It is ironic to me that the US insists on fingerprinting green card holding permanent residents and UK citizens who went to Iraq; yet my Canadian fingers, who've never sworn any kind of allegiance to the US, or fought in the desert, get in no sweat. What is with that?
If I ever want to move sekret data over the US border, that absolute last thing I'd think to use was a laptop.
There is this invention called The Internet which lets you move gigs and gigs of data into and out of the USA with excellent public key encryption. You can even store the data encrypted in the US and access it from from your secret pirate island with complete safely no problem.
If only moving drugs around was so easy.
Other then slowing down the border that much more, I can't imagine catching anybody with a clue.
There are hundreds of musicians just giving their music away for free without even trying to charge anybody. It's just that Radiohead has the money, connections and reputation to get people to write about them.
Instead of selling $20CDs to hardcore fans, now they get to sell $80 boxes and still smell of roses. Nifty trick.
I'm not sure it's going to be Apple, but something like this is going to kill cable television networks like Comedy Central, Cartoon, SciFi, etc very soon (3 years).
Channels buy the rights to syndicated repeats and programming made by outside production companies, then sell ads during these programs to make money. It's all very inefficient.
Downloadable television cuts out the network middle man. You can buy content directly from the producers, ad free if they want to offer it that way. In such a world Futurama never would have been canceled.
How this is delivered technically remains to be seen, but I wouldn't buy any Viacom stock.
Choices may be limited in some areas; but that's not because of a government sanctioned monopoly, it's because it's the middle of nowhere. Admittedly, there is a lot of that in Canada.
Traffic shaping is done on local networks by businesses, but it is currently not done by ISPs
Incorrect. In Canada, Roger's (major cable company) does try to traffic shape P2P traffic. Fire up bittorrent without protocol encryption and see. The public largely doesn't notice and Rogers can live without those who do.
Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company.
Incorrect. In Canada last mile telco providers are forced to allow competitors access to their copper and transport that data from their DSLAM back to the competitors NOC. There are dozens of ADSL providers in my city.
Every year of my 30 odd years on Earth has seen me given more access to information then the year before. I am not afraid of Bill, I have more friends then he does.
Your totally right about the reduction in inventive for spammers and that it's a somewhat odd choice for Wikipedia to make.
Why not let search providers be responsible for their own results? It is ultimately their choice how they let links from wikipedia.com domains influence their results, nofollow or otherwise. This is like an admission that the community can't handle the spam and is surrendering; and that won't work anyway.
Some search engines give extra weight to wikipedia links. Wikiseek.com results start with wikipedia pages and works down. They're unlikely to honor nofollow links.
Unless they figure out that the things you call 'thesis' are useful. I do this all the time on del.icio.us.
- Find a page that is likely to be bookmarked by anyone doing academia on web design
- Use the "others who have bookmarked this page" function to get a list of other users who have tagged the URL in question.
- See anybody using the tag 'thesis'? You probably want to see what else they've tagged that way.
If you're lucky, you just saved yourself a butt load of research.
Tags allow people to usefully keep track of thousands of things with almost no cognitive cost. No other system lets you do that. This is why everyones favorites list is a mess.
I find it ironic that Starbucks now widely perceived to be in the same big-bad-bin as McDonald's and Coke. It's the first time I've personally witnessed such a transition.
As usual, it's easy to sympathize with the little guy and easy to attack the big guy. The powerless are innocent, the powerful are guilty.
Starbucks is attains self preservation by way of selling things. Oxfam and IFAT are attain self preservation by way of finding people to attack and making people feel guilty.
At least Starbucks is responsible to the market. If we all stop buying their coffee, they're toast Who are Oxfam and IFAT responsible to?
What type of person does it take to sit down and wonder whether or not they exist, and if they do exist, does the rest of the world exist? A french dude named René.
Do triangles exist? Does PI? Does God?
If free will does exist (because we can comprehend the concept), what are its mechanisms?
"That's a stupid question" is rarely a useful answer.
I agree. The amount of information has increased orders of magnitude but we're certainly not going to lose any *less* information then we did in the past.
Even if something becomes entrapped in a dead format, if somebody wants it enough a way will be found. Humans are clever.
The articles first big example pretty much makes my argument.
The BBC decided to expand The Domesday Book. They stored the new contributions on laser disc. Laser disc died but, "(The multimedia version was ultimately salvaged.)"
It has has been argued that the wikipedia is the end of archeology; worrying that we'll forget how to read is giving too much credit to Nud Ludd.
Web 2.0 is a buzzword largely perpetrated by people who don't understand the technology involved. Arguing over a definition is fairly pointless.
I agree, XMLHttpRequest started the revolution. It allowed your javascript to get new information from a server without reloading the page, all other magic fell into place from there.
I would also lay some of the blame with Gmail and Paul Buchheit showing a lot of people what was possible.
Okay, you got me on some technicalities, as you can tell I don't actually live in the UK, anymore. Had something to do with the British sense of humor I think.... C- is too kind.
Since it's the internet....
Although there is admittedly some regional content, you have no idea the used car sales pitches you are bring spared. There is nothing akin the to US affiliate system in the UK.
I was too lazy to lookup what the top stations actually are. Point about TV tax was what mattered. Most Americans are very surprised that this is how things work across the pond.
BBC One has been going since 1936, 70 years vs. 24. To anyone over 35, that is somewhat new.
You got me on home finance.
The general idea is, well in the US TV advertising is top dog, it has never been as big a deal in the UK. Do you disagree?
It's worth keeping in mind that television in the UK has a very different flavor then in the US. Firstly, the country is geographically smaller, so it's all national. There are no local affiliates. Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.
Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever, they are funded by a per household tv tax. Only somewhat 'new' channels like Four have ads and they are often regarded as somewhat 'tacky'. Maybe I'm missing something, but all I ever seen to see on UK tv is ads for car insurance and ring tones.
Bottom line is a lot less gets spent on TV advertising compared to the US. My benchmark would be, Google owns advertising once movie studios are spending more on google then on tv.
So you're arguing that Web 2.0 style content as no value? The content of the Wikipedia has no value? It's not what people want, or the closet thing to it available? We're going to revert to the old ways now that some tiny cracks have developed? Buy Britannica stock now.
The mechanisms for aggregating user contributions haven't been completely mastered yet, but man, we're not even a couple years into it. The Wikipedia clearly contains useful content available nowhere else, there is something to this jazz.
As I see it, it is not in a competition. This whole battle of philosophies is a distraction. How does anyone suffer by either side succeeding?
Open source does what I want and if it doesn't I'm free to change the situation by contributing my own effort. If I lack the ability, hopefully my needs are common enough that civilization will contribute the effort for me.
With closed source, I can't contribute the solution, but other then that little is changed. If my problem is common enough, there will be money in solving it and the market will likely step up.
Whichever provides the solution to my problem, so be it, as long as the problem is solved.
It's true, if solving my problem requires spending no money and worrying about copyrights, then closed source is unlikely to provide my solution. But that's not a result of ethics or philosophies, just people solving their problems.
I think it's more of a symbiotic relationship. An awful lot of people writing open source are paying their bills writing closed source.
End of the day, I could care less if my mom can ever run an open source desktop. As long as she gets what she needs for a price she can afford, problem solved.
I agree. Generally speaking, people want consistancy. The same process, the same result. To some degree, this goes for the staff too. They just want to know what they should do to keep everyone happy and get paid. There is a fine line before it can becomes Modern Times however.
Personally, I had assumed some degree of this had been going on for years. At least up here in Canada, even fairly small places use a touch screen based system for the staff. A table orders from a server, server touchs into screen, the kitchen reads the order off the monitor and touches when it's ready. Adding small stuff like flashing a table when a server should check if people need more drinks, etc, seems so trivial people must already do it.
"Pearl Jam has a new album coming out. How can we get people to care about this?"
"What is it, 1992? Who cares about Pearl Jam anymore, certainly not MTV and their under 14 demographic"
"We need to get at the old people who still give a toss about that whole dirty grunge business."
"I know, release the video under creative commons on the Internet."
"That's a great idea! The old nerds will all talk about it and watch it when they never would have before. We'll get so much free attention from just the right people and it won't cost a dime."
Slashdot Mirror
It is ironic to me that the US insists on fingerprinting green card holding permanent residents and UK citizens who went to Iraq; yet my Canadian fingers, who've never sworn any kind of allegiance to the US, or fought in the desert, get in no sweat. What is with that?
If I ever want to move sekret data over the US border, that absolute last thing I'd think to use was a laptop.
There is this invention called The Internet which lets you move gigs and gigs of data into and out of the USA with excellent public key encryption. You can even store the data encrypted in the US and access it from from your secret pirate island with complete safely no problem.
If only moving drugs around was so easy.
Other then slowing down the border that much more, I can't imagine catching anybody with a clue.
There are hundreds of musicians just giving their music away for free without even trying to charge anybody. It's just that Radiohead has the money, connections and reputation to get people to write about them.
Instead of selling $20CDs to hardcore fans, now they get to sell $80 boxes and still smell of roses. Nifty trick.
Horay, in just a few more years TV will have moved online and we'll never have to hear about this issue again!
I'm not sure it's going to be Apple, but something like this is going to kill cable television networks like Comedy Central, Cartoon, SciFi, etc very soon (3 years).
Channels buy the rights to syndicated repeats and programming made by outside production companies, then sell ads during these programs to make money. It's all very inefficient.
Downloadable television cuts out the network middle man. You can buy content directly from the producers, ad free if they want to offer it that way. In such a world Futurama never would have been canceled.
How this is delivered technically remains to be seen, but I wouldn't buy any Viacom stock.
Choices may be limited in some areas; but that's not because of a government sanctioned monopoly, it's because it's the middle of nowhere. Admittedly, there is a lot of that in Canada.
Sorry, had to nick pick.
There are quite a few. If you mean George, I have more friends then him too.
Karma: Excellent, at least on slashdot. :)
Every year of my 30 odd years on Earth has seen me given more access to information then the year before. I am not afraid of Bill, I have more friends then he does.
Your totally right about the reduction in inventive for spammers and that it's a somewhat odd choice for Wikipedia to make.
Why not let search providers be responsible for their own results? It is ultimately their choice how they let links from wikipedia.com domains influence their results, nofollow or otherwise. This is like an admission that the community can't handle the spam and is surrendering; and that won't work anyway.
Some search engines give extra weight to wikipedia links. Wikiseek.com results start with wikipedia pages and works down. They're unlikely to honor nofollow links.
Unless they figure out that the things you call 'thesis' are useful.
I do this all the time on del.icio.us.
- Find a page that is likely to be bookmarked by anyone doing academia on web design
- Use the "others who have bookmarked this page" function to get a list of other users
who have tagged the URL in question.
- See anybody using the tag 'thesis'? You probably want to see what else they've tagged that way.
If you're lucky, you just saved yourself a butt load of research.
Tags allow people to usefully keep track of thousands of things with almost no cognitive cost.
No other system lets you do that. This is why everyones favorites list is a mess.
Name a type of music that has been more influential in the last 30 years..
I find it ironic that Starbucks now widely perceived to be in the same big-bad-bin as McDonald's and Coke. It's the first time I've personally witnessed such a transition.
As usual, it's easy to sympathize with the little guy and easy to attack the big guy. The powerless are innocent, the powerful are guilty.
Starbucks is attains self preservation by way of selling things. Oxfam and IFAT are attain self preservation by way of finding people to attack and making people feel guilty.
At least Starbucks is responsible to the market. If we all stop buying their coffee, they're toast Who are Oxfam and IFAT responsible to?
Do triangles exist? Does PI? Does God?
If free will does exist (because we can comprehend the concept), what are its mechanisms?
"That's a stupid question" is rarely a useful answer.
I agree. The amount of information has increased orders of magnitude but we're certainly not going to lose any *less* information then we did in the past.
Even if something becomes entrapped in a dead format, if somebody wants it enough a way will be found. Humans are clever.
The articles first big example pretty much makes my argument.
The BBC decided to expand The Domesday Book. They stored the new contributions on laser disc. Laser disc died but, "(The multimedia version was ultimately salvaged.)"
It has has been argued that the wikipedia is the end of archeology; worrying that we'll forget how to read is giving too much credit to Nud Ludd.
Web 2.0 is a buzzword largely perpetrated by people who don't understand the technology involved. Arguing over a definition is fairly pointless.
I agree, XMLHttpRequest started the revolution. It allowed your javascript to get new information from a server without reloading the page, all other magic fell into place from there.
I would also lay some of the blame with Gmail and Paul Buchheit showing a lot of people what was possible.
Okay, you got me on some technicalities, as you can tell I don't actually live in the UK, anymore. Had something to do with the British sense of humor I think.... C- is too kind.
Since it's the internet....
Although there is admittedly some regional content, you have no idea the used car sales pitches you are bring spared. There is nothing akin the to US affiliate system in the UK.
I was too lazy to lookup what the top stations actually are. Point about TV tax was what mattered. Most Americans are very surprised that this is how things work across the pond.
BBC One has been going since 1936, 70 years vs. 24. To anyone over 35, that is somewhat new.
You got me on home finance.
The general idea is, well in the US TV advertising is top dog, it has never been as big a deal in the UK. Do you disagree?
It's worth keeping in mind that television in the UK has a very different flavor then in the US. Firstly, the country is geographically smaller, so it's all national. There are no local affiliates. Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.
Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever, they are funded by a per household tv tax. Only somewhat 'new' channels like Four have ads and they are often regarded as somewhat 'tacky'. Maybe I'm missing something, but all I ever seen to see on UK tv is ads for car insurance and ring tones.
Bottom line is a lot less gets spent on TV advertising compared to the US. My benchmark would be, Google owns advertising once movie studios are spending more on google then on tv.
Don't sometimes people 'game' things in the real world? Why would the web be any different, it is part of the real world.
So you're arguing that Web 2.0 style content as no value? The content of the Wikipedia has no value? It's not what people want, or the closet thing to it available? We're going to revert to the old ways now that some tiny cracks have developed? Buy Britannica stock now.
The mechanisms for aggregating user contributions haven't been completely mastered yet, but man, we're not even a couple years into it. The Wikipedia clearly contains useful content available nowhere else, there is something to this jazz.
As I see it, it is not in a competition. This whole battle of philosophies is a distraction. How does anyone suffer by either side succeeding?
Open source does what I want and if it doesn't I'm free to change the situation by contributing my own effort. If I lack the ability, hopefully my needs are common enough that civilization will contribute the effort for me.
With closed source, I can't contribute the solution, but other then that little is changed. If my problem is common enough, there will be money in solving it and the market will likely step up.
Whichever provides the solution to my problem, so be it, as long as the problem is solved.
It's true, if solving my problem requires spending no money and worrying about copyrights, then closed source is unlikely to provide my solution. But that's not a result of ethics or philosophies, just people solving their problems.
I think it's more of a symbiotic relationship. An awful lot of people writing open source are paying their bills writing closed source.
End of the day, I could care less if my mom can ever run an open source desktop. As long as she gets what she needs for a price she can afford, problem solved.
I agree. Generally speaking, people want consistancy. The same process, the same result.
To some degree, this goes for the staff too. They just want to know what they should do to keep everyone happy and get paid. There is a fine line before it can becomes Modern Times however.
Personally, I had assumed some degree of this had been going on for years. At least up here in Canada, even fairly small places use a touch screen based system for the staff. A table orders from a server, server touchs into screen, the kitchen reads the order off the monitor and touches when it's ready. Adding small stuff like flashing a table when a server should check if people need more drinks, etc, seems so trivial people must already do it.
You knew it'd boil down to just another person bitterly trying to hold onto the icons on their youth. Britney swipe and everything, clique much?
You hit the nail on the head.
"Pearl Jam has a new album coming out. How can we get people to care about this?"
"What is it, 1992? Who cares about Pearl Jam anymore, certainly not MTV and their under 14 demographic"
"We need to get at the old people who still give a toss about that whole dirty grunge business."
"I know, release the video under creative commons on the Internet."
"That's a great idea! The old nerds will all talk about it and watch it when they never would have before. We'll get so much free attention from just the right people and it won't cost a dime."