I find it necessary to mention Sturgeon's Law at this point.
Just take it as a given that 90% of absolutely everything is crap and learn to live with it. Different people will disagree about the make up of the 10%, and there will always be complaints about all this new crap that is showing up, because we've forgotten the 90% of the old stuff that was also crap.
It doesn't even matter how accurate (or inaccurate) the law is in reality. It's a tool for adjusting your own attitude and expectations, and very effective at the task.
Mike, I think a key to this is your last line: "..unless you're bad at using the internet."
I've been playing around online since the pre-Web days, when we were still taught about gopher in high school and where using a terminal emulator with a 9600 baud modem to get onto a MUD was state of the art consumer technology (i.e. not quite the BBS generation, but not quite a Web native, either).
Managing the information firehose that is the internet *is* an art form, and I don't know how to teach it except through experience. Knowing how to ask Google good questions is step one, but scanning the links and deciding which ones to click on is an art in itself. Assessing the quality of the content behind those links is yet another trick that isn't easy to learn from a class or a book.
When you've been kicking around online long enough, you build up this huge mental storehouse of "sites to trust" - search on Google, check urban legends and random emails on Snopes or hoax-buster, ask programming questions on Stack Overflow, read Wikipedia with a critical eye, find reviewers with tastes that reflect yours (e.g. AICN and Rotten Tomatoes will work for some, not for others), hit up IMDB if you want the facts on a Hollywood production, hit Amazon/eBay/AmazonUK to get a feel for reasonable prices, check a site's "About" page to get some idea who's behind it, balance up the degree to which you care about a piece of information with the amount of effort you put into verifying its validity.
Dismissing people that haven't learned those skills as "bad at the internet" really isn't fair. I've been doing this for the better part of 20 years, and spending tons of time online for at least 15 of those. As I said above, I don't know how to help someone acquire those skills quickly, but I try as hard as I can to remember that things I find to be second nature *now*, are actually abilities and techniques that I have acquired over a long period of time.
There's a big difference between learning to use a few "networked applications" (e.g. email, major web sites) and learning to use "the internet", but it's awfully easy to forget that there are far fewer people in the latter category than there are in the former.
Considering it further, I think "hidden by adblockers" is itself an interesting aspect of these ideas to explore. (Ars Technica did their own experiment a while back with making all of their article content deliberately trigger adblockers)
An *excellent* technique I've seen a few sites start using is an "adblocker aware" site layout. It's a fairly simple concept - the sites just use CSS to display a placeholder in the locations where the ads will go once they load. If an adblocker prevents the ads from loading, then the placeholders remain visible.
So, instead of the ad element disappearing completely, the user instead sees a message from the site owners. Wowhead, for example, display the text: "Wowhead is supported primarily by advertisements. Please whitelist us so we can continue to build new features. You'll thank us later. :)"
At it's best (i.e. when applied to all of the ad elements), this approach also gives the user of the adblock program a clear indication at to how whitelisting the site is going to affect the layout.
'twas indeed caught by the ad blocker. (I did intend to try reloading the front page with that turned off before posting my question, but I apparently got distracted and forgot I hadn't tried it)
While I do sometimes whitelist sites I visit regularly, I generally don't do that for sites that I support directly.
We? First story? Second story? Conversational unit? The website?
I read this in the RSS feed and clicked through to the main TD site assuming the referents for these terms would become clear, but they still don't appear to be referring to anything.
Did you mean for that paragraph to be a link back to a site SAYMedia are running on behalf of ASUS and MS that has those features?
Indeed. It would be nice if there was an "immature" or "time-waster" button next to the "report" button (allowing the latter to be reserved for more genuinely objectionable content).
The "provide access to the source" provisions in the GPL only kick in if you redistribute the software yourself. If all you do is *use* the software (even in modified form), you don't have any particular obligations to anybody.
However, since an App store is all about redistribution, the vendor needs to make sure they have all their legal ducks in a row to meet the source provision obligations before they permit inclusion of GPL licensed apps (as BWM has pointed out a couple of times, this doesn't necessarily mean bundling the software, just making it available and including a notice stating its availability).
For a first cut at an app store, there's actually a really good *practical* reason to ban GPL (and GPL-like) licenses.
The reason is that the GPL imposes the source distribution requirement on the *entity doing the redistribution*. If you're just redistributing the binaries and pointing to the location where you retrieved the source code yourself as the place to get the source, you may not have adequately discharged your obligations under the license (I know you can definitely get yourself in trouble if that original source ceases to be available but you keep distributing binaries, but I believe it can even be a technical violation of the letter of the license while the original source is still in operation).
So, to be completely sure they're fulfilling the license conditions, MS would have to set up mechanisms to support:
1. GPL app developers providing their source code to MS
2. MS making that source code available to end users in accordance with the license conditions
While those two things are obviously possible, they involve additional development work on the App store that isn't needed for the substantial volume of software that is written using either a closed source approach or a non-copyleft open source license.
No conspiracy theories needed - just a perfectly sensible response to the possible implications copyleft licenses have for the legality of redistribution of binaries.
Of course, if that *was* the reason, then MS should have stated it up front. Given the adversarial history the company has with copyleft licenses in general and the GPL in particular, the conspiracy theorists may still have a point.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a long term open source developer who takes an active interest in the associated licensing issues)
When the result year after year reflects a lobbyist wish list rather than anything sensible, it's reasonable to assume that either most of that input is being ignored, or it is being heavily skewed by lobbyist funded "public" submissions.
Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
According to the interwebs, the comments were made at a copyright conference. Thus something that could be both public (stated to journalists and others at the conference during hallway conversations) and private (stated off the record).
Those relaying the message appear to have chosen to keep names out of it to avoid exposing those making the comments to retaliation from their superiors.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - it's pretty common for people "in the trenches" to think the official policies of their organisations are nonsensical given the realities of a situation. Certainly far more likely than Mike make things up (since there's so much other evidence for the Special 301 reports being a silly waste of time, why would he bother?)
The article gives the impression in a couple of places that afraid.org itself was seized - that didn't happen, just one of the multitude of domains it provides DNS services for.
They actually have an interesting business model:
- they will provide free DNS services for a domain, but if you choose this option, then anyone else is also free to create new subdomains within that domain
- alternatively, you can pay a subscription fee for your DNS services, and only you will be able to create subdomains (with the number of subdomains capped based on the level of subscription)
The first level acts as a promotional service for the paid levels.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled illustration of Mike's point :P
(Disclosure: I actually have a paid subscription with afraid.org to be the DNS provider for my own domain. It's a nice simple good value service)
To most people "real profit = net profit", so yes, Mike is right. Operating profit and net profit are only the same thing if your interest and tax expenses are zero.
On the post: Is The Internet Enabling Bad Content... Or Killing Bad Content?
Re: Sturgeon’s Law Has Always Applied
On the post: Is The Internet Enabling Bad Content... Or Killing Bad Content?
Re: Re:
Just take it as a given that 90% of absolutely everything is crap and learn to live with it. Different people will disagree about the make up of the 10%, and there will always be complaints about all this new crap that is showing up, because we've forgotten the 90% of the old stuff that was also crap.
It doesn't even matter how accurate (or inaccurate) the law is in reality. It's a tool for adjusting your own attitude and expectations, and very effective at the task.
On the post: Is The Internet Enabling Bad Content... Or Killing Bad Content?
Re: Re:
I've been playing around online since the pre-Web days, when we were still taught about gopher in high school and where using a terminal emulator with a 9600 baud modem to get onto a MUD was state of the art consumer technology (i.e. not quite the BBS generation, but not quite a Web native, either).
Managing the information firehose that is the internet *is* an art form, and I don't know how to teach it except through experience. Knowing how to ask Google good questions is step one, but scanning the links and deciding which ones to click on is an art in itself. Assessing the quality of the content behind those links is yet another trick that isn't easy to learn from a class or a book.
When you've been kicking around online long enough, you build up this huge mental storehouse of "sites to trust" - search on Google, check urban legends and random emails on Snopes or hoax-buster, ask programming questions on Stack Overflow, read Wikipedia with a critical eye, find reviewers with tastes that reflect yours (e.g. AICN and Rotten Tomatoes will work for some, not for others), hit up IMDB if you want the facts on a Hollywood production, hit Amazon/eBay/AmazonUK to get a feel for reasonable prices, check a site's "About" page to get some idea who's behind it, balance up the degree to which you care about a piece of information with the amount of effort you put into verifying its validity.
Dismissing people that haven't learned those skills as "bad at the internet" really isn't fair. I've been doing this for the better part of 20 years, and spending tons of time online for at least 15 of those. As I said above, I don't know how to help someone acquire those skills quickly, but I try as hard as I can to remember that things I find to be second nature *now*, are actually abilities and techniques that I have acquired over a long period of time.
There's a big difference between learning to use a few "networked applications" (e.g. email, major web sites) and learning to use "the internet", but it's awfully easy to forget that there are far fewer people in the latter category than there are in the former.
On the post: Is The Internet Enabling Bad Content... Or Killing Bad Content?
Re: Re:
On the post: Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's up with the final paragraph?
On the post: Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing
Re: Re: Re: What's up with the final paragraph?
An *excellent* technique I've seen a few sites start using is an "adblocker aware" site layout. It's a fairly simple concept - the sites just use CSS to display a placeholder in the locations where the ads will go once they load. If an adblocker prevents the ads from loading, then the placeholders remain visible.
So, instead of the ad element disappearing completely, the user instead sees a message from the site owners. Wowhead, for example, display the text: "Wowhead is supported primarily by advertisements. Please whitelist us so we can continue to build new features. You'll thank us later. :)"
At it's best (i.e. when applied to all of the ad elements), this approach also gives the user of the adblock program a clear indication at to how whitelisting the site is going to affect the layout.
On the post: Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing
Re: Re: What's up with the final paragraph?
While I do sometimes whitelist sites I visit regularly, I generally don't do that for sites that I support directly.
On the post: Some Discussion Around Children And Tablet Computing
What's up with the final paragraph?
I read this in the RSS feed and clicked through to the main TD site assuming the referents for these terms would become clear, but they still don't appear to be referring to anything.
Did you mean for that paragraph to be a link back to a site SAYMedia are running on behalf of ASUS and MS that has those features?
On the post: Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish Court Fines File Sharer About $300 For Sharing 44 Songs
Re: Re: Actual Harm
On the post: Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?
Re: Banning such licenses actually makes (some) sense
On the post: Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?
Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?
Re:
However, since an App store is all about redistribution, the vendor needs to make sure they have all their legal ducks in a row to meet the source provision obligations before they permit inclusion of GPL licensed apps (as BWM has pointed out a couple of times, this doesn't necessarily mean bundling the software, just making it available and including a notice stating its availability).
On the post: Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?
Banning such licenses actually makes (some) sense
The reason is that the GPL imposes the source distribution requirement on the *entity doing the redistribution*. If you're just redistributing the binaries and pointing to the location where you retrieved the source code yourself as the place to get the source, you may not have adequately discharged your obligations under the license (I know you can definitely get yourself in trouble if that original source ceases to be available but you keep distributing binaries, but I believe it can even be a technical violation of the letter of the license while the original source is still in operation).
So, to be completely sure they're fulfilling the license conditions, MS would have to set up mechanisms to support:
1. GPL app developers providing their source code to MS
2. MS making that source code available to end users in accordance with the license conditions
While those two things are obviously possible, they involve additional development work on the App store that isn't needed for the substantial volume of software that is written using either a closed source approach or a non-copyleft open source license.
No conspiracy theories needed - just a perfectly sensible response to the possible implications copyleft licenses have for the legality of redistribution of binaries.
Of course, if that *was* the reason, then MS should have stated it up front. Given the adversarial history the company has with copyleft licenses in general and the GPL in particular, the conspiracy theorists may still have a point.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a long term open source developer who takes an active interest in the associated licensing issues)
On the post: Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?
Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17552212428/once-again-more-state-dept-cables -show-swedish-copyright-enforcement-behest-us.shtml
On the post: Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?
Re:
On the post: Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?
Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
Those relaying the message appear to have chosen to keep names out of it to avoid exposing those making the comments to retaliation from their superiors.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - it's pretty common for people "in the trenches" to think the official policies of their organisations are nonsensical given the realities of a situation. Certainly far more likely than Mike make things up (since there's so much other evidence for the Special 301 reports being a silly waste of time, why would he bother?)
On the post: DailyDirt: Add Jeopardy! To The List Of Games That AI Is Better At Than You....
Re: Re:
Fun that Google picked it up so fast, though :)
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Minor clarification...
They actually have an interesting business model:
- they will provide free DNS services for a domain, but if you choose this option, then anyone else is also free to create new subdomains within that domain
- alternatively, you can pay a subscription fee for your DNS services, and only you will be able to create subdomains (with the number of subdomains capped based on the level of subscription)
The first level acts as a promotional service for the paid levels.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled illustration of Mike's point :P
(Disclosure: I actually have a paid subscription with afraid.org to be the DNS provider for my own domain. It's a nice simple good value service)
On the post: How Come No One Calls Out Pandora For False Promise Of Profitability?
Re: Re: Re: Profitable
Next >>