Re:I'm with linus torvalds on this one
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Im sorry, you conclusions do NOT follow from your premises. You have instead chosen an arbitrary standard that you happen to agree with and more or less declare this to be 'obvious' when it in fact is not."
Actually his conclusion does follow from his premise. He is arguing that several small tools are better than one big bloated program like most browsers today. That is more or less a common paradigm used in software engineering.
You may personally disagree with that, but that does not mean there is anything illogical about his argument. You just have a difference of opinion concerning the soundness of his premises.
All logical arguments start with a set of premises which are assumed to be true. In fact it is impossible to make an argument without that. That doesn't mean the argument is illogical at all. Take a course in logic and you will learn all about it.
"Simply by NOT USING new MS technology if it alienates anyone on any platform."
That alone won't get people to use standards complient technology.
Even if 99% of all web developers don't use the MS stuff, that 1% will be something that is available to those using MS and not available to others.
We have to make available alternatives that can be used by end users (not just open source stuff made for nerds) and push them. The Mozilla stuff may not be perfect for use by someone not familiar with computers, but from what I've heard Opera is great and the idea that Netscape is putting out a new browser based on Mozilla is really encouraging.
Re:I'm with linus torvalds on this one
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't know why it is you choose to use text based browsers, maybe you have a legitimate need for them or maybe you just like being a nerd. But if it is the later, this is a much more serious issue for many people who have no choice but to use browsers that cannot support stuff like Flash.
Many people out there who are hard of hearing or seeing use accessibility tools to use their computer. With something like standards complaint HTML, this works just fine. A blind guy can have his computer read the content off a web page. But with something like Flash, such programs just don't work. You haven't cut him off from using your site with his favorite browser, you have cut him off from using your site period.
Do the world a favor and whenever you see a site that relies on flash without an alternative, send an email to the owner of the site informing him that his web designer is an incompetent moron (though you might want word it a bit nicer than that).
I thought google limited how many words you can search for. I did a google for the first line of the article, "A student who was booted off his degree course for plagiarism is to sue the university" and it cut it off before 'plagiarism', though it still returned 4 results for that particular story. Still, that particular method would only work if the professor checked, which he would only be likely to do if he suspected something. I still don't think you can necessarily blame the university because he got away with cheating for a few years (look at how long Jayson Blair did it).
Perhaps an automated program that can take it a.swx file (or.doc if they insist on MS Office) and taking out some random sentences and doing web searches would be a useful tool...
Well if you have a fool-proof method of catching cheaters, feel free to let us know.
I know our CS department runs all the programs for entry level classes through a program that searches for similarities (and not just same variable names or same comments) and catch a ton of cheaters that way (in fact I think our department leads the university in terms of the number of students kicked out for that reason), but this was an English paper stolen off the web. Unless you can build up a database of every paper ever written, it will be hard to catch all cheaters.
One problem with the sock analogy, you have to establish that the number of socks is countably infinite. Otherwise it would be possible to have aleph-1 socks (that would require a big sock drawer) and aleph-0 gray socks. Then you still wouldn't have a positive percentage of gray socks. Thus they are not necessarily analogous. Granted this is nitpicking as it still works with primes (it is rather trivial to show that the number of primes is countable) and even if it didn't it still shows the problem with the original proof; but methinks you owe me part of your cookie.
Nope. My state (perhaps the same one) also has that law and it is still on the books (though the sodomy laws are now gone). I guess because gays can have sex in the missionary position (though I don't particularly want to visualize how...).
Of course these laws are never enforced, so no one really cares about (and if they were repealed, we would have nothing to laugh about).
"The big argument is that even though the Gmail account holder agreed to have their email profiled, the other party(ies) did not."
Sure they did. They consented to let me use it when they emailed it to me, and I consented to let Google scan it for keywords (which is a tad bit different from 'profiling', she obviously has no understanding of the technology) so they could determine which ads to give me (as opposed to trying to sell me generic ads than I will never click on).
"'[...]With respect to Google's current expressions of good intent, what history teaches is, if there is personal information available, someone will want to use it for marketing. '"
Yeah, that is exactly the point. So what? Marketing is not in itself evil, it provides us with many free services.
"If MS tried this, we would cry foul. "
Some people would cry foul if Microsoft gave money to starving children. I can hear it now, "M$ is trying to indoctrinate their evil monopoly on poor little children! We must stop them!" But that really has nothing to do with this debate. There is nothing wrong with this technology as Google plans on using it.
"Then it's time we had another look at what constitutes public information because I think there's way too much of it out there with far too few controls on who has access to it and why."
You are free to not use credit cards, get loans, etc., if you don't want to. Hell you can go become a hermit somewhere out in the mountains if you want to. But for the rest of us, it is worth the small loss of privacy.
"I don't believe the police should be able to troll the records of millions of innocent people looking for few troublemakers anymore than they should be allowed to randomly search homes. It's not that big of a step from one to the other."
One is private property, the other is public information. Thats a pretty big step in my opinion.
"Probable cause should apply everywhere."
Even to things that are public? What about a cop seeing a driver swerving all over the highway? Should they not be allowed to pull him over because he didn't have probable cause to look at his car? Should the entire police force sit in the office with their eyes shut until something comes up because they need 'probable cause' before they begin the investigation?
This is the use of public information in the assistance of gaining probably cause. Probably cause is required to go any further.
All this data is in the public domain. Anyone can get access to it. Regulating it would not be protecting privacy, it would be censoring free speech.
I have trouble seeing how the availability of information is in itself a bad thing. Yes, it can be used to draw false conclusions, but that is a fault of its use, not its existence. And its not like false conclusions are never drawn without databases of public information. Anyone ever heard of racial profiling?
We should not worry about regulating the existence of such databases, we should instead regulate its use. Don't let the police get a search warrant based solely on data they found in a database, but allow them to query the databases to help them obtain the necessary evidence.
I was going to dismiss you as a loon, but for some strange reason I actually bothered to compare the two. There is no evidence that CO2 levels were unually high at any point back then. What are you arguing, that low CO2 levels are bad? Let me go start my car...
In reality those climate changes were part of a natural cycle of changes in the earth's climate. Not the Mayans driving SUV's cross country.
If you ask any honest trained scientists they will verify that the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but it doesn't mean it will either. The fact that you saw something on the Discovery channel does not make you an expert.
"I'm not sure he meant the jail time for the offenders."
The context was in a reaction to an article about a law passed that could send music pirates to jail. In that context, I do not feel it is unreasonable to conclude that was what he was talking about.
"They play one or two teaser songs on the radio, they do not play every song on a CD."
Some do. But due to time constraints they can't be playing every album in its entirety all the time. If you want your local station to play more, blame them. Otherwise, listen to web casts. They play a lot more variety.
"But just to clarify, I was talking about Internet Explorer. They have a monopoly on the browser market."
That still doesn't make sense. That would be like me saying manufacturers of CD players compete with movie studios.
BTW, thats still not a monopoly in the true sense of the word. Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, Safari, etc. exist, even if many consumers don't use them.
"Notice labels aren't competing with each other?"
May I have some of your crack? Record labels compete all the time. It is a highly cut-throat industry.
"iTunes is the first serious attempt at innovation I've seen in a long time"
Then I'll conclude you have not been watching them too hard. There were many other services before (including some with very similar conditions), they just never received the same popularity.
As for the price controls, that is old news (and your article doesn't seem to cover it very well, as evidenced by the very second sentence which confuses "record labels" with "record companies"). A few points to consider:
The purpose of the MAP scheme was to keep large stores like Best Buy from using CDs as loss leaders and put the smaller specialty and 'mom and pop' record stores out of business.
That practice was voluntarily stopped years ago and it hasn't really affected prices at all.
As the benefactor of the plan was the retail stores, the labels got no direct benefit.
Stores still could charge lower prices, they just couldn't advertise them (to keep them from using CDs as loss leaders).
If you really felt you were cheated, you could have gotten your money back in the settlement after the court case.
It still does not change the fact that CD prices have fallen (taken inflation in account).
Your little rant aside, here is the real dictionary definition of Fascism:
fascism n.
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
In short, yes fascism is by definition a dictatorship, and is the opposite of democracy (which is by definition government by the people, not by a centralized dictator).
"This definition of fascism contrasts with dictatorship, which is imposed with or without the consent of the governed."
The term 'dictator' refers to how the power is used, not how it originally came about. There are free dictionaries all over the web.
"Or reading the Secret Scriptures of a highly corrupt corporate/religious cult."
So can I take that you are against any law protecting privacy? After all, any law protecting privacy could do the exact same thing, only then they wouldn't have to worry about fair use (which actually blows a hole through your entire argument itself).
Many of us think privacy can be a good thing. But I guess you are entitled to your opinion as well.
"For instance, simply redefine copyright terms as unlimited."
I can't believe I missed this the first time. Sorry for the extra post but this needed to be addressed:
"The simulations have been run many times and the result is always the same. "
Absolutely not. The computer simulations come up with different results every time. Even the ones that support the global warming hypothesis come up with different results.
And don't get me started about the reliability of simulations...
Yes, climate changes all the time. We already know that. We have known that for some time.
What we don't know, and what I was criticizing you for falsely claiming to know, was that a specific set of events in the future (an increase of 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere) will cause another specific set of events (your global warming hypothesis).
Well the distributed can't know if you already have the GPL so they would have to distribute it with it, and I would think the standard notice would count.
"Nowhere in NG's post did he advocate or imply that downloading music without paying for it is okay."
Ok, perhaps you can cast more light on what he meant when he said this:
"Level the playing field before punishing consumers for being the only competitor this industry has."
I personally interpreted the "punishing consumers" part a reference to jailing consumers for distributing copyrighted work, thus it seems to me that he is arguing that consumers should be allowed to distribute the music if the record companies do not allow him unlimited access to the CD before he purchases it. But I will acknowledge the message was a bit cryptic, so I may be wrong.
"Instead, what he's saying is that a theme park should not be allowed to make a big secret of what all the attractions are in a park"
"Big secret"? Hell the record labels pay good money just to get whats on those CDs played on local radio stations. Thats hardly a "Big secret".
"Well, in that case, Microsoft's monopoly is okay because the internet competes with newspapers."
WHAT? Microsoft has a monopoly over the Internet??? They wish. I think you are a bit confused...
Anyways, your analogy is still incomplete. He was talking about an industry having a monopoly, not a company. So instead, that should have read "The Internet does not have a monopoly over the exchange of information because it has to compete with newspapers." And that would be accurate.
"They don't have competition with each other to speak of. "
Of course they do. I've got $15. I go to Best Buy to buy a CD. But wait! I can buy a DVD that I want more for the same or lower price! Screw the CD, I'm buying the DVD. Both CDs and DVDs fulfill the same niche in my life, to entertain me. Thus they compete.
"As a result, prices don't drop, new services don't come along..."
Might want to check your facts buddy. Prices have dropped considerably if you factor in for inflation. And as far as new services coming along, I just posted the other day on/. about napster coming to Canada.
Do you really make it a habit to buy whatever Sony tells you to? I'm not entirely sure that Sony is the one you should be blaming if those are your buying habits.
Besides, by your logic I should be able to sneak into Busch Gardens because they won't let me ride their roller coasters without buying a ticket.
And what do you mean "...the only competitor this industry has"? What about books, movies, video games, TV shows, etc? And even within the music industry, there are many competing labels out there (some are bigger than others, but that does not negate the existence of the small guys). There is plenty of competition within the entertainment industry.
Thats it, equate a democratic government protecting property rights with fascism. I'm sure all those who died in the Holocaust are thankful for you honoring their memory.
On the other hand, this is a good indication of how prosperous our lives these days. Instead of worrying about being killed in a concentration camp so your race can be ethnically cleansed, we are worried about not being able to get a free copy of a Brittney Spears song.
Sure they do. Crimes that were once met with the death penalty or life in prison are now punished with by sending the perp to a mental hospital. The death penalty itself has been repealed in many states. And many activities which were once severely punished are now perfectly legal.
Even supporters of the global warming hypothesis conclude that Kyoto will accomplish nothing in terms of stopping climate change. All it can do is screw the economy, which slows down technological breakthroughs that could actually help reduce pollution. Think how crappy our environment would be now if we were still burning trees as our primary source of energy.
So no, most reasonable people would not feel that it is a step in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually his conclusion does follow from his premise. He is arguing that several small tools are better than one big bloated program like most browsers today. That is more or less a common paradigm used in software engineering.
You may personally disagree with that, but that does not mean there is anything illogical about his argument. You just have a difference of opinion concerning the soundness of his premises.
All logical arguments start with a set of premises which are assumed to be true. In fact it is impossible to make an argument without that. That doesn't mean the argument is illogical at all. Take a course in logic and you will learn all about it.
Flash is not needed for that, and it is far inferior to traditional forms of navigation.
"b) advertisements (okay, i admit, i hate those and I bet you do too)"
Not needed here either (and I have them blocked if they try).
"c) "moving media" for want of a better term. "When a static image just won't do.""
One of the very few real uses for Flash, I'll grant you that. But thats usually bloat.
"d) other stuff I can't put my finger on in the two seconds it's taken me to throw this together."
I'll wait.
That alone won't get people to use standards complient technology.
Even if 99% of all web developers don't use the MS stuff, that 1% will be something that is available to those using MS and not available to others.
We have to make available alternatives that can be used by end users (not just open source stuff made for nerds) and push them. The Mozilla stuff may not be perfect for use by someone not familiar with computers, but from what I've heard Opera is great and the idea that Netscape is putting out a new browser based on Mozilla is really encouraging.
Many people out there who are hard of hearing or seeing use accessibility tools to use their computer. With something like standards complaint HTML, this works just fine. A blind guy can have his computer read the content off a web page. But with something like Flash, such programs just don't work. You haven't cut him off from using your site with his favorite browser, you have cut him off from using your site period.
Do the world a favor and whenever you see a site that relies on flash without an alternative, send an email to the owner of the site informing him that his web designer is an incompetent moron (though you might want word it a bit nicer than that).
Perhaps an automated program that can take it a .swx file (or .doc if they insist on MS Office) and taking out some random sentences and doing web searches would be a useful tool...
I know our CS department runs all the programs for entry level classes through a program that searches for similarities (and not just same variable names or same comments) and catch a ton of cheaters that way (in fact I think our department leads the university in terms of the number of students kicked out for that reason), but this was an English paper stolen off the web. Unless you can build up a database of every paper ever written, it will be hard to catch all cheaters.
One problem with the sock analogy, you have to establish that the number of socks is countably infinite. Otherwise it would be possible to have aleph-1 socks (that would require a big sock drawer) and aleph-0 gray socks. Then you still wouldn't have a positive percentage of gray socks. Thus they are not necessarily analogous. Granted this is nitpicking as it still works with primes (it is rather trivial to show that the number of primes is countable) and even if it didn't it still shows the problem with the original proof; but methinks you owe me part of your cookie.
Of course these laws are never enforced, so no one really cares about (and if they were repealed, we would have nothing to laugh about).
Sure they did. They consented to let me use it when they emailed it to me, and I consented to let Google scan it for keywords (which is a tad bit different from 'profiling', she obviously has no understanding of the technology) so they could determine which ads to give me (as opposed to trying to sell me generic ads than I will never click on).
"'[...]With respect to Google's current expressions of good intent, what history teaches is, if there is personal information available, someone will want to use it for marketing. '"
Yeah, that is exactly the point. So what? Marketing is not in itself evil, it provides us with many free services.
"If MS tried this, we would cry foul. "
Some people would cry foul if Microsoft gave money to starving children. I can hear it now, "M$ is trying to indoctrinate their evil monopoly on poor little children! We must stop them!" But that really has nothing to do with this debate. There is nothing wrong with this technology as Google plans on using it.
You are free to not use credit cards, get loans, etc., if you don't want to. Hell you can go become a hermit somewhere out in the mountains if you want to. But for the rest of us, it is worth the small loss of privacy.
"I don't believe the police should be able to troll the records of millions of innocent people looking for few troublemakers anymore than they should be allowed to randomly search homes. It's not that big of a step from one to the other."
One is private property, the other is public information. Thats a pretty big step in my opinion.
"Probable cause should apply everywhere."
Even to things that are public? What about a cop seeing a driver swerving all over the highway? Should they not be allowed to pull him over because he didn't have probable cause to look at his car? Should the entire police force sit in the office with their eyes shut until something comes up because they need 'probable cause' before they begin the investigation?
This is the use of public information in the assistance of gaining probably cause. Probably cause is required to go any further.
I have trouble seeing how the availability of information is in itself a bad thing. Yes, it can be used to draw false conclusions, but that is a fault of its use, not its existence. And its not like false conclusions are never drawn without databases of public information. Anyone ever heard of racial profiling?
We should not worry about regulating the existence of such databases, we should instead regulate its use. Don't let the police get a search warrant based solely on data they found in a database, but allow them to query the databases to help them obtain the necessary evidence.
In reality those climate changes were part of a natural cycle of changes in the earth's climate. Not the Mayans driving SUV's cross country.
If you ask any honest trained scientists they will verify that the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but it doesn't mean it will either. The fact that you saw something on the Discovery channel does not make you an expert.
And if any of you moderators even think about moding that "Funny"...
The context was in a reaction to an article about a law passed that could send music pirates to jail. In that context, I do not feel it is unreasonable to conclude that was what he was talking about.
"They play one or two teaser songs on the radio, they do not play every song on a CD."
Some do. But due to time constraints they can't be playing every album in its entirety all the time. If you want your local station to play more, blame them. Otherwise, listen to web casts. They play a lot more variety.
"But just to clarify, I was talking about Internet Explorer. They have a monopoly on the browser market."
That still doesn't make sense. That would be like me saying manufacturers of CD players compete with movie studios.
BTW, thats still not a monopoly in the true sense of the word. Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, Safari, etc. exist, even if many consumers don't use them.
"Notice labels aren't competing with each other?"
May I have some of your crack? Record labels compete all the time. It is a highly cut-throat industry.
"iTunes is the first serious attempt at innovation I've seen in a long time"
Then I'll conclude you have not been watching them too hard. There were many other services before (including some with very similar conditions), they just never received the same popularity.
As for the price controls, that is old news (and your article doesn't seem to cover it very well, as evidenced by the very second sentence which confuses "record labels" with "record companies"). A few points to consider:
"This definition of fascism contrasts with dictatorship, which is imposed with or without the consent of the governed."
The term 'dictator' refers to how the power is used, not how it originally came about. There are free dictionaries all over the web.
"Or reading the Secret Scriptures of a highly corrupt corporate/religious cult."
So can I take that you are against any law protecting privacy? After all, any law protecting privacy could do the exact same thing, only then they wouldn't have to worry about fair use (which actually blows a hole through your entire argument itself).
Many of us think privacy can be a good thing. But I guess you are entitled to your opinion as well.
"For instance, simply redefine copyright terms as unlimited."
Nope, they are very limited.
"The simulations have been run many times and the result is always the same. "
Absolutely not. The computer simulations come up with different results every time. Even the ones that support the global warming hypothesis come up with different results.
And don't get me started about the reliability of simulations...
What we don't know, and what I was criticizing you for falsely claiming to know, was that a specific set of events in the future (an increase of 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere) will cause another specific set of events (your global warming hypothesis).
Well the distributed can't know if you already have the GPL so they would have to distribute it with it, and I would think the standard notice would count.
Ok, perhaps you can cast more light on what he meant when he said this:
I personally interpreted the "punishing consumers" part a reference to jailing consumers for distributing copyrighted work, thus it seems to me that he is arguing that consumers should be allowed to distribute the music if the record companies do not allow him unlimited access to the CD before he purchases it. But I will acknowledge the message was a bit cryptic, so I may be wrong.
"Instead, what he's saying is that a theme park should not be allowed to make a big secret of what all the attractions are in a park"
"Big secret"? Hell the record labels pay good money just to get whats on those CDs played on local radio stations. Thats hardly a "Big secret".
"Well, in that case, Microsoft's monopoly is okay because the internet competes with newspapers."
WHAT? Microsoft has a monopoly over the Internet??? They wish. I think you are a bit confused...
Anyways, your analogy is still incomplete. He was talking about an industry having a monopoly, not a company. So instead, that should have read "The Internet does not have a monopoly over the exchange of information because it has to compete with newspapers." And that would be accurate.
"They don't have competition with each other to speak of. "
Of course they do. I've got $15. I go to Best Buy to buy a CD. But wait! I can buy a DVD that I want more for the same or lower price! Screw the CD, I'm buying the DVD. Both CDs and DVDs fulfill the same niche in my life, to entertain me. Thus they compete.
"As a result, prices don't drop, new services don't come along..."
Might want to check your facts buddy. Prices have dropped considerably if you factor in for inflation. And as far as new services coming along, I just posted the other day on /. about napster coming to Canada.
Besides, by your logic I should be able to sneak into Busch Gardens because they won't let me ride their roller coasters without buying a ticket.
And what do you mean "...the only competitor this industry has"? What about books, movies, video games, TV shows, etc? And even within the music industry, there are many competing labels out there (some are bigger than others, but that does not negate the existence of the small guys). There is plenty of competition within the entertainment industry.
Isn't that a violation of the GPL itself?
On the other hand, this is a good indication of how prosperous our lives these days. Instead of worrying about being killed in a concentration camp so your race can be ethnically cleansed, we are worried about not being able to get a free copy of a Brittney Spears song.
Sure they do. Crimes that were once met with the death penalty or life in prison are now punished with by sending the perp to a mental hospital. The death penalty itself has been repealed in many states. And many activities which were once severely punished are now perfectly legal.
Of course that is a much better education than what I would get from reading Howard Zinn.
So no, most reasonable people would not feel that it is a step in the right direction.