OK, I apologize. I agree with you that filtering as it exists _now_ does not work (try getting information on breast cancer treatement in Australia:) That doenst mean necessarily that someone wont come along with an idea that does work. However, I do like the idea about having a way for parents to view what their children have viewed; you could even do it without any filtering at all. It would at least put the responsibility back where it belongs -- on the parents.
www.monkeysex.com? No, Ma, never been there.. *smirk*
Using history to check will be about as effective as NetNanny or anything else out there. Something new needs to be developed (Im sure there will be ideas posted). And yes, someone needs to educate the candidates about this -- why do you think they have advisors? Not everyone can be expected to know everything.
Gee, we have another poster here who posts before he reads...
Gore himself made this joke during the debate (I watched the debate and paraphrase here from memory, so forgive me if its not cut-and-paste perfectly quoted from the Post site). He said that he would like to see filtering software that parents wont have to ask their kids for help in setting up.
Seriously people, if you work in the tech sector, or care about the future of the Internet AT ALL, theres really only 1 candidate you can vote for (and no, they are not from one of the 10 "3rd parties" out there).
Although not mentioned by name, the Stay Puft Marshellow Man would fall under #19 Divine Intervention: the Gozer Worshippers' belief in the Comming of Zeul.
...and dont forget Tipper's involvement with the PMRC. Although I think it was completely misguided when it made the big headlines in the mid 80's, it certainly puts another nail in the coffin of this Bush boy's typical argument. Im just surprised he didnt use the word "liberal" once in his post.
How many businesses have now jumped on the bandwagon and put up web sites hoping to rake in the big bucks?
Most of them.
How many of those sites have failed?
Most of them.
Whats the problem? People are buying into this whole "virtual community" as a something great and new. In fact, those businesses that eventually succeed online are going to be the ones that realize that the Internet doesnt mean you have to change your whole business. The Internet is simply a new tool to do the same thing you have always done. Just like the fax replaced mail for most written correspondance, so is email replacing the fax and the phone, and the Web is replacing catalogs (and trips to the store).
Existing businesses already have a real community of their customers. Dont redo everything, youve obviously done something right to this point. Simply give them another alternative in how to do business with you.
Please forgive me if this seems a little off-topic, but Im sick of hearing so many people buy into crap without researching both sides of an issue.
There are some really good articles in this month's Wired about the whole peer-2-peer developments, and they focus on the Napster debate. There is one in particular, the author's name escapes me at the moment, but he IS a musician, who argues why Napster is a great thing for musicians. He argues that in the long run, Napster could be a more moral way of distributing music and reimbursing the creators than the RIAA...
Another article is an interview with the lead Napster lawyer (the guy who took on M$ for the government) and after reading that, I dont think the RIAA has much of a chance.
No, I do not work for Wired:) but this month's issue is a must-read on this topic.
From my reading of the article, I got the impression that they were talking not just about those programs authored by Microsoft, but in fact every program ever sold/distributed that was designed to run on Windows. You write an application using Delphi/VB/etc and make it available for download on your website, and yours is included in the 70,000 estimate. If this is the case, I would say the numbers (70,000 ever, 10,000 current) are not that unrealistic. Sure, it IS marketing spin designed to generate a reaction, but it is certainly not outright lying.
Consider: Microsoft loses the antitrust case and is split into 2 companies: Windows and MS Apps.
Simple business practice dictates that the non-Windows company must port Office, Works, IE, etc to as many other OSes as possible. Why? They have a responsiblity to their stockholders to increase sharevalue. Developing the same software they already make for other OSes is the most obvious way of increasing market share. No longer will MS Apps' market be constrained by those who use Windows -- it will be ALL computer users who need word processing, spreadsheets, email, browsing, etc... and they will go after it with as much effort as they must to win.
Not everything about splitting up M$ will be good.
Backstabbing tactics are not unique to the computer industry and have, in fact been going on for as long as there has been money. They are usually more rampant when the companies involved are not equals, such as in the movie "Tucker". However, even though the small guy usually does lose, that does not mean his ideas die with him. Tucker's cars were the safest being made, and many of his innovations were fairly quickly included in the later models from the big 3 automakers. This is how M$ treats Linux -- only time will tell the rest of this story, of course.
Within open source software groups of equals, I do think there will be the same sort of attacks, but for different reasons. Instead of just being about money, it may be more about ego, pride, (spite?:) -- for example, who can claim the most improvement to KDE in the next release? In fact, I remember a recent article here about a split in this code because of differences in opinion about the direction in which the code was headed (I may be mistaken about these details, but in either case, this is what I forsee happening). I include money because even though there may be no pay now, one could easily parlay their developments into a nice job.
Some sort of centralized planning will no doubt be needed to keep code branches from divergeing too much. Maybe the developers who worked on a current version would accept submissions of proposals of what should be in the next version. They would vote and determine what will be done, and then anyone would be able to code, and become part of the voting group for the next release. This would at least ensure the integrity of a project in a version-to-version evolution, however, I think it would be difficult to keep any original grand vision intact. Do any of the more advanced open-source projects work in such a way? How successful have they been?
Coulnd't believe that race kept requesting the doctor to sing everything. With the rest of the opera singers out there, hes definately on a par with Vanilla Ice.
I would have to agree that on the surface, it would appear that with so many more bugs, that Linux was inferior. However, I am not familiar with bugtraq -- does it measure elapsed time between a bug posting and its subsequent fix? I would say if he could investigate that, he would be shocked at how much more efficient any of the Linuxes are compared to M$. But then again, this guy is probably getting a free copy of Win2K to go along with blasting Linux:)
Does anyone actually know the stats on bug turnaround time?
After having read a couple books recommended by our CEO (he actually bought about 50 copies of each and handed them out), its sad to see how many companies out there seem to have been thrown together by the exact vision the authors see for e-commerce. The books are the HBS titles netGain and netWorth -- a good read, but only 1 view of the future of the internet. They say the future is in the infomediary, the company that builds a critical mass of users, aggregates data, and allows marketers to send advertisements to a demographic they wish to target. They do not sell the data, they are a middle man, and are supposed to be trusted. I dont know how many startups Ive seen follow almost this exact formula, but they are starting to fail BIGTIME. Tech stocks are doing so poorly that even good ones are suffering just for being in the same industry (but that is another topic). There are going to be more ToySmart stories unless a precedence is set. As I understand it, when a company goes bankrupt, its assets are liquidated to compensate the investors as much as possible. The customer data is indeed their greatest asset, but in my opinion, the investors knew very well the privacy policy when they invested their money and know the risk involved in this industry (and if they didnt, they shouldnt be investing) and in my opinion, should be SOL. However, the law is the law and is rarely compliant with common sense -- any lawyers out there been talking with others and know which way the wind is blowing?
Im sure if she did sign anything, it would have waived the right to sue the company at which she was interviewing. However, the company they hired to do the background check could probably be liable. In their industry, not checking for something as simple as Social Security numbers to match has GOT to be negligent. After reading this, Im damn glad my name isnt John Smith or anything common...
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I apologize. I agree with you that filtering as it exists _now_ does not work (try getting information on breast cancer treatement in Australia :) That doenst mean necessarily that someone wont come along with an idea that does work. However, I do like the idea about having a way for parents to view what their children have viewed; you could even do it without any filtering at all. It would at least put the responsibility back where it belongs -- on the parents.
www.monkeysex.com? No, Ma, never been there.. *smirk*
Using history to check will be about as effective as NetNanny or anything else out there. Something new needs to be developed (Im sure there will be ideas posted). And yes, someone needs to educate the candidates about this -- why do you think they have advisors? Not everyone can be expected to know everything.
Gee, we have another poster here who posts before he reads...
Gore himself made this joke during the debate (I watched the debate and paraphrase here from memory, so forgive me if its not cut-and-paste perfectly quoted from the Post site). He said that he would like to see filtering software that parents wont have to ask their kids for help in setting up.
Seriously people, if you work in the tech sector, or care about the future of the Internet AT ALL, theres really only 1 candidate you can vote for (and no, they are not from one of the 10 "3rd parties" out there).
You have obviously never developed anything significant in your entire life. Not anything that you cared about, anyway.
I have never seen such cynisicm in my life
Although not mentioned by name, the Stay Puft Marshellow Man would fall under #19 Divine Intervention: the Gozer Worshippers' belief in the Comming of Zeul.
...and dont forget Tipper's involvement with the PMRC. Although I think it was completely misguided when it made the big headlines in the mid 80's, it certainly puts another nail in the coffin of this Bush boy's typical argument. Im just surprised he didnt use the word "liberal" once in his post.
How many businesses have now jumped on the bandwagon and put up web sites hoping to rake in the big bucks?
Most of them.
How many of those sites have failed?
Most of them.
Whats the problem? People are buying into this whole "virtual community" as a something great and new. In fact, those businesses that eventually succeed online are going to be the ones that realize that the Internet doesnt mean you have to change your whole business. The Internet is simply a new tool to do the same thing you have always done. Just like the fax replaced mail for most written correspondance, so is email replacing the fax and the phone, and the Web is replacing catalogs (and trips to the store).
Existing businesses already have a real community of their customers. Dont redo everything, youve obviously done something right to this point. Simply give them another alternative in how to do business with you.
Please forgive me if this seems a little off-topic, but Im sick of hearing so many people buy into crap without researching both sides of an issue.
There are some really good articles in this month's Wired about the whole peer-2-peer developments, and they focus on the Napster debate. There is one in particular, the author's name escapes me at the moment, but he IS a musician, who argues why Napster is a great thing for musicians. He argues that in the long run, Napster could be a more moral way of distributing music and reimbursing the creators than the RIAA...
Another article is an interview with the lead Napster lawyer (the guy who took on M$ for the government) and after reading that, I dont think the RIAA has much of a chance.
No, I do not work for Wired :) but this month's issue is a must-read on this topic.
From my reading of the article, I got the impression that they were talking not just about those programs authored by Microsoft, but in fact every program ever sold/distributed that was designed to run on Windows. You write an application using Delphi/VB/etc and make it available for download on your website, and yours is included in the 70,000 estimate. If this is the case, I would say the numbers (70,000 ever, 10,000 current) are not that unrealistic. Sure, it IS marketing spin designed to generate a reaction, but it is certainly not outright lying.
Consider: Microsoft loses the antitrust case and is split into 2 companies: Windows and MS Apps.
Simple business practice dictates that the non-Windows company must port Office, Works, IE, etc to as many other OSes as possible. Why? They have a responsiblity to their stockholders to increase sharevalue. Developing the same software they already make for other OSes is the most obvious way of increasing market share. No longer will MS Apps' market be constrained by those who use Windows -- it will be ALL computer users who need word processing, spreadsheets, email, browsing, etc... and they will go after it with as much effort as they must to win.
Not everything about splitting up M$ will be good.
Backstabbing tactics are not unique to the computer industry and have, in fact been going on for as long as there has been money. They are usually more rampant when the companies involved are not equals, such as in the movie "Tucker". However, even though the small guy usually does lose, that does not mean his ideas die with him. Tucker's cars were the safest being made, and many of his innovations were fairly quickly included in the later models from the big 3 automakers. This is how M$ treats Linux -- only time will tell the rest of this story, of course.
Within open source software groups of equals, I do think there will be the same sort of attacks, but for different reasons. Instead of just being about money, it may be more about ego, pride, (spite? :) -- for example, who can claim the most improvement to KDE in the next release? In fact, I remember a recent article here about a split in this code because of differences in opinion about the direction in which the code was headed (I may be mistaken about these details, but in either case, this is what I forsee happening). I include money because even though there may be no pay now, one could easily parlay their developments into a nice job.
Some sort of centralized planning will no doubt be needed to keep code branches from divergeing too much. Maybe the developers who worked on a current version would accept submissions of proposals of what should be in the next version. They would vote and determine what will be done, and then anyone would be able to code, and become part of the voting group for the next release. This would at least ensure the integrity of a project in a version-to-version evolution, however, I think it would be difficult to keep any original grand vision intact. Do any of the more advanced open-source projects work in such a way? How successful have they been?
Coulnd't believe that race kept requesting the doctor to sing everything. With the rest of the opera singers out there, hes definately on a par with Vanilla Ice.
I would have to agree that on the surface, it would appear that with so many more bugs, that Linux was inferior. However, I am not familiar with bugtraq -- does it measure elapsed time between a bug posting and its subsequent fix? I would say if he could investigate that, he would be shocked at how much more efficient any of the Linuxes are compared to M$. But then again, this guy is probably getting a free copy of Win2K to go along with blasting Linux :)
Does anyone actually know the stats on bug turnaround time?
After having read a couple books recommended by our CEO (he actually bought about 50 copies of each and handed them out), its sad to see how many companies out there seem to have been thrown together by the exact vision the authors see for e-commerce. The books are the HBS titles netGain and netWorth -- a good read, but only 1 view of the future of the internet. They say the future is in the infomediary, the company that builds a critical mass of users, aggregates data, and allows marketers to send advertisements to a demographic they wish to target. They do not sell the data, they are a middle man, and are supposed to be trusted. I dont know how many startups Ive seen follow almost this exact formula, but they are starting to fail BIGTIME. Tech stocks are doing so poorly that even good ones are suffering just for being in the same industry (but that is another topic). There are going to be more ToySmart stories unless a precedence is set. As I understand it, when a company goes bankrupt, its assets are liquidated to compensate the investors as much as possible. The customer data is indeed their greatest asset, but in my opinion, the investors knew very well the privacy policy when they invested their money and know the risk involved in this industry (and if they didnt, they shouldnt be investing) and in my opinion, should be SOL. However, the law is the law and is rarely compliant with common sense -- any lawyers out there been talking with others and know which way the wind is blowing?
Im sure if she did sign anything, it would have waived the right to sue the company at which she was interviewing. However, the company they hired to do the background check could probably be liable. In their industry, not checking for something as simple as Social Security numbers to match has GOT to be negligent. After reading this, Im damn glad my name isnt John Smith or anything common...