That reminds me of the Simpsons--the Praiseland episode where the Christian rock singer said her band switched to regular rock--"All you have to do is change 'Jesus' to 'baby.'
Good people do sell good books--some of us have come to terms with the fact that while that book we just finished was really good and we'd like to read it again, there are oh, I don't know maybe 5,000 really great books I haven't yet read. With a few exceptions, I would rather read a new book and take the chance and finding something I really love, than re-read something I already read. There are a handful of books I love so much that I need to re-read once in awhile because I need to be cheered up or renew my faith of humanity or whatever. If only I had an infinite amount of time to read everything I want-I could go back and re-read those books that are 7 or 8 out of 10. But I'm not willing to risk missing out on discovering a 10 for because I want to re-read a 7 or 8. That's not to say that those books aren't good books, just not great. But because I'm willing to admit that I don't have an infinite amount of time here, I will never get to a second or third reading of some books--so I might as well make a few bucks and give some one else the chance--maybe my 7 will be a 10 for them.
I think my heaven may be (or at least contain) an infinite library.
While I think it's cool that you appreciate books take great care of them, but give it a rest on the whole "disrespect the author" and damage of multiple readings crap.
It's not about the physical mainfestation of the book, it's about the words and thoughts and ideas the author is communicating. I'd be willing to bet most authors would rather have people share their books and re-read them and really love them than pamper them and be afraid to read it one more time for fear of hurting it.
When I read a book, I'm brutal to it, that's just my way. I fold pages and highlight things that really move me, and I really don't think the authors would think that I'm being disrespectful.
Like I said, I wouldn't ever be critical of some one like you taking great care of the book, but you really have no right to be critical of the way others treat their books.
Money or artistry, which is it Jon?
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So first of all, the box office is the be all end all. Spiderman is "massacring" Episode 2 in earning the almighty dollar. (Even if that really was all that mattered, it's way too early to call.) But then he complains about how Lucas has sold out, and he could have kept the franchise's dignity and still made tens of millions of dollars. So which is it Jon?
Pretty off topic, but speaking of Sept 11th and reading material, after that happened, I was moved to re-read The Trigger by Arthur C. Clarke.
The brief summary:
The Trigger
When Dr. Karl Brohier and his team of scientists accidentally stumble upon a field that can detonate gunpowder in bullets and bombs from a safe distance, they find themselves targetted by professional criminals, terrorists, and the military-industrial complex, all out to seize control of their invention. Reprint.
IANAL, just a Law & Order junkie...
I can actually see both sides a little bit here. One one hand it's just stupid--having a cop waiting in the lobby (or even standing over a technician's shoulder for that matter) as the article says, does nothing to proect the data or anyone's Fourth Amendment rights. And I don't believe the person's rights were indeed violated by not having the police there--a search warrant was issued for his data, and the fact that it was executed in effect by proxy through a citizen doesn't make the search any less valid provided the warrant was kosher.
But, I can see how not having the police on site is a breach in "chain of custody." Then again, the defendant could always argue that the ISP had it out for him and tampered with the evidence to frame him, which may or may not be a believeable defense. But in that regard it is something to argue in court to the jury and not something that could be dismissed as a matter of law. Because of the opening it might provice, I can see how the police/DA would want some one there to eliminate that excuse.
By the way, I do very much disagree with the two comments towards the end of the article--the first was an implication that this would some how make searches more common. If anything, investigators will be more certain they're barking up the right tree if they have to actually be present during the search. And second, I really don't believe this will cause a chilling effect on ISP subscribers. Do I care if cops are present at my ISP while executing a search warrant? Of course not. As long as a search warrant is required and a judge (with accountability) believed the police presented enough logical reason for the warrant, I certainly don't care. Now if that's costing me more money through taxes and service outages or higher ISP bills, I might become more concerned.
I spend some of my time developing in Flash (the rest in Authorware which is an amazing tool, not a bloated format, but I'll admit it's much weaker on the web than cd-lan delivery but I digress..)
No question Flash has it's place. And the fact that there are a ton of people doing really shoddy stuff shouldn't be blamed (directly) on the tool. It does sort of encourage that stuff, but bad developers are the real cause and would be using another tool if not Flash. Anyway, Flash does a lot of thing really well--however, I'm very reluctant to believe that entire sites should be done in Flash as Macromedia is trying to suggest. What about search engines? They don't index Flash content, so if you want the search engines to find your stuff, you have to create index & meta pages--if you have to do that, why not use html. Flash is a great tool for content, but I'm not sure it is robust enough to be the framework structurally that Macromedia is pushing for. I think frameworks should be designed from the beginning rather than grown from something else.
I've been using Flash since version 3, and this is the 3rd major release and it looks like the 3rd major interface change. They keep making developers practically re-learn the tool every release. I love learning new things, but I'm typically not fond of taking the time to learn how to do something I already knew how to do.
Finally the bit about Flash being open is mostly true--but in the past the "open" SWF SDK has been a version or more behind the release of their development version of Flash. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they do this, and I think it's a great thing for them to release the SWF, BUT it's a far cry from an open format--they control it completely, not a standards board or industry group.
The ironic part of the pay for no ads services is that for the websites that I really (like and value like Slashdot) the ads are actually pertinent to me and occasionally even helpful. I wouldn't pay for an ad free Slashdot because A. I'm cheap, and B. Occasionally the ads are of value to me.
If anything, this makes a strong argument for the quality of ads and the importance of knowing the viewers and targetting the ads appropriately. Granted, I guess such a thing would be much harder for general interest sites like say news sites that don't have such a defined demographic. But bottom line, advertisers should be more willing to pay for ads on sites that hit their target audience, and viewers wouldn't mind the ads so much because they actually match their interests.
According to Einstein, time is relative. So some one who spends their life traveling through space would come back to find everyone else had aged faster than him. Same thing with sleep--if I get less sleep I spend more time running around, and time (appears) to move slowly for me and faster for all those sleepyheads layinging bed.
steve
A confession...
I love computers, gadgets & technology in general. I'm a multimedia developer by trade, but am working on becoming more of a real programmer. There are a lot of things I get, but still plenty of advanced programming & especially EE stuff that I still am learning about. I always want to learn more, and I never miss a Cringely column because of what you said--he has great contacts in the industry and is good at explaining things simply. At least for me, learning how something works in general terms makes it much easier for me to learn the details.
While slashdot is clearly a 'geek' site, keep in mind there is a wide spectrum therein. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would prefer to read & comment on OS kernel programming, just as there are lots of us more interested in more "simplistic" stuff. Discussions on Cringely's articles have always been fairly active. The last 11 articles on his columns have averaged 296 comments. The most recent 30 articles in "older stuff" average 136 comments. So people are reading & commenting on him--whether they're bashing or not, his articles clearly get people talking.
Long story short, if you don't like the Cringely articles, don't read them. I think Slashdot should always error on the side of being more inclusive rather than exclusive.
Adcritic was awesome. I hope they come back. Though I'm not entirely sure why they're gone? I guess if they're trying to run a for profit business, I get it, there's just no money in their business model. But if they're only out to get along and not make millions, why can't they? The only cost they really should have would be bandwidth. And I have an interesting solution to that.
Why don't the set themselves with something like a peer-to-peer structure. They can have post the movies on their site first--and have users download & share the movies from their own computers & bandwidth ala Kazaa/Morpheus. They would have huge savings on costs, not having the enormous bandwidth costs, and yet keep the stuff out there archived and the most popular stuff would be mirrored and quickly available P-to-P.
steve
I read the Reg article earlier and was very happy. It just makes sense, the purchase of software is a sales transaction and not a license agreement--regardless of what the EULA says. Some one said that this may open the doors for companies to sell software as a service only good for a set amount of time--while this is scary, it may be an improvement too--it will place a much higher burdon on the companies to make better software that doesn't suck--if they're selling it as a service, then if it doesn't work I get a refund--like if my cable service goes out.
That said, it doesn't matter anyway, because with the deep pockets on the other side, they'll appeal until the get to a judge that is more "open" to their side.
This post kind of reminded me of what Microsoft did with Office a couple of years ago when I worked at the computer lab at college. Their licensing agreement allowed us to pay for 150 licenses (for 200 computer) as long as we had a keyserver and could guarantee only 150 licenses were ever used at once. And it didn't matter if it was 100 macs & 50 PCs or 75/75 or whatever. Then they decided that wasn't fair. But rather than making us pay for 1 license for each machine, they decided that was illegal as well--we needed 1 license for every user! So a machine might get anywhere from maybe 5-50 users of MS Office, we needed to have a license for every user. Of course there was no way we could afford that, but along came a guy twisting his mustache who had a great deal. They would give the entire University (and infact the entier University of Wisconsin System) a great deal on Office for every student & faculty--provided they only use Office & MS products. Given there was know way in hell the University could come up with the money for a license for every user at retail, and anything else was "illegal" they had no option but to sell their soul to the devil.
steve snyder
So Bill had some imput into making the architecture of the original IBM PC open (though it was mostly all already decided by IBM to be an open architecure).
The question he was asked was whether the open source model was a more efficient one if the goal is to "build an ecosystem of developers (developers! developers!), users, resellers...).
He did not answer that question, but instead went off on a rant about how he had something to do with an open architecture on a hardware system he had only tangental influence over 20 years ago.
Yes Cringley is somewhat of a Mac fan. He was a relatively low employee number (maybe 15-25 or so but don't quote me). But he has many bad things to say about Apple & especially Steve Jobs to go along with the good things.
I never miss a Cringely column, (and I would highly recommend his book, Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition, and Still Can't Get a Date (had to include the full title because it's funny)) anyway, I would classify him as some one who's not terribly biased to any company, but is a huge fan of new, innovative, good technologies. He's also been around long enough and has enough friends, that a ton of people in the tech industry will talk to him so he often has great insight as to the big picture.
I agree to a point - but perhaps the single most important thing to making computers better over the years has been competition. In a one app for text files world, there's no competition - so no need for the company to improve that app.
Whether or not the iPod is a flop depends on what their goal is. If they are intending the player to sell millions and make them a chunk of cash, I agree it will be a flop because like you said, they are eliminating too many potential customers by making it Mac only (or at least Marketing it as Mac only).
But, I'm guessing that that's not their goal. I think the reason for the iPod is to create buzz for their brand, to provide current Mac owners a cool toy that Windows owners can't have, and to give potential customers an additional reason to buy a Mac. If that is really the case, then the success or failure of the iPod remains to be seen, but it will more likely be measured by it's influence on Mac system sales and brand equity.
I saw a couple of architectual engineers who were skyscraper experts on TV last night. I was wondering how the buildings collapsed because when I left for work, both looked structurally rather stable to me. They contradict what you mentioned about the supports being severed as what led to the collapse.
The towers withstood the initial impact about as good as possible. The WTC had steel beams every 3 feet which is 3-5 times closer than most buildings. The problem was the fires. While steel is extremely strong, extended periods of extreme heat weaken it. They said that these buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash or a fire--assuming it was an office fire--paper, furniture etc. The steel is coated with something to protect it from getting too hot and weakening. But the temparature of the fuel burning made a temperature of 1100 + degrees for an extended period of time. Eventually the steel weakend and under the weight of the building above the fire, it burned.
They said that it is possible to cover the steel with a material which could withstand the heat from an airplane fuel fire but it wasn't really thought about and might become a cost versus chance of this happening.
Finally they said that the attack was either extremely lucky or well planned. If the planes would have hit much higher (especially the first one) the weight of the top would not have been enough to collapse the whole thing. If they hit much lower (especially the second one) they would have hit the extra re-inforced beams that go from the ground partway up the building and would have been more able to support the building even when weakened by the intense fire.
I agree that the point of this was to get attention--and it worked perfectly for them in that sense--all the cameras were already focused on the towers when the second plane hit. And there's no question, seeing the Twin Towers and the Pentagon crumble on television has a dramatic impact.
However, my questions is at what point does it become a war? Violence usually begets violence. But if this is Bin Laden (most experts believe he is one of a very few who could have orchestrated this) then what is the cost of doing nothing? Does it make us seem weak and send the message that there are no reprecussions for such acts?
I'm very much afraid this could mark the end of personal encryption and probably other freedoms. Then at some point, this becomes an issue of fighting for our freedoms as well.
I just saw Michael Lewis interviewed on TechTV last night and was interested in his take on Ledbed. Lewis by the way, has direct experience working on Wall Street having worked for Salomon Smith Barney in the 80s. Anyway, his take was that this was all blown out of proportion and this kid didn't really do anything wrong. According to Lewis, Ledbed never posted under different names or represented his opinions as those of more than one person. He posted his opinion in multiple places, but it was always as his opinion and he was promoting stocks he really believed in. Unlike what analysts like Mary Meeker at Morgan Stanley do, he actually really believed in the stocks he was promoting whereas they pump stocks just to make the short-term cash.
What I read in the media was that Ledbed was posting as tons of different people, while the story from Lewis who actually talked to him, was that was not the case at all. Some one was misrepresenting the facts if that's true.
My honest opinion is that the industry has pushed to smear the kid in hopes of slowing down the large sucking sound they hear from people dumping their brokers because they're worthless now that they don't have any more information than is readily available to the rest of us.
Hiawath Bray posted a response criticizing the the author of this article--here's my response to him:
Typical MS Apology from Hiawatha Bray
Mr. Bray:
First of all, I'm not sure you really understood Ms. Guglielmo's intention at all. The words in parenthesis are for effect--to more clearly display where the links could point. If you think she was suggesting that additional words would be added, you missed it entirely.
Now put aside your amorous feelings for Microsoft for just a minute and try to look at this technology as a writer (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
Let's say you've written an article--you've include what links you feel pertinent, revised it countless times, perhaps even had others review and edit it before finally posting it on the internet. In a world with "Smart Tags" your own words which you carefully chose could now be underlined and take readers to other websites which you may or may not agree with. This very much could change the meaning readers get from your article. Links on a page have definite effect on readers understanding of the page. It really wouldn't be any different than letting some one add their own footnotes and annotation text to a printed article. Are you starting to get this?
Flip things around. Pretend that it was Apple instead of Microsoft toying with this technology. Now imagine you've just published an article slamming Apple. But interwoven as links so as to not change the "content" of your article Apple, has set "Smart Tags" to words that take you to sites that are overly flattering of Apple, slam Microsoft, and undermine your credibility.
Aside from just being wrong from a moral and copyright/intellectual property standpoint (though that's a whole other can of worms) I don't see how any of the "benefits" (and I will readily admit that there are a few) could come close to outweighing both the number of and magnitude of costs.
I wasn't going to post so I could have some fun moderating this one but found myself really and truly wanting to moderate the article itself rather than the posts.
Talk about flamebait!
Now I understand why so many long-time Slashdotters filter out articles by Katz. I kept reading and expecting some sort of objective commentary or informed question at the end to provoke further thought (like CmdrTaco and most decent submitters do) but it never came.
It was a like he was reading verbatim from some MS Press Release or something. Unbelievable. I'm going to the preferences page to filter out articles by Katz as soon as I hit the submit button.
Isn't this partially Microsoft's view of the future that we all tend to rail against? We said MS shouldn't bundle IE with the OS. It takes away competition from Netscape, Opera etc. I've always figured MS would do the same with Office at some point--make it part of Windows. So it's only a matter of time until all functionality is built into the OS. Yes this may make exchanging data between apps much easier--ie you don't have to rely on saving data to files, an advanced clipboard could do it all.
But what happens to everybody else? Suddenly making an alternative program requires an OS hack. With undocumented API's this vision could only result in One world, One OS, One App. I don't like it all. Microsoft has shown that they cannot innovate. They can only copy and I'll admit, usually improve after 3 or 4 versions. With no competition, things would never improve.
What Jeff needs to understand is that there's a bigger picture. While a SuperOS/GUI would improve usability, it would cost us so much more because development from the rest of the world would grind to a halt.
Can some one tell me why this happens. Why are web browsers so bad at following the W3C standards. In most cases, if there's an accepted standards setting body, don't most companies apply the standards or get shamed or laughed out of the market (not counting Microsoft).
I'm just some putz, wanna be programmer but if I were to decide to create a web browser, I would want to follow the standards to the letter. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the standards are poorly chosen.
Slashdot Mirror
steve
I think my heaven may be (or at least contain) an infinite library.
steve
It's not about the physical mainfestation of the book, it's about the words and thoughts and ideas the author is communicating. I'd be willing to bet most authors would rather have people share their books and re-read them and really love them than pamper them and be afraid to read it one more time for fear of hurting it.
When I read a book, I'm brutal to it, that's just my way. I fold pages and highlight things that really move me, and I really don't think the authors would think that I'm being disrespectful.
Like I said, I wouldn't ever be critical of some one like you taking great care of the book, but you really have no right to be critical of the way others treat their books.
So first of all, the box office is the be all end all. Spiderman is "massacring" Episode 2 in earning the almighty dollar. (Even if that really was all that mattered, it's way too early to call.) But then he complains about how Lucas has sold out, and he could have kept the franchise's dignity and still made tens of millions of dollars. So which is it Jon?
The brief summary:
The Trigger When Dr. Karl Brohier and his team of scientists accidentally stumble upon a field that can detonate gunpowder in bullets and bombs from a safe distance, they find themselves targetted by professional criminals, terrorists, and the military-industrial complex, all out to seize control of their invention. Reprint.
I can actually see both sides a little bit here. One one hand it's just stupid--having a cop waiting in the lobby (or even standing over a technician's shoulder for that matter) as the article says, does nothing to proect the data or anyone's Fourth Amendment rights. And I don't believe the person's rights were indeed violated by not having the police there--a search warrant was issued for his data, and the fact that it was executed in effect by proxy through a citizen doesn't make the search any less valid provided the warrant was kosher.
But, I can see how not having the police on site is a breach in "chain of custody." Then again, the defendant could always argue that the ISP had it out for him and tampered with the evidence to frame him, which may or may not be a believeable defense. But in that regard it is something to argue in court to the jury and not something that could be dismissed as a matter of law. Because of the opening it might provice, I can see how the police/DA would want some one there to eliminate that excuse.
By the way, I do very much disagree with the two comments towards the end of the article--the first was an implication that this would some how make searches more common. If anything, investigators will be more certain they're barking up the right tree if they have to actually be present during the search. And second, I really don't believe this will cause a chilling effect on ISP subscribers. Do I care if cops are present at my ISP while executing a search warrant? Of course not. As long as a search warrant is required and a judge (with accountability) believed the police presented enough logical reason for the warrant, I certainly don't care. Now if that's costing me more money through taxes and service outages or higher ISP bills, I might become more concerned.
steve
No question Flash has it's place. And the fact that there are a ton of people doing really shoddy stuff shouldn't be blamed (directly) on the tool. It does sort of encourage that stuff, but bad developers are the real cause and would be using another tool if not Flash. Anyway, Flash does a lot of thing really well--however, I'm very reluctant to believe that entire sites should be done in Flash as Macromedia is trying to suggest. What about search engines? They don't index Flash content, so if you want the search engines to find your stuff, you have to create index & meta pages--if you have to do that, why not use html. Flash is a great tool for content, but I'm not sure it is robust enough to be the framework structurally that Macromedia is pushing for. I think frameworks should be designed from the beginning rather than grown from something else.
I've been using Flash since version 3, and this is the 3rd major release and it looks like the 3rd major interface change. They keep making developers practically re-learn the tool every release. I love learning new things, but I'm typically not fond of taking the time to learn how to do something I already knew how to do.
Finally the bit about Flash being open is mostly true--but in the past the "open" SWF SDK has been a version or more behind the release of their development version of Flash. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they do this, and I think it's a great thing for them to release the SWF, BUT it's a far cry from an open format--they control it completely, not a standards board or industry group.
If anything, this makes a strong argument for the quality of ads and the importance of knowing the viewers and targetting the ads appropriately. Granted, I guess such a thing would be much harder for general interest sites like say news sites that don't have such a defined demographic. But bottom line, advertisers should be more willing to pay for ads on sites that hit their target audience, and viewers wouldn't mind the ads so much because they actually match their interests.
steve
According to Einstein, time is relative. So some one who spends their life traveling through space would come back to find everyone else had aged faster than him. Same thing with sleep--if I get less sleep I spend more time running around, and time (appears) to move slowly for me and faster for all those sleepyheads layinging bed.
steve
I love computers, gadgets & technology in general. I'm a multimedia developer by trade, but am working on becoming more of a real programmer. There are a lot of things I get, but still plenty of advanced programming & especially EE stuff that I still am learning about. I always want to learn more, and I never miss a Cringely column because of what you said--he has great contacts in the industry and is good at explaining things simply. At least for me, learning how something works in general terms makes it much easier for me to learn the details.
While slashdot is clearly a 'geek' site, keep in mind there is a wide spectrum therein. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would prefer to read & comment on OS kernel programming, just as there are lots of us more interested in more "simplistic" stuff. Discussions on Cringely's articles have always been fairly active. The last 11 articles on his columns have averaged 296 comments. The most recent 30 articles in "older stuff" average 136 comments. So people are reading & commenting on him--whether they're bashing or not, his articles clearly get people talking.
Long story short, if you don't like the Cringely articles, don't read them. I think Slashdot should always error on the side of being more inclusive rather than exclusive.
steve
Adcritic was awesome. I hope they come back. Though I'm not entirely sure why they're gone? I guess if they're trying to run a for profit business, I get it, there's just no money in their business model. But if they're only out to get along and not make millions, why can't they? The only cost they really should have would be bandwidth. And I have an interesting solution to that. Why don't the set themselves with something like a peer-to-peer structure. They can have post the movies on their site first--and have users download & share the movies from their own computers & bandwidth ala Kazaa/Morpheus. They would have huge savings on costs, not having the enormous bandwidth costs, and yet keep the stuff out there archived and the most popular stuff would be mirrored and quickly available P-to-P. steve
That said, it doesn't matter anyway, because with the deep pockets on the other side, they'll appeal until the get to a judge that is more "open" to their side.
steve snyder
The question he was asked was whether the open source model was a more efficient one if the goal is to "build an ecosystem of developers (developers! developers!), users, resellers...).
He did not answer that question, but instead went off on a rant about how he had something to do with an open architecture on a hardware system he had only tangental influence over 20 years ago.
But, I'm guessing that that's not their goal. I think the reason for the iPod is to create buzz for their brand, to provide current Mac owners a cool toy that Windows owners can't have, and to give potential customers an additional reason to buy a Mac. If that is really the case, then the success or failure of the iPod remains to be seen, but it will more likely be measured by it's influence on Mac system sales and brand equity.
steve
I saw a couple of architectual engineers who were skyscraper experts on TV last night. I was wondering how the buildings collapsed because when I left for work, both looked structurally rather stable to me. They contradict what you mentioned about the supports being severed as what led to the collapse.
The towers withstood the initial impact about as good as possible. The WTC had steel beams every 3 feet which is 3-5 times closer than most buildings. The problem was the fires. While steel is extremely strong, extended periods of extreme heat weaken it. They said that these buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash or a fire--assuming it was an office fire--paper, furniture etc. The steel is coated with something to protect it from getting too hot and weakening. But the temparature of the fuel burning made a temperature of 1100 + degrees for an extended period of time. Eventually the steel weakend and under the weight of the building above the fire, it burned.
They said that it is possible to cover the steel with a material which could withstand the heat from an airplane fuel fire but it wasn't really thought about and might become a cost versus chance of this happening.
Finally they said that the attack was either extremely lucky or well planned. If the planes would have hit much higher (especially the first one) the weight of the top would not have been enough to collapse the whole thing. If they hit much lower (especially the second one) they would have hit the extra re-inforced beams that go from the ground partway up the building and would have been more able to support the building even when weakened by the intense fire.
steve
I agree that the point of this was to get attention--and it worked perfectly for them in that sense--all the cameras were already focused on the towers when the second plane hit. And there's no question, seeing the Twin Towers and the Pentagon crumble on television has a dramatic impact.
However, my questions is at what point does it become a war? Violence usually begets violence. But if this is Bin Laden (most experts believe he is one of a very few who could have orchestrated this) then what is the cost of doing nothing? Does it make us seem weak and send the message that there are no reprecussions for such acts?
I'm very much afraid this could mark the end of personal encryption and probably other freedoms. Then at some point, this becomes an issue of fighting for our freedoms as well.
steve
What I read in the media was that Ledbed was posting as tons of different people, while the story from Lewis who actually talked to him, was that was not the case at all. Some one was misrepresenting the facts if that's true.
My honest opinion is that the industry has pushed to smear the kid in hopes of slowing down the large sucking sound they hear from people dumping their brokers because they're worthless now that they don't have any more information than is readily available to the rest of us.
steve snyder
Typical MS Apology from Hiawatha Bray
Mr. Bray:
First of all, I'm not sure you really understood Ms. Guglielmo's intention at all. The words in parenthesis are for effect--to more clearly display where the links could point. If you think she was suggesting that additional words would be added, you missed it entirely.
Now put aside your amorous feelings for Microsoft for just a minute and try to look at this technology as a writer (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
Let's say you've written an article--you've include what links you feel pertinent, revised it countless times, perhaps even had others review and edit it before finally posting it on the internet. In a world with "Smart Tags" your own words which you carefully chose could now be underlined and take readers to other websites which you may or may not agree with. This very much could change the meaning readers get from your article. Links on a page have definite effect on readers understanding of the page. It really wouldn't be any different than letting some one add their own footnotes and annotation text to a printed article. Are you starting to get this?
Flip things around. Pretend that it was Apple instead of Microsoft toying with this technology. Now imagine you've just published an article slamming Apple. But interwoven as links so as to not change the "content" of your article Apple, has set "Smart Tags" to words that take you to sites that are overly flattering of Apple, slam Microsoft, and undermine your credibility.
Aside from just being wrong from a moral and copyright/intellectual property standpoint (though that's a whole other can of worms) I don't see how any of the "benefits" (and I will readily admit that there are a few) could come close to outweighing both the number of and magnitude of costs.
steve snyder
Talk about flamebait!
Now I understand why so many long-time Slashdotters filter out articles by Katz. I kept reading and expecting some sort of objective commentary or informed question at the end to provoke further thought (like CmdrTaco and most decent submitters do) but it never came.
It was a like he was reading verbatim from some MS Press Release or something. Unbelievable. I'm going to the preferences page to filter out articles by Katz as soon as I hit the submit button.
steve snyder
my email
"The more laws, the less justice."
Marcus Tullius
But what happens to everybody else? Suddenly making an alternative program requires an OS hack. With undocumented API's this vision could only result in One world, One OS, One App. I don't like it all. Microsoft has shown that they cannot innovate. They can only copy and I'll admit, usually improve after 3 or 4 versions. With no competition, things would never improve.
What Jeff needs to understand is that there's a bigger picture. While a SuperOS/GUI would improve usability, it would cost us so much more because development from the rest of the world would grind to a halt.
steve
I'm just some putz, wanna be programmer but if I were to decide to create a web browser, I would want to follow the standards to the letter. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the standards are poorly chosen.
Anynone?
steve