Recent comments on currybetdotnet

I've got the "Mike Oldfield Boxed" collection on Vinyl. Each disc in the 1974 collection is marked "Stereo/SQ Quad Compatible".

'The end of well everything'

Martin - lighten up, meditate a bit, take on a more buddhist/holistic view of the world - accept our place as just another species that will become extinct at some point.

Now say after me OMMMMMM :)

PS this bit sounds like it could make a great plot for a film "This would be more intelligent than humans, and in turn rapidly beget machines that were more intelligent than it, which might then accidentally wipe out the universe in the blink of an eye." ;-)

Before you send too many publicity seekers my way, I should warn you that I never blog about any event or launch (or opening of crisp packet) if some PR person has emailed me about it in advance. Risky business indeed.

"User option (c) is frankly, just scum. I debate with these people at times, and they tend to argue that not only should I provide content for free, but it is my fault when they refuse to pay for it. These people have no viable solution to the dilemma, they just blame the website owner for wanting to earn an income, because that is "evil"."

We're not saying that you "should" provide the content for free. We're saying that you ARE providing the content for free so we're availing ourselves of it. The supposed obligation to "pay" for that content by looking at your "quality ads" (whatever that means) is totally in your imagination - we never agreed to any such arrangement, nor is there any statutory or other legal requirement. It's just a claim you're making and we don't have to agree with you.

Nor is it our job to suggest a "viable solution to the dilemma". Coming up with a workable business model is your task. If your content is truly valuable then just charge a subscription fee like countless other websites do.

I’ve never understood the claim that there’s anything morally questionable about ad-blocking. It’s my computer, my display, my harddrive, etc, not to mention MY attention and mindshare, so I alone should have the authority to determine what gets stored or displayed, or seen by me.

The website owner makes his content free and - in his mind - assumes an implicit contract that we will look at his ads in return for that. But I never agreed to such a contract. Why am I obligated to buy into his business model? Like thousands of other websites he is free to make the alleged contract EXplicit by charging money to see his content.

Our family has a Smith & Wesson 1906 special edition single action 22 that was used in the firearms portion of these games. This is the history of the gun that has been in a safety deposit box for well over 60 years. I'm saddened to do research on the games to find out they didn't "count" all these years later.

from your links Designing search for The Guardian site —[Internal CMS address] — probably not what you meant to link to.

There's a Not the Express account too ...
http://twitter.com/nottheexpress

You've got some interesting points, but honestly you've completely misunderstood the reasons for having diffs.

The most practical reason to have diff is for readers to easily see how stories have changed since the last time they read the news item, transparency is a side benefit. Rather than re-reading the whole news item, they could simply look at the diffs between the current version and the version s/he last read. Currently, people never re-reads an article because it is not possible to see what have changed since then.

Second, the mockup is just ridiculous. The page need only show the last 3 major versions (or 5 or 10 or whatever), and put the others in a "more" link.

Rather than selecting which pages gets `diff` treatment, it is much more useful to have a major and minor change (as in Wikipedia), and have minor changes hidden by default.

Search is never a problem, if a phrase existing in old version is removed in the newest version, then it means the keyword is not that important for the specific article and the index need not to relate that keyword to the article. If a certain keyword is important for the article, then its removal should be questioned.

That is leaving aside the fact that the BBC can control how the 'diffs' are indexed and returned on bbc.co.uk, but can do nothing about how Google et al might treat the content.

Ever heard of robots.txt?

All in all, all the points in the article is too crude.