" The voters did decide.... GWB by 300 votes, unless you think the Liberal Miami Hearald is biased towards GWB?"
I remember those recount stories back when they happened in mid-2001. On both CNN and listening the next day on NPR I heard and read that the recount showed Gore won Florida. Oh sure, when they only recounted those counties Gore was asking to be recounted, Bush still was ahead by 300 votes -- and that's what made all the headlines. But when they recounted ALL the counties in Florida, Gore was ahead. For some reason, that didn't make headlines but was buried about 2/3 the way down the CNN story. Yet it was the most significant fact of all: The voters of Florida picked Gore, thereby making him win both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
By then, of course, it was too late to do much, and would be a real mess to try to fix, so that's probably why the news got buried. But many of us noted those facts at the time and we haven't forgotten, no matter how many misinformed people still think Bush won by 300 votes.
I was suggesting that they target probable cause, not free speech, or skin color, or nationality. If they had real evidence against this guy, go for it. But what they had seemed weaker than that.
I noticed that comment too, actually, so my thoughts were more directed at prosecuters in general and not specifically at this one guy. In fact, in the Mountain West, with their typical distrust of big government, it might well be harder to pick on the little guy.
Yup, proved my point. That is precisely the argument that was used to racially profile black men. So how about this reasoning: 100% of deliberate terrorists acts have been committed by humans. So let's use the past as an indicator for the FUTURE and watch all humans.
Or we could instead do what law enforcement is supposed to do: Keep an eye on people when there is probably cause, not just because of causal factors or skin color or nationality. Do you have any idea how many perfectly innocent foreign Islamic men exist around the world?
David Nevin, lead defense attorney for Sami Al-Hussayen, said as he left the courthouse that he thinks Al-Hussayen's acquittal on terrorism charges sends a message.
"I hope the message is that the First Amendment is important and meaningful in this country, and actions protected by the First Amendment really shouldn't be subject to prosecution," he said. "I think (the prosecution of) this case represented a pushing of the envelope for what will be permissible in the future. I think this case suggests they won't do that in the future - which I think is good for the First Amendment."
Well, it would be nice if that were the outcome of this case, that people would stop trying to push the First Amendment back. But I suspect the opposite will be the case: They will re-double their efforts to find ways to prosecute anyone they don't like. Prosecuters who lose cases don't usually think, "Hmm...guess I was in the wrong." Instead they think, "Hmm...better work harder to get convictions."
In America, the big thing used to be DWB: Driving While Black, where you could be pulled over just for having the wrong skin color. In today's America, there are a few who seem to have the idea of EWI: Existing While Islamic. Well, sorry, but Islam is not the problem here, it is extremism. Extremists are the dangeous ones. But hey, let's forget about that and find ways to trash the Constitution, shall we?...sigh...
Just set your mother-in-law up with a VOIP over WAN phone, tell her she can call you any time from the garden, and then when she calls just put the phone next to a recording of you saying, "Yup...uh huh...sure, that makes sense....yeah..." When she complains about the connection issues, just tell her, "I hear you better than ever, must be your hearing."
I don't think thise iVue product will succeed in the marketplace unless it has some totally new feature that can seduce unwary buyers. No, having to have your finger scanned is not "cool" and doesn't count as a feature. It's an annoyance. Who wants to verify themselves to their own player to hear their own music? That's absurd.
No, this will only succeed if the RIAA is prepared to start shooting offenders. Or slightly less drastically, paying Congress to force people by law to buy such hobbled devices. In any case, it still won't work because people will develop biometric hacks, such as breathing on the fingerprint reader to reactivate the previous fingerprints: Voila! You're in. Sorry RIAA, you will lose every time.
" Research shows the ads have only become more predominant since the rise of pop-up guards. In the last two years, the number of pop-ups and pop-unders delivered to Web users has more than tripled. They made up 6.4 percent of all online ads in April of this year, compared with 1.8 percent in the same period of 2002, according to data from researcher Nielsen NetRatings."
That's not a very good way to look at the numbers. A better way is to point out the April 2003 numbers as well, Then you get a much better idea of the trend:
The article says that the ads have tripled since the rise of the pop-up blockers, and while that's true, it is also true that the vast majority of that growth came before mid-2003. In the year since then, ad growth has been almost stangnant -- exactly what you would expect to see as the ad whores gradually realize that people hate their guts enough to take steps to rid them from their lives.
No, to me those numbers tell me the opposite of the conclusion reached by the article author. To me those numbers say that pop-up blockers were not only effective, they were noticed by the ad companies and it caused a slowdown in pop-up ad trends. Of course, being the lowlifes that they are, they are now going to other method to force us to see what we have explicitly shown them we don't want to see. But that's par for the course for these leeches.
Oops, when I wrote, "make someone as sexy as an iPod," I meant to write "something" instead. Although, now that I think about it, the way I originally wrote it is probably just the way marketing droids think...
For the last couple of decades I have marvelled at how clunky Microsoft software looks. Yeah, it's slowly improving, but man, typically their stuff looks like a bunch of geeks designed it --- oh wait...
Anyway, if someone from Microsoft says he thinks competitors will be able to make someone as sexy as an iPod, well I ain't holding my breath. I've heard those promises before from Microsoft, only to be surprised at how truly oddball the final result appeared. So for my money, having someone at Microsoft talk about look-and-feel issues is like hearing a pre-schooler lecture about staying within the lines while coloring. Their heart might be in the right place, but their execution will be lacking.
I was talking about the 'hobby computer' scene, which was the start of the PC Industry, not preceding it. Visicalc was not avaiable in a baggie, but plenty of other stuff was. That was the era when the idea of locking down intellectual property began in the software industry. It was not the way things were done in the beginning.
Those enthusiasts were the 'PC' industy way back when. I remember those days, including the birth of shrinkwrap software when the first shrinkwrap packages were put on shelves. Before that, it was packaged in platic baggies. Back then it was common to share code. That was the culture Bill Gates railed against in his famous early letter arguing that software shouldn't be shared.
I'm not advocating a new way of doing things, but a return to historic norms. You hit the idea correctly: You make money in other ways, the way IBM and DEC did.
Anyway, the forces of history are inexorable. The Microsoft way will be marginalized.
Giving away source code is shooting yourself in the foot, if your business model depends on locking up source code and charging lots of money for it. For those of us in the rest of the world, giving away source code is the way things always used to be done, increasingly is the way things are being done, and will very much be the way it will be done in the future. Only dinosaurs like Microsoft will complain, while the rest of the world rapidly moves forward in innovation, something Microsoft has never shown a propensity for.
And if you want to start a company in this world and make money while giving away source code, go right ahead. Lots of companies are doing just fine that way. It's only the proprietary, lock-em-up, IP theft is a crime!, sign this NDA! crowd that will fall further and further back.
"But with all the thievery of intellectual property, and all the monopolizing tactics of the biggest corporations, maybe this is the protection that the individual/small corporate developers need?"
Agreed, it's become the thing to do to take pot shots at Enterprise around here. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Here's mine: Enterprise is getting better. Traditionally, Trek series hit their prime in season three, and this is no exception.
As for Friday nights, well, that's what TiVo is for, right?
Evil criminal type: "I am honored to be named among the many influential individuals who comprise the Ten Most Wanted list down at the post office. I pride myself on the work I do to create nefarious plots and solutions designed to pry cash from my victims. Some of my schemes are among the most interesting solutions developed in the criminal world."
I wasn't ridiculing people such as yourself. You do not have to tinker with anything, if you don't want to. That's cool. Just write your letters and go home, that's fine.
But to use your analogy of the car further, although you may not want to learn how the engine management system works, isn't it good to know that you could learn it if you wanted to? That you could open the hood at any time to check on the work the mechanic did? Wouldn't it be awful to be told you weren't allowed to look at your engine and had to trust the auto manufacturer any time they made an adjustment to your car?
That's the freedom part of FOSS. Not that you have to look at the code, but at least you can look at it if you wanted to. You have the freedom to look or not look as you want.
Sorry to see Groklaw not on the list, especially in the law group. I've learned more about the law in the last year from that site than I learned anywhere else...by far. It is also an example of a true community site that formed by self-selection. People just flocked to the site and made it what it became. The power of many-eyes in action, this time to discuss legal cases that could greatly impact our tech lives.
"using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates."
That's right, folks, only use "genuine" software for that clean, refreshing Microsoft feeling of comfort. The kind you cannot get with pirated software since they won't let you eliminate their own bugs that cause so many Net problems. The kind you cannot get with FOSS since you can see the code for yourself and fix the problems. No, if you want the genuine experience, the kind of out-of-the-box headache that only comes from Microsoft software, insist on "genuine" software! Our bank account balance will thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember those recount stories back when they happened in mid-2001. On both CNN and listening the next day on NPR I heard and read that the recount showed Gore won Florida. Oh sure, when they only recounted those counties Gore was asking to be recounted, Bush still was ahead by 300 votes -- and that's what made all the headlines. But when they recounted ALL the counties in Florida, Gore was ahead. For some reason, that didn't make headlines but was buried about 2/3 the way down the CNN story. Yet it was the most significant fact of all: The voters of Florida picked Gore, thereby making him win both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
By then, of course, it was too late to do much, and would be a real mess to try to fix, so that's probably why the news got buried. But many of us noted those facts at the time and we haven't forgotten, no matter how many misinformed people still think Bush won by 300 votes.
Well done. Those who note and remember the cycles of history are less likely to be fooled when the next cycle repeats itself.
I was suggesting that they target probable cause, not free speech, or skin color, or nationality. If they had real evidence against this guy, go for it. But what they had seemed weaker than that.
I noticed that comment too, actually, so my thoughts were more directed at prosecuters in general and not specifically at this one guy. In fact, in the Mountain West, with their typical distrust of big government, it might well be harder to pick on the little guy.
Oops, I meant "casual" not causal, and "probable" not probably.
Or we could instead do what law enforcement is supposed to do: Keep an eye on people when there is probably cause, not just because of causal factors or skin color or nationality. Do you have any idea how many perfectly innocent foreign Islamic men exist around the world?
"I hope the message is that the First Amendment is important and meaningful in this country, and actions protected by the First Amendment really shouldn't be subject to prosecution," he said. "I think (the prosecution of) this case represented a pushing of the envelope for what will be permissible in the future. I think this case suggests they won't do that in the future - which I think is good for the First Amendment."
Well, it would be nice if that were the outcome of this case, that people would stop trying to push the First Amendment back. But I suspect the opposite will be the case: They will re-double their efforts to find ways to prosecute anyone they don't like. Prosecuters who lose cases don't usually think, "Hmm...guess I was in the wrong." Instead they think, "Hmm...better work harder to get convictions."
In America, the big thing used to be DWB: Driving While Black, where you could be pulled over just for having the wrong skin color. In today's America, there are a few who seem to have the idea of EWI: Existing While Islamic. Well, sorry, but Islam is not the problem here, it is extremism. Extremists are the dangeous ones. But hey, let's forget about that and find ways to trash the Constitution, shall we? ...sigh...
Just set your mother-in-law up with a VOIP over WAN phone, tell her she can call you any time from the garden, and then when she calls just put the phone next to a recording of you saying, "Yup...uh huh...sure, that makes sense....yeah..." When she complains about the connection issues, just tell her, "I hear you better than ever, must be your hearing."
No, this will only succeed if the RIAA is prepared to start shooting offenders. Or slightly less drastically, paying Congress to force people by law to buy such hobbled devices. In any case, it still won't work because people will develop biometric hacks, such as breathing on the fingerprint reader to reactivate the previous fingerprints: Voila! You're in. Sorry RIAA, you will lose every time.
That's not a very good way to look at the numbers. A better way is to point out the April 2003 numbers as well, Then you get a much better idea of the trend:
2002: 1.8 percent
2003: 6.0 percent
2004: 6.4 percent
The article says that the ads have tripled since the rise of the pop-up blockers, and while that's true, it is also true that the vast majority of that growth came before mid-2003. In the year since then, ad growth has been almost stangnant -- exactly what you would expect to see as the ad whores gradually realize that people hate their guts enough to take steps to rid them from their lives.
No, to me those numbers tell me the opposite of the conclusion reached by the article author. To me those numbers say that pop-up blockers were not only effective, they were noticed by the ad companies and it caused a slowdown in pop-up ad trends. Of course, being the lowlifes that they are, they are now going to other method to force us to see what we have explicitly shown them we don't want to see. But that's par for the course for these leeches.
Oops, when I wrote, "make someone as sexy as an iPod," I meant to write "something" instead. Although, now that I think about it, the way I originally wrote it is probably just the way marketing droids think...
For the last couple of decades I have marvelled at how clunky Microsoft software looks. Yeah, it's slowly improving, but man, typically their stuff looks like a bunch of geeks designed it --- oh wait...
Anyway, if someone from Microsoft says he thinks competitors will be able to make someone as sexy as an iPod, well I ain't holding my breath. I've heard those promises before from Microsoft, only to be surprised at how truly oddball the final result appeared. So for my money, having someone at Microsoft talk about look-and-feel issues is like hearing a pre-schooler lecture about staying within the lines while coloring. Their heart might be in the right place, but their execution will be lacking.
I was talking about the 'hobby computer' scene, which was the start of the PC Industry, not preceding it. Visicalc was not avaiable in a baggie, but plenty of other stuff was. That was the era when the idea of locking down intellectual property began in the software industry. It was not the way things were done in the beginning.
I'm not advocating a new way of doing things, but a return to historic norms. You hit the idea correctly: You make money in other ways, the way IBM and DEC did.
Anyway, the forces of history are inexorable. The Microsoft way will be marginalized.
And if you want to start a company in this world and make money while giving away source code, go right ahead. Lots of companies are doing just fine that way. It's only the proprietary, lock-em-up, IP theft is a crime!, sign this NDA! crowd that will fall further and further back.
Too late, I already patented that idea. Pay up!
As for Friday nights, well, that's what TiVo is for, right?
Evil criminal type: "I am honored to be named among the many influential individuals who comprise the Ten Most Wanted list down at the post office. I pride myself on the work I do to create nefarious plots and solutions designed to pry cash from my victims. Some of my schemes are among the most interesting solutions developed in the criminal world."
(This space is what would have been blank had this message not been here)
Is that the one where Harry and Hermione invite Ron to join them for... No, nope, that's just wrong, must get image out of my head.
But to use your analogy of the car further, although you may not want to learn how the engine management system works, isn't it good to know that you could learn it if you wanted to? That you could open the hood at any time to check on the work the mechanic did? Wouldn't it be awful to be told you weren't allowed to look at your engine and had to trust the auto manufacturer any time they made an adjustment to your car?
That's the freedom part of FOSS. Not that you have to look at the code, but at least you can look at it if you wanted to. You have the freedom to look or not look as you want.
Sorry to see Groklaw not on the list, especially in the law group. I've learned more about the law in the last year from that site than I learned anywhere else...by far. It is also an example of a true community site that formed by self-selection. People just flocked to the site and made it what it became. The power of many-eyes in action, this time to discuss legal cases that could greatly impact our tech lives.
My precise point.
That's right, folks, only use "genuine" software for that clean, refreshing Microsoft feeling of comfort. The kind you cannot get with pirated software since they won't let you eliminate their own bugs that cause so many Net problems. The kind you cannot get with FOSS since you can see the code for yourself and fix the problems. No, if you want the genuine experience, the kind of out-of-the-box headache that only comes from Microsoft software, insist on "genuine" software! Our bank account balance will thank you.
OK, I give up. I see where this is going. Let's skip to the end move now: "Hey, M$, Take my DNA and patent it and put me out of my misery now."