Those old photocopies were actually mimeographs, generally referred to as "dittos" (though I think there was some difference between a "ditto machine" and other mimeographs).
Even though we had a photocopier, large runs went on the ditto machine, and it was always a mysterious and magical thing to operate. I miss them.
Really, I appreciate all the "batteries of mass destruction" jokes, but isn't there a little bit too much off-topic political commentary floating up to the +5/Insightful (inciteful) level here?
Google news links take you directly to the news provider's page (unlike Yahoo, which co-brands almost everything).
If I had, say, a newspaper, I would very much like to be well-placed on Google news, since I'm giving them very little (a summary, a small photo) and getting a great listing in return; and I have control in the end, since somebody is coming to my site to read the story. As far as I can tell they only require you to be a serious news source and to allow people to read the linked story with no hijinks (like popups, registration etc).
In fact, if I had a special-interest paper or magazine, I would even consider paying Google news, a-la AdWords, for right-column listings. For example, the Wall Street Journal would presumably love to show up on all Google news searches for "NASDAQ."
And in the case of the WSJ online, which is not free, it would be smart of them to have a free section just for Google news, where full articles (linked from Google) are free but there are plenty of hints about how much more you get if you pay. But I digress...
I think your comment is perhaps more applicable to Yahoo. Whatever they pay a newspaper for the feed (or Reuters etc), the content provider isn't getting anything else, except maybe a byline and a logo.
take property. i sell you a house, you buy the house, the money is in escrow to protect us both.
it protects you because you get the money back if i'm pulling a scam (if it's not really my house, or something).
it protects me because i know i'll get that money after i sign the house over to you. i know because i have a contract with the escrow company, just like you do. when i deliver proof that you bought the house, and the escrow company double-checks its validity, then i get the money. that's what i pay them for (the seller usually pays for the escrow).
in any case where the seller can prove that the buyer received the thing sold, escrow works for the benefit of both parties. if the escrow company doesn't offer the seller a clear contract specifying what constitutes delivery of the product or service, then you should take your percentage elsewhere.
i made a large purchase in a country where escrow is not usually used, and i was more than a little bit nervous during the time when i had paid a massive down payment and the only thing guaranteeing the sale was a contract. the other side was also nervous, since the only thing guaranteeing that the rest of the money would show up was the same contract.
that's what i'm assuming also but in the example i gave there are (at least) three original authors.
obviously it's in the spirit of the license to have all authors duly credited even if there are a lot of them. on the other hand that's a daunting task when you get into things like collage, or a whole website, or...
i imagine a technological solution to this, maybe complexcopyright.org or something.
further musing: is ALT sufficient attribution for an image on the web? if i make a whole site with graphics of "Attribution+Share Alike" license, can i just have one "image credits" link at the bottom of each page?
as soon as i saw the story, i went to the site and started on the merry
path to licensing out some content (maybe some
pictures
or something)...
but the license i was most interested in, Attribution + Share Alike,
seemed to present a recursion problem.
with software licenses this isn't such a big deal, because a big fat
license and attribution file can be included (license.txt) and often
is.
but with something like a picture, the attribution and/or copyright
notice is not realistically going to be longer than a "normal"
URL.
i send them a note about this, which i quote below. hopefully somebody
has greater insight into this than i do, because to me it looks like
you could end up doing a whole lotta work building your license.html
pages on your website (mary in the example below) or you're more or less
begging to be plagiarized.
the example:
i take a picture, you (joe) modify it, someone else (mary) modifies that, and it gets printed in a magazine. what's the credit? "foto by frost/joe/mary" or "foto by mary/joe/frost" or....?
this gets really complicated if, say, i provide a bland little picture and joe crops and enlarges it to make it interesting and then mary uses it in a collage that's really beautiful... wherein mary is really the primary author of her piece, and i am the author of the source of a component thereof. and what if mary has used fifty such pieces? soon there is more attribution than she can reasonably expect to print next to pictures of the collage (which she has, after all, been required to license)... do we then have an attribution link?
and in such a case, if all the original elements were licensed through creativecommons, would there be a way, on that website, to show all the attributions within one URL (with licenses)?
if i license something with "Attribution + Share Alike" that itself uses things licensed with "Attribution + Share Alike," i probably need to include those licenses' links and attributions within the creativecommons link to my page... at a very minimum.
...when you answer that question, they theoretically can get close to your "group of people whose reviews I trust."
it seems like they'd want to do that. after all, although they are trying to sell you products, they have a whole lotta products for sale, and satisfied customers are more likely to come back.
i'd say try regularly "rating" the reviews that way and see if their quality (for you) doesn't improve. if it doesn't, make suggestions to the collaborative-filtering team (if you like amazon anyway).
just off the top of my head, it seems to me that it would be sufficient to just replace the word "mozilla" with something else, say "openbrowser," in the entire source code except for the license......and then swap out the dragon and navigator etc icons. doesn't seem so hard, and it could be automated so you don't have to re-hack each release.
on the other hand, i haven't actually read the license. just an idea.
i dunno... i've just done a little site work for a client on he.net, and they have, among other stupidities, a limit on mysql databases whereby you have to *hard-code* your *shell password* into your friggin' scripts. oh yeah, and no phpMyAdmin.
idiots.
i use cwihosting, which i think may just be a reseller, and they have a great package for a few websites. i also use verio for a single website and i use servepath for a hosted server (just for comparison). i'm recommending the client quit he.net, and go either to cwi or to one of the things recommended here today.
i hope you don't need any real features soon or the $10 won't seem such a deal anymore... but maybe if you just do a straight-up website it's ok.
Hmmm, is it just me? Am I the only one on/. following contemporary art?
Douglas Gordon made a name for himself some time back with "24-Hour Psycho," which was a video projection of the famous Hitchcock film, with the sound off, and playing at such a rate that it would finish in 24 hours.
I saw it in London, and it was really fascinating (for a few minutes anyway). But since the exhibition wasn't open 24 hours at a time, I couldn't authenticate the work.... I guess that's what art critics are for.
you could write a little script to swap out the cookies you get with an "allowed" browser to your "bad" browser.
and these folks are trying the hard sell; not sure who would be interested in their
language,
much less their technology.
as for the ethical question about blocking pop-ups, i think the answer is to integrate the ads into the page content. if people block those, then i think it's reasonable to deny them access to your content.
a popup, however, is a lot like a magazine insert. a very large number of readers will just shake those out and throw them away (or pollute the street with them), and publishers are well aware of that.
actually, the best you can get with mod_rewrite is control over the *average* user's access, since an advanced user can always put up a proxy that changes the referer etc.
unless you want to also control which IP's can see your content, that's as close as you get with mod_rewrite. of course, that's probably close enough for controlling the presentation of your content in *most* cases, but it doesn't get you much security.
I'm a big fan of BBEdit for Macs, just wanted to mention that in the Windows world hardcore handcoders continue to swear by UltraEdit, which has a lot in common with BBEdit (also in the history and ethics of its development).
WTF indeed! you talk about peterson's movies but you don't mention "Das Boot?"...which just happens to be one of the best WW2 movies ever and probably *the* best to come out of germany...
# foil the deepest linkers!! if ($ENV{'HTTP_REFERER'} !~/^http...[^/]+somesite.com/) {
print "Location:/\n\n";
exit; }
...or something like that. what the hell is wrong with people that they would seek a judicial remedy when it's so trivial to solve the problem on your own?
...that it's a tremendous pain in the ass to install if you only have modem connectivity.
ok, it's "easy" - if you accept all the defaults. but it's also ugly, which always makes me a bit skeptical: if they can't bother to make such a simple UI look "normal" (by win standards) then how smooth will the install really be?
of course, i LOVE cygwin and life is much better now i have it. some things don't work right, but my main goal - having a good shell and grep etc on win2K - was achieved.
however, the install process bites, at least until you've downloaded everything locally. then it's only ugly. (yeah i realize that probably doesn't matter for the CD)
so what? it should be on a CD like the one under discussion, but well hidden from novice users.
i'm writing this on a Fujitsu Lifebook P2040 which is pretty similar... same chip, 256MB, small, light, etc.
great little computer (obviously with some limitations but what do you expect in a small/light package with NO FAN?).
there's info on http://www.fujitsupc.com/
anyway - these cost from $1500 to $2000 depending on configuration. and you have to wait to get one, since they're universally backordered.
as to battery life, i get 2hrs consistently (surfing &such) on the normal battery; you can get hi-cap + drivebay batteries and probably get a good 8-13 hrs depending on what you're doing.
there's a discussion forum at http://www.leog.net/ with lots of info for the curious.
Slashdot Mirror
Those old photocopies were actually mimeographs, generally referred to as "dittos" (though I think there was some difference between a "ditto machine" and other mimeographs).
Even though we had a photocopier, large runs went on the ditto machine, and it was always a mysterious and magical thing to operate. I miss them.
Really, I appreciate all the "batteries of mass destruction" jokes, but isn't there a little bit too much off-topic political commentary floating up to the +5/Insightful (inciteful) level here?
Bah, nobody will read this anyway...
what's up with all the hot women on the peppercoin page? it's like i'm supposed to be able to buy them with peppercoins.
you mean like this one?
or a little buddha-devil maybe?
i get the feeling both merchants and consumers are going to root around in the hype for a while and then just turn their backs on this.
slashdotters will hate them anyway because they obviously use windows in the office.
What's next, a link to the cold fusion magazines? Perpetual motion devices?
or even weeks straight of front-page news in major media about some wacky UFO cult's latest attention-getting stunt?
oh, wait... nevermind...
Google news links take you directly to the news provider's page (unlike Yahoo, which co-brands almost everything).
If I had, say, a newspaper, I would very much like to be well-placed on Google news, since I'm giving them very little (a summary, a small photo) and getting a great listing in return; and I have control in the end, since somebody is coming to my site to read the story. As far as I can tell they only require you to be a serious news source and to allow people to read the linked story with no hijinks (like popups, registration etc).
In fact, if I had a special-interest paper or magazine, I would even consider paying Google news, a-la AdWords, for right-column listings. For example, the Wall Street Journal would presumably love to show up on all Google news searches for "NASDAQ."
And in the case of the WSJ online, which is not free, it would be smart of them to have a free section just for Google news, where full articles (linked from Google) are free but there are plenty of hints about how much more you get if you pay. But I digress...
I think your comment is perhaps more applicable to Yahoo. Whatever they pay a newspaper for the feed (or Reuters etc), the content provider isn't getting anything else, except maybe a byline and a logo.
in many cases they're more or less two-way.
take property. i sell you a house, you buy the house, the money is in escrow to protect us both.
it protects you because you get the money back if i'm pulling a scam (if it's not really my house, or something).
it protects me because i know i'll get that money after i sign the house over to you. i know because i have a contract with the escrow company, just like you do. when i deliver proof that you bought the house, and the escrow company double-checks its validity, then i get the money. that's what i pay them for (the seller usually pays for the escrow).
in any case where the seller can prove that the buyer received the thing sold, escrow works for the benefit of both parties. if the escrow company doesn't offer the seller a clear contract specifying what constitutes delivery of the product or service, then you should take your percentage elsewhere.
i made a large purchase in a country where escrow is not usually used, and i was more than a little bit nervous during the time when i had paid a massive down payment and the only thing guaranteeing the sale was a contract. the other side was also nervous, since the only thing guaranteeing that the rest of the money would show up was the same contract.
that's what i'm assuming also but in the example i gave there are (at least) three original authors.
obviously it's in the spirit of the license to have all authors duly credited even if there are a lot of them. on the other hand that's a daunting task when you get into things like collage, or a whole website, or...
i imagine a technological solution to this, maybe complexcopyright.org or something.
further musing: is ALT sufficient attribution for an image on the web? if i make a whole site with graphics of "Attribution+Share Alike" license, can i just have one "image credits" link at the bottom of each page?
as soon as i saw the story, i went to the site and started on the merry path to licensing out some content (maybe some pictures or something)...
but the license i was most interested in, Attribution + Share Alike, seemed to present a recursion problem.
with software licenses this isn't such a big deal, because a big fat license and attribution file can be included (license.txt) and often is.
but with something like a picture, the attribution and/or copyright notice is not realistically going to be longer than a "normal" URL.
i send them a note about this, which i quote below. hopefully somebody has greater insight into this than i do, because to me it looks like you could end up doing a whole lotta work building your license.html pages on your website (mary in the example below) or you're more or less begging to be plagiarized.
the example:
i take a picture, you (joe) modify it, someone else (mary) modifies that, and it gets printed in a magazine. what's the credit? "foto by frost/joe/mary" or "foto by mary/joe/frost" or....?
this gets really complicated if, say, i provide a bland little picture and joe crops and enlarges it to make it interesting and then mary uses it in a collage that's really beautiful... wherein mary is really the primary author of her piece, and i am the author of the source of a component thereof. and what if mary has used fifty such pieces? soon there is more attribution than she can reasonably expect to print next to pictures of the collage (which she has, after all, been required to license)... do we then have an attribution link?
and in such a case, if all the original elements were licensed through creativecommons, would there be a way, on that website, to show all the attributions within one URL (with licenses)?
if i license something with "Attribution + Share Alike" that itself uses things licensed with "Attribution + Share Alike," i probably need to include those licenses' links and attributions within the creativecommons link to my page... at a very minimum.
STASI, for "Staatssicherheitsdienst" if I recall correctly.
..just FYI.
STA from STAAT (state)
SI from SICHERHEITSDIENST (security service)
pronounced like "shtazee" in English. And yes, that's a normal way for Germans to construct acronyms.
wow, now that's a great story!
thanks for posting it, i probably never would have heard of it otherwise.
Nobody is adding bells and whistles to your basic hammer...
actually, my cousin's husband's family's company has been doing just that for years.
Example in English or in German (better pictures on the German page).
OK, so this has nothing to do with google, but you might still find it interesting. ;)
...when you answer that question, they theoretically can get close to your "group of people whose reviews I trust."
it seems like they'd want to do that. after all, although they are trying to sell you products, they have a whole lotta products for sale, and satisfied customers are more likely to come back.
i'd say try regularly "rating" the reviews that way and see if their quality (for you) doesn't improve. if it doesn't, make suggestions to the collaborative-filtering team (if you like amazon anyway).
How about a "-1, IHaveALotOfPentUpAggressionAndNoPlaceElseToLetItOu t" mod?
Or maybe a "-1, AlmostAllMyPostsAreNegative" mod?
Or simply a "-1, GetALife" mod?
just off the top of my head, it seems to me that it would be sufficient to just replace the word "mozilla" with something else, say "openbrowser," in the entire source code except for the license... ...and then swap out the dragon and navigator etc icons. doesn't seem so hard, and it could be automated so you don't have to re-hack each release.
on the other hand, i haven't actually read the license. just an idea.
i dunno... i've just done a little site work for a client on he.net, and they have, among other stupidities, a limit on mysql databases whereby you have to *hard-code* your *shell password* into your friggin' scripts. oh yeah, and no phpMyAdmin.
idiots.
i use cwihosting, which i think may just be a reseller, and they have a great package for a few websites. i also use verio for a single website and i use servepath for a hosted server (just for comparison). i'm recommending the client quit he.net, and go either to cwi or to one of the things recommended here today.
i hope you don't need any real features soon or the $10 won't seem such a deal anymore... but maybe if you just do a straight-up website it's ok.
Hmmm, is it just me? Am I the only one on /. following contemporary art?
Douglas Gordon made a name for himself some time back with "24-Hour Psycho," which was a video projection of the famous Hitchcock film, with the sound off, and playing at such a rate that it would finish in 24 hours.
I saw it in London, and it was really fascinating (for a few minutes anyway). But since the exhibition wasn't open 24 hours at a time, I couldn't authenticate the work.... I guess that's what art critics are for.
Anyway, here's an excellent parody.
i'm sure you know, but forgot to mention, that beethoven used *part* of the poem, not the whole thing.
great poem too... such a combination of optimism and utter cruelty...
is that it's so Lame. the execution i mean.
you could block it with proxomitron on windows.
you could write a little script to swap out the cookies you get with an "allowed" browser to your "bad" browser.
and these folks are trying the hard sell; not sure who would be interested in their language, much less their technology.
as for the ethical question about blocking pop-ups, i think the answer is to integrate the ads into the page content. if people block those, then i think it's reasonable to deny them access to your content.
a popup, however, is a lot like a magazine insert. a very large number of readers will just shake those out and throw them away (or pollute the street with them), and publishers are well aware of that.
actually, the best you can get with mod_rewrite is control over the *average* user's access, since an advanced user can always put up a proxy that changes the referer etc.
unless you want to also control which IP's can see your content, that's as close as you get with mod_rewrite. of course, that's probably close enough for controlling the presentation of your content in *most* cases, but it doesn't get you much security.
I'm a big fan of BBEdit for Macs, just wanted to mention that in the Windows world hardcore handcoders continue to swear by UltraEdit, which has a lot in common with BBEdit (also in the history and ethics of its development).
actually, i think it should be "copping" a pose.
or maybe "coping with" a pose? or "coping with a posse?" and we won't even go into the question of cop-as-in-police-officer vs. cop-as-in-copulation.
WTF indeed! you talk about peterson's movies but you don't mention "Das Boot?"
# foil the deepest linkers!! /^http...[^/]+somesite.com/) { /\n\n";
if ($ENV{'HTTP_REFERER'} !~
print "Location:
exit;
}
...or something like that. what the hell is wrong with people that they would seek a judicial remedy when it's so trivial to solve the problem on your own?
sinister conspiracy of lawyers maybe? sheesh...
...that it's a tremendous pain in the ass to install if you only have modem connectivity.
ok, it's "easy" - if you accept all the defaults. but it's also ugly, which always makes me a bit skeptical: if they can't bother to make such a simple UI look "normal" (by win standards) then how smooth will the install really be?
of course, i LOVE cygwin and life is much better now i have it. some things don't work right, but my main goal - having a good shell and grep etc on win2K - was achieved.
however, the install process bites, at least until you've downloaded everything locally. then it's only ugly. (yeah i realize that probably doesn't matter for the CD)
so what? it should be on a CD like the one under discussion, but well hidden from novice users.
just my random thoughts...
hmmm...
i'm writing this on a Fujitsu Lifebook P2040 which is pretty similar... same chip, 256MB, small, light, etc.
great little computer (obviously with some limitations but what do you expect in a small/light package with NO FAN?).
there's info on http://www.fujitsupc.com/
anyway - these cost from $1500 to $2000 depending on configuration. and you have to wait to get one, since they're universally backordered.
as to battery life, i get 2hrs consistently (surfing &such) on the normal battery; you can get hi-cap + drivebay batteries and probably get a good 8-13 hrs depending on what you're doing.
there's a discussion forum at http://www.leog.net/ with lots of info for the curious.