Right, because that will make the paying consumer stop paying, and go for the dodgy "free" cracked version.
Kind of like when Apple went out of business when people discovered how to Jail-Break the iPhone and install applications from external sources. Oh wait!
-dZ.
Perhaps if it had imbedded photo galleries, interactive charts, etc, it might be more interesting but as it is, its comes across as a scanned version of a print magazine.
It does have embedded photo galleries and interactive charts, etc. It even has a service to read the headlines or articles to you automatically.
"People often assume that I must be some extremely moral person because I didn't take advantage of the lottery," he says. "I can assure you that that's not the case. I'd simply done the math and concluded that beating the game wasn't worth my time."
Because it is most likely recorded somehow. It does not necessarily require it's use or manufacture to continue, nor does it need to be maintain in the active consciousness of modern cultures, if that is what you were suggesting.
The problem that I see (in the/. comments and the NPR story) is that the examples being considered are from relatively recent times; yet the story insisted on applying its thesis to the entire breadth of human history.
I heard the story on NPR this morning and I think it's overrated. In my opinion, by including in the report tools and inventions that are custom made for leisure or passion and not necessity or practical use, the scope of invention "death" is reduced artificially.
The report included some examples of old farming implements that are still in use in some developing countries, ostensibly because they cannot afford the newer technology and the old tools are certainly effective. These surely are examples of old technology that is still "alive."
However, the problem is that, while the authors concentrated on the advertisements shown on a late-19th Century Farmer's Almanac, and offer these as proof; they extrapolated their observations to apply to the entire breadth of all human civilizations.
I disagree with this. Obviously some inventions have become obsolete when newer and better technology superseded it. The fact that some fringe group or individual continues to manufacture ancient items for study or pleasure (with no intention to apply or use it in practice), does not mean that the technology is still "alive". Such technology is obsolete and out of circulation for practical use. Understanding or knowledge of it may still remain, but it is effectively dead.
Their thesis then can be rephrased as such: Knowledge acquired by humanity throughout the course of history is accumulated and seldom lost. This is a much more intuitive and obvious assertion than the original one, but also a much less interesting one.
And the point is not necessarily to know if you're logged in, but that you are a Facebook user (because your browser acknowledges that it is or has logged in).
It is not about money, and it is not about freedom. It is a strategic business move against Apple. Full stop.
While Apple and the rest of the industry is moving towards convergence, with multiple devices accessing and sharing context, Google is still moving towards a "Web Is Everything" goal. Moving the reliance of video from the Web and making it just one more channel in a vast ecosystem of networks and devices, does not feed the Ad-Sense business. Google's core business is advertisements on Web search results, which is predicated on everybody's continued dependence on that vehicle for content (come on, does the name "WebM" suggest any other application?).
It is no coincidence that Google has chosen to remove support for H.264 but keep support for Flash--the single technology that Apple has disavowed from iOS devices. Google are betting that with one single, master stroke they can undermine Apple's dominance in the media content delivery market, and guarantee that everyone will continue accessing the Web directly for all their content.
That is what this is about. It is just another salvo in the power struggle between Apple and Google.
Google has realized that the lack of Flash support in iOS has not really damaged Apple's reputation in the mass market, nor impeded its market expansion; so they felt pressured to take a more drastic approach. It is also based on a premise that may or may not be true: If iOS devices are really all about accessing the Web better, then what if the Web was not really compatible with it? After all, some of the most popular Web Browsers will not support H.264, which will prompt the most popular sites to transcode their video content. Good luck with that.
I believe this is a very short-sighted stance, born of hubris, and prone to failure. It completely ignores the myriad devices and technologies already supporting the H.264 standard, which are intended to access or share video content whether the Web is part of this network or not.
I do not see a requirement of being free (as in beer) to implement. Free (as in freedom) is a given, and is what the parent poster is arguing as the definition of "open".
Or do you mean to say that Open Source Software has a requirement to be free (as in beer)?
Like you decided to redefine what a "Request For Comments" is? They are proposals for Internet standards and conventions, some of which have indeed become de facto standards. Their use makes no claims, in an of itself, as to cost, only openness and transparency.
You know how many times Apple has remotely removed or disabled apps when they removed them from the App Store? None.
You'd think that with all the whining in Slashdot about apps being rejected or recanted from the App Store by Apple every day, they'd pay more attention.
>> USA is a country that a day not so long ago treated some of its fellow countrymen like beasts and fortunately does it no more. This book gives the chance to learn it and learn out of it: don't disallow your new generations of this treasure.
Bravo! I'm impressed by your passion, and applaud your eloquence.
I think he is alluding to the 1930s Coca-Cola marketing campaign in which the first depiction of Santa Clause as we know him now--the fat, jolly fellow with a white beard and a red and white suit (which incidentally were the colors of the Coca-Cola logo)--was introduced.
Depictions of Santa Clause prior to this varied in the colors and girth of the mythical person.
The Internet was a terrific idea, and still is. A single, unified, fault-tolerant, common protocol for communications between networks; it's brilliant!
The World Wide Web, on the other hand, is not The Internet. It's one of the many services implemented on the Internet. A very popular one, but hardly unique. It was a great application for what it was designed: hyper-text document sharing.
The web as the single, unified, common interface for the consumption of multi-media and other content may not be so great. Implementing every single application as an extension of the web, in HTML and JavaScript to boot, is like hammering a square peg into a round hole. You end up with the lowest common denominator, a jack-of-all-trades user interface which is master of none.
To illustrate this point, consider why the geek world holds its collective breath in awe when, say, Google figures out how to do real-time keystroke display of online chats using JavaScript and HTTP, when dedicated chat clients were doing this since before the web was invented. The fact that the web is just now capable of supporting services and applications that have existed for some time in many other formats, suggests that perhaps it is not the best suited medium for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because that will make the paying consumer stop paying, and go for the dodgy "free" cracked version.
Kind of like when Apple went out of business when people discovered how to Jail-Break the iPhone and install applications from external sources. Oh wait!
-dZ.
It does have embedded photo galleries and interactive charts, etc. It even has a service to read the headlines or articles to you automatically.
Which "The Daily" are you reading?
-dZ.
And you get to control that. Fancy that.
You can set your NY Zip Code as the "location" for news, and it will always give you local news to whatever locale you want.
The point is that the news can be localized, as opposed to just getting "national" news only, even when you are at home, in NY.
-dZ.
From the article:
-dZ.
Because it is most likely recorded somehow. It does not necessarily require it's use or manufacture to continue, nor does it need to be maintain in the active consciousness of modern cultures, if that is what you were suggesting.
The problem that I see (in the /. comments and the NPR story) is that the examples being considered are from relatively recent times; yet the story insisted on applying its thesis to the entire breadth of human history.
-dZ.
I heard the story on NPR this morning and I think it's overrated. In my opinion, by including in the report tools and inventions that are custom made for leisure or passion and not necessity or practical use, the scope of invention "death" is reduced artificially.
The report included some examples of old farming implements that are still in use in some developing countries, ostensibly because they cannot afford the newer technology and the old tools are certainly effective. These surely are examples of old technology that is still "alive."
However, the problem is that, while the authors concentrated on the advertisements shown on a late-19th Century Farmer's Almanac, and offer these as proof; they extrapolated their observations to apply to the entire breadth of all human civilizations.
I disagree with this. Obviously some inventions have become obsolete when newer and better technology superseded it. The fact that some fringe group or individual continues to manufacture ancient items for study or pleasure (with no intention to apply or use it in practice), does not mean that the technology is still "alive". Such technology is obsolete and out of circulation for practical use. Understanding or knowledge of it may still remain, but it is effectively dead.
Their thesis then can be rephrased as such: Knowledge acquired by humanity throughout the course of history is accumulated and seldom lost. This is a much more intuitive and obvious assertion than the original one, but also a much less interesting one.
-dZ.
Yes. Next!
And the point is not necessarily to know if you're logged in, but that you are a Facebook user (because your browser acknowledges that it is or has logged in).
Therefore, it succeeded.
-dZ.
OMG! It looks like Twitter, with message bubbles and round corners and all! Welcome, Slashdot, to Web 2.0 circa 2007.
-dZ.
Wow, seriously? An article criticizing a move by Google, and you still find a way to turn it into an anti-Apple rant?
Get a life.
-dZ.
Bippity boppity boop.
It is not about money, and it is not about freedom. It is a strategic business move against Apple. Full stop.
While Apple and the rest of the industry is moving towards convergence, with multiple devices accessing and sharing context, Google is still moving towards a "Web Is Everything" goal. Moving the reliance of video from the Web and making it just one more channel in a vast ecosystem of networks and devices, does not feed the Ad-Sense business. Google's core business is advertisements on Web search results, which is predicated on everybody's continued dependence on that vehicle for content (come on, does the name "WebM" suggest any other application?).
It is no coincidence that Google has chosen to remove support for H.264 but keep support for Flash--the single technology that Apple has disavowed from iOS devices. Google are betting that with one single, master stroke they can undermine Apple's dominance in the media content delivery market, and guarantee that everyone will continue accessing the Web directly for all their content.
That is what this is about. It is just another salvo in the power struggle between Apple and Google.
Google has realized that the lack of Flash support in iOS has not really damaged Apple's reputation in the mass market, nor impeded its market expansion; so they felt pressured to take a more drastic approach. It is also based on a premise that may or may not be true: If iOS devices are really all about accessing the Web better, then what if the Web was not really compatible with it? After all, some of the most popular Web Browsers will not support H.264, which will prompt the most popular sites to transcode their video content. Good luck with that.
I believe this is a very short-sighted stance, born of hubris, and prone to failure. It completely ignores the myriad devices and technologies already supporting the H.264 standard, which are intended to access or share video content whether the Web is part of this network or not.
-dZ.
I do not see a requirement of being free (as in beer) to implement. Free (as in freedom) is a given, and is what the parent poster is arguing as the definition of "open".
Or do you mean to say that Open Source Software has a requirement to be free (as in beer)?
-dZ.
Like you decided to redefine what a "Request For Comments" is? They are proposals for Internet standards and conventions, some of which have indeed become de facto standards. Their use makes no claims, in an of itself, as to cost, only openness and transparency.
-dZ.
No, there is nothing nefarious about it. There is something very "revocable" about it.
-dZ.
You know how many times Apple has remotely removed or disabled apps when they removed them from the App Store? None.
You'd think that with all the whining in Slashdot about apps being rejected or recanted from the App Store by Apple every day, they'd pay more attention.
-dZ.
Just apologize and move on. No big deal.
Sent from my iPhone
That may be true; but arguably, most of those sites have a shaky business model to begin with.
-dZ.
So it's not unpossible, but re-possible.
-dZ.
To click on a link? No, not in Slashdot.
-dZ.
>> USA is a country that a day not so long ago treated some of its fellow countrymen like beasts and fortunately does it no more. This book gives the chance to learn it and learn out of it: don't disallow your new generations of this treasure.
Bravo! I'm impressed by your passion, and applaud your eloquence.
-dZ.
>> Not sure how that could be better written!
Like this:
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I do agree with the poster, though. :)
-dZ.
I think he is alluding to the 1930s Coca-Cola marketing campaign in which the first depiction of Santa Clause as we know him now--the fat, jolly fellow with a white beard and a red and white suit (which incidentally were the colors of the Coca-Cola logo)--was introduced.
Depictions of Santa Clause prior to this varied in the colors and girth of the mythical person.
-dZ.
The Internet was a terrific idea, and still is. A single, unified, fault-tolerant, common protocol for communications between networks; it's brilliant!
The World Wide Web, on the other hand, is not The Internet. It's one of the many services implemented on the Internet. A very popular one, but hardly unique. It was a great application for what it was designed: hyper-text document sharing.
The web as the single, unified, common interface for the consumption of multi-media and other content may not be so great. Implementing every single application as an extension of the web, in HTML and JavaScript to boot, is like hammering a square peg into a round hole. You end up with the lowest common denominator, a jack-of-all-trades user interface which is master of none.
To illustrate this point, consider why the geek world holds its collective breath in awe when, say, Google figures out how to do real-time keystroke display of online chats using JavaScript and HTTP, when dedicated chat clients were doing this since before the web was invented. The fact that the web is just now capable of supporting services and applications that have existed for some time in many other formats, suggests that perhaps it is not the best suited medium for them.
-dZ.