But your positive point about DRM can be applied to any download site not with DRM. If I had a DRM free games site once you logged in and I got payment I could use scripting to allow you to download game.exe. Then all you had to do was login to the site to download game.exe. No DRM yet all the "positives" of DRM you mentioned.
How can they? They simply blocked a list of IPs that were frequent in disruptive changes, it just so happened that they were part of Scientology. The same thing could be said of real churches, businesses, etc. that got blocked for the same reasons.
Random side note:
Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Of course they can but it requires a super ultra rare L. Ron Hubbard signed E-meter selling for the ultra low price of $999,999,999.00 along with Scientology literature that costs an extra $99,999.99 plus training at a secret compound for the discounted price of $500,000 per year for fifty years.
That would lead to a massive upsurge in bad press by the traditional media. There, Scientology is a religion not just a tax shelter and so Wikipedia getting a restraining order would be perceived as discrimination against a faith. Conveniently the media would omit any background information about Scientology other then thats what Tom Cruse practices nor about the repeated abuses of Wikipedia...
According to http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/nimp.org its apparently some virus site from the GNAA (yes, from that/. troll of the "Gay Nigger Association of America")
Then tell me of one single website that went under because of funding that A) Had a donation page B) Wasn't poorly managed or C) Had content that most people deemed worthless. You really can't find one, bandwidth these days is unbelievably cheap, domain names can be gotten for cheap, and hosting isn't that expensive either. If you keep running out of bandwidth you are obviously popular so then you can sell merchandise or ask for donations. I don't know of any website that really shut down because of a lack of funding.
Um, I'd say that any website from a personal website with nothing terribly important on it to the system used to launch nuclear weapons should guard against something as simple as SQL injection. Now, you might not want to have passwords 468000 characters long for a lower security website, but surely blocking SQL injection is something all websites should guard against.
MS should seriously just stop trying to "improve" search engines. Its not profitable, labels you as a "Google clone", and unless you have some pretty neat features that can beat Google and iGoogle, you won't end up capturing any marketshare. Sure, there are some things that you could do with searching, such as desktop searches that aren't painfully slow that require tons of indexing, perhaps using algorithms to "guess" where files are placed? All that would be better for MS, but instead they go into the already saturated market with yet another search engine, how many do they have now? MSN, Live, and now Bing? Seriously, stop trying to be Google, you aren't and unless you happen to be really really good at what you do (and from past experiences in trying to be Google you aren't good at it) you won't get any marketshare despite how many ads you run and how many OEMs you bribe to set as the default homepage.
There are many sites on the web that produce things like T-shirts, etc that all you need to do is put a logo or image on them and then people order them, they produce them and ship them. Not sure how much profit you get, but it would still be a good way to get money. Donations work for any site that has dedicated readers, sure you aren't going to be the next millionaire, but it should offset the hosting costs.
And really if the hosting costs are too high for you, either use P2P to distribute any high bandwidth files (MP3s, etc) or switch to a free site such as Blogspot or Myspace if its a personal site or blog. Really there aren't any sites that cost tons of money to run for free that don't have a dedicated fanbase unless its crap content. If you have an example please, tell me.
Donations, donations, donations and merchandise, merchandise, merchandise. If your website is good enough and enough people like it ads don't have to be your sole source of income, donations and merchandise have supported many, many sites. The problem is, like all things in the free market if your content is crap no one wants to donate and your site dies.
Currently, yes but most of them are supported by large companies who promote them heavily, chances are almost every computer has at least one alternate browser other than IE installed, it might not be used, but it would still be installed, so whenever a site says best viewed in Safari, Firefox or Chrome most people would at least have one of those.
Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch? Other then web developers needing to have a copy of IE to test code why would anyone use IE when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc are all technologically superior and have more plugins?
Sure, but this is open source, chances are it will be implemented soon not only in Firefox but also Safari, Chrome, Konqueror, etc. Only IE will drag its feet in supporting this, but then again most people who use IE usually aren't major web surfers.
Even when FOSS wins, Linux loses - because there is no longer any reason to migrate.
Ok, all the software I run works on Linux, Windows and OS X. I can get a preloaded system with either Windows, Linux for $75 cheaper than Windows, or OS X for $200 more than Windows. Both Linux and OS X are immune to most of the viruses floating around the 'net. Windows and OS X use different interfaces than those found on Linux so if you can use your Linux work computer you can run your Linux home computer.
Who doesn't want to save money, lower the learning curve (they already know how to use Linux), and be immune to most of the problems of the other OSes?
Um, its called learning. Think of it this way, its like a programming language that you have no clue what it does. So you see a line of code, find a variable, think Hm, thats a 1, if we make it be a 0 what happens? So you do that and compile it, suddenly the background of the program turns transparent. You figure out what that does. Its the same thing here, manipulate enough variables and you get a lot of knowledge.
A Blackberry is meant for browsing the web, and newer ones especially the Bold are really good at that. But lets say you have an older smartphone for whatever reason or on the built in Java browser on non-smartphones and you will really really appreciate having a mobile site. Add that with a lack of 3G and without a mobile site you will be gouging out your eyes before you actually end up being able to use the content on there.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Tales of Symphonia
Final Fantasy XII
The New Super Mario Bros.
Fire Emblem
Super Mario Galaxy
The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time
Star Ocean: The Last Hope
Etc.
If you are a J-RPG fan, or a fan of platforming games, then the console is really the only way.
Well, for starters they don't have a very good web browser. Sure, its trivial to install Opera Mobile, but both the iPhone OS, and Android come with decent browsers. Then they don't have support for captive touchscreens (officially that is), then in my experience the UI is a mess (but thats just me), They don't have an app store and the one they do have lined up seems like it won't have very many apps (costs $100 for each app to be in the store per year). Then there is the general buggyness of it (hard resets everywhere, etc) in my experience battery life has suffered too (but having not ran a phone with 2 OSes on it I can't tell with certainty, but it sure seems less).
Um, no it really hasn't. I'm a Linux supporter (currently typing this from an Ubuntu box) but the reasons why Linux is supported is that they aren't selling a full desktop. Android is popular for phones, people don't expect legacy apps to work with new phones, they don't have any mission critical software that needs to run (for most people), they get a new physical phone that looks different and so will take some time to learn it rather than dismiss it as broken the moment they can't find My Computer.
Windows Mobile is a broken OS, even the die hard MS fans know that out of the box its broken, sure, you can add software to make it usable, but a vanilla WinMo device is unusable. The iPhone is restricted to one device and one carrier, Android can run on many and is or soon will be on many different networks. Palm OS is severely outdated, but Web OS which is their replacement already has a strong following and the Pre is set to be the next thing in phones.
If Android was marketed as a full desktop or placed on "real" (ie: x86, full keyboard, decent screen) hardware it wouldn't sell because people won't learn a new OS on what they think is a Windows platform and it won't run some applications.
According to the summary it seems like it will be emulating everything, that raises a real speed concern, not perhaps for newer desktops but for older hardware and netbooks. Wouldn't a better option be to have a second real kernel being launched within the real one and native libs, etc? I know it might be hard to do and would have security problems, but it seems a lot faster that way.
Its simple, this will create jobs. Apple is going to hire a massive amount of contractors to build this, probably have to hire some consultants, have to buy the hardware, etc. All this goes to help other companies and the economy. Honestly, it makes more sense to just abolish most taxes and establish a pay-per-use system and abolish all government granted monopolies, but thats just me....
may invest more than $1 billion in building and operating the huge server farm. That's nearly twice what Google and Microsoft typically invest in their massive cloud
Of course, this is Apple, all Apple hardware is going to me more expensive then typical PC hardware. On the plus side all machines can be running OS X.
Incorrect, the constitution states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" under section 8 which the first part is "The Congress shall have power To": so no, it wasn't created by the constitution it merely allowed congress to, if they felt it necessary to create copyright/patent systems.
Slashdot Mirror
But your positive point about DRM can be applied to any download site not with DRM. If I had a DRM free games site once you logged in and I got payment I could use scripting to allow you to download game.exe. Then all you had to do was login to the site to download game.exe. No DRM yet all the "positives" of DRM you mentioned.
How can they? They simply blocked a list of IPs that were frequent in disruptive changes, it just so happened that they were part of Scientology. The same thing could be said of real churches, businesses, etc. that got blocked for the same reasons.
Random side note: Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Of course they can but it requires a super ultra rare L. Ron Hubbard signed E-meter selling for the ultra low price of $999,999,999.00 along with Scientology literature that costs an extra $99,999.99 plus training at a secret compound for the discounted price of $500,000 per year for fifty years.
That would lead to a massive upsurge in bad press by the traditional media. There, Scientology is a religion not just a tax shelter and so Wikipedia getting a restraining order would be perceived as discrimination against a faith. Conveniently the media would omit any background information about Scientology other then thats what Tom Cruse practices nor about the repeated abuses of Wikipedia...
According to http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/nimp.org its apparently some virus site from the GNAA (yes, from that /. troll of the "Gay Nigger Association of America")
Then tell me of one single website that went under because of funding that A) Had a donation page B) Wasn't poorly managed or C) Had content that most people deemed worthless. You really can't find one, bandwidth these days is unbelievably cheap, domain names can be gotten for cheap, and hosting isn't that expensive either. If you keep running out of bandwidth you are obviously popular so then you can sell merchandise or ask for donations. I don't know of any website that really shut down because of a lack of funding.
You'd be surprised how quickly ad money can add up on popular websites. Plus Thinkgeek sells a lot of things and has a nice markup on some items.
Um, I'd say that any website from a personal website with nothing terribly important on it to the system used to launch nuclear weapons should guard against something as simple as SQL injection. Now, you might not want to have passwords 468000 characters long for a lower security website, but surely blocking SQL injection is something all websites should guard against.
MS should seriously just stop trying to "improve" search engines. Its not profitable, labels you as a "Google clone", and unless you have some pretty neat features that can beat Google and iGoogle, you won't end up capturing any marketshare. Sure, there are some things that you could do with searching, such as desktop searches that aren't painfully slow that require tons of indexing, perhaps using algorithms to "guess" where files are placed? All that would be better for MS, but instead they go into the already saturated market with yet another search engine, how many do they have now? MSN, Live, and now Bing? Seriously, stop trying to be Google, you aren't and unless you happen to be really really good at what you do (and from past experiences in trying to be Google you aren't good at it) you won't get any marketshare despite how many ads you run and how many OEMs you bribe to set as the default homepage.
There are many sites on the web that produce things like T-shirts, etc that all you need to do is put a logo or image on them and then people order them, they produce them and ship them. Not sure how much profit you get, but it would still be a good way to get money. Donations work for any site that has dedicated readers, sure you aren't going to be the next millionaire, but it should offset the hosting costs.
And really if the hosting costs are too high for you, either use P2P to distribute any high bandwidth files (MP3s, etc) or switch to a free site such as Blogspot or Myspace if its a personal site or blog. Really there aren't any sites that cost tons of money to run for free that don't have a dedicated fanbase unless its crap content. If you have an example please, tell me.
Donations, donations, donations and merchandise, merchandise, merchandise. If your website is good enough and enough people like it ads don't have to be your sole source of income, donations and merchandise have supported many, many sites. The problem is, like all things in the free market if your content is crap no one wants to donate and your site dies.
Currently, yes but most of them are supported by large companies who promote them heavily, chances are almost every computer has at least one alternate browser other than IE installed, it might not be used, but it would still be installed, so whenever a site says best viewed in Safari, Firefox or Chrome most people would at least have one of those.
Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch? Other then web developers needing to have a copy of IE to test code why would anyone use IE when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc are all technologically superior and have more plugins?
Sure, but this is open source, chances are it will be implemented soon not only in Firefox but also Safari, Chrome, Konqueror, etc. Only IE will drag its feet in supporting this, but then again most people who use IE usually aren't major web surfers.
Even when FOSS wins, Linux loses - because there is no longer any reason to migrate.
Ok, all the software I run works on Linux, Windows and OS X. I can get a preloaded system with either Windows, Linux for $75 cheaper than Windows, or OS X for $200 more than Windows. Both Linux and OS X are immune to most of the viruses floating around the 'net. Windows and OS X use different interfaces than those found on Linux so if you can use your Linux work computer you can run your Linux home computer.
Who doesn't want to save money, lower the learning curve (they already know how to use Linux), and be immune to most of the problems of the other OSes?
Um, its called learning. Think of it this way, its like a programming language that you have no clue what it does. So you see a line of code, find a variable, think Hm, thats a 1, if we make it be a 0 what happens? So you do that and compile it, suddenly the background of the program turns transparent. You figure out what that does. Its the same thing here, manipulate enough variables and you get a lot of knowledge.
A Blackberry is meant for browsing the web, and newer ones especially the Bold are really good at that. But lets say you have an older smartphone for whatever reason or on the built in Java browser on non-smartphones and you will really really appreciate having a mobile site. Add that with a lack of 3G and without a mobile site you will be gouging out your eyes before you actually end up being able to use the content on there.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Tales of Symphonia
Final Fantasy XII
The New Super Mario Bros.
Fire Emblem
Super Mario Galaxy
The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time
Star Ocean: The Last Hope
Etc.
If you are a J-RPG fan, or a fan of platforming games, then the console is really the only way.
Well, for starters they don't have a very good web browser. Sure, its trivial to install Opera Mobile, but both the iPhone OS, and Android come with decent browsers. Then they don't have support for captive touchscreens (officially that is), then in my experience the UI is a mess (but thats just me), They don't have an app store and the one they do have lined up seems like it won't have very many apps (costs $100 for each app to be in the store per year). Then there is the general buggyness of it (hard resets everywhere, etc) in my experience battery life has suffered too (but having not ran a phone with 2 OSes on it I can't tell with certainty, but it sure seems less).
Um, no it really hasn't. I'm a Linux supporter (currently typing this from an Ubuntu box) but the reasons why Linux is supported is that they aren't selling a full desktop. Android is popular for phones, people don't expect legacy apps to work with new phones, they don't have any mission critical software that needs to run (for most people), they get a new physical phone that looks different and so will take some time to learn it rather than dismiss it as broken the moment they can't find My Computer.
Windows Mobile is a broken OS, even the die hard MS fans know that out of the box its broken, sure, you can add software to make it usable, but a vanilla WinMo device is unusable. The iPhone is restricted to one device and one carrier, Android can run on many and is or soon will be on many different networks. Palm OS is severely outdated, but Web OS which is their replacement already has a strong following and the Pre is set to be the next thing in phones.
If Android was marketed as a full desktop or placed on "real" (ie: x86, full keyboard, decent screen) hardware it wouldn't sell because people won't learn a new OS on what they think is a Windows platform and it won't run some applications.
According to the summary it seems like it will be emulating everything, that raises a real speed concern, not perhaps for newer desktops but for older hardware and netbooks. Wouldn't a better option be to have a second real kernel being launched within the real one and native libs, etc? I know it might be hard to do and would have security problems, but it seems a lot faster that way.
Actually hoping for a funny mod, but eh, I have enough karma to burn some every now and then.
Its simple, this will create jobs. Apple is going to hire a massive amount of contractors to build this, probably have to hire some consultants, have to buy the hardware, etc. All this goes to help other companies and the economy. Honestly, it makes more sense to just abolish most taxes and establish a pay-per-use system and abolish all government granted monopolies, but thats just me....
may invest more than $1 billion in building and operating the huge server farm. That's nearly twice what Google and Microsoft typically invest in their massive cloud
Of course, this is Apple, all Apple hardware is going to me more expensive then typical PC hardware. On the plus side all machines can be running OS X.
Incorrect, the constitution states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" under section 8 which the first part is "The Congress shall have power To": so no, it wasn't created by the constitution it merely allowed congress to, if they felt it necessary to create copyright/patent systems.