I agree that a keyword-context system such as this shouldn't be done as hyperlinks.
My suggestion: Select text with mouse. Right-click. Choose what you want to do with the selected text.
For example, have a "Search for ths text on Google" item, a "Lookup definition in Websters Dictionary" item, and a "Lookup definition in Oxford English Dictionary" item on that right-click menu.
Getting to a definition (from a dictionary of your choice, not MS's) or a search (again, search engine of your choice) could be VERY easy this way - but it gives up too much control, so MS won't do it.
MS wants to edit the content of the web to suit it's own purposes - it doesn't want to make anything "easier" except to give up control to them.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
Ahh...but you see...we're still in the XP *beta*. Before that sucker goes live, MS will *probably* encode it into an encrypted (aka: DMCA-protected) DLL file that you can't remove, because they threw a couple of "vital" IE functions in there as well.
I can't see MS leaving something like this user-editable - it's just not like them. They play the control game -- maybe the first version will actually be accessible - but at some point, they're going to close it off - under the guise of "innovation", or "ease of use".
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
BWAHAHAHAHA - sorry. EVERYTHING MS does, is done because it gives them an advantage. Whether it's a financial one, or a marketshare one - it's all a game for control. MS wants to control your computer, the apps on it, your 'net access, what you see, what you read - everything. That's what they want. That's their "vision" of the future. It's scary as hell.
But I was under the impression (what!) that some/. readers considered themselves to be fairly competent with computers, and perfectly capable of editing a text file without Federal Court supervision.
Look at how many people out there don't bother changing the default start page in their web browser. Do you really think Grandma is going to learn XML so she can deduce exactly what MS is feeding her? Doubtful she'll even realize they're feeding her anything - what little she knows of the web tells her that links on webpages are a part of the page - so if that link goes to an order form for Office XP, or to a favorable MS story, or to anothe MS-owned site - well, that must be what was meant by the author of the page!
Now, you or I could be perfectly happy editing a text file - whether it be HTML, XML, BASH, PERL, or whatever. Grandma wouldn't be. Grandma thinks editing a text file is "too hard". Grandma isn't going to do it. Then again, she probably wouldn't even know that she could, unless it was all gussied up with a GUI editor with a little pulldown field for which MS-owned site you want the word "is" to link to...
2k/month isn't bad - but he's getting paid 2.5k for 2 months - or $1250/month - that could get a bit harsh, depending on the cost-of-living in his area...
Here's my budget (if anyone cares;P )
Income:
$2800/month
Expenses:
Rent: $825/month (I live in the city, and have no car, so living within walking distance of work means high rent - but the savings of not having a car makes it a bit easier)
'Net Access: $100/month (Cable sucks here, so DSL is the way to go - but again, the expense is partially offset by the fact I can host my own domains, and not have to pay for hosting)
Food: $300/month (feeds both my fiancee and I quite well)
Total expenses: $1325/month
"Extra" money leftover at the end of the month: $1475
More than enough to upgrade the computers every once in a while, support our anime habit, and save for things like a car, and a vacation later this year.
I can see how someone *could* live comfortably off of $1250/month - dialup ISP, lower rent area, less food, no cable, etc... but it would still be pretty tight (I've been there - 2 people supported on less than $800/month - it wasn't pretty - but we managed).
There's a lot to be said for getting paid *anything* to do what you love to do, however - that alone could be worth the tightening of the belt and skimping on extras.
I'll grant you the point that the Royalty checks might go down a bit - but when you make a penny or two from each CD sale (with CDs costing anywhere from $12-20 depending on the area, sales, etc...) - that's not much, unless you sell a few million copies. Add to the the fact that the record companies charge the ARTIST for promotion (ads) and concert venue rent, and all their other assorted "perks" - the possibility of an artist actually paying off those debts from income by royalty checks alone is minimal. This is why there are TShirt sales an why the admittance fee to a concert is so high. THe artist is trying to recoup some of the cost. I'd wager that most of the artist's actual income comes from these events, and is only marginally affected by royalties.
Of course, the record companies may put quotas on the royalties - saying "we will only continue to back you and allow you to make records through us if you continue to sell X units a month" - because the record company itself needs to make money - and if they don't sell X copies, their overhead costs get too high...nothing we as customers or fans can do about that - not while taking the high road and protesting the price-fixing artist-screwing actions of the record industry.
If there was a way to give a few bucks DIRECTLY to the bands I love - I'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the industry has all but outlawed this for most contracted artists.
It's become a situation where the record industry can't lose - if customers don't buy CDs, the artist gets dropped, and if enough artists get dropped so that the company feels a pinch, they just grab some new slutty teenager or a few halfway decent looking guys/girls and pump out more schlock that the kiddies will buy. If the customers do buy CDs, it perpetuates the system, by enforcing to the record companies that price fixing is OK and screwing the artist over is OK, so long as we get our CDs.
The whole system is corrupted in such a way that the already titanically rich music industry can't be attacked financially (read: where it hurts) because they just pass the losses on to the artists - whom most of us DON'T want to hurt.
Personally, I refuse to buy new CDs. I get my music other ways. I get mp3s (mostly of bands that don't sell cds here in the states - but a few songs that I do enjoy by "local" bands), listen to Shoutcast streams (much more non-schlock out there on Shoutcast than on the actual airwaves), I buy used CDs of the artists I like, and attend a concert when I'm able. I wish I could pay DIRECTLY to some of the bands I enjoy most - but the option isn't available to me. My options are to do without much of the music I want, perpetuate a corrupt system by paying up to $20 to give a mere few cents to the artist, or to get my music in alternative ways that border on illegality at best, and at worst are blatantly illegal.
<Increase Rant Threshhold by 2>
I'm sick and tired of having schlock forced down my throat. I'm tired of being told what I should like. I make that decision. I don't like what the RIAA pushes. I don't like rap, hip-hop, r&b, dance, techno, "divas", boy-bands, girl-bands, blonde teenage singersluts, and the like. I like JPOP, Classical, "classic rock" (60's/70's stuff), and a little old-style blues and a dash of 80's "punk" thrown into the mix. I like music made by real instruments, as opposed to auto-generated on a beatbox. I like music made by a full band, rather than some guy with a few keyboards.
That's what I like. That's not what the RIAA thinks I should like, but that's what *I* like.
<End heightened rant threshhold>
A rep from MS is quoted in the article (paraphrased by me) that the "Smart Link" feature would be used to link to Microsoft websites and other sites "blessed" by MS.
This means that MS is *adding* their own content to someone else's webpage, without their permission, and most probably without their knowledge.
While I agree that a context-sensitive keyword search could be a helpful addition to any web browser, I highly suspect any such "feature" that is controlled by an entity whose primary objective is to make money. Not just MS - but what if AOL decided to do something similar, but link to AOL/TW websites and services?
Leveraging their monopoly this way seems a BLATANT abuse of their position. It's wishful thinking that the DoJ will pick up on this and use it in their case, however.
Now, if the links themselves were controlled by a non-profit organization, or even an educational one, and the only information provided was definitions of terms (no advertizing - no plugging of "blessed" websites, etc...) - I don't think I would have a problem with it. In fact, I would welcome such a feature. But don't let it intrude on a webpage's look and feel - instead, make it a right-click option (highlight a word, right-click, and one of the options is "Look up definition", for example) so that people using text and words in artistic ways (like poetry) could retain their expression, in the way they envisioned it, while still allowing on-demand access to the new feature.
Perhaps even have the source of the definitions be user-configurable - for example, being able to choose to look up a definition from a Mirriam-Webster dictionary, then cross-reference it with the Oxford English definition of the same word...but it would have to have a *sane* default setting, because many users wouldn't change it, even if they could...
The more I think about this, the more it sounds like a feature that should be handled by a browser plug-in, rather than by the browser itself - make the feature "opt-in" rather than "opt-out".
Most of them will not know, or do not care if the sites are Microsoft-influenced. After all, they probably use almost only Microsoft-products already, and this will misguide them even more.
Therein lies the problem with this.
Let's say that for speed, the "database" of words to "smart link" is stored on the client side, by the OS, in some specially encrypted, obscured DLL file (along with a couple "crucial" system components to make sure clued users don't simply remove it.
Let's say one of the links points to a page on MS's website.
Let's say MS does a drastic redesign of their website, and moves a lot of stuff around, including the page that one of these "smart links" links to.
So, Joe User is sitting in his trailer park home in Indiana (convenient example, it could just as well be a $50 a day apartment in the Bronx, or a fine $400,000 home in the suburbs of Chicago for all I care), browsing on his MSN dial-up connection. He comes across your website (by some strange sequence of events), which is all text, with no links whatsoever.
Joe User, however, sees a plethora of links -- "smart links" -- which he proceeds to click on. He gets errors. Joe User isn't happy. Joe User sees an email link on the main page of your site - and (in an astonishing show of insight for a non-clued user) emails you:
"I was on your page, and you have broken links. It makes me angry. Fix them!"
You look at his email and go "what?" - and after checking the validity of all the links in your code, are still perplexed - you email him back:
"Could you be a bit more specific about the links you say are broken? I've verified all the links on my pages as being valid - so I'm not sure what specific problems you've run into."
He doesn't understand - the links are right there in front of him, plain as day.
...You get the point. People are accustomed to the web working in a certain way. Webpages have links in them that go to other webnpages. If a ink is broken, email the site operator. They're not going to understand this new "smart link" thing. They're going to use it, but they're going to believe it comes from the page itself, not from their browser.
Remember that it is the lesser knowledgeable (in terms of internet) who use most of the web.
Actually, they use the *least* of the web, but produce the most *traffic* =) Check out the story/. had here a couple days ago about a handful of sites getting 80+ percent of hits =)
Let's say you live in a tiny little town in NY State, that gets cable through TimeWarner. There's a good chance that you cannot get *cable* TV through another provider. It's simply not offered.
TimeWarner has a monopoly on cable in your area.
Let's say you just moved there from out-of-state, so you'r not familiar with the area, area businesses, etc...
Now, let's say that AOL/TW doesn't offer broadband services in this small town - only "basic" cable (of course with pay channels, PPV, etc...), and that AOL doesn't have a local dialup to that town.
AOL/TW isn't a valid ISP for your area.
But - they refuse to accept advertizing money from people who *are* valid ISPs for you, even though they're not in direct competition for *your* business. If they can't advertize themselves to you (which they will do anyway, regardless of whether it's available to you) they sure as hell won't advertize competition.
That's illegal use of a monopoly.
That's what this is all about.
As long as you're not a monopoly, you can generally do whatever you want to do - within reason, of course ("reason" being defined by shareholders, normally, not by morality) - but once you become a monopoly, special rules apply to you, because as a monopoly, you have a LOT more power to do the "wrong" things.
Budweiser doesn't have a monopoly on beer (sad day if they did!) =)
AOL/TW does have a monopoly on cable/broadband service in many areas, and dialup ISP service in some.
That's why they're governed by different rules.
Of course, I'm just waiting for AT&T to merge with them...AOL/TW is scary...AOL/AT&T/TW is *much* scarier. Sad thing is, it would make sense, seeing the direction things with AOL/TW are taking. THe first of the super-conglomerates is testing the waters right now - seeing what it can, and can't get away with. With Dubya in office, they've got at least 4 years before something else is done about them (He comes from Big Oil, where monopolies are VERY common - he won't do a damn thing about monopolies abusing their power) - by that time, I have this sinking feeling it'll be too late.
Interesting - I didn't know that. I'd been under the impression Texas was staunchly Republican for quite a while now - I stand corrected on that fact =)
My beef isn't with the counting of the votes - it's with a system that is broken.
Gore won the popular vote. That means that more American citizens voted for him, than for Bush.
Bush won the Electoral vote. That means more members of the Electoral College voted for him than for Gore.
Bush becomes president, even though another candidate got more votes from the citizens of the United States.
Now - the virtues of the Electoral College can be debated. Personally I think it's stupid. One of the principles that this country was founded on was that "...all men are created equal..." - well, I don't see how our VOTES are equal - especially when a Gore voter in Texas is essentially throwing away their vote. Even if 49% of the voters in Texas voted for Gore (or someone else) - ALL of the Electoral votes would have gone for Bush. Is that fair? I don't think so. (Disclaimer: I don't live in Texas - it's just a very convenient example) Admittedly, it can be argued that if you reverse the situation, they'd all go for Gore, but that's not the point.
A vote in a state with more Electoral votes is worth more than a vote in a state with less. That's why the campaigns specifically target the states with more Electoral votes.
IMHO, it cheapens the system. You live in State A, your vote is worth more than if you lived in State B. Therefore citizens of State A are, in a sense "more valuable" than those of State B, at least in the eyes of the candidates.
Sure doesn't sound like "equality" to me.
In addition, there are certain states that "traditionally" go one way or the other. Texas, for example, is a Republican state, traditionally. It would have been very easy to predict, before a single vote was cast, which candidate would "win" Texas.
So if you live in Texas, and you voted for someone else - guess what? Your vote didn't matter. Your state went for Bush and you had better well like it.
I'm not complaining that Bush "won". It does no good to complain about that. I'm complaining about the system that let it happen. A system where supposedly everyone is equal, but in reality it's only a facade.
I was also attempting to be witty, but I failed dismally;P
Hehe - I love Konq =) It *is* what Mozilla was trying to be.
But I do try to keep track of the others - and lately Mozilla's been making a lot of headway. I think Konq is still superior at the moment - but they're both miles ahead of Netscape 4.7 =)
Yes. Opera is significantly faster, and believe it or not, it saves me time. I think the small fee is acceptable to save 20 minutes per day and allow time for a "coffee break". It adds up over time.
I'm glad you've found enough value there to justify the purchase. Opera is a damn fine product. They're just trying to sell their product in a market where most, if not all of their competition is given away.
But the superior quality of the product isn't enough for the vast majority of people to justify buying a browser - just as the vast majority of people don't change their browser's default homepage - sad but true. They've been conditioned to eat what they're given, and that what they're given is "good enough".
I wasn't saying it's impossible - I was just saying that for many people, it's tough to justify that purchase.
* Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday, since Gates already made the error of selling his browser for free.
Not quite so - MS released IE for free to *undercut* Netscape's prices, and gain marketshare. They also used illegal bundling practices to hedge Netscape out of OEMs - preventing Netscape from coming pre-installed on many consumer-level computers. It was all a ploy to get rid of Netscape - and it worked.
Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run...
Wrong again. There's a big difference between "free" (IE: no cost) software, "Open Source" (IE: you can look at and report bugs in the source) software, and "Free" (IE: you have the same rights as the author) software.
Giving away "free" software is just a major undercut of your competitor's pricing, and could only be outdone by either giving away a better package, or paying people to take your software. It destroys (in some cases) much of the "value" of commercial competitors, since as long as your "free" alternative is "good enough", many people won't pay extra for your competitor's software.
This is how MS played the cards with IE. You could get IE for "free", and it worked "good enough" that most people didn't go get Netscape, which at the time cost around $50. MS went a step further by "bundling" - but that's another discussion.
"Open Source" software means that you're letting people (in some cases the public, in some cases only a select few "chosen" people) look at the source code, and possibly be able to report bugs - but there's no freedom to use the source code - only to look. While this might prevent some security flaws from going unnoticed, it provides no real benefit to the consumer (at least, IMHO)
"Free" software is just that - once you have it, you have the same rights as the author. Compile, run, modify, redistribute - you can do it all, and you are encouraged to. Many companies (most notably MS recently) are *scared* by this, since it is very tough to compete with on an even level.
Just bcause a company gives away software at no cost doesn't mean it has embraces the Open Source or Free software movements, or that eventually they will. It just means they're trying to undercut their competition and gain marketshare.
* Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.
I won't argue with you here, although Mozilla is (finally) turning into a mighty fine browser =)
I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon.
They don't sell their browser as a standalone product - but you pay for it every time you buy a computer with Win* preinstalled, or purchase a copy of any MS software. (Win, Office, etc...)
MS doesn't need to sell it's browser - by bundling it with the OS, it gets to people anyway. It also makes it extremely tough for *anyone* to sell a commercial browser. Look at Opera - they recently started giving away an advertising-supported "free" version of their browser, but they still have very little in the way of market/mindshare (but they *do* have an excellent product). Can you really justify buying Opera when you have IE for free? (as well as Mozilla, Konq, etc...) It's tough.
Thanks, Netscape. Rest in peace.
Yes - Netscape has left their mark - even if they die a slow, horrible, painful death by "portalizing", they have left their mark on the world.
If you've been staying away because of speed, stability, etc...you might want to give one of the latest nightlies a shot - they've gotten considerably more stable (at least for me, YMMV) over the past 2 weeks or so - and runs *nearly* as fast as konq (it may be graphics slowdown from the overly intensive "modern" theme I'm running, until x.themes.org comes back with thinice;) ).
PS One ($99)
Mid-range DVD player ($150)
Switchbox ($20) (waive if lucky enough to have a tv with 2 seperate line-in ports instead of the standard 1)
Total: $270
PS2 ($279) (I've seen it slightly cheaper, and slightly more expensive, but this seems to be a mid-range price right now)
Total: $279
For $10 more, they get everything in one unit, no switchbox required, and the ability to play PSX as well as PS2 games.
It's not a bad deal for someone with neither one.
For someone who already has one or the other...it's less of a deal.
I'd argue that the code is still *accessible* to them - they have the right to access it and use it, but can't incorporate it into their own, non-GPL'd project.
They could still learn, quite freely, from the GPL'd code, as long as they didn't use it within their project.
That's one area where the lines get blurry, however - what exactly is the line between "learning from" and "using"? If I don't quite know how to parse a mbox-formatted mail file, and I look at some GPL'd code that does, and I see that they're splitting it at the From_ line - is it then "using" if I make my own project split at the From_ line, as long as I wrote the actual code myself, rather than copying it? (RFC's aside - yes, I know the proper process - I was grabbing for an example to use;) )
The line gets a little blurry there. Some would say that my reading of the GPL'd code may have influenced my actions in such a way as to require my work to be considered a "derivitive" and thus covered by the GPL -- the other school would say that since the code in question was written by me, and not copied verbatim, that it's *my* code, and I can do as I damn well please with it - regardless of what I used as a reference to learn from.
The latter is what I personally believe, although I would probably release it GPL'd anyway - but as the concepts and processes involved become more and more complex (mine was a VERY simple example) so does the decision as to whether "learning from" becomes "using"...
Oh heck - it's Friday afternoon - time to call it a week and take off for home - this is way too deep a discussion for 5pm on a Friday =)
Granted, the farther away from the OS you get the less distasteful it is, but the issue still stands that public funds have payed for substantial development which is inaccessable to much of the public.
Hmm...How exactly is GPL'd code inaccessible to much of the public? Anyone can get their hands on the code. Anyone can tinker with it. Anyone can use it. The only real catch is that if you modify it, that you release those modifications under the GPL as well. I fail to see how requiring that additions/modifications be released in such a way that the code remains publically accessible limits the public's rights to *access* the code.
Contrary to popular opinion, you *can* get paid money to write GPL'd software. Nothing prohibits a company from selling GPL'd software, as long as the source is available to those who buy the binary distribution.
Granted, the company I work for makes their money from support services, rather than directly from the software - but that doesn't change the fact that there are a good number of people who work here, getting paid to write GPL'd software =)
Re:Stealing from Internic
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
Let's say I start a company: PlushMicro, and market using the slogan "Soft, Fuzzy Computers".
I register plushmicrosoftfuzzycomputers.com (yes, this is an absurd, long example) and get sued - why shouldn't I get to keep my domain, simply because the last syllable of my company name and the first word of my slogan, when combined, are the name of another company?
What if USMicro and SoftToys merge to form USMicro/SoftToys LTD? Shouldn't they be able to get usmicrosofttoysltd.com, being that you can't have a / in the domain name itself?
It may be what _people_ want, but it's definitely not what _I_ want.
Of course, thanks to the wonders of capitalism, what _I_ want isn't important if it goes against what _people_ want.
It doesn't matter that _I_ still frequent that mom & pop grocer with the great meat. It doesn't matter that _I_ buy quality tools that will last a lifetime. If _people_ don't do these things, _I_ lose out.
Things swing towards mediocrity. Because it's good enough for your neighbors, it's good enough for you. That's the lesson here. It doesn't matter what the individual wants or desires - it's what the MASSES want that wins.
A person can be smart, polite, and well informed. People are dumb, rude, and pretty much stupid.
Since _people_ are the driving force here, not the individual, we get what dumb, rude, stupid people want.
And it's harder and harder to find alternatives. Money isn't given out to start business that are doomed to fail. Businesses that cater to a minority have a higher chance of failure than those that cater to the majority. Want to start a business similar to the mom & pop grocer's with the great meat? Good luck finding capital. Good luck attracting customers. Good luck keeping a profit when you're forced to charge higher prices because your margins aren't as large as those of the national supermarket down the street.
::sigh::
Are things different outside of the US? How about Europe?
Actually - that would only be the case if the V3-3500TV and/or the All-In-Wonder had 2 tuners - so you could drop the feed from one into an mpeg-1, while watching the other...
My old Hauppage card does mpeg-1 recording, but it only has one tuner, so you have to watch the same thing you record. I'm trying to find out if they've put out dual-tuner cards capable of this - if they did, it *may* qualify as prior art, depending on how specific the implementation is.
Tivo's patent seems to be fairly specific on the process - feed->mpeg-1->seperate audio/video streams, etc... As long as they don't try to sue for infringement outside of that process, it'll probably be OK, but if they sue anyone who offers a record-while-watching-something-else product, regardless of the process, there could be trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that a keyword-context system such as this shouldn't be done as hyperlinks.
My suggestion: Select text with mouse. Right-click. Choose what you want to do with the selected text.
For example, have a "Search for ths text on Google" item, a "Lookup definition in Websters Dictionary" item, and a "Lookup definition in Oxford English Dictionary" item on that right-click menu.
Getting to a definition (from a dictionary of your choice, not MS's) or a search (again, search engine of your choice) could be VERY easy this way - but it gives up too much control, so MS won't do it.
MS wants to edit the content of the web to suit it's own purposes - it doesn't want to make anything "easier" except to give up control to them.
The redirects are defined in a client-side file called msdnodc.xml with a clearly defined and well-documented DTD and plenty of documentation on the MSDN website.
/. readers considered themselves to be fairly competent with computers, and perfectly capable of editing a text file without Federal Court supervision.
Ahh...but you see...we're still in the XP *beta*. Before that sucker goes live, MS will *probably* encode it into an encrypted (aka: DMCA-protected) DLL file that you can't remove, because they threw a couple of "vital" IE functions in there as well.
I can't see MS leaving something like this user-editable - it's just not like them. They play the control game -- maybe the first version will actually be accessible - but at some point, they're going to close it off - under the guise of "innovation", or "ease of use".
Certainly, there will be a default set of redirects installed with XP, and I have no doubt that these will be chosen to M$'s advantage.
BWAHAHAHAHA - sorry. EVERYTHING MS does, is done because it gives them an advantage. Whether it's a financial one, or a marketshare one - it's all a game for control. MS wants to control your computer, the apps on it, your 'net access, what you see, what you read - everything. That's what they want. That's their "vision" of the future. It's scary as hell.
But I was under the impression (what!) that some
Look at how many people out there don't bother changing the default start page in their web browser. Do you really think Grandma is going to learn XML so she can deduce exactly what MS is feeding her? Doubtful she'll even realize they're feeding her anything - what little she knows of the web tells her that links on webpages are a part of the page - so if that link goes to an order form for Office XP, or to a favorable MS story, or to anothe MS-owned site - well, that must be what was meant by the author of the page!
Now, you or I could be perfectly happy editing a text file - whether it be HTML, XML, BASH, PERL, or whatever. Grandma wouldn't be. Grandma thinks editing a text file is "too hard". Grandma isn't going to do it. Then again, she probably wouldn't even know that she could, unless it was all gussied up with a GUI editor with a little pulldown field for which MS-owned site you want the word "is" to link to...
Here's my budget (if anyone cares
Income:
$2800/month
Expenses:
Rent: $825/month (I live in the city, and have no car, so living within walking distance of work means high rent - but the savings of not having a car makes it a bit easier)
'Net Access: $100/month (Cable sucks here, so DSL is the way to go - but again, the expense is partially offset by the fact I can host my own domains, and not have to pay for hosting)
Cable: $50/month (digital)
Utils: $150/month (gas, electric, water, phone, etc...)
Food: $300/month (feeds both my fiancee and I quite well)
Total expenses: $1325/month
"Extra" money leftover at the end of the month: $1475
More than enough to upgrade the computers every once in a while, support our anime habit, and save for things like a car, and a vacation later this year.
I can see how someone *could* live comfortably off of $1250/month - dialup ISP, lower rent area, less food, no cable, etc... but it would still be pretty tight (I've been there - 2 people supported on less than $800/month - it wasn't pretty - but we managed).
There's a lot to be said for getting paid *anything* to do what you love to do, however - that alone could be worth the tightening of the belt and skimping on extras.
I'll grant you the point that the Royalty checks might go down a bit - but when you make a penny or two from each CD sale (with CDs costing anywhere from $12-20 depending on the area, sales, etc...) - that's not much, unless you sell a few million copies. Add to the the fact that the record companies charge the ARTIST for promotion (ads) and concert venue rent, and all their other assorted "perks" - the possibility of an artist actually paying off those debts from income by royalty checks alone is minimal. This is why there are TShirt sales an why the admittance fee to a concert is so high. THe artist is trying to recoup some of the cost. I'd wager that most of the artist's actual income comes from these events, and is only marginally affected by royalties.
Of course, the record companies may put quotas on the royalties - saying "we will only continue to back you and allow you to make records through us if you continue to sell X units a month" - because the record company itself needs to make money - and if they don't sell X copies, their overhead costs get too high...nothing we as customers or fans can do about that - not while taking the high road and protesting the price-fixing artist-screwing actions of the record industry.
If there was a way to give a few bucks DIRECTLY to the bands I love - I'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the industry has all but outlawed this for most contracted artists.
It's become a situation where the record industry can't lose - if customers don't buy CDs, the artist gets dropped, and if enough artists get dropped so that the company feels a pinch, they just grab some new slutty teenager or a few halfway decent looking guys/girls and pump out more schlock that the kiddies will buy. If the customers do buy CDs, it perpetuates the system, by enforcing to the record companies that price fixing is OK and screwing the artist over is OK, so long as we get our CDs.
The whole system is corrupted in such a way that the already titanically rich music industry can't be attacked financially (read: where it hurts) because they just pass the losses on to the artists - whom most of us DON'T want to hurt.
Personally, I refuse to buy new CDs. I get my music other ways. I get mp3s (mostly of bands that don't sell cds here in the states - but a few songs that I do enjoy by "local" bands), listen to Shoutcast streams (much more non-schlock out there on Shoutcast than on the actual airwaves), I buy used CDs of the artists I like, and attend a concert when I'm able. I wish I could pay DIRECTLY to some of the bands I enjoy most - but the option isn't available to me. My options are to do without much of the music I want, perpetuate a corrupt system by paying up to $20 to give a mere few cents to the artist, or to get my music in alternative ways that border on illegality at best, and at worst are blatantly illegal.
<Increase Rant Threshhold by 2>
I'm sick and tired of having schlock forced down my throat. I'm tired of being told what I should like. I make that decision. I don't like what the RIAA pushes. I don't like rap, hip-hop, r&b, dance, techno, "divas", boy-bands, girl-bands, blonde teenage singersluts, and the like. I like JPOP, Classical, "classic rock" (60's/70's stuff), and a little old-style blues and a dash of 80's "punk" thrown into the mix. I like music made by real instruments, as opposed to auto-generated on a beatbox. I like music made by a full band, rather than some guy with a few keyboards.
That's what I like. That's not what the RIAA thinks I should like, but that's what *I* like.
<End heightened rant threshhold>
(ie: can't delete files without viewing them first).
Oh god - the spammers are gonna love this.
In order to delete those 30 spam emails, you have to view each and every one of them.
Until then, whatever legal immunities they might have, they have a moral obligation to make the devices work for all customers.
Companies have no "moral obligations" - their only true obligation is to their shareholders, and their obligation to them is to make money.
I would agree that legally, they are required to make the unit function as advertized for all users, else they could face a false advertizing lawsuit.
Just my 2 bits =)
IE is simply filtering out certain key words, and providing links to more information on those terms.
...Information provided *by* MS, *for* MS's benefit.
A rep from MS is quoted in the article (paraphrased by me) that the "Smart Link" feature would be used to link to Microsoft websites and other sites "blessed" by MS.
This means that MS is *adding* their own content to someone else's webpage, without their permission, and most probably without their knowledge.
While I agree that a context-sensitive keyword search could be a helpful addition to any web browser, I highly suspect any such "feature" that is controlled by an entity whose primary objective is to make money. Not just MS - but what if AOL decided to do something similar, but link to AOL/TW websites and services?
Leveraging their monopoly this way seems a BLATANT abuse of their position. It's wishful thinking that the DoJ will pick up on this and use it in their case, however.
Now, if the links themselves were controlled by a non-profit organization, or even an educational one, and the only information provided was definitions of terms (no advertizing - no plugging of "blessed" websites, etc...) - I don't think I would have a problem with it. In fact, I would welcome such a feature. But don't let it intrude on a webpage's look and feel - instead, make it a right-click option (highlight a word, right-click, and one of the options is "Look up definition", for example) so that people using text and words in artistic ways (like poetry) could retain their expression, in the way they envisioned it, while still allowing on-demand access to the new feature.
Perhaps even have the source of the definitions be user-configurable - for example, being able to choose to look up a definition from a Mirriam-Webster dictionary, then cross-reference it with the Oxford English definition of the same word...but it would have to have a *sane* default setting, because many users wouldn't change it, even if they could...
The more I think about this, the more it sounds like a feature that should be handled by a browser plug-in, rather than by the browser itself - make the feature "opt-in" rather than "opt-out".
Now I'm just rambling =)
LOL
Like the users will actually *use* this kind of a feature -- most of them don't even change the "home" page their browser goes to when it is opened.
Most of them will not know, or do not care if the sites are Microsoft-influenced. After all, they probably use almost only Microsoft-products already, and this will misguide them even more.
/. had here a couple days ago about a handful of sites getting 80+ percent of hits =)
Therein lies the problem with this.
Let's say that for speed, the "database" of words to "smart link" is stored on the client side, by the OS, in some specially encrypted, obscured DLL file (along with a couple "crucial" system components to make sure clued users don't simply remove it.
Let's say one of the links points to a page on MS's website.
Let's say MS does a drastic redesign of their website, and moves a lot of stuff around, including the page that one of these "smart links" links to.
So, Joe User is sitting in his trailer park home in Indiana (convenient example, it could just as well be a $50 a day apartment in the Bronx, or a fine $400,000 home in the suburbs of Chicago for all I care), browsing on his MSN dial-up connection. He comes across your website (by some strange sequence of events), which is all text, with no links whatsoever.
Joe User, however, sees a plethora of links -- "smart links" -- which he proceeds to click on. He gets errors. Joe User isn't happy. Joe User sees an email link on the main page of your site - and (in an astonishing show of insight for a non-clued user) emails you:
"I was on your page, and you have broken links. It makes me angry. Fix them!"
You look at his email and go "what?" - and after checking the validity of all the links in your code, are still perplexed - you email him back:
"Could you be a bit more specific about the links you say are broken? I've verified all the links on my pages as being valid - so I'm not sure what specific problems you've run into."
He doesn't understand - the links are right there in front of him, plain as day.
...You get the point. People are accustomed to the web working in a certain way. Webpages have links in them that go to other webnpages. If a ink is broken, email the site operator. They're not going to understand this new "smart link" thing. They're going to use it, but they're going to believe it comes from the page itself, not from their browser.
Remember that it is the lesser knowledgeable (in terms of internet) who use most of the web.
Actually, they use the *least* of the web, but produce the most *traffic* =) Check out the story
There's a difference.
Let's say you live in a tiny little town in NY State, that gets cable through TimeWarner. There's a good chance that you cannot get *cable* TV through another provider. It's simply not offered.
TimeWarner has a monopoly on cable in your area.
Let's say you just moved there from out-of-state, so you'r not familiar with the area, area businesses, etc...
Now, let's say that AOL/TW doesn't offer broadband services in this small town - only "basic" cable (of course with pay channels, PPV, etc...), and that AOL doesn't have a local dialup to that town.
AOL/TW isn't a valid ISP for your area.
But - they refuse to accept advertizing money from people who *are* valid ISPs for you, even though they're not in direct competition for *your* business. If they can't advertize themselves to you (which they will do anyway, regardless of whether it's available to you) they sure as hell won't advertize competition.
That's illegal use of a monopoly.
That's what this is all about.
As long as you're not a monopoly, you can generally do whatever you want to do - within reason, of course ("reason" being defined by shareholders, normally, not by morality) - but once you become a monopoly, special rules apply to you, because as a monopoly, you have a LOT more power to do the "wrong" things.
Budweiser doesn't have a monopoly on beer (sad day if they did!) =)
AOL/TW does have a monopoly on cable/broadband service in many areas, and dialup ISP service in some.
That's why they're governed by different rules.
Of course, I'm just waiting for AT&T to merge with them...AOL/TW is scary...AOL/AT&T/TW is *much* scarier. Sad thing is, it would make sense, seeing the direction things with AOL/TW are taking. THe first of the super-conglomerates is testing the waters right now - seeing what it can, and can't get away with. With Dubya in office, they've got at least 4 years before something else is done about them (He comes from Big Oil, where monopolies are VERY common - he won't do a damn thing about monopolies abusing their power) - by that time, I have this sinking feeling it'll be too late.
Interesting - I didn't know that. I'd been under the impression Texas was staunchly Republican for quite a while now - I stand corrected on that fact =)
My beef isn't with the counting of the votes - it's with a system that is broken.
;P
Gore won the popular vote. That means that more American citizens voted for him, than for Bush.
Bush won the Electoral vote. That means more members of the Electoral College voted for him than for Gore.
Bush becomes president, even though another candidate got more votes from the citizens of the United States.
Now - the virtues of the Electoral College can be debated. Personally I think it's stupid. One of the principles that this country was founded on was that "...all men are created equal..." - well, I don't see how our VOTES are equal - especially when a Gore voter in Texas is essentially throwing away their vote. Even if 49% of the voters in Texas voted for Gore (or someone else) - ALL of the Electoral votes would have gone for Bush. Is that fair? I don't think so. (Disclaimer: I don't live in Texas - it's just a very convenient example) Admittedly, it can be argued that if you reverse the situation, they'd all go for Gore, but that's not the point.
A vote in a state with more Electoral votes is worth more than a vote in a state with less. That's why the campaigns specifically target the states with more Electoral votes.
IMHO, it cheapens the system. You live in State A, your vote is worth more than if you lived in State B. Therefore citizens of State A are, in a sense "more valuable" than those of State B, at least in the eyes of the candidates.
Sure doesn't sound like "equality" to me.
In addition, there are certain states that "traditionally" go one way or the other. Texas, for example, is a Republican state, traditionally. It would have been very easy to predict, before a single vote was cast, which candidate would "win" Texas.
So if you live in Texas, and you voted for someone else - guess what? Your vote didn't matter. Your state went for Bush and you had better well like it.
I'm not complaining that Bush "won". It does no good to complain about that. I'm complaining about the system that let it happen. A system where supposedly everyone is equal, but in reality it's only a facade.
I was also attempting to be witty, but I failed dismally
Choice is important, but majority rules. That's the way America runs.
So...that explains how the elections ran last year, eh? =)
Not that I think either one of them was qualified - but that's beside the point.
Hehe - I love Konq =) It *is* what Mozilla was trying to be.
But I do try to keep track of the others - and lately Mozilla's been making a lot of headway. I think Konq is still superior at the moment - but they're both miles ahead of Netscape 4.7 =)
Yes. Opera is significantly faster, and believe it or not, it saves me time. I think the small fee is acceptable to save 20 minutes per day and allow time for a "coffee break". It adds up over time.
I'm glad you've found enough value there to justify the purchase. Opera is a damn fine product. They're just trying to sell their product in a market where most, if not all of their competition is given away.
But the superior quality of the product isn't enough for the vast majority of people to justify buying a browser - just as the vast majority of people don't change their browser's default homepage - sad but true. They've been conditioned to eat what they're given, and that what they're given is "good enough".
I wasn't saying it's impossible - I was just saying that for many people, it's tough to justify that purchase.
* Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday, since Gates already made the error of selling his browser for free.
Not quite so - MS released IE for free to *undercut* Netscape's prices, and gain marketshare. They also used illegal bundling practices to hedge Netscape out of OEMs - preventing Netscape from coming pre-installed on many consumer-level computers. It was all a ploy to get rid of Netscape - and it worked.
Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run...
Wrong again. There's a big difference between "free" (IE: no cost) software, "Open Source" (IE: you can look at and report bugs in the source) software, and "Free" (IE: you have the same rights as the author) software.
Giving away "free" software is just a major undercut of your competitor's pricing, and could only be outdone by either giving away a better package, or paying people to take your software. It destroys (in some cases) much of the "value" of commercial competitors, since as long as your "free" alternative is "good enough", many people won't pay extra for your competitor's software.
This is how MS played the cards with IE. You could get IE for "free", and it worked "good enough" that most people didn't go get Netscape, which at the time cost around $50. MS went a step further by "bundling" - but that's another discussion.
"Open Source" software means that you're letting people (in some cases the public, in some cases only a select few "chosen" people) look at the source code, and possibly be able to report bugs - but there's no freedom to use the source code - only to look. While this might prevent some security flaws from going unnoticed, it provides no real benefit to the consumer (at least, IMHO)
"Free" software is just that - once you have it, you have the same rights as the author. Compile, run, modify, redistribute - you can do it all, and you are encouraged to. Many companies (most notably MS recently) are *scared* by this, since it is very tough to compete with on an even level.
Just bcause a company gives away software at no cost doesn't mean it has embraces the Open Source or Free software movements, or that eventually they will. It just means they're trying to undercut their competition and gain marketshare.
* Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.
I won't argue with you here, although Mozilla is (finally) turning into a mighty fine browser =)
I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon.
They don't sell their browser as a standalone product - but you pay for it every time you buy a computer with Win* preinstalled, or purchase a copy of any MS software. (Win, Office, etc...)
MS doesn't need to sell it's browser - by bundling it with the OS, it gets to people anyway. It also makes it extremely tough for *anyone* to sell a commercial browser. Look at Opera - they recently started giving away an advertising-supported "free" version of their browser, but they still have very little in the way of market/mindshare (but they *do* have an excellent product). Can you really justify buying Opera when you have IE for free? (as well as Mozilla, Konq, etc...) It's tough.
Thanks, Netscape. Rest in peace.
Yes - Netscape has left their mark - even if they die a slow, horrible, painful death by "portalizing", they have left their mark on the world.
If you've been staying away because of speed, stability, etc...you might want to give one of the latest nightlies a shot - they've gotten considerably more stable (at least for me, YMMV) over the past 2 weeks or so - and runs *nearly* as fast as konq (it may be graphics slowdown from the overly intensive "modern" theme I'm running, until x.themes.org comes back with thinice ;) ).
t /
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/lates
For someone who has neither...
PS One ($99)
Mid-range DVD player ($150)
Switchbox ($20) (waive if lucky enough to have a tv with 2 seperate line-in ports instead of the standard 1)
Total: $270
PS2 ($279) (I've seen it slightly cheaper, and slightly more expensive, but this seems to be a mid-range price right now)
Total: $279
For $10 more, they get everything in one unit, no switchbox required, and the ability to play PSX as well as PS2 games.
It's not a bad deal for someone with neither one.
For someone who already has one or the other...it's less of a deal.
ROTFL!
Someone blessed with modpoints mod this one (+1 Funny) for me =)
A good laugh on a Friday afternoon!
I'd argue that the code is still *accessible* to them - they have the right to access it and use it, but can't incorporate it into their own, non-GPL'd project.
;) )
They could still learn, quite freely, from the GPL'd code, as long as they didn't use it within their project.
That's one area where the lines get blurry, however - what exactly is the line between "learning from" and "using"? If I don't quite know how to parse a mbox-formatted mail file, and I look at some GPL'd code that does, and I see that they're splitting it at the From_ line - is it then "using" if I make my own project split at the From_ line, as long as I wrote the actual code myself, rather than copying it? (RFC's aside - yes, I know the proper process - I was grabbing for an example to use
The line gets a little blurry there. Some would say that my reading of the GPL'd code may have influenced my actions in such a way as to require my work to be considered a "derivitive" and thus covered by the GPL -- the other school would say that since the code in question was written by me, and not copied verbatim, that it's *my* code, and I can do as I damn well please with it - regardless of what I used as a reference to learn from.
The latter is what I personally believe, although I would probably release it GPL'd anyway - but as the concepts and processes involved become more and more complex (mine was a VERY simple example) so does the decision as to whether "learning from" becomes "using"...
Oh heck - it's Friday afternoon - time to call it a week and take off for home - this is way too deep a discussion for 5pm on a Friday =)
Granted, the farther away from the OS you get the less distasteful it is, but the issue still stands that public funds have payed for substantial development which is inaccessable to much of the public.
Hmm...How exactly is GPL'd code inaccessible to much of the public? Anyone can get their hands on the code. Anyone can tinker with it. Anyone can use it. The only real catch is that if you modify it, that you release those modifications under the GPL as well. I fail to see how requiring that additions/modifications be released in such a way that the code remains publically accessible limits the public's rights to *access* the code.
Contrary to popular opinion, you *can* get paid money to write GPL'd software. Nothing prohibits a company from selling GPL'd software, as long as the source is available to those who buy the binary distribution.
Granted, the company I work for makes their money from support services, rather than directly from the software - but that doesn't change the fact that there are a good number of people who work here, getting paid to write GPL'd software =)
Let's say I start a company: PlushMicro, and market using the slogan "Soft, Fuzzy Computers".
I register plushmicrosoftfuzzycomputers.com (yes, this is an absurd, long example) and get sued - why shouldn't I get to keep my domain, simply because the last syllable of my company name and the first word of my slogan, when combined, are the name of another company?
What if USMicro and SoftToys merge to form USMicro/SoftToys LTD? Shouldn't they be able to get usmicrosofttoysltd.com, being that you can't have a / in the domain name itself?
Just rambling...
It may be what _people_ want, but it's definitely not what _I_ want.
Of course, thanks to the wonders of capitalism, what _I_ want isn't important if it goes against what _people_ want.
It doesn't matter that _I_ still frequent that mom & pop grocer with the great meat. It doesn't matter that _I_ buy quality tools that will last a lifetime. If _people_ don't do these things, _I_ lose out.
Things swing towards mediocrity. Because it's good enough for your neighbors, it's good enough for you. That's the lesson here. It doesn't matter what the individual wants or desires - it's what the MASSES want that wins.
A person can be smart, polite, and well informed. People are dumb, rude, and pretty much stupid.
Since _people_ are the driving force here, not the individual, we get what dumb, rude, stupid people want.
And it's harder and harder to find alternatives. Money isn't given out to start business that are doomed to fail. Businesses that cater to a minority have a higher chance of failure than those that cater to the majority. Want to start a business similar to the mom & pop grocer's with the great meat? Good luck finding capital. Good luck attracting customers. Good luck keeping a profit when you're forced to charge higher prices because your margins aren't as large as those of the national supermarket down the street.
::sigh::
Are things different outside of the US? How about Europe?
Actually - that would only be the case if the V3-3500TV and/or the All-In-Wonder had 2 tuners - so you could drop the feed from one into an mpeg-1, while watching the other...
My old Hauppage card does mpeg-1 recording, but it only has one tuner, so you have to watch the same thing you record. I'm trying to find out if they've put out dual-tuner cards capable of this - if they did, it *may* qualify as prior art, depending on how specific the implementation is.
Tivo's patent seems to be fairly specific on the process - feed->mpeg-1->seperate audio/video streams, etc... As long as they don't try to sue for infringement outside of that process, it'll probably be OK, but if they sue anyone who offers a record-while-watching-something-else product, regardless of the process, there could be trouble.