I agree that flipping text into banners or popups are a big lose. Instead, advertising networks should be moving into
audio and video ads in streaming media. That's going to be the only (halfway) reasonable way to present in-context
advertising.
...and eat up even MORE bandwidth that could be used for more productive things. I'm all for streaming audio/video - but not in ads. A/V on demand is a great concept - but I don't want to have to use up 2MB bandwidth to read 2k of text, because some company I'll never want to buy stuff from thinks their whizz-bang video clip will sucker me in - that's just ridiculous.
I understand that these people need to be reimbursed - but I think micropayment is a MUCH better option than intrusive, high-bandwidth ads.
Actually, the DC will run whatever is put onto the CD - it doesn't actually boot an OS from ROM - it happens that the system itself *CAN* run CE (hence the logo on the box, and on some games), but many game manufacturers are choosing to run their own stuff, rather than CE.
>Oh yeah, and a free clue to the Netscape rebadgers:
>I'm already online, so WHY THE F**K WOULD I WANT AN
>AOL ICON ON MY DESKTOP?
Lessee...
- AOL owns Netscape
- AOL has a history of advertising itself by putting itself everywhere you look - your tv, your mailbox, your email, your toilet, etc...
Put these 2 together, and it's a wonder that installing Netscape doesn't automagically wipe out any internet connection settings you might already have and replace them with AOL -- all "To make your life easier" as AOL reps tell it. (A la AOL 6.0)
Don't get me wrong - I disagree with this "In your face" style of advertising something that 90% of people aren't going to want - but I see it as a perfectly plausible thing for AOL to do, considering their record.
Every new console starts out at $199.99 (mightaswell say $200)
The PS2 starts out at $299.99 (mightaswell say $300)
The extra $100 is for the DVD player. Compare it to DVD players at $100 and it's not too bad a deal. It's not going to be the best player on the market. Sony would screw themselves over if they did that (they make a couple high-end DVD players themselves).
This was marketed at LOW-END customers - ones who want a game system, and also might want a DVD player. The people who are buying it just for the DVD player are a little nuts (if all they wanted was a DVD player they could do much better with a standalone for the $$$) and many of the people who are just buying it for the game system aren't going to use the dvd player part much (if at all - I fall into this category myself - I have a standalone player that does just fine - I'd rather save the PS2's motor for games;) ) - but the people who want BOTH are getting a treat - a cheap DVD player and a decent gaming rig.
The fact it'll replace an old PS1 and still play the old games is a nice touch, IMHO - I didn't have a free port on my switchbox for another system (4 port switch - cable/vcr on part 1, DVD on port 2, PSX on port 3, DC on port 4) so I just disconnected the old PSX, gave it to my little nephew, and hooked the ps2 up in it's place. The texture smoothing is nice on some games (Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve 2 in particular) and the CD speed increase works quite well on most games (Squaresoft games don't like it though).
All in all, a nice little upgrade to my PS1, the ability to play the new PS2 games (still waiting for MGS2 and a decent RPG - Summoner is holding me over, but there's really nothing special about it but the storyline), and a backup DVD player (when we move it'll take a while to unpack the whole entertainment system - the PS2's dvd player may get some use then, or it may not - we may be too busy with FF9;) )
For someone without a PSX or a DVD player, it opens up a LOT of stuff for them, and for $300 it's not too bad for all it can do. Of course in a year the price will drop to $250 (the console drops to $150, the DVD stays the same) and in 2 years down to $200 (console to $100, DVD stays the same again)...
The easier you make something, the more idiots you will attract.
Look at what happened to USENET when it was opened up to AOL and such...
I agree wholeheartedly that this will increase the number of patent requests submitted, and thuis increase the number of (frivolous) patents granted. At this point, the USPTO doesn't do even a passable job at reviewing technology patents - how can anyone think that will suddenly change when the patent apps double or triple in number? (hypothetically of course - it remains to be seen just how much this will affect the #s - the above is simply an educated guess;P)
What should have been done LONG ago is outsource the review of patent applications to educated third-parties (such as certain university professors, etc...), especially in cases where the USPTO doesn't have the expertise or understanding to make a "good" decision. Right now in these circumstances, they grant the patent and wait for the courts to invalidate it. Complete wrong approach, IMHO.
This would, of course, lengthen the time necessary for a complete review of the patents applied for - so opening the floodgates for submission isn't the right thing to do either...it'll just make the queue so long it'll become unmanagable. So...instead of INCREASING the number of patents that get applied for, let's DECREASE it. Only allow any individual (or corporation or whatever) to apply for a certain number of patents in a given year...let's say a nice low number, like 5-10. That would make people THINK before they apply - hopefully cutting down on the frivolous patent submissions.
Of course, I could be wrong - I'm only on my first cup of coffee here;P
Just a note - if you've got a stock RH7 box that you're planning on installing this on, you'll want to make a trip over to http://www.rpmfind.net and pick up the RH7 rpms for zip and unzip (just do a search and look for the green highlight) as the KDE rpms complained about not having them (why they didn't install by default is beyond me - I'm just passing the info on.)
One of the local EB's here in Syr. has already gotten in excess of 1500 preorders - only about 100-250 are paid off thusfar (mine is one of 'em). They are expecting to get 150 to the store on release day.
If Sony only takes into account the fully paid preorders, they are getting a LOT less than what the demand actually is.
A lot of people were waiting to pay them off, or were paying them off slowly over time. Chances are they won't get one until well after the launch, if the figures I'm seeing here are correct.
I mean, just because they don't want others to use their NTFS filesystem does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly.
I have to disagree with this. If MSWinNT is the only OS that can read/write NTFS filesystems, then if you want to read/write an NTFS filesystem (whether it be yours or someone elses) you HAVE to use MSWinNT - you can't use anything else. MS prohibits it
I think this constitutes a monopoly on the NTFS filesystem.
This is a BAD thing.
Begin hypothetical situation
Suddenly, whether you want to or not, you HAVE to own...er...license MSWinNT if you want to legally run a data-recovery business - because you know that customers will come to you with NTFS partitioned disks. (This ain't a perfect world where everyone who runs a business runs *nix, after all;P )
Thus the need to get at and/or change any data on an NTFS partition requires that you purchase a license for MSWinNT.
Indirectly, MS would effectively own any information on an NTFS partition, as in order to use that data, you (or someone) would have to go pay the "MS Tax" to get at it.
End hypothetical situation
Next thing you know, they'll go after the VFAT support...;P
1) Ads - bombard users with ads for "Free AOL" and get more sheep to sign up for the online service priced at least $5 more than it's competitors. Later, they can sell ads to outside companies - with the promise of reaching millions of eyes.
2) Mindshare - The more people that use it, the more people that associate AOL with IM. This is an asset that shareholders like. Later they can start charging a fee (probably when micropayments take off) and figure they can make BOATLOADS of money.
It's not to tear down M$ - they want to BE the next M$.
This means they will want to confine and control you. Make you use their product because others aren't compatible. TO talk to their users, you have to use their software and see their ads. Your information will get recorded by them, and sold to anyone willing to pay them the $ they ask.
If the AOL/TW merger goes through - expect to see TW Cable saturated with AOL ads (and you thought they were bad now!) - expect RoadRunner service to go down the toilet and for prices to rise. Expect MORE spam - not less. Expect the spam to come in MORE formats - email, on-screen, TV, etc...
AOL's philosophy has been to spam since the beginning. Spamming people's snail-mailboxes with disks, and later CDs - spamming their users with ads for products they could probably care less about - spamming TV stations with ads (sometimes that play 2-3 times in a row) to make sure you repeat their name in your sleep. It's a not-so-subtle form of mind control - and it's working on the masses. They believe ANYTHING that AOL tells them. "We respect your privacy" - BULL$#!^ - the only thing AOL respects is the almighty dollar - and they'll do anything to get it.
I'm off-topic now...let's get back on...
Linux clients made by 3rd parties don't display AOL's ads to users. They don't track the user's habits and report back to AOL. They don't do ANYTHING other than be a messaging client.
And thus AOL can make NO money off of them.
So AOL shuts them out. People can't use them - so they'll use the "official" AOL software that makes AOL money. At least, that's AOL's opinion on the matter.
The linux community, however, will probably not conform to AOL's wishes - reverse engineering will get the clients back into the system, and linux users will be happy and ad-free.
AOL will change their "authentication" checks again.
Linux clients will reverse-engineer them and get back in.
Lather, rinse, repeat. It's the same $#!^ that they pulled with M$'s messenger program - except now it's hitting closer to home.
Actually, I find that having the full text of the book in some easily searchable format on a CD is a GREAT help.
The New Riders book reviewed above has just such a CD (with the book in searchable PDF format) - I leave the hardcopy at home for reference there, and leave the CD at work -- having a copy at each location without having to lug the book back and forth or buying another copy of a relatively expensive book (let's face it, programming books ain't cheap!) is EXTREMELY handy.
True. But with HDTV around the corner, this may get better - higher resolution means crisper text.
Now that I think about it, the problem with TV resolution is that TV is meant to display MOVING pictures - you don't really notice the poor resolution, even on a huge screen, because of the motion-blur effect.
So...for now, LARGE text and/or moving text can make things easier to read for WebTV-type viewers - but in the future, HDTV and such should help out a lot.
Sad thing is that AOHell is/will be a cable ISP monopoly after the acquisition of Time Warner - If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em out, I guess. I'm just waiting for my RR speeds to go down the toilet.
At that point I'll try to find a decent DSL provider. Anyone have good luck with one? Concentric seems to be running a $50/month DSL bit with no equipment or setup charges - which sounds REALLY good, but I'd like to hear from someone who has it first, before I ditch my cable connection.
1. People steal music through Napster. Yes, I know Napster is "just a service." The truth is that it facilitates the theft of copyrighted stuff. I live in Nashville. For every Britney Spears, there are thousands of artists creeping by that get $0.00 from their song being ripped onto Napster. Theft is a form of flattery, but it doesn't put fod on the table.
And there are tons of artists creeping by to make $0.00 from the sale of that CD. Most artists make their CDs on loan from the RIAA, and almost every penny goes to pay them back for the recording and promotions. Most artists make squat from your buying of the CD, period. The only person you're (arguably) taking $$ from is the RIAA itself.
The other argument is that it's possible that you wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. Let's say there's only one song you like, and it's a "non-popular" track - the only way the RIAA gives you to get a copy of the song is by buying the ENTIRE CD and sucking up their inflated prices for stuff that you DO NOT WANT.
So...assuming that you don't just give in and buy it all anyway, because you're given no choice in the matter (the way the RIAA wants it), you go and download an imperfect compressed digital copy from a friend, or someone on Napster. You've robbed noone. The CD would not have been bought in the first place. You would not have spent money in the first place, so there's no net loss.
2. The RIAA , which is the Recording Industry Artists of America, a UNION FOR AND BY THE ARTISTS, chooses to fight the digital theft of music. THey go after Napster.
"by and for the artists", huh? Maybe back in the days when it was founded, but definitely not today. Today the RIAA is a money-making organization that exploits aspiring musicians and artists to fill their own pockets. It's extremely tough, if not impossible, to get a "popular" song without the backing of a label. They push their own, and they don't want outsiders. They do everything they can to stifle competition. It's the "American Way". They finance the CD, and promote it, then keep a "percentage" of the profit, as well as taking back their costs of production and promotion. The "percentage" is high, and the costs that they quote for production and promotion are inflated to the point that the artist, in the end, gets very little, if anything, for their talent and "art".
I see little evidence to the contrary.
3. The community gets this notion in their head that the RIAA is backwards because they are protecting their work. They get this odd feeling that the RIAA is "anti digital."
Not "Anti-digital" - not at all. If the RIAA could see an easy way to control and profit off of digital music, they would. Instead, they see no way to put the genie back into the bottle, so they turn to the second most effective alternative: Lawsuits. They will simply make (read: buy laws, like the DMCA) doing anything they don't want you to do illegal. That will be enough to prevent the "masses" from benefitting too much from the availability of digital music - they'll be too scared of the consequences.
It's all about control.
Now let me ask you my question. Why do people do it this way, and THEN turn around and say to the RIAA "You need to just get into the digital market, you're upset that we're providing another distribution means, if you just joined us you'd make money." Umm.. excuse me, business proposals from the people who invented a method to support wholesale theft?
The method was not invented to support wholesale theft. As noted above, in many cases NO theft has taken place. Even so, the method itself is one of collaboration and sharing - the "heart" of the internet, so to speak. It no more supports theft than a gas can supports arson. The gas can can be used to legitimately haul fuel to a car/boat/lawnmower/etc... or it can be used to haul fuel to a building you want to burn down. Either way, it's not the fault of the makers of the can - it's the fault of the person using it.
Who said the RIAA isn't interested in digital music? I for one know they are. It's just they aren't interested in helping make the people who facilitated wholesale theft of their music rich.
I agree wholeheartedly. The RIAA is only interested in making ONE entity rich: the RIAA.
They want business partners in this that they can trust, not partners that take the music and then ask them why they aren't involved.
The "theft" thing is just a spin on the issue to get the clueless people to view it as illegal without understanding the issues. They don't want business partners they can trust - they want to BE the business, as they are now. They want to be the only way to get a hold of music - so they can charge whatever prices they want. Until now they have been VERY successful. Why else hasn't the average price of a CD gone down since their inception? CDs are INCREDIBLY cheap to produce en masse, yet we're still paying $13-20 apiece.
Napster threatens the monopolistic business model of the RIAA - it gives music in an intangible form to people for free (plus the cost of any ISP/phone fees) and makes it so easy "a sheep could use it" (a great quote from someone else's post that I am stealing - hope you don't mind;) ). This is what they are afraid of - that people will realize that they don't HAVE to buy all the schlock they are buying now, that they HAVE a choice, and that they can get what they want when they want it. In order to compensate in an open marketplace (without the intervention of copyright/IP laws) the RIAA would have to reduce their prices to compensate (THIS is where it would hurt the RIAA's pocketbook) and bring their music out to the same priceline as the digital versions. Artists still would get screwed over - although micropayments DIRECTLY TO THE ARTIST would be not only possible, but preferable to many people (myself included).
In short, Napster threatens to break the RIAA stranglehold on music distribution - thus they are trying to shut it down, and using the US Legal System, where the Word of Law rests on the back of the Almighty Dollar, to do it.
Oh wait - he had a couple short ones with Magneto too...something like "They got away" or "With them" or something.
Re:Will Rogue off Ms Marvel in the next film?
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 2
Somehow I doubt they'll have the Sentinels - didn't they openly kill off one of the main guys responsible for their creation? (Gyrich - the other being Trask)
Everybody uses M$ Word because they don't have a choice.
As a business you can't say "You can't send those Word documents to me - I can't read them" - you HAVE to be able to read them. Unfortunate, but that's the reality.
Now, you have 2 choices here - use a competing product (StarOffice, WordPerfect, AbiWord, etc...) that has SOME support for Word files - but won't read them perfectly, or give in to the peer pressure (which is really what it is) and use Word.
From a corporate standpoint, using Word is the optimal choice here. Corporations aren't moral entities. They don't look at what the company does, or how it treats it's customers. They look at what everyone else uses, and go with the herd mentality.
Due to this, and the fact that so many places "standardized" on Word, everyone else has to, lest they be incompatible with their peers. In business, this is a life or death thing (or at least it is perceived to be.)
So there really is NO choice for most companies.
This is the world M$ wants. It's the world they've gotten. Unfortunately, it's not going to change anytime soon - splitting Office from MS/OS, as Judge J is proposing, isn't going to do a damn thing about this. The only thing I could think of that WOULD help would be forcing them to open their file formats for other companies to become compatible -- this of course will never happen.
Predictions:
- Bush will (unfortunately) get the presidency
- Due to pressure from Bush (direct or indirect through appointments to various positions) M$ will get off easy, with little more than a little wrist slapping
- Nothing will change with regard to M$'s business practices or it's strangle hold on the business world
- Linux will gain popularity amongst people who disagree with M$, but their corporate bosses will tow the M$ line because they have to.
It's really a catch-22 here -- as a developer, I can't use something that isn't supported on all platforms I develop for...that means if IE and Netscape (current versions and 1 major version behind) don't support something, I can't fully use it. It's my job to make sure that the browsing experience is the same, regardless of whether you're using a PC or a Mac, running Win9x, WinNT, MacOS, *nix, or BeOS, etc... IE or Netscape or something else. (Although as long as it renders under "something else" it's generally OK - graphics heavy sites don't render well under Lynx - and we can't expect them to.)
So, while the W3C would like us to all use CSS2 all the time - we can't. The browsing audience can't handle it yet, thanks to MS and Netscape/AOL.
Now, there are some developers who will inevitably jump on the bandwagon and use all of IE's little tricks. We won't. Not because they're MS tricks, but because they won't work on all the browsers out there (IE: Netscape, Opera, etc...)
All crap like this does is waste time. Had MS/Netscape spent their time working towards the common standards, we'd all win. Instead, each wants to "own the web" and they throw this proprietary crap in there -- which we can't use.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that or they'll lobby for laws that make circumvention of adverts illegal...
;P )
At least here in the good ol' United (Corporate) States of America...where the almighty dollar buys anything - even laws.
(No...I'm not bitter or anything
I agree that flipping text into banners or popups are a big lose. Instead, advertising networks should be moving into audio and video ads in streaming media. That's going to be the only (halfway) reasonable way to present in-context advertising.
I understand that these people need to be reimbursed - but I think micropayment is a MUCH better option than intrusive, high-bandwidth ads.
Hmm - a lil' bootloader, a small kernel, MAME, and 600 someodd megs of vintage videogames to play on the Dreamcast.
Mmmm...crunchy!
Actually, the DC will run whatever is put onto the CD - it doesn't actually boot an OS from ROM - it happens that the system itself *CAN* run CE (hence the logo on the box, and on some games), but many game manufacturers are choosing to run their own stuff, rather than CE.
>Oh yeah, and a free clue to the Netscape rebadgers:
>I'm already online, so WHY THE F**K WOULD I WANT AN
>AOL ICON ON MY DESKTOP?
Lessee...
- AOL owns Netscape
- AOL has a history of advertising itself by putting itself everywhere you look - your tv, your mailbox, your email, your toilet, etc...
Put these 2 together, and it's a wonder that installing Netscape doesn't automagically wipe out any internet connection settings you might already have and replace them with AOL -- all "To make your life easier" as AOL reps tell it. (A la AOL 6.0)
Don't get me wrong - I disagree with this "In your face" style of advertising something that 90% of people aren't going to want - but I see it as a perfectly plausible thing for AOL to do, considering their record.
Figure it this way...
;) ) - but the people who want BOTH are getting a treat - a cheap DVD player and a decent gaming rig.
;) )
Every new console starts out at $199.99 (mightaswell say $200)
The PS2 starts out at $299.99 (mightaswell say $300)
The extra $100 is for the DVD player. Compare it to DVD players at $100 and it's not too bad a deal. It's not going to be the best player on the market. Sony would screw themselves over if they did that (they make a couple high-end DVD players themselves).
This was marketed at LOW-END customers - ones who want a game system, and also might want a DVD player. The people who are buying it just for the DVD player are a little nuts (if all they wanted was a DVD player they could do much better with a standalone for the $$$) and many of the people who are just buying it for the game system aren't going to use the dvd player part much (if at all - I fall into this category myself - I have a standalone player that does just fine - I'd rather save the PS2's motor for games
The fact it'll replace an old PS1 and still play the old games is a nice touch, IMHO - I didn't have a free port on my switchbox for another system (4 port switch - cable/vcr on part 1, DVD on port 2, PSX on port 3, DC on port 4) so I just disconnected the old PSX, gave it to my little nephew, and hooked the ps2 up in it's place. The texture smoothing is nice on some games (Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve 2 in particular) and the CD speed increase works quite well on most games (Squaresoft games don't like it though).
All in all, a nice little upgrade to my PS1, the ability to play the new PS2 games (still waiting for MGS2 and a decent RPG - Summoner is holding me over, but there's really nothing special about it but the storyline), and a backup DVD player (when we move it'll take a while to unpack the whole entertainment system - the PS2's dvd player may get some use then, or it may not - we may be too busy with FF9
For someone without a PSX or a DVD player, it opens up a LOT of stuff for them, and for $300 it's not too bad for all it can do. Of course in a year the price will drop to $250 (the console drops to $150, the DVD stays the same) and in 2 years down to $200 (console to $100, DVD stays the same again)...
The easier you make something, the more idiots you will attract.
;P)
;P
Look at what happened to USENET when it was opened up to AOL and such...
I agree wholeheartedly that this will increase the number of patent requests submitted, and thuis increase the number of (frivolous) patents granted. At this point, the USPTO doesn't do even a passable job at reviewing technology patents - how can anyone think that will suddenly change when the patent apps double or triple in number? (hypothetically of course - it remains to be seen just how much this will affect the #s - the above is simply an educated guess
What should have been done LONG ago is outsource the review of patent applications to educated third-parties (such as certain university professors, etc...), especially in cases where the USPTO doesn't have the expertise or understanding to make a "good" decision. Right now in these circumstances, they grant the patent and wait for the courts to invalidate it. Complete wrong approach, IMHO.
This would, of course, lengthen the time necessary for a complete review of the patents applied for - so opening the floodgates for submission isn't the right thing to do either...it'll just make the queue so long it'll become unmanagable. So...instead of INCREASING the number of patents that get applied for, let's DECREASE it. Only allow any individual (or corporation or whatever) to apply for a certain number of patents in a given year...let's say a nice low number, like 5-10. That would make people THINK before they apply - hopefully cutting down on the frivolous patent submissions.
Of course, I could be wrong - I'm only on my first cup of coffee here
I saw this on a shirt at Otakon this year...
Anime: Only slightly more expensive than drugs!
Just a note - if you've got a stock RH7 box that you're planning on installing this on, you'll want to make a trip over to http://www.rpmfind.net and pick up the RH7 rpms for zip and unzip (just do a search and look for the green highlight) as the KDE rpms complained about not having them (why they didn't install by default is beyond me - I'm just passing the info on.)
One of the local EB's here in Syr. has already gotten in excess of 1500 preorders - only about 100-250 are paid off thusfar (mine is one of 'em). They are expecting to get 150 to the store on release day.
If Sony only takes into account the fully paid preorders, they are getting a LOT less than what the demand actually is.
A lot of people were waiting to pay them off, or were paying them off slowly over time. Chances are they won't get one until well after the launch, if the figures I'm seeing here are correct.
I mean, just because they don't want others to use their NTFS filesystem does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly.
I have to disagree with this. If MSWinNT is the only OS that can read/write NTFS filesystems, then if you want to read/write an NTFS filesystem (whether it be yours or someone elses) you HAVE to use MSWinNT - you can't use anything else. MS prohibits it
I think this constitutes a monopoly on the NTFS filesystem.
This is a BAD thing.
Begin hypothetical situation
Suddenly, whether you want to or not, you HAVE to own...er...license MSWinNT if you want to legally run a data-recovery business - because you know that customers will come to you with NTFS partitioned disks. (This ain't a perfect world where everyone who runs a business runs *nix, after all ;P )
Thus the need to get at and/or change any data on an NTFS partition requires that you purchase a license for MSWinNT.
Indirectly, MS would effectively own any information on an NTFS partition, as in order to use that data, you (or someone) would have to go pay the "MS Tax" to get at it.
End hypothetical situation
Next thing you know, they'll go after the VFAT support... ;P
AOL's IM Money-making Strategy
1) Ads - bombard users with ads for "Free AOL" and get more sheep to sign up for the online service priced at least $5 more than it's competitors. Later, they can sell ads to outside companies - with the promise of reaching millions of eyes.
2) Mindshare - The more people that use it, the more people that associate AOL with IM. This is an asset that shareholders like. Later they can start charging a fee (probably when micropayments take off) and figure they can make BOATLOADS of money.
It's not to tear down M$ - they want to BE the next M$.
This means they will want to confine and control you. Make you use their product because others aren't compatible. TO talk to their users, you have to use their software and see their ads. Your information will get recorded by them, and sold to anyone willing to pay them the $ they ask.
If the AOL/TW merger goes through - expect to see TW Cable saturated with AOL ads (and you thought they were bad now!) - expect RoadRunner service to go down the toilet and for prices to rise. Expect MORE spam - not less. Expect the spam to come in MORE formats - email, on-screen, TV, etc...
AOL's philosophy has been to spam since the beginning. Spamming people's snail-mailboxes with disks, and later CDs - spamming their users with ads for products they could probably care less about - spamming TV stations with ads (sometimes that play 2-3 times in a row) to make sure you repeat their name in your sleep. It's a not-so-subtle form of mind control - and it's working on the masses. They believe ANYTHING that AOL tells them. "We respect your privacy" - BULL$#!^ - the only thing AOL respects is the almighty dollar - and they'll do anything to get it.
I'm off-topic now...let's get back on...
Linux clients made by 3rd parties don't display AOL's ads to users. They don't track the user's habits and report back to AOL. They don't do ANYTHING other than be a messaging client.
And thus AOL can make NO money off of them.
So AOL shuts them out. People can't use them - so they'll use the "official" AOL software that makes AOL money. At least, that's AOL's opinion on the matter.
The linux community, however, will probably not conform to AOL's wishes - reverse engineering will get the clients back into the system, and linux users will be happy and ad-free.
AOL will change their "authentication" checks again.
Linux clients will reverse-engineer them and get back in.
Lather, rinse, repeat. It's the same $#!^ that they pulled with M$'s messenger program - except now it's hitting closer to home.
Actually, I find that having the full text of the book in some easily searchable format on a CD is a GREAT help.
The New Riders book reviewed above has just such a CD (with the book in searchable PDF format) - I leave the hardcopy at home for reference there, and leave the CD at work -- having a copy at each location without having to lug the book back and forth or buying another copy of a relatively expensive book (let's face it, programming books ain't cheap!) is EXTREMELY handy.
I could care less what else is on the CD.
Resolution on tv sucks. Text is hard to read.
True. But with HDTV around the corner, this may get better - higher resolution means crisper text.
Now that I think about it, the problem with TV resolution is that TV is meant to display MOVING pictures - you don't really notice the poor resolution, even on a huge screen, because of the motion-blur effect.
So...for now, LARGE text and/or moving text can make things easier to read for WebTV-type viewers - but in the future, HDTV and such should help out a lot.
Wouldn't that be:
(Sappy AOL Guy Voice)"You've Got Root"
LOL
Sad thing is that AOHell is/will be a cable ISP monopoly after the acquisition of Time Warner - If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em out, I guess. I'm just waiting for my RR speeds to go down the toilet.
At that point I'll try to find a decent DSL provider. Anyone have good luck with one? Concentric seems to be running a $50/month DSL bit with no equipment or setup charges - which sounds REALLY good, but I'd like to hear from someone who has it first, before I ditch my cable connection.
Hmm...this brings up an interesting idea - a Unified File Sharing Client -- sortof like a Jabber for file sharing...
Wonder if there's one in the works already...
Oh well, back to coding.
And there are tons of artists creeping by to make $0.00 from the sale of that CD. Most artists make their CDs on loan from the RIAA, and almost every penny goes to pay them back for the recording and promotions. Most artists make squat from your buying of the CD, period. The only person you're (arguably) taking $$ from is the RIAA itself.
The other argument is that it's possible that you wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. Let's say there's only one song you like, and it's a "non-popular" track - the only way the RIAA gives you to get a copy of the song is by buying the ENTIRE CD and sucking up their inflated prices for stuff that you DO NOT WANT.
So...assuming that you don't just give in and buy it all anyway, because you're given no choice in the matter (the way the RIAA wants it), you go and download an imperfect compressed digital copy from a friend, or someone on Napster. You've robbed noone. The CD would not have been bought in the first place. You would not have spent money in the first place, so there's no net loss.
2. The RIAA , which is the Recording Industry Artists of America, a UNION FOR AND BY THE ARTISTS, chooses to fight the digital theft of music. THey go after Napster.
"by and for the artists", huh? Maybe back in the days when it was founded, but definitely not today. Today the RIAA is a money-making organization that exploits aspiring musicians and artists to fill their own pockets. It's extremely tough, if not impossible, to get a "popular" song without the backing of a label. They push their own, and they don't want outsiders. They do everything they can to stifle competition. It's the "American Way". They finance the CD, and promote it, then keep a "percentage" of the profit, as well as taking back their costs of production and promotion. The "percentage" is high, and the costs that they quote for production and promotion are inflated to the point that the artist, in the end, gets very little, if anything, for their talent and "art".
I see little evidence to the contrary.
3. The community gets this notion in their head that the RIAA is backwards because they are protecting their work. They get this odd feeling that the RIAA is "anti digital."
Not "Anti-digital" - not at all. If the RIAA could see an easy way to control and profit off of digital music, they would. Instead, they see no way to put the genie back into the bottle, so they turn to the second most effective alternative: Lawsuits. They will simply make (read: buy laws, like the DMCA) doing anything they don't want you to do illegal. That will be enough to prevent the "masses" from benefitting too much from the availability of digital music - they'll be too scared of the consequences.
It's all about control.
Now let me ask you my question. Why do people do it this way, and THEN turn around and say to the RIAA "You need to just get into the digital market, you're upset that we're providing another distribution means, if you just joined us you'd make money." Umm.. excuse me, business proposals from the people who invented a method to support wholesale theft?
The method was not invented to support wholesale theft. As noted above, in many cases NO theft has taken place. Even so, the method itself is one of collaboration and sharing - the "heart" of the internet, so to speak. It no more supports theft than a gas can supports arson. The gas can can be used to legitimately haul fuel to a car/boat/lawnmower/etc... or it can be used to haul fuel to a building you want to burn down. Either way, it's not the fault of the makers of the can - it's the fault of the person using it.
Who said the RIAA isn't interested in digital music? I for one know they are. It's just they aren't interested in helping make the people who facilitated wholesale theft of their music rich.
I agree wholeheartedly. The RIAA is only interested in making ONE entity rich: the RIAA.
They want business partners in this that they can trust, not partners that take the music and then ask them why they aren't involved.
The "theft" thing is just a spin on the issue to get the clueless people to view it as illegal without understanding the issues. They don't want business partners they can trust - they want to BE the business, as they are now. They want to be the only way to get a hold of music - so they can charge whatever prices they want. Until now they have been VERY successful. Why else hasn't the average price of a CD gone down since their inception? CDs are INCREDIBLY cheap to produce en masse, yet we're still paying $13-20 apiece.
Napster threatens the monopolistic business model of the RIAA - it gives music in an intangible form to people for free (plus the cost of any ISP/phone fees) and makes it so easy "a sheep could use it" (a great quote from someone else's post that I am stealing - hope you don't mind ;) ). This is what they are afraid of - that people will realize that they don't HAVE to buy all the schlock they are buying now, that they HAVE a choice, and that they can get what they want when they want it. In order to compensate in an open marketplace (without the intervention of copyright/IP laws) the RIAA would have to reduce their prices to compensate (THIS is where it would hurt the RIAA's pocketbook) and bring their music out to the same priceline as the digital versions. Artists still would get screwed over - although micropayments DIRECTLY TO THE ARTIST would be not only possible, but preferable to many people (myself included).
In short, Napster threatens to break the RIAA stranglehold on music distribution - thus they are trying to shut it down, and using the US Legal System, where the Word of Law rests on the back of the Almighty Dollar, to do it.
Actually he had 2 lines:
"Scream for me"
"You still owe me a scream"
Or something like that - both directed to Storm
Oh wait - he had a couple short ones with Magneto too...something like "They got away" or "With them" or something.
Somehow I doubt they'll have the Sentinels - didn't they openly kill off one of the main guys responsible for their creation? (Gyrich - the other being Trask)
The vast majority of web "designers" are bound by what their "clients" want.
Fact: Most "clients" know jack shyt about design.
Fact: Most "clients" want "gee-whiz-did-that-move?" features that most "designers" would NEVER use.
Fact: More than one outstanding design has been replaced with a crappy one because a "client" thought they knew more than the "designer"
Don't blame the "designers" entirely - they have their hands tied by the "client" 99% of the time.
Everybody uses M$ Word because they don't have a choice.
;P
As a business you can't say "You can't send those Word documents to me - I can't read them" - you HAVE to be able to read them. Unfortunate, but that's the reality.
Now, you have 2 choices here - use a competing product (StarOffice, WordPerfect, AbiWord, etc...) that has SOME support for Word files - but won't read them perfectly, or give in to the peer pressure (which is really what it is) and use Word.
From a corporate standpoint, using Word is the optimal choice here. Corporations aren't moral entities. They don't look at what the company does, or how it treats it's customers. They look at what everyone else uses, and go with the herd mentality.
Due to this, and the fact that so many places "standardized" on Word, everyone else has to, lest they be incompatible with their peers. In business, this is a life or death thing (or at least it is perceived to be.)
So there really is NO choice for most companies.
This is the world M$ wants. It's the world they've gotten. Unfortunately, it's not going to change anytime soon - splitting Office from MS/OS, as Judge J is proposing, isn't going to do a damn thing about this. The only thing I could think of that WOULD help would be forcing them to open their file formats for other companies to become compatible -- this of course will never happen.
Predictions:
- Bush will (unfortunately) get the presidency
- Due to pressure from Bush (direct or indirect through appointments to various positions) M$ will get off easy, with little more than a little wrist slapping
- Nothing will change with regard to M$'s business practices or it's strangle hold on the business world
- Linux will gain popularity amongst people who disagree with M$, but their corporate bosses will tow the M$ line because they have to.
Of couse, I could be talking out my @$$
So, while the W3C would like us to all use CSS2 all the time - we can't. The browsing audience can't handle it yet, thanks to MS and Netscape/AOL.
Now, there are some developers who will inevitably jump on the bandwagon and use all of IE's little tricks. We won't. Not because they're MS tricks, but because they won't work on all the browsers out there (IE: Netscape, Opera, etc...)
All crap like this does is waste time. Had MS/Netscape spent their time working towards the common standards, we'd all win. Instead, each wants to "own the web" and they throw this proprietary crap in there -- which we can't use.
Ouch...that was bad, even for a SlashPun... ;P