Take your website for example; it looks terrible, is poorly organized and uses HTML that is long out of date.
Maybe to you- but to the people that website is marketed to, it does a lot with very little bandwidth
Unless "the people that website is marketed to" are blind people with IQs below room temperature, I'd say it does very little with very little bandwidth.
Seriously - you're marketing web design skills with a site that looks like a smurf puked on it.
which *used* to be a key in web design (and damn well still should be)
And it still is (as far as I'm concerned). However, "low bandwidth" does not mean "ugly as sin." Get rid of the table, convert the page to valid HTML4.01, and sprinkle a little CSS - size will be almost identical. Replace that 256-color gif-converted-to-jpeg with a full 24-bit jpeg, and it will not only look nicer, but be smaller as well.
We might (for the most part) read a sentence word to word (in fact we don't, if you look at experiments on eyeball tracking by psychologists, but let's ignore that).
Actually, I'd like to address this, because even though your direct argument ignores it, it seems to be included in your bias...
The eye pattern on some people may skip all over the page while reading, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the eye patterns aren't synchonous to the understanding of the written word. Each word has context within the sentences they make up, and each sentence has context within the paragraphs they make up.
This was what I was referring to by posting gibberish. If heirarchy and linearity really didn't matter, then you would have been able to understand what I'd written (as it was, you couldn't even determine the number of sentences or paragraphs.)
not all pages are arranged as series of paragraphs
Which is irrelevant.
HTML tries to force this
No, it doesn't. HTML doesn't try to do anything besides provide a way for the author to mark up their document. It doesn't force you to arrange your text in any way you don't wish to.
Here is where I think you're mistaken; it's the crux of my point, and :
people arrange their HTML pages as paragraphs of text because that's the most effective way of presentation. They don't do it because they're forced to, they do it because they want to.
You seem to be making the assumption that people's online writings are in paragraphs because they're forced to - when in fact it's the other way around: we interpret information in a particular fashion, and people write the way they read.
non-linear paragraphs/sentence in (...) diagrams are just as communicative in some situations. (emphasis mine)
Yes, but this misses two important points: first is my emphasis on "some" - it's not as communicative in *all*, and (as some might argue) that it's not as communicative in *most* situations. Second, HTML in no way forces you to lay out your words in any fashion. People just do it because they want it to make sense when others read it.
As an asize, I find it amusing that your assertions about how things should work are directly contradicted within the first few lines of the article by Dr. Nelson. To whit:
Permission is given to redistribute this but only in its entirety.
If it's so important to have paragraphs (or even sentences) be free-form, why doesn't he want you to post snippets of his article?
And I suggest you reply to the point I made (you know, the one that shows you're wrong) rather than simply quoting and replying to part of a sentence out of context.
the I I It Note arguments be because contradicts did directly have in included it it my nice no of of omit order part phrase post rebuttal so spoken take that that that that the the to was which would you you you your.
Links are created on E2 whenever any user moves from one node to another [...] but any random user can also just decide to surf to a totally random node
Ahh, updating an index based on random behaviour.
I believe this is also known as "artificial stupidity"
"It's my football" is said by poor-sported children when asked why they want to change the rules to a game. When everybody else who's playing wants to stick to fair rules, the poor sport will inevitably say "well, I don't like those rules, I'm taking my football and going home."
In other words, the publishers are acting like spoiled children.
I don't see the business case against opposing google print. Could the net effect be anything else but higher sales due to the amount of people who will find just the right book when searching through google?
The business case is simple:
"It's my football."
I've talked to a publisher about something similar, and his attitude was "I don't care if it will make me more money - if I want it indexed, I will do it myself, so I can charge for it. I don't want anyone but me making money by providing a service for my products, even if it's a service I can't or won't provide myself."
They don't care about more money, all they care about is control.
I'd also recommend that you look at the career of one James "The Amazing" Randi before commenting further. Take an especially close look at how often people claim that a stage magician shouldn't be trying to debunk so-called "real" paranormal events.
Your analogy fails here. The difference between Mythbusters and Randi is that the Mythbusters don't try to *DEBUNK* anything.
I read an interview with the editor of "Sceptic" magazine once, where he said that he hates it when people call what he does "debunking". He basically said that a real scientist doesn't debunk anything. If you investigate paranormal events with the mindset that it's all fake, then you're just as bad as the "true believers" you're trying to discredit. Scientific exploration of anything requires an open mind.
The Mythbusters have open minds, Randi doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.
It's OK to make help an evil party as long as they're not going to last long?
This was a quick cash grab and nothing more.
Which is (again) irrelevant. SCOX is an evil company that has assaulted the F/OSS community, and has spent millions of dollars (which they didn't actually own) to try to kill the GPL and Linux. By aiding SCOX (and yes, they *ARE* aiding them), MySQL is declaring their allegiance loud and clear.
Microsoft is a big company with lots of conflicting internal opinions.
Yes, and unfortunately, the two largest, anti-FOSS opinions are in control of the company, and weild that control with iron, chair-flinging grips.
Gates has talked about this before: he doesn't believe that he's won unless everybody else has lost, and (as anyone who's ever known him will tell you) he *HAS* to win. Every time.
I don't expect any real change until the current management is no longer at the helm.
Excuse my incredulity, but can you provide some references?
I know they distribute GPL'ed software that others have written, but I really doubt that they have anything they wrote themselves (or that they own the copyright to) that they release under the GPL.
To me, using GPL'ed software is not really the same as using the GPL.
One is proven in court and the other is an accusation.
No, one is a *DEFINITE ACTION*, and the other is a legal verification of that action. The two concepts are orthogonal.
Killing someone is still killing them, whether or not you go to jail for it.
You seem to have convicted people in your head only.
You seem to lack logic skills, and are trying to blame me because you made a mistake.
If you kill someone, then you've killed them - whether you are ever convicted of it or not. They're just as dead, and you're just as guilty. Doesn't even matter if nobody ever discovers the body and you never even become a suspect - you still did it.
These guys, while scumbags, have not killed anyone (yet).
Sure about that?
Yep.
I'm sorry, but it seems you're using some sort of time-travelling causality-impaired definition of killed, with which I am unfamiliar.
When they get a conviction...
You're saying that if person "A" kills person "B", then person "B" isn't really dead until person "A" gets convicted? Or are you saying that person "B" is dead, but that person "A" didn't actually kill him? Ir are you saying that if person "C" gets wrongfully charged and convicted, that person "A" didn't really kill person "B" after all?
Note: You said "they haven't killed anyone" - you didn't say "they haven't been convicted of killing anyone". There is a rather large disparity between the two.
Understanding the social and economic context that this sort of crime takes place in is important, especially if we want to combat it.
While true, it doesn't really help if all you're doing is navel-gazing. Case in point:
Poverty and lack of education, while certainly not justifications for crime, are often part of the cause.
This is true for most crimes (not all of course - some are committed by the rich and priveliged) so it's really nothing new. Constantly bringing it up is just over-analyzing the problem.
I think it's always better to have an understanding of what's going on with the people who try to screw us over so hard
Yes, but at some point you must actually *start doing something*. Understanding, by itself, only solves victimless crimes. As there are definite victims to this, then the understanding is meaningless without additional action.
Vendors are under pressure to get proudcts out the door to get sales and keep sharholders happy. That forces developers to limit the amount of time they spend writing quality software
Ahh, so you're saying that developers are to blame for the decisions of their managers?
scammers are criminals, and deserve to be locked up and/or shot. Not looked at as some kind of cultural escapism that is the necessary end result of a boring life.
Exactly. This whole article seems to be nothing more than sociopathic guilt transference - they know what they're doing hurts other people, so they come up with excuses about their victims in an attempt to mask their guilt.
I'm surprised they didn't use the phrase "everybody does it".
Actually, I'm really not. I know a bunch of people who can do much better than me.
When you can pull up just from memory any and all references to a single food item in their extensive run on TV.
Umm, as I said, it's not exhaustive. I'm sure there are a lot more than the four I listed (there are two that others here have pointed out, at the very least.)
Color me impressed.
Well, thank you. If that sort of thing floats your boat, a simple google for "bacon site:snpp.com" might interest you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to say that nobody would confuse the Onion as having presidential support or endorsement.
Don't be so sure.
Maybe to you- but to the people that website is marketed to, it does a lot with very little bandwidth
Unless "the people that website is marketed to" are blind people with IQs below room temperature, I'd say it does very little with very little bandwidth.
Seriously - you're marketing web design skills with a site that looks like a smurf puked on it.
which *used* to be a key in web design (and damn well still should be)
And it still is (as far as I'm concerned). However, "low bandwidth" does not mean "ugly as sin." Get rid of the table, convert the page to valid HTML4.01, and sprinkle a little CSS - size will be almost identical. Replace that 256-color gif-converted-to-jpeg with a full 24-bit jpeg, and it will not only look nicer, but be smaller as well.
We might (for the most part) read a sentence word to word (in fact we don't, if you look at experiments on eyeball tracking by psychologists, but let's ignore that).
Actually, I'd like to address this, because even though your direct argument ignores it, it seems to be included in your bias...
The eye pattern on some people may skip all over the page while reading, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the eye patterns aren't synchonous to the understanding of the written word. Each word has context within the sentences they make up, and each sentence has context within the paragraphs they make up.
This was what I was referring to by posting gibberish. If heirarchy and linearity really didn't matter, then you would have been able to understand what I'd written (as it was, you couldn't even determine the number of sentences or paragraphs.)
not all pages are arranged as series of paragraphs
Which is irrelevant.
HTML tries to force this
No, it doesn't. HTML doesn't try to do anything besides provide a way for the author to mark up their document. It doesn't force you to arrange your text in any way you don't wish to.
Here is where I think you're mistaken; it's the crux of my point, and :
people arrange their HTML pages as paragraphs of text because that's the most effective way of presentation. They don't do it because they're forced to, they do it because they want to.
You seem to be making the assumption that people's online writings are in paragraphs because they're forced to - when in fact it's the other way around: we interpret information in a particular fashion, and people write the way they read.
non-linear paragraphs/sentence in (...) diagrams are just as communicative in some situations. (emphasis mine)
Yes, but this misses two important points: first is my emphasis on "some" - it's not as communicative in *all*, and (as some might argue) that it's not as communicative in *most* situations. Second, HTML in no way forces you to lay out your words in any fashion. People just do it because they want it to make sense when others read it.
As an asize, I find it amusing that your assertions about how things should work are directly contradicted within the first few lines of the article by Dr. Nelson. To whit:
Permission is given to redistribute this but only in its entirety.
If it's so important to have paragraphs (or even sentences) be free-form, why doesn't he want you to post snippets of his article?
And I suggest you reply to the point I made (you know, the one that shows you're wrong) rather than simply quoting and replying to part of a sentence out of context.
you have no license to use the software or make derivative works
/g
s/ or / to
From the GPLv2, section 0:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
the I I It Note arguments be because contradicts did directly have in included it it my nice no of of omit order part phrase post rebuttal so spoken take that that that that the the to was which would you you you your.
I rest my case.
Links are created on E2 whenever any user moves from one node to another [...] but any random user can also just decide to surf to a totally random node
Ahh, updating an index based on random behaviour.
I believe this is also known as "artificial stupidity"
No, but I *do* start at the beginning of a paragraph, and respect "the order in which it would be spoken."
I suspect you do too. Or should I make that:
a football is property.
Sorry, that was a metaphor.
"It's my football" is said by poor-sported children when asked why they want to change the rules to a game. When everybody else who's playing wants to stick to fair rules, the poor sport will inevitably say "well, I don't like those rules, I'm taking my football and going home."
In other words, the publishers are acting like spoiled children.
I don't see the business case against opposing google print. Could the net effect be anything else but higher sales due to the amount of people who will find just the right book when searching through google?
The business case is simple:
"It's my football."
I've talked to a publisher about something similar, and his attitude was "I don't care if it will make me more money - if I want it indexed, I will do it myself, so I can charge for it. I don't want anyone but me making money by providing a service for my products, even if it's a service I can't or won't provide myself."
They don't care about more money, all they care about is control.
So... it sometimes works, but is generally not reliable enough for anyone to bother reusing it.
No.
It sometimes works, as long as your enemy is attacking you in 2-foot long model boats made out of tinder-dry balsa.
If your enemy is attacking in real boats, then it never works.
I'd also recommend that you look at the career of one James "The Amazing" Randi before commenting further. Take an especially close look at how often people claim that a stage magician shouldn't be trying to debunk so-called "real" paranormal events.
Your analogy fails here. The difference between Mythbusters and Randi is that the Mythbusters don't try to *DEBUNK* anything.
I read an interview with the editor of "Sceptic" magazine once, where he said that he hates it when people call what he does "debunking". He basically said that a real scientist doesn't debunk anything. If you investigate paranormal events with the mindset that it's all fake, then you're just as bad as the "true believers" you're trying to discredit. Scientific exploration of anything requires an open mind.
The Mythbusters have open minds, Randi doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.
The scariest thing I can think of (and any experienced tech will agree with me here)
Salesman with a screwdriver.
SCO and the OpenServer platform are dieing.
And this has exactly what to do with it?
It's OK to make help an evil party as long as they're not going to last long?
This was a quick cash grab and nothing more.
Which is (again) irrelevant. SCOX is an evil company that has assaulted the F/OSS community, and has spent millions of dollars (which they didn't actually own) to try to kill the GPL and Linux. By aiding SCOX (and yes, they *ARE* aiding them), MySQL is declaring their allegiance loud and clear.
Microsoft is a big company with lots of conflicting internal opinions.
Yes, and unfortunately, the two largest, anti-FOSS opinions are in control of the company, and weild that control with iron, chair-flinging grips.
Gates has talked about this before: he doesn't believe that he's won unless everybody else has lost, and (as anyone who's ever known him will tell you) he *HAS* to win. Every time.
I don't expect any real change until the current management is no longer at the helm.
They already use the GPL.
Excuse my incredulity, but can you provide some references?
I know they distribute GPL'ed software that others have written, but I really doubt that they have anything they wrote themselves (or that they own the copyright to) that they release under the GPL.
To me, using GPL'ed software is not really the same as using the GPL.
Can you provide some references?
One is proven in court and the other is an accusation.
No, one is a *DEFINITE ACTION*, and the other is a legal verification of that action. The two concepts are orthogonal.
Killing someone is still killing them, whether or not you go to jail for it.
You seem to have convicted people in your head only.
You seem to lack logic skills, and are trying to blame me because you made a mistake.
If you kill someone, then you've killed them - whether you are ever convicted of it or not. They're just as dead, and you're just as guilty. Doesn't even matter if nobody ever discovers the body and you never even become a suspect - you still did it.
Yep.
I'm sorry, but it seems you're using some sort of time-travelling causality-impaired definition of killed, with which I am unfamiliar.
When they get a conviction...
You're saying that if person "A" kills person "B", then person "B" isn't really dead until person "A" gets convicted? Or are you saying that person "B" is dead, but that person "A" didn't actually kill him? Ir are you saying that if person "C" gets wrongfully charged and convicted, that person "A" didn't really kill person "B" after all?
Note: You said "they haven't killed anyone" - you didn't say "they haven't been convicted of killing anyone". There is a rather large disparity between the two.
Understanding the social and economic context that this sort of crime takes place in is important, especially if we want to combat it.
While true, it doesn't really help if all you're doing is navel-gazing. Case in point:
Poverty and lack of education, while certainly not justifications for crime, are often part of the cause.
This is true for most crimes (not all of course - some are committed by the rich and priveliged) so it's really nothing new. Constantly bringing it up is just over-analyzing the problem.
I think it's always better to have an understanding of what's going on with the people who try to screw us over so hard
Yes, but at some point you must actually *start doing something*. Understanding, by itself, only solves victimless crimes. As there are definite victims to this, then the understanding is meaningless without additional action.
These guys, while scumbags, have not killed anyone (yet).
Sure about that?
Vendors are under pressure to get proudcts out the door to get sales and keep sharholders happy. That forces developers to limit the amount of time they spend writing quality software
Ahh, so you're saying that developers are to blame for the decisions of their managers?
Yeah, *that* makes sense.
scammers are criminals, and deserve to be locked up and/or shot. Not looked at as some kind of cultural escapism that is the necessary end result of a boring life.
Exactly. This whole article seems to be nothing more than sociopathic guilt transference - they know what they're doing hurts other people, so they come up with excuses about their victims in an attempt to mask their guilt.
I'm surprised they didn't use the phrase "everybody does it".
You can touch a dog everywhere
:o)
Wow, that's well... progressive of them..
I thought it was only the Danish that did that.
Maybe my memory's going then, because I distinctly remember him sticking a toothpick through some butter cubes, and wrapping it in bacon..
Hmm.. have to watch harder when it shows again.
Wow you are TRULY a Simpsons nerd!
Actually, I'm really not. I know a bunch of people who can do much better than me.
When you can pull up just from memory any and all references to a single food item in their extensive run on TV.
Umm, as I said, it's not exhaustive. I'm sure there are a lot more than the four I listed (there are two that others here have pointed out, at the very least.)
Color me impressed.
Well, thank you. If that sort of thing floats your boat, a simple google for "bacon site:snpp.com" might interest you.