When was the last time when there wasn't a Star Trek series running on television. I bet it was between Star Trek (The Original Series) and Star Trek: TNG. I say this because Deep Space Nine started during Star Trek TNG, and Voyager started during DS9, and Enterprise started in 2001 (the same year Voyager ended).
I must admit I thought Enterprise sucked, and Voyager sucked even more, but there was something comforting in the knowledge that if I ever wanted to see how the Federation I was doing (or at least.. did) I could waste my Friday night watching Enterprise.
Hmm, it appears I'm a nerd. Oh well, I'm still sad.
Oh give me a break, maybe his comment didn't deserve a moderation up, but he is NOT a troll. Oh well, hopefully some moderators will rectify this problem - and somebody can provide a nice concise answer of what exactly Skype is, and why we should care.
Great move for Skype, anything that lets people on different platforms use the same software and interact freely with each other is a good thing. I speak from a the perspective of a Mac OS X user. However, the OS X port isn't all the way there - at least Skype admits it. From their FAQ page:
I click on the links that say "Skype Me" but it does not seem to work?
Sorry, in some cases SkypeMe links do not currently work with Skype for Mac OS X.
Hopefully they can iron out that little quirk and we can get Skype everywhere. Now I'm going to have to check this thing out for myself!
Hmm. There's a BIG question unanswered in this article.
Microsoft believes that combined with the eID Card MSN Messenger chatrooms will be much safer. Users would have a trustworthy way of identifying themselves online. The Belgian Federal Computer Crime Unit (FCCU) could even refuse young children access to certain chatrooms based on their electronic identity.
Now.. is the ID card REQUIRED to use the MSN service, or is it just another level of idenitifcation? One model, such as what Amazon.com uses for reviews, is to accredit reviews with a 'Real Name' sticker if it is indeed the poster's real name (as verified by their credit card). But it isn't required to actually post a review, only to get that extra level of verification.
Anybody else have a different take on it, did I miss this important point?
[M]any different languages were spoken, meaning that simultaneous translations were an absolute necessity. If the WEF can afford professional translators and costly computers, in Porto Alegre, translators are volunteers, and the software to distribute the translations is open-source.
This is fantastic, and will be a good selling point for open source software around the world. Many countries in this world have two official languages, or at least want their mechanisms of government to be accessible. Some enterprising young bureaucrat should pitch this. Canada, for example, makes extensive use of translation technology - I was in Ottawa for a conference, and we made use of it as we could not all speak French. Hopefully, this can hold true in most countries.
This just helps somebody make a pitch for Open Source, by being able to go 'did you know, [insert high bureaucrat's name], we can even do this with open source software - not to mention Openoffice, Linux, Mozilla, etc.'
Could you please stop being silly and instead try and do something worth while.
O, bollocks - we could all do 'better' things with our time. Including stopping posting on this infernal website. You could have donated the time you spent reading this/. submission on charity.
Some people have fun doing things like this. Sounds useless to me as well, I'll grant, but I'm sure a lot of stuff that we all do seems useless/stupid to others. Like watching Star Trek re-runs.
I guess Linux can only aspire to the greatness of Windows when it has such secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer. Historically those have been proven to be of a caliber all their own.
This is true, I will agree.. in my humble opinion. Let's save the editorializing for the comments. This is 'News for Nerds' - this sort of snide comment has a place in an Op/Ed page, but certainly not the 'front page' of a news site. I suppose there are divergent ideas of what Slashdot really is, but I think that endeavouring to be unbiased would be great.
I'm not meaning to troll or to be 'flamebait' here, just to point out a disturbing trend I've noticed in biased story submissions.
It's entertaining. I don't think I would mod the article 'Insightful' or 'Interesting', but I would mod it 'Funny'. A choice snippet (taken out of context no doubt, but still)
You never made me alter my goal, which was world domination for Linux. I'll never forget your line: "Come on, Linus, infect the mothership." I still believe that was the best recruiting pitch ever uttered. We both took a lot of criticism from our partisans, but look what we've accomplished.
Inflect the mothership? Just writing this makes me chuckle. Seems kind of creepy, and dare I say, 'borgish'. Oh well, I suppose getting co-opted by Mothership Microsoft had somehow warped the psuedo-Torvald's mind.
Maybe this means that I'll see the Opening Crawl for Episode III before that poor bloke who started camping out in front of the theatre about a month ago!
Damn. This was a dissapointing read. The most important paragraph IMHO concerned 'Pages' - I'm a Mac user who relies on MS Office and was mildly excited about being able to switch to iWork in lieu of Office (and the inevitable $$$ upgades). Unfortunately:
In our tests, Pages imported our Word test files with only minimal changes in page layout. And there are still plenty of features where Pages needs to play catch-up with Word. For example, Pages lacks a grammar checker and revision mark-up abilities. Also, there are none of the collaboration, tracking, and security features that make Word so excellent in business settings. Pages lacks Word's long-document features and Word's (sometimes shaky) ability to combine multiple subdocuments into one master document, as well as the ability to split a window so that you can work on two different parts of a document at the same time. We were also surprised to find that Pages loads and saves files slowly compared to other modern applations.
Damn. The revision abilities in Word are excellent - even better in Office X than in the MS Office XP version. "Minimal Changes" in page layout? Damn.
Now, I'll admit that much of this is Microsoft's fault - they have their proprietary.doc format, and it's probably a bitch to crack. But other things.. revision could have been aped by Apple. Heck, the feature to split the window so you can work on two different parts of a document at the same time. These are all things that perhaps the standard enduser doesn't work, but I'd say the cost/benefit analysis would have argued for the inclusion of these features!
Now I know that Pages is just going to be a 'page layout' feature, and it does look beautiful - but damn it, for a minute there I was hoping that I could finally have a Microsoft free Mac.
Not so good. I've had some issues with Chrichton and his reactionary, conservative stance before. This could help you take some of it with a grain of salt.
Or not, I don't propose to be an expert. Just thought it might interest you.
The problem with new keyboards is the pervasiveness of the QWERTY system. One has to run a cost/benefit analysis of replacing QWERTY keyboards - be it with the DVORAK or this new alphabetical version. Many computer users are experts with the QWERTY layout, and can have a high amount of wpm (words per minute). Perhaps, if one switches, the benefit will result in a higher wpm achieved - but there will be quite the learning curve.
You'd have to institute it with people starting to use computers, because it'd be organizational suicide to replace QWERTY w/ DVORAK/alphabetical due to the steep learning curve and the resistance to change.
Personally, I'm great with a QWERTY keyboard, even knowing that it is designed to be an inefficient system and would never change to an alphanumerical keyboard, despite the ultimate benefits. Shortsighted perhaps, but I don't see the benefit to the steep learning curve. I'm willing to bet that many organizations won't be willing to make that step either.
Hate to say it, but there are certainly benefits to being closed. Not to society as a whole, mind you and 'stakeholders', but certainly to your CEO's pocketbook and your shareholders.
Section three, Being Open, teaches companies about the rewards earned by being transparent. Up until this part of the book, transparency was viewed as a defensive strategy. Now transparency is re-introduced as a core source of new value a firm can tap into. Like IBM is doing now, companies can earn massive profits by adopting a more open stance.
IBM may be earning 'massive profits'. So is Microsoft. And Microsoft is not being that open. Therefore, I think we should be a little cautious about seeing this causal relationship between 'open' and 'profit.' Perhaps this will emerge into two dueling schools of thought - the open vs. closed, and time will tell which prevails, but certainly the success of 'The Naked Corporation' is by no means guaranteed. Interesting review, however.
Found this on the release page, a list of features:
Support for Bookmarks, Favorites and Hotlists Hmm, nothing too special? It'll be interesting to see what form they take - whether the Safari-esque model of bookmark management (a page) or the standard pop-up organizer.
Layers(Tabbed Browsing) Wooo... Kind of a necessity in today's brower 'market'.
Integrated search tools to search Google or configurable to use your favorite web resources Neat. Still nothing revolutionary.. think Firefox.
Enhanced privacy and security features to protect against spyware and viruses - block pop-ups and web sites that try to change your home page or download spyware! Anything like this is great.. Maybe this will start to hint Microsoft along those lines, and we can get real security that can keep my family's computer running (despite the naive endusers).
Unique right-click toolbar buttons allow quick access to additional features and settings Now, right mouse button features are good but I feel they are a bit of a crutch for poor design and don't make it as accessible to the user. I suppose I fall into teh 'Apple' camp of one button computing.. the right button/scroll is handy, but not the end all/be all... certainly not something to trump as a unique feature.
Complete customization of all menus and toolbars Now this is a great thing.. I love the way I can configure MS Office to my exact specifications, and this could be the real reason to switch over to K-Meleon 0.9 IMHO.
Configurable to use your mail and news programs Hmm, wonder if this will take the form of just popping up my mail client when I click on something, or a news client when I click on something, or if it is something revolutionary?
Bit of a screed, I know, but just my two cents.
Can't see how Verisign could win.. (article)
on
The Race Is On For .net
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Seems a little sketch. The article clearly argues that DENIC eG will win the contract. These two snippets say all, despite their conclusion that doesn't really support the evidence that they themselves introduced. From TFA regarding DENIC eG:
So Denic isn't messing about and while ICANN would love nothing more than VeriSign to lose the.net registry, it would be equally delighted to see Denic win it. Why? Because Denic is the most powerful registry outside of ICANN control.
So it appears that The Registrar thinks that DENIC eG will win the bid. This is especially apparent when contrasted with their earlier snippet about Verisign's bid:
These very reasons are also why ICANN would desperately love for its old foe to be humbled. With VeriSign weakened, ICANN can start to assert itself properly over the Internet. It may even mean the end of the lengthy legal battle that VeriSign has been running against ICANN - something that is as much a bartering chip as it is a legal dispute.
So there, the Registrar actually thinks that DENIC eG will win, despite their own conclusion and the story submission.
This is rediculous. The parent poster posted a dissenting view and he was modded down. Granted, the majority of/.ers obviously feel that Firefox is better (I'm a Safari user myself), but that's no reason to mod this post TROLL!
I hope this mod pops up in meta-moderation, and somebody wakes up. Firefox could start supporting scrollbar colors, because maybe that means something to somebody.
Sheesh, usually the Slashdot moderation system works, but sometimes it's just a big let down.
Hmm. Guess we'll have to wait until next Monday for more definate information. From TFA:
That the matter would be settled for good next Monday, Luxembourgs Economics Minister Jeannot Krecke for one announced at a meeting of the European Parliament's Legal Committee this Wednesday.
Hmm.. Guess we'll get yet ANOTHER Slashdot story on Monday - if Ms. Krecke is correct in her prediction. Oh well, this is a matter of importance and I suppose as many news stories/comments as we can read, the better informed we'll all be on the subject!
Good call. More accurately then, I suppose my quip should be changed to:
"It was in his contract, so I don't see how Marvel can appeal [and have a chance of winning]."
And yes, I have no doubt that Marvel will appeal this as much as they can - especially if they're in dire financial straits, as many of the other posters in this thread have indicated.
He filed the lawsuit in November 2002, pointing out a clause in his contract that entitled him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals, an amount he thought was significantly higher than the $1 million-per-year salary he currently receives. Marvel tried to find a loophole in the wording.
Seems like a no-brainer. It was in the contract, Marvel tried to finangle their way out of it, and they failed. Good show, I must say. Good for him for staking out the claim, and calling Marvel on their unethical business practices.
So, bottom line, everything aside: it was in his contract, so I don't see how Marvel can appeal. They keep their merchandising revenue anyways.
This made me roll my eyes, and I hope I wasn't alone. This quote:
VeriSign has been lobbying hard to keep the domain and is reported to have received letters of support from Microsoft and IBM.
Hah! Woopty-doo, hopefully this doesn't matter and there is some legitimacy in the bidding process. I'm not an anti-Microsoft crusader (although I did ditch Windows), but come now . . . unless they're willing to throw their money behind VeriSign (as opposed to a letter), they should simply STFU. From the NYT article:
But later this month, the system's underpinnings will become a topic of debate when rival companies publicly bid to run.net, one of the Internet's most popular domains.
It is rather disturbing at a base level that a company controls the domain. I know VeriSign runs.com but still... I will admit ignorance in these matters, but it's weird to think that a coroporation would run the.net domain - which, as the article points out, is responsible for a vast array of sites - including "About 40 percent of government domains allow access through.net, including the White House, the United States Senate, Homeland Security agencies and the Social Security Administration, making it a vital Internet transportation layer, said Tom Galvin, a spokesman for VeriSign."
So weird.. WHY does VeriSign want.net - what advantages does this convey on them?
Thank you! It's getting increasingly tiresome to see such abuse of Darwin's Evolutionary theory by people who quite simply have not taken the time to absorb the fundamentals.
Once ad-blockers really catch on, registration will be required more for spam purposes, then after that, it'll require real registration and payment.
I don't see the necessary links between these steps. This seems to be a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument that may not stand up to further examination. I don't mean to rule it out, but can you elaborate on your argument? I don't see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Hmm, I personally get the majority of my news from the 'net - the New York Times is simply prohibitively expensive in real life up here in Canada, and Google News and CNET provide some info that I wouldn't otherwise find in the local papers - which are quite good.
That being said, I do read a real paper every morning with breakfast, and I don't see the current model of dual-distribution fading (that of the print edition + the internet edition. Some choice quotes from the post are simply not going to hold up:
With the uprise of ad blockers, are we going to be able to get our news for free?
I'd like to see some statistics, but I don't think that this is a widespread phenomenon. Indeed, I know a lot of tech savvy people and some don't use ad-blocker for philosophical reasons, and some are just too lazy (some do use it, and I think it's great). And the majority of people continue to use IE, and even smirk at the notion of switching browsers!
The decentralization of the Internet offers many advantages over traditional media such as newspapers and television, as the user has more control over what to view and when to view it. But how does the future of this utopia look?
Come now.. Utopia? Seems a little perjorative. Yes, there are advantages - but the good, fact-referenced (well, hopefully) stories are only there because of the ads and the print editions! The internet is in most cases a mere adjunct of the print edition. It does offer advantages.. but some disadvantages too. I love my computer, and I still prefer reading a print edition . . . can't even put a rational reason down. I spend most of my day looking at computers anyways.
Will the Internet become a place for the "selected few" with money to spend?
No. I don't think so. The current distrbution model is working just fine. Ad-revenues are good, and there are simply so many online sources of news (NYT, CBC, BBC, Washington Post, etc. etc.) that if one paper goes to a pay model, then boom - they just loose their market share. They could all get together, but that would be monopoly and illegal.
So, for those reasons, I feel the future of internet news is bright and doesn't hold any of the radical changes forseen by 'Matthew'.
Hmm, I think Linux should be promoted as much as possible, but this avenue will probably be a dead end. I dug around on the website, and found this list of supported games... admittedly it is the 'old' list, but still apparently rather accurate. Here is the URL: http://tuxgamers.altervista.org/llgp/games-0.0.1.p hp
Now, the simple fact remains that this is insufficient, and Linux can simple not be promoted as a gaming platform at this time. This may be promising news for software developers who may elect to use the Linux platform, but I don't think I'll be able to 'convert my friends to Linux'.
Although, I must admit such samplings as 'Penguin Solitaire', 'Penguin Minesweeper', 'Galaga' and 'Pingus - Enhanced Lemmings' do sound tempting.. especially the last. I just don't see it as a show stopper, or anything special.
Slashdot Mirror
the people at EnterpriseFans.com are still trying to raise money for a fan campaign to save the show.
Resistance is futile.
Seriously, in this case.
When was the last time when there wasn't a Star Trek series running on television. I bet it was between Star Trek (The Original Series) and Star Trek: TNG. I say this because Deep Space Nine started during Star Trek TNG, and Voyager started during DS9, and Enterprise started in 2001 (the same year Voyager ended).
.. did) I could waste my Friday night watching Enterprise.
I must admit I thought Enterprise sucked, and Voyager sucked even more, but there was something comforting in the knowledge that if I ever wanted to see how the Federation I was doing (or at least
Hmm, it appears I'm a nerd. Oh well, I'm still sad.
Oh give me a break, maybe his comment didn't deserve a moderation up, but he is NOT a troll. Oh well, hopefully some moderators will rectify this problem - and somebody can provide a nice concise answer of what exactly Skype is, and why we should care.
Great move for Skype, anything that lets people on different platforms use the same software and interact freely with each other is a good thing. I speak from a the perspective of a Mac OS X user. However, the OS X port isn't all the way there - at least Skype admits it. From their FAQ page:
I click on the links that say "Skype Me" but it does not seem to work?
Sorry, in some cases SkypeMe links do not currently work with Skype for Mac OS X.
Hopefully they can iron out that little quirk and we can get Skype everywhere. Now I'm going to have to check this thing out for myself!
Hmm. There's a BIG question unanswered in this article.
Microsoft believes that combined with the eID Card MSN Messenger chatrooms will be much safer. Users would have a trustworthy way of identifying themselves online. The Belgian Federal Computer Crime Unit (FCCU) could even refuse young children access to certain chatrooms based on their electronic identity.
Now.. is the ID card REQUIRED to use the MSN service, or is it just another level of idenitifcation? One model, such as what Amazon.com uses for reviews, is to accredit reviews with a 'Real Name' sticker if it is indeed the poster's real name (as verified by their credit card). But it isn't required to actually post a review, only to get that extra level of verification.
Anybody else have a different take on it, did I miss this important point?
From TFA:
[M]any different languages were spoken, meaning that simultaneous translations were an absolute necessity. If the WEF can afford professional translators and costly computers, in Porto Alegre, translators are volunteers, and the software to distribute the translations is open-source.
This is fantastic, and will be a good selling point for open source software around the world. Many countries in this world have two official languages, or at least want their mechanisms of government to be accessible. Some enterprising young bureaucrat should pitch this. Canada, for example, makes extensive use of translation technology - I was in Ottawa for a conference, and we made use of it as we could not all speak French. Hopefully, this can hold true in most countries.
This just helps somebody make a pitch for Open Source, by being able to go 'did you know, [insert high bureaucrat's name], we can even do this with open source software - not to mention Openoffice, Linux, Mozilla, etc.'
Could you please stop being silly and instead try and do something worth while.
/. submission on charity.
O, bollocks - we could all do 'better' things with our time. Including stopping posting on this infernal website. You could have donated the time you spent reading this
Some people have fun doing things like this. Sounds useless to me as well, I'll grant, but I'm sure a lot of stuff that we all do seems useless/stupid to others. Like watching Star Trek re-runs.
Come now. This is rediculous:
I guess Linux can only aspire to the greatness of Windows when it has such secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer. Historically those have been proven to be of a caliber all their own.
This is true, I will agree.. in my humble opinion. Let's save the editorializing for the comments. This is 'News for Nerds' - this sort of snide comment has a place in an Op/Ed page, but certainly not the 'front page' of a news site. I suppose there are divergent ideas of what Slashdot really is, but I think that endeavouring to be unbiased would be great.
I'm not meaning to troll or to be 'flamebait' here, just to point out a disturbing trend I've noticed in biased story submissions.
It's entertaining. I don't think I would mod the article 'Insightful' or 'Interesting', but I would mod it 'Funny'. A choice snippet (taken out of context no doubt, but still)
You never made me alter my goal, which was world domination for Linux. I'll never forget your line: "Come on, Linus, infect the mothership." I still believe that was the best recruiting pitch ever uttered. We both took a lot of criticism from our partisans, but look what we've accomplished.
Inflect the mothership? Just writing this makes me chuckle. Seems kind of creepy, and dare I say, 'borgish'. Oh well, I suppose getting co-opted by Mothership Microsoft had somehow warped the psuedo-Torvald's mind.
Maybe this means that I'll see the Opening Crawl for Episode III before that poor bloke who started camping out in front of the theatre about a month ago!
Damn. This was a dissapointing read. The most important paragraph IMHO concerned 'Pages' - I'm a Mac user who relies on MS Office and was mildly excited about being able to switch to iWork in lieu of Office (and the inevitable $$$ upgades). Unfortunately:
.doc format, and it's probably a bitch to crack. But other things.. revision could have been aped by Apple. Heck, the feature to split the window so you can work on two different parts of a document at the same time. These are all things that perhaps the standard enduser doesn't work, but I'd say the cost/benefit analysis would have argued for the inclusion of these features!
In our tests, Pages imported our Word test files with only minimal changes in page layout. And there are still plenty of features where Pages needs to play catch-up with Word. For example, Pages lacks a grammar checker and revision mark-up abilities. Also, there are none of the collaboration, tracking, and security features that make Word so excellent in business settings. Pages lacks Word's long-document features and Word's (sometimes shaky) ability to combine multiple subdocuments into one master document, as well as the ability to split a window so that you can work on two different parts of a document at the same time. We were also surprised to find that Pages loads and saves files slowly compared to other modern applations.
Damn. The revision abilities in Word are excellent - even better in Office X than in the MS Office XP version. "Minimal Changes" in page layout? Damn.
Now, I'll admit that much of this is Microsoft's fault - they have their proprietary
Now I know that Pages is just going to be a 'page layout' feature, and it does look beautiful - but damn it, for a minute there I was hoping that I could finally have a Microsoft free Mac.
Hmm, an interesting review was posted on Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110815
Not so good. I've had some issues with Chrichton and his reactionary, conservative stance before. This could help you take some of it with a grain of salt.
Or not, I don't propose to be an expert. Just thought it might interest you.
The problem with new keyboards is the pervasiveness of the QWERTY system. One has to run a cost/benefit analysis of replacing QWERTY keyboards - be it with the DVORAK or this new alphabetical version. Many computer users are experts with the QWERTY layout, and can have a high amount of wpm (words per minute). Perhaps, if one switches, the benefit will result in a higher wpm achieved - but there will be quite the learning curve.
You'd have to institute it with people starting to use computers, because it'd be organizational suicide to replace QWERTY w/ DVORAK/alphabetical due to the steep learning curve and the resistance to change.
Personally, I'm great with a QWERTY keyboard, even knowing that it is designed to be an inefficient system and would never change to an alphanumerical keyboard, despite the ultimate benefits. Shortsighted perhaps, but I don't see the benefit to the steep learning curve. I'm willing to bet that many organizations won't be willing to make that step either.
Hate to say it, but there are certainly benefits to being closed. Not to society as a whole, mind you and 'stakeholders', but certainly to your CEO's pocketbook and your shareholders.
Section three, Being Open, teaches companies about the rewards earned by being transparent. Up until this part of the book, transparency was viewed as a defensive strategy. Now transparency is re-introduced as a core source of new value a firm can tap into. Like IBM is doing now, companies can earn massive profits by adopting a more open stance.
IBM may be earning 'massive profits'. So is Microsoft. And Microsoft is not being that open. Therefore, I think we should be a little cautious about seeing this causal relationship between 'open' and 'profit.' Perhaps this will emerge into two dueling schools of thought - the open vs. closed, and time will tell which prevails, but certainly the success of 'The Naked Corporation' is by no means guaranteed. Interesting review, however.
Found this on the release page, a list of features:
Support for Bookmarks, Favorites and Hotlists
Hmm, nothing too special? It'll be interesting to see what form they take - whether the Safari-esque model of bookmark management (a page) or the standard pop-up organizer.
Layers(Tabbed Browsing)
Wooo... Kind of a necessity in today's brower 'market'.
Integrated search tools to search Google or configurable to use your favorite web resources
Neat. Still nothing revolutionary.. think Firefox.
Enhanced privacy and security features to protect against spyware and viruses - block pop-ups and web sites that try to change your home page or download spyware!
Anything like this is great.. Maybe this will start to hint Microsoft along those lines, and we can get real security that can keep my family's computer running (despite the naive endusers).
Unique right-click toolbar buttons allow quick access to additional features and settings
Now, right mouse button features are good but I feel they are a bit of a crutch for poor design and don't make it as accessible to the user. I suppose I fall into teh 'Apple' camp of one button computing.. the right button/scroll is handy, but not the end all/be all... certainly not something to trump as a unique feature.
Complete customization of all menus and toolbars
Now this is a great thing.. I love the way I can configure MS Office to my exact specifications, and this could be the real reason to switch over to K-Meleon 0.9 IMHO.
Configurable to use your mail and news programs
Hmm, wonder if this will take the form of just popping up my mail client when I click on something, or a news client when I click on something, or if it is something revolutionary?
Bit of a screed, I know, but just my two cents.
Seems a little sketch. The article clearly argues that DENIC eG will win the contract. These two snippets say all, despite their conclusion that doesn't really support the evidence that they themselves introduced. From TFA regarding DENIC eG:
.net registry, it would be equally delighted to see Denic win it. Why? Because Denic is the most powerful registry outside of ICANN control.
So Denic isn't messing about and while ICANN would love nothing more than VeriSign to lose the
So it appears that The Registrar thinks that DENIC eG will win the bid. This is especially apparent when contrasted with their earlier snippet about Verisign's bid:
These very reasons are also why ICANN would desperately love for its old foe to be humbled. With VeriSign weakened, ICANN can start to assert itself properly over the Internet. It may even mean the end of the lengthy legal battle that VeriSign has been running against ICANN - something that is as much a bartering chip as it is a legal dispute.
So there, the Registrar actually thinks that DENIC eG will win, despite their own conclusion and the story submission.
This is rediculous. The parent poster posted a dissenting view and he was modded down. Granted, the majority of /.ers obviously feel that Firefox is better (I'm a Safari user myself), but that's no reason to mod this post TROLL!
I hope this mod pops up in meta-moderation, and somebody wakes up. Firefox could start supporting scrollbar colors, because maybe that means something to somebody.
Sheesh, usually the Slashdot moderation system works, but sometimes it's just a big let down.
Hmm. Guess we'll have to wait until next Monday for more definate information. From TFA:
That the matter would be settled for good next Monday, Luxembourgs Economics Minister Jeannot Krecke for one announced at a meeting of the European Parliament's Legal Committee this Wednesday.
Hmm.. Guess we'll get yet ANOTHER Slashdot story on Monday - if Ms. Krecke is correct in her prediction. Oh well, this is a matter of importance and I suppose as many news stories/comments as we can read, the better informed we'll all be on the subject!
Good call. More accurately then, I suppose my quip should be changed to:
"It was in his contract, so I don't see how Marvel can appeal [and have a chance of winning]."
And yes, I have no doubt that Marvel will appeal this as much as they can - especially if they're in dire financial straits, as many of the other posters in this thread have indicated.
Good call from the court.
He filed the lawsuit in November 2002, pointing out a clause in his contract that entitled him to 10 percent of TV, movie and merchandising deals, an amount he thought was significantly higher than the $1 million-per-year salary he currently receives. Marvel tried to find a loophole in the wording.
Seems like a no-brainer. It was in the contract, Marvel tried to finangle their way out of it, and they failed. Good show, I must say. Good for him for staking out the claim, and calling Marvel on their unethical business practices.
So, bottom line, everything aside: it was in his contract, so I don't see how Marvel can appeal. They keep their merchandising revenue anyways.
This made me roll my eyes, and I hope I wasn't alone. This quote:
.net, one of the Internet's most popular domains.
.com but still... I will admit ignorance in these matters, but it's weird to think that a coroporation would run the .net domain - which, as the article points out, is responsible for a vast array of sites - including "About 40 percent of government domains allow access through .net, including the White House, the United States Senate, Homeland Security agencies and the Social Security Administration, making it a vital Internet transportation layer, said Tom Galvin, a spokesman for VeriSign."
.net - what advantages does this convey on them?
VeriSign has been lobbying hard to keep the domain and is reported to have received letters of support from Microsoft and IBM.
Hah! Woopty-doo, hopefully this doesn't matter and there is some legitimacy in the bidding process. I'm not an anti-Microsoft crusader (although I did ditch Windows), but come now . . . unless they're willing to throw their money behind VeriSign (as opposed to a letter), they should simply STFU. From the NYT article:
But later this month, the system's underpinnings will become a topic of debate when rival companies publicly bid to run
It is rather disturbing at a base level that a company controls the domain. I know VeriSign runs
So weird.. WHY does VeriSign want
Thank you! It's getting increasingly tiresome to see such abuse of Darwin's Evolutionary theory by people who quite simply have not taken the time to absorb the fundamentals.
Spencer, on the other hand. . .
Once ad-blockers really catch on, registration will be required more for spam purposes, then after that, it'll require real registration and payment.
I don't see the necessary links between these steps. This seems to be a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument that may not stand up to further examination. I don't mean to rule it out, but can you elaborate on your argument? I don't see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Hmm, I personally get the majority of my news from the 'net - the New York Times is simply prohibitively expensive in real life up here in Canada, and Google News and CNET provide some info that I wouldn't otherwise find in the local papers - which are quite good.
That being said, I do read a real paper every morning with breakfast, and I don't see the current model of dual-distribution fading (that of the print edition + the internet edition. Some choice quotes from the post are simply not going to hold up:
With the uprise of ad blockers, are we going to be able to get our news for free?
I'd like to see some statistics, but I don't think that this is a widespread phenomenon. Indeed, I know a lot of tech savvy people and some don't use ad-blocker for philosophical reasons, and some are just too lazy (some do use it, and I think it's great). And the majority of people continue to use IE, and even smirk at the notion of switching browsers!
The decentralization of the Internet offers many advantages over traditional media such as newspapers and television, as the user has more control over what to view and when to view it. But how does the future of this utopia look?
Come now.. Utopia? Seems a little perjorative. Yes, there are advantages - but the good, fact-referenced (well, hopefully) stories are only there because of the ads and the print editions! The internet is in most cases a mere adjunct of the print edition. It does offer advantages.. but some disadvantages too. I love my computer, and I still prefer reading a print edition . . . can't even put a rational reason down. I spend most of my day looking at computers anyways.
Will the Internet become a place for the "selected few" with money to spend?
No. I don't think so. The current distrbution model is working just fine. Ad-revenues are good, and there are simply so many online sources of news (NYT, CBC, BBC, Washington Post, etc. etc.) that if one paper goes to a pay model, then boom - they just loose their market share. They could all get together, but that would be monopoly and illegal.
So, for those reasons, I feel the future of internet news is bright and doesn't hold any of the radical changes forseen by 'Matthew'.
Hmm, I think Linux should be promoted as much as possible, but this avenue will probably be a dead end. I dug around on the website, and found this list of supported games... admittedly it is the 'old' list, but still apparently rather accurate. Here is the URL: http://tuxgamers.altervista.org/llgp/games-0.0.1.p hp
Now, the simple fact remains that this is insufficient, and Linux can simple not be promoted as a gaming platform at this time. This may be promising news for software developers who may elect to use the Linux platform, but I don't think I'll be able to 'convert my friends to Linux'.
Although, I must admit such samplings as 'Penguin Solitaire', 'Penguin Minesweeper', 'Galaga' and 'Pingus - Enhanced Lemmings' do sound tempting.. especially the last. I just don't see it as a show stopper, or anything special.