AFAIK, the laws of buying and selling and property registration (land for the wind farm) are all state laws, none federal.
Or are they bringing this under interstate commerce?
Anyway, isn't this banned under WTO regs? Don't you have to give international companies the same treatment as national companies? Sounds like the kind of thing the US Trade Representative would complain about if China were to ban a US company's investment for nebulous "national security" reasons.
Well, one thing you can do is give examples of usage in the class Javadoc, which is supposed to be a kind of overview of usage for the entire class. The method Javadoc will, of course, be more specific.
Wow, contempt for the non-university masses, much?
Anyway, I have two suggestions:
1) If you liked the way the Internet was (an ivory tower of academia), you should drop the current Internet, and get on Internet2.
2) There's more to the Internet than the World Wide Web. If you don't like the web, don't go there. Stay on Usenet and Gopher. Gopher has more servers than it used to, and you can access it via Lynx or Firefox addon. Or block non-.edu domains.
And please leave the no-pay, ad-supported Web to the rest of us.
Speaking of entitlement, your analogy goes the other way, too.
Peeking in windows? How about peeking at content? In your model, the windows will be shuttered, too, with paywalls.
Content providers have no entitlement to make money, but they have no obligation to serve content to you, either.
The current model allows you to turn off ads just fine while still being able to read content for free.
Also, think of the children (sorry). Right now, a student at, say the University of Lagos can access all the great newspapers of the world, for free. Under your model, there's no way it would be able to afford subscriptions beyond a few large newspapers (NYT, WSJ, Times). What you'll have done is shut down the breadth of expression on the web.
Current model: Content provider puts up content, and also an ad. You get the read the content for free, and also there's an ad. If you're interested, you'll click on it. Lately, ads are more targeted to what you're interested in, so there's less of a scattershot approach. Also, it's totally no obligation. You don't have to click on the ad if you don't want to, and you can block if you really want to.
This is the model under which there are 10,000 newspapers on the web for you to be able to read and expand your horizons.
Proposed model: Upend this whole model not just for yourself, but for everybody. Get out your credit card for any article you might want to read. Say goodbye to being able to read those 10000 newspapers. You might have 1 or 2 subscriptions, but not 10000.
The only content available on the Internet will be WSJ/Times of London type paywalled sites, Joe Bob's rants on Blogspot, flamewars on Usenet, oh and maybe Wikipedia with a million "citation required" because no one can get into site X to verify a citation.
When everything's paywalled, that's hardly a "web". No viewing, no linking.
Yeah, and those ads had nothing to do with what you were actually interested in, whether that's laptops, 1TB HDs, flower pots, sewing patterns, or whatever.
It's much more useful to show you an ad for stuff you're interested in than for interests which you do not have.
>I merely reject the contention that profit is a requisite for the creation and distribution of content. Besides tracking is hardly inductive of profit for content creators who rely on advertising.
Well, but do you also reject the notion that profit is a requisite for whatever it is that you do? Making cabinets, landscaping, painting, etc.?
The second web was commercialized, with annoying ads (popup, autoplay, with sound, garish, etc.). Part of the reason they were seen as annoying is that they weren't anything you'd be interested in.
Say you've got a general-interest magazine, like Time. What ads are advertisers supposed to show you? For senior diseases? For Corvettes? Show anything, and it's bound to annoy major parts of the audience.
The current web has it about right: no popups, no autoplay, no sound. You get shown the stuff that you've shown an interest in. And people that absolutely can't stand ads (for whatever reason), can still turn them off.
DNT activists are threatening to disrupt this reasonable situation.
Although a lot of companies would like to invest in their people, and give them incentives and so forth, one big problem in the IT arena is:
How to should you invest in your workers? I.e., send them to training. Or even let them just educate themselves about Java/Hadoop/NoSQL/whatever without working on a project for a few months. That in itself is great incentive instead of focusing on billable hours all the time.
The desire of the company is that you're investing in the future of the developer. But the problem is once they're all well and trained, they can simply jump ship, and the company isn't able to recoup their investment.
So what ends up happening is companies don't provide training, leading to the phenomenon of IT people having to read 2 hours of material every night just to keep up.
Well, but if you're not going to that site, you're not one of their users. Their users are already OK with ads being a tradeoff for free, good content.
I get to read very informative publications like Foreign Policy, the Economist, and the Guardian that I would never have a chance to read otherwise. It's not all just an utter wasteland of Perez Hilton and so forth out here.
It's a great bargain, and at any time I can just turn off JavaScript to not see that ads (if I like), which I sometimes do. DNT activists are threatening to go nuclear, which is just too far.
But you can already block your cookies if you like.
While I too don't really like intrusive or autoplay ads, and have plenty of my own tastes, I don't really want to impose them on the whole web via the FTC.
Playing devil's advocate here: Tracking ads allow lesser and offbeat websites to exist.
Otherwise, the only nonpay-content websites you could have would be those directly related to a money-making ad category (like computers and mobile phones).
Tracking ads let you have a blog on esoteric subjects, and yet your visitors will still get relevant ads.
Example: I get a lot of server and webhosting ads, which are highly relevant for me. On the other hand, you don't like any ads, so you block them. No problem, right?
First of, I'd like to thank you for whatever content you've put on the web. The old web. Best viewed with NCSA Mosaic.
Anyway, I don't see how a non-commercial web has to exist only if the commercial web doesn't..edu and (to a lesser extent.org), won't go away if.com is out there. Both can exist at the same time.
And I don't think should try to use DNT to force.com to look like.edu. The fact is, it's not going to. It'll either go out of business, or it'll start charging for content, which means you won't be to access it even with an adblocker.
What he's saying is even if you "call" emergency services, who knows when the packets carrying your voice will arrive at the other end, or in which order, hence not being able to talk as well when you really need it.
>so how do you draw a map that needs to fulfill multiple incompatible claims?
Yeah, it's a case of states gone crazy. The sole reasoning for anything a state does anymore is simply continuation and expansion of the power of that state. Nothing to do with people actually want or need.
"The Nokia 103 is dust resistant, comes with an âoeanti-scratch coverâ, has a 1.36 inch black and white display, flashlight, an FM radio (requires a headset), and an 800 mAh battery that should give you 27 days of standby time or 11 hours of talk time. Size and weight: 107.2 mm x 45.1 mm x 15.3 mm; 77 grams."
How would this then have applied to the Apple/Samsung fight? If I remember it correctly, Apple started the fight in Europe, right? So, by the reasoning above, the fight should have finished in Europe, and not in California, correct?
What you say is a truism, in that a judge (or the government) could do whatever they really want.
However, it doesn't make it fair or even prudent.
California has very strict standards for pollution. But they only apply them within their borders. They don't say to a company that you can only operate in CA if you keep to the CA standards all across the world.
Ordering somebody to do something within your jurisdiction seems correct to the ordinary person. Similarly, ordering it worldwide seems an overreach. The end result is going to be chaos.
In their megalomania, politicians, bureaucrats, and judges have forgotten that level of wisdom.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted.
But if you read the rhetoric on the other side in this thread, it's been pretty much anti-advertising in general.
What's the legal framework for this, exactly?
AFAIK, the laws of buying and selling and property registration (land for the wind farm) are all state laws, none federal.
Or are they bringing this under interstate commerce?
Anyway, isn't this banned under WTO regs? Don't you have to give international companies the same treatment as national companies? Sounds like the kind of thing the US Trade Representative would complain about if China were to ban a US company's investment for nebulous "national security" reasons.
Well, one thing you can do is give examples of usage in the class Javadoc, which is supposed to be a kind of overview of usage for the entire class. The method Javadoc will, of course, be more specific.
Wow, contempt for the non-university masses, much?
Anyway, I have two suggestions:
1) If you liked the way the Internet was (an ivory tower of academia), you should drop the current Internet, and get on Internet2.
2) There's more to the Internet than the World Wide Web. If you don't like the web, don't go there. Stay on Usenet and Gopher. Gopher has more servers than it used to, and you can access it via Lynx or Firefox addon. Or block non-.edu domains.
And please leave the no-pay, ad-supported Web to the rest of us.
Speaking of entitlement, your analogy goes the other way, too.
Peeking in windows? How about peeking at content? In your model, the windows will be shuttered, too, with paywalls.
Content providers have no entitlement to make money, but they have no obligation to serve content to you, either.
The current model allows you to turn off ads just fine while still being able to read content for free.
Also, think of the children (sorry). Right now, a student at, say the University of Lagos can access all the great newspapers of the world, for free. Under your model, there's no way it would be able to afford subscriptions beyond a few large newspapers (NYT, WSJ, Times). What you'll have done is shut down the breadth of expression on the web.
Current model: Content provider puts up content, and also an ad. You get the read the content for free, and also there's an ad. If you're interested, you'll click on it. Lately, ads are more targeted to what you're interested in, so there's less of a scattershot approach. Also, it's totally no obligation. You don't have to click on the ad if you don't want to, and you can block if you really want to.
This is the model under which there are 10,000 newspapers on the web for you to be able to read and expand your horizons.
Proposed model: Upend this whole model not just for yourself, but for everybody. Get out your credit card for any article you might want to read. Say goodbye to being able to read those 10000 newspapers. You might have 1 or 2 subscriptions, but not 10000.
The only content available on the Internet will be WSJ/Times of London type paywalled sites, Joe Bob's rants on Blogspot, flamewars on Usenet, oh and maybe Wikipedia with a million "citation required" because no one can get into site X to verify a citation.
When everything's paywalled, that's hardly a "web". No viewing, no linking.
Yeah, and those ads had nothing to do with what you were actually interested in, whether that's laptops, 1TB HDs, flower pots, sewing patterns, or whatever.
It's much more useful to show you an ad for stuff you're interested in than for interests which you do not have.
>I merely reject the contention that profit is a requisite for the creation and distribution of content. Besides tracking is hardly inductive of profit for content creators who rely on advertising.
Well, but do you also reject the notion that profit is a requisite for whatever it is that you do? Making cabinets, landscaping, painting, etc.?
The first web was just mostly .edu site.
The second web was commercialized, with annoying ads (popup, autoplay, with sound, garish, etc.). Part of the reason they were seen as annoying is that they weren't anything you'd be interested in.
Say you've got a general-interest magazine, like Time. What ads are advertisers supposed to show you? For senior diseases? For Corvettes? Show anything, and it's bound to annoy major parts of the audience.
The current web has it about right: no popups, no autoplay, no sound. You get shown the stuff that you've shown an interest in. And people that absolutely can't stand ads (for whatever reason), can still turn them off.
DNT activists are threatening to disrupt this reasonable situation.
Although a lot of companies would like to invest in their people, and give them incentives and so forth, one big problem in the IT arena is:
How to should you invest in your workers? I.e., send them to training. Or even let them just educate themselves about Java/Hadoop/NoSQL/whatever without working on a project for a few months. That in itself is great incentive instead of focusing on billable hours all the time.
The desire of the company is that you're investing in the future of the developer. But the problem is once they're all well and trained, they can simply jump ship, and the company isn't able to recoup their investment.
So what ends up happening is companies don't provide training, leading to the phenomenon of IT people having to read 2 hours of material every night just to keep up.
Well, but if you're not going to that site, you're not one of their users. Their users are already OK with ads being a tradeoff for free, good content.
I get to read very informative publications like Foreign Policy, the Economist, and the Guardian that I would never have a chance to read otherwise. It's not all just an utter wasteland of Perez Hilton and so forth out here.
It's a great bargain, and at any time I can just turn off JavaScript to not see that ads (if I like), which I sometimes do. DNT activists are threatening to go nuclear, which is just too far.
But you can already block your cookies if you like.
While I too don't really like intrusive or autoplay ads, and have plenty of my own tastes, I don't really want to impose them on the whole web via the FTC.
You're saying that sites are tracking by IP, and not just by cookies?
Playing devil's advocate here: Tracking ads allow lesser and offbeat websites to exist.
Otherwise, the only nonpay-content websites you could have would be those directly related to a money-making ad category (like computers and mobile phones).
Tracking ads let you have a blog on esoteric subjects, and yet your visitors will still get relevant ads.
Example: I get a lot of server and webhosting ads, which are highly relevant for me. On the other hand, you don't like any ads, so you block them. No problem, right?
So I imagine you don't really care for DNT, right?
You're already running adblockers, what's the point of DNT? Just destroying the ad-funded free content sites.
First of, I'd like to thank you for whatever content you've put on the web. The old web. Best viewed with NCSA Mosaic.
Anyway, I don't see how a non-commercial web has to exist only if the commercial web doesn't. .edu and (to a lesser extent .org), won't go away if .com is out there. Both can exist at the same time.
And I don't think should try to use DNT to force .com to look like .edu. The fact is, it's not going to. It'll either go out of business, or it'll start charging for content, which means you won't be to access it even with an adblocker.
Just set your browser to only have session cookies. Why this big DNT thing?
Or do people think even that is too much? How will you even log in?
What he's saying is even if you "call" emergency services, who knows when the packets carrying your voice will arrive at the other end, or in which order, hence not being able to talk as well when you really need it.
>so how do you draw a map that needs to fulfill multiple incompatible claims?
Yeah, it's a case of states gone crazy. The sole reasoning for anything a state does anymore is simply continuation and expansion of the power of that state. Nothing to do with people actually want or need.
And German courts have no right to rule the meaning of the contract?
Therein lies a tale. BP used to be British Petroleum used to be the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, believe it or not.
It started out as the Anglo-Persian Oil company when a millionaire Londoner negotiated a concession with the Shah of Iran.
Glad the fact of Korea being nothing more than a satrapy is cleared up.
I take it that US court opinions won't be bothered with in China and India, not being dependent on the US for their defense.
Found this off a search for "cheapest Nokia":
"The Nokia 103 is dust resistant, comes with an âoeanti-scratch coverâ, has a 1.36 inch black and white display, flashlight, an FM radio (requires a headset), and an 800 mAh battery that should give you 27 days of standby time or 11 hours of talk time. Size and weight: 107.2 mm x 45.1 mm x 15.3 mm; 77 grams."
16 Euros or $21. No camera.
'nuff said.
How would this then have applied to the Apple/Samsung fight? If I remember it correctly, Apple started the fight in Europe, right? So, by the reasoning above, the fight should have finished in Europe, and not in California, correct?
What you say is a truism, in that a judge (or the government) could do whatever they really want.
However, it doesn't make it fair or even prudent.
California has very strict standards for pollution. But they only apply them within their borders. They don't say to a company that you can only operate in CA if you keep to the CA standards all across the world.
Ordering somebody to do something within your jurisdiction seems correct to the ordinary person. Similarly, ordering it worldwide seems an overreach. The end result is going to be chaos.
In their megalomania, politicians, bureaucrats, and judges have forgotten that level of wisdom.