But Sega says that Phantasy Star Online has a player base of 300,000. That rivals Everquest and Ultima Online in size. I would imagine the manufacturer of this control to be very pleased is they can sell this thing to a quarter million or more people.
I don't think this is going to stop companies from releasing software that has bugs in it.
I do believe that market rejection could place tremendous pressure on software vendors to put more effort into bug-testing their product thoroughly before it is used by the client. But bug-testing is a time and resource consuming affair. No software company, no matter how big and fat with cash can throw enough money at a product to make sure that every possible scenario is covered. It is only a matter of time before a bug (perhaps even a significant, critical one) is found.
But still, I appluad the efforts of anyone who is willing to tell their software vendor(s) to try harder to get it right. I sincerely hope this strategy will convince the software vendors that purposefully release broken products to stop assuming we'll upgrade when you release the "professional-special-app-of-the-year-gold-box" edition of the software just because this version fixes that nasty, data-ruining bug in the last version.
I think it's worth noting, though, that only one thing can truly lead to the elimination (or near-elimination) of software bugs: developing for a limited number of platforms/OSes. The more OS/hardware possibilities you bring into the picture, the more bugs you'll have. Guaranteed.
Of course, similar arguments could (and should) be a applied to the PC games industry, but that's another debate.:)
I once wrote my state representative with my concerns about a recent commercial expansion in my area. The traffic was becoming more than a small problem, as people were becoming increasingly gridlocked and late for work and school buses couldn't get to their stops in time to get local children to school in time for their first class. The increasing number of people shopping in the area also brought more crime, as parking lot stick-ups became frighteningly more frequent and carjackings happened in the area for the first time.
A few days later I got a letter thanking me for my concern and assuring me that my representative was co-operating with other representatives to get new road projects going in the area and limit further large-scale commercialization (re: shopping centers) in the area. I was more or less pleased with this reply.
Imagine my surprise when a few days after that I got another letter thanking me for supporting my representative's co-operation with business leaders who wanted to expand to our area. The letter went on to promise that my representative would push for more commercial zoning, promising an influx of new jobs to my area.
in making cyberspace fall under the jurisdiction of federal law alone. It kind of makes sense in a way, if the "location" spans states and the state governments themselves can't agree who should be enforcing what laws, perhaps it's up to the federal government. Of course, then you get into international issues, like off-shore gambling, participating in illegal activities via the 'net overseas. Will the 'net then fall under U.N. jurisdiction? What about countries not in the U.N.?
Back to the subject at hand: I would think states would want it both ways here. Make it so that they can legitimately tax sales online (ignoring current interstate sales laws), without having to go to the trouble of enforcing criminal laws of the Internet themselves.
Feh...I could be wrong.:)
Heeeeeyyyy....a new IBM machine....
on
IBM Launches p690
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First off...from IBM's site:
Self-healing architecture -- Built with technology from IBM's Project eLiza initiative, the p690 is the industry's only UNIX server that offers multiple layers of self-healing technologies that allow the server to continue operating, even through major failures and system errors.
Gaaah! I blew a hole through p690! But wait...it's...healing itself!:)
On a more serious note...which marketing direction is IBM taking on these things? I'm sure they're trying to sell at least some of their existing customers on these and keeping those customers on whatever OS they were running (AIX most likely). But for the new customers, are they pushing AIX harder than Linux? Are they actually pitching any Linux conversions to their existing AIX customers?
Yes, you have a point there. I'm not familiar enough with Australian trademark law to say that their laws work the exact same way, but I'm sure they are at least similar.
I suppose I'd have to be more educated as that what Yahoo!'s trademark covers before I can make an opinion as to whether or not Yahoo Serious has a shot in hell of winning a legal battle. Assuming this isn't just a publicity stunt, I'd hope his lawyers have informed him of such specifics. If that's true, then I'd guess that Yahoo!'s trademark extends to the entertainment markets.
(I just know I'm going to get flamed for this statement) Just from reading the posts so far, I think a lot of people are missing the point.
Yahoo!'s trademark gives them the necessary leverage needed to keep others from associating their name with products/services/activities/etc that have nothing to do with Yahoo!. As a result, Yahoo Serious (who apparently still has a career in Australia) runs the risk of legal troubles if he uses his legal first name to promote his movies. Imagine him making a movie that has a corresponding movie poster with wording like "Yahoo Presents...[movie title]" or a title like (in class Earnest fashion) "Yahoo Goes To The Outback." Yahoo! could, if they so desired, sue Yahoo Serious (or, more likely, whatever production company made the film) for trademark violations, since their trademarked name was used in the promotion of a product they had nothing to do with.
To put a spin on an anology someone else used on this subject, having the name Scott does not, indeed, give you the right to own scott.com. But if Scott Tissue got a trademark on the name "Scott", they could possibly sue you for making a homepage titled "Scott's Web Site", simply on the implication that Scott Tissue might be associated with the site due to the use of a trademarked name.
I still think Yahoo Serious will lose this legal battle, but it still kind of stinks that companies can trademark such phrases (instead of something a bit more obvious, like a logo).
I think this will probably wind up being one of those seldom-enforced laws created for simply placating (sp?) the public. Imagine for a moment that you are an ISP and the courts of this country suddenly ruled (legislation by judicial action, but that's another story;) ) that it's your responsibility to verify age before allowing the user to see questionable content. How would you keep up? How could you keep up? Porn sites are popping up and disappearing all the time.
I think these kinds of decisions are simply half-assed efforts at shutting up the complaining and (rightfully so) concerned parents and advocates. While I do believe that it's important that only adults have access to pornography, I firmly believe this decision would change little or nothing in terms of solving the problem of exposing underage viewers to porn on the 'net.
Google is great for many of the same reasons that Yahoo was great (and still, more or less, is great). Early search engines all used the same ranking scheme (if they ranked sites at all). The more often a term appeared in a page's META tags or body, the more relevant the page must be. This was quickly taken advantage of by web page creators.
Yahoo might not have been the first to deviate from the traditional search engine, but they were the first raging success at it. Web surfers quickly learned that searching Yahoo's directory yielded more relevant results because the sights were screened beforehand to make sure the sites contained what the site creators said the sites contained. But soon the directory became bloated, many sites simply went away causing broken links, site creators all began their site titles with "A" just to push up to the top of the alphabetical listing and corporations trumped them all by paying for top billing.
Enter Google. The ranking algorithm works something like this: A site is crawled and it's contents indexed. A check is made in Google's existing directory to see if any other sites point to the currently crawled site. If there are many sites pointing to the current site, then obviously the current site has some importance and deserves and higher ranking. If one of the "big sites" (i.e. AOL, MSN, etc) link to a site, it must be really important. I believe there are other factors involved but I can't remember them at the moment.
Google's ranking system provides the most relevant search results of all the current search engines. As a bonus, it doesn't try and clutter the interface with unneccessary "portal" features or too much blatant advertising. Fast, powerful and smart. That's why it rocks.
As I read about this same story in this month's issue of PC Gamer I thought the coolest part was that Peroxide got permission to re-create Ultima I by simply calling up Richard Garriot and asking his permission. The only stipulation he placed on it was that Peroxide couldn't sell it.
I'd love to see some of those classic games make come backs with updated technology. Many of the early computer games (especially RPGs) had to have depth and imagination to make up for the lack of presentation.
*sigh* Still waiting for a decent remake of Pirates.
While the technology itself seems absolutely fantastic, it's current state leaves me with some questions...
How much does one of the fabricators cost? How long do the polycarbonate material parts hold up? Does it cost less to create X number of polycarbonate material replacement parts over a year than it does Y number of aluminum (or whatever material is traditionally used) parts over the same year?
I remember the first time I saw rapid 3d prototyping devices like this: a television show (probably on The Discovery Channel) a few years back that showed a tour of a Tupperware facility. Tupperware was using a CAD tool in cooperation with a special plastic molding device to make prototypes for new containers. My immediate reaction was that someone would eventually use tools like this for quickly creating temporary replacement parts. Glad to see I was right about something for once. *laugh*
and modified even less (when it comes to open-source projects, at least). But I can say that one of the following reasons is always involved when I spend time or effort on developing or using free, open-source software.
- I like having an alternative. Where do I go if I'm not happy with Microsoft's OS and there are no alternatives?
- I like using high-quality products. But I can't always afford them. Adobe Photoshop is a prime example. I get to use it at work a bit, and I love it. But I really don't want to pirate it or use it illegally, so at home I use GIMP, which is an incredible piece of software.
- I want progress in software. If everyone locked everything down and never shared any innovations, software would evolve about as fast as humans have (no offense, Creationists).
- I want interoperability. All this openess means open standards. Open standards mean easier interoperability between software systems. Easier, more painless migrations from one OS or software package to another. Smarter software systems that can "talk" to each other easily.
Let's say the Freds and Bobs are at war for resources, we'll say...farmlands. Can't do either of them much good to use their weapons of mass destruction, because said weapons also destroy the land.
I suppose this is just part of having limited space with which to work. You can't just scorch the earth while you slay your enemies, or else you'll be left with nothing but unusable burnt dirt.
Usually, my parts wind up going into the boxes owned by various family members. Between me and my mother (who's a Everquest fanatic), the upgrades happen fairly frequently which leaves plenty of spare parts to put in machines for my sister, my young neice and the computers my father uses as point-of-sale systems at his business.
Be nice and see if any of your younger family members could use something that would at least allow them to have 'net access and do word processing. After that, check into donating a working machine (c'mon don't just give them parts) to a local library or school. You may even want to see if there is an after-school activity facility in your area that will take your donation.
If you're just looking to do something with those parts, put them back together, fire it up and get hooked up with the SETI At Home (I don't remember the correct acronym) project, which decodes signals from space using your computer's idle time. Or build a MAME arcade machine. Or generate fractals. The possibilities are endless.
of whatever it is you are turning into a game. Flight sims, for instance, have very complex interfaces because of the complexity involved with making a flight sim realistic. Many RPGs have complex interfaces because of the depth the game designers tried to pack into the game. Action games, by nature, are meant to be simplistic and visceral. Hence, the interface for playing Unreal Tournament or Quake III is pretty straightforward and doesn't distract much from the excitement of the game play. So you can't just assume an interface is bad just because it's complex.
But most of all, I think the majority of games are aimed at younger adults and children, so the interfaces must be simple, else the game becomes frustrating and the exact opposite of what is desireable in a game: not fun. And don't forget that a game is usually limited in scope, so the interface is specific to the presentation of that game. Creating a friendly, intuitive UI for a multi-purpose OS is more difficult that it sounds.
Truth be told, though, I think today's desktop environments have pretty good interfaces. It might just be my being used to this style of interface, but I feel like I transition between Windows machines, Macs, X and KDE pretty well. We might not be at the epitome of user-friendly UI yet, but I don't think it's that bad.
All jokes aside, you know a piece of technology has become a cultural phenomenon when some person (or people) take the time to create it's likeness in a statue of butter.
Wow...score one more HUGE client for IBM.
on
NYSE Goes To Linux
·
· Score: 2, Funny
By the way, this wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the semi-recent stock market crashes, reportedly due to NT? What was the final say on that stuff? Was it really NT?
Is the NSA responsible for figuring out the best ways to lock down whatever OS's the various government agencies of the U.S. use? Reason I'm asking is because seems like recently (or kinda-recently) there was an article here on/. with a link to the NSA's guidelines for securing Win2k. I'm sure the NSA has reasons that I don't even want to know about for running both their own build of Linux and a tightened-up install of Win2k, but I'm just curious as to the extent of their influence on other agencies' software choices.
Do other agencies just follow along with the guidelines the NSA sets forth, try to get independent advice or go it alone? Financially, at least, it would seem like going with the NSA's guidelines would be the way, since the information is more or less public (at least it is in these two instances) and there wouldn't be any time or money spent on third-party tripe (bids, negotiations, etc) or independent research.
but I'm not sharing my connection with anyone until I can be almost 100% sure those who are using the connection aren't just using it for warez, mp3s and porn.
Currently I'm involved with a system proposal for a local civil court system. The records of a civil case are public, and the court clerk's office will allow anyone to walk off the street and read the contents of any filed case. But their plan for a web-based database of case information dictates that accessing the data via the web will cost money. Their primary justification for this plan is that they can't justify the increase in budget necessary to accomodate bandwidth/maintenance charges. They also argue that making the information available via the Internet is not mandated by state law, so the public does not have the right to access the information via the web. It would only be a privilege of those who pay for it.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I guess that they court clerk's office doesn't have to do anything that isn't in the law, so, in my opinion, the law should be changed to provide such a mandate (and, consequently, state funds for providing such access). I can live with part of my tax dollars going to make this information available on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
But Sega says that Phantasy Star Online has a player base of 300,000. That rivals Everquest and Ultima Online in size. I would imagine the manufacturer of this control to be very pleased is they can sell this thing to a quarter million or more people.
I don't think this is going to stop companies from releasing software that has bugs in it.
:)
I do believe that market rejection could place tremendous pressure on software vendors to put more effort into bug-testing their product thoroughly before it is used by the client. But bug-testing is a time and resource consuming affair. No software company, no matter how big and fat with cash can throw enough money at a product to make sure that every possible scenario is covered. It is only a matter of time before a bug (perhaps even a significant, critical one) is found.
But still, I appluad the efforts of anyone who is willing to tell their software vendor(s) to try harder to get it right. I sincerely hope this strategy will convince the software vendors that purposefully release broken products to stop assuming we'll upgrade when you release the "professional-special-app-of-the-year-gold-box" edition of the software just because this version fixes that nasty, data-ruining bug in the last version.
I think it's worth noting, though, that only one thing can truly lead to the elimination (or near-elimination) of software bugs: developing for a limited number of platforms/OSes. The more OS/hardware possibilities you bring into the picture, the more bugs you'll have. Guaranteed.
Of course, similar arguments could (and should) be a applied to the PC games industry, but that's another debate.
Sorry, no. They've been retired to the garbage can.
I once wrote my state representative with my concerns about a recent commercial expansion in my area. The traffic was becoming more than a small problem, as people were becoming increasingly gridlocked and late for work and school buses couldn't get to their stops in time to get local children to school in time for their first class. The increasing number of people shopping in the area also brought more crime, as parking lot stick-ups became frighteningly more frequent and carjackings happened in the area for the first time.
A few days later I got a letter thanking me for my concern and assuring me that my representative was co-operating with other representatives to get new road projects going in the area and limit further large-scale commercialization (re: shopping centers) in the area. I was more or less pleased with this reply.
Imagine my surprise when a few days after that I got another letter thanking me for supporting my representative's co-operation with business leaders who wanted to expand to our area. The letter went on to promise that my representative would push for more commercial zoning, promising an influx of new jobs to my area.
*sigh*
This...isn't...Linux News?
Coulda sworn....*grumble*
(ducks behind asbestos wall)
in making cyberspace fall under the jurisdiction of federal law alone. It kind of makes sense in a way, if the "location" spans states and the state governments themselves can't agree who should be enforcing what laws, perhaps it's up to the federal government. Of course, then you get into international issues, like off-shore gambling, participating in illegal activities via the 'net overseas. Will the 'net then fall under U.N. jurisdiction? What about countries not in the U.N.?
:)
Back to the subject at hand: I would think states would want it both ways here. Make it so that they can legitimately tax sales online (ignoring current interstate sales laws), without having to go to the trouble of enforcing criminal laws of the Internet themselves.
Feh...I could be wrong.
First off...from IBM's site:
:)
Self-healing architecture -- Built with technology from IBM's Project eLiza initiative, the p690 is the industry's only UNIX server that offers multiple layers of self-healing technologies that allow the server to continue operating, even through major failures and system errors.
Gaaah! I blew a hole through p690! But wait...it's...healing itself!
On a more serious note...which marketing direction is IBM taking on these things? I'm sure they're trying to sell at least some of their existing customers on these and keeping those customers on whatever OS they were running (AIX most likely). But for the new customers, are they pushing AIX harder than Linux? Are they actually pitching any Linux conversions to their existing AIX customers?
Yes, you have a point there. I'm not familiar enough with Australian trademark law to say that their laws work the exact same way, but I'm sure they are at least similar.
I suppose I'd have to be more educated as that what Yahoo!'s trademark covers before I can make an opinion as to whether or not Yahoo Serious has a shot in hell of winning a legal battle. Assuming this isn't just a publicity stunt, I'd hope his lawyers have informed him of such specifics. If that's true, then I'd guess that Yahoo!'s trademark extends to the entertainment markets.
(I just know I'm going to get flamed for this statement) Just from reading the posts so far, I think a lot of people are missing the point.
Yahoo!'s trademark gives them the necessary leverage needed to keep others from associating their name with products/services/activities/etc that have nothing to do with Yahoo!. As a result, Yahoo Serious (who apparently still has a career in Australia) runs the risk of legal troubles if he uses his legal first name to promote his movies. Imagine him making a movie that has a corresponding movie poster with wording like "Yahoo Presents...[movie title]" or a title like (in class Earnest fashion) "Yahoo Goes To The Outback." Yahoo! could, if they so desired, sue Yahoo Serious (or, more likely, whatever production company made the film) for trademark violations, since their trademarked name was used in the promotion of a product they had nothing to do with.
To put a spin on an anology someone else used on this subject, having the name Scott does not, indeed, give you the right to own scott.com. But if Scott Tissue got a trademark on the name "Scott", they could possibly sue you for making a homepage titled "Scott's Web Site", simply on the implication that Scott Tissue might be associated with the site due to the use of a trademarked name.
I still think Yahoo Serious will lose this legal battle, but it still kind of stinks that companies can trademark such phrases (instead of something a bit more obvious, like a logo).
I think this will probably wind up being one of those seldom-enforced laws created for simply placating (sp?) the public. Imagine for a moment that you are an ISP and the courts of this country suddenly ruled (legislation by judicial action, but that's another story ;) ) that it's your responsibility to verify age before allowing the user to see questionable content. How would you keep up? How could you keep up? Porn sites are popping up and disappearing all the time.
I think these kinds of decisions are simply half-assed efforts at shutting up the complaining and (rightfully so) concerned parents and advocates. While I do believe that it's important that only adults have access to pornography, I firmly believe this decision would change little or nothing in terms of solving the problem of exposing underage viewers to porn on the 'net.
Didn't Chrysler vow to have a fuel-cell-powered car in production by the mid 2000's? Any information on how that project is progressing?
And it's all about relevant results.
Google is great for many of the same reasons that Yahoo was great (and still, more or less, is great). Early search engines all used the same ranking scheme (if they ranked sites at all). The more often a term appeared in a page's META tags or body, the more relevant the page must be. This was quickly taken advantage of by web page creators.
Yahoo might not have been the first to deviate from the traditional search engine, but they were the first raging success at it. Web surfers quickly learned that searching Yahoo's directory yielded more relevant results because the sights were screened beforehand to make sure the sites contained what the site creators said the sites contained. But soon the directory became bloated, many sites simply went away causing broken links, site creators all began their site titles with "A" just to push up to the top of the alphabetical listing and corporations trumped them all by paying for top billing.
Enter Google. The ranking algorithm works something like this: A site is crawled and it's contents indexed. A check is made in Google's existing directory to see if any other sites point to the currently crawled site. If there are many sites pointing to the current site, then obviously the current site has some importance and deserves and higher ranking. If one of the "big sites" (i.e. AOL, MSN, etc) link to a site, it must be really important. I believe there are other factors involved but I can't remember them at the moment.
Google's ranking system provides the most relevant search results of all the current search engines. As a bonus, it doesn't try and clutter the interface with unneccessary "portal" features or too much blatant advertising. Fast, powerful and smart. That's why it rocks.
As I read about this same story in this month's issue of PC Gamer I thought the coolest part was that Peroxide got permission to re-create Ultima I by simply calling up Richard Garriot and asking his permission. The only stipulation he placed on it was that Peroxide couldn't sell it.
I'd love to see some of those classic games make come backs with updated technology. Many of the early computer games (especially RPGs) had to have depth and imagination to make up for the lack of presentation.
*sigh* Still waiting for a decent remake of Pirates.
While the technology itself seems absolutely fantastic, it's current state leaves me with some questions...
How much does one of the fabricators cost? How long do the polycarbonate material parts hold up? Does it cost less to create X number of polycarbonate material replacement parts over a year than it does Y number of aluminum (or whatever material is traditionally used) parts over the same year?
I remember the first time I saw rapid 3d prototyping devices like this: a television show (probably on The Discovery Channel) a few years back that showed a tour of a Tupperware facility. Tupperware was using a CAD tool in cooperation with a special plastic molding device to make prototypes for new containers. My immediate reaction was that someone would eventually use tools like this for quickly creating temporary replacement parts. Glad to see I was right about something for once. *laugh*
and modified even less (when it comes to open-source projects, at least). But I can say that one of the following reasons is always involved when I spend time or effort on developing or using free, open-source software.
- I like having an alternative. Where do I go if I'm not happy with Microsoft's OS and there are no alternatives?
- I like using high-quality products. But I can't always afford them. Adobe Photoshop is a prime example. I get to use it at work a bit, and I love it. But I really don't want to pirate it or use it illegally, so at home I use GIMP, which is an incredible piece of software.
- I want progress in software. If everyone locked everything down and never shared any innovations, software would evolve about as fast as humans have (no offense, Creationists).
- I want interoperability. All this openess means open standards. Open standards mean easier interoperability between software systems. Easier, more painless migrations from one OS or software package to another. Smarter software systems that can "talk" to each other easily.
Eh, just my opinions.
Let's say the Freds and Bobs are at war for resources, we'll say...farmlands. Can't do either of them much good to use their weapons of mass destruction, because said weapons also destroy the land.
I suppose this is just part of having limited space with which to work. You can't just scorch the earth while you slay your enemies, or else you'll be left with nothing but unusable burnt dirt.
Usually, my parts wind up going into the boxes owned by various family members. Between me and my mother (who's a Everquest fanatic), the upgrades happen fairly frequently which leaves plenty of spare parts to put in machines for my sister, my young neice and the computers my father uses as point-of-sale systems at his business.
Be nice and see if any of your younger family members could use something that would at least allow them to have 'net access and do word processing. After that, check into donating a working machine (c'mon don't just give them parts) to a local library or school. You may even want to see if there is an after-school activity facility in your area that will take your donation.
If you're just looking to do something with those parts, put them back together, fire it up and get hooked up with the SETI At Home (I don't remember the correct acronym) project, which decodes signals from space using your computer's idle time. Or build a MAME arcade machine. Or generate fractals. The possibilities are endless.
of whatever it is you are turning into a game. Flight sims, for instance, have very complex interfaces because of the complexity involved with making a flight sim realistic. Many RPGs have complex interfaces because of the depth the game designers tried to pack into the game. Action games, by nature, are meant to be simplistic and visceral. Hence, the interface for playing Unreal Tournament or Quake III is pretty straightforward and doesn't distract much from the excitement of the game play. So you can't just assume an interface is bad just because it's complex.
But most of all, I think the majority of games are aimed at younger adults and children, so the interfaces must be simple, else the game becomes frustrating and the exact opposite of what is desireable in a game: not fun. And don't forget that a game is usually limited in scope, so the interface is specific to the presentation of that game. Creating a friendly, intuitive UI for a multi-purpose OS is more difficult that it sounds.
Truth be told, though, I think today's desktop environments have pretty good interfaces. It might just be my being used to this style of interface, but I feel like I transition between Windows machines, Macs, X and KDE pretty well. We might not be at the epitome of user-friendly UI yet, but I don't think it's that bad.
All jokes aside, you know a piece of technology has become a cultural phenomenon when some person (or people) take the time to create it's likeness in a statue of butter.
By the way, this wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the semi-recent stock market crashes, reportedly due to NT? What was the final say on that stuff? Was it really NT?
Is the NSA responsible for figuring out the best ways to lock down whatever OS's the various government agencies of the U.S. use? Reason I'm asking is because seems like recently (or kinda-recently) there was an article here on /. with a link to the NSA's guidelines for securing Win2k. I'm sure the NSA has reasons that I don't even want to know about for running both their own build of Linux and a tightened-up install of Win2k, but I'm just curious as to the extent of their influence on other agencies' software choices.
Do other agencies just follow along with the guidelines the NSA sets forth, try to get independent advice or go it alone? Financially, at least, it would seem like going with the NSA's guidelines would be the way, since the information is more or less public (at least it is in these two instances) and there wouldn't be any time or money spent on third-party tripe (bids, negotiations, etc) or independent research.
but I'm not sharing my connection with anyone until I can be almost 100% sure those who are using the connection aren't just using it for warez, mp3s and porn.
Doesn't the Dreamcast run a specialized verison of WinCE? Won't the XBox? Hmmmmm....boggles the mind....
Currently I'm involved with a system proposal for a local civil court system. The records of a civil case are public, and the court clerk's office will allow anyone to walk off the street and read the contents of any filed case. But their plan for a web-based database of case information dictates that accessing the data via the web will cost money. Their primary justification for this plan is that they can't justify the increase in budget necessary to accomodate bandwidth/maintenance charges. They also argue that making the information available via the Internet is not mandated by state law, so the public does not have the right to access the information via the web. It would only be a privilege of those who pay for it.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I guess that they court clerk's office doesn't have to do anything that isn't in the law, so, in my opinion, the law should be changed to provide such a mandate (and, consequently, state funds for providing such access). I can live with part of my tax dollars going to make this information available on the web.
Thanks. I figured about as much (not about the way the batteries work, just about the progress of them becoming "better"). :)