Thanks. Yep, I know what you mean about those unfolding menus... I wish there was a faster/less CPU-taxing way to go about it, but hey. Firefox seems to be deathly slow in all things javascript (especially loops), but I suppose I should be taking that into account as well; I may just add a "bypass animation" button for that. I just added the search engine yesterday, so here's hoping that many will make liberal use of that - I think many will, as, no matter how lovely some animations may be, who likes to comb through menus to find something?
...Ajax is a project in hype -- strip all the cruft away and it comes down to one frigging javascript command. That aside, it has its uses. That is, if it is used wisely.
The only thing I disparage in Ajax is its lack of a back button. All the rest is positive in my books -- time/bandwidth-saving partial page reloads, perhaps the elimination of the "disorientation factor" that can occur with total page reloads (That "Wha? What's taking so long to load? Where the hell am I now?" feeling that grows proportionally the shorter the short-term memory/attention span). I like the feeling of control it gives a user (he's selecting the information he wants without being bandied all over the place). I've built a website using a mix of php/mysql/ajax and it's working fine for our customers -- not one complaint -- au contraire in fact. Have a look here if you like.
What I like the most (in that site) is the fact that our customers can always keep their "shopping cart" (rather "rental cart") always on hand, and add/eliminate things to/from it no matter where they are in the site. I'm not sure of the numbers yet, but this has been a big boost to our client base.
Another Ajax drawback could be its un-friendliness to search engines -- but there is a workaround for that (a liberal use of hard-coded links with added "onClick" functions), but this means that you have to build your website in two different-functioning levels. This takes a bit of thought beforehand, but it can be done.
As for Ajax's future: of course. But forget the buzzword and the technology behind it; it's what the technology does that will be sticking around in one form or another. For example, it is possible to build a full-Flash website that behaves exactly as Ajax - with even more search-engine limitations and added "plugin" requirements -- so I think more than a few see the merits of partial page reloading.
I concur. Wikipedia does have a set of rules and guidelines, but whether an article actually adheres to the same is indeed a crapshoot whose winning odds decline with the article's contributor popularity. Technology and science-oriented articles seem to be the best of the lot, but the quality declines towards more "human" topics such as history and cities; these tend to be biased through selective fact, or read like a fan/tourist brochure. Worse still, those with a strong but minority point of view can "squat" a lesser-frequented article to make sure that it relates only their own vision of things.
What Wiki lacks is refinement. An imposed authoritarian review of all contributions would kill the encyclopaedia, but there is no reason not to create a second "college level" crew of Wikipedians whose role would be verifying the factual accuracy/objectivity/style of their articles.
Although I don't agree with the practice, I'm glad to see the facts laid out so clearly. I'm not so sure about the advertising part though - but I suppose that's another discussion : )
Wait a second here - are you talking about "cost" according to a retailer's offerings - not the value of the computer/OS itself, but how he chooses to sell? If I understand the above, the retailer is in this case choosing to configure his hardware - to the OS? Sure, there's some "readiness" involved (preparing for a more cumbersome OS), but really. The thought of someone being obliged to buy an OS he doesn't want just to get better/cheaper hardware is frankly ridiculous. And if I do do that and return the unwanted OS, would it still be more expensive? I think not. I fail to see the logic in this.
Were it a question of good 'ol quality/price fair-marketing and the table really level, no such manoeuvering would be needed. Why not just directly sell me a virgin machine (of my choice), without the OS pricetag, and let me install my own flavour/distribution of OS?
Great claim, but just how can Linux offerings be "more expensive"? Are we talking home computers, or are you just re-using the MS 'cherrypicked fact' ad concerning server technology?
Thanks for the well-written insight. Personally I go one step beyond in my "IE paranoia" in testing everything in IE first before anything else - I'd like to avoid the plug, but fortunately Dreamweaver has helped a lot, as its "design" mode shows your layout as you would see it in IE. I've also moved to using template engines to keep my (php) code separate from my layouts, thus making it easier to serve different versions for different browsers. I would never have developed these habits if it weren't for the stubborn and uncorrected quirks of IE.
It's when the world's worst browser is also its most-used one. While developers are bound to their clients to make websites that work for everyone, the consumer (surfer) never sees all the frustration developers go through to make things work for IE, so they won't be motivated to change their habits anytime soon. Unless all we webmasters decide "en masse" to follow W3 standards, toss all the "IE hacks" we've inserted into our code, and provide links to a selection of decent browsers in every website.
That comment was pretty confident in its dismissal of... what? "Truth" to us is just our understanding of the same: "truth" - for we human observers - changes all the time for those who learn from their observations. The universe just works, man, - whether we understand how it works or not - and that is an "absolute truth". And it exists.
I also agree, but the problem with Wikipedia is often a divergence between opinion and truth -- many opine in one direction while the truth lies in another. This is confounded by the "me factor" in Wiki contributors/contributions: it is quite natural that one's contributions reflect his or her personal knowledge and opinions -- but this often results in a misrepresentation of fact because, as Wikipedians are asked that all contributions be "verifiable" (aka "cite your sources"), they will only look for sources supporting their own point of view (in omitting other facts/opinion); the result is opinion misrepresented as proven fact. Yes, other "viewpoints" should cancel out this bias, but what if public opinion differed terribly with proven fact (I avoid the word "truth")? The article would remain the same, and worse, in the "democracy" that Wikipedia is, the ignorant would have the majority; would the later be militant in their stance, they could override/rewrite any even factual corrections to the article. This trend of course does not at all speak for the whole of Wikipedia - nowhere near so -- but it is there all the same.
"Objectivity" should be Wikipedia's single-word anthem if it wants to attain any amount of repectability/reliability. "...60% of scientists agree that, but 20% of public opinion is..." would be a type phrase I would like to see more often -- it would be verifiable too. Yet for the moment, most Wikipedians seem to be too steeped in the "personal expression" opportunities of Wikipedia, as well as tending to the relations created with others in the community with similar views/knowledge, for true objectivity to arrive any time too soon. The "Me" in Wikipedia contributions is both a (very) reason for its existence and the bullet shot into its own foot.
You're forgetting a key point in your reasoning: Digital media can be created once and be copied indefinitely, the "cost" amounting to the cd/bandwidth consumed for this process; food is nothing of the kind. Every new grain of wheat takes real manpower and machines to produce and deliver it, and requires much more physical place to store it. Perhaps if one day we invent a tranzmogovisifier that can duplicate infinitely, at a distance, a molecular structure... but even that wouldn't work (in your reasoning) because building a molecular structure requires base molecules. Even Soylent Green needed base molecules.
Chaum mixing masks the message itself, but the routing information added to its headers as it travels? Correct me if I'm wrong, but where a message has been is still visible in its headers upon its arrival.
I said "statistics" because neither could I find any RIAA-led study - but for a starter look at their attitude and "reasoning", you need only go here. Google does the rest. Cheers.
Well, sure, let's do the math. I'm not sure what Microsoft has in overhead/production expenditure, but take that for the time it took to produce a version of their OS, and divide it by every CD of that version sold. I'm sure the number you will get will be - probably somewhere near the store price of a blank CD.
"Microsoft said it believes individuals, governments and other organizations should be free to choose the software and other technologies that best meet their needs"
If Microsoft really were for "choice", they would stop swinging deals with computer manufacturers to try to assure that every computer in existence is sold with Windows pre-installed. First-time users don't "choose" - the learn how to use first thing they see when they turn on the computer - and Microsoft knows this very well. In fact, they owe their entire fortune to this tactic. Oh, I'm sure that after the user has spent months "learning" to deal with all Windows' quirks, and after understanding that he won't be able to communicate easily with any other computer that isn't Windows-run (because they all came pre-installed too), that they will feel the "need" to buy Windows product when it comes time to update - but how about giving the consumer the choice before he buys a computer?
The funniest thing in all this is that there are other just as good (if not better) OS's out there that will work on the same machine for free - now, when striking a deal with a developing country, would this not be in their real interests? But no, Microsoft wants to take its "brainwash and dependency" techniques to even the poorest countries - and make them pay for it just as we did, even if most there can't afford it. There is an expletive-laden post above labelled "flaimbait" that did a perfect job of echoing the thoughts that went through my head after reading the Microsoft "statement".
I'd also be careful of any of the "statistics" the RIAA puts forward, especially when they consider "lost revenue" to mean "the money we could have earned if every tune downloaded was paid for" - this reasoning is as flawed as it is irrealist.
Yes, but don't get side-tracked by your own desire to express your misgivings with the study - did you read it? - there's no need to "interpret" their conclusions to determine their "stance" as you have done - the whole point is that they have no stance. They have collected data on the exchange of music (in all its formats and forms) - a unique pool of data - then categorised that data. Thus your "salt and de-icer" reasoning/comparison is not a good one. Their conclusions are based on that data, and not the other way around as you would imply.
It is written in plain language "The primary objective of this paper is to determine the effects of P2P file-sharing on purchases of CDs and electronically-delivered music tracks" in both the introduction and conclusion of the study. They did indeed determine the effects, and their data showed that... people who download music (for free) also buy more music. If they or anyone wants to add their own level of hypothetical "cause and effect" reasoning to that, they can, and this can subsequently be questioned (especially if not proven through further study), but you can't use that second level of reasoning to discredit the data itself.
I would agree that many of the study's passages - and the order in which they appear - are badly arranged (their conclusion does indeed seem in places to be presented as the reason for their study), but it is obvious, after reading, that they went about collecting their data in a completely scientific and unbiased way.
Yep. To the other end of the bias spectrum, I read an article in the Herald Tribune (Wednesday, October 27, "Radiohead's Warm Glow" - Eduardo Porter) stating that his economist friends find those who would download the album for free to be "rational human beings".
Even if your code is a mess, and it still works, you could make life easier for later users/developers by commenting your code in addition to documenting it. Even if the code is out of order/dispersed/intertwined, each function has its purpose and dependancies, so if you clearly mark these above each block or function, people will later (more) easily be able to sort it out into something looking "professional".
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. Yep, I know what you mean about those unfolding menus... I wish there was a faster/less CPU-taxing way to go about it, but hey. Firefox seems to be deathly slow in all things javascript (especially loops), but I suppose I should be taking that into account as well; I may just add a "bypass animation" button for that. I just added the search engine yesterday, so here's hoping that many will make liberal use of that - I think many will, as, no matter how lovely some animations may be, who likes to comb through menus to find something?
Well, as soon as search engines learn how to "read into" flash, for starters. Otherwise the web (for Google) will turn into one giant, blank page.
...Ajax is a project in hype -- strip all the cruft away and it comes down to one frigging javascript command. That aside, it has its uses. That is, if it is used wisely.
The only thing I disparage in Ajax is its lack of a back button. All the rest is positive in my books -- time/bandwidth-saving partial page reloads, perhaps the elimination of the "disorientation factor" that can occur with total page reloads (That "Wha? What's taking so long to load? Where the hell am I now?" feeling that grows proportionally the shorter the short-term memory/attention span). I like the feeling of control it gives a user (he's selecting the information he wants without being bandied all over the place). I've built a website using a mix of php/mysql/ajax and it's working fine for our customers -- not one complaint -- au contraire in fact. Have a look here if you like. What I like the most (in that site) is the fact that our customers can always keep their "shopping cart" (rather "rental cart") always on hand, and add/eliminate things to/from it no matter where they are in the site. I'm not sure of the numbers yet, but this has been a big boost to our client base.
Another Ajax drawback could be its un-friendliness to search engines -- but there is a workaround for that (a liberal use of hard-coded links with added "onClick" functions), but this means that you have to build your website in two different-functioning levels. This takes a bit of thought beforehand, but it can be done.
As for Ajax's future: of course. But forget the buzzword and the technology behind it; it's what the technology does that will be sticking around in one form or another. For example, it is possible to build a full-Flash website that behaves exactly as Ajax - with even more search-engine limitations and added "plugin" requirements -- so I think more than a few see the merits of partial page reloading.
"Free speech zones", anyone?
I concur. Wikipedia does have a set of rules and guidelines, but whether an article actually adheres to the same is indeed a crapshoot whose winning odds decline with the article's contributor popularity. Technology and science-oriented articles seem to be the best of the lot, but the quality declines towards more "human" topics such as history and cities; these tend to be biased through selective fact, or read like a fan/tourist brochure. Worse still, those with a strong but minority point of view can "squat" a lesser-frequented article to make sure that it relates only their own vision of things.
What Wiki lacks is refinement. An imposed authoritarian review of all contributions would kill the encyclopaedia, but there is no reason not to create a second "college level" crew of Wikipedians whose role would be verifying the factual accuracy/objectivity/style of their articles.
Although I don't agree with the practice, I'm glad to see the facts laid out so clearly. I'm not so sure about the advertising part though - but I suppose that's another discussion : )
Wait a second here - are you talking about "cost" according to a retailer's offerings - not the value of the computer/OS itself, but how he chooses to sell? If I understand the above, the retailer is in this case choosing to configure his hardware - to the OS? Sure, there's some "readiness" involved (preparing for a more cumbersome OS), but really. The thought of someone being obliged to buy an OS he doesn't want just to get better/cheaper hardware is frankly ridiculous. And if I do do that and return the unwanted OS, would it still be more expensive? I think not. I fail to see the logic in this.
Were it a question of good 'ol quality/price fair-marketing and the table really level, no such manoeuvering would be needed. Why not just directly sell me a virgin machine (of my choice), without the OS pricetag, and let me install my own flavour/distribution of OS?
Great claim, but just how can Linux offerings be "more expensive"? Are we talking home computers, or are you just re-using the MS 'cherrypicked fact' ad concerning server technology?
Boy, that's a lot of frustrated people. Thank god they've never tried any other OS, otherwise they'd REALLY be sore.
Thanks for the well-written insight. Personally I go one step beyond in my "IE paranoia" in testing everything in IE first before anything else - I'd like to avoid the plug, but fortunately Dreamweaver has helped a lot, as its "design" mode shows your layout as you would see it in IE. I've also moved to using template engines to keep my (php) code separate from my layouts, thus making it easier to serve different versions for different browsers. I would never have developed these habits if it weren't for the stubborn and uncorrected quirks of IE.
It's when the world's worst browser is also its most-used one. While developers are bound to their clients to make websites that work for everyone, the consumer (surfer) never sees all the frustration developers go through to make things work for IE, so they won't be motivated to change their habits anytime soon. Unless all we webmasters decide "en masse" to follow W3 standards, toss all the "IE hacks" we've inserted into our code, and provide links to a selection of decent browsers in every website.
That comment was pretty confident in its dismissal of... what? "Truth" to us is just our understanding of the same: "truth" - for we human observers - changes all the time for those who learn from their observations. The universe just works, man, - whether we understand how it works or not - and that is an "absolute truth". And it exists.
I also agree, but the problem with Wikipedia is often a divergence between opinion and truth -- many opine in one direction while the truth lies in another. This is confounded by the "me factor" in Wiki contributors/contributions: it is quite natural that one's contributions reflect his or her personal knowledge and opinions -- but this often results in a misrepresentation of fact because, as Wikipedians are asked that all contributions be "verifiable" (aka "cite your sources"), they will only look for sources supporting their own point of view (in omitting other facts/opinion); the result is opinion misrepresented as proven fact. Yes, other "viewpoints" should cancel out this bias, but what if public opinion differed terribly with proven fact (I avoid the word "truth")? The article would remain the same, and worse, in the "democracy" that Wikipedia is, the ignorant would have the majority; would the later be militant in their stance, they could override/rewrite any even factual corrections to the article. This trend of course does not at all speak for the whole of Wikipedia - nowhere near so -- but it is there all the same.
"Objectivity" should be Wikipedia's single-word anthem if it wants to attain any amount of repectability/reliability. "...60% of scientists agree that, but 20% of public opinion is..." would be a type phrase I would like to see more often -- it would be verifiable too. Yet for the moment, most Wikipedians seem to be too steeped in the "personal expression" opportunities of Wikipedia, as well as tending to the relations created with others in the community with similar views/knowledge, for true objectivity to arrive any time too soon. The "Me" in Wikipedia contributions is both a (very) reason for its existence and the bullet shot into its own foot.
I think he meant simply that, in many places in the U.S., the "minorities" are actually the majority.
You're forgetting a key point in your reasoning: Digital media can be created once and be copied indefinitely, the "cost" amounting to the cd/bandwidth consumed for this process; food is nothing of the kind. Every new grain of wheat takes real manpower and machines to produce and deliver it, and requires much more physical place to store it. Perhaps if one day we invent a tranzmogovisifier that can duplicate infinitely, at a distance, a molecular structure... but even that wouldn't work (in your reasoning) because building a molecular structure requires base molecules. Even Soylent Green needed base molecules.
Chaum mixing masks the message itself, but the routing information added to its headers as it travels? Correct me if I'm wrong, but where a message has been is still visible in its headers upon its arrival.
"Masking" source IP's. Not on this earth.
I said "statistics" because neither could I find any RIAA-led study - but for a starter look at their attitude and "reasoning", you need only go here. Google does the rest. Cheers.
Well, sure, let's do the math. I'm not sure what Microsoft has in overhead/production expenditure, but take that for the time it took to produce a version of their OS, and divide it by every CD of that version sold. I'm sure the number you will get will be - probably somewhere near the store price of a blank CD.
It's not for nothing that they're billionaires.
"Microsoft said it believes individuals, governments and other organizations should be free to choose the software and other technologies that best meet their needs"
If Microsoft really were for "choice", they would stop swinging deals with computer manufacturers to try to assure that every computer in existence is sold with Windows pre-installed. First-time users don't "choose" - the learn how to use first thing they see when they turn on the computer - and Microsoft knows this very well. In fact, they owe their entire fortune to this tactic. Oh, I'm sure that after the user has spent months "learning" to deal with all Windows' quirks, and after understanding that he won't be able to communicate easily with any other computer that isn't Windows-run (because they all came pre-installed too), that they will feel the "need" to buy Windows product when it comes time to update - but how about giving the consumer the choice before he buys a computer?
The funniest thing in all this is that there are other just as good (if not better) OS's out there that will work on the same machine for free - now, when striking a deal with a developing country, would this not be in their real interests? But no, Microsoft wants to take its "brainwash and dependency" techniques to even the poorest countries - and make them pay for it just as we did, even if most there can't afford it. There is an expletive-laden post above labelled "flaimbait" that did a perfect job of echoing the thoughts that went through my head after reading the Microsoft "statement".
I'd also be careful of any of the "statistics" the RIAA puts forward, especially when they consider "lost revenue" to mean "the money we could have earned if every tune downloaded was paid for" - this reasoning is as flawed as it is irrealist.
Yes, but don't get side-tracked by your own desire to express your misgivings with the study - did you read it? - there's no need to "interpret" their conclusions to determine their "stance" as you have done - the whole point is that they have no stance. They have collected data on the exchange of music (in all its formats and forms) - a unique pool of data - then categorised that data. Thus your "salt and de-icer" reasoning/comparison is not a good one. Their conclusions are based on that data, and not the other way around as you would imply.
It is written in plain language "The primary objective of this paper is to determine the effects of P2P file-sharing on purchases of CDs and electronically-delivered music tracks" in both the introduction and conclusion of the study. They did indeed determine the effects, and their data showed that... people who download music (for free) also buy more music. If they or anyone wants to add their own level of hypothetical "cause and effect" reasoning to that, they can, and this can subsequently be questioned (especially if not proven through further study), but you can't use that second level of reasoning to discredit the data itself.
I would agree that many of the study's passages - and the order in which they appear - are badly arranged (their conclusion does indeed seem in places to be presented as the reason for their study), but it is obvious, after reading, that they went about collecting their data in a completely scientific and unbiased way.
Er, that was before I learned that it was only 160 bitrate. Doh, but not so doh as to pay nothing at all.
Yep. To the other end of the bias spectrum, I read an article in the Herald Tribune (Wednesday, October 27, "Radiohead's Warm Glow" - Eduardo Porter) stating that his economist friends find those who would download the album for free to be "rational human beings".
I paid £8.
Oh, the bumpers will still have use in European countries. French parking! I can imagine this technology in action there already:
Beep-beep-beep-beeeeep-beeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeee(THUNK!)
Beep-beep-beep-beeep-beeeeep-beeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeee(THUNK!)
Bip-beep-beeep-beeeep-beeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeep-beeeeeeeeeeeeee(THUNK!)
Even if your code is a mess, and it still works, you could make life easier for later users/developers by commenting your code in addition to documenting it. Even if the code is out of order/dispersed/intertwined, each function has its purpose and dependancies, so if you clearly mark these above each block or function, people will later (more) easily be able to sort it out into something looking "professional".