These facts might not be obvious to someone who hasn't been paying attention.
Fine -- you have an opinion about TrustE (Please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion). But what you're really telling me is that you were too damn lazy to insert a couple of links into your article to tell me exactly why you were suspicious about TrustE.
My point still stands: Gossip and innuendo are NOT acceptable. Character assassination is NOT acceptable. If you are going to attack someone -- a real person, with real feeling and a real career -- then you better damn well care about providing facts to support your conclusions.
I mean, good god, you and your Slashdot brethren have already had many cases where your character was attacked based on association and/or misinterpretations of certain events. I would think you would have learned from that, and would be especially careful before attacking other's character.
The more I think about this post, the angrier I get.
I've said this in several posts, but I think it needs to said again load and clear: This article is nothing but gossip and innuendo.
If Michael wants to provide actual facts, that's one thing. But this character assassination is just not acceptable. I even had a follow-up post state that I should provide evidence that these people are not anti-privacy!!
Folks, is this really the world you want to live in? Where people are guilty until proven innocent? Gossip and innuendo should never be acceptable. Never!
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
If Slashdot had an ounce of balls, they would yank this article and issue apologies to all concerned.
As far as Lori Fena is concerned, what evidence do *you* have that she is commited to privacy?
Come on, Kevin. You know better than that. What evidence do I have that you don't sexually attack little girls?
When it comes to assassinating someone's character, it should not be OK to just make assumptions without any evidence. Is that really that world you want to live in, where people can just make up gossip and innuendo about you, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it's not true?
If Slashdot wants to dig up actual facts, that's fine. But gossip and innuendo is NEVER ok.
Allright, let's just take one of your "insights"...
Lori Fena, chairman of Web privacy organization TrustE: Fena is an advertising executive by trade. And obviously, having her on board means that TrustE won't exactly be cracking down on any of Doubleclick's practices.
Nice character assassination, without any evidence. How about actually doing some research, since that's what you are alleging to be doing, and tell us:
1) What evidence is there that TrustE being on a board of directors wouldn't be anything but good? Past history, please?
2) Since you know she is an advertising executive, and you choose to take this as damning of her character, how about giving us a full resume? Tell us exactly when and how she has been damaging to privacy (as you define damage, of course).
In fact, the only knees that are jerking are the net-libertarian types who hate government and automatically reject any suggestion that a corporation might be doing something bad. Like you.
And yet another knee jerking. I specifically didn't tell you my opinion on privacy, corporations and specifically this one. I am specifically attacking you and your appalling lack of research, attacks on possibly innocent people without providing a shred of evidence, and your all-around irresponsibility.
In short, what you are engaging in is gossip and innuendo, plain and simple.
I'm not going to make any comment on this "news", except to say DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
This commentary is so ridiculously biased and paranoid that unfortunately this article tells you almost nothing, except Michael has been watching too many "1984" movies.
I think it behooves everyone -- particularly the people who run Slashdot -- to remember that reasonable people can disagree even on matters of privacy. Sometimes these people don't even live in James-Bond-Villain style homes with albino cats, plotting how to take over the world. Good lord, sometimes they're even real people with real families!
And sometimes these people even have good points.
Knee-jerk -- dare I say immature? -- reactions like the kind that "michael" creates are NOT the way to influence policy.
I've got news for you... people have been put in jail for passing around trade secrets. It's called "theft".
People may argue with Microsoft's method of enforcing copyright. They may even argue that it's not "secure enough". But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing. Hey, the criminal may have felt that I owed him whatever he stole because I was richer than him. Guess what: It's still stealing. Rationalizations are not law.
Nobody twisted anyone's arm to download Microsoft's specification. You can live a long and happy life by not agreeing to the license agreement. But the point is that everyone who posted it knew that it was copyrighted material.
Unfortunately, none of those question have anything to do with the matter at hand.
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material. The copyright holder asked that it be removed. Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
The effect of such a title-based ban would be to block other bands' songs because they happened to have the same, or similar name to Dr Dre's songs.
For songs where there is a possibility of confusion, they usually have the name of the artist for that very reason. Yes, they could post without the artist's name, but again that makes it difficult to find what you want.
The point is that it doesn't have to be perfect to be effective. If they just eliminated songs where there was no confusion, that would go a long way to eliminating "contraband" music.
1/4" thick? I've seen those on Star Trek, but that's about it.
Well, I'm looking at the screen on my Thinkpad. The top screen half is about 1/4" thick. If it were made wider/taller, the battery and electronics could theoretically run along the sides.
I don't think it should be impossible, size-wise, although the weight thing is definitely a problem (assuming we want it to run longer than 5 minutes).
I'd like to see both the downloads and searched done through encrypted channels
Well, you couldn't do the download through encrypted channels. It's unreliable enough as it is through a direct link; can you imagine what it would be like when it also has to travel through 1 or more other hosts? "All riiigghhtt... that 200 meg download is almost done... Doh! An intervening host must've disconnected!"
Art is about art, not money. Ask the great painters and composers and sculptors who died poor and alone.
Well, let's be a little realistic here. Yes, some artists died poor and alone. But in the old days, I would say the majority were sponsored by upper class rich people, the church, or royalty. Much of the best art was commissioned work: The Last Supper, The Sistine Chapel, most of Michaelangelo's sculptures, etc. The Mona Lisa, on the other hand, was done purely by Da Vincy (sp? -- I'm having a brain fade) over 20 years for the sake of art.
"Dr. Dre has requested, however, that Napster simply delete his works from their directory rather than blocking users from using the service at all."
I'm sure Dr. Dre is going to get raked over the coals for this. To be fair, it's possible that he meant to block at the directory level, rather than simply deleting users.
Honestly, it's a little disingenuous for Napster to claim that they can't block individual music at the directory level. They certainly could look for all the Dr. Dre songs and block those individual titles. There's not going to be that many combinations. Yes, users can just rename the files, but it's a war of attrition that Napster will eventually win. Eventually, the renaming will get unrecognizable, and people won't be able to find the songs anyway.
In any case, none of this is going to stop Gnutella anyway. But I predict that Napster is going to go down.
Personally, I want something I can leave on a coffee table and not worry about it. Something about a quarter inch (say, the thickness of a CD case) and less than a pound. About a 14" screen.
Does anyone know any size details of any of the upcoming web pads?
Given the diversity of monitor sizes and resolutions, how are pixels at all a meaningful measure of font size?
They aren't. Unfortunately, Zeldman has failed to notice that almost every other site on the Internet has managed to use standard font tags, and somehow... they manage to work correctly! <valley girl>Like, oh my gawd!</valley girl>
I mean, isn't this the point of web-browsers? To give the reader control because the web-designers of the world have, on average, the design sense of a slug on LSD?
I don't know. I think you could have said that back in the old days when programmers did web design, but nowadays I think the design of the major sites are pretty clean (Amazon, cnn, Yahoo, ZDNet, name your poison). In fact, I'm trying to think of a good example of a major web site with lots of traffic that truly has bad design. Any suggestions?
As for Lynx, I'll never understand certain Linux people who want to live in a totally colorless, character-based world.
This may seem harsh, but that was pretentious, overblown, melodramatic psycho-babble.
I disagree. Look at the Mac -- How much do you think their zealotry has held them back? Many people don't look at Macs simply because they don't want to be part of the "secret society" and look like a Mac wacko.
Most people want to be part of the mainstream. They don't want to have to explain why they made the "weird choice".
You seem to think the media has created this perception that the Linux community is made up of wacko zealots. I've got news for you... the "media" didn't get together conspiratorially and decide to make Linux weird. It's all the zealots flooding their e-mail boxes with "why don't you cover Linux more? Are you paid off by Micro$soft??? HAR HAR HAR I'M SO L33T!!!!"
You can put your head in the sand and complain about everyone else "making them more important than they really are", but don't be surprised when the same thing happens that happened to Mac, Amiga and OS/2. "Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! "Score 3, Informative"
--
This gives "server farm" a whole new meaning...
--
These facts might not be obvious to someone who hasn't been paying attention.
Fine -- you have an opinion about TrustE (Please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion). But what you're really telling me is that you were too damn lazy to insert a couple of links into your article to tell me exactly why you were suspicious about TrustE.
My point still stands: Gossip and innuendo are NOT acceptable. Character assassination is NOT acceptable. If you are going to attack someone -- a real person, with real feeling and a real career -- then you better damn well care about providing facts to support your conclusions.
I mean, good god, you and your Slashdot brethren have already had many cases where your character was attacked based on association and/or misinterpretations of certain events. I would think you would have learned from that, and would be especially careful before attacking other's character.
--
The more I think about this post, the angrier I get.
I've said this in several posts, but I think it needs to said again load and clear: This article is nothing but gossip and innuendo.
If Michael wants to provide actual facts, that's one thing. But this character assassination is just not acceptable. I even had a follow-up post state that I should provide evidence that these people are not anti-privacy!!
Folks, is this really the world you want to live in? Where people are guilty until proven innocent? Gossip and innuendo should never be acceptable. Never!
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
If Slashdot had an ounce of balls, they would yank this article and issue apologies to all concerned.
--
As far as Lori Fena is concerned, what evidence do *you* have that she is commited to privacy?
Come on, Kevin. You know better than that. What evidence do I have that you don't sexually attack little girls?
When it comes to assassinating someone's character, it should not be OK to just make assumptions without any evidence. Is that really that world you want to live in, where people can just make up gossip and innuendo about you, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it's not true?
If Slashdot wants to dig up actual facts, that's fine. But gossip and innuendo is NEVER ok.
--
Allright, let's just take one of your "insights"...
Lori Fena, chairman of Web privacy organization TrustE: Fena is an advertising executive by trade. And obviously, having her on board means that TrustE won't exactly be cracking down on any of Doubleclick's practices.
Nice character assassination, without any evidence. How about actually doing some research, since that's what you are alleging to be doing, and tell us:
1) What evidence is there that TrustE being on a board of directors wouldn't be anything but good? Past history, please?
2) Since you know she is an advertising executive, and you choose to take this as damning of her character, how about giving us a full resume? Tell us exactly when and how she has been damaging to privacy (as you define damage, of course).
In fact, the only knees that are jerking are the net-libertarian types who hate government and automatically reject any suggestion that a corporation might be doing something bad. Like you.
And yet another knee jerking. I specifically didn't tell you my opinion on privacy, corporations and specifically this one. I am specifically attacking you and your appalling lack of research, attacks on possibly innocent people without providing a shred of evidence, and your all-around irresponsibility.
In short, what you are engaging in is gossip and innuendo, plain and simple.
--
I'm not going to make any comment on this "news", except to say DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
This commentary is so ridiculously biased and paranoid that unfortunately this article tells you almost nothing, except Michael has been watching too many "1984" movies.
I think it behooves everyone -- particularly the people who run Slashdot -- to remember that reasonable people can disagree even on matters of privacy. Sometimes these people don't even live in James-Bond-Villain style homes with albino cats, plotting how to take over the world. Good lord, sometimes they're even real people with real families!
And sometimes these people even have good points.
Knee-jerk -- dare I say immature? -- reactions like the kind that "michael" creates are NOT the way to influence policy.
--
What difference does it make as long as you use the thermal conducting grease that usually comes with a good-quality heat sink/fan?
--
I've got news for you... people have been put in jail for passing around trade secrets. It's called "theft".
People may argue with Microsoft's method of enforcing copyright. They may even argue that it's not "secure enough". But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing. Hey, the criminal may have felt that I owed him whatever he stole because I was richer than him. Guess what: It's still stealing. Rationalizations are not law.
Nobody twisted anyone's arm to download Microsoft's specification. You can live a long and happy life by not agreeing to the license agreement. But the point is that everyone who posted it knew that it was copyrighted material.
--
Unfortunately, none of those question have anything to do with the matter at hand.
The fact of the matter is that Slashdot's servers contain copyrighted material. The copyright holder asked that it be removed. Your response seems to be, "well, you suck, and should never have copyrighted it in the first place. Nyahh!"
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Here's my question: Is this going to be Slashdot's official policy? That you will never remove copyrighted material if the copyright holder asks you to? Or is this a special rule only for Microsoft?
--
The effect of such a title-based ban would be to block other bands' songs because they happened to have the same, or similar name to Dr Dre's songs.
For songs where there is a possibility of confusion, they usually have the name of the artist for that very reason. Yes, they could post without the artist's name, but again that makes it difficult to find what you want.
The point is that it doesn't have to be perfect to be effective. If they just eliminated songs where there was no confusion, that would go a long way to eliminating "contraband" music.
--
1/4" thick? I've seen those on Star Trek, but that's about it.
Well, I'm looking at the screen on my Thinkpad. The top screen half is about 1/4" thick. If it were made wider/taller, the battery and electronics could theoretically run along the sides.
I don't think it should be impossible, size-wise, although the weight thing is definitely a problem (assuming we want it to run longer than 5 minutes).
--
I'd like to see both the downloads and searched done through encrypted channels
Well, you couldn't do the download through encrypted channels. It's unreliable enough as it is through a direct link; can you imagine what it would be like when it also has to travel through 1 or more other hosts? "All riiigghhtt... that 200 meg download is almost done... Doh! An intervening host must've disconnected!"
--
Art is about art, not money. Ask the great painters and composers and sculptors who died poor and alone.
Well, let's be a little realistic here. Yes, some artists died poor and alone. But in the old days, I would say the majority were sponsored by upper class rich people, the church, or royalty. Much of the best art was commissioned work: The Last Supper, The Sistine Chapel, most of Michaelangelo's sculptures, etc. The Mona Lisa, on the other hand, was done purely by Da Vincy (sp? -- I'm having a brain fade) over 20 years for the sake of art.
--
"Dr. Dre has requested, however, that Napster simply delete his works from their directory rather than blocking users from using the service at all."
I'm sure Dr. Dre is going to get raked over the coals for this. To be fair, it's possible that he meant to block at the directory level, rather than simply deleting users.
Honestly, it's a little disingenuous for Napster to claim that they can't block individual music at the directory level. They certainly could look for all the Dr. Dre songs and block those individual titles. There's not going to be that many combinations. Yes, users can just rename the files, but it's a war of attrition that Napster will eventually win. Eventually, the renaming will get unrecognizable, and people won't be able to find the songs anyway.
In any case, none of this is going to stop Gnutella anyway. But I predict that Napster is going to go down.
--
Wow! You're right! Didn't they used to be on Exodus? When did they switch?
--
Personally, I want something I can leave on a coffee table and not worry about it. Something about a quarter inch (say, the thickness of a CD case) and less than a pound. About a 14" screen.
Does anyone know any size details of any of the upcoming web pads?
--
Given the diversity of monitor sizes and resolutions, how are pixels at all a meaningful measure of font size?
They aren't. Unfortunately, Zeldman has failed to notice that almost every other site on the Internet has managed to use standard font tags, and somehow... they manage to work correctly! <valley girl>Like, oh my gawd!</valley girl>
--
I mean, isn't this the point of web-browsers? To give the reader control because the web-designers of the world have, on average, the design sense of a slug on LSD?
I don't know. I think you could have said that back in the old days when programmers did web design, but nowadays I think the design of the major sites are pretty clean (Amazon, cnn, Yahoo, ZDNet, name your poison). In fact, I'm trying to think of a good example of a major web site with lots of traffic that truly has bad design. Any suggestions?
As for Lynx, I'll never understand certain Linux people who want to live in a totally colorless, character-based world.
--
Fortunately, Slashdot uses more of a blue-green than teal.
Er, teal is blue-green.
--
How can anyone dislike a nice color like Teal (the Slashdot color), yet apparently really like flaming, burning orange?
Why do I have a feeling that one needs protective eyewear in order to enter his house?
--
Others have said it well, but I'll add this: Exodus hosts Yahoo. 'Nuff said.
--
This may seem harsh, but that was pretentious, overblown, melodramatic psycho-babble.
I disagree. Look at the Mac -- How much do you think their zealotry has held them back? Many people don't look at Macs simply because they don't want to be part of the "secret society" and look like a Mac wacko.
Most people want to be part of the mainstream. They don't want to have to explain why they made the "weird choice".
You seem to think the media has created this perception that the Linux community is made up of wacko zealots. I've got news for you... the "media" didn't get together conspiratorially and decide to make Linux weird. It's all the zealots flooding their e-mail boxes with "why don't you cover Linux more? Are you paid off by Micro$soft??? HAR HAR HAR I'M SO L33T!!!!"
You can put your head in the sand and complain about everyone else "making them more important than they really are", but don't be surprised when the same thing happens that happened to Mac, Amiga and OS/2. "Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
--
Imagine there's no Microsoft
It's easy if you try
No DOS below us
Above us only Linus
Imagine all the people
Using Linux today
Imagine no OS companies
It isn't hard to do
No crashes to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Playing Quake in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I hope someday you'll surf by
And Unix will finally be as one
Imagine no software possessions
I wonder if RMS can
No need for greed or hoarding
A brotherhood of Webs
Imagine all the people
Sharing MP3s
You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I'm hope someday BSD will join us
And the Unix world shall live as one.
Note: A humble effort, dedicated to the living memory of Trollmastah.
--
Except that this was not a troll, it's the truth.
If you want to refute his point, namely that the non-server market is not nearly large enough to matter, go ahead. Until then, disagreement != troll.
--