Based on the comments in the thread it sounds like other camera angles have shown that it was really a pen and that this was discovered before the rumor mongering that inspired this thread. So Fox didn't bias the camera, but Drudge apparently did spread a rumor that had supposedly been disproved (nothing new there).
I'll confess I didn't research past the thread because I don't really care if Kerry used a cheat sheet OR if Bush used an in-ear audio prompter (the other rumor of the day, though that one goes back a ways).
And no, I don't expect a major party politician to be honest. I expect a -statesman- to be honest. And I don't see the major parties producing those much anymore. I expect the next honest person I elect to office to be from a 3rd party.
The messenger only matters when they have proven time and time again to have significant bias and a tendency to spread rumors.
Drudge -leads- in that category and has for years.
Dan Rather appears to be catching up from the other side of the magnet.
If the messenger was not known to use influence to benefit their bias, then yes, it wouldn't matter who reported it. Unfortunately in today's media there are fewer and fewer outlets that I would see as being balanced.
But that's bogus... Google doesn't have a right to modify how my browser works.
If they want to be able to limit how people are able to manipulate data on a Google site, then use something -other- than a standard web server / web browser combination for data retrieval.
Just because the web has become so common that people expect you to provide web access to data doesn't mean that you -have- to.
As I see it Google wants to take advantage of a nearly ubiquitous web, but without providing the features that that web entails. Essentially they are playing the same game here that MS did when putting all sorts of non-standard behaviors in IE.
They can't have it both ways. If you want to protect your content from web browsers, don't use a web server. Or create a service whereby people have to actively be registered, watermark the content, and take legal action afterwards.
This was modded insightful? Saracastic perhaps, but even then it is redundant to other posts.
Anyway... strange thing is that while I'm a liberal (not capitalized and I'm a Libertarian more than a Democrat), I read the page and saw it as a jab at -both- candidates fairly equally.
CNN is biased, I agree (though no more so than Fox News, and to my mind less so). However I think if this page had been a rip-off of CBS, NBC, ABC or perhaps even Fox they would have probably had the same from the hip legal attitude.
Fact of the matter is all the broadcast media outlets are big enough to try something like this. Just because a lawyer sends a note demanding that the ISP yank the page doesn't mean that lawyer necessarily expects it to happen. Look at a court case sometime and notice how many feints are tried on the hope that just one works.
Besides, as noted elsewhere the parody could have been easily protected by a very few HTML and image edits. Change the copyright to something not-quite-CNN, alter the CNN logo slightly, remove the advertisers images. Done. I've seen other CNN parodies that did this and were never threatened. Seems to me that CNN does have some ground to stand on... not due to the content but rather due to the presentation.
It is harder to go after someone like the originators of an Open Source product for 3 reasons:
1) You have a hard time proving that the product caused you commercial loss if the allegedly injurious product was not sold commercially.
2) The original author is almost always -not- the only author and often have contributed a minority of code, meaning you may need to involve all parties (authors) in the action and if they can get separate trials it becomes much more expensive.
3) If you go after the "little guy" or worse after -every- contributor, it is a public relations disaster. Think SCO and make it even more aggravating to your customer base since at least SCO was going after commercial competition.
None of the above apply to Sun or Java (and wouldn't even if Java had been open sourced).
I doubt we'll see Larry Wall or any number of others personally sued for their products.
What -might- happen is that this case could stifle growth by scaring someone out of inventing new technology. That is unseen and unquantifiable but even more sad.
- Not affected by X-Rays unless you melt it (think MAD/Nukes)
Yeah, but a well focused microwave could boil your CPU (or if not boil due to removal of gases in the liquid, at the least pressurize it to an extreme).
Gnot yet, but expect that to change when they have Novell Linux 10 completed (probably another quarter or so) and the Ximian products are integrated with the SuSE distribution.
Screenshots of Novell Linux 10 have been primarily using a Ximian-like GNOME desktop. It appears that while KDE will continue to get development, the "face" of Novell Linux will be the Ximian product.
That makes sense given how much influence the Ximian employees have retained in Novell's Linux decision making process.
Ya know, asking a legitimate question about the comparison of this new software versus proven software is NOT flak. It is a simple question.
If it had somehow been inflammatory like "Microsoft released this product but since kwiki works so well I encourage people to use it instead" it would be different. But it's not. And your post is not insightful...
Damnit, why does/. have to revoke mod points if you don't use them? Just give me 5, let me use them whenever, and then make me wait some specified time to get them again.
No, because the same version of Outlook ends up being the same binary using the same libraries.
Your example would have worked if I was willing to say that [insert app here] were cross-platform because it runs on Red Hat Linux and SuSE Linux.
However, I didn't make a claim like that, and if you think that I did or you think that your Win* analogy is legitimate, well... no point in continuing.
So if I read you and the parent correctly... if I write an application that is not compatible with Windows it is inherrently not cross platform?
Let's see... Evo runs on Linux, *BSD, Solaris... probably on OSX if you take the time... but it is not cross-platform?
I say bunk to that.
I agree that by not running easily on Windows (though there is always CygWin) the adoption rate will not be as high as it could be.
I would disagree that that is a bad thing.
And I would posit that there are probably statistically nearly as many Evo users out there today as Thunderbird. That will change... but the vast majority of Windows users still use Outlook.
No, I don't have any facts to back up my last paragraph, but at least I know what "cross-platform" means.
I don't see anywhere in the quote you quoted that says anything about building anything into the OS in the manner that IE is built into Windows.
"Some people want a server", doesn't imply that
"some people want a desktop", doesn't imply that
"some want to run an FTP server", while redundant, doesn't imply that.
Unless you are saying that the distributions shouldn't even bother to include Mozilla, Konqueror or whatnot in their binary builds??
There is a key difference between building a browser -with- an OS and building a browser into an OS in such a way that it (supposedly) can not be easily removed.
You've been marked as +1 Insightful, but I have a feeling I just fed a troll.
You (and the submitter) make it sound like BREW is something new and until recently unheard of.
BREW has been on cellphones about as long as J2ME has been on cellphones.
Last time I went shopping I found a phone (maybe a V60) that, on the manufacturer's website claimed both BREW and J2ME... BUT when you talked to the carriers they only enabled one or the other (and strangely to me, AT&T was one that carried J2ME, but with only CDMA you couldn't load your own J2ME apps...).
I took a look at the license for both and decided that the reason I was interested in either was to do my own app development playground, and I liked the low cost of doing so with J2ME. Maybe I missed something, but BREW was awfully restrictive.
Of course, shortly thereafter I moved to an area that doesn't even get CDMA, much less GSM, so I decided it didn't matter since I didn't want to drive 30 minutes one-way to test the apps:)
Anyway, back to the point, BREW is not new and has definite licensing (and probably platfrom support) disadvantages compared to J2ME.
Either way, if this added that much of a technical nightmare, maybe they should have had "when its done" include "for all platforms we will support".
I have -no- problem with the distributors getting hit with a bunch of problems from such a configuration as it shows how much their markets want a non-Windows client.
John Carmack and id are not the ones staffing the support forums. It should have nothing to do with their mindset other than to be able to tell the publishers "I told you so" since most times it seems like it is the publisher, not the developers, who want to rush the Windows version out ASAP at the expense of the other "planned" platforms.
That $60 wasn't charged to staff the support forums, it was charged because they -can-. In a year it will be $30 and the same questions will be being asked by people who don't want to search for the answers. What changes in that time? Demand.
Google isn't reporting or delivering news. It is indexing those sites that do.
I don't see Google as the place to go when I want to find out what is happening today. I find it the place to go when I read a blurb on one news site and want to get more details or an alternate view from another site.
It would be like using a stock exchange ticker to decide what company is making news... the bigger the company or the more controversial the news, the bigger they change in their symbol. That doesn't mean it is relevant to me or that there is not more important news out there.
Agreed. Except for the 1 bargain basement 486/66 box I bought on a show floor (never again) that fried out in a week, I've never had a PC die on me.
Since I work in the Software / OS industry, after 3-5 years a PC will become unusable for my work. If it is something like my Thinkpad 570 it gets service as a router until another box takes the place (my X20 is about to get relegated to router duty).
All other boxes either get donated to family, friends or schools that can't afford a PC. All of the ones that went to friends and family still work. Can't track the schools.
Power supply fans and hard drives have died, as others mentioned, but otherwise I haven't seen a solid state part of a PC die. I always use a UPS, dust the insides once a year, and never overclock. Kinda like I get my car serviced every 3-5,000 miles and make the mechanic recommended repairs (usually just filters and flush/fills).
It boils down to how you treat your gear and whether you buy el-cheapo.
Just because "Congress still has" the right doesn't change the fact that before the (never declared) Korean war the Congress was the -only- body that could do so.
Since Truman involved the US in the Korean war, presidents have simply bypassed the intent of the Constitution by no officially declaring war. Instead they invoke military police actions or similar.
The War Powers act in 1973 tried to change this, but so far the legality and constitutionality of both has not changed.
Fact of the matter is, before 1950 it was assumed that -only- Congress could declare war. Since 1950 it has been assumed that declaring war is red tape and can be bypassed.
See, I would disagree... usually a survey like this would have meant to say "512 to 1GB" and "1GB to 1.5GB". So just more support that it was poorly written since 2 people of fair intelligence look at it differently.
I do see your point, but I think it's a bit of a niggle since 1GB of RAM is 1GB of RAM, whether it is used by the BIOS, kernel, web server or game enginer.
If I have 1GB of RAM, do I select "512MB to 1GB" or do I select "1GB to 1.5GB"?
A shame, because it looked like a decent number of respondents and it would be valuable for game makers to use to gauge what platforms they should target.
Cache is important to geeks. Geeks have never followed traditional market share rules.
What makes Google more popular with the masses (beyond the obvious things like having one of if not the best databases) is ease of use.
Sad, but it's true, it is simply easier to remember to type "google.com" than "askjeeves.com".
Why?
"Google" is a simpler word (2 g's, 2 o's, 1 l, 1 e... all very common letters) versus "askjeeves" (1 a, 2 s's, 1 k, 1 j, 3 e's, 1 v... k and v being far less common)
Additionally when you think of "google" it is a single word that, because it has no other meaning for most folks except as that funny word they learned in 7th grade math (though possibly misspelled) has been able to become synonymous with "search" because it doesn't conflict with any other associations.
"Askjeeves" is actually 2 words that form a rudimentary sentence that you then have to remember to condense back into one word, none of which is synonymous with "search" (to many, "searching" and "asking" are 2 separate actions).
Corollary to the above, you can turn "google" into a verb, thereby attaining the idea of "googling someone". The brain doesn't compute "I askjeevesed someone" and the closest "I asked someone" isn't comparative because it is not specific enough.
Google may have stumbled on it (or been far more market savvy than people thought in the "old days"), but plain and simple they have a TERRIFIC brand to work with from a marketing sense. Most of the arguments above can be made for almost every other search facility out there except Yahoo! (who still lose out on the simplicity of letters but have a longer brand record).
Slashdot Mirror
Based on the comments in the thread it sounds like other camera angles have shown that it was really a pen and that this was discovered before the rumor mongering that inspired this thread. So Fox didn't bias the camera, but Drudge apparently did spread a rumor that had supposedly been disproved (nothing new there).
I'll confess I didn't research past the thread because I don't really care if Kerry used a cheat sheet OR if Bush used an in-ear audio prompter (the other rumor of the day, though that one goes back a ways).
And no, I don't expect a major party politician to be honest. I expect a -statesman- to be honest. And I don't see the major parties producing those much anymore. I expect the next honest person I elect to office to be from a 3rd party.
As a left-leaning Lib I agree with you on all points.
The messenger only matters when they have proven time and time again to have significant bias and a tendency to spread rumors.
Drudge -leads- in that category and has for years.
Dan Rather appears to be catching up from the other side of the magnet.
If the messenger was not known to use influence to benefit their bias, then yes, it wouldn't matter who reported it. Unfortunately in today's media there are fewer and fewer outlets that I would see as being balanced.
But that's bogus ... Google doesn't have a right to modify how my browser works.
If they want to be able to limit how people are able to manipulate data on a Google site, then use something -other- than a standard web server / web browser combination for data retrieval.
Just because the web has become so common that people expect you to provide web access to data doesn't mean that you -have- to.
As I see it Google wants to take advantage of a nearly ubiquitous web, but without providing the features that that web entails. Essentially they are playing the same game here that MS did when putting all sorts of non-standard behaviors in IE.
They can't have it both ways. If you want to protect your content from web browsers, don't use a web server. Or create a service whereby people have to actively be registered, watermark the content, and take legal action afterwards.
This was modded insightful? Saracastic perhaps, but even then it is redundant to other posts.
... strange thing is that while I'm a liberal (not capitalized and I'm a Libertarian more than a Democrat), I read the page and saw it as a jab at -both- candidates fairly equally.
... not due to the content but rather due to the presentation.
Anyway
CNN is biased, I agree (though no more so than Fox News, and to my mind less so). However I think if this page had been a rip-off of CBS, NBC, ABC or perhaps even Fox they would have probably had the same from the hip legal attitude.
Fact of the matter is all the broadcast media outlets are big enough to try something like this. Just because a lawyer sends a note demanding that the ISP yank the page doesn't mean that lawyer necessarily expects it to happen. Look at a court case sometime and notice how many feints are tried on the hope that just one works.
Besides, as noted elsewhere the parody could have been easily protected by a very few HTML and image edits. Change the copyright to something not-quite-CNN, alter the CNN logo slightly, remove the advertisers images. Done. I've seen other CNN parodies that did this and were never threatened. Seems to me that CNN does have some ground to stand on
It is harder to go after someone like the originators of an Open Source product for 3 reasons:
1) You have a hard time proving that the product caused you commercial loss if the allegedly injurious product was not sold commercially.
2) The original author is almost always -not- the only author and often have contributed a minority of code, meaning you may need to involve all parties (authors) in the action and if they can get separate trials it becomes much more expensive.
3) If you go after the "little guy" or worse after -every- contributor, it is a public relations disaster. Think SCO and make it even more aggravating to your customer base since at least SCO was going after commercial competition.
None of the above apply to Sun or Java (and wouldn't even if Java had been open sourced).
I doubt we'll see Larry Wall or any number of others personally sued for their products.
What -might- happen is that this case could stifle growth by scaring someone out of inventing new technology. That is unseen and unquantifiable but even more sad.
Yeah, but ok ... Sun lost $92M due to a patent in this case.
How much does Sun make -because- of patents? Not just in royalties and lawsuits but in implied value?
Something tells me Sun is happy to have patents stay around.
- Not affected by X-Rays unless you melt it (think MAD/Nukes)
Yeah, but a well focused microwave could boil your CPU (or if not boil due to removal of gases in the liquid, at the least pressurize it to an extreme).
Nothing is truly failsafe.
Gnot yet, but expect that to change when they have Novell Linux 10 completed (probably another quarter or so) and the Ximian products are integrated with the SuSE distribution.
Screenshots of Novell Linux 10 have been primarily using a Ximian-like GNOME desktop. It appears that while KDE will continue to get development, the "face" of Novell Linux will be the Ximian product.
That makes sense given how much influence the Ximian employees have retained in Novell's Linux decision making process.
Ya know, asking a legitimate question about the comparison of this new software versus proven software is NOT flak. It is a simple question.
...
/. have to revoke mod points if you don't use them? Just give me 5, let me use them whenever, and then make me wait some specified time to get them again.
If it had somehow been inflammatory like "Microsoft released this product but since kwiki works so well I encourage people to use it instead" it would be different. But it's not. And your post is not insightful
Damnit, why does
No, because the same version of Outlook ends up being the same binary using the same libraries.
... no point in continuing.
Your example would have worked if I was willing to say that [insert app here] were cross-platform because it runs on Red Hat Linux and SuSE Linux.
However, I didn't make a claim like that, and if you think that I did or you think that your Win* analogy is legitimate, well
I know, but he should have quoted that part ;)
So if I read you and the parent correctly ... if I write an application that is not compatible with Windows it is inherrently not cross platform?
... Evo runs on Linux, *BSD, Solaris ... probably on OSX if you take the time ... but it is not cross-platform?
... but the vast majority of Windows users still use Outlook.
Let's see
I say bunk to that.
I agree that by not running easily on Windows (though there is always CygWin) the adoption rate will not be as high as it could be.
I would disagree that that is a bad thing.
And I would posit that there are probably statistically nearly as many Evo users out there today as Thunderbird. That will change
No, I don't have any facts to back up my last paragraph, but at least I know what "cross-platform" means.
I don't see anywhere in the quote you quoted that says anything about building anything into the OS in the manner that IE is built into Windows.
"Some people want a server", doesn't imply that
"some people want a desktop", doesn't imply that
"some want to run an FTP server", while redundant, doesn't imply that.
Unless you are saying that the distributions shouldn't even bother to include Mozilla, Konqueror or whatnot in their binary builds??
There is a key difference between building a browser -with- an OS and building a browser into an OS in such a way that it (supposedly) can not be easily removed.
You've been marked as +1 Insightful, but I have a feeling I just fed a troll.
Security through obscurity when used alone isn't.
However anything that is well secured can have that security enhanced by obscurity as well.
*lol*
Ah if only I had mod points.
So a box using KDE with Java is not just caffeinated, it's also mentholated!
You (and the submitter) make it sound like BREW is something new and until recently unheard of.
... BUT when you talked to the carriers they only enabled one or the other (and strangely to me, AT&T was one that carried J2ME, but with only CDMA you couldn't load your own J2ME apps ...).
:)
BREW has been on cellphones about as long as J2ME has been on cellphones.
Last time I went shopping I found a phone (maybe a V60) that, on the manufacturer's website claimed both BREW and J2ME
I took a look at the license for both and decided that the reason I was interested in either was to do my own app development playground, and I liked the low cost of doing so with J2ME. Maybe I missed something, but BREW was awfully restrictive.
Of course, shortly thereafter I moved to an area that doesn't even get CDMA, much less GSM, so I decided it didn't matter since I didn't want to drive 30 minutes one-way to test the apps
Anyway, back to the point, BREW is not new and has definite licensing (and probably platfrom support) disadvantages compared to J2ME.
John M. == John Carmack?
Either way, if this added that much of a technical nightmare, maybe they should have had "when its done" include "for all platforms we will support".
I have -no- problem with the distributors getting hit with a bunch of problems from such a configuration as it shows how much their markets want a non-Windows client.
John Carmack and id are not the ones staffing the support forums. It should have nothing to do with their mindset other than to be able to tell the publishers "I told you so" since most times it seems like it is the publisher, not the developers, who want to rush the Windows version out ASAP at the expense of the other "planned" platforms.
That $60 wasn't charged to staff the support forums, it was charged because they -can-. In a year it will be $30 and the same questions will be being asked by people who don't want to search for the answers. What changes in that time? Demand.
... responding to an AC (score:0) ...
... Google is a search engine / index. "News" on that page should be taken in the context of being provided by Google.
So if you click on Google's "Web" tab, are they purporting to be anymore than a web search engine / index?
If they are, and they don't want to be responsible for it, should they stop calling it "web"?
In the same vein of thought (not really), should "Instant Messaging" be called "Slightly Delayed Text Messaging"?
Way too literal
Google isn't reporting or delivering news. It is indexing those sites that do.
... the bigger the company or the more controversial the news, the bigger they change in their symbol. That doesn't mean it is relevant to me or that there is not more important news out there.
I don't see Google as the place to go when I want to find out what is happening today. I find it the place to go when I read a blurb on one news site and want to get more details or an alternate view from another site.
It would be like using a stock exchange ticker to decide what company is making news
Agreed. Except for the 1 bargain basement 486/66 box I bought on a show floor (never again) that fried out in a week, I've never had a PC die on me.
Since I work in the Software / OS industry, after 3-5 years a PC will become unusable for my work. If it is something like my Thinkpad 570 it gets service as a router until another box takes the place (my X20 is about to get relegated to router duty).
All other boxes either get donated to family, friends or schools that can't afford a PC. All of the ones that went to friends and family still work. Can't track the schools.
Power supply fans and hard drives have died, as others mentioned, but otherwise I haven't seen a solid state part of a PC die. I always use a UPS, dust the insides once a year, and never overclock. Kinda like I get my car serviced every 3-5,000 miles and make the mechanic recommended repairs (usually just filters and flush/fills).
It boils down to how you treat your gear and whether you buy el-cheapo.
Just because "Congress still has" the right doesn't change the fact that before the (never declared) Korean war the Congress was the -only- body that could do so.
Since Truman involved the US in the Korean war, presidents have simply bypassed the intent of the Constitution by no officially declaring war. Instead they invoke military police actions or similar.
The War Powers act in 1973 tried to change this, but so far the legality and constitutionality of both has not changed.
Fact of the matter is, before 1950 it was assumed that -only- Congress could declare war. Since 1950 it has been assumed that declaring war is red tape and can be bypassed.
See, I would disagree ... usually a survey like this would have meant to say "512 to 1GB" and "1GB to 1.5GB". So just more support that it was poorly written since 2 people of fair intelligence look at it differently.
I do see your point, but I think it's a bit of a niggle since 1GB of RAM is 1GB of RAM, whether it is used by the BIOS, kernel, web server or game enginer.
The survey has bad phrasing.
If I have 1GB of RAM, do I select "512MB to 1GB" or do I select "1GB to 1.5GB"?
A shame, because it looked like a decent number of respondents and it would be valuable for game makers to use to gauge what platforms they should target.
Cache is important to geeks. Geeks have never followed traditional market share rules.
... all very common letters) versus "askjeeves" (1 a, 2 s's, 1 k, 1 j, 3 e's, 1 v ... k and v being far less common)
What makes Google more popular with the masses (beyond the obvious things like having one of if not the best databases) is ease of use.
Sad, but it's true, it is simply easier to remember to type "google.com" than "askjeeves.com".
Why?
"Google" is a simpler word (2 g's, 2 o's, 1 l, 1 e
Additionally when you think of "google" it is a single word that, because it has no other meaning for most folks except as that funny word they learned in 7th grade math (though possibly misspelled) has been able to become synonymous with "search" because it doesn't conflict with any other associations.
"Askjeeves" is actually 2 words that form a rudimentary sentence that you then have to remember to condense back into one word, none of which is synonymous with "search" (to many, "searching" and "asking" are 2 separate actions).
Corollary to the above, you can turn "google" into a verb, thereby attaining the idea of "googling someone". The brain doesn't compute "I askjeevesed someone" and the closest "I asked someone" isn't comparative because it is not specific enough.
Google may have stumbled on it (or been far more market savvy than people thought in the "old days"), but plain and simple they have a TERRIFIC brand to work with from a marketing sense. Most of the arguments above can be made for almost every other search facility out there except Yahoo! (who still lose out on the simplicity of letters but have a longer brand record).