Two random thoughts about features and open source:
1. Mozilla shows that Open Source *can* do innovative features (or at least, features not found in comparable commercial software like Intern Exploiter): e.g. type-ahead find.
2. The problem with letting users spec features is they will often make suggestions that are too vague, plain impossible or, if actually implemented, would make no sense. It's hard for most people to think about the impact a feature would have without actually trying it out.
So maybe the way forward is to use systems which allow interfaces to be modified more easily (like XUL). Even if you can't implement an idea yourself, it makes it easier to find someone who can. The benefit of the feature is easier to understand if you can try out a prototype.
The reason they're focusing on biology and medicine is that there are already open access repositories of papers in the physical sciences.
What does the fact that "basic research can yield megabucks" in biology have to do with the fact that they're focussing on that area?
(Clue: it doesn't).
They're doing this to meet a need. A need that more web-savvy astronomers, physicists and what-have-you have already met for themselves.
Well, the GPL covers situations that might arise with code but not with other types of content. e.g. the requirement that source code is made available, and is in the preferred form for making modifications.
They're similar in spirit, but the GPL is more specifically tailored to computer code.
The advertising sales dept at a previous job told me about one of their most lucrative and effective (for the advertisers) forms of advertising.
Apparently, sponsorship of our newsletter - effectively a one or two line text ad in an opt-in news email - was very effective.
Also, the site made a fair bit of money through selling relevant books, job listings, etc.
This was over a year ago now - how long will it take marketers to get a clue? Don't they understand that the way to get results is to make advertising relevant and useful, rather than increasingly intrusive? I like the ads on Google because sometimes they actually help me with what I'm trying to do.
Also, didn't we just hear that Amazon's affiliate program is one of its most cost-effective marketing tools?
All the IAB proposal will do is increase the usage of ad-filtering software. I filter (most) ads and have no compunction about doing so, because I already know that I don't want to punch the fucking monkey.
I understand that branding ads are a different animal from direct sales pitches. If they're done entertainingly (e.g. the Absolut ads on the Onion), then I don't have a problem with them.
The people complaining about "leeching" pop-up blockers, and demanding bigger formats, are the ones advertising on the principle of throwing garish shit at millions of eyeballs in the hope that some of it sticks. These are the companies selling overhyped security products, online gambling, cyberstalking software etc. Sites accepting this kind of stuff are only harming themselves in the long term. If you think your site's survival depends on this sort of thing, you're doomed - explore other possibilities!
The advertising sales dept at a previous job told me about one of their most lucrative and effective (for the advertisers) forms of advertising.
Apparently, sponsorship of our newsletter - effectively a one or two line text ad in an opt-in news email - was very effective.
Also, the site made a fair bit of money through selling relevant books, job listings, etc.
This was over a year ago now - how long will it take marketers to get a clue? Don't they understand that the way to get results is to make advertising relevant and useful, rather than increasingly intrusive? I like the ads on Google because sometimes they actually help me with what I'm trying to do.
Also, didn't we just hear that Amazon's affiliate program is one of its most cost-effective marketing tools?
All the IAB proposal will do is increase the usage of ad-filtering software. I filter (most) ads and have no compunction about doing so, because I already know that I don't want to punch the fucking monkey.
I understand that branding ads are a different animal from direct sales pitches. If they're done entertainingly (e.g. the Absolut ads on the Onion), then I don't have a problem with them.
The people complaining about "leeching" pop-up blockers, and demanding bigger formats, are the ones advertising on the principle of throwing garish shit at millions of eyeballs in the hope that some of it sticks. These are the companies selling overhyped security products, online gambling, cyberstalking software etc. Sites accepting this kind of stuff are only harming themselves in the long term. If you think your site's survival depends on this sort of thing, you're doomed - explore other possibilities!
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Steady there - all (sensible) evolutionists would agree that natural selection produces change over longer timescales. However, natural selection isn't the only important process in "macroevolution".
For example, there's the idea Dawkins called "evolution of evolvability" - certain body plans might be more adaptable than others, allowing some phyla to radiate more rapidly (e.g. insects). That's not part of classical natural selection, but it's probably an important process.
Also, long term trends might be influenced by catastrophes. A sudden environmental change might alter the rules of selection overnight. You might see pruning of groups which can't survive meteor impacts.
That's not to say that natural selection isn't the most important part of evolution. It's the only way that complex adaptations can evolve.
How exactly is this transcript supposed to have been obtained? I'm sceptical about it because the language doesn't strike me as 1970s British English. In particular: Halt: We just crossed the creek.
"Creek" isn't a term applied to British geography.
Plus, the talk of deflection needles doesn't quite ring true.
Perhaps part of the reason why the dupe wasn't spotted was the "clever" headline. "How to Get More Facetime" sounds like it's an article about office politics.
Re:This is where a tablet pc would be nice
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
You don't read it on a monitor, you read it on a PDA or similar. A monochrome, backlit Palm (Visor etc.) screen is surprisingly comfortable to read from, even for a whole novel. Try it.
Finally a publisher who gets that electronic content doesn't need to be locked up in some godawful "security" scheme!
I didn't like the first book in this series. It's a very forced attempt to do a Hornblower-type naval tale in space. The space technology comes across as carefully tailored to provide similar tactics to the age of sail. The impact of many technological changes (e.g. improved computers) isn't really explored. The main character is unconvincingly good, noble and chaste.
Still, it's a popular series. I hope the book is successful and inspires similar initiatives by other companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Two random thoughts about features and open source: 1. Mozilla shows that Open Source *can* do innovative features (or at least, features not found in comparable commercial software like Intern Exploiter): e.g. type-ahead find. 2. The problem with letting users spec features is they will often make suggestions that are too vague, plain impossible or, if actually implemented, would make no sense. It's hard for most people to think about the impact a feature would have without actually trying it out. So maybe the way forward is to use systems which allow interfaces to be modified more easily (like XUL). Even if you can't implement an idea yourself, it makes it easier to find someone who can. The benefit of the feature is easier to understand if you can try out a prototype.
What does the fact that "basic research can yield megabucks" in biology have to do with the fact that they're focussing on that area? (Clue: it doesn't).
They're doing this to meet a need. A need that more web-savvy astronomers, physicists and what-have-you have already met for themselves.
Look, the Google cache proves it.
Whoever just updated the site, please confirm this - I fear for my Karma.
They're similar in spirit, but the GPL is more specifically tailored to computer code.
Anyone noticed that the Free For All book doesn't specify which Creative Commons license it's been released under?
I'd like to see your working for that.
It is very useful if you're waiting for someone outside the cinema and their car breaks down.
I had a similar experience reviewing the awful, scientifically illiterate "techno-thriller" Decipher by Stel Pavlou.
Wise use of mod points there.
tags. What's that? Yes, as a matter of fact, I *am* an assmonkey. Reposted properly below.
Apparently, sponsorship of our newsletter - effectively a one or two line text ad in an opt-in news email - was very effective.
Also, the site made a fair bit of money through selling relevant books, job listings, etc.
This was over a year ago now - how long will it take marketers to get a clue? Don't they understand that the way to get results is to make advertising relevant and useful, rather than increasingly intrusive? I like the ads on Google because sometimes they actually help me with what I'm trying to do.
Also, didn't we just hear that Amazon's affiliate program is one of its most cost-effective marketing tools?
All the IAB proposal will do is increase the usage of ad-filtering software. I filter (most) ads and have no compunction about doing so, because I already know that I don't want to punch the fucking monkey.
I understand that branding ads are a different animal from direct sales pitches. If they're done entertainingly (e.g. the Absolut ads on the Onion), then I don't have a problem with them.
The people complaining about "leeching" pop-up blockers, and demanding bigger formats, are the ones advertising on the principle of throwing garish shit at millions of eyeballs in the hope that some of it sticks. These are the companies selling overhyped security products, online gambling, cyberstalking software etc. Sites accepting this kind of stuff are only harming themselves in the long term. If you think your site's survival depends on this sort of thing, you're doomed - explore other possibilities!
The advertising sales dept at a previous job told me about one of their most lucrative and effective (for the advertisers) forms of advertising. Apparently, sponsorship of our newsletter - effectively a one or two line text ad in an opt-in news email - was very effective. Also, the site made a fair bit of money through selling relevant books, job listings, etc. This was over a year ago now - how long will it take marketers to get a clue? Don't they understand that the way to get results is to make advertising relevant and useful, rather than increasingly intrusive? I like the ads on Google because sometimes they actually help me with what I'm trying to do. Also, didn't we just hear that Amazon's affiliate program is one of its most cost-effective marketing tools? All the IAB proposal will do is increase the usage of ad-filtering software. I filter (most) ads and have no compunction about doing so, because I already know that I don't want to punch the fucking monkey. I understand that branding ads are a different animal from direct sales pitches. If they're done entertainingly (e.g. the Absolut ads on the Onion), then I don't have a problem with them. The people complaining about "leeching" pop-up blockers, and demanding bigger formats, are the ones advertising on the principle of throwing garish shit at millions of eyeballs in the hope that some of it sticks. These are the companies selling overhyped security products, online gambling, cyberstalking software etc. Sites accepting this kind of stuff are only harming themselves in the long term. If you think your site's survival depends on this sort of thing, you're doomed - explore other possibilities!
The first Tremors movie was great. So there.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/startajo urnal
For example, there's the idea Dawkins called "evolution of evolvability" - certain body plans might be more adaptable than others, allowing some phyla to radiate more rapidly (e.g. insects). That's not part of classical natural selection, but it's probably an important process.
Also, long term trends might be influenced by catastrophes. A sudden environmental change might alter the rules of selection overnight. You might see pruning of groups which can't survive meteor impacts.
That's not to say that natural selection isn't the most important part of evolution. It's the only way that complex adaptations can evolve.
Halt: We just crossed the creek.
"Creek" isn't a term applied to British geography.
Plus, the talk of deflection needles doesn't quite ring true.
Slashdot Editors, please read this: Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines
You might get more people to take out paid subscriptions if you offered a more professional service.
Try the UK Campaign for Digital Rights.
You don't read it on a monitor, you read it on a PDA or similar. A monochrome, backlit Palm (Visor etc.) screen is surprisingly comfortable to read from, even for a whole novel. Try it.
Finally a publisher who gets that electronic content doesn't need to be locked up in some godawful "security" scheme! I didn't like the first book in this series. It's a very forced attempt to do a Hornblower-type naval tale in space. The space technology comes across as carefully tailored to provide similar tactics to the age of sail. The impact of many technological changes (e.g. improved computers) isn't really explored. The main character is unconvincingly good, noble and chaste. Still, it's a popular series. I hope the book is successful and inspires similar initiatives by other companies.
Actually, the DHTML stuff is still broken, but you can at least read the page.
Interestingly, that page doesn't render properly in Opera 7 Beta unless you identify as MSIE - when it works fine.
I can remember when nanotech implied nano-scale machines. Surely a clever (but passive) new type of coating is materials science, or something?
effects of