As for other newspapers being free, it's not really true if you confine yourself to the papers most worth reading.... I'm pretty sure the Times in London requires subscription.
Really? They only need registration for special areas, like cricket coverage. I don't consider the Times worth reading, but the Guardian is, and is also free.
It's really against the nature of the web to put measures in place that prevent linking to information (as opposed to requiring reg for a subscription service). The existence of reg-free partner links basically acknowledge this. The NYTimes wants its content available on Google News, but at the same time, it tries to make most of its users play a silly marketing game.
Like I say, if the NYT wants accurate demographics, they should use sampling. If they want people to sign up for opt-in marketing mails, they should sell ads on a useful e-mail newsletter or something. The registration is annoying, and also likely to give them misleading information.
As for the BBC: they have to do it free, as their publically funded with a mandate to provide free info over the net. The BBC is a quite different organisation than the NYTimes. Learn the difference.
While you're right about the BBC, you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of newspapers (including all the UK broadsheets) provide their content online without registration. They seem to be able to cover the costs of publishing their material electronically.
Means of studying populations by random sampling have been well understood for decades - there's just no need to take registration info from every visitor.
Finally, nobody is "pirating" NYTimes content. The NYTimes themselves provide these reg-free "partner" links, without even bothering to implement 'referer' checks.
Theoretical physics is simply that. Always take these things with a grain of salt. Our scientific process is based on questioning assumptions and breaking the rules.
I can't believe this was modded "Insightful".
The issue at stake is not whether their theoretical conjecture is true - it's whether it makes sense, or is just a string of buzzwords that sounds semi-plausible.
It's the difference between a paper saying "let's suppose that the gravitational constant varies with time", and then rigorously working out the implications and figuring out how the hypothesis could be tested - and a paper saying "let's suppose that the Foucault constant is memetically deifictified" (ie nonsense). The second one "breaks the rules" but will never advance theoretical physics. That's very different from advancing a coherent theory that may turn out to be false.
this is about a controversy -within- the physics community. since members of the physics community (sokal, as mentioned in the article) have taken upon themselves to sully other academic communities concerning determinism,
The Sokal hoax was nothing to do with "determinism". It was aimed at the postmodern (ab)use of scientific terminology with no regard to meaning.
Sokal is a robust defender of the idea that the experimental method is a useful way to study reality, rather than one narrative amongst many which are equally valid. He is an "objectivist" rather than a "relativist". Determinism doesn't really come into it - I'm sure he is familiar with quantum theory.
One problem I see with all this reputation-based stuff - how does it prevent attacks like this:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-530012.html?legacy=zd nn
where someone builds up a good rating through legit deals, then "turns to the dark side" and suddenly commits a big fraud?
Do you limit the size of trade that can be made to be less than the accumulated 'value' (by some measure) of the existing reputation?
Re:Personally very sick of the e-mail size snobs
on
E-Mail Size Limits?
·
· Score: 2
Sometimes you just need to send a 20 meg file. Who is this network working for again?
The problem is, the sender may perceive that they "need" to send a 20 meg file, but the recipient may not agree. The recipient has no choice in the matter (the average person not knowing how to delete mail unread). Far better to provide a link where the recipient can get the file if they decide they need it, with a warning about the size.
Those with dial-up connections shouldn't be downloading those files
Who are you to decide that? I often get large files via FTP on dialup - how do you think people on slow connections try out new software? But that's not to say I want to get 10Mb e-mail attachments.
It's not always obvious who is on dialup and who isn't. I once made the mistake of sending large (>1Mb) attachments to someone who I wrongly assumed was on a fast connection, and caused him great inconvenience. Never again.
I agree that running an FTP server isn't easy enough for everyone, but a company can maintain one for all its employees, and teach them how to use it properly, providing scripts or a web interface to make it convenient. No good can come of letting people unthinkingly click "Attach".
Sometimes you just need to send a 20 meg file. Who is this network working for again?
Just to show you there's no hard feelings, I have e-mailed you a copy of this great new game I have called Grand Theft Auto 3.
we publish all our standard operating procedures (SOPs) in PDF format since it's so difficult to copy.
I just found a way to penetrate your security! The exploit is:
Ctrl-C
Ctrl-V
Do you think I should post this to SecurityFocus or something?
Honestly, I know what you're trying to say, but I don't understand why companies do this. Anyone who was motivated to fake a report from your company could still do so. All publishing in PDF format does is annoy people and waste bandwidth. Actually, you'd be better off publishing documents as HTML on a webserver you control, because people can see the address it's at and be (reasonably) sure that it's official. If you release them as PDF files, surely people will be more likely to save them, print them out and forward them around, creating a situation where a fake is less likely to be spotted straight away?
If you're worried about employees tampering with internal documents - that's what file permissions are for.
I once worked for a shit company who generated a lot of their transaction reports as PDFs for "security" so they couldn't be modified. It also made it impossible to do diffs, search groups of reports, etc. I was ordered to compare files by flicking between them and looking for differences. Tards.
I assume in this model anyone, anywhere could see the source codebase... with any of its bugs and exploits....
How would "exploits" apply to air-traffic control, though? The ATC system isn't going to be accessible through the Internet (hopefully).
I can't see that knowing about bugs would help you, really. People have masqueraded as the tower using radio transmissions in the past, but having access to the source code wouldn't help you do that.
"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"
"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"
"Digital rights management (DRM) is an important, emerging technology that many believe will be central to the digital economy of the future. As a means of defining rules and setting policies that enhance the integrity and trust of digital content consumption, DRM is vital for a wide range of content-protection uses. Some examples of DRM are the protection of valuable intellectual property, trusted e-mail and persistent protection of corporate documents.
"
[from http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/2002/j ul02/0724palladiumwp.asp ]
What do you think they're talking about when they say "trusted e-mail" and "persistent protection of corporate documents"?
Re:Viable Alternative?
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Let me tell you: Internet Explorer 5.5 runs beautifully in Xandros.
This could revolutionise the browser experience. Features available in IE 5.5:
I'm surprised that people always assume e-books are to be read on computer monitors. Try reading one on a monochrome Palm or Bookman. It's not at all uncomfortable.
Don't expect IE to move forwards now - why should they? Opera is not competition to IE, neither is Mozilla. Although they are both better, IE is there on the desktop, and Moz/Opera are not.
In the short-term, you're right. But I think there is hope for alternative browsers to increase their share. If Opera becomes ubiquitous on mobiles, it'll get a certain brand-name recognition and people might try it on the desktop. Also, I think OEMs and people like AOL might start bundling Netscape 6 or the free version of Opera.
When people realise that other free browsers are becoming radically better (and less risky security-wise) than IE, I think enough of them will switch to end the IE monopoly.
the developers could arguably write code smart enough to check your spreadsheet to see if it contained one of the freakazoid special features,
That's what they should do. Like you say, most of the time the warnings aren't valid.
This might be a minor annoyance for an advanced user, but for the typical person, these sort of things are a huge obstacle to moving from MS, because they can't figure out how to interchange documents.
No, I think they're on about using the Mozilla codebase to make desktop applications, where the code is installed on your machine. Like Galeon, or kiosks, or that wacky Mozilla-based OEOne desktop thing, or something. NOT "web applications" that work over HTTP.
Not sure whether it will catch on, but it's nice that they make it easy for other developers to benefit from all the work that's gone into coding Mozilla.
In Opera 6, you can zoom pages from 20 to 1000%, switch to a custom stylesheet with one click, use mouse gestures, browse in tabs (long before Mozilla did it), highlight a piece of text and do a dozen different kinds of search on it with a single right-click...
What did IE 6 add? Cookie management. And, uh...
Opera runs on a dozen OSs, IE has to target Windows environments only.
Are Microsoft complacent, or is IE 7 going to incorporate some of these useful new features and maybe even innovate a little?
Isn't changing the appearance of a copywrited material illegal?
By its nature, how HTML is rendered is up to the browser. An HTML document doesn't have a set "appearance". Or are you saying that opening a website in a text-only browser is some kind of copyright violation?
I don't think ad-filtering proxies have ever been found to be illegal, anyway.
Exactly right. The reason that most users think they need Office is this:
Take a file in a simple format like CSV (comma separated) and edit it in Excel. When you save, the program will nag you to save it as an.XLS file and warn you that it "may" contain advanced features that will be lost if you don't. Same deal with RTF in Word.
So although most users don't use advanced Word features, they are bullied by MS software into saving everything in the proprietary formats.
OK, what I should have said is:
In the non-Web examples, the costs imposed on businesses are arguably too great to justify government compulsion to do those things, although they'd be desirable in principle.
On the Web, the costs of accessibility are so low that the government can justifiably compel firms to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? They only need registration for special areas, like cricket coverage. I don't consider the Times worth reading, but the Guardian is, and is also free.
It's really against the nature of the web to put measures in place that prevent linking to information (as opposed to requiring reg for a subscription service). The existence of reg-free partner links basically acknowledge this. The NYTimes wants its content available on Google News, but at the same time, it tries to make most of its users play a silly marketing game.
Like I say, if the NYT wants accurate demographics, they should use sampling. If they want people to sign up for opt-in marketing mails, they should sell ads on a useful e-mail newsletter or something. The registration is annoying, and also likely to give them misleading information.
While you're right about the BBC, you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of newspapers (including all the UK broadsheets) provide their content online without registration. They seem to be able to cover the costs of publishing their material electronically.
Means of studying populations by random sampling have been well understood for decades - there's just no need to take registration info from every visitor.
Finally, nobody is "pirating" NYTimes content. The NYTimes themselves provide these reg-free "partner" links, without even bothering to implement 'referer' checks.
I can't believe this was modded "Insightful".
The issue at stake is not whether their theoretical conjecture is true - it's whether it makes sense, or is just a string of buzzwords that sounds semi-plausible.
It's the difference between a paper saying "let's suppose that the gravitational constant varies with time", and then rigorously working out the implications and figuring out how the hypothesis could be tested - and a paper saying "let's suppose that the Foucault constant is memetically deifictified" (ie nonsense). The second one "breaks the rules" but will never advance theoretical physics. That's very different from advancing a coherent theory that may turn out to be false.
The Sokal hoax was nothing to do with "determinism". It was aimed at the postmodern (ab)use of scientific terminology with no regard to meaning.
Sokal is a robust defender of the idea that the experimental method is a useful way to study reality, rather than one narrative amongst many which are equally valid. He is an "objectivist" rather than a "relativist". Determinism doesn't really come into it - I'm sure he is familiar with quantum theory.
Nuff said.
That's very true. Love your Madonna cover, BTW.
Yeah, this is as stupid as the SETI league table turned out to be.
Sorry, correct link.
One problem I see with all this reputation-based stuff - how does it prevent attacks like this: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-530012.html?legacy=zd nn
where someone builds up a good rating through legit deals, then "turns to the dark side" and suddenly commits a big fraud?
Do you limit the size of trade that can be made to be less than the accumulated 'value' (by some measure) of the existing reputation?
The problem is, the sender may perceive that they "need" to send a 20 meg file, but the recipient may not agree. The recipient has no choice in the matter (the average person not knowing how to delete mail unread). Far better to provide a link where the recipient can get the file if they decide they need it, with a warning about the size.
Those with dial-up connections shouldn't be downloading those files
Who are you to decide that? I often get large files via FTP on dialup - how do you think people on slow connections try out new software? But that's not to say I want to get 10Mb e-mail attachments.
It's not always obvious who is on dialup and who isn't. I once made the mistake of sending large (>1Mb) attachments to someone who I wrongly assumed was on a fast connection, and caused him great inconvenience. Never again.
I agree that running an FTP server isn't easy enough for everyone, but a company can maintain one for all its employees, and teach them how to use it properly, providing scripts or a web interface to make it convenient. No good can come of letting people unthinkingly click "Attach".
Sometimes you just need to send a 20 meg file. Who is this network working for again?
Just to show you there's no hard feelings, I have e-mailed you a copy of this great new game I have called Grand Theft Auto 3.
I just found a way to penetrate your security! The exploit is:
Do you think I should post this to SecurityFocus or something?
Honestly, I know what you're trying to say, but I don't understand why companies do this. Anyone who was motivated to fake a report from your company could still do so. All publishing in PDF format does is annoy people and waste bandwidth. Actually, you'd be better off publishing documents as HTML on a webserver you control, because people can see the address it's at and be (reasonably) sure that it's official. If you release them as PDF files, surely people will be more likely to save them, print them out and forward them around, creating a situation where a fake is less likely to be spotted straight away?
If you're worried about employees tampering with internal documents - that's what file permissions are for.
I once worked for a shit company who generated a lot of their transaction reports as PDFs for "security" so they couldn't be modified. It also made it impossible to do diffs, search groups of reports, etc. I was ordered to compare files by flicking between them and looking for differences. Tards.
How would "exploits" apply to air-traffic control, though? The ATC system isn't going to be accessible through the Internet (hopefully).
I can't see that knowing about bugs would help you, really. People have masqueraded as the tower using radio transmissions in the past, but having access to the source code wouldn't help you do that.
It's not too hard if you use a combination of tear gas and the stun gun. Of course, that's not exactly non-violent.
"Your boss's e-mails will be written in disappearing ink!"
"You won't be able to send incrimiating documents to the press!"
"Digital rights management (DRM) is an important, emerging technology that many believe will be central to the digital economy of the future. As a means of defining rules and setting policies that enhance the integrity and trust of digital content consumption, DRM is vital for a wide range of content-protection uses. Some examples of DRM are the protection of valuable intellectual property, trusted e-mail and persistent protection of corporate documents. " [from http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/2002/j ul02/0724palladiumwp.asp ]
What do you think they're talking about when they say "trusted e-mail" and "persistent protection of corporate documents"?
This could revolutionise the browser experience. Features available in IE 5.5:
Wooo!
I'm surprised that people always assume e-books are to be read on computer monitors. Try reading one on a monochrome Palm or Bookman. It's not at all uncomfortable.
http://library.fictionwise.com/fll/
In the short-term, you're right. But I think there is hope for alternative browsers to increase their share. If Opera becomes ubiquitous on mobiles, it'll get a certain brand-name recognition and people might try it on the desktop. Also, I think OEMs and people like AOL might start bundling Netscape 6 or the free version of Opera.
When people realise that other free browsers are becoming radically better (and less risky security-wise) than IE, I think enough of them will switch to end the IE monopoly.
That's what they should do. Like you say, most of the time the warnings aren't valid.
This might be a minor annoyance for an advanced user, but for the typical person, these sort of things are a huge obstacle to moving from MS, because they can't figure out how to interchange documents.
Not sure whether it will catch on, but it's nice that they make it easy for other developers to benefit from all the work that's gone into coding Mozilla.
In Opera 6, you can zoom pages from 20 to 1000%, switch to a custom stylesheet with one click, use mouse gestures, browse in tabs (long before Mozilla did it), highlight a piece of text and do a dozen different kinds of search on it with a single right-click...
What did IE 6 add? Cookie management. And, uh ...
Opera runs on a dozen OSs, IE has to target Windows environments only.
Are Microsoft complacent, or is IE 7 going to incorporate some of these useful new features and maybe even innovate a little?
By its nature, how HTML is rendered is up to the browser. An HTML document doesn't have a set "appearance". Or are you saying that opening a website in a text-only browser is some kind of copyright violation?
I don't think ad-filtering proxies have ever been found to be illegal, anyway.
Take a file in a simple format like CSV (comma separated) and edit it in Excel. When you save, the program will nag you to save it as an .XLS file and warn you that it "may" contain advanced features that will be lost if you don't. Same deal with RTF in Word.
So although most users don't use advanced Word features, they are bullied by MS software into saving everything in the proprietary formats.
Insightful.
On the Web, the costs of accessibility are so low that the government can justifiably compel firms to do it.