And how exactly is my example wrong? None of my friends who originally registered.org addresses were affiliated with non-profits, nor were they asked about their affiliation.
In fact, when you register a domain today, you are encouraged to register variations under other domain extensions.
I do a search for "iamnotanonprofit.com" at netsol.com and I'm shown a list of eight "other names you might like" under different extensions, along with five variations on the word combo "iamnotanonprofit." They sure seem to be are all about profit, and not about judicious, regulated management of domains.
Your last name is obviously not Smith, Jones, Wang, Chow, or any number of extremely generic, common names. Plenty of people in this world share their first and last name with hundreds, if not thousands, of people worldwide.
The "I'm Feeling Lucky" button takes you to the first search result link. Why would I want to go there automatically instead of scanning the first few results to confirm I'm loading the correct one? Most of the time my target link falls somewhere between the between the 3rd and 10th links.
Every time, and I do mean every time, I refer a friend to Google two things happen.
I have to explain that Google is not a children's site, despite the color scheme and the lack of a tagline indicating that Google is a search engine.
The friend asks, "What does the 'I'm Feeling Lucky?' button do?" Their follow-up question is, "Why would I want to do that?"
Google needs to improve their usability testing because they have a long way to go. They're coasting right now because the interface is simple, so the annoyances are less noticeable.
Googles' ranking criteria can be duplicated. It's the finer details of site design that no one has gotten quite right yet.
NSI should have rigorously regulating domain registrations? Sorry, not in a capitalist society. This is America. NSI makes much more money letting every freak register any domain they want. No surprise that.orgs are usually not registered to non-profits.
Dan doesn't get it. Domain names are critical for so many reasons:
People don't guess domain names, except in really obvious situations. Example: IBM.com, sony.com, etc. Having domains like "widgetworld.com" were never about guessability. They're just easy to remember and spell and rank better in search results when the keyword searched for is actually in the domain name.
If your company or web site is not high profile, you don't get found in Google. If I'm a small-time widget seller, Google gives me no traffic because it places the big-time popular widget sellers at the top of the search results. I have to somehow gain popularity without search engines before being assisted by them. It creates a snowball effect where the big sites stay big by the little guys being pushed down.
Web addresses are publicized many ways and need to be memorable when seen on billboards, spoken over the phone, etc. Many businesses have similar names - it's much easier to go directly to a web site than to rely on a search engine to determine which company you want.
Dan Gillmor is obviously savvy at forming search queries. The average person is clueless. Google helps, but not nearly enough. It's always easier and faster if the user knows how to load a URL directly instead of relying on a search engine.
Google could go out of business. Where's the Google-effect then? We're supposed to hope the next search engine to come along is as good and won't go out of business despite reliance on yet-to-be-proven economic models such as web advertising?
His example of searching for "Dan Gillmor" is laughable. What if your name is John Smith, Bill Jones, David Chow or any number of highly generic names? Google is great, but many searches are still very frustrating for many users.
I would like to see domain names publicized as they are, and by IP and by bar code, but for them to also carry other information, such as the company name and description. Then people carry a pen-like or card-like device to grab URLs off of everything (a can of baked beans, back of a cereal box, off a business card, in a newspaper, etc.) to take back to your computer later to load the appropriate page. Nothing proprietary like that CueCat crap. A real standard and simple technology to make addresses easily accessible.
They need to be ubiquitous.
Good job? Good job??? Is it good that companies feel they can try slipping invasions of privacy by us? If they get caught and there is a big backlash, all they have to do is claim ignorance or that it's a mistake or that they just showed bad judgement... and the good little consumer says, "Oh, that's OK, I forgive you. Let's be friends."
Well, it seems there's a whole lot of bad judgement going around that companies feel can be excused away.
Do you trust Borland? Do you believe them? How is your trust for Borland different from other companies that have tried to float outrageous measures that were later excused away or apologized for?
Web polls are often rigged, and are entirely unscientific and meaningless anyway. Consumer opinions are often fake. (Hell, legitimate reviews in major media are often heavily influenced too.) The bottom line is... word-of-mouth is your most trustworthy tool.
I wouldn't mod your post as funny. Quite serious. One of my family members has retinitis pigmentosa and is adamant that science will restore (to some degree) her sight before she dies. She refuses to learn braille for this reason. I don't encourage that viewpoint, but do share with her each eye science article that gets posted here.
I'm helping spec her computer and accessibility software now, her first PC since MS-DOS...
The legacy viewpoint is that when we are in public we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, that legal viewpoint was created before video cameras became standard in every business and street corner, before consumer-grade spy cameras and recording devices, and even before handheld video cameras.
Legal rulings change. Our privacy is worth a rethinking of the situation.
If the system has failed to catch a single criminal, why on earth are taxpayers funding a failure? The company should give the technology away until it is proven.
It's like every other anti-anti device. Copy protection on software most hurts the legitimate users. Facial recognition invades the privacy of upstanding citizens more than any perceived benefit to crime fighting. It is casting the widest possible net while knowing full well that criminals are aware of you and will subvert your attempts to control them.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hmmm, let's turn your argument around and look at the corporation as if it were a person (it has the legal rights of a person after all). If I poisoned 1 person I'm pretty sure I'd go to jail. If I poisoned a whole town I'm pretty sure my body would be torn apart in a mob uprising and trampled, then my tattered clothing would be sold on Ebay to people who would then burn it in effigy. One week later I would be the subject of a "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law and Order. Two weeks later I would be the subject of a best selling book, "Fleener: Looking into the Face of Evil." Four months later I would be the subject of a TV Movie, "Hellspawn: The Fleener Story."
So, uh, why should be trust anything this company says, given its track record? Please keep this in perspective. We're talking about a lot of peoples lives.
The movie is titled 'Attack of the Clones.' The film would not be complete without 'NSync. I'm just disappointed that Backstreet Boys, New Kids on the Block, and 98 Degrees will not have cameos.
The average person wants a super-simple, easy-to-use PC. (Slashdotters are definitely not average.)
Most people do not understand file management or how their operating system works. They identify only with the applications they use. That is why when you ask someone what OS they run they will tell you "Office 2000" or somesuch. The applications are the OS to these people.
In that respect, a streamlined OS for the average user should be transparent. The user should spend little time thinking about where files are stored or what folders are where. Get them into their applications and make locating files easy. The less time spent moving files around or making your icons line up pretty, the better.
We need the Beatles. They could not read sheet music and did not know they were breaking all the rules for song writing. They wrote new rules that worked. We need a new OS written by someone whose ideas are not hindered by the assumptions that have brought us to where we are today.
OK, I should clarify my quesiton. In addition to wanting NO monthly fees, I do not want any of my viewing habits tracked. I do not want the DVR dialing out or connecting back to any company. I want it to be a fully self-contained unit that functions as a basic digital VCR. Does ReplyTV allow this?
I won't be buying a DVR until they offer a non-subscription version. I just want to record stuff without VHS tapes and pause live broadcasts. I could care less about the other recording options. Can you use today's DVRs as a replacement for your VCR without any annoying hassles or subscription fees?
Yes, Sonny Bono left a legacy of shame, seriously injuring our culture by bowing to corporate greed with his needless extension of copyright. What a horrible precedent to set.
Nononono... The $1.10 is their temporary advertised "special" price for members.
To answer your question: NO on both counts. Rather than pay $1.35 or $1.10, I shop at WinCo (formerly WareMart) where bread is only 89 cents and made fresh that day (usually still warm too). Plus, that chain is employee-owned and they don't track squat about me.
Slashdot Mirror
And how exactly is my example wrong? None of my friends who originally registered .org addresses were affiliated with non-profits, nor were they asked about their affiliation.
In fact, when you register a domain today, you are encouraged to register variations under other domain extensions.
I do a search for "iamnotanonprofit.com" at netsol.com and I'm shown a list of eight "other names you might like" under different extensions, along with five variations on the word combo "iamnotanonprofit." They sure seem to be are all about profit, and not about judicious, regulated management of domains.
Your last name is obviously not Smith, Jones, Wang, Chow, or any number of extremely generic, common names. Plenty of people in this world share their first and last name with hundreds, if not thousands, of people worldwide.
Every time, and I do mean every time, I refer a friend to Google two things happen.
Google needs to improve their usability testing because they have a long way to go. They're coasting right now because the interface is simple, so the annoyances are less noticeable.
Googles' ranking criteria can be duplicated. It's the finer details of site design that no one has gotten quite right yet.
NSI should have rigorously regulating domain registrations? Sorry, not in a capitalist society. This is America. NSI makes much more money letting every freak register any domain they want. No surprise that .orgs are usually not registered to non-profits.
I would like to see domain names publicized as they are, and by IP and by bar code, but for them to also carry other information, such as the company name and description. Then people carry a pen-like or card-like device to grab URLs off of everything (a can of baked beans, back of a cereal box, off a business card, in a newspaper, etc.) to take back to your computer later to load the appropriate page. Nothing proprietary like that CueCat crap. A real standard and simple technology to make addresses easily accessible.
They need to be ubiquitous.
Good job? Good job??? Is it good that companies feel they can try slipping invasions of privacy by us? If they get caught and there is a big backlash, all they have to do is claim ignorance or that it's a mistake or that they just showed bad judgement... and the good little consumer says, "Oh, that's OK, I forgive you. Let's be friends."
Well, it seems there's a whole lot of bad judgement going around that companies feel can be excused away.
Do you trust Borland? Do you believe them? How is your trust for Borland different from other companies that have tried to float outrageous measures that were later excused away or apologized for?
Web polls are often rigged, and are entirely unscientific and meaningless anyway. Consumer opinions are often fake. (Hell, legitimate reviews in major media are often heavily influenced too.) The bottom line is... word-of-mouth is your most trustworthy tool.
I missed the blurb about human trials. (I even visited his web site looking for a submission form. Many research projects let you sign up online.)
Thanks for the alert, I'll send him an e-mail.
Ahh, but she can keep reading without knowing braille.
1) Books on tape.
2) Scan pages, convert to text, have the PC read it to her. There is software designed expressly for this purpose.
3) E-mail, and web browsing (though browsing is a pain because of crappy web design).
I think the most troublesome issue will be note taking. She either has to have a sharp memory, or use a handheld designed for the blind.
I wouldn't mod your post as funny. Quite serious. One of my family members has retinitis pigmentosa and is adamant that science will restore (to some degree) her sight before she dies. She refuses to learn braille for this reason. I don't encourage that viewpoint, but do share with her each eye science article that gets posted here.
I'm helping spec her computer and accessibility software now, her first PC since MS-DOS...
The legacy viewpoint is that when we are in public we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, that legal viewpoint was created before video cameras became standard in every business and street corner, before consumer-grade spy cameras and recording devices, and even before handheld video cameras.
Legal rulings change. Our privacy is worth a rethinking of the situation.
If the system has failed to catch a single criminal, why on earth are taxpayers funding a failure? The company should give the technology away until it is proven.
It's like every other anti-anti device. Copy protection on software most hurts the legitimate users. Facial recognition invades the privacy of upstanding citizens more than any perceived benefit to crime fighting. It is casting the widest possible net while knowing full well that criminals are aware of you and will subvert your attempts to control them.
Stop trying to throw reason into this argument!
Hmmm, let's turn your argument around and look at the corporation as if it were a person (it has the legal rights of a person after all). If I poisoned 1 person I'm pretty sure I'd go to jail. If I poisoned a whole town I'm pretty sure my body would be torn apart in a mob uprising and trampled, then my tattered clothing would be sold on Ebay to people who would then burn it in effigy. One week later I would be the subject of a "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law and Order. Two weeks later I would be the subject of a best selling book, "Fleener: Looking into the Face of Evil." Four months later I would be the subject of a TV Movie, "Hellspawn: The Fleener Story."
So, uh, why should be trust anything this company says, given its track record? Please keep this in perspective. We're talking about a lot of peoples lives.
The movie is titled 'Attack of the Clones.' The film would not be complete without 'NSync. I'm just disappointed that Backstreet Boys, New Kids on the Block, and 98 Degrees will not have cameos.
Napster really needs a plush stuffed mascot that I can buy and place next to the Pets.com dog I have stuffed away in my bedroom closet.
Who gets the name? The company with the most lawyers.
I'm going to sit back and watch the TV Guide channel to take in a taste of all channels. Why limit yourself to one stupid marathon?
Yes, there is an established protocol for how music is composed.
The average person wants a super-simple, easy-to-use PC. (Slashdotters are definitely not average.)
Most people do not understand file management or how their operating system works. They identify only with the applications they use. That is why when you ask someone what OS they run they will tell you "Office 2000" or somesuch. The applications are the OS to these people.
In that respect, a streamlined OS for the average user should be transparent. The user should spend little time thinking about where files are stored or what folders are where. Get them into their applications and make locating files easy. The less time spent moving files around or making your icons line up pretty, the better.
We need the Beatles. They could not read sheet music and did not know they were breaking all the rules for song writing. They wrote new rules that worked. We need a new OS written by someone whose ideas are not hindered by the assumptions that have brought us to where we are today.
OK, I should clarify my quesiton. In addition to wanting NO monthly fees, I do not want any of my viewing habits tracked. I do not want the DVR dialing out or connecting back to any company. I want it to be a fully self-contained unit that functions as a basic digital VCR. Does ReplyTV allow this?
I won't be buying a DVR until they offer a non-subscription version. I just want to record stuff without VHS tapes and pause live broadcasts. I could care less about the other recording options. Can you use today's DVRs as a replacement for your VCR without any annoying hassles or subscription fees?
Yes, Sonny Bono left a legacy of shame, seriously injuring our culture by bowing to corporate greed with his needless extension of copyright. What a horrible precedent to set.
Nononono... The $1.10 is their temporary advertised "special" price for members.
To answer your question: NO on both counts. Rather than pay $1.35 or $1.10, I shop at WinCo (formerly WareMart) where bread is only 89 cents and made fresh that day (usually still warm too). Plus, that chain is employee-owned and they don't track squat about me.