I guess Jon Katz was right that "modern media is about making money, and that depends entirely on selecting stories that entertain, titillate, blow up or confront." Add bash Microsoft to that list.
Is it because their lives are not important as the ones who perished on 9/11.
Intrinsically, or to the average American? Everyone's life is equally important intrisically, but not everyone's death is equally newsworthy.
The story is newsworthy, and has been covered quite extensively, but that's because the actions of our government greatly affect us as a nation. It has nothing to do with the relative importance of the lives of the victims.
By posting this piece Slashdot is ironically blurring the news and opinion -- and this is the maybe not-so-obviously-stated subtext of Katz's opining ramblings.
And why do they do it? Katz said why himself. "media are market-driven, not idea-substance-or-content driven" The fact of the matter is that Katz generates a lot of responses (flames, whatever you want to call it), and responses generate ad impressions, and ad impressions pay for the site.
Visitors who bookmark pages will end up with a URL to a specific server -- which could be down for maintenance, failure, or simply decommissioned (or maybe you change your naming scheme for the individual servers at some point).
So always remember to point decomissioned servers DNS records back to the main IP address.
A good load balancing solution will recognize SSL sessions and forward them to the same internal machine with each request.
This does that. You only redirect once, when you hit www.yourdomain.
And any load balancing solution that has a feature like that will also include all the basic failover, redundancy, etc. features larger sites absolutely require.
This can easily be extended to do failover.
A good load balancing solution is more than just spreading requests across a group of servers. It provides scalability, performance, uninterrupted service, easier management and updates, network abstraction, monitoring, and an additional layer of security.
You sound like a commercial. In any case, if you have one of those huge sites with tons of money to waste, go and get a commercial load balancer. Two of them, actually. And don't make slashdot do your job for you. You can afford to hire a professional to do the job.
"As a general matter, Slashdot's policy on linking to
[BIG
HUGE
AD]
registration-required websites goes something like this:"
I'm so glad you guys aren't linking to sites which require registration. Such freedom-fighters against the commercialization of the internet, you guys are.
Hehe, yeah, this guy (gal) is pretty good. Here's another one: "There is no way to 'fix the spam problem'. Claude Shannon proved decades ago that noise is inevitable in communications. Spam is noise on a data channel. Measurements suggest that the amount of spam we are seeing is slightly higher than the nlog(n) amount that Shannon predicted." Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=4, Funny=1, Overrated=5, Underrated=1
But of course slashdot moderators don't understand the true meaning of the term "troll" and instead use it to mean "offtopic" or "I disagree with them". Hell, if the moderators would get it right I'd probably set it to +1 for troll posts.
Bravo. Really. I keep trying every few months to make the full switch, but something always keeps standing in my way. Now that I'm using mozilla pretty much exclusively maybe I should try try again. Gotta find and app to watch TV with my All-In-Wonder though.
i agree that this standard, but you said that microsoft "is not making the end-user liable for anything, it is merely limiting Microsoft's liablity". i feel that by limiting their (ms's) liability this increases the liability of the end-user.
Well, I'll admit that my phrasing was probably incorrect, but the point I'm getting at is that you don't have to have a contractual agreement to limit liability. I'm a big believer that EULAs are not contracts, and the courts have almost universally backed up that belief.
I don't have a problem with slashdot covering this. It's important for people to know that Microsoft is probably considering doing these things. However, the EULA generally serves two purposes, limiting liability, and scaring end-users. Believing Microsoft's empty threats only serves to give them incentive to continue making them.
a lot of the software i use has been released under the gpl. as a result the authors have no responsibility for the damages i might encounter by using the software. i bear the full burden of any negative results from using the software. as a result i am liable if their software is broken.
So what's the difference, in this instance, between the Microsoft EULA and the GPL? The only difference I see is that Microsoft is spelling out specifically what they intend to do.
The digital copy can be refreshed perfectly by making a copy. If a CD-R will fade in 10 years, you can copy it every 5 years and never lose data.
Just wondering, how hard would it be to make an analog copy of a negative (to another negative presumably) without losing more resolution than from an equivalently priced scanner? It seems wasteful to use many bits of many atoms each simply to represent the absorbance (color) of a single atom. Yes, it makes it more convenient if your purpose is to distribute, but for archival purposes, it seems silly.
Go to the Slashdot EULA and search for "liab". I think you'll find limitation of liability is quite standard operating procedure.
If you don't want Microsoft to "install digital rights management software, and [...] disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer" then don't use their software. Easy peasy Japanesy.
If they or their advertisers are engaging in commerce with the United States then they are under the jurisdiction of the FTC.
Personally I feel the internet should be treated as a wholly separate jurisdiction, and that rules in that jurisdiction should be total anarchy, but I'm highly doubtful this is ever going to happen.
I highly doubt the FTC is going to insist that every single user agree to the EULA, merely that the information is posted somewhere it can be easily accessed by those who care. A miniscule link at the bottom of the page, similar to the Slashdot EULA, would be sufficient.
Are you kidding me? Even if you give it away, the Supreme Court is still going to rule that it "affects interstate commerce". Spam is interstate commerce. Local intrastate gun and drug trafficking is interstate commerce. The DMCA is probably based on the interstate commerce clause. Trademark law definately is. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that's certainly the way it is.
Does the FTC really have the authority to do this?
Yep, it's interstate commerce.
Are there First Amendment implications?
Yeah, but commercial speech has limited protectionunder the First Amendment.
Under which law would they sue?
Not sure, but it seems that it could fall under fraud, or unfair trade practices, or something. The FTC probably has leeway to invent its own rules, as well.
I'd love to be able to order online and pick up at my local mom-and-pop store. In fact, if you're anywhere near New Jersey I'd be willing to set up the website and give you 50% of the profits on orders through it.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess Jon Katz was right that "modern media is about making money, and that depends entirely on selecting stories that entertain, titillate, blow up or confront." Add bash Microsoft to that list.
Is it because their lives are not important as the ones who perished on 9/11.
Intrinsically, or to the average American? Everyone's life is equally important intrisically, but not everyone's death is equally newsworthy.
The story is newsworthy, and has been covered quite extensively, but that's because the actions of our government greatly affect us as a nation. It has nothing to do with the relative importance of the lives of the victims.
By posting this piece Slashdot is ironically blurring the news and opinion -- and this is the maybe not-so-obviously-stated subtext of Katz's opining ramblings.
And why do they do it? Katz said why himself. "media are market-driven, not idea-substance-or-content driven" The fact of the matter is that Katz generates a lot of responses (flames, whatever you want to call it), and responses generate ad impressions, and ad impressions pay for the site.
"If you disagree with me, don't read. I don't mind!"
If VA Software wants to run rants about editorial integrity, they should get some themselves.
Yeah, but you can opt-out of Jon Katz articles.
Some things should be opt-in only... :)
I thought for a minute that JonKatz was returning!
Which is no where near as much as is wasted reading JonKatz articles.
Visitors who bookmark pages will end up with a URL to a specific server -- which could be down for maintenance, failure, or simply decommissioned (or maybe you change your naming scheme for the individual servers at some point).
So always remember to point decomissioned servers DNS records back to the main IP address.
A good load balancing solution will recognize SSL sessions and forward them to the same internal machine with each request.
This does that. You only redirect once, when you hit www.yourdomain.
And any load balancing solution that has a feature like that will also include all the basic failover, redundancy, etc. features larger sites absolutely require.
This can easily be extended to do failover.
A good load balancing solution is more than just spreading requests across a group of servers. It provides scalability, performance, uninterrupted service, easier management and updates, network abstraction, monitoring, and an additional layer of security.
You sound like a commercial. In any case, if you have one of those huge sites with tons of money to waste, go and get a commercial load balancer. Two of them, actually. And don't make slashdot do your job for you. You can afford to hire a professional to do the job.
"As a general matter, Slashdot's policy on linking to
[BIG
HUGE
AD]
registration-required websites goes something like this:"
I'm so glad you guys aren't linking to sites which require registration. Such freedom-fighters against the commercialization of the internet, you guys are.
Hehe, yeah, this guy (gal) is pretty good. Here's another one: "There is no way to 'fix the spam problem'. Claude Shannon proved decades ago that noise is inevitable in communications. Spam is noise on a data channel. Measurements suggest that the amount of spam we are seeing is slightly higher than the nlog(n) amount that Shannon predicted." Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=4, Funny=1, Overrated=5, Underrated=1
But of course slashdot moderators don't understand the true meaning of the term "troll" and instead use it to mean "offtopic" or "I disagree with them". Hell, if the moderators would get it right I'd probably set it to +1 for troll posts.
Blount vs. McIverson? Which one was the Federal Government? I call troll.
Innocent until proven guilty, you have the right to remain silent, and all...
Moon rock, how do you plead? The defendant stands mute.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use CGI;
$q = new CGI;
if (rand()<0.5) {
print $q->redirect("https://www1.yourdomain/");
} else {
print $q->redirect("http://www2.yourdomain/");
}
actually, i don't use their software.
Bravo. Really. I keep trying every few months to make the full switch, but something always keeps standing in my way. Now that I'm using mozilla pretty much exclusively maybe I should try try again. Gotta find and app to watch TV with my All-In-Wonder though.
i agree that this standard, but you said that microsoft "is not making the end-user liable for anything, it is merely limiting Microsoft's liablity". i feel that by limiting their (ms's) liability this increases the liability of the end-user.
Well, I'll admit that my phrasing was probably incorrect, but the point I'm getting at is that you don't have to have a contractual agreement to limit liability. I'm a big believer that EULAs are not contracts, and the courts have almost universally backed up that belief.
I don't have a problem with slashdot covering this. It's important for people to know that Microsoft is probably considering doing these things. However, the EULA generally serves two purposes, limiting liability, and scaring end-users. Believing Microsoft's empty threats only serves to give them incentive to continue making them.
a lot of the software i use has been released under the gpl. as a result the authors have no responsibility for the damages i might encounter by using the software. i bear the full burden of any negative results from using the software. as a result i am liable if their software is broken.
So what's the difference, in this instance, between the Microsoft EULA and the GPL? The only difference I see is that Microsoft is spelling out specifically what they intend to do.
The digital copy can be refreshed perfectly by making a copy. If a CD-R will fade in 10 years, you can copy it every 5 years and never lose data.
Just wondering, how hard would it be to make an analog copy of a negative (to another negative presumably) without losing more resolution than from an equivalently priced scanner? It seems wasteful to use many bits of many atoms each simply to represent the absorbance (color) of a single atom. Yes, it makes it more convenient if your purpose is to distribute, but for archival purposes, it seems silly.
Go to the Slashdot EULA and search for "liab". I think you'll find limitation of liability is quite standard operating procedure.
If you don't want Microsoft to "install digital rights management software, and [...] disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer" then don't use their software. Easy peasy Japanesy.
"If you disagree with me, don't read. I don't mind!"
If you don't like the software, don't download it. Bill Gates doesn't mind.
In that vein, how can the EULA possibly be legally binding?
It depends what the EULA says. In this case, the EULA is not making the end-user liable for anything, it is merely limiting Microsoft's liablity.
If they or their advertisers are engaging in commerce with the United States then they are under the jurisdiction of the FTC.
Personally I feel the internet should be treated as a wholly separate jurisdiction, and that rules in that jurisdiction should be total anarchy, but I'm highly doubtful this is ever going to happen.
I highly doubt the FTC is going to insist that every single user agree to the EULA, merely that the information is posted somewhere it can be easily accessed by those who care. A miniscule link at the bottom of the page, similar to the Slashdot EULA, would be sufficient.
So are paid links.
No money transaction = no commerce.
Are you kidding me? Even if you give it away, the Supreme Court is still going to rule that it "affects interstate commerce". Spam is interstate commerce. Local intrastate gun and drug trafficking is interstate commerce. The DMCA is probably based on the interstate commerce clause. Trademark law definately is. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that's certainly the way it is.
Does the FTC really have the authority to do this?
Yep, it's interstate commerce.
Are there First Amendment implications?
Yeah, but commercial speech has limited protectionunder the First Amendment.
Under which law would they sue?
Not sure, but it seems that it could fall under fraud, or unfair trade practices, or something. The FTC probably has leeway to invent its own rules, as well.
My Website - My Choice
I'd love to be able to order online and pick up at my local mom-and-pop store. In fact, if you're anywhere near New Jersey I'd be willing to set up the website and give you 50% of the profits on orders through it.