A sponsors area of a website would allow a visitor to view advertisement if they wanted to, without annoying them, and these pages could be elaborate enough to actually do justice to the sponsors.
While that may be true, I don't think it's very likely that many people will actually look at such a sponsor page. Think about it. A number of people in this particular discussion have complained (perhaps justifiably so) about pages with even one banner ad at the top (a la/.). Also, at least 99% of visitors will ignore such ads entirely. How many of these people are going to visit a Sponsor Page? Not too many.
You could even be candid about the fact that it helps pay the bills of the site and encourage the visitor access these sponsor sites via yours if they do business with them in the future.
Herein lies another problem. Are the companies sponsoring these sites going to agree to something like that? When I looked into having banner ads hosted on my web site, I found that most companies require that you not put anything in the page asking or suggesting people to click on the ad. Why not? It's simple. If you do that, a lot of people will click the ad with no intention of buying the product or service being advertised. They'll probably click the link, let the page load a third of the way, and hit the Back button. The sponsor gets no exposure, no revenue, and still has to pay the site! A sponsor page will most likely increase the number of support-the-site click-throughs and decrease the number of them from genuine potential consumers.
While a Sponsor Page is an interesting idea, I don't believe such a system would work. It helps the viewer of the pages while hurting the advertisers to some degree. Few ad companies are going to accept that deal.
Companies such as NetZero offer free download of their software. In this case, they're distributing their ad-based "free" Internet access program. Now, since it's 1) free and 2) available for anybody and everybody to download at will, explain why the software's EULA prohibits the user from giving a copy of the software to their friends! Anybody?
MICROSOFT: Um, Mr. Derivative, there seems to be a problem with your purchase of Windows 2000....
ME: What do you mean?
MS: Well, it's the check you wrote to pay for your software rental.
ME: What's the problem?
MS: Well, you didn't sign it.
ME: Oh, that's just part of my EULA.
MS: (confused) Huh?
ME: It's a policy I've taken to prevent counterfeiting US currency. If I don't sign my checks, that prevents cash pirates from copying it and cashing it for themselves.
MS: But *we* can't use it if it isn't signed, sir.
ME: Didn't you read paragraph 83, section 7(b), subsection 2(iii), line 18 of the EULA? It's microprinted on the back of the check, by the way. I didn't sell you my money. You're leasing it from me.
MS: But it's *our* money now!
ME: (triumphant) EULA!
MS: How are we supposed to cash your check if it isn't signed?
ME: You aren't allowed to redistribute the check! I own it!
MS: But you *gave* it to us!
ME: *Leased* it to you. You know, it's people like you who forced me to put that clause in the EULA to begin with.
MS: We didn't agree to your EULA!
ME: Yes you did. Paragraph 34, section 8(c), subsection 9(i), line 109, clearly states that your even looking at the check is an implicit agreement to all the terms of the EULA. Furthermore....
MS: ENOUGH! Give us that OEM CD back!
ME: I can't. Your EULA said I can redistribute it to anyone.
MS: But we're Microsoft!
ME: *Anybody.*
MS: Fine! See if we let you buy our software anymore!
ME: I thought you leased it.
MS: That's what I meant!
ME: Either way, I'll just get a copy from my friend.
Recent virus attacks have illustrated how macro and script code could spread easily through e-mail attachments, and people were admonished to avoid opening potentially dangerous attachments. However, Windows users can also spread malicious viruses without opening attachments. Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express will execute HTML and script code in an e-mail in their default installations. In addition, several so-called ActiveX components are incorrectly executable from an e-mail containing HTML and script code. Some of the vulnerable controls include the Scriplet.typlib (ships with IE 4.x and 5.x) and the UA control (Office 2000). Other vulnerabilities arising from the use of Active Scripting are that an e-mail could be used to install new software on a users computer.
I'm curious about these embedded-script e-mail viruses. Although scripts can be run without an attachment (by putting a <SCRIPT> tag in the e-mail's HTML in Outlook), it seems to have a somewhat stripped-down VBScript capability. For example, with a default installation, an embedded VBScript can't access the objects necessary to create an ILOVEYOU-type virus. Other than just forwarding copies to more recipients (which I suppose could still be done in an embedded VBScript virus), is there really any "virus" that could be built using this, or are these limited to a "mere" worm?
Has anyone out there encountered (or written?) one of these embedded-script viruses? Just how dangerous could these be, or is the only threat the consumption of bandwidth? The article didn't say much about these except that they (could?) exist.
Micro$oft just declared that the store-bought CDs of all its products contain "trade secrets."
Micro$oft's next move will be to sue all manufacturers of CD-ROM drives for supplying suspected-just-maybe-well-you-have-to-admit-there' s-a-small-chance-they-could-be pirates with the equipment to "execute" those trade secrets.
Legally? Probably. The copyright laws will still hold, especially if the company is still in business.
But do I think it's wrong to "pirate" (using the term loosely) a ten-year-old out-of-print game? Heck no! Tell me, how is my playing a ROM of the old NES game Mega Man II on Nesticle hurting Nintendo or Capcom in any way? They haven't produced the game in years; even if I did want to buy a "legal" version, they don't sell them. The only place you might be able to find something like that is in a used game store. But even then the original publishers aren't earning anything off of it.
So morally (morals? what are they?) speaking, there's nothing wrong with downloading a copy of abandonware, at least not when you can buy a (probably overpriced) rerelease of it on the market. If it isn't hurting the company in any way, not taking any income out of their hands, how is that bad?
Downside is, you have to carry a power source. Upside is, with the weight saved in changing from a lightsail to a magsail, this should be negligible. Use a nuclear-thermal battery like in Cassini (about 72 pounds), fire that probe on a close gravity slingshot around the sun, and as it comes around the direction you're aiming for, unfurl the magsail, power that puppy up, and you're *gone*
A good idea, but it won't happen. NASA probably won't be launching any more nuclear-powered probes anytime soon. Remember, when Cassini was launched, there was a significant public outcry over its nuclear power supply. The public doesn't like the possibility of an explosion during lauch, sending radioactive shards over half the continent. Even if it isn't likely, the public will raise a bigger stink over it if NASA tries it again.
If you don't think that's very likely, there's been a lot of opposition in St. Louis recently when a plan to ship spent nuclear fuel (i.e., radioactive waste) through the area was proposed. Even with that, although no accident with such a system had ever occured, the public still got the politicians to block it. Something similar would happen if NASA launched another nuclear probe.
But if you could find a more innocuous power source, that magsail could work.
Slashdot Mirror
A sponsors area of a website would allow a visitor to view advertisement if they wanted to, without annoying them, and these pages could be elaborate enough to actually do justice to the sponsors.
While that may be true, I don't think it's very likely that many people will actually look at such a sponsor page. Think about it. A number of people in this particular discussion have complained (perhaps justifiably so) about pages with even one banner ad at the top (a la /.). Also, at least 99% of visitors will ignore such ads entirely. How many of these people are going to visit a Sponsor Page? Not too many.
You could even be candid about the fact that it helps pay the bills of the site and encourage the visitor access these sponsor sites via yours if they do business with them in the future.
Herein lies another problem. Are the companies sponsoring these sites going to agree to something like that? When I looked into having banner ads hosted on my web site, I found that most companies require that you not put anything in the page asking or suggesting people to click on the ad. Why not? It's simple. If you do that, a lot of people will click the ad with no intention of buying the product or service being advertised. They'll probably click the link, let the page load a third of the way, and hit the Back button. The sponsor gets no exposure, no revenue, and still has to pay the site! A sponsor page will most likely increase the number of support-the-site click-throughs and decrease the number of them from genuine potential consumers.
While a Sponsor Page is an interesting idea, I don't believe such a system would work. It helps the viewer of the pages while hurting the advertisers to some degree. Few ad companies are going to accept that deal.
Someone tell me the logic of this one:
Companies such as NetZero offer free download of their software. In this case, they're distributing their ad-based "free" Internet access program. Now, since it's 1) free and 2) available for anybody and everybody to download at will, explain why the software's EULA prohibits the user from giving a copy of the software to their friends! Anybody?
MICROSOFT: Um, Mr. Derivative, there seems to be a problem with your purchase of Windows 2000....
ME: What do you mean?
MS: Well, it's the check you wrote to pay for your software rental.
ME: What's the problem?
MS: Well, you didn't sign it.
ME: Oh, that's just part of my EULA.
MS: (confused) Huh?
ME: It's a policy I've taken to prevent counterfeiting US currency. If I don't sign my checks, that prevents cash pirates from copying it and cashing it for themselves.
MS: But *we* can't use it if it isn't signed, sir.
ME: Didn't you read paragraph 83, section 7(b), subsection 2(iii), line 18 of the EULA? It's microprinted on the back of the check, by the way. I didn't sell you my money. You're leasing it from me.
MS: But it's *our* money now!
ME: (triumphant) EULA!
MS: How are we supposed to cash your check if it isn't signed?
ME: You aren't allowed to redistribute the check! I own it!
MS: But you *gave* it to us!
ME: *Leased* it to you. You know, it's people like you who forced me to put that clause in the EULA to begin with.
MS: We didn't agree to your EULA!
ME: Yes you did. Paragraph 34, section 8(c), subsection 9(i), line 109, clearly states that your even looking at the check is an implicit agreement to all the terms of the EULA. Furthermore....
MS: ENOUGH! Give us that OEM CD back!
ME: I can't. Your EULA said I can redistribute it to anyone.
MS: But we're Microsoft!
ME: *Anybody.*
MS: Fine! See if we let you buy our software anymore!
ME: I thought you leased it.
MS: That's what I meant!
ME: Either way, I'll just get a copy from my friend.
MS: That's illegal!
ME: No it isn't. It's a Linux disk.
MS: (hangs up)
From the article:
I'm curious about these embedded-script e-mail viruses. Although scripts can be run without an attachment (by putting a <SCRIPT> tag in the e-mail's HTML in Outlook), it seems to have a somewhat stripped-down VBScript capability. For example, with a default installation, an embedded VBScript can't access the objects necessary to create an ILOVEYOU-type virus. Other than just forwarding copies to more recipients (which I suppose could still be done in an embedded VBScript virus), is there really any "virus" that could be built using this, or are these limited to a "mere" worm?
Has anyone out there encountered (or written?) one of these embedded-script viruses? Just how dangerous could these be, or is the only threat the consumption of bandwidth? The article didn't say much about these except that they (could?) exist.
Micro$oft just declared that the store-bought CDs of all its products contain "trade secrets."
Micro$oft's next move will be to sue all manufacturers of CD-ROM drives for supplying suspected-just-maybe-well-you-have-to-admit-there' s-a-small-chance-they-could-be pirates with the equipment to "execute" those trade secrets.
Legally? Probably. The copyright laws will still hold, especially if the company is still in business.
But do I think it's wrong to "pirate" (using the term loosely) a ten-year-old out-of-print game? Heck no! Tell me, how is my playing a ROM of the old NES game Mega Man II on Nesticle hurting Nintendo or Capcom in any way? They haven't produced the game in years; even if I did want to buy a "legal" version, they don't sell them. The only place you might be able to find something like that is in a used game store. But even then the original publishers aren't earning anything off of it.
So morally (morals? what are they?) speaking, there's nothing wrong with downloading a copy of abandonware, at least not when you can buy a (probably overpriced) rerelease of it on the market. If it isn't hurting the company in any way, not taking any income out of their hands, how is that bad?
A good idea, but it won't happen. NASA probably won't be launching any more nuclear-powered probes anytime soon. Remember, when Cassini was launched, there was a significant public outcry over its nuclear power supply. The public doesn't like the possibility of an explosion during lauch, sending radioactive shards over half the continent. Even if it isn't likely, the public will raise a bigger stink over it if NASA tries it again.
If you don't think that's very likely, there's been a lot of opposition in St. Louis recently when a plan to ship spent nuclear fuel (i.e., radioactive waste) through the area was proposed. Even with that, although no accident with such a system had ever occured, the public still got the politicians to block it. Something similar would happen if NASA launched another nuclear probe.
But if you could find a more innocuous power source, that magsail could work.