You mention a good point. Email messages have different purposes. Some are chit-chat, some worthless jokes, some spam, some messages external to the organization, some internal, some from your boss, some from your employees, etc. But it's all the same in the inbox, governed by the same disk quota and archival policies. Perhaps the file/folder dynamic for email is a little lacking (I think of IBM's Remail, though I'm not sure if this really hits the problem). We just recently got "junk" as a new category with our filters. People use email differently of course, but we have few methods of treating messages differently outside of the user's direct intervention.
There are different ways to improve this. Perhaps one is to look at making email messages more like documents (like XML) and give the user more options in creating, saving, and searching their messages. Another is to improve indexing and categorization apart from the user entirely (something like Google). Another is efficient and longterm storage (like seperating attachments from mail).
Right now we have some more crude solutions like saving or deleting mail based on spam-targeted filters, timestamps, etc. But you are right, I think the solution has to start at the inbox and the user. We may need some fundamental improvements to email. Of course, we risk overcomplicating our busy and over-technical lives.
It's dry. Something an engineer would pick. Not bad in the least, but the disputed alternative has more presence, life, and feels fresh - it is more attractive no question. The fact that it fits with Windows so well makes the user's choice clear.
I think Firefox as a project has a lot of stress and expectation on it that is unusual for a majority of OSS projects. Firstly, browsers are very important and IE has encouraged people to switch. Secondly, browsers for years were a little stagnate, but now Mozilla/Firefox has allowed some homegrown customization and creativity. Thirdly, the project became popular before it was 100%. I use Firefox, but it still has a few bugs (probably inherited from Mozilla).
All this culminates in a large, expectant userbase which relies on the browser, even before it's 1.0 release. People care a lot about this software, and I think it takes a very capable leadership to understand this and work with the community. That's not something you just volunteer for - it takes a personal committment to people, not just projects. As OSS projects become bigger and include users who have no clue about development and less patience, the leadership of such projects will need to be that much more understanding and workable. Not that leadership is all about giving and compromising, but let's face it, the software is for people so that should be the goal. That is why we use it.
I thank all those who have, in any way, made Mozilla/Firefox what it is and who will play a part in what it will become.
There is this growing field called experimental economics. I'm not intimate with it, but it basically involves game theory and economic analysis. On some college campuses you can find economics labs. Students can be paid to participate in computer simulations with the tests usually involving making real money. It's the same concept as SL applied for the purposes of study - concoct a virtual world and let humans play. Usually the world is extremely limited, but as soon as some economist picks this up it might fly very well in the field.
This guy, Dr. Vernon Smith, is as I understand the father of experimental economics (and a nobel laureate).
Seriously, it's one of the few formal pieces of fashion for men that is widely acceptable. Different shades of suit are nice, but a tie can actually have some character. Even how you make the knot can be a little flavored (knot vs bow-like). Plus, it's a lot cheaper than a whole new outfit. And now that I think about it, I never wash, iron, or fold my ties either (like the doctors in the article, I'm sure). Simplest part of my formal wardrobe.
I never understood why people associate ties only with the stress of their work (the tying/binding part), their PHB (the requirement to wear a tie), or the rigors of formality (again, required). The tie is one of the few personalized, professional pieces of formal attire a man is allowed. Embrace it!
They have been pushing iTunes a little more recently. For example, on their quicktime download page, iTunes is the default download, not a standalone Quicktime client (at least for me). It was mentioned a while ago on/. that the QT platform is basically encapsulated on the Windows platform in either the QT player or iTunes. With the success of iTunes and it's greater potential for mass-market draw, it would make sense to push iTunes over QT-standalone. QT by itself may eventually only be a browser plugin.
Mod parent up. The power of viruses is their ability to spread. We have found ways to counteract their effects, but we're in many ways powerless to the most innocent infections.
Here's what I don't understand. All the pieces of this system are basically already implemented. The P2P clients are available, the spamming system is in place, and using bad data is nothing new. So how can adding these altogether in a single system make a patent? Isn't that like peanut butter, bread, and jelly? It sounds more like a product than any big idea.
Exactly, the programmer needs to know what is important and focus design, development, and finalizing all around optimizing for what is important.
Optimization begins by focusing on the design goals, not "where will our hacks save the most CPU cycles". If you don't have a goal to your optimizing that lines up with the project's direction, then reconsider. Your time may be better spent thinking a few steps ahead, rather than focusing on just any detail. After all, your time is far more valuable than billions of cycles.
What's the goal of capitalism? The generation and distribution of wealth? Economics will tell you wealth is subjective. So we have to agree on what wealth is if we are all to work at creating it and then the free market should distribute it. That's where money comes in - it's like a common proxy for all our diverse desires. Most people can agree to work for money, because they percieve money can achieve their individual desires.
Maybe it does. But you have to decide what's wealth for you. Not your job, not whoever pays you, and not even what your parent's told you. Your wealth can be as individual as you are. Maybe doing a specific type of job or task is wealth to you. Then maybe it's worth it working more than 40 hours a week. But if working and slaving for any amount of money for any amount of time never generates your flavor of weath, don't do it.
This is a priority thing, but it's very practical. If you don't plan to earn the kind of wealth you want then don't be surprised to find you sacrificed it along the way. You're time is finite and money obviously is a poor, but necessary trade. So remember you are spending your time and generating wealth - but for whom and for what kind of wealth are you working? Decide or the society will decide for you.
The value isn't backup, but the hosting and marketing value.
Mp3.com is a pretty easy domain to remember, and it seem like the natural place to look for music. So it was commonly known and got a lot of hits. Popular, corporate-sponsored artists were also featured, so as a nobody you were at least on the same website as somebody. Therefore it was one of the best places to host your content.
What good is having your music online somewhere if no one knows who you are? MP3.com provided a place artists could at least have a foothold. if you were on MP3.com, you may have been nobody, but you were somewhere and you had a shot at being found. Without the hot domain, you really are, to millions of consumers, nobody.
Re:Have to wonder
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There is a kind of community here on/. and there are plenty of other examples on the Internet. True, I don't feel very united, but there are some common beliefs (open source, free speech, etc.).
This cannot replace a physical church, but I don't see anything flawed with establishing a community online. I think most of us want to be a part of something. As long as there is a way for people to become involved, it's a community.
If/. was somehow TV-based (I'm stretching, just follow), I would be on a lot more. Better for your mind you say? We can debate that, on/. of course.
Some people like Friends. I sometimes take a moment to wonder why. Of course, I'm sure they've been wondering what the hell I'm doing reading this website about "news for nerds" all the time. To each his own.
What's important is that you make the choice, not the companies that run television and that you make the right choice (i.e. don't give up more important things for TV like kids).
You can tell that open collaboration and communication are at the heart of the Internet, going back to its design. Look at the titling of core documents - "Request for Comment." Even on/., the nature of an article is requesting for comments and further analysis. Because of this legacy, where humans once networked computers, computers network humans.
This process stands today because it works - not perfectly, but we all benefit from the paradigm. It is our responsibility as members (and some of us professionals) in the Internet community to ensure that the spirit of the RFC never leaves. We should not deny the principles which brought us here - openness, communication, collaboration. Let's not forget the future - open source software, free speech, distributed control, and better S:N.
We would be wise to always request for the comments of our peers. It's gotten us this far.
" You would have to stop the other players before they actually bring down your computer system. With something at risk I'm sure the game would be that much more exciting."
I think you just gave reality TV a last-ditch idea. Interesting, but absolutely prone to abuse.
Can you blame them though? PHB's are usually not programmers. Code is a near mystery to many. Think of enduser security advice:
1. Keep passwords secret. 2. Configuration details are not public information (don't be a tool for social engineering). 3. Don't trust unknown executables (Linux is one big unknown - and hackers proudly use and know it).
And this isn't so much security but business advice: 4. If you want trust, put it in the contract and pay extra. There is no free lunch, etc.
So on the surface, keeping information under control is key to security. That's why its called information security. Source code is important right? It's the program. And we all say nothing is 100% secure right? If hackers can see the code to your programs, and it's not 100% secure, then they have a good chance of cracking it somewhere right?
No, it's not a solid argument. But PHB's, in general, are not made of solid reason. Ignorance tells them that security is secrecy. We call it obscurity. The PHB needs a new way of thinking and to some that seems tantamount to a new world order. Sometimes the last people they trust are those under them.
If MS, CA, and friends have perfect, 100% secure software than I think they should stop hiding it and just sell it outright without the government's blessing. Since they do not, this buddy system might be an alternative to open source software. It could be good, but it could be abused. Considering only big players are involved right now (?), the latter seems more likely.
From the report, I gather they want to define security and then they can make sure they meet that definition. Make the rules and play by them, at least in legal terms.
The summary talks about a taskforce to develope "metrics", working with government agencies and get a thumbs-up, develope industry standards, have awards for secure software (can open-source software win?), create a security license accredation program, and make "the security of one's software a job performance factor."
I agree, the rights of the buyer are often neglected. Some companies simply want the kind of control over their products that dictators have over their police states. Also, companies are essentially greedy and do not necessarily care to share anything with the consumer or allow the product to be used in any way other than to their business interests. Respect in capitalism seems to be an extra charge.
It's not entirely one-sided though. Lawsuits are also a part of this trend. A company can get slammed if they don't specify everything, sometimes to absurd detail. Companies are trying to scare you because that tactic seems to work against would-be plaintiffs. In today's world, customers can actually be a liability.
You don't have to maintain a business model around open source software to take Mandrakesoft as an example. Mandrake has taken time to develope a community of loyal users, who have good reason to be loyal. Their distribution is nice and improves Linix for the enduser (IMO). Businesses should learn the power of user-based community.
The fact that this community can get as involved as they can (this being open source software), is critical of course.
It's all about the motions. Flowers, jewelery, candy, etc. in real life are simply sensual expressions of communication - perhaps a precusor to physical intimacy (or maybe just a hug). This example (the site) is also sensual, though at most only two-dimensional (sound and vision).
Communicating through gifts is an old idea. Businesses (diamond cartels, flourists, card makers) have banked on this for a long time. Money seems to have become a gauge for not only the value ($cost) of items, but also their value of expression. Therefore, a more expensive item is simply more valuable in relational terms.
I think money is percieved as too important in our society (world?) and this is a great example of superficial expression and/or how replacable a diamond or a rose really is with anything - even with icons. Think about it - a rose, a jet, a diamond. In relational terms (as a gift) they are icons/symbols of status/wealth/love/desire/?. It's all in the mind really.
It is easy to adopt a new program, it is not so easy to adopt a new OS and everything else.
The barrier to Linux adoption is mostly entry. There are not only so many choices (some required, most just clouding the decision) to make the first step, but a new way of thinking about software ("How good can free software be?"), new applications, (not really) new security dynamics, new names, new acronyms, new conventions, etc.
The way to mediate all these is to make a common, extremely well documented and supported, simple, and well-crafted base design. Introduce the design (maybe through big corporate rollouts, preinstallations on PC's) and then let people play with it. But there can only be so many designs to fit the market. The average users does not need to consider over a dozen Linux flavors (let alone two desktop environments).
I think Linux could be a little bit more like OS X in these regards.
"Why is it that when the "Intarweb" is involved, legislators suddenly lose touch with reality?"
I agree, but I think you're applying that question too narrowly.
I think it is fair to ask "Why is it that legislators have lost touch with reality?"
I simply fail to connect with and respect so many of the leaders in the United States. Sometimes I get the feeling they are lost in a game to keep power, money, and/or attention attached to themselves. There is no leader I can name which I feel represents a significant portion of my views (and I'm fairly moderate). Take the upcoming presidential elections - I really feel my vote is for the lesser evil (ignorance), and that makes me sick.
Slashdot Mirror
You mention a good point. Email messages have different purposes. Some are chit-chat, some worthless jokes, some spam, some messages external to the organization, some internal, some from your boss, some from your employees, etc. But it's all the same in the inbox, governed by the same disk quota and archival policies. Perhaps the file/folder dynamic for email is a little lacking (I think of IBM's Remail, though I'm not sure if this really hits the problem). We just recently got "junk" as a new category with our filters. People use email differently of course, but we have few methods of treating messages differently outside of the user's direct intervention.
There are different ways to improve this. Perhaps one is to look at making email messages more like documents (like XML) and give the user more options in creating, saving, and searching their messages. Another is to improve indexing and categorization apart from the user entirely (something like Google). Another is efficient and longterm storage (like seperating attachments from mail).
Right now we have some more crude solutions like saving or deleting mail based on spam-targeted filters, timestamps, etc. But you are right, I think the solution has to start at the inbox and the user. We may need some fundamental improvements to email. Of course, we risk overcomplicating our busy and over-technical lives.
It's dry. Something an engineer would pick. Not bad in the least, but the disputed alternative has more presence, life, and feels fresh - it is more attractive no question. The fact that it fits with Windows so well makes the user's choice clear.
I think Firefox as a project has a lot of stress and expectation on it that is unusual for a majority of OSS projects. Firstly, browsers are very important and IE has encouraged people to switch. Secondly, browsers for years were a little stagnate, but now Mozilla/Firefox has allowed some homegrown customization and creativity. Thirdly, the project became popular before it was 100%. I use Firefox, but it still has a few bugs (probably inherited from Mozilla).
All this culminates in a large, expectant userbase which relies on the browser, even before it's 1.0 release. People care a lot about this software, and I think it takes a very capable leadership to understand this and work with the community. That's not something you just volunteer for - it takes a personal committment to people, not just projects. As OSS projects become bigger and include users who have no clue about development and less patience, the leadership of such projects will need to be that much more understanding and workable. Not that leadership is all about giving and compromising, but let's face it, the software is for people so that should be the goal. That is why we use it.
I thank all those who have, in any way, made Mozilla/Firefox what it is and who will play a part in what it will become.
The key is handy, but not universally so. A better question is should capslock be moved somewhere else on the keyboard?
There is this growing field called experimental economics. I'm not intimate with it, but it basically involves game theory and economic analysis. On some college campuses you can find economics labs. Students can be paid to participate in computer simulations with the tests usually involving making real money. It's the same concept as SL applied for the purposes of study - concoct a virtual world and let humans play. Usually the world is extremely limited, but as soon as some economist picks this up it might fly very well in the field.
This guy, Dr. Vernon Smith, is as I understand the father of experimental economics (and a nobel laureate).
That was a decade ago. 65+ floppies to enjoy Slackware 2.1 with a 1.1.59 kernel in 1994. I think I remember 1.0 coming on 24 diskettes.
Small historical Slackware archive.
Seriously, it's one of the few formal pieces of fashion for men that is widely acceptable. Different shades of suit are nice, but a tie can actually have some character. Even how you make the knot can be a little flavored (knot vs bow-like). Plus, it's a lot cheaper than a whole new outfit. And now that I think about it, I never wash, iron, or fold my ties either (like the doctors in the article, I'm sure). Simplest part of my formal wardrobe.
I never understood why people associate ties only with the stress of their work (the tying/binding part), their PHB (the requirement to wear a tie), or the rigors of formality (again, required). The tie is one of the few personalized, professional pieces of formal attire a man is allowed. Embrace it!
They have been pushing iTunes a little more recently. For example, on their quicktime download page, iTunes is the default download, not a standalone Quicktime client (at least for me). It was mentioned a while ago on /. that the QT platform is basically encapsulated on the Windows platform in either the QT player or iTunes. With the success of iTunes and it's greater potential for mass-market draw, it would make sense to push iTunes over QT-standalone. QT by itself may eventually only be a browser plugin.
Mod parent up. The power of viruses is their ability to spread. We have found ways to counteract their effects, but we're in many ways powerless to the most innocent infections.
Here's what I don't understand. All the pieces of this system are basically already implemented. The P2P clients are available, the spamming system is in place, and using bad data is nothing new. So how can adding these altogether in a single system make a patent? Isn't that like peanut butter, bread, and jelly? It sounds more like a product than any big idea.
Exactly, the programmer needs to know what is important and focus design, development, and finalizing all around optimizing for what is important.
Optimization begins by focusing on the design goals, not "where will our hacks save the most CPU cycles". If you don't have a goal to your optimizing that lines up with the project's direction, then reconsider. Your time may be better spent thinking a few steps ahead, rather than focusing on just any detail. After all, your time is far more valuable than billions of cycles.
What's the goal of capitalism? The generation and distribution of wealth? Economics will tell you wealth is subjective. So we have to agree on what wealth is if we are all to work at creating it and then the free market should distribute it. That's where money comes in - it's like a common proxy for all our diverse desires. Most people can agree to work for money, because they percieve money can achieve their individual desires.
Maybe it does. But you have to decide what's wealth for you. Not your job, not whoever pays you, and not even what your parent's told you. Your wealth can be as individual as you are. Maybe doing a specific type of job or task is wealth to you. Then maybe it's worth it working more than 40 hours a week. But if working and slaving for any amount of money for any amount of time never generates your flavor of weath, don't do it.
This is a priority thing, but it's very practical. If you don't plan to earn the kind of wealth you want then don't be surprised to find you sacrificed it along the way. You're time is finite and money obviously is a poor, but necessary trade. So remember you are spending your time and generating wealth - but for whom and for what kind of wealth are you working? Decide or the society will decide for you.
Sounds like white boxes instead...
"In the current implementation, the WebCrawler builds an index at the rate of about 1000 documents an hour on a 486-based PC running NEXTSTEP."
"The full-text index is currently based on NEXTSTEP's IndexingKit [NeXT]"
- from Experiences with Webcrawler
I think Webcrawler used CERN's WWW library, but I can't say this made it's way into WebObjects.
The value isn't backup, but the hosting and marketing value.
Mp3.com is a pretty easy domain to remember, and it seem like the natural place to look for music. So it was commonly known and got a lot of hits. Popular, corporate-sponsored artists were also featured, so as a nobody you were at least on the same website as somebody. Therefore it was one of the best places to host your content.
What good is having your music online somewhere if no one knows who you are? MP3.com provided a place artists could at least have a foothold. if you were on MP3.com, you may have been nobody, but you were somewhere and you had a shot at being found. Without the hot domain, you really are, to millions of consumers, nobody.
There is a kind of community here on /. and there are plenty of other examples on the Internet. True, I don't feel very united, but there are some common beliefs (open source, free speech, etc.).
This cannot replace a physical church, but I don't see anything flawed with establishing a community online. I think most of us want to be a part of something. As long as there is a way for people to become involved, it's a community.
If /. was somehow TV-based (I'm stretching, just follow), I would be on a lot more. Better for your mind you say? We can debate that, on /. of course.
Some people like Friends. I sometimes take a moment to wonder why. Of course, I'm sure they've been wondering what the hell I'm doing reading this website about "news for nerds" all the time. To each his own.
What's important is that you make the choice, not the companies that run television and that you make the right choice (i.e. don't give up more important things for TV like kids).
You can tell that open collaboration and communication are at the heart of the Internet, going back to its design. Look at the titling of core documents - "Request for Comment." Even on /., the nature of an article is requesting for comments and further analysis. Because of this legacy, where humans once networked computers, computers network humans.
This process stands today because it works - not perfectly, but we all benefit from the paradigm. It is our responsibility as members (and some of us professionals) in the Internet community to ensure that the spirit of the RFC never leaves. We should not deny the principles which brought us here - openness, communication, collaboration. Let's not forget the future - open source software, free speech, distributed control, and better S:N.
We would be wise to always request for the comments of our peers. It's gotten us this far.
" You would have to stop the other players before they actually bring down your computer system. With something at risk I'm sure the game would be that much more exciting."
I think you just gave reality TV a last-ditch idea. Interesting, but absolutely prone to abuse.
Can you blame them though? PHB's are usually not programmers. Code is a near mystery to many. Think of enduser security advice:
1. Keep passwords secret.
2. Configuration details are not public information (don't be a tool for social engineering).
3. Don't trust unknown executables (Linux is one big unknown - and hackers proudly use and know it).
And this isn't so much security but business advice:
4. If you want trust, put it in the contract and pay extra. There is no free lunch, etc.
So on the surface, keeping information under control is key to security. That's why its called information security. Source code is important right? It's the program. And we all say nothing is 100% secure right? If hackers can see the code to your programs, and it's not 100% secure, then they have a good chance of cracking it somewhere right?
No, it's not a solid argument. But PHB's, in general, are not made of solid reason. Ignorance tells them that security is secrecy. We call it obscurity. The PHB needs a new way of thinking and to some that seems tantamount to a new world order. Sometimes the last people they trust are those under them.
If MS, CA, and friends have perfect, 100% secure software than I think they should stop hiding it and just sell it outright without the government's blessing. Since they do not, this buddy system might be an alternative to open source software. It could be good, but it could be abused. Considering only big players are involved right now (?), the latter seems more likely.
From the report, I gather they want to define security and then they can make sure they meet that definition. Make the rules and play by them, at least in legal terms.
The summary talks about a taskforce to develope "metrics", working with government agencies and get a thumbs-up, develope industry standards, have awards for secure software (can open-source software win?), create a security license accredation program, and make "the security of one's software a job performance factor."
I agree, the rights of the buyer are often neglected. Some companies simply want the kind of control over their products that dictators have over their police states. Also, companies are essentially greedy and do not necessarily care to share anything with the consumer or allow the product to be used in any way other than to their business interests. Respect in capitalism seems to be an extra charge.
It's not entirely one-sided though. Lawsuits are also a part of this trend. A company can get slammed if they don't specify everything, sometimes to absurd detail. Companies are trying to scare you because that tactic seems to work against would-be plaintiffs. In today's world, customers can actually be a liability.
You don't have to maintain a business model around open source software to take Mandrakesoft as an example. Mandrake has taken time to develope a community of loyal users, who have good reason to be loyal. Their distribution is nice and improves Linix for the enduser (IMO). Businesses should learn the power of user-based community.
The fact that this community can get as involved as they can (this being open source software), is critical of course.
It's all about the motions. Flowers, jewelery, candy, etc. in real life are simply sensual expressions of communication - perhaps a precusor to physical intimacy (or maybe just a hug). This example (the site) is also sensual, though at most only two-dimensional (sound and vision).
Communicating through gifts is an old idea. Businesses (diamond cartels, flourists, card makers) have banked on this for a long time. Money seems to have become a gauge for not only the value ($cost) of items, but also their value of expression. Therefore, a more expensive item is simply more valuable in relational terms.
I think money is percieved as too important in our society (world?) and this is a great example of superficial expression and/or how replacable a diamond or a rose really is with anything - even with icons. Think about it - a rose, a jet, a diamond. In relational terms (as a gift) they are icons/symbols of status/wealth/love/desire/?. It's all in the mind really.
It is easy to adopt a new program, it is not so easy to adopt a new OS and everything else.
The barrier to Linux adoption is mostly entry. There are not only so many choices (some required, most just clouding the decision) to make the first step, but a new way of thinking about software ("How good can free software be?"), new applications, (not really) new security dynamics, new names, new acronyms, new conventions, etc.
The way to mediate all these is to make a common, extremely well documented and supported, simple, and well-crafted base design. Introduce the design (maybe through big corporate rollouts, preinstallations on PC's) and then let people play with it. But there can only be so many designs to fit the market. The average users does not need to consider over a dozen Linux flavors (let alone two desktop environments).
I think Linux could be a little bit more like OS X in these regards.
"Why is it that when the "Intarweb" is involved, legislators suddenly lose touch with reality?"
I agree, but I think you're applying that question too narrowly.
I think it is fair to ask "Why is it that legislators have lost touch with reality?"
I simply fail to connect with and respect so many of the leaders in the United States. Sometimes I get the feeling they are lost in a game to keep power, money, and/or attention attached to themselves. There is no leader I can name which I feel represents a significant portion of my views (and I'm fairly moderate). Take the upcoming presidential elections - I really feel my vote is for the lesser evil (ignorance), and that makes me sick.