Congress is frighteningly clueless about many of the issues combining technology, law, and culture that face them today. I can't think of any one man who could better fill this vacuum.
Learn about Lessig's ideas, and his very effective style of presenting them, by watching a talk he gave at the TED conference in March 2007:
How creativity is being strangled by the law.
I agree. As fermion pointed out above, Microsoft is proving to be the new IBM, deluded that their solutions are always what's best for customers. Their new solutions are typically encumbered by their perspective of trying to leverage and protect their existing approaches--they just don't seem able to really embrace and exploit the possibilities of cloud computing. A look at the low rate of Vista adoption, and the recent rebranding of PlaysforSure, will also show how far from the mark they often fall, from what their customers and partners really want or need. They'll only lose their arrogance and break free of their legacy when the pressure increases--and it will.
The future will be even more challenging. In a few years Google's Android platform and other mobile devices on WiMax and 700 Mhz wireless, are likely to help push cloud computing into the mainstream. Google, Adobe, Microsoft, and others will all be developing better products. Take a look at Buzzword for a taste of how great a web application can be.
Hybrid applications that can be synched and/or used disconnected, and encryption, will address the disadvantages of cloud computing today.
The future will include better options for users that will increasingly be in the cloud. It's likely to get here sooner than Microsoft will be ready for, but they'll eventually adapt and be a force to be reconed with in the cloud.
The only practical solution is to require providers to fully disclose any bandwidth shaping or similar throttling, and regulate the application of such limits to existing accounts.
Such limited service should never be sold as unlimited Internet access. Clear terms, such as limited, shaped or controlled, should be required. Limits should not be added to existing accounts without providing adequate notice of at least 60 days.
Trying to prohibit any type of throttling is a losing proposition that invites many arguments against it; and such legislation would be very difficult to pass. Regulating how networks are managed and Quality of Service is maintained just isn't practical. But it's easy to require any routine application throttling or traffic shaping to be fully disclosed. An informed customer is unlikely to choose such a limited service; it's unlikely they would even be offered.
Google now has even more reason to bid. Any wireless network requires some of the limited resource of radio spectrum. The FCC regulates the use this resource for the benefit of the public. There is little or no public benefit from allowing exclusive and restrictive use of this resource; but great benefits from open access. It's clear that the FCC should support the MOST open access possible. The decision not to support more of the open access provisions is inappropriate and could even suggest undue influence. It will stifle choice, competition, innovation and growth. Congress should consider intervening by passing legislation requiring open access (including open wholesale access) in new allocations of the public airwaves. This auction is a very important allocation of prime radio spectrum that belongs to everyone; allowing exclusive and restrictive use of it might increase the perceived value of the licences, but is a disservice to the public. Hopefully Google will bid and win a good chunk of it and make it available in an open wholesale manner (perhaps even to AT&T and Verizon).
How does a broad statement by a Mumbai city cop--likely overstating his ability to track down evildoers--become a news story about what Orkut is doing? (according to an Indian newspaper, according to what a city cop reportedly told them). Orkut has resisted this type of request in the past, and has only complied when they came from a court. Orkut sometimes has many small hate groups created by users in violation of Orkut's terms, which Orkut deletes when enough users have reported them as bogus. I doubt that Orkut is willing to respond to requests from city police departments on all the posts to these groups. Does Orkut even has any representatives in India--who the cop claimed to have met with?
This study shows important facts that are being ignored in U.S. energy policy. But I see some problems, and important facts that are not included.
For example, exactly how efficient is gasoline -- if you include exploring for the crude oil, drilling, pumping, transporting crude, refining into gas, and then transporting the gas? Likely much better than the alternative technologies, but how much?
More importantly, the study concludes that investing in other technologies such as hydrogen would be better -- But why? Hydrogen has EXACTLY the same efficiency problem (likely worse!) Hydrogen is also difficult and expensive to store, transport, and use.
The study does a good job of debunking the hype for several current alternative fuel technologies, but then jumps on the bandwagon for the most wildly over-hyped and impractical of all -- hydrogen. This leads me to believe the study is not entirely objective.
Every photo is automatically copyrighted to the photographer, and the Copyrights can be transferred only in writing. Stating this simple fact makes the issue much clearer.
If someone takes a photo and gives you a copy, you can legally reproduce it only if they also give you written permission (with a few exceptions, such as very old photos). Whether the photo was taken by a professional or amateur does not matter. When you are the photographer or have written permission, a vendor can legally do anything you ask them to do with the photo. Vendors can cover themselves legally by having you sign a form stating that you are the photographer or have written permission. They also need to avoid being negligent, such as reproducing something marked "Copyright 2005 XYZ Studios", for example, without some sort of documentation.
The photo store were I worked briefly (Ritz), doing photo restorations and prints, required customers to sign such a form. We only questioned photos that clearly appeared not to be taken by the customer (like school photos or photos with "XYZ Studios" printed on them), where we would expect to see written permission from the photographer or studio. Some studios will provide customers written permission at no charge when asked.
Even with a clear and sensible policy, Copyright issues will confuse people. A stupid non-policy like "We can't print photos that look too good", is guaranteed to cause lots of confusion and frustration.
Did anyone really need another reason not to patronize Wal-mart?
This is nothing you couldn't always do with an ordinary telephone.
The only thing new is that it's trendy to do, and trendy to "report" on as "new" threat (ohmygosh!). It's only the trendiness that makes this a potential threat.
Disney-fied fireworks sound like a really bad idea. I'm a huge fan of fireworks displays, and feel it would just not be the Fourth of July without smelling a little sulfur!
I've been to most every display on The Mall in Washington, DC for over 20 years. For July 4, 1986, I went to the Statue of Liberty centennial in NY, which was the most fantastic and outrageous display I've ever seen (they somehow removed ALL the cars in lower Manhattan to accommodate the crowds); it was surreal.
I highly recommend seeing a display close up. On The Mall in DC, I love to get as close as possible to the launch site near 17th Street. The experience of HEARING each launch, and the anticipation of seeing the shell rise above you before exploding in all its glory is FANTASTIC. You know when they're coming, and have some idea of how big they will be. It's much different than watching from far away, there's no delay between the flash and the bang--and you FEEL the big bangs. There's also all kinds of sizzling, screaming, and crackling that you don't here from far away. Most of the ground level smoke comes from personal sparklers, firecrackers, and such (I expect that these things are prohibited in the magic--and antiseptic--kingdom); smoke from the official display is not a problem.
The best place to see the fireworks on The Mall in DC would be from the Washington Monument grounds, but this area is mobbed with people from early in the day. Better to go just before Showtime to the much calmer and uncrowded Constitution Gardens (enter near 20th and Constitution Ave.). People think that the trees here will obstruct the view, but they don't, because most all of the fireworks will be STRAIT UP. They don't allow people to get TOO close, but you may see the rare bit of shell fragment or ash falling, don't be alarmed as they will burn out before getting to the ground. However, please do PAY ATTENTION to what's going on around you if you're out anywhere on the Fourth.
Fireworks would not be the same with some sissy air launcher. This cleaned-up fireworks technology might be appropriate in Disneyland, but I really hope that it stays there.
Sun could easily gain a huge advantage for StarOffice (over Microsoft Office) by offering this feature for free in StarOffice. It should be easy to develop and very cheap to provide.
Perhaps a simple timestamp/hash version could be included in the free OpenOffice, with a more advanced certificate based or user-ID authenticated option in StarOffice.
This would also be perfect for Adobe to offer for Acrobat PDF files.
If free and non-proprietary, it would quickly become a popular standard, and perhaps THE standard.
This has already been satirized in a fantastic film called Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Andrea Martin (from SCTV) plays Hedwig's obnoxious publicist, who's always on her cell phone. In a hilarious deleted scene on the DVD, she has a phone implanted in her teeth. She presses on her teeth with her tongue to control the phone, and asks people to speak into her mouth to join in the conversation. When she gets hit in the head it goes off-hook and she can't stop the loud off-hook sound.
I think the scene was so funny (and too much about Andrea Martin, who's only a supporting actor here) that it distracted from the story and the scene in the movie just has her using a normal cell phone.
Cingular's adds often have a theme extolling Cingular's "Commitment to Creative Self-Expression," and have made statements expanding on this to include "...even when we may not agree with the views expressed."
This does not seem to square with there latest policy.
Including simple computer crime in this act is unnecessary and trivializes the act of terrorism. What an obscenity. There is a BIG difference between damaging a building with a can of spray paint, and with a 757. The penalties for these very different crimes are of course very different. Our chief law enforcement not seem to understand this concept. I have been expecting this type of excess in the overzealous rush by politicians to be seen as doing something to fight terrorism. As W said, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," and there is no room to question or dissent. No politician will dare to question this proposed act publicly. We should all remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who and what will be the next domestic casualties in this war? I shudder to think.
We need one in Washington, DC!
The FBI's ugly headquarters building (often shown on the X-files) is located on Pennsylvania Ave., nine blocks from the Capitol building, and would make an excellent, very hi-visibility location! (Perhaps even the very best?)
Wasn't it the FBI that decided to act upon Adobe's complaint?
While I check on legalities (such as if permits are necessary), is anyone interested in attending there?
I take it that there is no phone or Internet access at the offshore site you want to monitor? Not sure how to get around that. Perhaps you may want to consider just video tape?
Either way, you should check out X10.com. They don't have anything to interface the cam to a cell phone, and I'm not sure how you would do that. You might look into whether Metricom's Ricochet (which offers wireless internet in Washington and Baltimore) happens to extend to your area of the bay.
X10.com has lots of remote controls, switches, and cams. You will want to read carefully, as they come in several confusing packages and "specials."
Some of them are inexpensive and work with VCRs to only record when there is motion. They also have also have multi-camera/motion-detector/Internet systems that record one cam at a time. The site is kind of cheesy, and I have not purchased from them, but they have been around for a while (over a year).
I work for a large computing company which uses N2H2's Bess for filtering employee web access. Bess exhibits all the flaws typical of filtering products. Ridiculous sites are blocked and not blocked. For example until recently salon.com was blocked but salon.com/news or salon.com/sex was fine. Now all of salon.com is blocked. The entire corbis.com site is blocked (they have images of things like renaissance paintings that sometimes include nudity). The first site I found blocked was The Elvis Index, which is a just a long list of words with each word's popularity ranked relative to the word Elvis (although this includes four letter words it does not fit the N2H2 criteria that are used for blocking). Meanwhile, I can click links (in stories on Slashdot for example) that lead to pages which are not blocked although they contain content that is much more questionable than anything found on the blocked sites mentioned above. I don't want to visit pages with obscene content at work, and might even prefer a warning first or even a block to having them pop up at my desk, but filtering just doesn't work. In short, my experience using Bess is sometimes inconvenient and frustrating, and I can not determine any real benefit that it provides to me or my employer. The most likely reason it is being used is just to cover someone's ass.
I guess Cingular is trying to connect self-expression with cell phone use. It's a stretch, but not any more than the themes in most ads. I first thought that the add was exploitive, but then I went to Cingular's web site and read about Dan Keplinger (the artist), visited his web site, and read what he and others had to say about the commercial. Dan says: "I think Cingular showed courage to do something really different and something significant about the importance of self-expression." and "it gave me an unbelievable opportunity to show the world - a hundred million people - my art. It doesn't get any better than that. I hope that my talent, my art and my fighting spirit communicate their message. And I hope that people remember the gift that we all have - the gift of self-expression." What ad is better than that? And did Cingular or Dan benefit more? Now I really think it was a great ad!
Transportation -- But Not For People
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 1
I think IT is a robotic transportation device -- but not for people. For a cost of less than $2000, it would be very difficult to make a product that can be assembled in 10 minutes and is also safe, clean, and competitive with a car. Many of the trips that people make are to pick-up and deliver THINGS that could instead be handled by a small automated robotic vehicle, perhaps even one that flys. IT wouldn't need to accommodate hundreds of pounds or the safety requirements of people. This also fits with all of the details mentioned in the article about problems with existing regulations, and retrofitting cities, companies and campuses for IT. IT could bring instant gratification to e-commerce and would transform or replace a million things like Mail, UPS, Fedex, pizza/food delivery, and video rental. Think Kozmo for everything and more. Hordes of robots zipping around the streets, sidewalks, or even the sky would certainly be revolutionary!
Is John Lockard's essay really, "provocative and interesting"?
No. It's a load of pompus academic hooey, recycled observations of the obvious, and often inacuarate conclusions. John has just rolled it up for us in more of the same, and thrown it out for the/. community to feed upon. Too bad it wasn't shorter--then at least it would be a good troll.
Generic words trademarked as names like staples or sprint might be used in good faith by another company in a different business without violating the trademark. Organizations like WIPO and ICANN should be careful to ensure they are not being overzealous in protecting famous marks. IANAL, but another company using a trademarked name is usually in violation only when a likelihood of confusion exists. For example, it would likely be a clear violation for a software vendor to use microsoft.god because it is likely to be confused with Microsoft. But if you were marketing... oh..., let's say a Viagra antidote, you might succeed at making an argument that you were using microsoft in your name because it accurately described your product, which is very unlikely to be confused with Microsoft's products. Of course, this would be stupid unless you're ready to spend millions in legal fees and/or loose your case.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that most or all of the posts should be covered under the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. They discuss the leveraging of Microsoft's proven monopoly power to create another possibly ILLEGAL barrier to entry in the operating system market. The proprietary extensions do not seem to provide any benefit to consumers. This Microsoft "innovation" seems only to benefit Microsoft by preventing Windows2000 desktop users from using Kerberos without also buying a Windows2000 Server. It would otherwise be simple for these users to use Linux or other servers if the extensions had not been added AND kept proprietary. Few if any posts include the complete specification. A COMPLETE posting of copyrighted material may not be covered under Fair Use, but relevant portions should be. This is all about EXACTLY the type of behavior in question in the current antitrust case against Microsoft -- the ILLEGAL anticompetitive use of monopoly power.
Improving a UI is mainly just a question of finding the right resources. There's nothing unique about open source UI development that prevents UI pros such as yourself from participating. Just like documentation, formal usability testing is a less glamorous and often overlooked area of ANY software development effort. Formal testing and improvment of UIs will become more common as OSS continues to mature and includes more end user applications (a "geekey" UIs is perfectly appropriate when the UI is intended for use by geeks).
Slashdot Mirror
Congress is frighteningly clueless about many of the issues combining technology, law, and culture that face them today. I can't think of any one man who could better fill this vacuum.
Learn about Lessig's ideas, and his very effective style of presenting them, by watching a talk he gave at the TED conference in March 2007: How creativity is being strangled by the law.
----
Speak.to is about communication.
I agree. As fermion pointed out above, Microsoft is proving to be the new IBM, deluded that their solutions are always what's best for customers. Their new solutions are typically encumbered by their perspective of trying to leverage and protect their existing approaches--they just don't seem able to really embrace and exploit the possibilities of cloud computing. A look at the low rate of Vista adoption, and the recent rebranding of PlaysforSure, will also show how far from the mark they often fall, from what their customers and partners really want or need. They'll only lose their arrogance and break free of their legacy when the pressure increases--and it will.
The future will be even more challenging. In a few years Google's Android platform and other mobile devices on WiMax and 700 Mhz wireless, are likely to help push cloud computing into the mainstream. Google, Adobe, Microsoft, and others will all be developing better products. Take a look at Buzzword for a taste of how great a web application can be. Hybrid applications that can be synched and/or used disconnected, and encryption, will address the disadvantages of cloud computing today.
The future will include better options for users that will increasingly be in the cloud. It's likely to get here sooner than Microsoft will be ready for, but they'll eventually adapt and be a force to be reconed with in the cloud.
--
speak.to is about communication.
The only practical solution is to require providers to fully disclose any bandwidth shaping or similar throttling, and regulate the application of such limits to existing accounts.
Such limited service should never be sold as unlimited Internet access. Clear terms, such as limited, shaped or controlled, should be required. Limits should not be added to existing accounts without providing adequate notice of at least 60 days.
Trying to prohibit any type of throttling is a losing proposition that invites many arguments against it; and such legislation would be very difficult to pass. Regulating how networks are managed and Quality of Service is maintained just isn't practical. But it's easy to require any routine application throttling or traffic shaping to be fully disclosed. An informed customer is unlikely to choose such a limited service; it's unlikely they would even be offered.
Speak.to is about communication
Google now has even more reason to bid. Any wireless network requires some of the limited resource of radio spectrum. The FCC regulates the use this resource for the benefit of the public. There is little or no public benefit from allowing exclusive and restrictive use of this resource; but great benefits from open access. It's clear that the FCC should support the MOST open access possible. The decision not to support more of the open access provisions is inappropriate and could even suggest undue influence. It will stifle choice, competition, innovation and growth. Congress should consider intervening by passing legislation requiring open access (including open wholesale access) in new allocations of the public airwaves. This auction is a very important allocation of prime radio spectrum that belongs to everyone; allowing exclusive and restrictive use of it might increase the perceived value of the licences, but is a disservice to the public. Hopefully Google will bid and win a good chunk of it and make it available in an open wholesale manner (perhaps even to AT&T and Verizon).
About communication: speak.to
This should cause at least some people to stop using the silly term WEB 2.0.
Perhaps it's just me that doesn't "grok" the importance of this "new paradigm," but I don't think it merits a new buzz-term.
But since WEB 2.0 is nearly as clunky and awkward as BLOG, it's sure to become another popular buzz-term.
I noticed. It suggests a bias against subscription music services.
The term rental suggests paying for temporary use of specific items -- as in renting an apartment or a movie.
Subscription is a better way to describe paying for access to a large collection, which includes new items as they are published.
"Subscription Music" is a good way to descibe these services. No need for an alternative.
--Dale
The second result is pretty good introduction
Other results include more details.
This study shows important facts that are being ignored in U.S. energy policy. But I see some problems, and important facts that are not included.
For example, exactly how efficient is gasoline -- if you include exploring for the crude oil, drilling, pumping, transporting crude, refining into gas, and then transporting the gas? Likely much better than the alternative technologies, but how much?
More importantly, the study concludes that investing in other technologies such as hydrogen would be better -- But why? Hydrogen has EXACTLY the same efficiency problem (likely worse!) Hydrogen is also difficult and expensive to store, transport, and use.
The study does a good job of debunking the hype for several current alternative fuel technologies, but then jumps on the bandwagon for the most wildly over-hyped and impractical of all -- hydrogen. This leads me to believe the study is not entirely objective.
Every photo is automatically copyrighted to the photographer, and the Copyrights can be transferred only in writing. Stating this simple fact makes the issue much clearer.
If someone takes a photo and gives you a copy, you can legally reproduce it only if they also give you written permission (with a few exceptions, such as very old photos). Whether the photo was taken by a professional or amateur does not matter. When you are the photographer or have written permission, a vendor can legally do anything you ask them to do with the photo. Vendors can cover themselves legally by having you sign a form stating that you are the photographer or have written permission. They also need to avoid being negligent, such as reproducing something marked "Copyright 2005 XYZ Studios", for example, without some sort of documentation.
The photo store were I worked briefly (Ritz), doing photo restorations and prints, required customers to sign such a form. We only questioned photos that clearly appeared not to be taken by the customer (like school photos or photos with "XYZ Studios" printed on them), where we would expect to see written permission from the photographer or studio. Some studios will provide customers written permission at no charge when asked.
Even with a clear and sensible policy, Copyright issues will confuse people. A stupid non-policy like "We can't print photos that look too good", is guaranteed to cause lots of confusion and frustration.
Did anyone really need another reason not to patronize Wal-mart?
This is nothing you couldn't always do with an ordinary telephone.
The only thing new is that it's trendy to do, and trendy to "report" on as "new" threat (ohmygosh!). It's only the trendiness that makes this a potential threat.
Disney-fied fireworks sound like a really bad idea. I'm a huge fan of fireworks displays, and feel it would just not be the Fourth of July without smelling a little sulfur!
I've been to most every display on The Mall in Washington, DC for over 20 years. For July 4, 1986, I went to the Statue of Liberty centennial in NY, which was the most fantastic and outrageous display I've ever seen (they somehow removed ALL the cars in lower Manhattan to accommodate the crowds); it was surreal.
I highly recommend seeing a display close up. On The Mall in DC, I love to get as close as possible to the launch site near 17th Street. The experience of HEARING each launch, and the anticipation of seeing the shell rise above you before exploding in all its glory is FANTASTIC. You know when they're coming, and have some idea of how big they will be. It's much different than watching from far away, there's no delay between the flash and the bang--and you FEEL the big bangs. There's also all kinds of sizzling, screaming, and crackling that you don't here from far away. Most of the ground level smoke comes from personal sparklers, firecrackers, and such (I expect that these things are prohibited in the magic--and antiseptic--kingdom); smoke from the official display is not a problem.
The best place to see the fireworks on The Mall in DC would be from the Washington Monument grounds, but this area is mobbed with people from early in the day. Better to go just before Showtime to the much calmer and uncrowded Constitution Gardens (enter near 20th and Constitution Ave.). People think that the trees here will obstruct the view, but they don't, because most all of the fireworks will be STRAIT UP. They don't allow people to get TOO close, but you may see the rare bit of shell fragment or ash falling, don't be alarmed as they will burn out before getting to the ground. However, please do PAY ATTENTION to what's going on around you if you're out anywhere on the Fourth.
Fireworks would not be the same with some sissy air launcher. This cleaned-up fireworks technology might be appropriate in Disneyland, but I really hope that it stays there.
Sun could easily gain a huge advantage for StarOffice (over Microsoft Office) by offering this feature for free in StarOffice. It should be easy to develop and very cheap to provide.
Perhaps a simple timestamp/hash version could be included in the free OpenOffice, with a more advanced certificate based or user-ID authenticated option in StarOffice.
This would also be perfect for Adobe to offer for Acrobat PDF files.
If free and non-proprietary, it would quickly become a popular standard, and perhaps THE standard.
This has already been satirized in a fantastic film called Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Andrea Martin (from SCTV) plays Hedwig's obnoxious publicist, who's always on her cell phone. In a hilarious deleted scene on the DVD, she has a phone implanted in her teeth. She presses on her teeth with her tongue to control the phone, and asks people to speak into her mouth to join in the conversation. When she gets hit in the head it goes off-hook and she can't stop the loud off-hook sound.
I think the scene was so funny (and too much about Andrea Martin, who's only a supporting actor here) that it distracted from the story and the scene in the movie just has her using a normal cell phone.
Cingular's adds often have a theme extolling Cingular's "Commitment to Creative Self-Expression," and have made statements expanding on this to include "...even when we may not agree with the views expressed."
This does not seem to square with there latest policy.
Censorship sucks. Shame on them.
Including simple computer crime in this act is unnecessary and trivializes the act of terrorism. What an obscenity. There is a BIG difference between damaging a building with a can of spray paint, and with a 757. The penalties for these very different crimes are of course very different. Our chief law enforcement not seem to understand this concept. I have been expecting this type of excess in the overzealous rush by politicians to be seen as doing something to fight terrorism. As W said, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," and there is no room to question or dissent. No politician will dare to question this proposed act publicly. We should all remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who and what will be the next domestic casualties in this war? I shudder to think.
We need one in Washington, DC!
The FBI's ugly headquarters building (often shown on the X-files) is located on Pennsylvania Ave., nine blocks from the Capitol building, and would make an excellent, very hi-visibility location! (Perhaps even the very best?)
Wasn't it the FBI that decided to act upon Adobe's complaint?
While I check on legalities (such as if permits are necessary), is anyone interested in attending there?
Either way, you should check out X10.com. They don't have anything to interface the cam to a cell phone, and I'm not sure how you would do that. You might look into whether Metricom's Ricochet (which offers wireless internet in Washington and Baltimore) happens to extend to your area of the bay.
X10.com has lots of remote controls, switches, and cams. You will want to read carefully, as they come in several confusing packages and "specials."
Some of them are inexpensive and work with VCRs to only record when there is motion. They also have also have multi-camera/motion-detector/Internet systems that record one cam at a time. The site is kind of cheesy, and I have not purchased from them, but they have been around for a while (over a year).
Good luck.
I work for a large computing company which uses N2H2's Bess for filtering employee web access. Bess exhibits all the flaws typical of filtering products. Ridiculous sites are blocked and not blocked. For example until recently salon.com was blocked but salon.com/news or salon.com/sex was fine. Now all of salon.com is blocked. The entire corbis.com site is blocked (they have images of things like renaissance paintings that sometimes include nudity). The first site I found blocked was The Elvis Index, which is a just a long list of words with each word's popularity ranked relative to the word Elvis (although this includes four letter words it does not fit the N2H2 criteria that are used for blocking). Meanwhile, I can click links (in stories on Slashdot for example) that lead to pages which are not blocked although they contain content that is much more questionable than anything found on the blocked sites mentioned above. I don't want to visit pages with obscene content at work, and might even prefer a warning first or even a block to having them pop up at my desk, but filtering just doesn't work. In short, my experience using Bess is sometimes inconvenient and frustrating, and I can not determine any real benefit that it provides to me or my employer. The most likely reason it is being used is just to cover someone's ass.
I guess Cingular is trying to connect self-expression with cell phone use. It's a stretch, but not any more than the themes in most ads. I first thought that the add was exploitive, but then I went to Cingular's web site and read about Dan Keplinger (the artist), visited his web site, and read what he and others had to say about the commercial. Dan says: "I think Cingular showed courage to do something really different and something significant about the importance of self-expression." and "it gave me an unbelievable opportunity to show the world - a hundred million people - my art. It doesn't get any better than that. I hope that my talent, my art and my fighting spirit communicate their message. And I hope that people remember the gift that we all have - the gift of self-expression." What ad is better than that? And did Cingular or Dan benefit more? Now I really think it was a great ad!
I think IT is a robotic transportation device -- but not for people. For a cost of less than $2000, it would be very difficult to make a product that can be assembled in 10 minutes and is also safe, clean, and competitive with a car. Many of the trips that people make are to pick-up and deliver THINGS that could instead be handled by a small automated robotic vehicle, perhaps even one that flys. IT wouldn't need to accommodate hundreds of pounds or the safety requirements of people. This also fits with all of the details mentioned in the article about problems with existing regulations, and retrofitting cities, companies and campuses for IT. IT could bring instant gratification to e-commerce and would transform or replace a million things like Mail, UPS, Fedex, pizza/food delivery, and video rental. Think Kozmo for everything and more. Hordes of robots zipping around the streets, sidewalks, or even the sky would certainly be revolutionary!
No. It's a load of pompus academic hooey, recycled observations of the obvious, and often inacuarate conclusions. John has just rolled it up for us in more of the same, and thrown it out for the /. community to feed upon. Too bad it wasn't shorter--then at least it would be a good troll.
Generic words trademarked as names like staples or sprint might be used in good faith by another company in a different business without violating the trademark. Organizations like WIPO and ICANN should be careful to ensure they are not being overzealous in protecting famous marks. IANAL, but another company using a trademarked name is usually in violation only when a likelihood of confusion exists. For example, it would likely be a clear violation for a software vendor to use microsoft.god because it is likely to be confused with Microsoft. But if you were marketing... oh..., let's say a Viagra antidote, you might succeed at making an argument that you were using microsoft in your name because it accurately described your product, which is very unlikely to be confused with Microsoft's products. Of course, this would be stupid unless you're ready to spend millions in legal fees and/or loose your case.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that most or all of the posts should be covered under the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. They discuss the leveraging of Microsoft's proven monopoly power to create another possibly ILLEGAL barrier to entry in the operating system market. The proprietary extensions do not seem to provide any benefit to consumers. This Microsoft "innovation" seems only to benefit Microsoft by preventing Windows2000 desktop users from using Kerberos without also buying a Windows2000 Server. It would otherwise be simple for these users to use Linux or other servers if the extensions had not been added AND kept proprietary. Few if any posts include the complete specification. A COMPLETE posting of copyrighted material may not be covered under Fair Use, but relevant portions should be. This is all about EXACTLY the type of behavior in question in the current antitrust case against Microsoft -- the ILLEGAL anticompetitive use of monopoly power.
Improving a UI is mainly just a question of finding the right resources. There's nothing unique about open source UI development that prevents UI pros such as yourself from participating. Just like documentation, formal usability testing is a less glamorous and often overlooked area of ANY software development effort. Formal testing and improvment of UIs will become more common as OSS continues to mature and includes more end user applications (a "geekey" UIs is perfectly appropriate when the UI is intended for use by geeks).