From the article: "We want to transition the bulk of this work to the vendors," Air Force chief information officer John Gilligan said. "That's not an unreasonable expectation."
Okay, I'll give you that one. I probably was being either a) melodramatic or b) passionate about the issue. The way I was looking at it was this: the entire policy is set up to take as much from the customer as is possible. Making things difficult for an individual in order to benefit yourself may not be "immoral" but it certainly is "not nice".
Better?
In any case, I'm still interested in your response to the rest of my comment -- if you have any.
...think of it as a case of teleporting into the aisle of a store that has the item you want, and right in front of that item, picking up the item, and then teleporting to the checkout stand...
Again, I think you are missing the point that the onus is on the store to provide the customer with incentive to browse and not strongarm them into walking through the aisles.
Consider: I teleport to the aisle of the store containing the product I was directed to. When I get there, not only do I see the product I am looking for but I see a menu of other items in the store AND maybe a "If you like this product you might like that product" blurb. Now, my curiosity is piqued and, if I have the time, I might go browse that item...otherwise, I might mark this store in my list of places to come back to.
Versus: I walk into a store and spend ten minutes looking for a product (a particular CD). Along the way, I'm told about Television Sets (I don't want a television set -- I want a CD), I'm told about Stereo Receivers (I DON'T want a stereo receiver, I WANT A CD), I'm told about Computer Software (I DON'T WANT COMPUTER SOFTWARE, I WANT A CD!). Finally, I get to the CDs, spend five to ten minutes looking for the CD I came to purchase and discover it is out of stock. What a waste.
Now, in all fairness, the whole reason an online retailer or service provider wants to eliminate deep-linking is because, statistically, sales go up the longer a user spends on a site. I realize this.
Inconveniencing a customer in order to line your own pocket is just downright immoral; provide incentive to your customers to browse your site!
I realize that you are not saying that you necessarily support this decision but...
That I can almost understand, since Ticket Master is relying on people to visit their website and see all the shows that they have to offer rather then just that one. It could possibly be proven that if everybody did that then ticket master would lose sales that it might have otherwise gotten from customers who would be enticed by other shows.
1) Tough. The original purpose and goal of the Web was the dissemination of information. Even today, with all the commercialization, the greatest benefit of the web is the ability to get information fast. Last time I checked, banner ads (in all their annoying glory) generally appear in headers that are pasted on EVERY PAGE of a site -- what difference does it make whether I hit the "entry" page or a "buried" page.
2) If you went to Ticketmaster (or wherever) for tickets (or whatever) and were then interested in other articles/services from TicketMaster you might visit their entry page... if you weren't you'd buy your tickets at the deep-linked location and move on. What's the difference besides user choice, ease of use for the customer, etc. If the site is well-designed and appears pertinent to the interests of the viewer, the viewer will explore the site... 'nuff said.
Saying deep-linking is illegal is about as insightful as saying that failure to watch television commercials is theft.
...but how many remember that the bulk of code in Open Office was produced as a closed source propritary program?
So? Why does it matter that the code was at one time closed and proprietary? It isn't now. If anything, this is another reason to hail OpenOffice as a victory -- a commercial entity has seen the light and given the code over to the community where it was reworked, improved upon and released to the benefit of all. The fact that a commercial organization donated the code should make no difference.
Or perhaps the fact that a product can only be successful against entrenched competition if it has been spawned by a large commercial entity, or is living in the shadow of a product being sold by that entity, tells us alot about the willingness of the Great Unwashed to accept OpenSource software.
Troll.
Again, where the code comes from is not relevant. The point is: the code is now GPL and the community can do with it as it will. If K* suite of products are better than OpenOffice.org 1.0 then users will switch to the K* suite of products. This is *true* competition -- competing on the merits of the product and not on the merits of the marketing.
The first time I was introduced to this feature was in one of the early drafts of a paper I wrote as part of my undergraduate Senior project.
The Professor had "commented" throughout the paper and returned an electronic copy back to me. When I opened it up, all I saw were these yellow "hilites" on single words that did not appear to have any particular pattern to how or why they were chosen. It was very confusing!
It was only by complete accident that I discovered what those hilites were a little while later. While working on something else at my desk, I let my mouse pointer rest whereever I had last left it. After a few seconds, up popped his comment.
Needless to say, I found embedded comments to be a neat feature but I learned, very quickly, to attach some boilerplate on what the hilites were and how to access them so my colleagues, who may not have used them (many had not and few were even aware of such a feature) would not be caught unawares as was I.
It's pretty likely that almost all 1.1 million changed everything to No.
That's exactly what I did.
My Yahoo account exists only to catch SPAM and use eGroups. All of the marketing options are set to "No".
I don't know what everyone is complaining about...I've lived at 12345 AnyStreet, AnyTown, USA for as long as I can remember and never had a problem with junk mail...and telemarketers never bother me at (123)456-7890.
Just curious...what exactly did you find so appealing about Bakshi's version. Of all of the LotR cartoons I have seen, I can tolerate his the least. I got so tired of seeing humans wearing bad costumes and inked over running around and among cartoon characters...and watching Merry and Pippin fall down, over and over and over as the same scene was replayed multiple times like some really bad 1970s Spiderman cartoon...Ugh.
FWIW, I realize that technology was a factor in what Bakshi could and could not do with his adaptation of the story but I've never understood the fascination with his work. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: "We want to transition the bulk of this work to the vendors," Air Force chief information officer John Gilligan said. "That's not an unreasonable expectation."
Better?
In any case, I'm still interested in your response to the rest of my comment -- if you have any.
Again, I think you are missing the point that the onus is on the store to provide the customer with incentive to browse and not strongarm them into walking through the aisles.
Consider: I teleport to the aisle of the store containing the product I was directed to. When I get there, not only do I see the product I am looking for but I see a menu of other items in the store AND maybe a "If you like this product you might like that product" blurb. Now, my curiosity is piqued and, if I have the time, I might go browse that item...otherwise, I might mark this store in my list of places to come back to.
Versus: I walk into a store and spend ten minutes looking for a product (a particular CD). Along the way, I'm told about Television Sets (I don't want a television set -- I want a CD), I'm told about Stereo Receivers (I DON'T want a stereo receiver, I WANT A CD), I'm told about Computer Software (I DON'T WANT COMPUTER SOFTWARE, I WANT A CD!). Finally, I get to the CDs, spend five to ten minutes looking for the CD I came to purchase and discover it is out of stock. What a waste.
Now, in all fairness, the whole reason an online retailer or service provider wants to eliminate deep-linking is because, statistically, sales go up the longer a user spends on a site. I realize this.
Inconveniencing a customer in order to line your own pocket is just downright immoral; provide incentive to your customers to browse your site!
That I can almost understand, since Ticket Master is relying on people to visit their website and see all the shows that they have to offer rather then just that one. It could possibly be proven that if everybody did that then ticket master would lose sales that it might have otherwise gotten from customers who would be enticed by other shows.
1) Tough. The original purpose and goal of the Web was the dissemination of information. Even today, with all the commercialization, the greatest benefit of the web is the ability to get information fast. Last time I checked, banner ads (in all their annoying glory) generally appear in headers that are pasted on EVERY PAGE of a site -- what difference does it make whether I hit the "entry" page or a "buried" page.
2) If you went to Ticketmaster (or wherever) for tickets (or whatever) and were then interested in other articles/services from TicketMaster you might visit their entry page ... if you weren't you'd buy your tickets at the deep-linked location and move on. What's the difference besides user choice, ease of use for the customer, etc. If the site is well-designed and appears pertinent to the interests of the viewer, the viewer will explore the site... 'nuff said.
Saying deep-linking is illegal is about as insightful as saying that failure to watch television commercials is theft.
...but how many remember that the bulk of code in Open Office was produced as a closed source propritary program?
So? Why does it matter that the code was at one time closed and proprietary? It isn't now. If anything, this is another reason to hail OpenOffice as a victory -- a commercial entity has seen the light and given the code over to the community where it was reworked, improved upon and released to the benefit of all. The fact that a commercial organization donated the code should make no difference.
Or perhaps the fact that a product can only be successful against entrenched competition if it has been spawned by a large commercial entity, or is living in the shadow of a product being sold by that entity, tells us alot about the willingness of the Great Unwashed to accept OpenSource software.
Troll.
Again, where the code comes from is not relevant. The point is: the code is now GPL and the community can do with it as it will. If K* suite of products are better than OpenOffice.org 1.0 then users will switch to the K* suite of products. This is *true* competition -- competing on the merits of the product and not on the merits of the marketing.
The Professor had "commented" throughout the paper and returned an electronic copy back to me. When I opened it up, all I saw were these yellow "hilites" on single words that did not appear to have any particular pattern to how or why they were chosen. It was very confusing!
It was only by complete accident that I discovered what those hilites were a little while later. While working on something else at my desk, I let my mouse pointer rest whereever I had last left it. After a few seconds, up popped his comment.
Needless to say, I found embedded comments to be a neat feature but I learned, very quickly, to attach some boilerplate on what the hilites were and how to access them so my colleagues, who may not have used them (many had not and few were even aware of such a feature) would not be caught unawares as was I.
That's exactly what I did.
My Yahoo account exists only to catch SPAM and use eGroups. All of the marketing options are set to "No".
I don't know what everyone is complaining about...I've lived at 12345 AnyStreet, AnyTown, USA for as long as I can remember and never had a problem with junk mail...and telemarketers never bother me at (123)456-7890.
Just curious...what exactly did you find so appealing about Bakshi's version. Of all of the LotR cartoons I have seen, I can tolerate his the least. I got so tired of seeing humans wearing bad costumes and inked over running around and among cartoon characters...and watching Merry and Pippin fall down, over and over and over as the same scene was replayed multiple times like some really bad 1970s Spiderman cartoon...Ugh.
FWIW, I realize that technology was a factor in what Bakshi could and could not do with his adaptation of the story but I've never understood the fascination with his work. Thanks.