Your analogy is interesting, although obviously the Internet has killer apps the likes of which CB could never see.
I think business bitching and moaning is quite amusing as I (and most of you I'm sure) spent a lot of time ridiculing so many of those early Internet startups for trying to make money of something that is of no value to anyone.
Internet usage may be shrinking now, but it will certainly start to grow again. It is a very powerful tool, and now that the novelty factor has worn off, people can actually start to use it to it's full extent. It will grow much more slowly now, but the quality of applications will be 100 times higher.
I think the idea is that smart nodes can filter the traffic. At best this would mean fast loads for company information that was paid for, and slow loads for old school free content. At worst they could drop any unpaid packet.
I don't think it's a safe assumption that the Internet is not a money-maker and that it fundamentally wants to be free. Certainly we would all like to stick with our traditional Internet values, and enjoy a free and giving 'net.
Everything that the free Internet does and facilitates is in direct contradiction with our economic ideologies (at least in the US). The rapid rate of technological innovation has our traditional capitalism busting at the seams. The only thing that holds it together is the massive power of corporations working with legislators to promote huge amounts of new legislation that protect companies' rights to make money for anything.
While this country's ideologies were based on personal freedom, and the separation of church and state, I think that those values are not enough in today's society.
I think a new world leader is likely to emerge in the centuries ahead with ideologies based on the separation of state and business. Think about it, the free market is a wonderful ECONOMIC tool. It provides unequaled productivity and efficiency. However, it does NOTHING for GOVERNMENT. The government should be there to set down the ground rules, things like environmental protections, and anti-trust laws.
Corporations as citizens is an alarming concept. It promotes the idea that business has the RIGHT to make as much money as possible. That is utter BS... the free market should dictate how much money can be made, and the government should dictate how far companies can go to sell their products.
The Internet is a reflection of people's needs to be free and have a realm of expression outside the control of big business. Let companies do what they will to squeeze every cent of profitability out of the Internet. I think the end of American greed-based capitalism is on the wane.
Re:It is fast. But it Can't render worth anything.
on
Mozilla 0.9.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Probably because document.all has a big effect on writing dHTML, and by following standards eventually we can hopefully write dHTML scripts only once someday, whereas if they support IEisms the standard may never be adopted by developers.
The nested tag issue makes for ugly code, but supporting it isn't going to penalize people who do it the right way.
Actually I think the article has a lot of good points, it acknowledges many of the key arguments as to why he should be freed and presents reasonable counter-arguments. What it doesn't do however, is actually give reasons why Dmitry SHOULD be arrested.
The fact that he broke the law isn't quite enough, IMHO. It is sufficient JUSTIFICATION to arrest him, but what is the end effect? Certainly Dmitry's goal was not to help Adobe improve their product, but what he did was much more helpful to Adobe than if someone wrote a freeware app that did the same thing and was universally distributed.
Prosecutors are IGNORANT if they think that arresting someone will prevent what they were doing from getting done. I mean, look at the f*cking war on drugs, drugs are at their lowest prices since the 70s, and anybody can get anything they want any time.
The issue here shouldn't be did Dmitry do something illegal (of course he did), the real issue should be how arresting him will affect American interest.
The box model is more of huge glaring core part of CSS rather than a fine point. Maybe IE6 now has it right, but the beta didn't, and there is no fix for this other than detecting and loading separate stylesheets for different browsers.
There is also an obnoxious discrepency in css list margins that requires separate stylesheets for different browsers.
Re:It is fast. But it Can't render worth anything.
on
Mozilla 0.9.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Please post a link to the page(s) you are talking about. As far as I have been able to tell, Mozilla follows W3C specs to the letter. It even allows for old incorrect table designs hacked to work with IE and NS4 IF YOUR DOCTYPE is TRANSITIONAL and not STRICT.
The fact that people view IE rendering as an example of what should work how is very sad, and thank god Mozilla will at least force MS to adopt some level of standard's compliance.
The CSS box-model is of core importance to CSS compatibility, when it's incorrect as it was in IE 5, 5.5 and 6 beta (but not in MAC IE 5) then you need to load separate stylesheets to get the standard effect in different browsers.
I haven't been following this too closely, but does IE6 support the correct box model now?
Our court system is simply too inefficient to deal with big technology firms. Market conditions don't stay the same for 3 months, let alone the years it takes to resolve big cases like this. By the time any final sanctions are made, the underlying issue is no longer applicable.
Is anyone else getting sick of the damn 'i's? I mean, the iMac was a novel name, but since then it has just gotten ridiculous. Not that I don't want one of these, but pick a better name, like:
oPaq
yPaq
aPaq
omniPaq
godPaq
powerPaq
ruthlessPaq
etc.
Re:Doesn't this help to validate Microsoft?
on
DotGNU and Mono Continue
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, but Microsoft's strategy here was perfect, because they know it's too much of a gamble for the open source community NOT to make an open source version of.net technology.
Certainly if we did nothing Microsoft would have to work that much harder to gain universal acceptance of.NET, but if we have an open source alternative at least nobody has to be under the iron grip of MS. That's not too high a price to pay to avoid MS dominance even if it plays into their hands to an extent.
I really don't get why there's such a community uproar over link-insertion--either this, or IE's Smart Tags. The whole friggin' interweb was founded on the idea of the hyperlink--that you click on a term, and it takes you to other like terms.
The problem is that you stick an ad in a trusted content provider's web page, and the non-geeks think the link is part of that page, and hence has something to do with what they're looking at.
With the vast amounts of crap on the Internet, good sites that provide good links are even more valuable. Supporting this kind content modification by random companies means that you can no longer control what you publish. You can't design a well thought out navigation system that helps the user find what they need, because it's fouled up by algorithm driven links that waste the users time, and ultimately may lead them to believe that the site in question is just trying to make money off adds when they actually may be providing quality, free information.
This is insidious technology which we obviously don't want on our systems, but even if law makers decide to do something about this type of aggressive advertising, what kind of legislation would adequately (and morally) address the issue.
It seems pretty obvious that inserting your own advertising links into other peoples web pages is wrong, but manipulating data is what computers are all about. Should a browser-maker have charges brought against them because they render certain pages incorrectly, thus defaming the page author?
Like I said, blatant ad links is obviously BAD, but where can the line practically be drawn?
Oh yeah, there's no doubt about what you're saying. But TV shows aren't expected to last forever, and X-files would have made an excellent 3-4 year serial provided that eventually ENDED.
Hell, if they had done that, then a spinoff like the Lone Gunmen actually might have succeeded. Look at Frasier (I never expected that show to go anywhere).
I think X-files could survive without Mulder and Scully, but it has other problems. Mainly that the story has nowhere to go but down.
I really liked the show up until the movie, but the season after that, you start to realize that the story can no longer progress towards anything. They just keep shuffling things around and drumming up more drama Soap-opera-style.
They can't get new viewers now, and they've lost huge chunks of their old faithful viewers. The only people who continue to watch are only hooked because of past intrigue.
Hm, I'm actually South American, but point well taken. I don't know much about the cell-phone industry, as was painfully obvious from my post, but you didn't comment on my main point about the strengths and benefits not transfering to this market very easily.
Do you think OSS for cells can make a positive influence for consumers in the current market?
How will this work with current technology? The idea of open source software doesn't seem to mean much in the arena of cell phones where the hardware is more or less directly tied to the service provider.
OSS is awesome, but what is the benefit to consumers unless they can load their own software into their cellphone. It will be interesting to see where companies go with this, because it seems to me business models would have to change.
At any rate, I'm glad that OSS is trying to get a foothold in this market early.
MS has always been known for its brilliant marketing tactics, but recently they haven't seemed so smart somehow.
This whole BSA thing seems like a desperate attempt to squeeze the market for every penny it can get in the short term at the expense of longterm PR. Are they hoping that once the tech economy bounces back they won't have to worry about negative fallout from past blood-sucking tactics?
They look scared to me...
So if there is a flaw in a security system, it should be illegal to point it out in the hopes that no one else will discover it? That, my friend, is exceptionally ignorant.
Your analogy is also quite un-analagous as well, as Sklyarov didn't steal anything, he just wrote a software that modifies a PDF file. It's not like a redistribution of Acrobat or something.
While the point COULD be made that distributing software to bypass security is illegal, it's not illegal under the jurisdiction where he did it.
Arresting these people will only force them underground, where they will still be able to do all these things, but the general public will operate under the assumption that their precious IP is secure. So feel free to go bury your head in the sand with Adobe, but don't come cryin to the geeks when your security is cracked by some 15 year old with barely enough technical know-how to log in to irc.
Yes, but semantics are very important when you're talking about government PR. This sounds much more reasonable than the impression you get from the/. story.
I've had the same address for 7 years, and my spam has increased very slowly. I get 5-10 spams a day now, but my co-worker who's email is less than a year old gets 15+ spams a day.
This validates the articles premise that just having your email on a website doesn't generate too much spam (because mailto: URLs are mostly where my email is available).
I have been considering moving to a new email address and keeping it top secret, but so many people only have that one contact for me, so I'd have to keep checking it anyway.
Isn't there an email client that can filter out mail from open relays? All the solutions I've seen are for mail servers, but I don't have access to my mail server.
Well Pi is defined as a constant that relates diameter to circumference in a circle. Using this relationship it is relatively easy to derive a formula for Pi. It is proven in the standard mathematical faction. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but I remember using Newton's method to calculate digits of Pi.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is interesting, although obviously the Internet has killer apps the likes of which CB could never see.
I think business bitching and moaning is quite amusing as I (and most of you I'm sure) spent a lot of time ridiculing so many of those early Internet startups for trying to make money of something that is of no value to anyone.
Internet usage may be shrinking now, but it will certainly start to grow again. It is a very powerful tool, and now that the novelty factor has worn off, people can actually start to use it to it's full extent. It will grow much more slowly now, but the quality of applications will be 100 times higher.
I think the idea is that smart nodes can filter the traffic. At best this would mean fast loads for company information that was paid for, and slow loads for old school free content. At worst they could drop any unpaid packet.
end = era
I don't think it's a safe assumption that the Internet is not a money-maker and that it fundamentally wants to be free. Certainly we would all like to stick with our traditional Internet values, and enjoy a free and giving 'net.
Everything that the free Internet does and facilitates is in direct contradiction with our economic ideologies (at least in the US). The rapid rate of technological innovation has our traditional capitalism busting at the seams. The only thing that holds it together is the massive power of corporations working with legislators to promote huge amounts of new legislation that protect companies' rights to make money for anything.
While this country's ideologies were based on personal freedom, and the separation of church and state, I think that those values are not enough in today's society.
I think a new world leader is likely to emerge in the centuries ahead with ideologies based on the separation of state and business. Think about it, the free market is a wonderful ECONOMIC tool. It provides unequaled productivity and efficiency. However, it does NOTHING for GOVERNMENT. The government should be there to set down the ground rules, things like environmental protections, and anti-trust laws.
Corporations as citizens is an alarming concept. It promotes the idea that business has the RIGHT to make as much money as possible. That is utter BS... the free market should dictate how much money can be made, and the government should dictate how far companies can go to sell their products.
The Internet is a reflection of people's needs to be free and have a realm of expression outside the control of big business. Let companies do what they will to squeeze every cent of profitability out of the Internet. I think the end of American greed-based capitalism is on the wane.
Probably because document.all has a big effect on writing dHTML, and by following standards eventually we can hopefully write dHTML scripts only once someday, whereas if they support IEisms the standard may never be adopted by developers. The nested tag issue makes for ugly code, but supporting it isn't going to penalize people who do it the right way.
Actually I think the article has a lot of good points, it acknowledges many of the key arguments as to why he should be freed and presents reasonable counter-arguments. What it doesn't do however, is actually give reasons why Dmitry SHOULD be arrested.
The fact that he broke the law isn't quite enough, IMHO. It is sufficient JUSTIFICATION to arrest him, but what is the end effect? Certainly Dmitry's goal was not to help Adobe improve their product, but what he did was much more helpful to Adobe than if someone wrote a freeware app that did the same thing and was universally distributed.
Prosecutors are IGNORANT if they think that arresting someone will prevent what they were doing from getting done. I mean, look at the f*cking war on drugs, drugs are at their lowest prices since the 70s, and anybody can get anything they want any time.
The issue here shouldn't be did Dmitry do something illegal (of course he did), the real issue should be how arresting him will affect American interest.
The box model is more of huge glaring core part of CSS rather than a fine point. Maybe IE6 now has it right, but the beta didn't, and there is no fix for this other than detecting and loading separate stylesheets for different browsers.
There is also an obnoxious discrepency in css list margins that requires separate stylesheets for different browsers.
Please post a link to the page(s) you are talking about. As far as I have been able to tell, Mozilla follows W3C specs to the letter. It even allows for old incorrect table designs hacked to work with IE and NS4 IF YOUR DOCTYPE is TRANSITIONAL and not STRICT.
The fact that people view IE rendering as an example of what should work how is very sad, and thank god Mozilla will at least force MS to adopt some level of standard's compliance.
The CSS box-model is of core importance to CSS compatibility, when it's incorrect as it was in IE 5, 5.5 and 6 beta (but not in MAC IE 5) then you need to load separate stylesheets to get the standard effect in different browsers. I haven't been following this too closely, but does IE6 support the correct box model now?
Our court system is simply too inefficient to deal with big technology firms. Market conditions don't stay the same for 3 months, let alone the years it takes to resolve big cases like this. By the time any final sanctions are made, the underlying issue is no longer applicable.
Yes, you are right, e would be worse than i.
Is anyone else getting sick of the damn 'i's? I mean, the iMac was a novel name, but since then it has just gotten ridiculous. Not that I don't want one of these, but pick a better name, like:
oPaq
yPaq
aPaq
omniPaq
godPaq
powerPaq
ruthlessPaq
etc.
Yes, but Microsoft's strategy here was perfect, because they know it's too much of a gamble for the open source community NOT to make an open source version of .net technology.
Certainly if we did nothing Microsoft would have to work that much harder to gain universal acceptance of .NET, but if we have an open source alternative at least nobody has to be under the iron grip of MS. That's not too high a price to pay to avoid MS dominance even if it plays into their hands to an extent.
Heh, the other day a cable sales guy came to our house and was like "We know you're stealing cable, would you like to subscribe now at reduced rates?"
:)
More companies should offer this kind of piracy discount, I think it'd be a great sell
The problem is that you stick an ad in a trusted content provider's web page, and the non-geeks think the link is part of that page, and hence has something to do with what they're looking at.
With the vast amounts of crap on the Internet, good sites that provide good links are even more valuable. Supporting this kind content modification by random companies means that you can no longer control what you publish. You can't design a well thought out navigation system that helps the user find what they need, because it's fouled up by algorithm driven links that waste the users time, and ultimately may lead them to believe that the site in question is just trying to make money off adds when they actually may be providing quality, free information.
This is insidious technology which we obviously don't want on our systems, but even if law makers decide to do something about this type of aggressive advertising, what kind of legislation would adequately (and morally) address the issue.
It seems pretty obvious that inserting your own advertising links into other peoples web pages is wrong, but manipulating data is what computers are all about. Should a browser-maker have charges brought against them because they render certain pages incorrectly, thus defaming the page author?
Like I said, blatant ad links is obviously BAD, but where can the line practically be drawn?
Oh yeah, there's no doubt about what you're saying. But TV shows aren't expected to last forever, and X-files would have made an excellent 3-4 year serial provided that eventually ENDED.
Hell, if they had done that, then a spinoff like the Lone Gunmen actually might have succeeded. Look at Frasier (I never expected that show to go anywhere).
I think X-files could survive without Mulder and Scully, but it has other problems. Mainly that the story has nowhere to go but down.
I really liked the show up until the movie, but the season after that, you start to realize that the story can no longer progress towards anything. They just keep shuffling things around and drumming up more drama Soap-opera-style.
They can't get new viewers now, and they've lost huge chunks of their old faithful viewers. The only people who continue to watch are only hooked because of past intrigue.
Hm, I'm actually South American, but point well taken. I don't know much about the cell-phone industry, as was painfully obvious from my post, but you didn't comment on my main point about the strengths and benefits not transfering to this market very easily. Do you think OSS for cells can make a positive influence for consumers in the current market?
How will this work with current technology? The idea of open source software doesn't seem to mean much in the arena of cell phones where the hardware is more or less directly tied to the service provider. OSS is awesome, but what is the benefit to consumers unless they can load their own software into their cellphone. It will be interesting to see where companies go with this, because it seems to me business models would have to change. At any rate, I'm glad that OSS is trying to get a foothold in this market early.
MS has always been known for its brilliant marketing tactics, but recently they haven't seemed so smart somehow. This whole BSA thing seems like a desperate attempt to squeeze the market for every penny it can get in the short term at the expense of longterm PR. Are they hoping that once the tech economy bounces back they won't have to worry about negative fallout from past blood-sucking tactics? They look scared to me...
So if there is a flaw in a security system, it should be illegal to point it out in the hopes that no one else will discover it? That, my friend, is exceptionally ignorant. Your analogy is also quite un-analagous as well, as Sklyarov didn't steal anything, he just wrote a software that modifies a PDF file. It's not like a redistribution of Acrobat or something. While the point COULD be made that distributing software to bypass security is illegal, it's not illegal under the jurisdiction where he did it. Arresting these people will only force them underground, where they will still be able to do all these things, but the general public will operate under the assumption that their precious IP is secure. So feel free to go bury your head in the sand with Adobe, but don't come cryin to the geeks when your security is cracked by some 15 year old with barely enough technical know-how to log in to irc.
Yes, but semantics are very important when you're talking about government PR. This sounds much more reasonable than the impression you get from the /. story.
I've had the same address for 7 years, and my spam has increased very slowly. I get 5-10 spams a day now, but my co-worker who's email is less than a year old gets 15+ spams a day.
This validates the articles premise that just having your email on a website doesn't generate too much spam (because mailto: URLs are mostly where my email is available).
I have been considering moving to a new email address and keeping it top secret, but so many people only have that one contact for me, so I'd have to keep checking it anyway.
Isn't there an email client that can filter out mail from open relays? All the solutions I've seen are for mail servers, but I don't have access to my mail server.
Well Pi is defined as a constant that relates diameter to circumference in a circle. Using this relationship it is relatively easy to derive a formula for Pi. It is proven in the standard mathematical faction. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but I remember using Newton's method to calculate digits of Pi.