It's weird because I described almost the same idea to someone about 2 days ago (without the goofy server appliance part; in my version people had it built into their UMPCs and set-top boxes because we're all going to have them eventually).
Basically, it's a p2p overlay network that mimics the social connections you have on site like Facebook. It's a way to free you from bondage to any particular social networking site. You choose who gets to see what because you host your information. Then you could provide selected bits and pieces to various websites, which could map out the parts of this unified social network to which you the user have granted access. Of course, this probably would have to include a convoluted scheme of digital certs and whatnot, but it's all technologically feasible for the future. The real barrier is user inertia.
No more relying on the non-existent good will of Facebook.
Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.
No, it's not. Lest you forget, those "traffic" stats came with many qualifiers and caviats, which basically rendered the whole "OMG Facebook got more traffic than Google!" assertion false. (Of course, that didn't stop Katie Couric from reporting as a fact, with no reference to said qualifiers and caveats.)
I don't really take issue with what you're saying here. I just wanted to point out that the report was bogus, and we of all internet communities should not parrot it.
The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA didn't operate a jihadi site, all those same site visitors wouldn't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.
I can't exactly recall, but wasn't there an article or two on Slashdot a while back about how perhaps it was better to allow known terrorist network sites to continue to operate, rather than to shut them down and have us not know where the terrorists communicate anymore?
I think what jmorris42 is trying to say is that his politics prevent him from enjoying science anymore, and it's not fair that the rest of us still get to find these things intriguing (even though they, like every next-big-thing, might not pan out).
At least that's what I heard...
I mean, come on, this is an article about how to use zinc oxide crystals and excess noise to create hydrogen. The way he's reacting, it's as if a hippie drum circle invaded his backyard and started shouting about cars that run on hemp. (As a side note, if this happens to you, I recommend a tank of water and zinc oxide crystals so that you can take full advantage of the situation.)
Tried the free version once. It gave me a nag screen after updates. I switched back to Avast the next day. I think I'm going to try MSE next, based on recommendations from other comments.
Facebook knows your name, age, location, friends, events you attend...
And unlike Google, they're not afraid to give that information to whoever's willing to pay.
I haven't been a regular Linux or Ubuntu user for a few years now. What happens if I change my hardware configuration after I've already installed Ubuntu? My past experience was that while most Linux distros were quite good at detecting hardware during their initial install, almost none of them would give me any sort of help after the fact. Introducing new hardware was an unnecessarily major pain; I knew Linux was capable of detecting it, but no one had bothered to think beyond the first-install scenario.
Is this better now? (Or was there always a solution to this that I wasn't aware of?)
So many people fall into the same old predictable argument of "well clearly it wasn't obvious if no one else did it yet," and "sure it seems obvious after the fact." But you've illustrated exactly the problem with that line of thinking. These companies aren't patenting novel solutions to old problems; they're patenting the most obvious solutions to new problems. In our current patent system, the first person to encounter a new problem gets a patent. So if I'm making a portable music player and I ask myself, "What's the best way to scroll through my playlist with continuous motion, given limited space?" then I inevitably come to the conclusion that I need a circle. Unfortunately for me, Apple made iPods first, so if I want decent circular-motion-based controls, I'm dead in the water.
Just because you thought of a solution first does not mean that it wasn't obvious; in many cases it just means that you were the first one to encounter the problem.
It's not hard to find, but I'd imagine that in most circumstances where you have those, there's a better option available than a phone-based pico projector for displaying whatever it is that you want to display.
And what's really infuriating is that monetarily, he probably still comes out of this better off than if he hadn't done it at all.
I honestly could care less about the pseudonym thing. The misrepresentation of what his software does, its handling of personally identifiable information, and his erroneous conclusions based upon the data collected are the real credibility killers. I mean seriously, if you're an "expert" then why don't you understand disk caching?
would you use a pico-projector if it was built into your phone?
No. Next question please...
More seriously though, I'm sure that this would be very useful for a handful of people. It might even be good for the phone makers as a short-term marketing gimmick. I bet a lot of people might initally buy such a phone for the "wow" factor before realizing the limitations.
The problem is this: Where/when could you use such a device in an effective way? You'd need a screen and/or a blank wall, as well as something close enough to that wall to set your phone on, unless you and your comrades enjoy watching a very wobbly video.
On the other hand, combined with an accelerometer, a compass, and/or a camera, someone might be able to make a fairly novel application. For example, a game where moving the phone would scroll the projected image, like moving the sights of a gun. (Clearly the game would have to be a little more creative than that, but you get the general idea.)
Now don't get me wrong; I'm fine with people making money on Linux, but this whole business model does stink of shameless freeloading. And FOSS freeloaders never seem to last long in the market.
It seems like they're just going to take an established distro, make a couple UI modifications, and add a proprietary app store. Then they're going to make customers buy the (overpriced) computer, yet still charge a subscription for not just broadband (which is reasonable) but software updates. Software updates that other people wrote and tend to provide for free. And then there's that app store, and I think you're right: They're probably going to make users pay for software that otherwise would be completely free.
The Linux ecosystem seems to have a way of punishing freeloaders who monetize FOSS without contributing substantial added value. And this business does not seem to add enough value. Rather than developing for a new distro, wouldn't time be better spent creating an Ubuntu, Mandriva, or SUSE store in which for-pay apps are sold alongside free downloads of free-as-in-beer proprietary software and FOSS. Now that would be something that really adds value.
BTW, I am aware that Ubuntu is considering some sort of "app store" interface; I just don't know exactly how that's intended to operate.
You don't even have to attach anything yourself; it's automatically done for you. Of course you're free to opt out anytime you like, but IF YOU DO, OUR MASTERS WILL NOT BE PLEASED.
In some ways, the internet merely makes confirmation bias even more pervasive. With my mouse clicks, I can easily shop around to find whatever source of information comforts me in my already-held beliefs. For example, read the comments sections at Fox News or Huffington Post, both information sources known for having an ideological slant. (I cannot be held responsible if your brain explodes.) People who can't handle having their worldviews challenged will seek out the source that challenges them the least. The internet makes that task very, very easy.
It doesn't really matter. People who love the iPad argue that it's a consumer-oriented appliance and that their parents will love the simplicity (and they're right). People who hate it argue that it does even less than a netbook (and they're right).
There may not be enough Apple fans and their parents to make this product super-successful, but I don't think that's the point. With the iPad, Apple got book publishers into iTunes and print periodicals into the app store. Even if the device itself fails, they've won, as they will inevitably find other ways to profit from their new content partners.
Consider how much you have to pay for data when you go beyond a typical 5GB/month limit. I would guess that your wireless provider would be more than happy to enable you to quickly burn through that 5GB and start paying the exorbitant overage costs.
It supports not only Windows XP, but Vista and 7, but only 32-bit versions.
In contrast it supports Ubuntu 64-bit.
To clarify, you can absolutely run 32-bit Boxee on a 64-bit version of Windows, so it technically supports 64-bit Windows Vista and 7. They just don't provide a native 64-bit version of Boxee.
I guess they're durable as long as you don't listen to them much. The mere act of playing a cassette degrades it. And then there's the sound quality issue. Comparing cassettes favorably to mp3 is one thing, but to CD/DVD? Seriously?
Slashdot Mirror
You're like a loud animal rights activist who still keeps eating veal.
If you're so morally outraged, stop using U.S. companies' internet sites and services, and/or help create some alternatives.
And MySpace is still arguably better for musicians than Facebook, despite all of its amateurism and chaos.
It's weird because I described almost the same idea to someone about 2 days ago (without the goofy server appliance part; in my version people had it built into their UMPCs and set-top boxes because we're all going to have them eventually).
Basically, it's a p2p overlay network that mimics the social connections you have on site like Facebook. It's a way to free you from bondage to any particular social networking site. You choose who gets to see what because you host your information. Then you could provide selected bits and pieces to various websites, which could map out the parts of this unified social network to which you the user have granted access. Of course, this probably would have to include a convoluted scheme of digital certs and whatnot, but it's all technologically feasible for the future. The real barrier is user inertia.
No more relying on the non-existent good will of Facebook.
Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.
No, it's not. Lest you forget, those "traffic" stats came with many qualifiers and caviats, which basically rendered the whole "OMG Facebook got more traffic than Google!" assertion false. (Of course, that didn't stop Katie Couric from reporting as a fact, with no reference to said qualifiers and caveats.)
I don't really take issue with what you're saying here. I just wanted to point out that the report was bogus, and we of all internet communities should not parrot it.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/21/2329249 Windows 7 Memory Usage Critic Outed As Fraud, Subsequently Given Front Page Story on Slashdot for Some Reason
The entire premise for your argument that the honeypot is a stupid idea rests on an assumption that if the CIA didn't operate a jihadi site, all those same site visitors wouldn't be going to any number of other jihadi sites instead.
That seems pretty far-fetched.
I can't exactly recall, but wasn't there an article or two on Slashdot a while back about how perhaps it was better to allow known terrorist network sites to continue to operate, rather than to shut them down and have us not know where the terrorists communicate anymore?
I think what jmorris42 is trying to say is that his politics prevent him from enjoying science anymore, and it's not fair that the rest of us still get to find these things intriguing (even though they, like every next-big-thing, might not pan out).
At least that's what I heard...
I mean, come on, this is an article about how to use zinc oxide crystals and excess noise to create hydrogen. The way he's reacting, it's as if a hippie drum circle invaded his backyard and started shouting about cars that run on hemp. (As a side note, if this happens to you, I recommend a tank of water and zinc oxide crystals so that you can take full advantage of the situation.)
Tried the free version once. It gave me a nag screen after updates. I switched back to Avast the next day. I think I'm going to try MSE next, based on recommendations from other comments.
Short story: free Avira = nagware = no thanks
Facebook knows your name, age, location, friends, events you attend... And unlike Google, they're not afraid to give that information to whoever's willing to pay.
I haven't been a regular Linux or Ubuntu user for a few years now. What happens if I change my hardware configuration after I've already installed Ubuntu? My past experience was that while most Linux distros were quite good at detecting hardware during their initial install, almost none of them would give me any sort of help after the fact. Introducing new hardware was an unnecessarily major pain; I knew Linux was capable of detecting it, but no one had bothered to think beyond the first-install scenario.
Is this better now? (Or was there always a solution to this that I wasn't aware of?)
If I had mod points, I'd give you all of them.
So many people fall into the same old predictable argument of "well clearly it wasn't obvious if no one else did it yet," and "sure it seems obvious after the fact." But you've illustrated exactly the problem with that line of thinking. These companies aren't patenting novel solutions to old problems; they're patenting the most obvious solutions to new problems. In our current patent system, the first person to encounter a new problem gets a patent. So if I'm making a portable music player and I ask myself, "What's the best way to scroll through my playlist with continuous motion, given limited space?" then I inevitably come to the conclusion that I need a circle. Unfortunately for me, Apple made iPods first, so if I want decent circular-motion-based controls, I'm dead in the water.
Just because you thought of a solution first does not mean that it wasn't obvious; in many cases it just means that you were the first one to encounter the problem.
Here is a slightly-absurd-but-awesomme dice rolling machine.
It's not hard to find, but I'd imagine that in most circumstances where you have those, there's a better option available than a phone-based pico projector for displaying whatever it is that you want to display.
And what's really infuriating is that monetarily, he probably still comes out of this better off than if he hadn't done it at all.
I honestly could care less about the pseudonym thing. The misrepresentation of what his software does, its handling of personally identifiable information, and his erroneous conclusions based upon the data collected are the real credibility killers. I mean seriously, if you're an "expert" then why don't you understand disk caching?
No. Next question please...
More seriously though, I'm sure that this would be very useful for a handful of people. It might even be good for the phone makers as a short-term marketing gimmick. I bet a lot of people might initally buy such a phone for the "wow" factor before realizing the limitations.
The problem is this: Where/when could you use such a device in an effective way? You'd need a screen and/or a blank wall, as well as something close enough to that wall to set your phone on, unless you and your comrades enjoy watching a very wobbly video.
On the other hand, combined with an accelerometer, a compass, and/or a camera, someone might be able to make a fairly novel application. For example, a game where moving the phone would scroll the projected image, like moving the sights of a gun. (Clearly the game would have to be a little more creative than that, but you get the general idea.)
Now don't get me wrong; I'm fine with people making money on Linux, but this whole business model does stink of shameless freeloading. And FOSS freeloaders never seem to last long in the market.
It seems like they're just going to take an established distro, make a couple UI modifications, and add a proprietary app store. Then they're going to make customers buy the (overpriced) computer, yet still charge a subscription for not just broadband (which is reasonable) but software updates. Software updates that other people wrote and tend to provide for free. And then there's that app store, and I think you're right: They're probably going to make users pay for software that otherwise would be completely free.
The Linux ecosystem seems to have a way of punishing freeloaders who monetize FOSS without contributing substantial added value. And this business does not seem to add enough value. Rather than developing for a new distro, wouldn't time be better spent creating an Ubuntu, Mandriva, or SUSE store in which for-pay apps are sold alongside free downloads of free-as-in-beer proprietary software and FOSS. Now that would be something that really adds value.
BTW, I am aware that Ubuntu is considering some sort of "app store" interface; I just don't know exactly how that's intended to operate.
I did.
You don't even have to attach anything yourself; it's automatically done for you. Of course you're free to opt out anytime you like, but IF YOU DO, OUR MASTERS WILL NOT BE PLEASED.
In some ways, the internet merely makes confirmation bias even more pervasive. With my mouse clicks, I can easily shop around to find whatever source of information comforts me in my already-held beliefs. For example, read the comments sections at Fox News or Huffington Post, both information sources known for having an ideological slant. (I cannot be held responsible if your brain explodes.) People who can't handle having their worldviews challenged will seek out the source that challenges them the least. The internet makes that task very, very easy.
It doesn't really matter. People who love the iPad argue that it's a consumer-oriented appliance and that their parents will love the simplicity (and they're right). People who hate it argue that it does even less than a netbook (and they're right).
There may not be enough Apple fans and their parents to make this product super-successful, but I don't think that's the point. With the iPad, Apple got book publishers into iTunes and print periodicals into the app store. Even if the device itself fails, they've won, as they will inevitably find other ways to profit from their new content partners.
Consider how much you have to pay for data when you go beyond a typical 5GB/month limit. I would guess that your wireless provider would be more than happy to enable you to quickly burn through that 5GB and start paying the exorbitant overage costs.
It supports not only Windows XP, but Vista and 7, but only 32-bit versions.
In contrast it supports Ubuntu 64-bit.
To clarify, you can absolutely run 32-bit Boxee on a 64-bit version of Windows, so it technically supports 64-bit Windows Vista and 7. They just don't provide a native 64-bit version of Boxee.
I guess they're durable as long as you don't listen to them much. The mere act of playing a cassette degrades it. And then there's the sound quality issue. Comparing cassettes favorably to mp3 is one thing, but to CD/DVD? Seriously?
Don't direct your ire toward information security just because your particular sysadmin happens to be an idiot.