Why shouldn't the internet (by which, I assume, you mean specifically the World Wide Web) be for both information AND television?
Just because the markup language we call "HTML" was originally developed and is best suited for information-rich text documents such as academic papers a decade ago doesn't mean that we must not, or even should not, look beyond that type of content and find new uses for the system.
Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security
RTFA.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "putting MS in charge of security".
A significant number of people who work for Homeland Security will have Windows operating systems on their desktops and file servers. The same is true in virtually every large organization in the world.
So Microsoft has more than enough cash on hand to buy out AOL/TW.
Oh, shut up.
There is no proof Microsoft had anything to do with AOL's decision to drop Netscape. Not only is there no proof, there is nothing that even SUGGESTS that is the case beyond your anti-MS hallucinations.
Talking about Microsoft's plans for market domination in this thread is Offtopic.
I suspect that when Microsoft sees that adoption of Windows XP04whatever/IE 7.0 just isn't happening at the rate they expect it to, and their browser market share is dropping as users replace IE6 with more modern browsers from Mozilla or Opera or whomever, they will change their course and revive the IE6.1 codebase, rushing to add in all the features that other browser users have been enjoying for years.
The question is, will it be too late? Netscape 4.x just got worse and worse as the developers were forced to try and add features like CSS into a codebase that was never designed to support it.
The people at the top want something does XYZ, and whether it is an American, and Indian, or a smart robot on the moon, the end result is going to be something that does XYZ.
Actually, it's more like:
1. The people at the top want something that does X, Y, and Z. X and Z are mutually exclusive. 2. Management tells the developers that they want something that does X and Y. Z, they figure, can easily be added in during 'Phase II'. 3. The developers build something that does X and Y. 4. The executives don't like it. They ask the developers to add Z to X and Y. 5. The developers explain, after several attempts, to the executives that X and Z cannot be done together. 6. The executives decide that Z is important, so X should be taken out of the requirements. 7. The developers build something that does Y and Z, but not X. 8. The executives change their mind and decide that instead of Y, the product MUST do W. etc. etc. (yes, the process ends with "???" and "Profit!")
Being able write computer code that does what the spec document says it should is becoming a more and more menial task. If this is all you do, you're becoming more and more replaceable.
The valuable skills, which aren't going overseas anytime soon, are the ability to write a coherent and complete specification in the first place, and knowing how to test delivered code against a specification to ensure that it is 100% compliant.
Let someone in another country worry about whether all their parentheses are all matched. The highly-trained American workforce has more important things to spend their time on.
Why would AOL give Mozilla a $2M kiss-off (assuming that were actually what is happening here) when they could give Mozilla a $0 kiss-off instead?
I expect AOL/TW to continue funding and having an interest in Mozilla-related development, but they have decided (wisely IMO) that software development should not be part of their core business.
I submit the following 'danergous criminals' (list of famous people with FBI files elided)
The fact that no one on your list spent time in jail resulting from the intelligence collected about them sort of suggests that the system works, doesn't it?
How about THIS list of criminals: Mohammed Salomeh Timothy McVeigh Ted Kaczynski John Lee Malvo
WAKE UP! Do a Google search! You'd be surprised at the information that turns up!
Obviously this means that Google is a gross invasion of our Privacy and we must not allow them to continue gathering information about people... right?
Seems like the logical thing to do. Release a DVD of the last movie, getting the Matrix franchise back in people's minds. People can watch Reloaded to refresh their memories on the plot so far before going to see Revolutions. A buzz builds in anticipation of the upcoming theatrical release.
Look: if you're not a dangerous criminal, the government DOESN'T CARE what you do. Really. It doesn't. It has better things to worry about than whether you (and hundreds of other ordinary citizens) drove down a certain road. ANY functional system for analyzing and gathering data has to discard an enormous percentage of unimportant data in order to be efficient.
You are Unimportant.
Statistical noise. A nobody. Irrelevant. The spooks really do care about locating urban snipers more than seeing where some programmer went for lunch, and to believe otherwise is paranoid, egotistical, and foolish.
These people are acting in a manner that is so close to that of the fundamentalist Muslim radicals they love to hate that it is simply amazing to me.
Really? They forbid women from being seen outside the home without wearing a burqa, enforce mandatory prayer several times a day, and not only suppress but execute any and all dissident voices?
Let's keep some perspective here, people.
Re:Incompatibilities with another system
on
State Of The Filesystem
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Windows support for metadata has always sucked, recognised by every Mac user who moved to a PC and discovered that you had to tell the system what a file did by appending a clumsy tla to the end
As opposed to Mac OS, where you have to tell the system what a file does by setting an even clumsier 4-character code hidden deep within a file's metadata?
and passing gently over the inconsistencies of the support for long and short filenames.
What inconsistencies? Correctly-written modern applications (say, those written after 1995) support long filenames. Older apps do not, but you can still use files with long names with them by using the equivalent short filename.
The 8.3 compatibility layer is a benefit for those with legacy apps.
Moving a directory from Linux to a Windows system may be possible but the programming to do it will become increasingly painful and the risk of data loss will rise.
And whom would that benefit? Possibly, Linux. But right now, Linux isn't facing a situation where customers are threatening to migrate to Windows. Linux vendors are more likely to lose customers they don't even have yet, because who wants to move to a system they're locked into and can't back out of?
TIA will "die" in the public, because the project is going dark. End of story. The website will remain the scrappy little inocent bits of HTML it is today, meanwhile under a lake somewhere will be a cluster of computers that are running TIA at full speed.
This is what many would call a "conspiracy theory".
Is there any language Congress COULD have put in the budget that would have convinced you that the TIA program truly was over and done with? Think about what your answer to this question signifies.
Without copyright law, there COULDN'T be a GPL. Or a BSD license, or any software license that allows the author to receive compensation or even credit for their work.
Can you summarize the public good performed by your efforts that a taxpayer, who is neither a stockholder nor employee of the content industry, can realize and should support as a necessary function of the federal government?
ALL residents of the United States are able to produce works that are protected by copyright, not just those who are stockholders and/or employees of the quote-unquote "content industry." Thus, these IP attorneys are not stooges of the RIAA/MPAA/SBA/etc. but rather they fight for the rights of ALL content creators.
Copyright protections are just as important for you as they are for the "big guys". (There couldn't be a GNU Public License without it, f'rexample.)
Oh, and I invite anyone who disagrees with me to post a comment explaining why, rather than modding me down as Flamebait.
I don't feel that either "the New York Times is a premiere news service" or "NYT Digital knows the impact of registration on their user base better than Joe Slashdot" is a statement that should be considered rude or incendiary.
They'll grow up knowing about computers just like kids in the sixties knew about cars.
The trend of children learning about computers in schools is nothing new -- everyone in my 6th grade class took a mandatory Computers course 15 years ago (BASIC programming on the TRS-80), and yet today the majority of my peers are as computer-illiterate as their parents.
Why should we expect the next generation to be any different?
"We are working with Google to fix that problem--we're going to close it so when you click on a link it will take you to a registration page," said Christine Mohan, a spokeswoman at New York Times Digital
I could set this up in ten minutes on the content provider's side with mod_rewrite and a copy of Google's IP allocation block. I don't think that's what they're talking about.
It's the clicking on "cached copy" that causes problems -- the cache resides on Google's side, not NYT Digital's, so without a business agreement not to let users view the cached version of the page (NYT still wants their site to be spidered and cached), it's possible for a user to view NYT content without ever hitting an NYT server.
By my own definition, you're giving them valuable information, and they get to keep it and use it as they will...in return for the valuable information they're giving you at no charge, i.e., their articles.
The adage "gas, grass, or ass, nobody rights for free" comes to mind -- although these days, the trifecta is more like "cash, demographics, or ads". Online publishers that don't ask for SOMETHING in return from their readers go out of business.
Can't recall exactly how many other people I know who go to see a NYT article, find the rego page, and ignore it to go find a better news source without the hassle.
A "better news source" than the New York Times?
Jayson Blair scandal aside, I defy you to find a better news source than the NYT in the United States.
If they're tracking what their users are do, they're affecting their user pool in a pretty negative way just by using this method.
They know what they're doing -- if the effect of registration was really that bad, they would have stopped years ago. You and your friends do not represent the average newyorktimes.com user.
No, but requiring you to have a license for a piece of commerical software (Windows) in order to be able to cast your vote with this system effectively amounts to a Poll Tax, and those were abolished by the 24th Amendment nearly 40 years ago. A Windows-only voting system is Unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet is for information, not television!
Why shouldn't the internet (by which, I assume, you mean specifically the World Wide Web) be for both information AND television?
Just because the markup language we call "HTML" was originally developed and is best suited for information-rich text documents such as academic papers a decade ago doesn't mean that we must not, or even should not, look beyond that type of content and find new uses for the system.
Possibly, those works for which the copyright is registered are those that are perceived to have the most value.
Therefore I wouldn't discredit the number of copyright registrations as a meaningful metric, at least not immediately.
Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security
RTFA.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "putting MS in charge of security".
A significant number of people who work for Homeland Security will have Windows operating systems on their desktops and file servers. The same is true in virtually every large organization in the world.
So Microsoft has more than enough cash on hand to buy out AOL/TW.
Oh, shut up.
There is no proof Microsoft had anything to do with AOL's decision to drop Netscape. Not only is there no proof, there is nothing that even SUGGESTS that is the case beyond your anti-MS hallucinations.
Talking about Microsoft's plans for market domination in this thread is Offtopic.
I suspect that when Microsoft sees that adoption of Windows XP04whatever/IE 7.0 just isn't happening at the rate they expect it to, and their browser market share is dropping as users replace IE6 with more modern browsers from Mozilla or Opera or whomever, they will change their course and revive the IE6.1 codebase, rushing to add in all the features that other browser users have been enjoying for years.
The question is, will it be too late? Netscape 4.x just got worse and worse as the developers were forced to try and add features like CSS into a codebase that was never designed to support it.
The people at the top want something does XYZ, and whether it is an American, and Indian, or a smart robot on the moon, the end result is going to be something that does XYZ.
Actually, it's more like:
1. The people at the top want something that does X, Y, and Z. X and Z are mutually exclusive.
2. Management tells the developers that they want something that does X and Y. Z, they figure, can easily be added in during 'Phase II'.
3. The developers build something that does X and Y.
4. The executives don't like it. They ask the developers to add Z to X and Y.
5. The developers explain, after several attempts, to the executives that X and Z cannot be done together.
6. The executives decide that Z is important, so X should be taken out of the requirements.
7. The developers build something that does Y and Z, but not X.
8. The executives change their mind and decide that instead of Y, the product MUST do W.
etc.
etc.
(yes, the process ends with "???" and "Profit!")
Being able write computer code that does what the spec document says it should is becoming a more and more menial task. If this is all you do, you're becoming more and more replaceable.
The valuable skills, which aren't going overseas anytime soon, are the ability to write a coherent and complete specification in the first place, and knowing how to test delivered code against a specification to ensure that it is 100% compliant.
Let someone in another country worry about whether all their parentheses are all matched. The highly-trained American workforce has more important things to spend their time on.
Why would AOL give Mozilla a $2M kiss-off (assuming that were actually what is happening here) when they could give Mozilla a $0 kiss-off instead?
I expect AOL/TW to continue funding and having an interest in Mozilla-related development, but they have decided (wisely IMO) that software development should not be part of their core business.
The Institute for Applied Autonomy has a nice tool to plan paths through Manhattan that will take you past the fewest cameras.
Wow, what a great tool! I'm sure criminals and the paranoid will find it extremely helpful.
Meanwhile, everyone else will continue using the fastest/most direct route.
I submit the following 'danergous criminals'
(list of famous people with FBI files elided)
The fact that no one on your list spent time in jail resulting from the intelligence collected about them sort of suggests that the system works, doesn't it?
How about THIS list of criminals:
Mohammed Salomeh
Timothy McVeigh
Ted Kaczynski
John Lee Malvo
WAKE UP!
Do a Google search! You'd be surprised at the information that turns up!
Obviously this means that Google is a gross invasion of our Privacy and we must not allow them to continue gathering information about people... right?
Seems like the logical thing to do. Release a DVD of the last movie, getting the Matrix franchise back in people's minds. People can watch Reloaded to refresh their memories on the plot so far before going to see Revolutions. A buzz builds in anticipation of the upcoming theatrical release.
It's just "strategized marketechture" at work.
Cmon now. What prevents RIAA from using anonymous IP blocks that they can purchase legally for use?
Stupidity?
Lack of operating funds? No, wait.
Look: if you're not a dangerous criminal, the government DOESN'T CARE what you do. Really. It doesn't. It has better things to worry about than whether you (and hundreds of other ordinary citizens) drove down a certain road. ANY functional system for analyzing and gathering data has to discard an enormous percentage of unimportant data in order to be efficient.
You are Unimportant.
Statistical noise. A nobody. Irrelevant. The spooks really do care about locating urban snipers more than seeing where some programmer went for lunch, and to believe otherwise is paranoid, egotistical, and foolish.
These people are acting in a manner that is so close to that of the fundamentalist Muslim radicals they love to hate that it is simply amazing to me.
Really? They forbid women from being seen outside the home without wearing a burqa, enforce mandatory prayer several times a day, and not only suppress but execute any and all dissident voices?
Let's keep some perspective here, people.
Windows support for metadata has always sucked, recognised by every Mac user who moved to a PC and discovered that you had to tell the system what a file did by appending a clumsy tla to the end
As opposed to Mac OS, where you have to tell the system what a file does by setting an even clumsier 4-character code hidden deep within a file's metadata?
and passing gently over the inconsistencies of the support for long and short filenames.
What inconsistencies? Correctly-written modern applications (say, those written after 1995) support long filenames. Older apps do not, but you can still use files with long names with them by using the equivalent short filename.
The 8.3 compatibility layer is a benefit for those with legacy apps.
Moving a directory from Linux to a Windows system may be possible but the programming to do it will become increasingly painful and the risk of data loss will rise.
And whom would that benefit? Possibly, Linux. But right now, Linux isn't facing a situation where customers are threatening to migrate to Windows. Linux vendors are more likely to lose customers they don't even have yet, because who wants to move to a system they're locked into and can't back out of?
TIA will "die" in the public, because the project is going dark. End of story. The website will remain the scrappy little inocent bits of HTML it is today, meanwhile under a lake somewhere will be a cluster of computers that are running TIA at full speed.
This is what many would call a "conspiracy theory".
Is there any language Congress COULD have put in the budget that would have convinced you that the TIA program truly was over and done with? Think about what your answer to this question signifies.
Without copyright law, there COULDN'T be a GPL. Or a BSD license, or any software license that allows the author to receive compensation or even credit for their work.
Can you summarize the public good performed by your efforts that a taxpayer, who is neither a stockholder nor employee of the content industry, can realize and should support as a necessary function of the federal government?
ALL residents of the United States are able to produce works that are protected by copyright, not just those who are stockholders and/or employees of the quote-unquote "content industry."
Thus, these IP attorneys are not stooges of the RIAA/MPAA/SBA/etc. but rather they fight for the rights of ALL content creators.
Copyright protections are just as important for you as they are for the "big guys". (There couldn't be a GNU Public License without it, f'rexample.)
Oh, and I invite anyone who disagrees with me to post a comment explaining why, rather than modding me down as Flamebait.
I don't feel that either "the New York Times is a premiere news service" or "NYT Digital knows the impact of registration on their user base better than Joe Slashdot" is a statement that should be considered rude or incendiary.
They'll grow up knowing about computers just like kids in the sixties knew about cars.
The trend of children learning about computers in schools is nothing new -- everyone in my 6th grade class took a mandatory Computers course 15 years ago (BASIC programming on the TRS-80), and yet today the majority of my peers are as computer-illiterate as their parents.
Why should we expect the next generation to be any different?
"We are working with Google to fix that problem--we're going to close it so when you click on a link it will take you to a registration page," said Christine Mohan, a spokeswoman at New York Times Digital
I could set this up in ten minutes on the content provider's side with mod_rewrite and a copy of Google's IP allocation block. I don't think that's what they're talking about.
It's the clicking on "cached copy" that causes problems -- the cache resides on Google's side, not NYT Digital's, so without a business agreement not to let users view the cached version of the page (NYT still wants their site to be spidered and cached), it's possible for a user to view NYT content without ever hitting an NYT server.
By my own definition, you're giving them valuable information, and they get to keep it and use it as they will ...in return for the valuable information they're giving you at no charge, i.e., their articles.
The adage "gas, grass, or ass, nobody rights for free" comes to mind -- although these days, the trifecta is more like "cash, demographics, or ads". Online publishers that don't ask for SOMETHING in return from their readers go out of business.
Can't recall exactly how many other people I know who go to see a NYT article, find the rego page, and ignore it to go find a better news source without the hassle.
A "better news source" than the New York Times?
Jayson Blair scandal aside, I defy you to find a better news source than the NYT in the United States.
If they're tracking what their users are do, they're affecting their user pool in a pretty negative way just by using this method.
They know what they're doing -- if the effect of registration was really that bad, they would have stopped years ago. You and your friends do not represent the average newyorktimes.com user.
who is Chad Deckard?
I hear that he is a Replicant.
It's like telling people they can get somewhere in a Ford. That doesn't mean they can't get there in a Chevy or a Nissan.
If that's what they meant, they would have just said "you can get there in a car."
Mentioning Windows in the list of requirements implies... surprise surprise... that Windows is a requirement.
Their (sic) is no right to Vote from a Linux box.
No, but requiring you to have a license for a piece of commerical software (Windows) in order to be able to cast your vote with this system effectively amounts to a Poll Tax, and those were abolished by the 24th Amendment nearly 40 years ago. A Windows-only voting system is Unconstitutional.