I can just see people buying these, trying to use it outside their home time zone, and being greeted with a message stating that the EULA on the watch only allows it to be used in one time zone.
That's stupid. Microsoft wants to make money; how exactly would they make money off of such a restriction?
The X-Box is still #3 and losing them money, and Bob was an unmitigated disaster.
Yeah, if you point out only the two largest MS failures of the past ten years (and the Xbox just barely qualifies yet), your point seems valid. But what about the other hundreds of products they've released? The scroll mouse has become ubiquitous since MS introduced it, there's a success story.
Do they really think that Joe Six-Pack wants and needs something like this?
Maybe not Joe Six-pack, but Joseph Sharper-Image can probably be counted on the buy one.
From where I'm sitting (on my high horse), the Amiga was a machine that was optimized for running democode on, and not much else. I think it's more impressive that PC coders got some of those effects to run on a basic VGA display, even if Amiga coders could get something that looked 25% better on the Amiga's more advanced graphics systems.
Re:Where would /. be without cross linking?
on
You Can't Link Here
·
· Score: 2
It's just further proof that powers in charge do not consider us to be individuals with an intellect but just as simple-minded consumers who must be herded towards maximum profit margin.
Maximum profit margin? Eh-eh. I'd guess most content providers on the web are desperately trying just to break even.
Not that I think it's particularly wise for content providers to irritate their audience with pop-unders and overly restrictive user agreeements, but I can at least see why they might try these things.
Content isn't free, and anyone who expected things to stay the way they were in 1995 is a fool.
By hosting a public web site, you are implicitly giving everyone on the internet permission to view the pages on the site. Simply put, you have no way nor any right to "deny other sites permission to link" to you.
As much a I hate to admit it the WMA format is better than MP3.
Better sounding? Quite possibly.
Better, in the general sense? No way I'm going to rate a proprietary format from a single (and anticompetitive) company, over a ubiquitous, well-defined open format that anyone can get a license to create their own implementation of.
Not that it addresses to root of your complaint, but why are you so opposed to replacing a 2-year-old IDE disk? For $100 you'll get one that's several times larger and somewhat faster than the drive you have, with its buggy firmware requiring a kernel patch...
Example: "open source produces bad GUIs and have no usability experts". Huh? Have you guys never heard of all those usability studies Sun contributed to GNOME? Or the GNOME/KDE Usability Project? Or the GNOME Human User Interface Guide? I mean, they've been here for months, yet people still talk as if they don't exist.
Sure, they exist. So what? A huge number of Open Source project still have nothing to do with those things. Standards are meaningless if no one follows them.
Why can I not trade in my two boxed Photoshop-for-PC copies and receive Photoshop 7 for Mac OS X?
I dunno, ask Adobe.
I can't understand why you seem to be upset with Apple (and Steve Jobs personally) for not offering this incentive when it's not even theirs to offer in the first place...
I don't get tabbed browsing. I can only pay attention to one page at a time, why would I want to have multiple pages open but only be able to look at one?
Besides which, UI guidelines promote a "one window, one document" correlation. Microsoft's MDI was an abomination, one they're thankfully beginning to move away from, but a very similar school of thought persists in concepts like tabbed browsing.
Yes, but you can convert those bits in your account on the bank's mainframe into cold, hard, cash by making a withdrawal transaction. Money is real property, i.o.w. it is or can be made tangible.
Domains are not real property. You can't convert a domain into something you can hold in your hand.
The problem with hashcash is that it discriminates against mail nodes with less processing power. The small company with an excessively powerful 1.4Ghz dual-processor mail box might have cycles to spare, but what about the other small company with an old P90?
Additionally, no one will be itching to adopt this, as it creates additional overhead for EVERYONE. There's no performance improvement pushing the upgrade, in fact all mail servers would take a significant performance hit because they'd have to use up cycles computing hashes instead of simply pushing data from the spool out onto the network.
No spammer has ever made any money by spamming me yet, so do you think they will make less money if I filter their emails and never look at them?
No, but they WILL send out more emails so they can continue making the same profit with the reduced response rates due to increased filtering.
Filtering is a band-aid, no matter how accurate or how transparent it is. The only real solution is to stop spam at the source. And while legislation is itself another band-aid (at least until a better mail system, one that's not susceptible to spammers' tricks, is developed and universally implemented), it'll at least reduce the bleeding.
The problem with Cogswell Polytech is that most students think of it as a safety school, only to be attended if you get kicked out of the Spacely Institute of Technology.
Yes, websites have operating expenses. And yes, websites want to and deserve to make a profit. (You seem to be under the impression that print media doesn't also have the expenses of IT staffing for some reason, but that's a different issue.)
You haven't addressed the parent poster's point, though, which is that many of them are TOO greedy. Instead of making 10 cents for every article, they're trying to get 150 cents. That's more than most people are willing to pay. Instead, the site ends up collecting zero cents.
The point of 'micropayments' (god I hate that term) is that you make up for the smallness of each transaction with volume. Most people won't think twice about paying a nickel to view a page, and will do it over and over again.
It won't work for all types of content, but to call the entire system 'stupid' is to not recognize the system's potential.
The page linked to has very little to do with micropayments, or the philosophy of collecting money for access to web content. All it is is a HOWTO describing one method of setting up access restrictions using a semi-automatically generated whitelist.
It's a trivial solution that would only be useful for trivial sites. How much are YOU willing to pay per year for access to a trivial site?
Slashdot Mirror
patents should only extend as far as a multiple of the current technological turnover.
1000000x is a multiple...
I can just see people buying these, trying to use it outside their home time zone, and being greeted with a message stating that the EULA on the watch only allows it to be used in one time zone.
That's stupid. Microsoft wants to make money; how exactly would they make money off of such a restriction?
The X-Box is still #3 and losing them money, and Bob was an unmitigated disaster.
Yeah, if you point out only the two largest MS failures of the past ten years (and the Xbox just barely qualifies yet), your point seems valid. But what about the other hundreds of products they've released? The scroll mouse has become ubiquitous since MS introduced it, there's a success story.
Do they really think that Joe Six-Pack wants and needs something like this?
Maybe not Joe Six-pack, but Joseph Sharper-Image can probably be counted on the buy one.
Waaah waaah it's all PC shit waaah! <-- you
From where I'm sitting (on my high horse), the Amiga was a machine that was optimized for running democode on, and not much else. I think it's more impressive that PC coders got some of those effects to run on a basic VGA display, even if Amiga coders could get something that looked 25% better on the Amiga's more advanced graphics systems.
It's just further proof that powers in charge do not consider us to be individuals with an intellect but just as simple-minded consumers who must be herded towards maximum profit margin.
Maximum profit margin? Eh-eh. I'd guess most content providers on the web are desperately trying just to break even.
Not that I think it's particularly wise for content providers to irritate their audience with pop-unders and overly restrictive user agreeements, but I can at least see why they might try these things.
Content isn't free, and anyone who expected things to stay the way they were in 1995 is a fool.
By hosting a public web site, you are implicitly giving everyone on the internet permission to view the pages on the site. Simply put, you have no way nor any right to "deny other sites permission to link" to you.
As much a I hate to admit it the WMA format is better than MP3.
Better sounding? Quite possibly.
Better, in the general sense? No way I'm going to rate a proprietary format from a single (and anticompetitive) company, over a ubiquitous, well-defined open format that anyone can get a license to create their own implementation of.
Not that it addresses to root of your complaint, but why are you so opposed to replacing a 2-year-old IDE disk? For $100 you'll get one that's several times larger and somewhat faster than the drive you have, with its buggy firmware requiring a kernel patch...
Example: "open source produces bad GUIs and have no usability experts". Huh? Have you guys never heard of all those usability studies Sun contributed to GNOME? Or the GNOME/KDE Usability Project? Or the GNOME Human User Interface Guide? I mean, they've been here for months, yet people still talk as if they don't exist.
Sure, they exist. So what? A huge number of Open Source project still have nothing to do with those things. Standards are meaningless if no one follows them.
If you have to cut back on essentials because you're making less than $50K, you need to learn some damn spending habits.
P.S. an XBox is not an essential.
Why can I not trade in my two boxed Photoshop-for-PC copies and receive Photoshop 7 for Mac OS X?
I dunno, ask Adobe.
I can't understand why you seem to be upset with Apple (and Steve Jobs personally) for not offering this incentive when it's not even theirs to offer in the first place...
* no tabbed browsing - wtf?
I don't get tabbed browsing. I can only pay attention to one page at a time, why would I want to have multiple pages open but only be able to look at one?
Besides which, UI guidelines promote a "one window, one document" correlation. Microsoft's MDI was an abomination, one they're thankfully beginning to move away from, but a very similar school of thought persists in concepts like tabbed browsing.
Logs are also used to track things like 'unique users' these days. Most online businesses need to have this kind of demographic information available.
every registrar out there can be done for false advertising, as they are stating that you are buying property
Show me one ad where any registrar has ever claimed this.
If you were BUYING PROPERTY, you would never have to renew your registration, would you? Buying is a one-time transaction.
Yes, but you can convert those bits in your account on the bank's mainframe into cold, hard, cash by making a withdrawal transaction. Money is real property, i.o.w. it is or can be made tangible.
Domains are not real property. You can't convert a domain into something you can hold in your hand.
I'm guessing YANAL...
Explain how Microsoft was able to trademark the word "Windows", then.
Who says that the name of the software would be protected by GPL?
The software name is trademarked. GPL is based off of copyright. Completely separate concepts.
Especially since the legislation will do nothing.
This might keep the Florida 21-year-old unwed mother of 6 children from spamming me from her dial-up ISP of the week.
So are you saying legislation won't reduce spam, or it will reduce spam? Make up your mind.
The problem with hashcash is that it discriminates against mail nodes with less processing power. The small company with an excessively powerful 1.4Ghz dual-processor mail box might have cycles to spare, but what about the other small company with an old P90?
Additionally, no one will be itching to adopt this, as it creates additional overhead for EVERYONE. There's no performance improvement pushing the upgrade, in fact all mail servers would take a significant performance hit because they'd have to use up cycles computing hashes instead of simply pushing data from the spool out onto the network.
No spammer has ever made any money by spamming me yet, so do you think they will make less money if I filter their emails and never look at them?
No, but they WILL send out more emails so they can continue making the same profit with the reduced response rates due to increased filtering.
Filtering is a band-aid, no matter how accurate or how transparent it is. The only real solution is to stop spam at the source. And while legislation is itself another band-aid (at least until a better mail system, one that's not susceptible to spammers' tricks, is developed and universally implemented), it'll at least reduce the bleeding.
The problem with Cogswell Polytech is that most students think of it as a safety school, only to be attended if you get kicked out of the Spacely Institute of Technology.
Where did you get this idea that geeks are not creative? I'm confused.
Oh, so it's Southern Methodist...
Then again, if you're in New Jersey, EZ-Pass never works anyway...
Yes, websites have operating expenses. And yes, websites want to and deserve to make a profit. (You seem to be under the impression that print media doesn't also have the expenses of IT staffing for some reason, but that's a different issue.)
You haven't addressed the parent poster's point, though, which is that many of them are TOO greedy.
Instead of making 10 cents for every article, they're trying to get 150 cents. That's more than most people are willing to pay. Instead, the site ends up collecting zero cents.
The point of 'micropayments' (god I hate that term) is that you make up for the smallness of each transaction with volume. Most people won't think twice about paying a nickel to view a page, and will do it over and over again.
It won't work for all types of content, but to call the entire system 'stupid' is to not recognize the system's potential.
The page linked to has very little to do with micropayments, or the philosophy of collecting money for access to web content. All it is is a HOWTO describing one method of setting up access restrictions using a semi-automatically generated whitelist.
It's a trivial solution that would only be useful for trivial sites. How much are YOU willing to pay per year for access to a trivial site?