...not to mention the fact that we really have no frame of reference to judge the intelligence and organizational value of this universe, unless, of course, someone can point me to an alternative universe that is either more or less intelligently organized than ours, whatever that would mean in reality, so that we can compare.
Why is it that so many comments bring up either the fact that the radio already pays royalties, so it's insane to force the cabbies to pay double taxes OR the fact that other businesses already pay royalties for having a radio? Shouldn't the real focus of the discussion be the question why anybody has to pay royalties for something that has already been paid for by the radio stations? That legislation was bad to begin with, partly because of the slippery slope risks of it, which are becoming very apparent now. Unfortunately, $20/year is a low fee on a per-fare basis, so I'm afraid most drivers and/or taxi companies will pay up, but I'd rather they didn't, because it is going to end up as an extra cost for the passenger, and I really don't want to pay any money for bad music, which is the only kind of music played on the radio anyway (if they are even playing any music - the last time I turned that hideous thing they were just advertising bad music) to some nauseatingly terrorist organization like the Recording Industry Army of America or their local cells.
The slashdot editors owe me a buck for everybody that reads this comment.
More like Slashdot owes me $200 for every comment on the site as it is presumably protected by me, plus a buck per every 'Post Comment' page with a 'Comment' text box served, as it will most likely be used to copy comments presumably protected by me (again, that means all comments ever posted on Slashdot) for karma whoring purposes.
As response rates go down, the profitability of spam goes down, and people stop spamming. So in the long-long term, it will decrease the bandwidth spam consumes.
I really, really wish you were right. Over the last year or so, the profitability of banners and popup ads on the Web has decreased significantly, and the effect of that has been a frightening increase in the amount, persistency, and content intrustion of ads.
As I recall, they tried to establish themselves here in Sweden back in the nineties with their usual tactics of heavy coaster^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCD bombardments. Didn't really work because they charged about five times more per minute than all other ISPs at a time when modem access paid by the minute (the only option at the time) was already insanely expensive. Needless to say, it didn't work very well.
The Internet is international. AOL is not. You do the math. They are effectively shutting out international users.
This won't work, because it will not be seen as AOL having extra features; it will be seen as Time-Warner lacking the feature of accessibility, and in the context of the Internet, users will always choose the most easily accessible source, and that means the one you don't have to sign up or pay for.
While your settings prevent you from being affected by text the same color as the background and inconsistencies in page design, this is not the case for a majority of users, and a library really should strive to cater to the needs of those who don't know how to configure their browsers beyond what is the standard setting.
Icons (or rather pictograms) can be great when used with care. If skillfully made, a pictogram can guide the eye and convey a message faster than text. Yes, they have text next to it, but if the images detract from a clear text and add nothing but confusion, why are they there?
The problems with their linking to pages under construction are two. Your reasoning would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that they link to the same under construction document, so they will have to track down all those links. The second reason is that it fools readers into clicking links to pages that don't exist. When driving on the road, you don't want to see signs pointing to roads that don't exist.
All caps really does slow down reading. Librarians should know this. There is no excuse on that point. The sad thing is that it probably took them longer to do that than it would have to just boldface the whole thing or make it one size bigger. When providing a service, one should always strive to provide the best service.
I understand their reasons for not using scripts, and I don't blame them for that. What is sad to see is that they tried to do things that realistically cannot be done without scripting. They put in a lot of work, and no, that part isn't awful, but it will most likely be a lot of work done in vain.
As far as professional sites go, I'm right there with you. I can't believe ICQ still looks like that. Microsoft's site is an organizational bowl of spaghetti. I personally like the simplistic designs of Google, Everything2, Slashdot, MIT, and so on. Yes, the library Web site is better than some of the professional sites out there. I'll give you that much.
HTML 2.0 was bad because it lacked the noninterfering dynamics of CSS. Flash is bad because it is intrusive. JavaScript is not bad, because it is widely supported and finally stable if you know what you are doing, but there should be alternatives when it is used, sure. The thing I like about Google is that they use the power of current technologies in a way that shows they understand the technology that they are using and care about their users.
While the page renders in text-based browsers, they haven't made use of the alt-attribute, which indicates that this is not by design, but by luck. I also think it's the first time I have heard someone commended for adhering to HTML-standards while using Frontpage.
I should have seen the review of my own site coming from miles away.;) I can only say I agree with you on most of your points. Yes, frames are heavily debated. I for one like the flexibility of it when used carefully. I have started to make a noframes version of the site, as you could tell, but it's not fully done yet.
The frame on my poetry page is a result of the fact that I don't have a host that allows scripting, nor can I afford one, and I really cannot change hundreds of static with poems when adding another one just to update a menu. I'd rather give more real estate to contents than to navigational items. It is a difficult page to present, and I have had to make tradeoffs, but I think it works well. I am sorry to hear you disagree, and I would really like to hear what alternative ideas you have.
I see your point about my icons. While I think that official and company Web sites should be to-the-point, I consider my own site a bit more of an artistic toy. I doubt anybody will go to my site and look for a specific piece of information at present, so I don't think the fact that readers have to explore a bit is that bad. I'll probably change that thing in my next revision of the site though.
I didn't DO the Ford site. I reworked some of the stuff that they already had on their Web site. Back when I did this, it was not in Flash. One of the things I had to deal with was that backgrounds did not show up right on different resolutions. The site was originally designed by another company than the one I worked with at the time and is yet another example of how bad professional sites can be. I wish I had been given the chance to do that one ground-up.
I have a patch for this linux kernel thingie that I would like to submit that will be of interest to all Linux users. What this patch will do is inform you of discounts and special offers that you are elegible for. How can I submit this?
I agree 100%, chuckle. Therefore libraries should have unrestricted access to the entire internet and carry as much printed material and other media as physically possible. INCLUDING access to Penthouse.com and a copy of Penthouse Volume 1 Issue 1. I may as well piss off a few Europeans while I'm at it and specificly include Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf.
Most libraries here in Europe do carry Mein Kampf. You'll have to try harder to piss us off.;) It's an important historical document; I'd say if a library were to carry only a half-dozen books, that should be one of them.
They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.
The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.
They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)
They use ALLCAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.
They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.
It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.
Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like/. for example).
Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.
Is this the same spam filtering they use on hotmail that filters almost everything except spam?
Pretty much. You will notice that they recently reduced the number of available custom filters in the free version of Hotmail (your only hope for slightly improving the filter's efficiency) to ten. If you want more, you have to pay now.
In other words, Microsoft's strategy: a) Provide a barely working feature. b) Complement it with another feature. c) Limit the feature in (b). d) Call the original feature in (b) Improved and SELL it.
If the general price inflation had followed that of CDs, a Big Mac would cost ten bucks. Do they seriously expect people to pay any price?
Weaker economy
Consumers have less money to spend. They're spending less money on luxury goods. Imagine that! Macroeconomics 101!
Wider range of (increasingly expensive) consumer products
Kids and teenagers (the most important targets for the music industry) have more expensive versions of earlier inventions to spend their money on these days (such as DVDs instead of video cassettes and more advanced video games that cost more). Not only that, but they have a whole range of new products, such as cell phones (which is a permanent cost if it is actually used). It is not surprising that CDs are taking a smaller share of the cake. The RIAA giants should not be so worried though, since the companies that take the other parts of the cake are generally in the same conglomerates.
Realization that the CD format is trash
The CD format is a digitized format. The CD format is larger than it needs to be. Reading a CD requires moving parts. CDs scratch easily. CDs are fragile. CD cases are even more fragile. Most importantly though, CDs decay in quality. This is starting to become noticeable now that the format has been around for a while. People are realizing all of this. Is it so surprising that they are turning their backs on such a poorly executed product?
Music quality
Culture feeds culture, and lack of creativity is also contagious. A stunning amount of people today agree that the music produced right now is pure trash. In this case, the music industry has shot itself in the foot by turning music into a sterile factory produced product. Real music cannot be rationalized; the production of it cannot be attained in an optimized-efficiency environment.
Radio
In an extension of the previous point: when all music is generated according to an engineered formula and the music industry has molded the population into accepting only one kind of music, radio stations can easily cover the simplistic taste in music of the population while serving them the most recent hits. What need is there then for a CD that will be outdated with the next updated release of Britney 2.01?
Think about that for a second. That would mean that you would essentially [have to] outlaw any and all physical objects, including people. Think about it- you can use ANY solid object to beat a person to death with/.../ things like cloth and paper would be hard to beat someone to death with, but you could smother or choke someone with those.
You are absolutely right. Anything is lethal. I'm not even going to make the joke about resting in peas.
Even if the email doesn't bounce, no spammer alive will reply to it; so after 30 days, that email is marked as "denied".
I've seen similar solutions before, and they are all nice and dandy except for one application: when communicating with businesses. What happens when you order a Widget from Acme, Inc. and Acme sends you your confirmation by e-mail? Your script bounces a question, and Acme's mail server either bounces back at you, making it look like it was spam in the first place, or simply doesn't respond at all.
The system implies that anything not sent by a human being is spam. This is not necessarily the case today. A lot of today's e-mail communications are auto-generated.
To truly combat spam, it must be fought at the source. One step closer to that would be to integrate a standardized response to the type of message you send out in mail protocols. The problem with this is that all Joe Spammer would have to do is to point his reply-to to a valid business site.
This brings us to the next point. Forged headers are easy to detect by software and have few (although it would be wrong to say no) legitimate applications. I cannot personally understand why it is not standard operation for mail servers to recognize and bounce messages with forged headers. Sure, it would increase processing load, but if done by all servers, more spam would be stopped closer to the source, meaning less spam to process for all.
When folks download songs they didn't pay for which weren't given away for free by the artist/copyright holder, whatever the downloader's philosophy about it that activity is still theft.
Which would be true if it weren't for fair use, which stipulates that you can, in fact, distribute (without profit) copies of copyrighted works among friends. The problem at hand is that it has never been defined how close these friends must be (largely because technology like we have today did not exist or at least was not in such widespread use as it is today when these laws were made).
The RIAA is compensated for this fair use by receiving a percentage of revenues from recordable media sales (fees that, for some reason, independent artists and studios never see a penny of). Who is it that can't have it both ways now?
It's very doubtful these new laws will have anything but a minimal effect if that. Just because a law exists doesn't mean the law won't be broken. Laws do not prohibit crime or wrong doing. If they did no one would ever purchase illegal drugs or drive drunk.
The fact remains that most of the spam today is generated by a very small number of people. Shutting down even three or four of the most prolific deviants would bring about a large decrease in spam, and I cannot see how these companies and individuals would stay in business after losing a legal battle with by-the-message fines. Spamming is not that good of a business, despite what they try to make you think.
Slashdot Mirror
And you my friend need to renew your humor license from me. In other words, don't let facts get in the way of a good story. ;)
...not to mention the fact that we really have no frame of reference to judge the intelligence and organizational value of this universe, unless, of course, someone can point me to an alternative universe that is either more or less intelligently organized than ours, whatever that would mean in reality, so that we can compare.
Why is it that so many comments bring up either the fact that the radio already pays royalties, so it's insane to force the cabbies to pay double taxes OR the fact that other businesses already pay royalties for having a radio? Shouldn't the real focus of the discussion be the question why anybody has to pay royalties for something that has already been paid for by the radio stations? That legislation was bad to begin with, partly because of the slippery slope risks of it, which are becoming very apparent now. Unfortunately, $20/year is a low fee on a per-fare basis, so I'm afraid most drivers and/or taxi companies will pay up, but I'd rather they didn't, because it is going to end up as an extra cost for the passenger, and I really don't want to pay any money for bad music, which is the only kind of music played on the radio anyway (if they are even playing any music - the last time I turned that hideous thing they were just advertising bad music) to some nauseatingly terrorist organization like the Recording Industry Army of America or their local cells.
More like Slashdot owes me $200 for every comment on the site as it is presumably protected by me, plus a buck per every 'Post Comment' page with a 'Comment' text box served, as it will most likely be used to copy comments presumably protected by me (again, that means all comments ever posted on Slashdot) for karma whoring purposes.
<spelling=nazi>No, they tend to only have fun after the (Nobel) prize has been awarded.</spelling>
I really, really wish you were right. Over the last year or so, the profitability of banners and popup ads on the Web has decreased significantly, and the effect of that has been a frightening increase in the amount, persistency, and content intrustion of ads.
With those two statements combined, it's a good thing that link is so short!
As I recall, they tried to establish themselves here in Sweden back in the nineties with their usual tactics of heavy coaster^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCD bombardments. Didn't really work because they charged about five times more per minute than all other ISPs at a time when modem access paid by the minute (the only option at the time) was already insanely expensive. Needless to say, it didn't work very well.
The Internet is international. AOL is not. You do the math. They are effectively shutting out international users.
This won't work, because it will not be seen as AOL having extra features; it will be seen as Time-Warner lacking the feature of accessibility, and in the context of the Internet, users will always choose the most easily accessible source, and that means the one you don't have to sign up or pay for.
While your settings prevent you from being affected by text the same color as the background and inconsistencies in page design, this is not the case for a majority of users, and a library really should strive to cater to the needs of those who don't know how to configure their browsers beyond what is the standard setting.
Icons (or rather pictograms) can be great when used with care. If skillfully made, a pictogram can guide the eye and convey a message faster than text. Yes, they have text next to it, but if the images detract from a clear text and add nothing but confusion, why are they there?
The problems with their linking to pages under construction are two. Your reasoning would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that they link to the same under construction document, so they will have to track down all those links. The second reason is that it fools readers into clicking links to pages that don't exist. When driving on the road, you don't want to see signs pointing to roads that don't exist.
All caps really does slow down reading. Librarians should know this. There is no excuse on that point. The sad thing is that it probably took them longer to do that than it would have to just boldface the whole thing or make it one size bigger. When providing a service, one should always strive to provide the best service.
I understand their reasons for not using scripts, and I don't blame them for that. What is sad to see is that they tried to do things that realistically cannot be done without scripting. They put in a lot of work, and no, that part isn't awful, but it will most likely be a lot of work done in vain.
As far as professional sites go, I'm right there with you. I can't believe ICQ still looks like that. Microsoft's site is an organizational bowl of spaghetti. I personally like the simplistic designs of Google, Everything2, Slashdot, MIT, and so on. Yes, the library Web site is better than some of the professional sites out there. I'll give you that much.
HTML 2.0 was bad because it lacked the noninterfering dynamics of CSS. Flash is bad because it is intrusive. JavaScript is not bad, because it is widely supported and finally stable if you know what you are doing, but there should be alternatives when it is used, sure. The thing I like about Google is that they use the power of current technologies in a way that shows they understand the technology that they are using and care about their users.
While the page renders in text-based browsers, they haven't made use of the alt-attribute, which indicates that this is not by design, but by luck. I also think it's the first time I have heard someone commended for adhering to HTML-standards while using Frontpage.
I should have seen the review of my own site coming from miles away. ;) I can only say I agree with you on most of your points. Yes, frames are heavily debated. I for one like the flexibility of it when used carefully. I have started to make a noframes version of the site, as you could tell, but it's not fully done yet.
The frame on my poetry page is a result of the fact that I don't have a host that allows scripting, nor can I afford one, and I really cannot change hundreds of static with poems when adding another one just to update a menu. I'd rather give more real estate to contents than to navigational items. It is a difficult page to present, and I have had to make tradeoffs, but I think it works well. I am sorry to hear you disagree, and I would really like to hear what alternative ideas you have.
I see your point about my icons. While I think that official and company Web sites should be to-the-point, I consider my own site a bit more of an artistic toy. I doubt anybody will go to my site and look for a specific piece of information at present, so I don't think the fact that readers have to explore a bit is that bad. I'll probably change that thing in my next revision of the site though.
I didn't DO the Ford site. I reworked some of the stuff that they already had on their Web site. Back when I did this, it was not in Flash. One of the things I had to deal with was that backgrounds did not show up right on different resolutions. The site was originally designed by another company than the one I worked with at the time and is yet another example of how bad professional sites can be. I wish I had been given the chance to do that one ground-up.
Sounds like major Trouble.
Oh, you're the guy behind GNUtor!
Most libraries here in Europe do carry Mein Kampf. You'll have to try harder to piss us off. ;) It's an important historical document; I'd say if a library were to carry only a half-dozen books, that should be one of them.
If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.
The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.
They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.
The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.
They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)
They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.
They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.
It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.
Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).
Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.
It's not just their domain name that is pornographic! Their Kids' Zone contains plenty of pornographic words, phrases, and references, or how about:
Filth! Children need to be protected against these nasty things called libraries!
Just use the external monitor connector and the Extigy. Problem solved.
That can get you into trouble.
So speaks the optimist. In reality, it's a lose-lose situation.
(This ha-ha, only serious comment is brought to you by the it's-the-end-of-the-world department.)
Pretty much. You will notice that they recently reduced the number of available custom filters in the free version of Hotmail (your only hope for slightly improving the filter's efficiency) to ten. If you want more, you have to pay now.
In other words, Microsoft's strategy: a) Provide a barely working feature. b) Complement it with another feature. c) Limit the feature in (b). d) Call the original feature in (b) Improved and SELL it.
(marketing strategy) DEVELOPERS! (rip-off) DEVELOPERS! (money-milking) DEVELOPERS!
You are absolutely right. Anything is lethal. I'm not even going to make the joke about resting in peas.
I've seen similar solutions before, and they are all nice and dandy except for one application: when communicating with businesses. What happens when you order a Widget from Acme, Inc. and Acme sends you your confirmation by e-mail? Your script bounces a question, and Acme's mail server either bounces back at you, making it look like it was spam in the first place, or simply doesn't respond at all.
The system implies that anything not sent by a human being is spam. This is not necessarily the case today. A lot of today's e-mail communications are auto-generated.
To truly combat spam, it must be fought at the source. One step closer to that would be to integrate a standardized response to the type of message you send out in mail protocols. The problem with this is that all Joe Spammer would have to do is to point his reply-to to a valid business site.
This brings us to the next point. Forged headers are easy to detect by software and have few (although it would be wrong to say no) legitimate applications. I cannot personally understand why it is not standard operation for mail servers to recognize and bounce messages with forged headers. Sure, it would increase processing load, but if done by all servers, more spam would be stopped closer to the source, meaning less spam to process for all.
Or am I pulling a thinko here? Anybody?
Which would be true if it weren't for fair use, which stipulates that you can, in fact, distribute (without profit) copies of copyrighted works among friends. The problem at hand is that it has never been defined how close these friends must be (largely because technology like we have today did not exist or at least was not in such widespread use as it is today when these laws were made).
The RIAA is compensated for this fair use by receiving a percentage of revenues from recordable media sales (fees that, for some reason, independent artists and studios never see a penny of). Who is it that can't have it both ways now?
The fact remains that most of the spam today is generated by a very small number of people. Shutting down even three or four of the most prolific deviants would bring about a large decrease in spam, and I cannot see how these companies and individuals would stay in business after losing a legal battle with by-the-message fines. Spamming is not that good of a business, despite what they try to make you think.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I don't feel so fine.
Ladies and gents, smile, because CNN is giving us a first row ticket to World War III. They are going to blow it all up.
How *damn* stupid can they get? Fools, goddamn fools!