To be fair, although slashdot has a huge readership, it still is known to only a segment of the Internet using population. CNN.com and MSNBC.com, on the other hand, are widely known brand names and advertised all the time by their respective networks. I'm guessing that slashdot would have gotten at most 1/10-1/20th of the traffic that CNN.com and MSNBC.com received.
One of the other guys at techspedition is Hal Helms, one of the early embracers/gurus of Fusebox. The current Fusebox 3 standard is based heavily on many of his ideas, including circuits and FuseDoc. He has written a book called Discovering CFCs (ColdFusion MX Components). Thus, I'm guessing that he is working hard to integrate CFCs into Fusebox.
Fusebox is relatively young, and still very flexible. It's very likely that the new features in ColdFusion MX will be incorporated into newer versions of Fusebox. After all, they need to return the favor--Macromedia/Allaire actually incorporated a tag developed by Fusebox developer Steve Nelson into ColdFusion 5: <cf_bodycontent>, with some variations, became <cfsavecontent>.
Well, the truth is there aren't all that many stories on ASP either, and when they are they usually fall into the "My isn't Microsoft just about the most evil/least competent software manufacturer out there?"
Slashdot is really big on Open Source software, but is not quite as keen on proprietary software. And a license ColdFusion, until recently, wasn't cheap--it started at above the $1k mark. Now, a license for ColdFusion MX can be had for as "little" as $500 or so, I think.
I am an ardent ColdFusion programmer, by the way, and I have noticed, if anything, that use of ASP has dropped while ColdFusion is showing up in more and more sites as people discover just how easy and powerful it is.
I don't think you need to worry about ColdFusion losing its relevance. Every advance in ColdFusion has lead to greater use despite the possibility of more complexity.
This is because the starting level has remained the same throughout. Thus, it isn't necessary to use CFCs or any of the complex constructs that are now available. One of the strengths of ColdFusion is that you can pretty much take any book ever written about ColdFusion from '98 onward and with it create a working web application. So, it is incredibly easy to learn. So, I don't think that the newest changes are going to decrease its popularity.
Voodoo Mathematics
on
The Aging Gamer
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This actually makes sense, since many of them began gaming in the 70's.
Right, this makes sense. If you are 35 and you are gaming, you must have been doing so your entire lifetime.
How about this instead: Someone who is 35 now was in their mid teens when arcade games were really big in the mid eighties. They started playing the games non-stop. Most of them did not play on computers at home, they went out to an arcade.
Fast forward ten to fifteen years. Home game consoles are so cheap and so powerful that they're better than going to the arcade. The same people who went to the arcade started buying the game consoles.
Which brings us to today. Believe it or not folks, I actually know some people who are over 35 years old, and they might actually fool you into thinking they weren't wearing Depends. Most of them still like doing the things they did when they were in their late teens and early twenties, which includes gaming.
Now, if the study had claimed that the average gaming age was 40 or 45, that would have been a little harder to swallow.
It contains documents written up by various industry organizations, including the MPAA.
One particularly interesting quote (from the CONTENT PROTECTION STATUS REPORT II):
There has been no progress toward establishing a dialog with the Information Technology industry aimed at developing technological means to stem the avalanche of movie theft on so-called "file-sharing" peer-to-peer networks. Neither an April 12 studio CEO letter nor a May 16 follow-up letter to nine technology company CEOs requesting a high-level working group have received a response.
Good.
Also, I love how they use the word "avalanche". First of all, these movies are something on the order of 400-500 MBs in size. So there can't be all that many people downloading them--who wants to wait that long? At that point you may as well rent the darn thing! Secondly, even if the file sizes were small, the population of file swappers is tiny, miniscule in comparison to the vast number of people who purchase or rent the movies. Hollywood is easily, easily spending more on legal fees and lobbying than they are losing from file-swapping forms of copyright infringement.
Without question their greatest enemy is the black market, where cheap, illegal copies of movies are being made. And why aren't they targeting VCR manufacturers, who actually create tape copiers that ignore copywrite protections?
According to most things I've read, computers that count upwards from 1970 are doomed to have their date information run out in the year 2030. Has any though been made about how that conversion is going to be made?
One thing about the whole Y2K thing--proves just how into themselves geeks are. Uber programmers were going on about a post-apocalyptic type situation, but even in developed countries where little or no Y2K fixes were made, things went just fine.
Well, the advantage might be that currently most people don't compost, as they have no reason too. Food scraps make up a decent amount of landfill waste, but it's all mixed in and can't be separated out.
However, if people had a incentive for composting, they would put all of their waste into the battery located in the back of their house, say. While not all of the scraps would be gone, it would probably decay much more quickly than it would in a landfill, and it would generate some electricity.
Waste management crews could pick up the waste once it had been decomposed, filter it, sanitize it, and sell it as a fertilizer or soil filler.
The improvement is that chemical batteries actually add to our trash volume and these might reduce it.
I don't know about you, but I can get a 2 pound -- oh hell, let's call it one kilogram to make the conversions easy -- for about a buck. So, each gram costs $.001. Fifty grams, then, costs 5 cents, not fifty cents.
I don't know where you're shopping, but you're paying too much for sugar.
It gets even better when you buy it in bulk. Also, consider that you would no longer necessarily have to use sugar that was intended for human consumption. With that in mind, I'm sure there's probably "waste sugar" -- maybe its discolored, maybe it got contaminated in some way -- that still is suitable for the battery. That might be cheaper.
Also, don't forget that the ultimate goal is to use leftovers, not pure sugar.
Finally, you're using the traditional "free-market" technique of *not* looking at *all the costs*. Continuing to use traditional power plants running on oil means that we're constantly having to defend our "interests" in the middle east, spending billions and billions of dollars on military equipment and personel. This military intervention is what keeps our oil prices low. Thus, part of that cost has to be figured in to the cost of the electricity, and at that point the sugar wins hands down, I think.
Although it's true that the first date has already passed, the second night, October 30, is still a few weeks away.
I am looking forward to what the results of this are, although I'm betting on a ton of false positives--after all, what sort of people do you expect to be looking in the sky for more planets? It's to be expected that some of them might be overeager to "see" planets that aren't there--the anal probes that aliens plant in abductees are known to make them delusional.
I just want to express thanks to all those in the Free Software movement who *are* politically motivated enough to take these sorts of efforts on behalf of all of us.
If had w3 standards that required us to pay money to follow them, this would put many developers and individuals using those standards into a real bind. Ensuring that these patents will be royalty free is crucial to the growth of standards conformance. We don't want financial *disincentives* to following standards.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many different areas there are in which the freedom of the people is being transferred to corporate or moneyed interests, and how important it is to fight against them. It's good to see that the little guy still wins from time to time.
On the other hand, keep in mind that PDF is a very, very well supported format. You will have no problem finding reams and reams of solution providers, software, etc. that suport the PDF format.
DjVu may or may not be closed, but it's not exactly a standard, while PDF is. I'd at least keep a copy of every document in PDF format.
I think most of the protesting regarding these recent copyright laws is that they seem to be designed to protect the copyrights not of authors, but rather corporations. These new laws do not, to my understanding, affect the copyrights of any living authors. They merely extend the copyrights, retroactively, of works whose copyright had already expired as well as extending copyrights for some works which have been already copyrighted for over 75 years.
If my understanding of this issue is incorrect, I would love to be informed of this.
I am not certain how authors will not make any money off of digitized books, especially in cases where they are not actually available in digital form (which could lead to copyright infrigement or unfair use), but rather versions in digital form which could be printed on demand. This would only benefit the author, as it means that their book can be made available to anyone anywhere in the world, in *printed* form, for which they will receive royalties.
Finally, I think that most authors don't make much money off of the royalties, but rather off of payments from the publisher. Is this incorrect?
From what I've heard, this will be the future of *all* printing. With the exception of perennial winners like Stephen King, authors will now have their works digitized. Then people interested in reading their books will go to a printing center where an exact copy of that book can be printed.
The benefits, of course, is that the number of copies printed matches exactly the number of copies purchased. The downside is that many people use hands-on browsing to find books they want, which won't be possible when the books are in digital format.
In regards to this specific campaign, I think that it's hopeful that the Supreme court is making a decision here, because I think they tend to be pretty good about decisions in these areas. It's pretty clear from a legal standpoint what the decision should be. The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights. This law restricts our rights and extends copyright protections to far beyond what their original limitations were. I *don't* think that the bookmobile will have much effect on the Court, but hopefully it will make some of our citizens more aware of just how many new ways corporations are seeking to screw us.
Judging by this article in Salon Magazine, I'm guesing that Courtney Love isn't that big a fan of the recording industry and she (sort of) supported/defended Napster when it was still around.
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
The results suggest the western elephants have been isolated from the other elephants for some 2.4 million years, Eggert said.
I'd like to know what the term "isolated" means in this context. Obviously, not geographically, since apparently these elephants can be found in the same habitat as the other two species.
I myself am skeptical of these findings. There are no details given as to the distinctions in the DNA between the different species. Does anyone know what the cut-off point is for defining a species by DNA?
Also, has any actual animal behavior been found which suggests that this group of elephants isolates itself from other species of elephants? Maybe to elephant specialists "all elephants look alike" (probably not!), but surely differences between species -- their behavior, their appearance -- should have been observed. If not, can the elephants themselves tell the species apart?
...Bees are much lighter. Unless I'm mistaken, a dog used to sniff out a mine could easily set it off, even if it were careful. The mines are sensitive enough to go off when a small child steps on them, so they are clearly sensitive enough for dogs. Bees, on the other hand, weigh close to nothing and probably would not ever be able to set off a mine.
The question is: once a bee pinpoints a mine (by landing it, I suppose), how is that mine put out of comission?
Finally: I can understand how dogs can be trained and motivated to do this sort of thing. What incentive would make these bees "do our bidding"?
When arpanet was first designed, I don't think there was any thought that it would have as many users as it currently does. In fact, I'm betting that the absolute ceiling on the expected number of total (not concurrent) users would have been 1,000,000 or so.
Arpanet's main concern, I think, was forming a network that could go through many pathways -- not a network that could handle an endlessly growing amount of bandwidth usage.
I myself have experienced occasions in which the ISP's backbone provider had part of their network go down, and the access time became painfully slow...something on the order of 200 bytes per second over a DSL modem.
I don't know all the details, but they have been able to show that excessive usage can slow down access times over the Net.
In the spring of 2000, I started to develop what I believe was the beginnings of CTS in my left wrist. It was bad, too--there were some times when I had to lie in bed, cradling my arm because of the pain.
What I found extremely useful was physical therapy. My physical therapist manipulated my shoulder, which was tensed up and pinching the nerve that ran down my arm. He also provided helpful exercises for strengthening and stretching my arms and back, which was responsible for my bad posture. Really, he ran the gamut -- exercises, forced stretches, massage, electronic accupuncture, etc.
Since then, I have had occasional tingling in my arm, but no more pain.
If cold lasers work, that's great, but much of the work in my case had to be done in my shoulder, back, and posture. Without the manipulations on my shoulder and helpful advice of exercising, I probably would have reverted back if my treatments had been local to my wrist.
All other disadvantages of enlisting with the Air Force aside, keep in mind that the true purpose of the Air Force is to serve as a military force. This means that you will have to make yourself comfortable with the possibility that you will, either indirectly or directly, be responsible for the deaths of other people.
There are many ways to learn networking. Going through the Air Force may be free (and will no doubt use the latest and greatest technology), but in my opinion it is much more costly.
The example you give --protecting property rights using laws versus technology -- does not exactly match with the situation, so it makes deep linking sound more extreme than it is.
Suppose I write a book, and I really want a person to read it from front to back. If they just flip to the page they want, their going to skip right over my autobiography and the list of famous people I've eaten lunch with. But although I might create a special kind of eBook that could only be read front to back (technological solution), I couldn't exactly pass a law that says that authors can say whether or not readers must read a book front to back.
Since people can use technology to prevent people from deep linking, you argue that it makes more sense to just make it a law. Following your example above, that would be like me using 100 ft flame throwers to protect my property boundaries, and thus passing a law that says no one can pass within 100 ft of the edge of my property.
Property rights took a long time to develop. For the first 10,000 years or so razor wire (okay, stone walls and bows & arrows) was it. It was only because so much time had passed that a precedent could eventually be established. It's really too premature at this time to pass a law like this.
Let's wait for the technology to develop, and then see whether any legal protections need to be put into place.
Also, doesn't prohibiting me from linking to another site violate my first amendment rights, which would clearly have greater legal importance?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, although slashdot has a huge readership, it still is known to only a segment of the Internet using population. CNN.com and MSNBC.com, on the other hand, are widely known brand names and advertised all the time by their respective networks. I'm guessing that slashdot would have gotten at most 1/10-1/20th of the traffic that CNN.com and MSNBC.com received.
I don't mean to brag or anything, but I've got a couple of pretty impressive warts.
:-)
I'm going to try this method out and see how well it works. Look here in about a month for the results.
That is assuming, of course, that I can deal with having a piece of duct tape on the joint of my left thumb for 30 days.
You might look into FuseQ. It's being developed by John Quarto-vonTivadar (and perhaps others?) at Techspedition. One of FuseQ's goals is to become the basis for the MCV model within Fusebox. See also this article.
One of the other guys at techspedition is Hal Helms, one of the early embracers/gurus of Fusebox. The current Fusebox 3 standard is based heavily on many of his ideas, including circuits and FuseDoc. He has written a book called Discovering CFCs (ColdFusion MX Components). Thus, I'm guessing that he is working hard to integrate CFCs into Fusebox.
Fusebox is relatively young, and still very flexible. It's very likely that the new features in ColdFusion MX will be incorporated into newer versions of Fusebox. After all, they need to return the favor--Macromedia/Allaire actually incorporated a tag developed by Fusebox developer Steve Nelson into ColdFusion 5: <cf_bodycontent>, with some variations, became <cfsavecontent>.
Well, the truth is there aren't all that many stories on ASP either, and when they are they usually fall into the "My isn't Microsoft just about the most evil/least competent software manufacturer out there?"
Slashdot is really big on Open Source software, but is not quite as keen on proprietary software. And a license ColdFusion, until recently, wasn't cheap--it started at above the $1k mark. Now, a license for ColdFusion MX can be had for as "little" as $500 or so, I think.
I am an ardent ColdFusion programmer, by the way, and I have noticed, if anything, that use of ASP has dropped while ColdFusion is showing up in more and more sites as people discover just how easy and powerful it is.
I don't think you need to worry about ColdFusion losing its relevance. Every advance in ColdFusion has lead to greater use despite the possibility of more complexity.
This is because the starting level has remained the same throughout. Thus, it isn't necessary to use CFCs or any of the complex constructs that are now available. One of the strengths of ColdFusion is that you can pretty much take any book ever written about ColdFusion from '98 onward and with it create a working web application. So, it is incredibly easy to learn. So, I don't think that the newest changes are going to decrease its popularity.
This actually makes sense, since many of them began gaming in the 70's.
Right, this makes sense. If you are 35 and you are gaming, you must have been doing so your entire lifetime.
How about this instead: Someone who is 35 now was in their mid teens when arcade games were really big in the mid eighties. They started playing the games non-stop. Most of them did not play on computers at home, they went out to an arcade.
Fast forward ten to fifteen years. Home game consoles are so cheap and so powerful that they're better than going to the arcade. The same people who went to the arcade started buying the game consoles.
Which brings us to today. Believe it or not folks, I actually know some people who are over 35 years old, and they might actually fool you into thinking they weren't wearing Depends. Most of them still like doing the things they did when they were in their late teens and early twenties, which includes gaming.
Now, if the study had claimed that the average gaming age was 40 or 45, that would have been a little harder to swallow.
It contains documents written up by various industry organizations, including the MPAA.
One particularly interesting quote (from the CONTENT PROTECTION STATUS REPORT II):
There has been no progress toward establishing a dialog with
the Information Technology industry aimed at developing
technological means to stem the avalanche of movie theft on
so-called "file-sharing" peer-to-peer networks. Neither an April
12 studio CEO letter nor a May 16 follow-up letter to nine
technology company CEOs requesting a high-level working
group have received a response.
Good.
Also, I love how they use the word "avalanche". First of all, these movies are something on the order of 400-500 MBs in size. So there can't be all that many people downloading them--who wants to wait that long? At that point you may as well rent the darn thing! Secondly, even if the file sizes were small, the population of file swappers is tiny, miniscule in comparison to the vast number of people who purchase or rent the movies. Hollywood is easily, easily spending more on legal fees and lobbying than they are losing from file-swapping forms of copyright infringement.
Without question their greatest enemy is the black market, where cheap, illegal copies of movies are being made. And why aren't they targeting VCR manufacturers, who actually create tape copiers that ignore copywrite protections?
According to most things I've read, computers that count upwards from 1970 are doomed to have their date information run out in the year 2030. Has any though been made about how that conversion is going to be made?
One thing about the whole Y2K thing--proves just how into themselves geeks are. Uber programmers were going on about a post-apocalyptic type situation, but even in developed countries where little or no Y2K fixes were made, things went just fine.
Well, the advantage might be that currently most people don't compost, as they have no reason too. Food scraps make up a decent amount of landfill waste, but it's all mixed in and can't be separated out.
However, if people had a incentive for composting, they would put all of their waste into the battery located in the back of their house, say. While not all of the scraps would be gone, it would probably decay much more quickly than it would in a landfill, and it would generate some electricity.
Waste management crews could pick up the waste once it had been decomposed, filter it, sanitize it, and sell it as a fertilizer or soil filler.
The improvement is that chemical batteries actually add to our trash volume and these might reduce it.
I don't know about you, but I can get a 2 pound -- oh hell, let's call it one kilogram to make the conversions easy -- for about a buck. So, each gram costs $.001. Fifty grams, then, costs 5 cents, not fifty cents.
I don't know where you're shopping, but you're paying too much for sugar.
It gets even better when you buy it in bulk. Also, consider that you would no longer necessarily have to use sugar that was intended for human consumption. With that in mind, I'm sure there's probably "waste sugar" -- maybe its discolored, maybe it got contaminated in some way -- that still is suitable for the battery. That might be cheaper.
Also, don't forget that the ultimate goal is to use leftovers, not pure sugar.
Finally, you're using the traditional "free-market" technique of *not* looking at *all the costs*. Continuing to use traditional power plants running on oil means that we're constantly having to defend our "interests" in the middle east, spending billions and billions of dollars on military equipment and personel. This military intervention is what keeps our oil prices low. Thus, part of that cost has to be figured in to the cost of the electricity, and at that point the sugar wins hands down, I think.
Yeah--yeah--compiling snort rules.
Huh huh.
Although it's true that the first date has already passed, the second night, October 30, is still a few weeks away.
I am looking forward to what the results of this are, although I'm betting on a ton of false positives--after all, what sort of people do you expect to be looking in the sky for more planets? It's to be expected that some of them might be overeager to "see" planets that aren't there--the anal probes that aliens plant in abductees are known to make them delusional.
Try google...DNA Music pulls up some good links...
I just want to express thanks to all those in the Free Software movement who *are* politically motivated enough to take these sorts of efforts on behalf of all of us.
If had w3 standards that required us to pay money to follow them, this would put many developers and individuals using those standards into a real bind. Ensuring that these patents will be royalty free is crucial to the growth of standards conformance. We don't want financial *disincentives* to following standards.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many different areas there are in which the freedom of the people is being transferred to corporate or moneyed interests, and how important it is to fight against them. It's good to see that the little guy still wins from time to time.
On the other hand, keep in mind that PDF is a very, very well supported format. You will have no problem finding reams and reams of solution providers, software, etc. that suport the PDF format.
DjVu may or may not be closed, but it's not exactly a standard, while PDF is. I'd at least keep a copy of every document in PDF format.
I think most of the protesting regarding these recent copyright laws is that they seem to be designed to protect the copyrights not of authors, but rather corporations. These new laws do not, to my understanding, affect the copyrights of any living authors. They merely extend the copyrights, retroactively, of works whose copyright had already expired as well as extending copyrights for some works which have been already copyrighted for over 75 years.
If my understanding of this issue is incorrect, I would love to be informed of this.
I am not certain how authors will not make any money off of digitized books, especially in cases where they are not actually available in digital form (which could lead to copyright infrigement or unfair use), but rather versions in digital form which could be printed on demand. This would only benefit the author, as it means that their book can be made available to anyone anywhere in the world, in *printed* form, for which they will receive royalties.
Finally, I think that most authors don't make much money off of the royalties, but rather off of payments from the publisher. Is this incorrect?
From what I've heard, this will be the future of *all* printing. With the exception of perennial winners like Stephen King, authors will now have their works digitized. Then people interested in reading their books will go to a printing center where an exact copy of that book can be printed.
The benefits, of course, is that the number of copies printed matches exactly the number of copies purchased. The downside is that many people use hands-on browsing to find books they want, which won't be possible when the books are in digital format.
In regards to this specific campaign, I think that it's hopeful that the Supreme court is making a decision here, because I think they tend to be pretty good about decisions in these areas. It's pretty clear from a legal standpoint what the decision should be. The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights. This law restricts our rights and extends copyright protections to far beyond what their original limitations were. I *don't* think that the bookmobile will have much effect on the Court, but hopefully it will make some of our citizens more aware of just how many new ways corporations are seeking to screw us.
So, here's hoping. *crosses fingers*
If I remember correctly, the exact text was,
Although sometimes necessary, unauthorized duplication is never as good as the real thing
Judging by this article in Salon Magazine, I'm guesing that Courtney Love isn't that big a fan of the recording industry and she (sort of) supported/defended Napster when it was still around.
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
The results suggest the western elephants have been isolated from the other elephants for some 2.4 million years, Eggert said.
I'd like to know what the term "isolated" means in this context. Obviously, not geographically, since apparently these elephants can be found in the same habitat as the other two species.
I myself am skeptical of these findings. There are no details given as to the distinctions in the DNA between the different species. Does anyone know what the cut-off point is for defining a species by DNA?
Also, has any actual animal behavior been found which suggests that this group of elephants isolates itself from other species of elephants? Maybe to elephant specialists "all elephants look alike" (probably not!), but surely differences between species -- their behavior, their appearance -- should have been observed. If not, can the elephants themselves tell the species apart?
...Bees are much lighter. Unless I'm mistaken, a dog used to sniff out a mine could easily set it off, even if it were careful. The mines are sensitive enough to go off when a small child steps on them, so they are clearly sensitive enough for dogs. Bees, on the other hand, weigh close to nothing and probably would not ever be able to set off a mine.
The question is: once a bee pinpoints a mine (by landing it, I suppose), how is that mine put out of comission?
Finally: I can understand how dogs can be trained and motivated to do this sort of thing. What incentive would make these bees "do our bidding"?
When arpanet was first designed, I don't think there was any thought that it would have as many users as it currently does. In fact, I'm betting that the absolute ceiling on the expected number of total (not concurrent) users would have been 1,000,000 or so.
Arpanet's main concern, I think, was forming a network that could go through many pathways -- not a network that could handle an endlessly growing amount of bandwidth usage.
I myself have experienced occasions in which the ISP's backbone provider had part of their network go down, and the access time became painfully slow...something on the order of 200 bytes per second over a DSL modem.
I don't know all the details, but they have been able to show that excessive usage can slow down access times over the Net.
In the spring of 2000, I started to develop what I believe was the beginnings of CTS in my left wrist. It was bad, too--there were some times when I had to lie in bed, cradling my arm because of the pain.
What I found extremely useful was physical therapy. My physical therapist manipulated my shoulder, which was tensed up and pinching the nerve that ran down my arm. He also provided helpful exercises for strengthening and stretching my arms and back, which was responsible for my bad posture. Really, he ran the gamut -- exercises, forced stretches, massage, electronic accupuncture, etc.
Since then, I have had occasional tingling in my arm, but no more pain.
If cold lasers work, that's great, but much of the work in my case had to be done in my shoulder, back, and posture. Without the manipulations on my shoulder and helpful advice of exercising, I probably would have reverted back if my treatments had been local to my wrist.
All other disadvantages of enlisting with the Air Force aside, keep in mind that the true purpose of the Air Force is to serve as a military force. This means that you will have to make yourself comfortable with the possibility that you will, either indirectly or directly, be responsible for the deaths of other people.
There are many ways to learn networking. Going through the Air Force may be free (and will no doubt use the latest and greatest technology), but in my opinion it is much more costly.
I disagree with your argument.
The example you give --protecting property rights using laws versus technology -- does not exactly match with the situation, so it makes deep linking sound more extreme than it is.
Suppose I write a book, and I really want a person to read it from front to back. If they just flip to the page they want, their going to skip right over my autobiography and the list of famous people I've eaten lunch with. But although I might create a special kind of eBook that could only be read front to back (technological solution), I couldn't exactly pass a law that says that authors can say whether or not readers must read a book front to back.
Since people can use technology to prevent people from deep linking, you argue that it makes more sense to just make it a law. Following your example above, that would be like me using 100 ft flame throwers to protect my property boundaries, and thus passing a law that says no one can pass within 100 ft of the edge of my property.
Property rights took a long time to develop. For the first 10,000 years or so razor wire (okay, stone walls and bows & arrows) was it. It was only because so much time had passed that a precedent could eventually be established. It's really too premature at this time to pass a law like this.
Let's wait for the technology to develop, and then see whether any legal protections need to be put into place.
Also, doesn't prohibiting me from linking to another site violate my first amendment rights, which would clearly have greater legal importance?