from across the political spectrum, came together to decide that they would not second-guess Congress. Checks and balances were applied, and the court decided that Congress could pass such an extension within the Constitution. That is an example of the system working, not the system failing. Instead of trying to push a policy from the bench, the court erred on the side of caution. When campaign finance reform comes before the court, and when (I hope) the court again defers to Congress, remember that consistency is a virtue.
For those of you who commented before reading the decisions (and I suspect that would be the majority), go back and go over all the opinions. Don't read it to rip every sentence that you don't like; read it to understand the logic behind it. If you still disagree, that's fine.
Whining about corrupt judges and evil conspiracies, however, will not serve you. Constructive action, like joining the EFF, writing to your Congressmen, and voting, will serve you.
Actually, it's not true that the check costs more, but your dentist probably doesn't pay per check, while he does pay per card transaction. I suspect his bank account costs him a certain (fixed) amount per month, regardless of how many checks go through.
See this article about the Fed lowering rates for electronic purchases, while rasing fees for checks.
Banks will probably change their fee structures as check fees for them increase.
Mirabilis filed the patent
on
AOL Patents IM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think you guys missed something: this patent was filed for in 1997, by Mirabilis before AOL acquired them.
For that matter, the patent is not on the chatting, per se, but on monitoring who is on the chat network. That may or may not change anything, but it's not the same as 'write.'
I think ICQ will have a hard time proving that BBSs didn't have the ability to tell you who was online before that, though.
The problem is, no one here buys anything from the MPAA or the RIAA - they're organizations of organizations. I order to succeed, you'd have to never, ever listen to any music in public or on the radio.
This reminds me of the Disney boycott a few years ago by several Christian groups. The plan was to not buy anything Disney, but it got to the point of absurdity because Disney is so pervasive. You would literally have to never watch any Disney branded movie, or any movie from any Disney-owned studio, or watch ABC or any ESPN network.
Same with this. Boycotts don't work because businesses lose money, they work because businesses are embarrassed by the negative publicity. Until we can convince the public of the problems behind the RIAA and MPAA (and that's unlikely with the communication skills and attitudes on display here), no boycott will ever work.
Thanks for doing this. You really enumerate the various issues without resorting to hyperbole or political attacks. An excellent and informative summary of the situation.
While I don't block ads myself (except for popups), my main concern is pretending to load these pop-ups to access a site, without actually loading them. When Yahoo looks at their site logs, they see how many people block ads, and can calibrate their service in response. If they decide there are too many blockers, they can do something about that.
If someone explicity says "you must look at ads to view this site," I think they should have a right to do that (and I'll exercise my right to go somewhere else). It's the sneaking-in-the-back-door idea of tricking sites, which confuses their economic model and in some ways is trespassing that rubs me the wrong way.
I misphrased that. What I was trying to say is that faking viewing ads hurts everyone, because it creates economic inefficiency. If companies waste money on useless ads that they think people are viewing, that's less money to pay employees. As more and more commerce (and advertising) moves online, we're better off finding an efficient way of making money, rather than wasting time and money on ways that don't work.
Ok, so calling ad-blockers "thiefs" is stupid, and the odds of this thing taking off is something around zero. Some points, though:
1. There's nothing wrong with a site requiring you to view ads before viewing it. This isn't the best way to do it, mind you, but it's a reasonable theory.
2. Everyone is better off if websites know what advertising works. Pretending to view ads hurts everyone in the long run.
3. What we really need, at the end of the day, is better statistics on Internet ads. Radio and TV people can factor in bathroom breaks and channel surfing into their ad rates, but we're only beginning to get those stats for the Internet.
4. Somewhere deep inside of me, I suspect that people who refuse to look at (any) ads are the first ones to yell when their favorite sites go to a subscription model. Actions do have consequences, and your ISP fee doesn't subsidize the sites you visit.
So, you were going to pay royalties to someone, you just want to pay them to someone else?
Whatever. I guess you want those businessmen to tell you to pick someone else's system instead of their own. I'm sure that's how you would have done it.
If you read the Wired article, they have some interesting points:
I love how the European representative is much more sanguine about this move than Karl. Makes me laugh them/. trolls whine about how ICANN is a US puppet.
If you take this article seriously, ICANN dies a painful death come June. What will replace it is another question.
I'm surprised no one has talked about how this decision will affect Europe's laws on copyright. Theoretically, won't AOL still have the copyright on Europe, even if the SC decides for Eldred? Heck, maybe AOLTW will relocate to Berlin!
Re:Distributed.net no longer in the public eye
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 1
Folding@Home does have a Linus client. There's a URL elsewhere in this discussion to it.
Let's think about it this way: let's say in five years, everyone owns a VCR that removes commercials. Thus, no one ever watches commercials, and all broadcast networks go out of business. You know what all the Slashdot posters will be doing? Posting here because they can't afford to pay for their shows!
People, look, you can whine all day about how you deserve to get everything for free. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it, though. Yes, you can go to the bathroom, channel surf, use mute, whatever. The point is, with all those methods, the advertiser has a chance to get to you first. You can ignore it, but the advertiser can still catch your attenetion. With a Tivo, that doesn't happen anymore. You can skip commericals with no risk of missing anything.
Think of it like a timeshare deal, where you get the free weekend for listing to the sales pitch. You might very well go there with no intention of buying anything, and you may well leave without spending any money. The point is, you can't skip the sales pitch. Everyone gets to take their shot since you took the offer. Same with TV. The advertiser won't spend money if there's no change of people watching his commercials.
I happened to be thinking about something like this the other day. Why doesn't somebody set up a distributed.net like system which resells users unused computer resources but then pays the users for their trouble?
That actually is UD's business model (it's there on their website). They mention things like frequent flyer miles and what not. In fact, they have two categories of projects: for-pay projects and free projects (like this one).
The above FAQ completely contradicts what you said, Michael. The results of the study will be made public. The results are the property of the University and the National Foundation for Cancer Research. The results will not be sold.
Why are you slandering them without foundation? Do you really get off on making new enemies? Do you have to create enemies if you cannot actually find them?
Aren't we overreacting to this situation a little? A few teachers got a little overzealous, the parent complained, and the local board is handling it. Everyone seems to be trying to act reasonable and come to a fair conclusion. It seems unfortunate, but not catastrophic, and in some ways it's encouraging. Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Amazing how quick people are to jump to conclusions around here. It's probably just a dictionary attack, people. When my account was set up at work, it came to me filled with spam already (it's jason@domain). Clearly, my work had not sold my email account to spammers. Likely the same here.
Second this comment, and mention that there are many "German-style" economic games like that. Andromeda, Union Pacific and the many Catan variants are just a few examples. You have to trade to win, and the winner is the one with the best combination of luck and trading skills.
In my first job, I was in charge of some mortgage software that had been around for over a decade. Compiled in MS C v6 for DOS (this was in 1998-1999). Horrific code. I would have loved to have rewritten it, with or without management support (there's a whole story there). The thing is, the database and windowing software that were the basis of the program were more broken than the code itself. I would have literally had to redesign the entire application from the ground up myself, for a program we didn't even sell any more. Needless to say, that didn't happen.
Even if the code is bad, if the problems are deeper than that, any rewrite will be a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not the court's action is a good one (and I think there are good arguments for both sides), I can't help but figure that if this were done in the US (against a Canadian or European paper), we'd never hear the end of how the "arrogant US is spreading its laws across the world!" and how "that usurper Bush is taking away the last of our rights!"
Once again, it would seem that even the (supposedly) brightest among us cannot distinguish between "I won/lost" and "the system worked/failed."
Today, my side lost, but the system worked. A large majority of justices, from across the political spectrum, came together to decide that they would not second-guess Congress. Checks and balances were applied, and the court decided that Congress could pass such an extension within the Constitution. That is an example of the system working, not the system failing. Instead of trying to push a policy from the bench, the court erred on the side of caution. When campaign finance reform comes before the court, and when (I hope) the court again defers to Congress, remember that consistency is a virtue.
For those of you who commented before reading the decisions (and I suspect that would be the majority), go back and go over all the opinions. Don't read it to rip every sentence that you don't like; read it to understand the logic behind it. If you still disagree, that's fine.
Whining about corrupt judges and evil conspiracies, however, will not serve you. Constructive action, like joining the EFF, writing to your Congressmen, and voting, will serve you.
See this article about the Fed lowering rates for electronic purchases, while rasing fees for checks.
Banks will probably change their fee structures as check fees for them increase.
I think you guys missed something: this patent was filed for in 1997, by Mirabilis before AOL acquired them.
For that matter, the patent is not on the chatting, per se, but on monitoring who is on the chat network. That may or may not change anything, but it's not the same as 'write.'
I think ICQ will have a hard time proving that BBSs didn't have the ability to tell you who was online before that, though.
The problem is, no one here buys anything from the MPAA or the RIAA - they're organizations of organizations. I order to succeed, you'd have to never, ever listen to any music in public or on the radio.
This reminds me of the Disney boycott a few years ago by several Christian groups. The plan was to not buy anything Disney, but it got to the point of absurdity because Disney is so pervasive. You would literally have to never watch any Disney branded movie, or any movie from any Disney-owned studio, or watch ABC or any ESPN network.
Same with this. Boycotts don't work because businesses lose money, they work because businesses are embarrassed by the negative publicity. Until we can convince the public of the problems behind the RIAA and MPAA (and that's unlikely with the communication skills and attitudes on display here), no boycott will ever work.
Thanks for doing this. You really enumerate the various issues without resorting to hyperbole or political attacks. An excellent and informative summary of the situation.
I actually started out on Mosaic myself (1994).
While I don't block ads myself (except for popups), my main concern is pretending to load these pop-ups to access a site, without actually loading them. When Yahoo looks at their site logs, they see how many people block ads, and can calibrate their service in response. If they decide there are too many blockers, they can do something about that.
If someone explicity says "you must look at ads to view this site," I think they should have a right to do that (and I'll exercise my right to go somewhere else). It's the sneaking-in-the-back-door idea of tricking sites, which confuses their economic model and in some ways is trespassing that rubs me the wrong way.
I misphrased that. What I was trying to say is that faking viewing ads hurts everyone, because it creates economic inefficiency. If companies waste money on useless ads that they think people are viewing, that's less money to pay employees. As more and more commerce (and advertising) moves online, we're better off finding an efficient way of making money, rather than wasting time and money on ways that don't work.
Ok, so calling ad-blockers "thiefs" is stupid, and the odds of this thing taking off is something around zero. Some points, though:
1. There's nothing wrong with a site requiring you to view ads before viewing it. This isn't the best way to do it, mind you, but it's a reasonable theory.
2. Everyone is better off if websites know what advertising works. Pretending to view ads hurts everyone in the long run.
3. What we really need, at the end of the day, is better statistics on Internet ads. Radio and TV people can factor in bathroom breaks and channel surfing into their ad rates, but we're only beginning to get those stats for the Internet.
4. Somewhere deep inside of me, I suspect that people who refuse to look at (any) ads are the first ones to yell when their favorite sites go to a subscription model. Actions do have consequences, and your ISP fee doesn't subsidize the sites you visit.
Whatever. I guess you want those businessmen to tell you to pick someone else's system instead of their own. I'm sure that's how you would have done it.
That's only because Holland is so small, if you fart in Amsterdam you can smell it in Belgium. ;-)
I'm surprised no one has talked about how this decision will affect Europe's laws on copyright. Theoretically, won't AOL still have the copyright on Europe, even if the SC decides for Eldred? Heck, maybe AOLTW will relocate to Berlin!
Folding@Home does have a Linus client. There's a URL elsewhere in this discussion to it.
Yeah, leave it to Michael to turn a positive story negative with sarcasm.
Well, now that I've got your attention....
Let's think about it this way: let's say in five years, everyone owns a VCR that removes commercials. Thus, no one ever watches commercials, and all broadcast networks go out of business. You know what all the Slashdot posters will be doing? Posting here because they can't afford to pay for their shows!
People, look, you can whine all day about how you deserve to get everything for free. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for it, though. Yes, you can go to the bathroom, channel surf, use mute, whatever. The point is, with all those methods, the advertiser has a chance to get to you first. You can ignore it, but the advertiser can still catch your attenetion. With a Tivo, that doesn't happen anymore. You can skip commericals with no risk of missing anything.
Think of it like a timeshare deal, where you get the free weekend for listing to the sales pitch. You might very well go there with no intention of buying anything, and you may well leave without spending any money. The point is, you can't skip the sales pitch. Everyone gets to take their shot since you took the offer. Same with TV. The advertiser won't spend money if there's no change of people watching his commercials.
Committee to RE-Elect the President
That actually is UD's business model (it's there on their website). They mention things like frequent flyer miles and what not. In fact, they have two categories of projects: for-pay projects and free projects (like this one).
http://members.ud.com/vypc/cancer/faq_proj.htm
The above FAQ completely contradicts what you said, Michael. The results of the study will be made public. The results are the property of the University and the National Foundation for Cancer Research. The results will not be sold.
Why are you slandering them without foundation? Do you really get off on making new enemies? Do you have to create enemies if you cannot actually find them?
If you are not a mormon, you are are second-class citizen in Utah. It's like being a black person in a Southern state...
Oh, gee, that's not a complete stereotype. Come on, people, at least make your biases somewhat less obvious.
Like meat to the piranha....
Aren't we overreacting to this situation a little? A few teachers got a little overzealous, the parent complained, and the local board is handling it. Everyone seems to be trying to act reasonable and come to a fair conclusion. It seems unfortunate, but not catastrophic, and in some ways it's encouraging. Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Amazing how quick people are to jump to conclusions around here. It's probably just a dictionary attack, people. When my account was set up at work, it came to me filled with spam already (it's jason@domain). Clearly, my work had not sold my email account to spammers. Likely the same here.
Second this comment, and mention that there are many "German-style" economic games like that. Andromeda, Union Pacific and the many Catan variants are just a few examples. You have to trade to win, and the winner is the one with the best combination of luck and trading skills.
My company makes a product that allows this -- ExtremeZ-IP. It does Apple/Win file sharing over TCP.
x .h tml
http://www.grouplogic.com/products/extreme/inde
In my first job, I was in charge of some mortgage software that had been around for over a decade. Compiled in MS C v6 for DOS (this was in 1998-1999). Horrific code. I would have loved to have rewritten it, with or without management support (there's a whole story there). The thing is, the database and windowing software that were the basis of the program were more broken than the code itself. I would have literally had to redesign the entire application from the ground up myself, for a program we didn't even sell any more. Needless to say, that didn't happen.
Even if the code is bad, if the problems are deeper than that, any rewrite will be a waste of time.