People should lose sleep over their RFID tagged passports. The federal government has repeatedly demonstrated incompetance when it comes to our safety and privacy. We should be able to trust them, but we obviously can't. The public needs to keep a close eye on them. Otherwise even more mistakes will be made.
I generally agree, but as long as some of our energy supply relies on other countries it's a government issue. And as long as we keep using oil from countries that consider us an enemy it's a national security issue. If all of our oil came from domestic sources (which is easily possible) then I'd be in total agreement with you.
Real promotion of non-"fossil" fuel won't happen in the US for a very very long time. Energy companies have more influence in Washington than any other lobbyists. A bunch of Senators, Representatives, and the highest levels of the executive branch made their fortunes in "fossil" fuels. Terrorist attacks which only happened because of strong US influence in oil-rich countries haven't deterred the use of "fossil" fuels. If the deaths of thousands of Americans isn't enough to enrage the majority of people into making a difference then nothing is.
For large companies energy efficiency is already a consideration because of cost. You can't set up a datacenter without estimating the cost of the electric bill and backup generators. So that makes me even more curious as to why they're wasting time and money on this. Basic economic demands promote energy efficiency in servers.
Such a tiny percentage of users delete their cookies that Google is willing to take the loss of ad revenue. It's far better than the huge cost of click fraud (loss of valuable advertisers, etc.).
I bookmark the main page (losing all the redirect info in the process) and come back to it after I've finished whatever I was doing.
You've heard of cookies? This is how affiliate systems work. Part of the deal between publisher and advertiser is the duration of the cookie (i.e. action required within x days of click).
No, you haven't committed fraud. Yes, there is a difference to the advertiser. An advertiser would much rather pay for a click that results in a sale than a click that results in only a page view. There's a reason many large potential advertisers ignore google.
The action they're going to track will typically be a sale. There will be no fraud if the only way to commit the fraud is to make an actual purchase. This is already how product affiliate systems work. If people click through an ad but don't buy a product the merchant doesn't pay. No one's going to write bots to automatically buy products which cost more than the advertising.
Fraud results in distrust by advertisers. Many advertisers ignore adsense because of the high level of fraud. They don't want to pay for something that brings no sales. With enough fraud this whole business model disappears.
CPA is a good model for Google and a very good model for advertisers. Advertisers, in effect, can pay for only the advertising which results in a sale.
Small publishers, however, will likely suffer. The vast majority of click-throughs on text ads result in no sale. Yet publishers still get paid for it. The only way this would balance out would be for the payment to publishers per action to go up. That would be fair. But I think the small bloggers who like to use adsense will lose revenue from this model.
He would have gotten an intelligent rebuttal if he made an intelligent post. Starting a post with "delusional" and "meds" and making a very heated attack against another poster with no facts gets him a flamebait mod. It also gets him set to "Foe" so the people who want to actually discuss things intelligently can easily ignore him.
First of all, the "fringe geeks" you refer to encompass millions of people. Second, major media regularly reports negative news about Microsoft. Windows-based viruses have been front page news. Every day you can find an editorial bashing Microsoft. I can't talk to an "average" Windows user for long without hearing complaints about the software and questions as to why the creator does nothing to fix problems. General public perception of Microsoft is most definitely negative.
You can't just judge Microsoft based on their products. Their tactics are destructive. They may have the best word processor on the planet. I don't care. I will not give money to a company that hurts my industry and the overall economy if I don't need to.
I don't like to think of business as a battle. Every conflict is not a war. But Microsoft chooses to make it one.
And that's the problem. The public perception is still Microsoft as a weapon of war. And it's the perception because that's still how Microsoft operates. Going beyond the open/closed debate they need to stop treating IT as a battleground. As soon as they switch from a war mentality to a peace and cooperation mentality things will go a lot smoother. For as long as they make a fight out of things there will be trouble. Maybe one day they'll learn there's actually money to be made while at peace with others.
When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin.
The problem with this logic is that insurance companies are not forced (or at least should not be forced) to cover people who don't wear a helmet or seat belt. They can say, "Fine, we'll insure you, but if you want compensation you must take safety precautions." I'm against laws that protect people from themselves. There is usually no reason that others would have to pay for the stupidity of some who choose not to wear helmets or seatbelts. And if your insurance company chooses to compensate for stupidity then you should be able to go find another insurance company which does not.
Of course I'm speaking more in ideals. Laws regulating insurance companies and such do not agree with me on this. So I'm just left to dream.
The one place where using the python wrapper for wxWidgets can really pay off is user scripting or plug-ins. If your app's written in python it's quite easy to allow users to write plug-ins to your app in python. Otherwise you'd have to connect your C++ app to the python interpreter to give the same ability.
I used wxPython for a while because I think it's a great alternative to VB. Coming from the VB world it was a big step up with a small learning curve. It's a good way for Windows desktop developers to get into Linux desktop development.
This is complete OS virtualization, not emulation. So you're running Windows in its own environment, windowing system and all. If it was a Windows emulator then the windowing system calls from applications would go to the emulator and it could handle it any way it chooses, including integration with the OS X desktop. But here applications are running completely inside Windows, so there's no way to break it out of the root window.
The home market isn't the only market on the planet. Parallels is perfect for web developers who like to work on Macs but need to test in IE, for example. Obviously virtualization is aimed mostly at the corporate desktop and software developer markets. That's where the money is.
Slashdot Mirror
People should lose sleep over their RFID tagged passports. The federal government has repeatedly demonstrated incompetance when it comes to our safety and privacy. We should be able to trust them, but we obviously can't. The public needs to keep a close eye on them. Otherwise even more mistakes will be made.
Right, because no one could walk around an airport or through a train with a suitecase containing an RFID reader.
I generally agree, but as long as some of our energy supply relies on other countries it's a government issue. And as long as we keep using oil from countries that consider us an enemy it's a national security issue. If all of our oil came from domestic sources (which is easily possible) then I'd be in total agreement with you.
Real promotion of non-"fossil" fuel won't happen in the US for a very very long time. Energy companies have more influence in Washington than any other lobbyists. A bunch of Senators, Representatives, and the highest levels of the executive branch made their fortunes in "fossil" fuels. Terrorist attacks which only happened because of strong US influence in oil-rich countries haven't deterred the use of "fossil" fuels. If the deaths of thousands of Americans isn't enough to enrage the majority of people into making a difference then nothing is.
For large companies energy efficiency is already a consideration because of cost. You can't set up a datacenter without estimating the cost of the electric bill and backup generators. So that makes me even more curious as to why they're wasting time and money on this. Basic economic demands promote energy efficiency in servers.
Such a tiny percentage of users delete their cookies that Google is willing to take the loss of ad revenue. It's far better than the huge cost of click fraud (loss of valuable advertisers, etc.).
I bookmark the main page (losing all the redirect info in the process) and come back to it after I've finished whatever I was doing.
You've heard of cookies? This is how affiliate systems work. Part of the deal between publisher and advertiser is the duration of the cookie (i.e. action required within x days of click).
No, you haven't committed fraud. Yes, there is a difference to the advertiser. An advertiser would much rather pay for a click that results in a sale than a click that results in only a page view. There's a reason many large potential advertisers ignore google.
Google already offers conversion tracking. It's javascript embedded in the page displayed after the "action". It's very commonly used on large sites.
The action they're going to track will typically be a sale. There will be no fraud if the only way to commit the fraud is to make an actual purchase. This is already how product affiliate systems work. If people click through an ad but don't buy a product the merchant doesn't pay. No one's going to write bots to automatically buy products which cost more than the advertising.
This CPA model is already very common. See Commission Junction and other affiliate networks.
Fraud results in distrust by advertisers. Many advertisers ignore adsense because of the high level of fraud. They don't want to pay for something that brings no sales. With enough fraud this whole business model disappears.
CPA is a good model for Google and a very good model for advertisers. Advertisers, in effect, can pay for only the advertising which results in a sale.
Small publishers, however, will likely suffer. The vast majority of click-throughs on text ads result in no sale. Yet publishers still get paid for it. The only way this would balance out would be for the payment to publishers per action to go up. That would be fair. But I think the small bloggers who like to use adsense will lose revenue from this model.
I question whether incentivize is actually a word
According to the American Heritage Dictionary it is.
He would have gotten an intelligent rebuttal if he made an intelligent post. Starting a post with "delusional" and "meds" and making a very heated attack against another poster with no facts gets him a flamebait mod. It also gets him set to "Foe" so the people who want to actually discuss things intelligently can easily ignore him.
Hmm... nope. Still boring. ;)
First of all, the "fringe geeks" you refer to encompass millions of people. Second, major media regularly reports negative news about Microsoft. Windows-based viruses have been front page news. Every day you can find an editorial bashing Microsoft. I can't talk to an "average" Windows user for long without hearing complaints about the software and questions as to why the creator does nothing to fix problems. General public perception of Microsoft is most definitely negative.
You can't just judge Microsoft based on their products. Their tactics are destructive. They may have the best word processor on the planet. I don't care. I will not give money to a company that hurts my industry and the overall economy if I don't need to.
I don't like to think of business as a battle. Every conflict is not a war. But Microsoft chooses to make it one.
turn the battle ship
And that's the problem. The public perception is still Microsoft as a weapon of war. And it's the perception because that's still how Microsoft operates. Going beyond the open/closed debate they need to stop treating IT as a battleground. As soon as they switch from a war mentality to a peace and cooperation mentality things will go a lot smoother. For as long as they make a fight out of things there will be trouble. Maybe one day they'll learn there's actually money to be made while at peace with others.
When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin.
The problem with this logic is that insurance companies are not forced (or at least should not be forced) to cover people who don't wear a helmet or seat belt. They can say, "Fine, we'll insure you, but if you want compensation you must take safety precautions." I'm against laws that protect people from themselves. There is usually no reason that others would have to pay for the stupidity of some who choose not to wear helmets or seatbelts. And if your insurance company chooses to compensate for stupidity then you should be able to go find another insurance company which does not.
Of course I'm speaking more in ideals. Laws regulating insurance companies and such do not agree with me on this. So I'm just left to dream.
You can't possibly be surprised. This is standard operating procedure for Microsoft.
The one place where using the python wrapper for wxWidgets can really pay off is user scripting or plug-ins. If your app's written in python it's quite easy to allow users to write plug-ins to your app in python. Otherwise you'd have to connect your C++ app to the python interpreter to give the same ability.
I used wxPython for a while because I think it's a great alternative to VB. Coming from the VB world it was a big step up with a small learning curve. It's a good way for Windows desktop developers to get into Linux desktop development.
This is complete OS virtualization, not emulation. So you're running Windows in its own environment, windowing system and all. If it was a Windows emulator then the windowing system calls from applications would go to the emulator and it could handle it any way it chooses, including integration with the OS X desktop. But here applications are running completely inside Windows, so there's no way to break it out of the root window.
Yeah, cause a keyword search would never turn it up....
The home market isn't the only market on the planet. Parallels is perfect for web developers who like to work on Macs but need to test in IE, for example. Obviously virtualization is aimed mostly at the corporate desktop and software developer markets. That's where the money is.