Why not just point to the directory containing the site? Or the port containing the resource? Who cares? It's not where the information is located that matters, it's what the information is. The search engines will connect the dots between information seeker and information location.
Dumb idea? Fine, that's why I don't make the decisions!
Remove all domains entirely and operate soley on IP addresses.
Google/Yahoo/MSNSearch/Altavitsa/AskJeeves all become the new arbiters of where to find things on the net. Best of all, net users themselves get to decide which of these services to use.
Need to go to FedEx's site? Can't remember their IP address? Just Google it. Use the I Feel Lucky if you want to save time and know it'll be the top hit.
Need to find IBM's site? Ask Jeeves if you don't know the IP.
I already do this anyway, pretty much, just typing stuff into my Firefox or Safari address bar and letting Google take me to the site. Why not remove the extra DNS layer and let Google/Yahoo et al. perform that service?
...it is uniquely easy for J. Random Citizen to disseminate his own message of rebuttal.
Kind of. It still takes time to do it, time to publicize/advertise it so people actually come look at it, and money to pay for bandwidth/server space. Yeah, it's easier for J. Random Citizen to disseminate his own message, but not if J. Citizen needs to hold down a paying job in addition to doing this.
V. Wealthy Entity can come along and pay tens or hundreds of people to spend all day writing blogs and comments and what have you, and suddenly they have the advantage.
I was scared away from Linux because of all the apt-get and emerge crap. Forget compiling, that junk is annoying enough as it is, and it still doesn't get rid of all dependency/conflict problems. Plus, just wait until you find something that isn't in a repository, at least not for your chosen distro.
I hate to say this increasingly repeated refrain, but:
I was scared away to OS X. Now what little software installation is necessary is simple: just download and run.
Which brings up another thing - installation isn't such a big bother if the OS comes with adequate tools. Most Linux distros come with an absolute avalanche of tools, so one should theoretically never need apt-get or emerge. But my experience was that most of the tools were inadequate and unpleasant to use.
Every couple months I think maybe I should go give Linux another try, maybe the stuff I need to use has caught up. But every time I think about it something jumps out at me as something I'd just not rather do the work of setting up. Lately it's iTunes sharing over my local network. My server could switch to linux, but setting up DAAP iTunes-style sharing just seemed too much a bother. I wonder what proprietary innovation Linux will be catching up to next time I think of giving it another go...
Indeed, isn't the *point* of a DVR to get rid of ads?
No, to most people DVR is about time-shifting shows, not removing ads. Removing ads is a bonus, but most people are going to have DVR straight from their cable company, and the only "ad removal" feature is the VCR-style fast-forward.
DVR is about removing the old problem of "Oh, I'd like to watch that, but it's not on now."
The next step is removing the problem of "Oh, I'd like to watch that, but I didn't record it."
Whether that's pay-per-show or "free" with ads, people aren't going to care much. It's going to depend on the choice of the channel (or content provider).
Oh, and you're going to pay for the intermediary pipe that delivers the content, too.
The future is the same as the present: pay the provider for their cost in producing the content (via ads or direct purchase/subscription), plus pay the distributor for the cost of delivering the content to you. The fundamentals will not change, though the procedures and details involved may shift to the internet.
Whether a need will be met depends on the perceived benefits to the potential suppliers.
Sure, within the Linux community, there's a fair amount of demand, and the money to be made is apparently significant enough to CodeWeavers for them to do the work in supplying.
However, most of the apps people need to run are going to come from the big companies like Microsoft, Adobe, etc. The money to be made from porting their software directly to Linux is simply not significant enough for them to bother doing the work.
talk about missing the fucking point. "northwest passage" my ass, what about lost farmland you won't regain in the fucking tundra thanks to soil inadequacies?
Theoretically, however, someone might be able to take ffmpeg (or ffmpegX:) and convert those xvid/divx files to MP4 with AAC audio without converting the video, and have it work on the new iPod and iTunes 6. Theoretically.
I'm assuming it's Apple's MPEG4, but it'd be neat if it could playback other MPEG4 formats like xvid, divx, etc. Pretty much no chance of that, though, I suppose. Too bad, means I'll probably have to go about converting or re-encoding a bunch of video. Because, yes, I want one of these babies (and iMac or Mac Mini with Front Row) within the next year or so.
I don't think the technology / battery life / screen size / processor speed is quite there yet to show H.264 on a portable system in a marketable, affordable package. Give it two more years.
I agree with this - but consider what a movie-related announcement might mean for the acceptance of such a device two years from now.
Before MP3 players arrived, there was plentiful use and trading of MP3s. The files came before the portable players, and the desire for the portable players was generated by the abundance and convenience of the files. Most of the music out there being played on these players is music that people already own and were able to import into iTunes (and to their players).
Where is the equivalent for video? Sure, there are small groups of people out there bittorrenting video, and XVID/DIVX are gaining a position in some hardware. But it's not really a phenomenon yet. What could set up the conditions for portable video?
The video itself has to be made portable first. People have to be able to take existing video and easily convert it into a format that can be used in a manner that offers increased convenience. What's more convenient than a DVD player and a DVD collection?
I don't know what Apple has up its sleeves, but if they're smart, they've got something planned to try to set up the conditions for portable video players to thrive before just releasing a portable video player.
And thus was born the long-standing dichotomy between nerds and geeks. Nerds go into engineering. Geeks collect comic books. Sure, there may be some intersection between the two sets, but...
Wow, look at all the self-professed geeks sitting around patting each other on the back and going on and on about how geeks are finally cool and intelligence is suddenly cool, etc.
Why does everyone think this show was so great? It took 2 dimensional characters, an uncreative setting, slapped some sci-fi cliches on top, and then dressed it all up with hackneyed writing & directing, including tons of lame jokes and slow-motion crutches to hide the thinness of the characters.
Yeah, huzzah, "geek" is cool, but it no longer includes any requirement for actual science or intelligence. Old-school NASA nerds who actually know something and do the hard work are still the butt of jokes and derision, if not simply ignored, and real science and science fiction still has no place on the airwaves, "character-driven" fantasies be damned.
You say "If you haven't seen Firefly" go see Serenity. Does it truly not depend much on the series? Because I'm curious about the move but not very interested in trying to go watch the series. I just don't have the time right now to commit to a whole season of TV shows, but I'd be interested in catching a good movie for a change.
Wow, I remember when I was a teen and the internet was the new big thing (granted, this was the early 90's and the internet wasn't new then, but...)
Everyone was saying how great it would be when everyone was able to easily create and share information.
People, this is what we wanted, and it's pretty much here. This is a good thing. All we need now are better and better ways of sorting & indexing the information being created and shared.
I only care about the "Does It Well" aspect. If it plays music, and does it well, I'm in. I don't care if it does other things I might not need. The color screen is a nice bonus.
The problem is that adding tons of features tends to dilute the "Does It Well" aspect for the primary feature. However, if you can add a new feature and without doing that, then why not?
So what? They have no expectation of privacy when carrying things from the public space outside their house to the private space inside their house. Anybody could see them carry things inside and know what they carried into their house. What's the difference between observing your neighbor carry two 12-packs into their house and scanning their house to discover they carried two 12-packs into it earlier?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just point to the directory containing the site? Or the port containing the resource? Who cares? It's not where the information is located that matters, it's what the information is. The search engines will connect the dots between information seeker and information location.
Dumb idea? Fine, that's why I don't make the decisions!
Remove all domains entirely and operate soley on IP addresses.
Google/Yahoo/MSNSearch/Altavitsa/AskJeeves all become the new arbiters of where to find things on the net. Best of all, net users themselves get to decide which of these services to use.
Need to go to FedEx's site? Can't remember their IP address? Just Google it. Use the I Feel Lucky if you want to save time and know it'll be the top hit.
Need to find IBM's site? Ask Jeeves if you don't know the IP.
I already do this anyway, pretty much, just typing stuff into my Firefox or Safari address bar and letting Google take me to the site. Why not remove the extra DNS layer and let Google/Yahoo et al. perform that service?
...it is uniquely easy for J. Random Citizen to disseminate his own message of rebuttal.
Kind of. It still takes time to do it, time to publicize/advertise it so people actually come look at it, and money to pay for bandwidth/server space. Yeah, it's easier for J. Random Citizen to disseminate his own message, but not if J. Citizen needs to hold down a paying job in addition to doing this.
V. Wealthy Entity can come along and pay tens or hundreds of people to spend all day writing blogs and comments and what have you, and suddenly they have the advantage.
Money still makes a difference.
I was scared away from Linux because of all the apt-get and emerge crap. Forget compiling, that junk is annoying enough as it is, and it still doesn't get rid of all dependency/conflict problems. Plus, just wait until you find something that isn't in a repository, at least not for your chosen distro.
I hate to say this increasingly repeated refrain, but:
I was scared away to OS X. Now what little software installation is necessary is simple: just download and run.
Which brings up another thing - installation isn't such a big bother if the OS comes with adequate tools. Most Linux distros come with an absolute avalanche of tools, so one should theoretically never need apt-get or emerge. But my experience was that most of the tools were inadequate and unpleasant to use.
Every couple months I think maybe I should go give Linux another try, maybe the stuff I need to use has caught up. But every time I think about it something jumps out at me as something I'd just not rather do the work of setting up. Lately it's iTunes sharing over my local network. My server could switch to linux, but setting up DAAP iTunes-style sharing just seemed too much a bother. I wonder what proprietary innovation Linux will be catching up to next time I think of giving it another go...
Indeed, isn't the *point* of a DVR to get rid of ads?
No, to most people DVR is about time-shifting shows, not removing ads. Removing ads is a bonus, but most people are going to have DVR straight from their cable company, and the only "ad removal" feature is the VCR-style fast-forward.
DVR is about removing the old problem of "Oh, I'd like to watch that, but it's not on now."
The next step is removing the problem of "Oh, I'd like to watch that, but I didn't record it."
Whether that's pay-per-show or "free" with ads, people aren't going to care much. It's going to depend on the choice of the channel (or content provider).
Oh, and you're going to pay for the intermediary pipe that delivers the content, too.
The future is the same as the present: pay the provider for their cost in producing the content (via ads or direct purchase/subscription), plus pay the distributor for the cost of delivering the content to you. The fundamentals will not change, though the procedures and details involved may shift to the internet.
Whether a need will be met depends on the perceived benefits to the potential suppliers.
Sure, within the Linux community, there's a fair amount of demand, and the money to be made is apparently significant enough to CodeWeavers for them to do the work in supplying.
However, most of the apps people need to run are going to come from the big companies like Microsoft, Adobe, etc. The money to be made from porting their software directly to Linux is simply not significant enough for them to bother doing the work.
That's OK, I can solve anything with one snog.
hee hee - I got a troll rating! But come on: "bisexual" ... "mudbutt" ... did you just not get it?
Just when you thought British TV couldn't get any worse...
...this from somebody named "MudButt" ...
Ah yes, the "I found something on the Internet that agrees with me, therefore I am right" argument. Works every time.
talk about missing the fucking point. "northwest passage" my ass, what about lost farmland you won't regain in the fucking tundra thanks to soil inadequacies?
Good thing it's not a literary site.
Theoretically, however, someone might be able to take ffmpeg (or ffmpegX :) and convert those xvid/divx files to MP4 with AAC audio without converting the video, and have it work on the new iPod and iTunes 6. Theoretically.
I'm assuming it's Apple's MPEG4, but it'd be neat if it could playback other MPEG4 formats like xvid, divx, etc. Pretty much no chance of that, though, I suppose. Too bad, means I'll probably have to go about converting or re-encoding a bunch of video. Because, yes, I want one of these babies (and iMac or Mac Mini with Front Row) within the next year or so.
No, please God no, not like that at all.
I don't think the technology / battery life / screen size / processor speed is quite there yet to show H.264 on a portable system in a marketable, affordable package. Give it two more years.
I agree with this - but consider what a movie-related announcement might mean for the acceptance of such a device two years from now.
Before MP3 players arrived, there was plentiful use and trading of MP3s. The files came before the portable players, and the desire for the portable players was generated by the abundance and convenience of the files. Most of the music out there being played on these players is music that people already own and were able to import into iTunes (and to their players).
Where is the equivalent for video? Sure, there are small groups of people out there bittorrenting video, and XVID/DIVX are gaining a position in some hardware. But it's not really a phenomenon yet. What could set up the conditions for portable video?
The video itself has to be made portable first. People have to be able to take existing video and easily convert it into a format that can be used in a manner that offers increased convenience. What's more convenient than a DVD player and a DVD collection?
I don't know what Apple has up its sleeves, but if they're smart, they've got something planned to try to set up the conditions for portable video players to thrive before just releasing a portable video player.
Wow, planet finding, so that's what NASA was hookin' up with Google for...
And thus was born the long-standing dichotomy between nerds and geeks. Nerds go into engineering. Geeks collect comic books. Sure, there may be some intersection between the two sets, but...
Wow, look at all the self-professed geeks sitting around patting each other on the back and going on and on about how geeks are finally cool and intelligence is suddenly cool, etc.
Why does everyone think this show was so great? It took 2 dimensional characters, an uncreative setting, slapped some sci-fi cliches on top, and then dressed it all up with hackneyed writing & directing, including tons of lame jokes and slow-motion crutches to hide the thinness of the characters.
Yeah, huzzah, "geek" is cool, but it no longer includes any requirement for actual science or intelligence. Old-school NASA nerds who actually know something and do the hard work are still the butt of jokes and derision, if not simply ignored, and real science and science fiction still has no place on the airwaves, "character-driven" fantasies be damned.
You say "If you haven't seen Firefly" go see Serenity. Does it truly not depend much on the series? Because I'm curious about the move but not very interested in trying to go watch the series. I just don't have the time right now to commit to a whole season of TV shows, but I'd be interested in catching a good movie for a change.
Wow, I remember when I was a teen and the internet was the new big thing (granted, this was the early 90's and the internet wasn't new then, but...)
Everyone was saying how great it would be when everyone was able to easily create and share information.
People, this is what we wanted, and it's pretty much here. This is a good thing. All we need now are better and better ways of sorting & indexing the information being created and shared.
I only care about the "Does It Well" aspect. If it plays music, and does it well, I'm in. I don't care if it does other things I might not need. The color screen is a nice bonus.
The problem is that adding tons of features tends to dilute the "Does It Well" aspect for the primary feature. However, if you can add a new feature and without doing that, then why not?
"pro global warming folks" - is anyone really "pro global warming?"
Not really. Just because the temperature rises doesn't automatically mean you have good soil.
So what? They have no expectation of privacy when carrying things from the public space outside their house to the private space inside their house. Anybody could see them carry things inside and know what they carried into their house. What's the difference between observing your neighbor carry two 12-packs into their house and scanning their house to discover they carried two 12-packs into it earlier?