Passport has extremely high potential. I tried it out a while back... I went to Slate.com after signing up for a passport, and clicked the "Sign In" button. Now, I had never visited Slate, nor did they have any data on me prior to this. When I clicked "Sign In", that was it. I was registered. No filling out forms. No nothing. From a usability standpoint, Passport has tremendous potential.
With that said, the fees are absolutely horrendous. I checked it out - $1000/year for "small implementations", and $10000 for other. While I'm all for paying for a good solution, I can't see how having a single-sign-in solution on any website would generate $10000/year in profits.
I'm sure it would catch on like wildfire if they just lowered the fees to more manageble levels.
Passport is extremely convenient. Especially under Windows XP. I have a passport account, and I have MS messenger running, which keeps track of it for me.
Now, when I get to a passport enabled site where I've never been before, like the Slate, for instance, I can register and login by doing the following:
1. Click the ".NET sign in" button
That's fucking it! I'm signed in! My cat could do it! Compare this to registering at your average forum, where you have to fill in personal info at yet another site, create yet another account, and verify your email for the 234:th time, and then enter your username and password to login.
From a convenience perspective, Passport is the best thing since sliced bread, and WILL be successful for that reason. Passport is more good than it is bad, and therefore Joe Schmoe will get one.
It really doesn't matter what the Slashdotters with tinfoil hats with 26 email accounts do or say. If microsoft can manage to keep up with a reasonable quality of security, they will succeed with this.
Here in sweden, we have had GPRS for quite some time - comptetition is starting out just this summer, though, earlier there has been only one major company which supported it.
I have had the service for some time now, using an m505 and an Ericsson r520m, and it works bloody well! Fast, stable, and always connected, and a fucking awesome coverage.
Anyway, I thought the prices here was disgusting, but the US are just plain BAD - here in Sweden, I pay appox 2.36$/MB. We have 3 major GSM providers here in sweden, and only one of them supports GPRS, however, number two will start rolling it out this summer, and that will make the prices drop somewhat. I hope.
JavaScript is not realted to Java in any way except the name! Initially, Sun called it LiveScript, but since Java was a hot technology at the time, they decided to call it JavaScript.
So bascially, it's about a cool name. Besides, Microsoft doesn't use javascript, remember? The use JScript.
Dont get me wrong here - I'm not a vegetarian, but I eat very little meat, since it makes me feel better, from a health standpoint. I have no problem morally/ethically with eating animals.
Our teeth are indeed designed to eat meat. But isn't this because humans must be very adaptive? Humans were vegetarian from the beginning, according to many scientists. The reason for eating meat seems to be survival. It's MUCH easier to survive on meat due to the high fat it has, and it easier to manage. I.e. animals are better at surviving cold environments than plants. Humans can eat and digest lots of things - but we generally are better off, from a health standpoint to eat vegetarian food. I know I am!
And no, there are absolutely no problems whatsoever to attain protein, Vitamin B12 or Zinc when one is veggie, no - that is just popular science.
For you non-search eninge gurus - many search engines stop at "?" in URL:s. Look at the slashdot url in your browser window. Most search engines refuse to index past the "?" sign. Stupid. I think an easier solution would be to make the search engines stop stopping at "?". Google already does this, of course.
Why in the hells should dynamic content NOT be index. All the best sites ARE dynamic with databases.
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
If porn sites were allowed to bid on terms such as "hotmail", the search engine would quickly turn into a useless dump of links.
Thus - people would stop using it.
In effect - the search engines need to disallow such practice to survive.
I don't think that using money instead of time/skill to optimize your keywords is very different - nither ethically nor in quality.
I do not think that the pay-for-placement in search engines must be a bad thing. If you have to pay to get into the top positions of a search engine - you are simply more likely to spend time on the site, and the other way around (you spend time - you pay).
This makes sure that the top listings are truly relevant for your search, and if they aren't just scroll past the paid ones until you find good ones.
By the way - let's face it - getting high in search engines is not about having a good site. It's about knowing how to optimize you site for the search engines (of course, having a good site will help you a lot). Pay-per-listing is really just making use of money, instead of skill/time.
Whoa there! I feel that I must proclaim some reality here. I have strong doubts that these sites are getting this kind of CPM, and if they are, they are indeed very lucky. I know these for facts, since I am a webmaster. Not very experienced at all, but I move around and listen to the old men on the forums and absorb their wisdom. Listen:
You can advertise on yahoo for as cheap as 1$ CPM.
But generally, somethingawful get 2$ since thay are supported by a big compan, but that is moste likely on the decline. UGO members, such as HardOCP, makes 1$ CPM last I heard. Small to medium sites get about 0.50$ effective CPM.
The above is for banners. Popups are slightly higher - about 3$, but in reality it's much lower, since people close them before they even load.
$12 CPM is totally out of reach for 99% of the web sites. I guess that some sites manage to get it, but hey - there will always be extremes - I know from sitepointforums that got $17000 for making a web site. It's very extreme and rare, but it gets done.
IT COSTS VERY LITTLE TO GET WEBHOSTING????
I disagree as hell. Webhosting is cheap if you don't get a bigger site, that needs a dedicated server and 57 GB of bandwidth every month. Check out the prices at RackSpace and see what such a server costs.
It's when your site grows big and popular that it ends being a work of love. Capitalism is practially stuffed down your throat in this situation. Sad but true.
Well, Sweden is nor a socialist society, nor is it a capitalist society. This is how it stands: Our goverment is dominated by the "Social Democrats". They are of socialists, but with liberal spice"
Then there are "Moderaterna", the most right-wing party in the government - which are corresponding to the "Democrats" of the US. Then of course, there are the "left party", some of them are communists, some are capitalists.
So, due to the fact that we ARE a democracy, we are not a truly socialistic. However, I dont think it would pose any problem if power was moved to the more socialistic left wing.
Whoa! I live in Sweden, which is socialistic, and I have never had an AK-47 pointed to my face. In fact, socialism also exploits the greed in human beings, just not to the extent capitalism does. The difference is that I, as a student, recieives 100$ a month, just for studying. It's quite enough to give me food - if my parents did not buy all such stuff for me - I generally use it to buy Red Bull, and hardware. But such thing can make it easier for people which did not have a good start, like me. Also, the Swedish government is now into a project with $1 billion in it, which aims to have provided broadband to the ENTIRE Swedish population in 2002. That would not happen in a capitalistic society.
I'm not saying which form of government is superior, that's a matter of taste, and personal preference, but I will say that you are quite wrong when you state that capitalism is "infinetly" better. Better at some points, yes, but socialism provides me, on the country, with broadband, and I like that.
You cant build a house from dollar bills either, and you can't eat coints.
I find it rather pathetic that we should pay for thing such as living space and food. Those things should be provided by society for you. That way people could focus on achieving greater things, instead of worrying about if they are going to pay the rent.
In 25 years, the goverment have given all citizens a nano-assember, that can make bread. In 25 years, the public will finally realize that milk is fraud, (osteroporosis is caused by lack of excersice, not lack of milk) and that 95% of the american population is lactose intolerant to some extent.
Again, who benefits from "a lot of good design work"? The user? Nope.
I disagree here. Javascript can be used for other things than popups and eyecandy, you know. Navigation, for instance.
I always try to use design to give the user a clear overview of my site. Javascript can really help be do that. A site in pure HTML is generally inferior to a site with javascript IF DONE WELL. For instance - have you seen WebBrain? It's a java GUI to the DMOZ and it works GREAT. It truly enhances overview and browsing is faster.
Hmm, not if if the anonymity of the network would somehow be secured, so that it would be very hard to sort out these servers. Don't know how this would be done though, but some netdude could probably do it.
Aslo, how the heck could RIAA keep looking for the biggest gnutella servers all the time? As people get more bandwidth and processing power, wouldn't hey just let their computers running while being at work or school. The servers would probably be to many and growing too fast if this method was implemented.
... And the record companies that take 75% of profit (It must be more, but for the sake of argument, lets say 75%)
It's those 75% I don't want to pay - I'd love to support the artists. However, I wish that Napster would send the money DIRECTLY to the artists, and not to the stinking Record Companies - since they mostly use the money to make nifty cd cases and promote britney spears (or whatever their flagship-celebrity is), and of course, pay myriads of people who sit behind desks and sue.
Nah, MS is a huge corp becuase it was the only choice for the average joe. Now there is Mac OS and soon Linux to choose from (when it gets a little bit simpler to use).
BUT Microsoft has been proven to use strong-arm tactics and using their monopoply to smack Linux and Mac out of the way. That is why Microsoft got their ass hot in trial. This will give Linux and Mac a break from MS bullying and perhaps gain some ground, so that we could get competition, instead of monopoly.
You are entirely correct, digidave, I like capitalism too, but I personally think it fails when things such as price fixation, patent-infringing and strong-arm tactics start florishing, because THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT ME (as a buyer)
Slashdot Mirror
Passport has extremely high potential. I tried it out a while back... I went to Slate.com after signing up for a passport, and clicked the "Sign In" button. Now, I had never visited Slate, nor did they have any data on me prior to this. When I clicked "Sign In", that was it. I was registered. No filling out forms. No nothing. From a usability standpoint, Passport has tremendous potential.
With that said, the fees are absolutely horrendous. I checked it out - $1000/year for "small implementations", and $10000 for other. While I'm all for paying for a good solution, I can't see how having a single-sign-in solution on any website would generate $10000/year in profits.
I'm sure it would catch on like wildfire if they just lowered the fees to more manageble levels.
Oh, and buy paypal.
Arstechnica has a very good article on what the heck .NET is.
Passport is extremely convenient. Especially under Windows XP. I have a passport account, and I have MS messenger running, which keeps track of it for me.
Now, when I get to a passport enabled site where I've never been before, like the Slate, for instance, I can register and login by doing the following:
1. Click the ".NET sign in" button
That's fucking it! I'm signed in! My cat could do it! Compare this to registering at your average forum, where you have to fill in personal info at yet another site, create yet another account, and verify your email for the 234:th time, and then enter your username and password to login.
From a convenience perspective, Passport is the best thing since sliced bread, and WILL be successful for that reason. Passport is more good than it is bad, and therefore Joe Schmoe will get one.
It really doesn't matter what the Slashdotters with tinfoil hats with 26 email accounts do or say. If microsoft can manage to keep up with a reasonable quality of security, they will succeed with this.
Here in sweden, we have had GPRS for quite some time - comptetition is starting out just this summer, though, earlier there has been only one major company which supported it. I have had the service for some time now, using an m505 and an Ericsson r520m, and it works bloody well! Fast, stable, and always connected, and a fucking awesome coverage.
Anyway, I thought the prices here was disgusting, but the US are just plain BAD - here in Sweden, I pay appox 2.36$/MB. We have 3 major GSM providers here in sweden, and only one of them supports GPRS, however, number two will start rolling it out this summer, and that will make the prices drop somewhat. I hope.
JavaScript is not realted to Java in any way except the name! Initially, Sun called it LiveScript, but since Java was a hot technology at the time, they decided to call it JavaScript. So bascially, it's about a cool name. Besides, Microsoft doesn't use javascript, remember? The use JScript.
And I always thought it was the environment which had to pay for the low gas prices... Touché!
Dont get me wrong here - I'm not a vegetarian, but I eat very little meat, since it makes me feel better, from a health standpoint. I have no problem morally/ethically with eating animals.
Our teeth are indeed designed to eat meat. But isn't this because humans must be very adaptive? Humans were vegetarian from the beginning, according to many scientists. The reason for eating meat seems to be survival. It's MUCH easier to survive on meat due to the high fat it has, and it easier to manage. I.e. animals are better at surviving cold environments than plants. Humans can eat and digest lots of things - but we generally are better off, from a health standpoint to eat vegetarian food. I know I am!
And no, there are absolutely no problems whatsoever to attain protein, Vitamin B12 or Zinc when one is veggie, no - that is just popular science.
For you non-search eninge gurus - many search engines stop at "?" in URL:s. Look at the slashdot url in your browser window. Most search engines refuse to index past the "?" sign. Stupid. I think an easier solution would be to make the search engines stop stopping at "?". Google already does this, of course.
Why in the hells should dynamic content NOT be index. All the best sites ARE dynamic with databases.
The interesting part is here:
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
If porn sites were allowed to bid on terms such as "hotmail", the search engine would quickly turn into a useless dump of links. Thus - people would stop using it. In effect - the search engines need to disallow such practice to survive. I don't think that using money instead of time/skill to optimize your keywords is very different - nither ethically nor in quality.
I do not think that the pay-for-placement in search engines must be a bad thing. If you have to pay to get into the top positions of a search engine - you are simply more likely to spend time on the site, and the other way around (you spend time - you pay). This makes sure that the top listings are truly relevant for your search, and if they aren't just scroll past the paid ones until you find good ones. By the way - let's face it - getting high in search engines is not about having a good site. It's about knowing how to optimize you site for the search engines (of course, having a good site will help you a lot). Pay-per-listing is really just making use of money, instead of skill/time.
Whoa there! I feel that I must proclaim some reality here. I have strong doubts that these sites are getting this kind of CPM, and if they are, they are indeed very lucky. I know these for facts, since I am a webmaster. Not very experienced at all, but I move around and listen to the old men on the forums and absorb their wisdom. Listen:
You can advertise on yahoo for as cheap as 1$ CPM. But generally, somethingawful get 2$ since thay are supported by a big compan, but that is moste likely on the decline. UGO members, such as HardOCP, makes 1$ CPM last I heard. Small to medium sites get about 0.50$ effective CPM.
The above is for banners. Popups are slightly higher - about 3$, but in reality it's much lower, since people close them before they even load.
$12 CPM is totally out of reach for 99% of the web sites. I guess that some sites manage to get it, but hey - there will always be extremes - I know from sitepointforums that got $17000 for making a web site. It's very extreme and rare, but it gets done.
Damdest thing - di you know "Eckel" is very similiar to the Swedish word "äckel" which means "disgusting person"?
IT COSTS VERY LITTLE TO GET WEBHOSTING???? I disagree as hell. Webhosting is cheap if you don't get a bigger site, that needs a dedicated server and 57 GB of bandwidth every month. Check out the prices at RackSpace and see what such a server costs.
It's when your site grows big and popular that it ends being a work of love. Capitalism is practially stuffed down your throat in this situation. Sad but true.
Well, Sweden is nor a socialist society, nor is it a capitalist society. This is how it stands: Our goverment is dominated by the "Social Democrats". They are of socialists, but with liberal spice"
Then there are "Moderaterna", the most right-wing party in the government - which are corresponding to the "Democrats" of the US. Then of course, there are the "left party", some of them are communists, some are capitalists. So, due to the fact that we ARE a democracy, we are not a truly socialistic. However, I dont think it would pose any problem if power was moved to the more socialistic left wing.
Whoa! I live in Sweden, which is socialistic, and I have never had an AK-47 pointed to my face. In fact, socialism also exploits the greed in human beings, just not to the extent capitalism does. The difference is that I, as a student, recieives 100$ a month, just for studying. It's quite enough to give me food - if my parents did not buy all such stuff for me - I generally use it to buy Red Bull, and hardware. But such thing can make it easier for people which did not have a good start, like me. Also, the Swedish government is now into a project with $1 billion in it, which aims to have provided broadband to the ENTIRE Swedish population in 2002. That would not happen in a capitalistic society. I'm not saying which form of government is superior, that's a matter of taste, and personal preference, but I will say that you are quite wrong when you state that capitalism is "infinetly" better. Better at some points, yes, but socialism provides me, on the country, with broadband, and I like that.
You cant build a house from dollar bills either, and you can't eat coints. I find it rather pathetic that we should pay for thing such as living space and food. Those things should be provided by society for you. That way people could focus on achieving greater things, instead of worrying about if they are going to pay the rent.
In 25 years, the goverment have given all citizens a nano-assember, that can make bread. In 25 years, the public will finally realize that milk is fraud, (osteroporosis is caused by lack of excersice, not lack of milk) and that 95% of the american population is lactose intolerant to some extent.
Again, who benefits from "a lot of good design work"? The user? Nope.
I disagree here. Javascript can be used for other things than popups and eyecandy, you know. Navigation, for instance. I always try to use design to give the user a clear overview of my site. Javascript can really help be do that. A site in pure HTML is generally inferior to a site with javascript IF DONE WELL. For instance - have you seen WebBrain? It's a java GUI to the DMOZ and it works GREAT. It truly enhances overview and browsing is faster.
Hmm, not if if the anonymity of the network would somehow be secured, so that it would be very hard to sort out these servers. Don't know how this would be done though, but some netdude could probably do it.
Aslo, how the heck could RIAA keep looking for the biggest gnutella servers all the time? As people get more bandwidth and processing power, wouldn't hey just let their computers running while being at work or school. The servers would probably be to many and growing too fast if this method was implemented.
> "talk about worthless"
Remember, there are things outside of the Economical world, Dude.
... And the record companies that take 75% of profit (It must be more, but for the sake of argument, lets say 75%) It's those 75% I don't want to pay - I'd love to support the artists. However, I wish that Napster would send the money DIRECTLY to the artists, and not to the stinking Record Companies - since they mostly use the money to make nifty cd cases and promote britney spears (or whatever their flagship-celebrity is), and of course, pay myriads of people who sit behind desks and sue.
What about online gaming? Everquest, diablo, starcraft blah blah
Oh, Please! I would easily pay several hundred dollars per month if I COULD GET 56k> access where I live.
Nah, MS is a huge corp becuase it was the only choice for the average joe. Now there is Mac OS and soon Linux to choose from (when it gets a little bit simpler to use).
BUT Microsoft has been proven to use strong-arm tactics and using their monopoply to smack Linux and Mac out of the way. That is why Microsoft got their ass hot in trial. This will give Linux and Mac a break from MS bullying and perhaps gain some ground, so that we could get competition, instead of monopoly.
You are entirely correct, digidave, I like capitalism too, but I personally think it fails when things such as price fixation, patent-infringing and strong-arm tactics start florishing, because THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT ME (as a buyer)