Excellent point. Why compete in a nail-biting next-gen arena when you can count on the "previous-gen" market? Still quite profitable. Nintendo is playing it smart.
Okay, I know... you shell out through the nose just to have your plasma/LCD/DLP screen and you want to see the reason you paid so much. It's natural.
Let's say you bought a really nice printer. It costs a lot of money. Your digital camera only gives you 5 megapixel photos, but the printer can go up to 9 megapixel with clear quality. Do you gripe to the camera maker?
Okay, so maybe you do, but I don't.
You get what you paid for. Caveat emptor, peeps. If you get an HDTV, prepare to seek out the content made for HDTV. Otherwise, it's just another TV, now isn't it?
I don't believe Nintendo is ignoring the technology trends, but they are making a smart move in supporting the current status-quo. Make a platform that meets the majority share of the market and you've already beat-out the "next gen" platforms targeted at HD.
As for all of the predictions going on; think again. HDTV is growing, but to beat-out a 60-year established standard in a constantly-saturated market in just a few years? It would take a more competitive pricing strategy than the current reality to do that.
When half the world is watching their daily news in 1080i resolution, then it becomes feasible.
Seriously, I can get a quality CRT television—fully loaded features—for a fraction of what it costs to get a same-size HDTV. On average, the ratio appears to be 10:1 (If I can get the CRT for $50, the same HD model costs $500) and it's not changing very quickly.
If Nintendo has proven anything, it's that they know good business. They made a good business decision with the Wii, and they'll worry about HD when the time comes. (not now)
Besides, what's to stop them from putting out after-market adapters? The first Xbox did that, and they've got plenty of satisfied gamers, even with HD.
I'm sure we all remember the Diebold exposé back in September?
[sarcasm]So nice to see that Florida is so on-top of things.[/sarcasm]
Seems like all they do is say, "that's just the way it is." All the while, Jebbie is racking-up the GOP vote in a pathetic attempt to regain his brother's favor after debacles in both 2000 and 2004.
Let me get this straight: Google refuses to run ads on adult sites, but it has no problem driving traffic to adult sites via ads? Does this strike anyone else as backwards?
Not backwards at all, but not entirely forthright either. We're talking about porn, here... hello-o?!
Lemme 'splain... No... there is too much. Lemme sum-up.
AdWords drives traffic based on contextual relevance; not to mention it annoys the heck out of me when I get on these sites; pausing my reading to pop-up a little ad. (keep... mouse... away...)
The contextual relevance part is academic; the adult-content sites will only get clicks from words on similar-content sites. You won't find words like "honey" on a cooking site directing you to "honeybearhouseofpleasure.com" or anything. There is a measure of relevance to the words that get "picked" as ad-links.
As for refusing to put adult-content sites in AdSense, I think that's just good business practice. As a click-generator, you don't want to get involved in what the visitors to adult sites are seeking. (or vice versa) Let them start a new window and Google the URL apart from the adult site.
I mean really, if you owned a business, how would that statistics page look to you? [It appears here we got 7% of traffic from labia-twaddlers.biz; now we know the perversion-ratio in our customer base! Yay!]
(I didn't think so.)
So, to end the confusion once and for all. Google seems to have taken a don't-ask-don't-tell stance on adult-content sites, while still taking advantage of—let's be honest here—a *proven* market. Hypocritical? Maybe. Wise move? I think so.
We're talking about a harmless, self-indulgent market share... unless they show-up on Dateline.
Very cute. Is your copy of Clerks autographed, too?
Bombing PayPal... sheesh. For all we know, it was a Halloween prank. Who sets-off a bomb in the middle of the night to spread terror? Sure, there's some paranoia... but nobody was hurt.
Let's be honest, here. Any strategist knows that, in order to spread terror and change behavior on a massive scale, you need more than just a bit of property damage. People have to get hurt in order for terror to take hold.
Heaven forbid that should happen, but that is the truth in the matter, now isn't it?
Sure, go catch the pranksters. Have them pay for the damage they caused.
After that, do us a favor and drop it. There's wa-a-ay too much being read into this.
Besides... the contractors were only on the *second* Death Star, stupid! >:P
On the first Death Star, they got what they deserved.
...from all the light given-off by the flaming trolls in this thread.
They sure stirred-up the hornet's nest with this one.
So, the question seems to be: Where does the accountability lie in fraudulent domains?
There's the school of origination; the domain-registrar is wrong for selling it. You might as well arrest the gun-shop owners for allowing shootings to happen.
Then the camp that believes the TLD is most telling. (e.g., dot-com vs. dot-biz) Gimme a break, the TLD breakout was back in 2000; companies have been using dot-biz for more than five years, some are even very well-established. Try again.
Some say the institutions being mocked are the culpable party. You have to admit, allowing yourself to be imitated so convincingly could be construed as neglect.
Others still would point the finger at the ISP that allows phishers/crackers to operate in the first place. Yeah, but if you're in the car-rental business, how can you tell if your customer intends to run someone over? Would you *not* accept their money if you did? Could you prove it in court if the barred customer tries to sue you?
The idea that the presence of SSL indicates a reliable source. Best idea of the bunch, however there's still a risk in "mixed content" pages. The newest IE release either restricts the appearance of these types of pages, or just doesn't show them at all. (Firefox, too) Webdomos, take this to heart; if it isn't coming through SSL, it won't be on the page.
I, for one, prefer a common-sense approach...
eBusiness Owners/Administrators: Protect your identity! Get a consultant and invest in the most-likely alternates for your own domain, and KEEP them. (auto-renewal) It will pay off in the long run. Why take the risk?
Domain Registrars: Verify your customers and their business model. Taking an easy payment is one thing, but when you're found out as the enabler of a scam that swindles thousands from your potential customers, what's it really worth?
'Net Service Providers: Log activity and keep those logs! Detailed records and reliable backups are the difference between being a reputable dealer or a "usual suspect". Though you may be able to buy good press, you can't buy-off bad press.
Consumers/Citizens/All of us: Fer crissake, pay attention! [SLAP!] You don't get the luxury of "undo" from a virus or trojan. Simply connecting to the Internet presents a risk, and it will never be completely secure.
Consider this paradigm. Every "click" is a choice. Choose wisely.
You do realize that it's meant to look like "good news".
Let's review M$ history for a moment...
1987: Microsoft co-creates OS/2 with IBM (good news)
OS/2 barely sees the light of day and must compete with equally-ailing Windows 2.0 (bad news)
1990: Microsoft Windows 3.0 released (good news)
It took almost seven years to get it right.(bad news)
1992: Microsoft Windows 3.1 finally released (good news)
"OS/2"? Who uses OS/2? (bad news for IBM)
1992: Microsoft Windows NT comes on the heels of 3.1 (good news)
Should have been OS/3. (bad news for IBM, again)
1993: MS-DOS 6.0 released (good news)
DoubleSpace. (bad news)
1995: Microsoft Windows95 introduces new "32bit paradigm" to PC desktop. (good news)
Microsoft BOB. (bad news)
1996: Microsoft unveils ActiveX (good news)
Microsoft unveils ActiveX. (bad News)
1997: Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 (good news)
The Internet has been going on for five years already. (bad News)
1998: Microsoft Windows 98 (good news)
Windows CE. (bad News)
2000: Microsoft Windows 2000 (good news)
Windows Millenium Edition (bad News)
The point is, if MS is going to get involved, they're in it for one thing; profit.
HTML begat DHTML, plug-ins begat ActiveX, Yahoo begat MSN. History is riddled with attempts by M$ to re-make things that already work fine, or they have taken it over entirely. (alas, Mosaic... VRML... cgi...)
We may (or may not) be "freaking out", but I think we are all a bit concerned. Based on the track record, how can any good really come from this?
I always imagined that the Internet was founded on the experiment of having a standards-based networking (as much as TCP/IP is considered the only "real" standard) of many, many different localised networks.
What form can governance take when it comes to a virtual construct such as this?
I tell you, it comes down to what's made available. If the government has a problem with one part of the Internet, they can rule that the regional network relays should block it. It's not very different from IT policy in our own corporations; they can enforce what we see on the 'Net if they really want to. It's no mystery that DNS/routing can be modified to make targeted sites seem non-existent, or block specific IP addresses.
When you get down to it, any nation that claims to "control" the Internet is only speaking of what it will allow for its own constituency.
Will the US lose control of the internet? If you ask me, we already have. I believe it happened right around 1992. (Thanks, Al!)
Wonderful, ain't it?
What concerns me is the day that any, one World Power attempts to physically take control of the Internet; one m-f'in hu-gi-normous undertaking, to be sure. Should that day come, that is the day I take to arms. I'd kill for that freedom. I'd die for that freedom. No shit. It's a bigger freedom than any one of us, because it is about the potential hidden in all of us that blossoms when we come together.
===
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, holler. —Al Gore
Let's be serious. The first release of WinXP (the "evolution" of Win16 based on "experience"... remember?) was an utter calamity.
How many of you said, "wait for the Service Pack!" -- and how many of us listened? Microsoft called it "normal abberrations in architecture".
What's worse is that we actually paid for the XP ugprade.
It's a platform release, stupid. Taking-down the entire kernel structure and re-building it is no small matter. Frankly, putting the entire operation through >apt< is an accomplishment in itself.
Ubuntu—a leader in the Lin-friendly world—has done their part to make a platform that is not only accessible to most every skill-level, but also GUARANTEES updates on a regular basis. That's quite a deadline. Any dev-house will tell you that committing to a regulated update schedule is, in itself, a nightmare. The fact that the Ubuntu staff has upheld this commitment is laudible, honorable and quite frankly, amazing.
Xubuntu Dapper is what sold me on the Ubuntu distro. Ubuntu is nice, but a bit too nice for me. (like an overbearing grandmother) I picked X-distro for its thin footprint and largely transparent framework. My biggest gripe was the time the upgrade took to download. (files downloading at 56k speeds when I have a >2Mb/s cable modem) I even interrupted the process at least half a dozen times, and it still came back up. It was no nightmare, but just a frustrating series of consequences that I had limited ability to control.
Biting the bullet, I grabbed the iso for the alt-install CD. Mounting the image, I resumed the update where the downloads left off and it's now running perfectly. PERFECTLY!
Beta testers know... it works when it works, no matter the label. Ubuntu is just honoring their primary commitment. It doesn't work for everybody, but clearly it works.
That's what this community is for!
Stop lashing out and start reaching out.
===
Imagination is more important than knowledge. —u know who
Partly correct; the citizenship of Louisiana wanted the restrictions loosened. If something that disatrous happened in my own state, I'd want something to be done as well... but there's more to consider than just manpower.
I live in Colorado, but I did pay attention last year. I don't remember thinking, "boy, I sure would like to see the Navy and Marines come and swoop-in whenever there's a domestic problem." I saw Katrina. I know what she did... I have family near Biloxi, for crissake! The fact is, we already have a domestic force for "troubles at home". It's not like it was ever "missing", but its numbers were weakened!
*I* remember thinking, "Dammit... there's not enough Guard or Reserve troops to handle a crisis of this magnitude be-CAUSE they're off fightin' a FOKKIN "war on ter'r". Mother Nature deals us a whopping blow, and do we re-organize to handle it? NO! (wtF?) It's the war-as-usual while we point our fingers at the nincompoop that was appointed by other nincompoops. Browning was called to be removed after Hurricane Frances... (gave $30 mil to Miami, unaffected by the hurricane) but it wasn't until the ultimate damage was done with Katrina that he was given permission to walk out. Bush said, "you're doing a heck of a job." source(Thanks for being such a stooge! Enjoy your summer home!)
There's a point where you have to look at these things as more than "unfortunate"... this may have been a carefully orchestrated stanza of chaos. Consider that it while it appears to be "rolling the dice"... in the end, Katrina did more to erode Civil Liberties than Bin Laden could ever do.
It's been nearly a hundred-fifty years since our last Civil War... are we due? Ironically, the issue of slavery may be back on the table after all. (different sort, however)
So... I guess we'll put you with the Apple-is-hardware-first-software-second bunch.
Three guys in a garage, spitting-out the first "personal" computer ever made. That's how it all started, people. Yes, they are hardware-first. Yes, the OSX platform has its flaws. Find me a platform that *doesn't*! (quiet, all you HP/UX people)
The first Macintosh in 1984 was a breakthrough in form, function and versatility. Was the OS original? No, it was basically rigged from the Xerox PARC technology. All of the best Apple software concepts were outsourced or sold to focused development firms. (Hello, Adobe) This will likely not change in the near future.
Birds make nests. Dogs make poo. Apple "makes" hardware. Simple, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point. Why compete in a nail-biting next-gen arena when you can count on the "previous-gen" market? Still quite profitable. Nintendo is playing it smart.
I wonder if we could ever find the actual 100,000,000th site to recognize them. Bake them a cake... or something?
Okay, I know... you shell out through the nose just to have your plasma/LCD/DLP screen and you want to see the reason you paid so much. It's natural.
Let's say you bought a really nice printer. It costs a lot of money. Your digital camera only gives you 5 megapixel photos, but the printer can go up to 9 megapixel with clear quality. Do you gripe to the camera maker?
Okay, so maybe you do, but I don't.
You get what you paid for. Caveat emptor, peeps. If you get an HDTV, prepare to seek out the content made for HDTV. Otherwise, it's just another TV, now isn't it?
I don't believe Nintendo is ignoring the technology trends, but they are making a smart move in supporting the current status-quo. Make a platform that meets the majority share of the market and you've already beat-out the "next gen" platforms targeted at HD.
As for all of the predictions going on; think again. HDTV is growing, but to beat-out a 60-year established standard in a constantly-saturated market in just a few years? It would take a more competitive pricing strategy than the current reality to do that.
When half the world is watching their daily news in 1080i resolution, then it becomes feasible.
Seriously, I can get a quality CRT television—fully loaded features—for a fraction of what it costs to get a same-size HDTV. On average, the ratio appears to be 10:1 (If I can get the CRT for $50, the same HD model costs $500) and it's not changing very quickly.
If Nintendo has proven anything, it's that they know good business. They made a good business decision with the Wii, and they'll worry about HD when the time comes. (not now)
Besides, what's to stop them from putting out after-market adapters? The first Xbox did that, and they've got plenty of satisfied gamers, even with HD.
I'm sure we all remember the Diebold exposé back in September?
[sarcasm]So nice to see that Florida is so on-top of things.[/sarcasm]
Seems like all they do is say, "that's just the way it is." All the while, Jebbie is racking-up the GOP vote in a pathetic attempt to regain his brother's favor after debacles in both 2000 and 2004.
Let's take back our right to a fair election!
They can only take it away if we let them.
Not backwards at all, but not entirely forthright either. We're talking about porn, here... hello-o?!
Lemme 'splain...
No... there is too much.
Lemme sum-up.
AdWords drives traffic based on contextual relevance; not to mention it annoys the heck out of me when I get on these sites; pausing my reading to pop-up a little ad. (keep... mouse... away...)
The contextual relevance part is academic; the adult-content sites will only get clicks from words on similar-content sites. You won't find words like "honey" on a cooking site directing you to "honeybearhouseofpleasure.com" or anything. There is a measure of relevance to the words that get "picked" as ad-links.
As for refusing to put adult-content sites in AdSense, I think that's just good business practice. As a click-generator, you don't want to get involved in what the visitors to adult sites are seeking. (or vice versa) Let them start a new window and Google the URL apart from the adult site.
I mean really, if you owned a business, how would that statistics page look to you? [It appears here we got 7% of traffic from labia-twaddlers.biz; now we know the perversion-ratio in our customer base! Yay!]
(I didn't think so.)
So, to end the confusion once and for all. Google seems to have taken a don't-ask-don't-tell stance on adult-content sites, while still taking advantage of—let's be honest here—a *proven* market. Hypocritical? Maybe. Wise move? I think so.
We're talking about a harmless, self-indulgent market share... unless they show-up on Dateline.
Very cute. Is your copy of Clerks autographed, too?
Bombing PayPal... sheesh. For all we know, it was a Halloween prank. Who sets-off a bomb in the middle of the night to spread terror? Sure, there's some paranoia... but nobody was hurt.
Let's be honest, here. Any strategist knows that, in order to spread terror and change behavior on a massive scale, you need more than just a bit of property damage. People have to get hurt in order for terror to take hold.
Heaven forbid that should happen, but that is the truth in the matter, now isn't it?
Sure, go catch the pranksters. Have them pay for the damage they caused.
After that, do us a favor and drop it. There's wa-a-ay too much being read into this.
Besides... the contractors were only on the *second* Death Star, stupid! >:P
On the first Death Star, they got what they deserved.
...from all the light given-off by the flaming trolls in this thread.
They sure stirred-up the hornet's nest with this one.
So, the question seems to be: Where does the accountability lie in fraudulent domains?
There's the school of origination; the domain-registrar is wrong for selling it.
You might as well arrest the gun-shop owners for allowing shootings to happen.
Then the camp that believes the TLD is most telling. (e.g., dot-com vs. dot-biz)
Gimme a break, the TLD breakout was back in 2000; companies have been using dot-biz for more than five years, some are even very well-established. Try again.
Some say the institutions being mocked are the culpable party.
You have to admit, allowing yourself to be imitated so convincingly could be construed as neglect.
Others still would point the finger at the ISP that allows phishers/crackers to operate in the first place.
Yeah, but if you're in the car-rental business, how can you tell if your customer intends to run someone over? Would you *not* accept their money if you did? Could you prove it in court if the barred customer tries to sue you?
The idea that the presence of SSL indicates a reliable source.
Best idea of the bunch, however there's still a risk in "mixed content" pages. The newest IE release either restricts the appearance of these types of pages, or just doesn't show them at all. (Firefox, too) Webdomos, take this to heart; if it isn't coming through SSL, it won't be on the page.
I, for one, prefer a common-sense approach...
eBusiness Owners/Administrators: Protect your identity! Get a consultant and invest in the most-likely alternates for your own domain, and KEEP them. (auto-renewal) It will pay off in the long run. Why take the risk?
Domain Registrars: Verify your customers and their business model. Taking an easy payment is one thing, but when you're found out as the enabler of a scam that swindles thousands from your potential customers, what's it really worth?
'Net Service Providers: Log activity and keep those logs! Detailed records and reliable backups are the difference between being a reputable dealer or a "usual suspect". Though you may be able to buy good press, you can't buy-off bad press.
Consumers/Citizens/All of us: Fer crissake, pay attention! [SLAP!] You don't get the luxury of "undo" from a virus or trojan. Simply connecting to the Internet presents a risk, and it will never be completely secure.
Consider this paradigm. Every "click" is a choice. Choose wisely.
You do realize that it's meant to look like "good news".
Let's review M$ history for a moment...
OS/2 barely sees the light of day and must compete with equally-ailing Windows 2.0 (bad news)
It took almost seven years to get it right.(bad news)
"OS/2"? Who uses OS/2? (bad news for IBM)
Should have been OS/3. (bad news for IBM, again)
DoubleSpace. (bad news)
Microsoft BOB. (bad news)
Microsoft unveils ActiveX. (bad News)
The Internet has been going on for five years already. (bad News)
Windows CE. (bad News)
Windows Millenium Edition (bad News)
The point is, if MS is going to get involved, they're in it for one thing; profit.
HTML begat DHTML, plug-ins begat ActiveX, Yahoo begat MSN. History is riddled with attempts by M$ to re-make things that already work fine, or they have taken it over entirely. (alas, Mosaic... VRML... cgi...)
We may (or may not) be "freaking out", but I think we are all a bit concerned. Based on the track record, how can any good really come from this?
I always imagined that the Internet was founded on the experiment of having a standards-based networking (as much as TCP/IP is considered the only "real" standard) of many, many different localised networks.
What form can governance take when it comes to a virtual construct such as this?
I tell you, it comes down to what's made available. If the government has a problem with one part of the Internet, they can rule that the regional network relays should block it. It's not very different from IT policy in our own corporations; they can enforce what we see on the 'Net if they really want to. It's no mystery that DNS/routing can be modified to make targeted sites seem non-existent, or block specific IP addresses.
When you get down to it, any nation that claims to "control" the Internet is only speaking of what it will allow for its own constituency.
Will the US lose control of the internet? If you ask me, we already have. I believe it happened right around 1992. (Thanks, Al!)
Wonderful, ain't it?
What concerns me is the day that any, one World Power attempts to physically take control of the Internet; one m-f'in hu-gi-normous undertaking, to be sure. Should that day come, that is the day I take to arms. I'd kill for that freedom. I'd die for that freedom. No shit. It's a bigger freedom than any one of us, because it is about the potential hidden in all of us that blossoms when we come together.
===When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, holler. —Al Gore
Let's be serious. The first release of WinXP (the "evolution" of Win16 based on "experience"... remember?) was an utter calamity.
How many of you said, "wait for the Service Pack!" -- and how many of us listened? Microsoft called it "normal abberrations in architecture".
What's worse is that we actually paid for the XP ugprade.
It's a platform release, stupid. Taking-down the entire kernel structure and re-building it is no small matter. Frankly, putting the entire operation through >apt< is an accomplishment in itself.
Ubuntu—a leader in the Lin-friendly world—has done their part to make a platform that is not only accessible to most every skill-level, but also GUARANTEES updates on a regular basis. That's quite a deadline. Any dev-house will tell you that committing to a regulated update schedule is, in itself, a nightmare. The fact that the Ubuntu staff has upheld this commitment is laudible, honorable and quite frankly, amazing.
Xubuntu Dapper is what sold me on the Ubuntu distro. Ubuntu is nice, but a bit too nice for me. (like an overbearing grandmother) I picked X-distro for its thin footprint and largely transparent framework. My biggest gripe was the time the upgrade took to download. (files downloading at 56k speeds when I have a >2Mb/s cable modem) I even interrupted the process at least half a dozen times, and it still came back up. It was no nightmare, but just a frustrating series of consequences that I had limited ability to control.
Biting the bullet, I grabbed the iso for the alt-install CD. Mounting the image, I resumed the update where the downloads left off and it's now running perfectly. PERFECTLY!
Beta testers know... it works when it works, no matter the label. Ubuntu is just honoring their primary commitment. It doesn't work for everybody, but clearly it works.
That's what this community is for!
Stop lashing out and start reaching out.
===
Imagination is more important than knowledge. —u know who
Mussolini, anyone?
---A good navigator knows that you reach your destination by making small adjustments, not by reversing your course.
Partly correct; the citizenship of Louisiana wanted the restrictions loosened. If something that disatrous happened in my own state, I'd want something to be done as well... but there's more to consider than just manpower.
I live in Colorado, but I did pay attention last year. I don't remember thinking, "boy, I sure would like to see the Navy and Marines come and swoop-in whenever there's a domestic problem." I saw Katrina. I know what she did... I have family near Biloxi, for crissake! The fact is, we already have a domestic force for "troubles at home". It's not like it was ever "missing", but its numbers were weakened!
*I* remember thinking, "Dammit... there's not enough Guard or Reserve troops to handle a crisis of this magnitude be-CAUSE they're off fightin' a FOKKIN "war on ter'r". Mother Nature deals us a whopping blow, and do we re-organize to handle it? NO! (wtF?) It's the war-as-usual while we point our fingers at the nincompoop that was appointed by other nincompoops. Browning was called to be removed after Hurricane Frances... (gave $30 mil to Miami, unaffected by the hurricane) but it wasn't until the ultimate damage was done with Katrina that he was given permission to walk out. Bush said, "you're doing a heck of a job." source (Thanks for being such a stooge! Enjoy your summer home!)
There's a point where you have to look at these things as more than "unfortunate"... this may have been a carefully orchestrated stanza of chaos. Consider that it while it appears to be "rolling the dice"... in the end, Katrina did more to erode Civil Liberties than Bin Laden could ever do.
It's been nearly a hundred-fifty years since our last Civil War... are we due? Ironically, the issue of slavery may be back on the table after all. (different sort, however)
War IS Terror. There is no "fighting for peace".So... I guess we'll put you with the Apple-is-hardware-first-software-second bunch.
Three guys in a garage, spitting-out the first "personal" computer ever made. That's how it all started, people. Yes, they are hardware-first. Yes, the OSX platform has its flaws. Find me a platform that *doesn't*! (quiet, all you HP/UX people)
The first Macintosh in 1984 was a breakthrough in form, function and versatility. Was the OS original? No, it was basically rigged from the Xerox PARC technology. All of the best Apple software concepts were outsourced or sold to focused development firms. (Hello, Adobe) This will likely not change in the near future.
Birds make nests. Dogs make poo. Apple "makes" hardware. Simple, yes?