Re:Pay-Per-Click Search Listings on Yahoo, et al.
on
Search Engine Payola
·
· Score: 2
I don't know if I necessarily agree. If I want a Dodge truck, I'd like to be able to type "Dodge trucks" in any search engine and get the manufacturer's web site. If I want reviews, I'll specifically ask for them.
"Currently, I'm boycotting the music and video industry, because of DCMA and the RIAA policies on digital media."
And how many out there, besides a few rabid free music advocates, are doing this? A dozen? A hundred at max? Do you even think the average teenager/college student knows what the RIAA is?
People download music because they want to sample it, true. But the sample often stays indefinitely.
It's akin to when people were swapping tapes of their favorite bands. So you got a bootleg of a Led Zepelin concert. What are you the chances you're going to buy the studio tape, considering most of the songs you like are already on your bootleg? Unless you're a diehard fan of the band, how much are you going to want to buy that boxset of music you already have? Not very much.
The RIAA is correct to a point: they definitely *are* losing some money to downloads. But they were losing it to tapes too, and other means. What's needed is a way to sample and then permanently download singles for very low prices. If they want to make them copy-protected that's fine - as long as there's no time limit on the final product, and I can choose what songs I want.
I can use the analogy of security which is frequently told on Slashdot: it can't be bolted on, it has to be designed from the beginning. What's better? Fixing the underlying network code or tacking-on an improvement which, in fact, gives an intentionally vastly different game experience for each player?
I'm also not really sure where your insult is being targetted, or even what it is. Not all game makers rely on the default DirectNet or TCP/IP stacks to create their games. Some create their own stacks (I recall Carmack saying they had to create their own IP stack for Quake on Dreamcast). If you rely on the existing network code, you're relying on what someone else perceived as the best way to optimize the packets were - whether this was a game or not. The better programmers (for example, in first-person shooting, id and Epic) create highly-optimized, usually UDP-based solutions. If they relied on the exact same code as the original, for example, used to spit out web pages, most players would be toast.
I remember trying to do a simple multiplayer turn-based game in CS class a few years ago (a Risk clone) and even that was hard. Creating the network tools by hand, it was a challenge to get the server to properly handle the back and forth timing required (send move request, wait for request, take in request/send out another one?) I can just imagine a realtime game where every second counts.
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
"How many people do you see running Office XP on a Windows 3.1 machine."
Well, none actually. But that's because Microsoft only supports it back to Windows 98 (Why? Who knows. Probably it uses some kind of IE layer that came with IE 4).
"98 to XP or 2k or NT might be an architectual change, but it's the same application API so you better hope that will work, but then again 95 has the same API and MS has broken compatibility with 95 all over the board."
See above. Actually, think the changes from the 9x series to NT are pretty drastic, and represent a positive step for Microsoft (the more applications I can run without hosing my system, the better). The API may be similar, but many of the underlying file system and process creating calls are completely rewritten. The fact that most 9x programs (which relied on relatively open system restraints where they had pretty much free reign to do anything) run on the NT protected model with little modification at the front end is kind of amazing.
"My neighbors bought iMacs for the house. They don't care about Photoshop. What sold them was the idea of iMovie and iTunes. That's what sells a ton of people."
Actually, I know certain average users who won't buy Apple machines today because they think they're primarily for video editing, something they're simply not interested in. Most users still (and a few years ago, when the iMac became a hit) want decent Internet. I know, this flies in the face of most internet appliance sales, but the predominant thing I hear is "I want to do word processing, a few games, and get on the net".
" pretty sure they'll sell quite some more OS X packages now. I know many people have been waiting to upgrade from 9.x and Photoshop has been the main reason."
Probably because their primary user base continues to be artists and publishers, which is a bit disturbing. PC users don't upgrade their OS's every time one particular app gets upgraded (although it helps). I've seen users run Office XP on first editions of Windows 98.
"This is the IP equivalent of setting fire to a village because it might contain spies."
Not quite. In this partcular village, the spies have the ability to magically transform other citizens to spies, and quite rapidly. Additionally, these spies have convinced other citizens that being a spy is ok, because the methods to become a spy are so innately simple. After a while, a great deal of spies become the majority.
"Blizzard isn't being unreasonable or vindictive, they're simply protecting their software so thay can pay their employees and continue to make the high quality games they make."
Additionally, the case for Blizzard is more serious than that of a company like Microsoft, because they don't release new software that often (maybe a game a year). Considering the longer lead times for their products, they need as much revenue as they can get.
"But, that would be giving the customer freedom of choice, now, wouldn't it, and then Blizzard couldn't start charging for access to B.Net eventually."
I think they're more worried about the current situation of losing money on b.net in-game advertising.
There are UI guidelines for most OS's/Windowing systems. Some are fairly strict (MacOS), while others are more lenient (Windows). Above all: follow them. There is no reason why an app that works with documents should do anything other than give you an open dialog box when pressing Ctrl-O. Same thing for people who think it's "clever" to recreate exit and minimize buttons - use the tools that already exist, don't make up your own.
Always remember, there are people with PhD's who have spent years studying this stuff. Even if you're a good programmer, don't think you can outdo most dialogs. They are two completely separate computer science fields.
Re:Tips from the Marquis de Sade School of HCI
on
Computing Pet Peeves?
·
· Score: 2
"If a user fills out a form and it doesn't pass your rigorous validation checks, return him to the form and ensure that none of the entries he typed are filled in. If he made a mistake in the one you caught, who knows what other mistakes are in there? Can't be too careful!
When validating a form, once you catch an error, report it and make the user fill it out again. There's no value in pointing out all the failed edits, since you're going to clear the form for him anyway, right?"
Has anyone noticed this happening on Slashdot lately? There is nothing worse than typing a quick comment, clicking Submit, having Slashdot say you only waited 19 seconds instead of 20, then going back and having to redo the comment all over again!
You're going to tell me you can kill a grandmother with a pillow (as you have stated) without actually having a pillow on hand?
You're making the argument that George Carlin makes in one of his standup routines: "They let people get on board planes without weapons. But what about a guy with really large hands? Couldn't he strangle a stewardess? Hell, he could do it one in each hand." Fact remains, though, using this analogy, that most people DON'T have really large hands, as most people don't make an effort to backup their software (especially game cartridges).
Further, the backing of game cartridges is a fairly limited argument anyway. Most people argue that software should be backed up because the original media is fragile -- game cartridges are not. In fact, I would venture to say that most people who buy game copiers (and RAM-based cartridges) are doing so to steal games.
I love people who are constantly arguing against the Microsoft monopoly on Slashdot, as if it were the most important thing in the world. It reminds me of people who fight for the lives of animals but could care less that a war is going on.
THESE mergers are the killers, people. When you own all the media, all the ways to send it, and the people and resources to shape it, you have enormous power. Who cares if one company runs the software under a couple hundred million computers. We're talking BILLIONS of people affected by the media they see, hear, and consume.
"I could use a pillow to smother a grandmother -- should pillows be outlawed?"
If you use the pillow to deliberately kill a grandmother, yes, that pillow in that instance is illegal. The vague wording of the DMCA goes both ways.
The problem is that this site (and many others) make it fairly obvious that "this is a copier" and "we are going to copy illegal stuff with it". Very few, if any, do it for the joy of hacking. Most are just warez kiddies who love getting free software.
That said, in this instance the copier is illegal.
I mentioned this in another post, but since you are even more brutal, I think I should mention it again.
Nintendo has rules that specifically state, in the back of their game manuals, that "backup copies aren't necessary". They basicallly throw away the whole provision that you should have one backup copy, because they think their materials are more or less indestructable (which, up until the GameCube, they certainly had a point - those cartridges can take a ton of punishment).
The bottom line, though, is that Nintendo stated what you can and cannot do in terms of backups. EULAs and CD licenses are a lot more vague.
Nintendo says outright in every instruction manual for every game that backup devices (even for personal use) are not allowed. The laws for computer EULAs are much more vague ("you can copy this disc, as long as you have multiple licenses", "do not make illegal copies of this disc", etc).
"There were upwards of 60 million Napster users when it got shut down. "Most" of them were not anything. ("Most" of them were certainly not teenagers; there are only ~12 million teenagers in the US total!)"
60 million registered users - probably half as many active. A third of that (at most) on at any given time. And oh, yeah, there was more to Napster than just the US.
"And, as there were something like 40 million unique mp3s floating around Napster"
Define "unique". Unique as in unique songs, or unique as in unique file names (which most were). There were hundreds of copies of the same song with differently spelled file names (often to allay filters). Try doing a search currently on the GNUTella system for "Brittany".
"If you want a "most", here it is: most Americans with Internet access in early 2001 used Napster."
Ho boy. You're telling me that at the small company I work for now (with a T3 line, and 50 people) that 2/3 of these top-level executives, secretaries, and IT folk were constantly downloading on Napster? How about half? Actually, how about mostly students between the ages of 14 and 21 (which it was).
Now, let's move to some psychology:
"I know I have never, not once, felt guilty for downloading music from the Internet, nor has anyone I've spoken to about the subject."
Chances are (if you're like "most" people in this world) your friends share similar interests. And somewhat similar viewpoints. A bunch of crack users won't comment to each other "Gee, this seems wrong."
"And, like the original poster, I most certainly increased my CD buying as a direct result of Napster."
I can assure you that most people did not pick up that Nelly single after hearing it on Napster. Lost sales. Whether or not purchasing singles is "right" or "wrong", it's still not my perogative to demonstrate the futileness of it by stealing it. I demonstrate that with my wallet.
Back to some stats:
"I can't say whether such behavior reflected the majority or minority of Napster users, but considering the almost precise correspondence between growing (then suddenly falling in spring 2001) online music trading and growing (then suddenly falling in spring 2001) record sales, the statistics strongly support the former."
Bull. Give me one statistic that said music sales dove because of Napster, and present me a direct correlation. The increase and decrease in music sales couldn't possibly be because, oh, we were gaining a strong economy, technolust (and CD players) was at an all time high, and the return of the boy bands meant mommy and daddy were shelling out more for manufactured acts?
Now, the funniest part of your argument:
"Laws are supposed to arise from the consent of the governed."
Actually, it's the majority of the governed. Ask a 40-year old guy from Montana, or a grandmother from New Jersey, and see what their views are on stealing music.
"When most of the governed are engaging in an activity with a clear conscience, it probably shouldn't be illegal, unless it carries some hidden negative consequences unseen by the uneducated majority."
First, rarely is the majority uneducated, unless you're taking a narrow elitist view. Second, and more important, the views of those actively involved in an illegal activity should not be given the same weight as the vast majority around them who view the activity as illegal. This is the "I'm right and you're wrong and that's just the way it is" theory.
"In the case of Napster, though, there were two hugely positive consequences: free access to the largest cultural repository the world had ever seen"
Uh, some would call this the Internet. And much of it was truly free, not stolen.
"and increasing CD sales to boot"
See argument above.
"The argument that we should suddenly rewrite and reinterpret the past 200 years of copyright law (in which noncommercial infringement was generally held to be inactionable) just to kowtow to what the misguided oligopoly trying to retain their control over mass expression and culture mistakenly feels is their own self-interest is utterly absurd."
What are you doing, throwing as many large words as you can into a single sentence? Copyright law, as all law, is supposed to be rewritten. Often. It's somewhat idealistic (and completely stupid) to think that law should remain stagnant for over 200 years. It was cool in the ancient colosseums to allow warriors to fight to the death. Blacks were allowed to be trades as slaves. Both were legal activities.
"The fact that you feel "guilty" about it (and project that guilt onto 60 million others) is just pathetic."
I'm not projecting my view on 60 million users, I'm projecting my view onto the "free" populace itself. Anyone with the least smidge of logic would have hesitated the first time they downloaded illegal music for free and wondered to themselves "should I be doing this?"
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if I necessarily agree. If I want a Dodge truck, I'd like to be able to type "Dodge trucks" in any search engine and get the manufacturer's web site. If I want reviews, I'll specifically ask for them.
And how many out there, besides a few rabid free music advocates, are doing this? A dozen? A hundred at max? Do you even think the average teenager/college student knows what the RIAA is?
People download music because they want to sample it, true. But the sample often stays indefinitely.
It's akin to when people were swapping tapes of their favorite bands. So you got a bootleg of a Led Zepelin concert. What are you the chances you're going to buy the studio tape, considering most of the songs you like are already on your bootleg? Unless you're a diehard fan of the band, how much are you going to want to buy that boxset of music you already have? Not very much.
The RIAA is correct to a point: they definitely *are* losing some money to downloads. But they were losing it to tapes too, and other means. What's needed is a way to sample and then permanently download singles for very low prices. If they want to make them copy-protected that's fine - as long as there's no time limit on the final product, and I can choose what songs I want.
10 bucks says NYC won't allow it unless it travels at a minimum speed of 45 mph.
I'm also not really sure where your insult is being targetted, or even what it is. Not all game makers rely on the default DirectNet or TCP/IP stacks to create their games. Some create their own stacks (I recall Carmack saying they had to create their own IP stack for Quake on Dreamcast). If you rely on the existing network code, you're relying on what someone else perceived as the best way to optimize the packets were - whether this was a game or not. The better programmers (for example, in first-person shooting, id and Epic) create highly-optimized, usually UDP-based solutions. If they relied on the exact same code as the original, for example, used to spit out web pages, most players would be toast.
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
Well, none actually. But that's because Microsoft only supports it back to Windows 98 (Why? Who knows. Probably it uses some kind of IE layer that came with IE 4).
"98 to XP or 2k or NT might be an architectual change, but it's the same application API so you better hope that will work, but then again 95 has the same API and MS has broken compatibility with 95 all over the board."
See above. Actually, think the changes from the 9x series to NT are pretty drastic, and represent a positive step for Microsoft (the more applications I can run without hosing my system, the better). The API may be similar, but many of the underlying file system and process creating calls are completely rewritten. The fact that most 9x programs (which relied on relatively open system restraints where they had pretty much free reign to do anything) run on the NT protected model with little modification at the front end is kind of amazing.
Actually, I know certain average users who won't buy Apple machines today because they think they're primarily for video editing, something they're simply not interested in. Most users still (and a few years ago, when the iMac became a hit) want decent Internet. I know, this flies in the face of most internet appliance sales, but the predominant thing I hear is "I want to do word processing, a few games, and get on the net".
Probably because their primary user base continues to be artists and publishers, which is a bit disturbing. PC users don't upgrade their OS's every time one particular app gets upgraded (although it helps). I've seen users run Office XP on first editions of Windows 98.
Not quite. In this partcular village, the spies have the ability to magically transform other citizens to spies, and quite rapidly. Additionally, these spies have convinced other citizens that being a spy is ok, because the methods to become a spy are so innately simple. After a while, a great deal of spies become the majority.
For further reading, see Napster(n).
Additionally, the case for Blizzard is more serious than that of a company like Microsoft, because they don't release new software that often (maybe a game a year). Considering the longer lead times for their products, they need as much revenue as they can get.
of your ass?"
Dude, I've got a Dell!
Considering how much Microsoft spends on R&D, shouldn't we expect to pay extraorbinant prices for them too (and they don't even hardware!)
I think they're more worried about the current situation of losing money on b.net in-game advertising.
Because, like Microsoft, they like to rape every penny out of their users. Just because a fruit is the logo doesn't mean the company is any nicer.
Always remember, there are people with PhD's who have spent years studying this stuff. Even if you're a good programmer, don't think you can outdo most dialogs. They are two completely separate computer science fields.
When validating a form, once you catch an error, report it and make the user fill it out again. There's no value in pointing out all the failed edits, since you're going to clear the form for him anyway, right?"
Has anyone noticed this happening on Slashdot lately? There is nothing worse than typing a quick comment, clicking Submit, having Slashdot say you only waited 19 seconds instead of 20, then going back and having to redo the comment all over again!
There's some advertising dollars as well.
Ten bucks says Apple sends them a "cease-and-desist" letter in the next 24 hours.
You're making the argument that George Carlin makes in one of his standup routines: "They let people get on board planes without weapons. But what about a guy with really large hands? Couldn't he strangle a stewardess? Hell, he could do it one in each hand." Fact remains, though, using this analogy, that most people DON'T have really large hands, as most people don't make an effort to backup their software (especially game cartridges).
Further, the backing of game cartridges is a fairly limited argument anyway. Most people argue that software should be backed up because the original media is fragile -- game cartridges are not. In fact, I would venture to say that most people who buy game copiers (and RAM-based cartridges) are doing so to steal games.
THESE mergers are the killers, people. When you own all the media, all the ways to send it, and the people and resources to shape it, you have enormous power. Who cares if one company runs the software under a couple hundred million computers. We're talking BILLIONS of people affected by the media they see, hear, and consume.
If you use the pillow to deliberately kill a grandmother, yes, that pillow in that instance is illegal. The vague wording of the DMCA goes both ways.
The problem is that this site (and many others) make it fairly obvious that "this is a copier" and "we are going to copy illegal stuff with it". Very few, if any, do it for the joy of hacking. Most are just warez kiddies who love getting free software.
That said, in this instance the copier is illegal.
Nintendo has rules that specifically state, in the back of their game manuals, that "backup copies aren't necessary". They basicallly throw away the whole provision that you should have one backup copy, because they think their materials are more or less indestructable (which, up until the GameCube, they certainly had a point - those cartridges can take a ton of punishment).
The bottom line, though, is that Nintendo stated what you can and cannot do in terms of backups. EULAs and CD licenses are a lot more vague.
Mod parent up.
Nintendo says outright in every instruction manual for every game that backup devices (even for personal use) are not allowed. The laws for computer EULAs are much more vague ("you can copy this disc, as long as you have multiple licenses", "do not make illegal copies of this disc", etc).
First, lets blow away some stats:
"There were upwards of 60 million Napster users when it got shut down. "Most" of them were not anything. ("Most" of them were certainly not teenagers; there are only ~12 million teenagers in the US total!)"
60 million registered users - probably half as many active. A third of that (at most) on at any given time. And oh, yeah, there was more to Napster than just the US.
"And, as there were something like 40 million unique mp3s floating around Napster"
Define "unique". Unique as in unique songs, or unique as in unique file names (which most were). There were hundreds of copies of the same song with differently spelled file names (often to allay filters). Try doing a search currently on the GNUTella system for "Brittany".
"If you want a "most", here it is: most Americans with Internet access in early 2001 used Napster."
Ho boy. You're telling me that at the small company I work for now (with a T3 line, and 50 people) that 2/3 of these top-level executives, secretaries, and IT folk were constantly downloading on Napster? How about half? Actually, how about mostly students between the ages of 14 and 21 (which it was).
Now, let's move to some psychology:
"I know I have never, not once, felt guilty for downloading music from the Internet, nor has anyone I've spoken to about the subject."
Chances are (if you're like "most" people in this world) your friends share similar interests. And somewhat similar viewpoints. A bunch of crack users won't comment to each other "Gee, this seems wrong."
"And, like the original poster, I most certainly increased my CD buying as a direct result of Napster."
I can assure you that most people did not pick up that Nelly single after hearing it on Napster. Lost sales. Whether or not purchasing singles is "right" or "wrong", it's still not my perogative to demonstrate the futileness of it by stealing it. I demonstrate that with my wallet.
Back to some stats:
"I can't say whether such behavior reflected the majority or minority of Napster users, but considering the almost precise correspondence between growing (then suddenly falling in spring 2001) online music trading and growing (then suddenly falling in spring 2001) record sales, the statistics strongly support the former."
Bull. Give me one statistic that said music sales dove because of Napster, and present me a direct correlation. The increase and decrease in music sales couldn't possibly be because, oh, we were gaining a strong economy, technolust (and CD players) was at an all time high, and the return of the boy bands meant mommy and daddy were shelling out more for manufactured acts?
Now, the funniest part of your argument:
"Laws are supposed to arise from the consent of the governed."
Actually, it's the majority of the governed. Ask a 40-year old guy from Montana, or a grandmother from New Jersey, and see what their views are on stealing music.
"When most of the governed are engaging in an activity with a clear conscience, it probably shouldn't be illegal, unless it carries some hidden negative consequences unseen by the uneducated majority."
First, rarely is the majority uneducated, unless you're taking a narrow elitist view. Second, and more important, the views of those actively involved in an illegal activity should not be given the same weight as the vast majority around them who view the activity as illegal. This is the "I'm right and you're wrong and that's just the way it is" theory.
"In the case of Napster, though, there were two hugely positive consequences: free access to the largest cultural repository the world had ever seen"
Uh, some would call this the Internet. And much of it was truly free, not stolen.
"and increasing CD sales to boot"
See argument above.
"The argument that we should suddenly rewrite and reinterpret the past 200 years of copyright law (in which noncommercial infringement was generally held to be inactionable) just to kowtow to what the misguided oligopoly trying to retain their control over mass expression and culture mistakenly feels is their own self-interest is utterly absurd."
What are you doing, throwing as many large words as you can into a single sentence? Copyright law, as all law, is supposed to be rewritten. Often. It's somewhat idealistic (and completely stupid) to think that law should remain stagnant for over 200 years. It was cool in the ancient colosseums to allow warriors to fight to the death. Blacks were allowed to be trades as slaves. Both were legal activities.
"The fact that you feel "guilty" about it (and project that guilt onto 60 million others) is just pathetic."
I'm not projecting my view on 60 million users, I'm projecting my view onto the "free" populace itself. Anyone with the least smidge of logic would have hesitated the first time they downloaded illegal music for free and wondered to themselves "should I be doing this?"