Hey, I think it is a great idea. I've been waiting for a company to do a little from column A, a little from column B in an intelligent way for a long time. Companies have been acting in such a one-sided way for so long that we forget that they do kinda have to make some money. I definately like this approach. If the technology penetrates the market enough, they will do the socially responsible thing. Software being OS gets more important (never mind more effective) as the technology depentrates deeper into the market. Plus, companies have to have ways of protecting their licences when they release their products OS, so it makes sense that they would want some capital before going OS.
It is nice that there are concessions being made at this scale (such as these awards) that the open-source ideology definately has a place in a free-market world. Even nicer is that these awards do not seem to be tied to a singular (or multiple) corperate entity, unlike some other.com love-in awards and groups (like the webbies?)
I'm more interested in seeing who will be getting these awards 5 years from now, once all the really obvious open-source prophets, kings and queens have gotten their past-due.
... are basically a return to the idea of mom & pop. We all find blanket marketing annoying, but we have friends who 'advertise' whatever they are interested in to us, every day, and it doesn't bother us. It's perception. If we feel that the carrier of the message has alot to gain from you being receptive, we're more likely to 'rebel'. Much of this subject centers around the perceived gain of communication.. ie, some employee/salesperson posting on a board or hosting a community or whathave you. Since the messanger isn't "CORP X" but "Joe who works for CORP X", we tend to think less about putting more money in the pocket of the company and more about Joe probably saying what he's saying because he/believes/ in it. He's not going to win a zillion dollars if the communication results in a sale (hell, the company has no way of really tying you back to him), nor is he going to lose his job (unless he truely is a salesperson) if you subsequently decide not to purchase, or do so from a competitor.
So, we had: people at company -> communication/marketing dept -> you
And the dream is: people at company -> marketing dept -> people at company -> you
Which is best for all of us, as it puts social responsibility and accountibility back in the hands of a community (ie, community of exployees) rather than the all-or-nothing super-hygenic communication that comes out of board-meeting-inspired mass ad campaigns. Note that I am not saying that the form and message of that communication won't still go through the marketing dept and PR-sanitizers, but for the most part, humans want to talk to humans; not answering machines, billboards, or any other one-to-many communication platform.
I mean, at the end of the day, we all work for companies, and I don't believe we're all evil. We are just capable of intrusive or annoying behaviour far better when our names and individuality is 'trimmed' from the communication. People are very very cynical today about advertising, but we have to understand that we all, to some extent, depend on it. The goal is to balance the needs of the consumer (to allow them to distinguish between marketing and personal communication) while bringing marketing more inline with the types of communication that we actually enjoy and participate in every day.
>> Uh... Could it sell more because of the fact that most people prefer the taste of Coke to milk?
DUH, thats the point. Just remember that information should not be 'flavourful'.. my point was that TV gives us the news in a way we LIKE, but not in a way thats GOOD FOR US.
Value as truth versus value as entertainment is a very difficult concept for western society to grasp. The only industry that embraces this concept is the fitness industry. No pain, no gain, you know? Same goes for information.
People may believe its 'trusted', but that doesn't change the simple fact that TV News is BIG BIG business, and totally controlled.. you're not getting the news, you're getting a product. And its no wonder people 'trust' or 'like' it more than the Net, for the most part. It's packaged carefully, and full of the emotional hyperbole that totally renders any attempt to deal with events in an objective manner. Milk is better for you than Coke, but which one sells more?
Exclusivity deals are quite the hot topic right now. Intel is taking heat from the EU for exclusivity provisions it has with computer distributors. my boss and I were wondering why someone like Coke or Pepsi is allowed to ensure exclusivity with its distributors (fast food chains, etc)? Whats the difference?
With MS's history, my friend discovered this three days ago and told me. Both of us assumed since it is an MS product that it was the way it was meant to be. Its such an obvious hole that we didn't even think it was a bug, just terrible and user-un-friendly design (as per the usual MS shit.)
The subscription model isn't the problem - its the control over what you're paying for. If you can explain to me how a species who's sole goal is control over their environment (the ultimate survival technique) is going to accept computers getting more and more mysterious (q: "why did that happen?" a: "looks like MS told your machine to do that") and uncontrollable.. lets just say that there is a reason car companies and mechanics don't get to decide what you put in the glove compartment, even if it could make them more profitable.
Keep telling yourself that. Powerful entities 'create' more power, without realizing what they are doing is 'taking' it. Westerners (myself included) are pretty cozy right now, but eventually you'll get tired of it, out of boredom, if nothing else, and companies like MS will be public enemy #1. Why? Information disseminates, even if its years.. people will eventually know everything the geeks know, at least with respect how large entities can exploit the small ones.
The proof is in the pudding: eventually, a giant becomes its own worst enemy, disconnected from the customers it wishes to profit from. My predictions on MS losing its dominance in the next 10 years seems to get more and more likely, because as MS gets richer, others get poorer, until they can't afford/anything/ but a free solution, or cracking what they can't afford.
How do you keep customers if you seem inclined to keep them poor, disempowered, and bitter?
The report omits a glaring error in the study. Namely, that the researchers never checked out the alt.binaries.pictures.steganography group. And the moral? Never send a scientist to do a lurkers job.
1. The act of taking one's own life voluntary and intentionally; self-murder; specifically (Law), the felonious killing of one's self; the deliberate and intentional destruction of one's own life by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.
Sound mind. From the dictionary. Eat it. Not being able to accept the possibility of a sound mind choosing death over their current situation, regardless of that situation, only goes to prove the ignorance, lack of tolerance, and disinterest in understanding various people's situations. A hunger strike, carried out in full in the name of one's beliefs or desire for change/is/ suicide, but because you're not killing others in the process, we view it more as a threat to our values of sanctity of life (which is a funny one, considering that the only real threat a society is under is dissatisfied people who are still alive) rather than an intentional desire to kill one's self for one's beliefs.
-10 pts for bringing up the firefighters. I certainly wasn't attempting to call their heroic actions suicide. I was thinking more along the lines of characters who perform one last act,/knowing/ they will die, for the benifit of those they love. Granted, Hollywood isn't the best place to look for this.. but even the classics (think Romeo and Juliet) illustrate how suicide is an option if your passion is great enough, and the target of said passion is unattainable. Oh wait! Hollywood. Ripley, from Alien 3. Or the Terminator (although he was a robot, he was a character and the emotions of his relationship with the boy were played up enough to award him with an obvious personification). Or Final Fantasy! Sorry I could only do sci-fi for now, but if I can think those up in 5 seconds, you know there are tons more examples of characters who intentionally killed themselves at the end of the movie in order to provide for their loved ones.
Great page. Most of it is probably right-on. I've been telling people the gist of all this for the last week (although people are generally more receptive now, now that some of the raw emotion has dissipated.)
But, I take issue with: "Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people." and particularly "Someone who wants to commit suicide is as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be." So, in all these hollywood movies (and in real life), where the hero takes action, knowing he/she will lose his/her life for the benifit of those they love (or a population they love) are de-centered? The justification aspect of this attack has been dicussed at length, but the one key thing people miss is: lots of people WANT to die. I want to die. If I could do it in a painless way and not hurt those around me who love me, I'd die right now. More so, if my death brought benifits to those I love. If I somehow infiltrated Bin Laden's lair, I'm bomb myself to kingdom come. My life is certainly not worth the lives of many. Were all those Kamikazee pilots demonstratibly insane? No, they just believed that the benifits of their actions would go to those they love.. in some ways, it is the ultimate act of generosity. And at the end of the day, western cultures fascination with sanctity of life borders on obsession. I mean, many people acknowledge that our ability to keep old people (or coma'd people) alive is sad and inhumane. But to suggest that sanctity of life should always outweigh a true social, cultural, or religious belief is, in my opinion, tragic, wrong, and demonstratibly false when push comes to shove.
Hear hear. We recently went through some difficulty.. wern't payed for 30 days. Not a huge deal, but it certainly required some faith in management that we'd eventually get paid and be back in a stable situation (which happened.) But while all this was going on, two of our developers stopped coming to work the day that our company said: "We can't pay you, so legally, you can go home, although we/will/ pay you, and this is how we will." Those two guys never found a job during this month, and when we were saved from our precarious fiscal situation, guess who didn't get offered new jobs going forward?
Loyalty and trust are the result of an open dialogue between workers and management, and faith in product. If you don't have faith in product (ie, business plan), you shouldn't have been working there in the first place. If your management doesn't keep the open dialog and honesty going, you shouldn't have been working there in the first place. But it/is/ a two way street.. loyalty does get rewarded, but loyalty isn't 'showing up for work' everyday. It's taking risks for your employer; depending on the rapport between workers and management in your situation, they will take risks (when they can) for you. Of course, I can't stress enough that if you don't like your boss, your employer, your management, you shouldn't be in there in the first place.. so never expect security and loyalty in an environment where there is no personal accountability (read: trust and friendship) between the layers of your organization.
Considering that most cashless transactions impose some sort of transaction charge, I patently refuse to accept a cash-only society until these sorts of electronic money services are free. Otherwise, you'd be paying some sort of X% tax on every 'cashless' transaction you make. I prefer cash, if only for this reason alone. (Nevermind that the tangible quality of real cash is an important part of appreciating your hard earned money.)
Nintendo's systems have always been 'drab'. They are the Volvos of gaming consoles.. less attention (money, effort) spent on designing a cool shell (think of the original NES compared to the Genesis.. the NES was just plain _boring_), but those who _know_, know that Nintendo makes kick-ass systems and games, in the same way that auto-fans knew that what is inside the Volvo more than makes up for its boxiness. (Although, the last few years, Volvo has made their cars considerably sexier, so the comparison may not be valid today as it was 10 years ago.)
> I would gladly put a bullet in every one of their heads young and old, and feel no pains in doing so.
That is just so darn sad, although it displays as much cowardice and ignorance as the attack itself. In this sense, our reactions to events like these only serve to furthur illumnate the sad irony that humans are, for all intents and purposes, exactly alike. These people's reactions and attitudes are the result of social climate under a military government; capitalist systems also destroy human life (nevermind the planet), although the indirectness and lack of a clear responsible party for the devestation caused by western society (1000 people die here every year in my city alone from the quality of the air) makes it far easier for democratic victims to hide behind a curtain of baseless innocence, and generally allow the collective social conciousness to absolve itself of said responsibility. Yes, it's terribly tragic.. yes, loved ones by the thousands were lost.. my sincere condolances to those who were lost or have lost loved ones as a result. But to kill the responsible party is useless and futile (hell, they killed their own, volountarily to achieve their goal), and in no way addresses the grim reality that only a change in the current political global climate will prevent or discourage similar attempts in the future. One might even suggest it would only furthur cement the anti-US sentiment in the circles that condone such drastic and cowardly attacks.
hosting is 24/7 - you probably can't download so much as to piss off your bandwidth provider (cause eventually you sleep, eat, etc), but if you offer uploads, thats what you'd/want/. (ie, high traffic)
hosting brings content problems - telcos do not want to offer 'joe' the ability to host. many telcos actually forbid hosting, even if you use a dyn-ip solution or whatever. they just dont want to be bothered by the potential infringements, problems, illegal material, etc...
hosting is a 'value add' thing - if you're giving access to content to people, you should (according to telcos or whatever) be making money from it, so.. hand over your slice of the pie, buddy
anyhow, forget the technical implications or limitations... letting the masses distribute content brings way more headaches than letting them get access to other content
oh, and by java, I mean using server-side java to generate your HTML... I am not endorsing Java's AWT or Swing here (nor should anyone else in their right mind.)
Code Red deal not withstanding (and c'mon, its not like viruses ONLY affect web services, both in the past, and in the future), the web is an absolutely brutal platform for intelligent, scalable UI. So if you value the accessibility of a web interface enough to go forward with it, remember to get yourself a UI expert who knows web interfaces backwards and forwards. Most traditional UI people will bastardize web conventions, and most programmers with some level of UI will simply not be able to handle finding the right compromises. But a well-thought out, planned and scalable web interface/does/ end up offering some pretty serious advantages, three of which I can think of right now:
a) available through the browser (duh)
b) usually the display layer is done in a high level language, so you save on development time and headaches here over more low level UI platforms (heed what that other guy said above about pulling all the core logic into a tightly formalized set of componants)
c) people are familiar with the web, so some of the tasks they may have to accomplish through your app they will already be familiar with
I recommend using something server-side like PHP or Java to control your display layer.. just remember to keep it seperate from your business logic interface, and you'll thank yourself down the road.
"On Wednesday, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates showed off a handheld computer that understands which way is up and where it's being touched."
His wife was, reportedly, fuming on the sidelines of the press conferance. Apparently, she was mumbling something about the invention resulting in her role being usurped in the couple's sex life.
This is the problem... through research, we are finding out we are little more than mice running through mazes. Our behaviour, given enough observation, becomes predictable enough to exploit.
Can you have your image and download it too? The answer is YES! Actually, it'd be pretty easy to set your site up so that crawlers dont index your images.. can't you control referring access via.htaccess? I'm pretty sure you can, to make sure your www server make sure that your own site is the only valid referring party before returning the image. Sorry, but I'm too lazy to find the docs to proove it tho.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I think it is a great idea. I've been waiting for a company to do a little from column A, a little from column B in an intelligent way for a long time. Companies have been acting in such a one-sided way for so long that we forget that they do kinda have to make some money. I definately like this approach. If the technology penetrates the market enough, they will do the socially responsible thing. Software being OS gets more important (never mind more effective) as the technology depentrates deeper into the market. Plus, companies have to have ways of protecting their licences when they release their products OS, so it makes sense that they would want some capital before going OS.
It is nice that there are concessions being made at this scale (such as these awards) that the open-source ideology definately has a place in a free-market world. Even nicer is that these awards do not seem to be tied to a singular (or multiple) corperate entity, unlike some other .com love-in awards and groups (like the webbies?)
I'm more interested in seeing who will be getting these awards 5 years from now, once all the really obvious open-source prophets, kings and queens have gotten their past-due.
So, we had: people at company -> communication/marketing dept -> you
And the dream is: people at company -> marketing dept -> people at company -> you
Which is best for all of us, as it puts social responsibility and accountibility back in the hands of a community (ie, community of exployees) rather than the all-or-nothing super-hygenic communication that comes out of board-meeting-inspired mass ad campaigns. Note that I am not saying that the form and message of that communication won't still go through the marketing dept and PR-sanitizers, but for the most part, humans want to talk to humans; not answering machines, billboards, or any other one-to-many communication platform.
I mean, at the end of the day, we all work for companies, and I don't believe we're all evil. We are just capable of intrusive or annoying behaviour far better when our names and individuality is 'trimmed' from the communication. People are very very cynical today about advertising, but we have to understand that we all, to some extent, depend on it. The goal is to balance the needs of the consumer (to allow them to distinguish between marketing and personal communication) while bringing marketing more inline with the types of communication that we actually enjoy and participate in every day.
>> Uh... Could it sell more because of the fact that most people prefer the taste of Coke to milk?
.. my point was that TV gives us the news in a way we LIKE, but not in a way thats GOOD FOR US.
DUH, thats the point. Just remember that information should not be 'flavourful'
Value as truth versus value as entertainment is a very difficult concept for western society to grasp. The only industry that embraces this concept is the fitness industry. No pain, no gain, you know? Same goes for information.
Sheesh.
Ironically, thats why its not as good as the Net.
.. you're not getting the news, you're getting a product. And its no wonder people 'trust' or 'like' it more than the Net, for the most part. It's packaged carefully, and full of the emotional hyperbole that totally renders any attempt to deal with events in an objective manner. Milk is better for you than Coke, but which one sells more?
People may believe its 'trusted', but that doesn't change the simple fact that TV News is BIG BIG business, and totally controlled
Exclusivity deals are quite the hot topic right now. Intel is taking heat from the EU for exclusivity provisions it has with computer distributors. my boss and I were wondering why someone like Coke or Pepsi is allowed to ensure exclusivity with its distributors (fast food chains, etc)? Whats the difference?
With MS's history, my friend discovered this three days ago and told me. Both of us assumed since it is an MS product that it was the way it was meant to be. Its such an obvious hole that we didn't even think it was a bug, just terrible and user-un-friendly design (as per the usual MS shit.)
The subscription model isn't the problem - its the control over what you're paying for. If you can explain to me how a species who's sole goal is control over their environment (the ultimate survival technique) is going to accept computers getting more and more mysterious (q: "why did that happen?" a: "looks like MS told your machine to do that") and uncontrollable .. lets just say that there is a reason car companies and mechanics don't get to decide what you put in the glove compartment, even if it could make them more profitable.
Keep telling yourself that. Powerful entities 'create' more power, without realizing what they are doing is 'taking' it. Westerners (myself included) are pretty cozy right now, but eventually you'll get tired of it, out of boredom, if nothing else, and companies like MS will be public enemy #1. Why? Information disseminates, even if its years .. people will eventually know everything the geeks know, at least with respect how large entities can exploit the small ones.
The proof is in the pudding: eventually, a giant becomes its own worst enemy, disconnected from the customers it wishes to profit from. My predictions on MS losing its dominance in the next 10 years seems to get more and more likely, because as MS gets richer, others get poorer, until they can't afford /anything/ but a free solution, or cracking what they can't afford.
How do you keep customers if you seem inclined to keep them poor, disempowered, and bitter?
The report omits a glaring error in the study. Namely, that the researchers never checked out the alt.binaries.pictures.steganography group. And the moral? Never send a scientist to do a lurkers job.
From dictionary.com:
/is/ suicide, but because you're not killing others in the process, we view it more as a threat to our values of sanctity of life (which is a funny one, considering that the only real threat a society is under is dissatisfied people who are still alive) rather than an intentional desire to kill one's self for one's beliefs.
/knowing/ they will die, for the benifit of those they love. Granted, Hollywood isn't the best place to look for this .. but even the classics (think Romeo and Juliet) illustrate how suicide is an option if your passion is great enough, and the target of said passion is unattainable. Oh wait! Hollywood. Ripley, from Alien 3. Or the Terminator (although he was a robot, he was a character and the emotions of his relationship with the boy were played up enough to award him with an obvious personification). Or Final Fantasy! Sorry I could only do sci-fi for now, but if I can think those up in 5 seconds, you know there are tons more examples of characters who intentionally killed themselves at the end of the movie in order to provide for their loved ones.
1. The act of taking one's own life voluntary and intentionally; self-murder; specifically (Law), the felonious killing of one's self; the deliberate and intentional destruction of one's own life by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.
Sound mind. From the dictionary. Eat it. Not being able to accept the possibility of a sound mind choosing death over their current situation, regardless of that situation, only goes to prove the ignorance, lack of tolerance, and disinterest in understanding various people's situations. A hunger strike, carried out in full in the name of one's beliefs or desire for change
-10 pts for bringing up the firefighters. I certainly wasn't attempting to call their heroic actions suicide. I was thinking more along the lines of characters who perform one last act,
Great page. Most of it is probably right-on. I've been telling people the gist of all this for the last week (although people are generally more receptive now, now that some of the raw emotion has dissipated.)
.. in some ways, it is the ultimate act of generosity. And at the end of the day, western cultures fascination with sanctity of life borders on obsession. I mean, many people acknowledge that our ability to keep old people (or coma'd people) alive is sad and inhumane. But to suggest that sanctity of life should always outweigh a true social, cultural, or religious belief is, in my opinion, tragic, wrong, and demonstratibly false when push comes to shove.
But, I take issue with: "Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people." and particularly "Someone who wants to commit suicide is as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be." So, in all these hollywood movies (and in real life), where the hero takes action, knowing he/she will lose his/her life for the benifit of those they love (or a population they love) are de-centered? The justification aspect of this attack has been dicussed at length, but the one key thing people miss is: lots of people WANT to die. I want to die. If I could do it in a painless way and not hurt those around me who love me, I'd die right now. More so, if my death brought benifits to those I love. If I somehow infiltrated Bin Laden's lair, I'm bomb myself to kingdom come. My life is certainly not worth the lives of many. Were all those Kamikazee pilots demonstratibly insane? No, they just believed that the benifits of their actions would go to those they love
Hear hear. We recently went through some difficulty .. wern't payed for 30 days. Not a huge deal, but it certainly required some faith in management that we'd eventually get paid and be back in a stable situation (which happened.) But while all this was going on, two of our developers stopped coming to work the day that our company said: "We can't pay you, so legally, you can go home, although we /will/ pay you, and this is how we will." Those two guys never found a job during this month, and when we were saved from our precarious fiscal situation, guess who didn't get offered new jobs going forward?
/is/ a two way street .. loyalty does get rewarded, but loyalty isn't 'showing up for work' everyday. It's taking risks for your employer; depending on the rapport between workers and management in your situation, they will take risks (when they can) for you. Of course, I can't stress enough that if you don't like your boss, your employer, your management, you shouldn't be in there in the first place .. so never expect security and loyalty in an environment where there is no personal accountability (read: trust and friendship) between the layers of your organization.
Loyalty and trust are the result of an open dialogue between workers and management, and faith in product. If you don't have faith in product (ie, business plan), you shouldn't have been working there in the first place. If your management doesn't keep the open dialog and honesty going, you shouldn't have been working there in the first place. But it
Considering that most cashless transactions impose some sort of transaction charge, I patently refuse to accept a cash-only society until these sorts of electronic money services are free. Otherwise, you'd be paying some sort of X% tax on every 'cashless' transaction you make. I prefer cash, if only for this reason alone. (Nevermind that the tangible quality of real cash is an important part of appreciating your hard earned money.)
Nintendo's systems have always been 'drab'. They are the Volvos of gaming consoles .. less attention (money, effort) spent on designing a cool shell (think of the original NES compared to the Genesis .. the NES was just plain _boring_), but those who _know_, know that Nintendo makes kick-ass systems and games, in the same way that auto-fans knew that what is inside the Volvo more than makes up for its boxiness. (Although, the last few years, Volvo has made their cars considerably sexier, so the comparison may not be valid today as it was 10 years ago.)
> I would gladly put a bullet in every one of their heads young and old, and feel no pains in doing so.
.. yes, loved ones by the thousands were lost .. my sincere condolances to those who were lost or have lost loved ones as a result. But to kill the responsible party is useless and futile (hell, they killed their own, volountarily to achieve their goal), and in no way addresses the grim reality that only a change in the current political global climate will prevent or discourage similar attempts in the future. One might even suggest it would only furthur cement the anti-US sentiment in the circles that condone such drastic and cowardly attacks.
That is just so darn sad, although it displays as much cowardice and ignorance as the attack itself. In this sense, our reactions to events like these only serve to furthur illumnate the sad irony that humans are, for all intents and purposes, exactly alike. These people's reactions and attitudes are the result of social climate under a military government; capitalist systems also destroy human life (nevermind the planet), although the indirectness and lack of a clear responsible party for the devestation caused by western society (1000 people die here every year in my city alone from the quality of the air) makes it far easier for democratic victims to hide behind a curtain of baseless innocence, and generally allow the collective social conciousness to absolve itself of said responsibility. Yes, it's terribly tragic
A few thoughts:
/want/. (ie, high traffic)
...
.. hand over your slice of the pie, buddy
... letting the masses distribute content brings way more headaches than letting them get access to other content
hosting is 24/7 - you probably can't download so much as to piss off your bandwidth provider (cause eventually you sleep, eat, etc), but if you offer uploads, thats what you'd
hosting brings content problems - telcos do not want to offer 'joe' the ability to host. many telcos actually forbid hosting, even if you use a dyn-ip solution or whatever. they just dont want to be bothered by the potential infringements, problems, illegal material, etc
hosting is a 'value add' thing - if you're giving access to content to people, you should (according to telcos or whatever) be making money from it, so
anyhow, forget the technical implications or limitations
oh, and by java, I mean using server-side java to generate your HTML ... I am not endorsing Java's AWT or Swing here (nor should anyone else in their right mind.)
Code Red deal not withstanding (and c'mon, its not like viruses ONLY affect web services, both in the past, and in the future), the web is an absolutely brutal platform for intelligent, scalable UI. So if you value the accessibility of a web interface enough to go forward with it, remember to get yourself a UI expert who knows web interfaces backwards and forwards. Most traditional UI people will bastardize web conventions, and most programmers with some level of UI will simply not be able to handle finding the right compromises. But a well-thought out, planned and scalable web interface /does/ end up offering some pretty serious advantages, three of which I can think of right now:
.. just remember to keep it seperate from your business logic interface, and you'll thank yourself down the road.
a) available through the browser (duh)
b) usually the display layer is done in a high level language, so you save on development time and headaches here over more low level UI platforms (heed what that other guy said above about pulling all the core logic into a tightly formalized set of componants)
c) people are familiar with the web, so some of the tasks they may have to accomplish through your app they will already be familiar with
I recommend using something server-side like PHP or Java to control your display layer
"On Wednesday, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates showed off a handheld computer that understands which way is up and where it's being touched."
His wife was, reportedly, fuming on the sidelines of the press conferance. Apparently, she was mumbling something about the invention resulting in her role being usurped in the couple's sex life.
This is the problem ... through research, we are finding out we are little more than mice running through mazes. Our behaviour, given enough observation, becomes predictable enough to exploit.
... already solved this one with Deep Rubik.
Can you have your image and download it too? The answer is YES! Actually, it'd be pretty easy to set your site up so that crawlers dont index your images .. can't you control referring access via .htaccess? I'm pretty sure you can, to make sure your www server make sure that your own site is the only valid referring party before returning the image. Sorry, but I'm too lazy to find the docs to proove it tho. :)
Ouch! Thanks for the correction. I deserved that. :)