Except that errors in the ditization can result in the acedemics operating on mis-transmogrified information. When you work on the original, you know you're not making assumptions or working on problems that may in fact not exist in the original and simply be artifacts of the digital conversion.
A minor quibble, but lets not underestimate the importance of having a cannonical reference copy whom everyone knows and agrees represents The Truth.
Now, if you're just talking about these copies as 'working copies', fine. It just scares me that we digitize the original, lock the original up for decades, and be operating on a dataset that may potentially have errors, or use a low enough 'technology of today' resolution in the data that may result in intricate details of the original going unnoticed for an unneccessarily long time.
Good post tho, I certainly conceed that this is a good idea for 'working copies' for scientits, acedemics to work off of - just so long as they dont forget that there is a reference copy available and that they should check it when something smells funny on the working copy.
Um, no. I promise the tablets will last longer, for reasons that should be so obvious, I'm not even going to bother listing them.
One fear a collegue of mine has is that we digitize everything and call those the cannonical versions, and then thousands of years in the future we're unable to cull accounting, historical, cultural information from this age cause it all gets lost in digital form. The fact that digical copies are much more likely to be lost while undergoing simple administrative tasks ('oops, I hit delete instead of copy') makes it even more likely that my assertion is true. Yet another case of having a hammer and making every problem a nail.
Gee, didn't see that one coming. (While I'm not baiting, I do find it funny how posters point out the slashdot bias with their own equally predictable cheap shot;) So, how about a -1 for Redundant?
They learned their methods ...
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 2
... from the credit card companies. Ever tried cancelling a credit card? It absolutely blows my mind how close customer reps will come to calling you flat out stupid for wanting to go with a card.
They made me feel like I'd be deported to some backwaters of Zaire if I even dared to survive in the concrete jungle with only one credit card. Fucking jerks, I shouldn't have to work my ass off and argue my ass off to manage my business relationships.
Re:My Gripes about Java &tm;
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> using the advanced GOTO command!
I was about to point out that C has GOTO when I realized that C programmers who use 'goto' in C code more than 3 times in a 2 month span invariably seem to wind up homeless and discombobulated. So, it's probably for the best that you didn't point this out...
A decent point, but I thought I'd add that there are plenty of musicians who thought they were signing one thing to find themselves in another. Or, the almighty $ blinded their vision temporarily. I understand that a certain amount of "caveat emptor" is required in this world, but that still doesn't mean all labels are innocent upfront businessmen and artists are methodical, thoughful signees with a good business acumen. Even if these artists sign up knowing what they are getting into, I'd say its often out of lack of reasonable alternatives; not everyone has a clue on how to pimp their styles or promote their work.
That being said, I still think your proposal is the only way to go, because....
I'm more intersted in dispelling the myth that 90% of all humans are liars and cheaters when given the chance. This is the profile of the human condition (aka, Napster user) that labels wish us to swallow. Psycology shows us that it is context (your external situation) that plays far more of a role into whether you cheat or steal rather than your base personality. If thats the case, when major greymarkets spring up, we should be asking, 'why do people feel that stealing is the best choice to make, and how can we chance their circumstance', not 'how do we prevent homosapians from exercising their penchant for being liars and cheats.' In that respect, I totally feel that self-publication is the only way to go.. the labels have shown no interest in projecting the current situation back onto the environments they are providing in media and retail, and so the only thing we can do is raise a new breed of industry down there in the trenches that knows people pay good money to support things they love once they know they love it, they feel they played a part in finding that music (one of the big reasons Napster was so popular IMHO), and are contributing to its existance (ie, are not a disposible consumer).
Amen. My post was pretty much about that 'balance'. I think in many work envrionments, that balance has been there ever since employees have had their hands on some kind of till or file cabinet.
It just struck me how "hey, we've never dealt with this revelation" the article was. I dont think there's any need for additional internal security at many places.. and if they do implement such measures, they'd look awfully two faced considering the state of external facing potential security vulnerabilities at most companies.
Oh yes, we should definately come around on issues where the 'biggest threat' is from the people with the 'inside track'. There's no better way to raise a generation on folx free from the confines of ethics and responsibility.. where anything that they can do technically and physically must be AOK, or else it would be impossible to to it.
You really have to be kidding me here. If your employees are truely taking their time to use their mp3 players to screw your business, you have more pressing concerns than the 'vulnerability' of the systems from the people who built them.
I suppose since most premeditated murders happen between people who know each other, we'd better wake up and start hiring personal bodygaurds to protect us from our loved ones too!
Being a mechanic is good for mechanics, but not if your job is building cars for people with way too much money, and no drivers licence. Sometimes I feel like when I start projects, thats when I get to start watching the car wreck in slo mo.
I think if you're programming to the needs of people who understand what you're doing, you 'share' the conceptual burden of your work, and you can identify with others. When you are simply a monkey wrench, someone who can do something that someone else who makes way more than you can't, and they keep making decisions that make your job difficult or are decisions that compromise time and time again the engineering considerations of the position, thats where the 'burn out' happens.
You just get tired of pimping out your ability to things that you have no vested interest in, and you're literally the 'last line of defence' between stupidity and a live system that has to be up 24/7, in an environment where people can't even understand what its like to be that.
While I don't have any studies handy, I have an argument that goes something like this:
1) Think of something where everyone has access to a technology that allows them to circumvent the system that makes what they want possible.. in the case of music, lets say, in the era of tapes, tapes let you copy, and virtually everyone could afford tape copiers (and media). Another good example of this, in my opinion, tends to be 'Pay What You Can' nights at theatres, concerts, etc. (Maybe another one is subways, at 1 am is a good example.. you can jump turnstiles, nobody is on watch.. )
2) You can either conclude that everyone who pays for that thing is: a) too stupid to save money b) able to understand that that thing would not be around were it not for people who paid for it.
Companies wish to convince us that the only time pepople pay for something when a free alternative is available is because they are dumb. However, this is not true. There tons of ways to scam the system, easily, undetected, and without possibility of getting caught. And yet, while some do (as always, a neccessary evil unless we wish to reseign to a future of microchip implants and tracking devices to catch that last, very clever cheater), many don't. I've really yet to meet someone who tries to get everything for free - it is a type of human companies wish to convince us that everyone is, so they can justify the restrictive technologies they wish to force on their consumer base in order to make everything quanitifiable. Would your dad have stolen the recordings of all his favorite artists? Would most Volvo enthousiasts seek out free Volvo's if they could, even if they knew that Volvo could not fund future developments and Volvo's if they did? It would be like evolution producing a species that cut off its own genetalia as its first action upon birth... evolution is smarter than that, as are large bodies of people that make up economies.
At the base of all this is the assumption companies make - your behaviour is dependant 100% on the economics.. how much money will it cost you? You will go for the cheapest thing. I contend that there is something more important and universal to the human condition - the desire to live with minimal social friction, so we're not always fighting. And the way we do that, of course, is not to all act like we exist in a vacuum, and allow our behavior to be dictated soley by the economics of things.. otherwise we'd have disolved into countless civil wars and such by now resulting from people making choices for purely financial reasons rather than social reasons.
I'll will try and drag up some specific studies, but to me its so clear.. if we really behaved, to the letter, as companies contend, only going for the cheapest access to something, we'd have either killed out economy or broken out into war long ago.
Interesting and actually probably a very good approach - get the legal clearance before the reactions of the current top players are based soley on the 'here and now' stakes.
It would have been interesting.. if the recording industry (obviously) didn't predict the popularity of file sharing, would they have 'ignored' Napster had Napster approached them (hell, maybe they did) before they started allowing downloads, with the Sonys, et al. dismissing Napster as an insignificant piece of software and essentially binding them to said assumption? I wonder if it would be more useful to fight these laws before the money begins flowing in, for two reasons:
a) Those who subsequently have a problem with it will likely garner much less sympathy from the average person if it was common knowledge that they didn't do anything about the problem when they had the chance and the $$ behind the problem was unknown.
b) The company seeking to sell the potentially illegal software cannot be criticised for taking advantage of the lack of legislation in new areas of technology, which lends credibility to the struggle; ie, they arn't interested in challenging the status quo because they are clockin' 100$ an hour in sales, but rather because they believe that they should have the right to sell said software. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one - they are not interested in changing laws to continue making money, but rather to allow them to try and make money on a claimed innovation. I think Napster always had an uphill PR battle with the 'cynical traditional devout capitalist' crowd, because their interestests were so clearly vested at the time, due to the astonding success of the software by the time their shit was hitting the courts. With the company mentioned in the article, they are not a surefire money maker, which shows that part of the reason they wish to knock down laws is because they believe they _should_ be able to sell the software, not because the employees don't want to take a step down in terms of living standards in the middle of a 'killer app' epidemic.
> Of course, if everyone is reading copies of your columns, articles, and books, you get... nothing. And that's the point.
That's rediculous, for two reasons:
a) Time and time again, psychology studies show that people dont want to be freeloaders. So, everyone won't be reading from copies, because psychology tells us enough people will wish to contribute monetarily, regardless of enforcement mechanisms, to keep you eating. And sleeping. Now, you might not own a jaguar, but I hardly think _anyone_ intrinsically deserves a Jaguar, unless they've solved world hunger, or something. Capitalism was meant to be a means of making a living; now, the primary argument against going without seriously restrictive technological means of 'pay for read/use/listen' encforcement is that we wouldn't be able to afford food or water if those mechanisms wern't in place. Thats bullshit. It's only the difference between making a living from your trade, and being stupidly rich.
b) If everyone read copies of my work, as per the other reply to yoru post, I'd have my name on everyone's lips. This is alagous to the guy who invented Tetris.. he's not strupidly rich, despite being stiffled on the royalty front by companies who published Tetris and Tetris-alikes. But.. he's not starving, he's had plenty of exposure, interviews, fame, and I'm sure he's been able to leverage his name horizontally (through sponsorships, sales of other creations that sold better because he's the father of Tetris) enough to live comfortably. Sure, he still has to work, but really.. if the goal of capitalism is to reward people for good work, whats the point of being able to reward people to the point of never needing to work/innovate again? It's counter productive to the original purpose of copyright (to force work back into the public domain after 'fair' compensation to the creator; but make no mistake, the creator should keep on having to create after while.)
Anyhow, you're saying exactly what companies are saying - if we can't make technologies to get the last X% of our 'lost potential sales through copyright', no creator will be able to afford food, water, a home! What a load of shit!
I would imagine some of them go into economics or business, with a clear idea of what kinds of things they would like to keep our of their economy/society - you know, unforgiving monopolistic corperations.
If asked, most people would love getting their paper news, tv news, etc.. all from one convinient, cheaper source. The problem? IT'S NOT HEALTHY.
Just because people act one way does not mean they wouldnt not prefer the other way if they were given the chance (and even potentially 'forced') to do it the other way.
At least its nice to start seeing why so many public institutions are facing cash shortages.. its not like everything all of a sudden got more expensive. It's because companies have stopped treating schools like schools (with leeway, PR considerations, etc), and started treating them like customers (for which we all know MS's track record).
Companies, for years, have been trying to tell us that governments are nothing but money-grubbing corrupt.. whats starting to hit the public conciousness is that companies are exactly the same way, although don't mind crossing the line when it comes to institutions, oprganizations, and societies that were typically either under a government's guidence, or at the very least, left alone to do their own thing considering the 'real' eceonomics of trying keep up to date technologically.
I hope the school board gets nailed HARD. There is no other way to garauntee that legions of next-generationers will grow up with the name of their enemy blazed into their minds.
Cool. I didn't know this. I work on ad delivery and reporting engines, so I'm not so in tune with current clientside agency-level trends. But I can certainly see why this will go along way towards entrenching Flash as the platform of choice for ad creation. A shame tho, I'm not entirely happy that the platform of choice is a closed standard owned by one company..
Slashdot Mirror
Except that errors in the ditization can result in the acedemics operating on mis-transmogrified information. When you work on the original, you know you're not making assumptions or working on problems that may in fact not exist in the original and simply be artifacts of the digital conversion.
A minor quibble, but lets not underestimate the importance of having a cannonical reference copy whom everyone knows and agrees represents The Truth.
Now, if you're just talking about these copies as 'working copies', fine. It just scares me that we digitize the original, lock the original up for decades, and be operating on a dataset that may potentially have errors, or use a low enough 'technology of today' resolution in the data that may result in intricate details of the original going unnoticed for an unneccessarily long time.
Good post tho, I certainly conceed that this is a good idea for 'working copies' for scientits, acedemics to work off of - just so long as they dont forget that there is a reference copy available and that they should check it when something smells funny on the working copy.
I'm sure he wouldn't mind, so long as he's allowed to play the scientist/mathematician.
Um, no. I promise the tablets will last longer, for reasons that should be so obvious, I'm not even going to bother listing them.
One fear a collegue of mine has is that we digitize everything and call those the cannonical versions, and then thousands of years in the future we're unable to cull accounting, historical, cultural information from this age cause it all gets lost in digital form. The fact that digical copies are much more likely to be lost while undergoing simple administrative tasks ('oops, I hit delete instead of copy') makes it even more likely that my assertion is true. Yet another case of having a hammer and making every problem a nail.
Whats the real solution? Make tons of copies, in tons of mediums, from digital to physical. That's my suggestion for historical data. And who'd do this?! US, while enjoying the works. Unfortunately, that wouldn't jive for the works of a dude whos been dead and should have had his works return to public domain awhile ago (or at least a few years ago, but Sonny Bono deep-sixed that one, as I understand it) - we face a real danger of having a very thin and fragile anthropological record centuries from now due to the current century vogue of being exeedingly restrictive with the distribution of cultural works.
ROFL, okay, now we need a moderation for Ironic ... no word yet on whether it should be +/-1 ..
Gee, didn't see that one coming. (While I'm not baiting, I do find it funny how posters point out the slashdot bias with their own equally predictable cheap shot ;) So, how about a -1 for Redundant?
... from the credit card companies. Ever tried cancelling a credit card? It absolutely blows my mind how close customer reps will come to calling you flat out stupid for wanting to go with a card.
They made me feel like I'd be deported to some backwaters of Zaire if I even dared to survive in the concrete jungle with only one credit card. Fucking jerks, I shouldn't have to work my ass off and argue my ass off to manage my business relationships.
> using the advanced GOTO command!
...
I was about to point out that C has GOTO when I realized that C programmers who use 'goto' in C code more than 3 times in a 2 month span invariably seem to wind up homeless and discombobulated. So, it's probably for the best that you didn't point this out
> I demand a cut of his profits!
... you dont work for the entertainment industry by chance, do you? ;)
Say, that sounds familliar
A decent point, but I thought I'd add that there are plenty of musicians who thought they were signing one thing to find themselves in another. Or, the almighty $ blinded their vision temporarily. I understand that a certain amount of "caveat emptor" is required in this world, but that still doesn't mean all labels are innocent upfront businessmen and artists are methodical, thoughful signees with a good business acumen. Even if these artists sign up knowing what they are getting into, I'd say its often out of lack of reasonable alternatives; not everyone has a clue on how to pimp their styles or promote their work.
....
.. the labels have shown no interest in projecting the current situation back onto the environments they are providing in media and retail, and so the only thing we can do is raise a new breed of industry down there in the trenches that knows people pay good money to support things they love once they know they love it, they feel they played a part in finding that music (one of the big reasons Napster was so popular IMHO), and are contributing to its existance (ie, are not a disposible consumer).
That being said, I still think your proposal is the only way to go, because
I'm more intersted in dispelling the myth that 90% of all humans are liars and cheaters when given the chance. This is the profile of the human condition (aka, Napster user) that labels wish us to swallow. Psycology shows us that it is context (your external situation) that plays far more of a role into whether you cheat or steal rather than your base personality. If thats the case, when major greymarkets spring up, we should be asking, 'why do people feel that stealing is the best choice to make, and how can we chance their circumstance', not 'how do we prevent homosapians from exercising their penchant for being liars and cheats.' In that respect, I totally feel that self-publication is the only way to go
Reminds me of a quote from "No Logo" (Naomi Klein, very good book), and Im paraphrasing here:
Isn't the pure nirvana of total and complete synergy just a monopoly?
Something to that effect. I agree with your post.
Amen. My post was pretty much about that 'balance'. I think in many work envrionments, that balance has been there ever since employees have had their hands on some kind of till or file cabinet.
.. and if they do implement such measures, they'd look awfully two faced considering the state of external facing potential security vulnerabilities at most companies.
It just struck me how "hey, we've never dealt with this revelation" the article was. I dont think there's any need for additional internal security at many places
Good post.
Oh yes, we should definately come around on issues where the 'biggest threat' is from the people with the 'inside track'. There's no better way to raise a generation on folx free from the confines of ethics and responsibility .. where anything that they can do technically and physically must be AOK, or else it would be impossible to to it.
You really have to be kidding me here. If your employees are truely taking their time to use their mp3 players to screw your business, you have more pressing concerns than the 'vulnerability' of the systems from the people who built them.
I suppose since most premeditated murders happen between people who know each other, we'd better wake up and start hiring personal bodygaurds to protect us from our loved ones too!
if msft rates you 0, you have larger fish to fry than range-less functions.
..
if msft rates you 0, it must be harder to properly authenticate against your services than to hack them.
if msft rates you 0, you're probably providing the root passwords for your services in the README
if msft rates you 0, you're probably inconveniently attempting to confirm users intentions before running harmful logic
if msft rates you 0, you probably didn't include _enough_ backdoors in your code
i could go on all day
Kind of a useless observation unless you factor in how much the total cost of the album was.
Isn't in more pongiant to look at the 'cut' the artist gets rather then the gross payout per CD (and whats inflations effect on those values?)?
AMEN!!!!!!
Being a mechanic is good for mechanics, but not if your job is building cars for people with way too much money, and no drivers licence. Sometimes I feel like when I start projects, thats when I get to start watching the car wreck in slo mo.
I think if you're programming to the needs of people who understand what you're doing, you 'share' the conceptual burden of your work, and you can identify with others. When you are simply a monkey wrench, someone who can do something that someone else who makes way more than you can't, and they keep making decisions that make your job difficult or are decisions that compromise time and time again the engineering considerations of the position, thats where the 'burn out' happens.
You just get tired of pimping out your ability to things that you have no vested interest in, and you're literally the 'last line of defence' between stupidity and a live system that has to be up 24/7, in an environment where people can't even understand what its like to be that.
'Tries to get everything for free, illegally', and 'Tries to select services/products that are free', are two very different things.
While I don't have any studies handy, I have an argument that goes something like this:
.. in the case of music, lets say, in the era of tapes, tapes let you copy, and virtually everyone could afford tape copiers (and media). Another good example of this, in my opinion, tends to be 'Pay What You Can' nights at theatres, concerts, etc. (Maybe another one is subways, at 1 am is a good example .. you can jump turnstiles, nobody is on watch .. )
... evolution is smarter than that, as are large bodies of people that make up economies.
.. how much money will it cost you? You will go for the cheapest thing. I contend that there is something more important and universal to the human condition - the desire to live with minimal social friction, so we're not always fighting. And the way we do that, of course, is not to all act like we exist in a vacuum, and allow our behavior to be dictated soley by the economics of things .. otherwise we'd have disolved into countless civil wars and such by now resulting from people making choices for purely financial reasons rather than social reasons.
.. if we really behaved, to the letter, as companies contend, only going for the cheapest access to something, we'd have either killed out economy or broken out into war long ago.
1) Think of something where everyone has access to a technology that allows them to circumvent the system that makes what they want possible
2) You can either conclude that everyone who pays for that thing is:
a) too stupid to save money
b) able to understand that that thing would not be around were it not for people who paid for it.
Companies wish to convince us that the only time pepople pay for something when a free alternative is available is because they are dumb. However, this is not true. There tons of ways to scam the system, easily, undetected, and without possibility of getting caught. And yet, while some do (as always, a neccessary evil unless we wish to reseign to a future of microchip implants and tracking devices to catch that last, very clever cheater), many don't. I've really yet to meet someone who tries to get everything for free - it is a type of human companies wish to convince us that everyone is, so they can justify the restrictive technologies they wish to force on their consumer base in order to make everything quanitifiable. Would your dad have stolen the recordings of all his favorite artists? Would most Volvo enthousiasts seek out free Volvo's if they could, even if they knew that Volvo could not fund future developments and Volvo's if they did? It would be like evolution producing a species that cut off its own genetalia as its first action upon birth
At the base of all this is the assumption companies make - your behaviour is dependant 100% on the economics
I'll will try and drag up some specific studies, but to me its so clear
Interesting and actually probably a very good approach - get the legal clearance before the reactions of the current top players are based soley on the 'here and now' stakes.
.. if the recording industry (obviously) didn't predict the popularity of file sharing, would they have 'ignored' Napster had Napster approached them (hell, maybe they did) before they started allowing downloads, with the Sonys, et al. dismissing Napster as an insignificant piece of software and essentially binding them to said assumption? I wonder if it would be more useful to fight these laws before the money begins flowing in, for two reasons:
It would have been interesting
a) Those who subsequently have a problem with it will likely garner much less sympathy from the average person if it was common knowledge that they didn't do anything about the problem when they had the chance and the $$ behind the problem was unknown.
b) The company seeking to sell the potentially illegal software cannot be criticised for taking advantage of the lack of legislation in new areas of technology, which lends credibility to the struggle; ie, they arn't interested in challenging the status quo because they are clockin' 100$ an hour in sales, but rather because they believe that they should have the right to sell said software. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one - they are not interested in changing laws to continue making money, but rather to allow them to try and make money on a claimed innovation. I think Napster always had an uphill PR battle with the 'cynical traditional devout capitalist' crowd, because their interestests were so clearly vested at the time, due to the astonding success of the software by the time their shit was hitting the courts. With the company mentioned in the article, they are not a surefire money maker, which shows that part of the reason they wish to knock down laws is because they believe they _should_ be able to sell the software, not because the employees don't want to take a step down in terms of living standards in the middle of a 'killer app' epidemic.
> Of course, if everyone is reading copies of your columns, articles, and books, you get ... nothing. And that's the point.
.. he's not strupidly rich, despite being stiffled on the royalty front by companies who published Tetris and Tetris-alikes. But .. he's not starving, he's had plenty of exposure, interviews, fame, and I'm sure he's been able to leverage his name horizontally (through sponsorships, sales of other creations that sold better because he's the father of Tetris) enough to live comfortably. Sure, he still has to work, but really .. if the goal of capitalism is to reward people for good work, whats the point of being able to reward people to the point of never needing to work/innovate again? It's counter productive to the original purpose of copyright (to force work back into the public domain after 'fair' compensation to the creator; but make no mistake, the creator should keep on having to create after while.)
That's rediculous, for two reasons:
a) Time and time again, psychology studies show that people dont want to be freeloaders. So, everyone won't be reading from copies, because psychology tells us enough people will wish to contribute monetarily, regardless of enforcement mechanisms, to keep you eating. And sleeping. Now, you might not own a jaguar, but I hardly think _anyone_ intrinsically deserves a Jaguar, unless they've solved world hunger, or something. Capitalism was meant to be a means of making a living; now, the primary argument against going without seriously restrictive technological means of 'pay for read/use/listen' encforcement is that we wouldn't be able to afford food or water if those mechanisms wern't in place. Thats bullshit. It's only the difference between making a living from your trade, and being stupidly rich.
b) If everyone read copies of my work, as per the other reply to yoru post, I'd have my name on everyone's lips. This is alagous to the guy who invented Tetris
Anyhow, you're saying exactly what companies are saying - if we can't make technologies to get the last X% of our 'lost potential sales through copyright', no creator will be able to afford food, water, a home! What a load of shit!
I would imagine some of them go into economics or business, with a clear idea of what kinds of things they would like to keep our of their economy/society - you know, unforgiving monopolistic corperations.
If asked, most people would love getting their paper news, tv news, etc .. all from one convinient, cheaper source. The problem? IT'S NOT HEALTHY.
Just because people act one way does not mean they wouldnt not prefer the other way if they were given the chance (and even potentially 'forced') to do it the other way.
Ah, I unsubscribed recently. Good to know its going to live on. Thanks for the low-down!
Anyone know what'll happen to omniORB, the good C++ CORBA ORB produced outta bell labs?!
At least its nice to start seeing why so many public institutions are facing cash shortages .. its not like everything all of a sudden got more expensive. It's because companies have stopped treating schools like schools (with leeway, PR considerations, etc), and started treating them like customers (for which we all know MS's track record).
.. whats starting to hit the public conciousness is that companies are exactly the same way, although don't mind crossing the line when it comes to institutions, oprganizations, and societies that were typically either under a government's guidence, or at the very least, left alone to do their own thing considering the 'real' eceonomics of trying keep up to date technologically.
Companies, for years, have been trying to tell us that governments are nothing but money-grubbing corrupt
I hope the school board gets nailed HARD. There is no other way to garauntee that legions of next-generationers will grow up with the name of their enemy blazed into their minds.
Cool. I didn't know this. I work on ad delivery and reporting engines, so I'm not so in tune with current clientside agency-level trends. But I can certainly see why this will go along way towards entrenching Flash as the platform of choice for ad creation. A shame tho, I'm not entirely happy that the platform of choice is a closed standard owned by one company ..