From the tone of website owners who dislike ad blockers it sounds as though the mere act of blocking ads from being shown damages the site's revenue. I'm presuming that people paying for ads or companies that serve ads track their distribution by the number of times an ad is loaded by a certain site or page.
I don't think it does YET. I think it will once Firefox market share gets a bit more and companies start realising their ad dollars aren't being well invested online if the most popular extension for the most popular browser is one that blocks ads.
My question here is, if Adblock works by blocking the actual loading of the ad by the server thus denying revenue to a website why can't it be designed to load the ad but simply not display it? Would this not prevent websites from losing revenue to ad blockers?
Prrrrrobably something could be done but I suspect it would be pretty site specific.
I sort of forsee a bit of a battle (akin to spammers vs spam fighters) in this area in the future.
In the end, all I want is to not see annoying flashing, blinking, video animated crap in loud colors all over my screen when I'm trying to read. My goal is not to deny a site revenue. I don't imagine there are many people out to intentionally damage a site's revenue but they hate the way advertisements are presented.
Yep that's a fair point. We try to avoid annoying ads, but the reality is the MORE annoying an ad, the more money you're paid for it. We're currently researching less invasive ways that still make money but are not as much of a pain in the ass for people to absorb.
I started using TiddlyWiki ( http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ ) for stuff like this. Its basically a.html document with magic javascript so it acts like a wiki. It's obviously only useful if you carry it around with you - Google notebook would be more useful if you are going to be online all the time. But it's pretty handy.
I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.
Yes, sometimes they slow page loads, yes, sometimes they're annoying, but they keep sites free.
On2 [wikipedia.org] is the company that provides the video/audio codecs for video in the Flash plugin. (i.e. The technology used by sites like Youtube.) The inclusion of these codecs in JavaFX means that JavaFX will be able to play movies intended for a Flash player.
It's sort of cool, but I wish we could get away from the On2 codecs.
Their licensing fees for high-end stuff are ridiculous. We were pretty stoked once h264 support made its way into Flash because it meant we could ditch our reliance on the expensive On2 stuff and stick with the open source encoders (I'd happily buy a commercial h264 encoder but I can't find a decent one that works as well and is as flexible as the open source alternatives).
I would have much preferred to see Sun go with h264 as their video codec of choice here - for selfish reasons, mostly (so we don't have to re-encode all our h264 content to get it working on Java devices!).
All these things to me though just highlight the need for a true, open, competitive video codec. I'm holding out hopes for Dirac and Theora but from what I've read they still need a bit of work on the quality - plus I think some of the encoding tools are a bit lacking (? could be wrong, haven't looked for a while).
However, I see this as "make the US pay for it". If a non-planet killing asteroid is targeting a nation which has not contributed to the fund/program, should we defend it? The security system on my house doesn't protect my neighbor's, (although my tax dollars which pay for the police, do.).
Heh, I always just assumed the US government will do it under the guise of protecting the world, when really, it's just a space superiority weapons system
The reason the difference is important is this scheme isn't to fight shoplifting, the theft of a physical item.
Actually reading the standards, I think it looks like it's an attempt to combat both copyright infringement AND physical theft/shoplifting. One of the items listed (albeit the last one, in the 'valuable additions' section) is "audible notification at store exit if not deactivated", which reads to me like a normal anti-theft device. Although I suppose it could just be a courtesy thing for the customer to let them know their game has not been properly 'activated' after their purchase, also is it odds with the item above it, 'visual cue to activation on package'.
These standards are very vague and informal; looks to me more like a list of things just to generate discussion on the topic for consideration. There's no technical information or even an attempt to come up with a half-assed proposal on how this scheme would work.
Notably absent on the technical side is how a game is copy protected after it as been 'activated'. Short of watermarking or stamping the game digitally in such a way as to uniquely bind it to the purchaser (via their credit card or something?) I don't see what's to stop people activating a game, taking it home, and uploading it to their friends (aside from the usual DRM systems that we've come to know and love).
Also of interest to me was the 'Ability to deactivate and reactivate' - although I suspect it's not there to help protect our right of first sale, but rather just to help deal with internal support issues.
It's an interesting idea but seems far to early to critique effectively. It might have some success stopping shoplifting, which I guess is a probably more of a concern for retail outlets than it is for publishers.
Many of those systems will be corporate boxes and nobody will be sitting at them to monitor or notice anything, meanwhile a site that offers "last minute" shipping could be taken offline at the...well...last minute, costing them billions in lost sales. $10 mil would be a small price to pay to avoid that.
Question: I'm not too savvy with the intricacies of DNS, but - could an organisation that was threatened with such a blackmail attempt do something like this:
1) duplicate your web infrastructure on a number of different networks 2) lower the TTL on your DNS records to something more responsive 3)/if/ you are attacked, update DNS records to point to your alternate hosting (..repeat as necessary until you run out of sites or they give up)
This is under the assumption that such an attack once launched would be hard to stop and/or redirect, which is quite probably not the case, I guess.
In cases like this, the correct thing to do would have the book in question fall immediately into the Public Domain.
I have thought something like this for a long time, but mostly in the context of out-of-availability video games, music, and movies.
If the publishers of a particular piece of media aren't prepared to actually make it available commercially any more, then your options as a consumer have been limited. You could only really do without. Until the Internet, and your options increased to doing without or pirating it.
I don't hate the idea of IP ownership as much as some, but it seems obvious copyright law is in need of serious reform, and starting with out-of-production stuff seems like a good place to kick off.
I used to think this sort of thing works. Sometimes it does. But more often, I suspect, it doesn't.
Publishers keep putting DRM on games for the same reason they keep making World War 2 games. It's a pretty simple reason:
People keep buying them.
We MUST vote with our dollars to make these policies change. That's the only real way to put pressure on a company. The tech-savvy Slashdot crowd accounts for only a tiny percent of the total market - we could send them one million emails, but they'll still send ten million copies, showing there's no reason for them to change their ways.
I've given up remonstrating publishers. I don't spend my money on DRM-based gamers (or media). I just do without and spend my time encouraging less tech-savvy friends to be aware of the issues involved. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, most people simply don't care enough.
Bay Area geography doesn't really favor Mass Transit. It's why BART basically sucks for commuting. With the exception of MUNI linking well to BART, most of the Public to Mass links suck.
I'm an Australian, and I've traveled a bit and spent a lot of time in San Fran, using the BART and MUNI to get from my relatives place in Pacifica to various places around.
I agree it sucks for commuting, unless the place you want to go happens to be on a connected line on the BART/MUNI lines. Fortunately most of the places I've been going to have been (well, not Pacifica - it's a fucking $40 cab fare from there to Daly City which I discovered last time).
I almost totally agree with the GP. I agree with some of what you said, but I think the Bay Area could (logistics aside - those fucking hills are a killer, not to mention quake-proofing everything) definitely benefit from improved public transport (using your nomenclature) around the city area. At the moment its a bit of a chore.
I've just come from spending 3 months in Europe and have been reminded again of the awesomeness of properly done transport systems. I think there's enough people in and around SF to justify a system (again, ignoring logistics, which I think would be the biggest roadblock there).
From the time I've spent in the US though, it'll be a long, long haul to get people out of cars onto public transport. It needs to be made cheap, clean, safe, and (most importantly) useful by having those links you're talking about.
I'd love to come to the US and see Euro/Japan style public transport to get around in. I really do not look forward to repeat visits and the fact that to get anywhere I have to drive or get a taxi.
Moderation is key. Online gaming and social networks have a nasty habit of eating people (metaphorically, of course). That needs to be prevented. But as long as they're in moderation, carefully balanced with other activities (and more to the point, activity) and monitored for safety, then these things can indeed be great learning tools for children.
It's an interesting challenge though trying to figure out what moderation is acceptable.
I'd have no problems with my kids (I don't have any, these are hypothetical kids, like the hypothetical sex I'd have to be having) playing 4 hours of team sport a day. I know they'd be outside, in the fresh air, getting excercise, learning team-building skills, with their friends, interacting in a (presumably) safe and monitored environment.
I would have problems with kids spending the same amount of time in front of WoW or something though. While you learn some new social skills etc in online worlds, I think people that already have some social skills will fare much better in the online world.
4. Compounded with #3, Microsoft Antivirus will be entering a well established field with plenty of household name competitors. Norton and McAffee are well known names that most consumers know and will probably opt for (quality of software notwithstanding).
Heh, like when they introduced Internet Explorer into a world that was used to using Netscape Navigator?!
Citation needed. Because as an Australian the only time I hear about internet filtering is here at slashdot. I'd be surprised if the vast majority of Australians know about the government's plans, let alone have an opinion on them.
I played some backyard cricket with some friends of mine on Sunday and mentioned the filter plan off just casually and was surprised when everyone gave me blank looks. I was with two lawyers, someone that works HR at a law firm, a systems architect - basically a bunch of people that read the news and lead active digital lifestyles and tend to know stuff like this, and they were blissfully unaware of the filter plan.
I sort of agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure it applies in this case. I'd understand the need for sonar in a combat situation or if there was significant risk of invasion or terrorist attack by, like, submarine, but that surely isn't the case.
Obviously nautical types need solid training on sonar but surely there's a way they can do this without impacting on the environment (? I say surely, maybe there isn't at all).
Here's a few things that are different and need to be considered when working from home. These are all things that I've been thinking about a lot for our company and, in my opinion, are very real issues for any company:
1) Local shortcuts on your PC with saved passwords to work resources (eg, VPN connection details, saved passwords in web browser to access work webmail/intranets, etc)
2) Log files for work-related chat - MSN, IRC, etc can sometimes contain confidential details.
3) Work documents and other files.
You can't just say you don't need a policy other than some vague notion of basic computer knowledge. Most people wouldn't think twice about downloading an important document and putting it on their computer at home.
The two obvious risks that might lead to information leakage are a) their computer is compromised b) their computer is stolen. It's just a standard risk management excercise from here on it.
Gay marriage, whether you're for or against, is a lot more important and relevant to some people than saving Bletchley.
I know, that's what I'm lamenting about. It seems to me that it would be "better" (in an as-objective-as-I-can-be sense of the word) for people to care more about preserving historical artifacts, buildings, etc. The case can certainly be made that Bletchley isn't exactly a Parthenon or a Pyramid, but it has a pretty significant place in world history (I know I am biased on this building in particular as a bit of a WW2 nerd).
The world needs some tolerance of others a lot more than it needs money.
Totally agree - starting with tolerance of gays would be a great start if it would free up ~$70m for something useful:)
...that just spent US$73 million dollars arguing over Proposition 8 - should there be same sex marriage in the state of California.
I'm not American, or gay, but it fucking shits me when I see this sort of money being thrown around - in the middle of this epic credit crisis, no less - over something as utterly trivial as whether or not gay people can get married, when there's actual, serious, important things all over the world that get practically no funding.
I don't know how much money came from where but the AP article I read indicates that (unsurprisingly) lots of it comes from various religious organisations, including the Mormon Church which various sources say have raised between US$8 million and US$17 million alone.
...I'd be already over this after just having had to do it all on Vista. Now they're going to have to go through the same thing immediately, which I suspect most of them won't bother doing, thinking "oh, it's years away from release".
I don't know if Vista driver support has improved significantly since its release (surely it has; I'm still happily running XP), but I suspect there's still a lot of consumer demand for certain/older driver fixes for Vista that are still on the TODO list for many hardware developers.
It's great, but at the same time I think the reasons behind it are sort of sad. The rest of the world doesn't want to see the US invading other countries for bullshit reasons, pissing away its potential for greatness in a never-ending, pointless, money-wasting war on terror that is unpopular both at home and internationally.
We're also sad about seeing attacks on the US, 9/11, American troops dying overseas, and the constant and growing hatred of the US not just amongst the Middle East but amongst the population of other "allied" nations.
International people are interested not really for the well-being of the USA and the well-being of Americans - but because the USA is one of the few countries that can royally fuck things up for a lot of people everywhere else around the world.
The thing that saddens and frustrates me more than anything else is the amazing achievements that have come from the USA - things like being the first country to put a man on the moon. I can't help but wonder where humanity might be if the last 8 years had gone a different way and all those trillions of dollars had been pumped into something other than a black hole. I'm sure the citizens of the USA would be better off and I feel that the rest of the planet would be as well.
I would have voted for Obama if I was a US citizen and I'm glad he got in. Like most of the non-US people I have hope for the first time since 9/11 that things might just have a small chance of getting better.
I would also not attach our foreign policy blunders to the collective views of the American people. The administration has consistently been a lone cowboy (pun intended) in this area - very few viewpoints had a place at the table in the last 8 years (even our own secretary of state was sidelined).
I'm not American either and I agree with the GP. I don't know who else to blame BUT the American people. I know lots of Americans and have lived there and travel there a lot for work and holidays - most of the Americans I know are utterly embarrassed by the state of the country (my aunt is so horrified she has been volunteering and donating a LOT of her time for Obama because she believes he's the only chance to save face and get out of the woeful situation the US is in now).
I can't quite reconcile how every American I meet though is hideously embarrassed by Bush, with the fact that he got another four years. So I have to blame the American people that I haven't met, of which there are quite a lot. My aunt likes to quote me to her friends when I told her "Americans just suck at voting".
Hopefully the US voters do a better job next time around (ie, this week:)
I'd like to completely not care about what happens in the US election. But it shapes the entire world because of the way you carry on in foreign policy. Sadly my country (Australia) has hitched our little red wagon to the US in a lot of ways - hopefully we can break the habit before it is too late.
Slashdot Mirror
From the tone of website owners who dislike ad blockers it sounds as though the mere act of blocking ads from being shown damages the site's revenue. I'm presuming that people paying for ads or companies that serve ads track their distribution by the number of times an ad is loaded by a certain site or page.
I don't think it does YET. I think it will once Firefox market share gets a bit more and companies start realising their ad dollars aren't being well invested online if the most popular extension for the most popular browser is one that blocks ads.
My question here is, if Adblock works by blocking the actual loading of the ad by the server thus denying revenue to a website why can't it be designed to load the ad but simply not display it? Would this not prevent websites from losing revenue to ad blockers?
Prrrrrobably something could be done but I suspect it would be pretty site specific.
I sort of forsee a bit of a battle (akin to spammers vs spam fighters) in this area in the future.
In the end, all I want is to not see annoying flashing, blinking, video animated crap in loud colors all over my screen when I'm trying to read. My goal is not to deny a site revenue. I don't imagine there are many people out to intentionally damage a site's revenue but they hate the way advertisements are presented.
Yep that's a fair point. We try to avoid annoying ads, but the reality is the MORE annoying an ad, the more money you're paid for it. We're currently researching less invasive ways that still make money but are not as much of a pain in the ass for people to absorb.
nice, thanks! I was looking for something like that
I started using TiddlyWiki ( http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ ) for stuff like this. Its basically a .html document with magic javascript so it acts like a wiki. It's obviously only useful if you carry it around with you - Google notebook would be more useful if you are going to be online all the time. But it's pretty handy.
Weird, why was this moderated Funny?
I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.
Yes, sometimes they slow page loads, yes, sometimes they're annoying, but they keep sites free.
Why do I never have mod points whenever MySQL threads come up?! good post.
On2 [wikipedia.org] is the company that provides the video/audio codecs for video in the Flash plugin. (i.e. The technology used by sites like Youtube.) The inclusion of these codecs in JavaFX means that JavaFX will be able to play movies intended for a Flash player.
It's sort of cool, but I wish we could get away from the On2 codecs.
Their licensing fees for high-end stuff are ridiculous. We were pretty stoked once h264 support made its way into Flash because it meant we could ditch our reliance on the expensive On2 stuff and stick with the open source encoders (I'd happily buy a commercial h264 encoder but I can't find a decent one that works as well and is as flexible as the open source alternatives).
I would have much preferred to see Sun go with h264 as their video codec of choice here - for selfish reasons, mostly (so we don't have to re-encode all our h264 content to get it working on Java devices!).
All these things to me though just highlight the need for a true, open, competitive video codec. I'm holding out hopes for Dirac and Theora but from what I've read they still need a bit of work on the quality - plus I think some of the encoding tools are a bit lacking (? could be wrong, haven't looked for a while).
However, I see this as "make the US pay for it". If a non-planet killing asteroid is targeting a nation which has not contributed to the fund/program, should we defend it? The security system on my house doesn't protect my neighbor's, (although my tax dollars which pay for the police, do.).
Heh, I always just assumed the US government will do it under the guise of protecting the world, when really, it's just a space superiority weapons system
The reason the difference is important is this scheme isn't to fight shoplifting, the theft of a physical item.
Actually reading the standards, I think it looks like it's an attempt to combat both copyright infringement AND physical theft/shoplifting. One of the items listed (albeit the last one, in the 'valuable additions' section) is "audible notification at store exit if not deactivated", which reads to me like a normal anti-theft device. Although I suppose it could just be a courtesy thing for the customer to let them know their game has not been properly 'activated' after their purchase, also is it odds with the item above it, 'visual cue to activation on package'.
These standards are very vague and informal; looks to me more like a list of things just to generate discussion on the topic for consideration. There's no technical information or even an attempt to come up with a half-assed proposal on how this scheme would work.
Notably absent on the technical side is how a game is copy protected after it as been 'activated'. Short of watermarking or stamping the game digitally in such a way as to uniquely bind it to the purchaser (via their credit card or something?) I don't see what's to stop people activating a game, taking it home, and uploading it to their friends (aside from the usual DRM systems that we've come to know and love).
Also of interest to me was the 'Ability to deactivate and reactivate' - although I suspect it's not there to help protect our right of first sale, but rather just to help deal with internal support issues.
It's an interesting idea but seems far to early to critique effectively. It might have some success stopping shoplifting, which I guess is a probably more of a concern for retail outlets than it is for publishers.
Many of those systems will be corporate boxes and nobody will be sitting at them to monitor or notice anything, meanwhile a site that offers "last minute" shipping could be taken offline at the...well...last minute, costing them billions in lost sales. $10 mil would be a small price to pay to avoid that.
Question: I'm not too savvy with the intricacies of DNS, but - could an organisation that was threatened with such a blackmail attempt do something like this:
1) duplicate your web infrastructure on a number of different networks /if/ you are attacked, update DNS records to point to your alternate hosting (..repeat as necessary until you run out of sites or they give up)
2) lower the TTL on your DNS records to something more responsive
3)
This is under the assumption that such an attack once launched would be hard to stop and/or redirect, which is quite probably not the case, I guess.
In cases like this, the correct thing to do would have the book in question fall immediately into the Public Domain.
I have thought something like this for a long time, but mostly in the context of out-of-availability video games, music, and movies.
If the publishers of a particular piece of media aren't prepared to actually make it available commercially any more, then your options as a consumer have been limited. You could only really do without. Until the Internet, and your options increased to doing without or pirating it.
I don't hate the idea of IP ownership as much as some, but it seems obvious copyright law is in need of serious reform, and starting with out-of-production stuff seems like a good place to kick off.
I used to think this sort of thing works. Sometimes it does. But more often, I suspect, it doesn't.
Publishers keep putting DRM on games for the same reason they keep making World War 2 games. It's a pretty simple reason:
People keep buying them.
We MUST vote with our dollars to make these policies change. That's the only real way to put pressure on a company. The tech-savvy Slashdot crowd accounts for only a tiny percent of the total market - we could send them one million emails, but they'll still send ten million copies, showing there's no reason for them to change their ways.
I've given up remonstrating publishers. I don't spend my money on DRM-based gamers (or media). I just do without and spend my time encouraging less tech-savvy friends to be aware of the issues involved. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, most people simply don't care enough.
Bay Area geography doesn't really favor Mass Transit. It's why BART basically sucks for commuting. With the exception of MUNI linking well to BART, most of the Public to Mass links suck.
I'm an Australian, and I've traveled a bit and spent a lot of time in San Fran, using the BART and MUNI to get from my relatives place in Pacifica to various places around.
I agree it sucks for commuting, unless the place you want to go happens to be on a connected line on the BART/MUNI lines. Fortunately most of the places I've been going to have been (well, not Pacifica - it's a fucking $40 cab fare from there to Daly City which I discovered last time).
I almost totally agree with the GP. I agree with some of what you said, but I think the Bay Area could (logistics aside - those fucking hills are a killer, not to mention quake-proofing everything) definitely benefit from improved public transport (using your nomenclature) around the city area. At the moment its a bit of a chore.
I've just come from spending 3 months in Europe and have been reminded again of the awesomeness of properly done transport systems. I think there's enough people in and around SF to justify a system (again, ignoring logistics, which I think would be the biggest roadblock there).
From the time I've spent in the US though, it'll be a long, long haul to get people out of cars onto public transport. It needs to be made cheap, clean, safe, and (most importantly) useful by having those links you're talking about.
I'd love to come to the US and see Euro/Japan style public transport to get around in. I really do not look forward to repeat visits and the fact that to get anywhere I have to drive or get a taxi.
Moderation is key. Online gaming and social networks have a nasty habit of eating people (metaphorically, of course). That needs to be prevented. But as long as they're in moderation, carefully balanced with other activities (and more to the point, activity) and monitored for safety, then these things can indeed be great learning tools for children.
It's an interesting challenge though trying to figure out what moderation is acceptable.
I'd have no problems with my kids (I don't have any, these are hypothetical kids, like the hypothetical sex I'd have to be having) playing 4 hours of team sport a day. I know they'd be outside, in the fresh air, getting excercise, learning team-building skills, with their friends, interacting in a (presumably) safe and monitored environment.
I would have problems with kids spending the same amount of time in front of WoW or something though. While you learn some new social skills etc in online worlds, I think people that already have some social skills will fare much better in the online world.
4. Compounded with #3, Microsoft Antivirus will be entering a well established field with plenty of household name competitors. Norton and McAffee are well known names that most consumers know and will probably opt for (quality of software notwithstanding).
Heh, like when they introduced Internet Explorer into a world that was used to using Netscape Navigator?!
Citation needed. Because as an Australian the only time I hear about internet filtering is here at slashdot. I'd be surprised if the vast majority of Australians know about the government's plans, let alone have an opinion on them.
I played some backyard cricket with some friends of mine on Sunday and mentioned the filter plan off just casually and was surprised when everyone gave me blank looks. I was with two lawyers, someone that works HR at a law firm, a systems architect - basically a bunch of people that read the news and lead active digital lifestyles and tend to know stuff like this, and they were blissfully unaware of the filter plan.
So I think you're spot on.
This is an interesting comment, but without references it sort of sounds a bit conspiracy theory-esque. Do you have references to back this claim up?
I sort of agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure it applies in this case. I'd understand the need for sonar in a combat situation or if there was significant risk of invasion or terrorist attack by, like, submarine, but that surely isn't the case.
Obviously nautical types need solid training on sonar but surely there's a way they can do this without impacting on the environment (? I say surely, maybe there isn't at all).
Here's a few things that are different and need to be considered when working from home. These are all things that I've been thinking about a lot for our company and, in my opinion, are very real issues for any company:
1) Local shortcuts on your PC with saved passwords to work resources (eg, VPN connection details, saved passwords in web browser to access work webmail/intranets, etc)
2) Log files for work-related chat - MSN, IRC, etc can sometimes contain confidential details.
3) Work documents and other files.
You can't just say you don't need a policy other than some vague notion of basic computer knowledge. Most people wouldn't think twice about downloading an important document and putting it on their computer at home.
The two obvious risks that might lead to information leakage are a) their computer is compromised b) their computer is stolen. It's just a standard risk management excercise from here on it.
Gay marriage, whether you're for or against, is a lot more important and relevant to some people than saving Bletchley.
I know, that's what I'm lamenting about. It seems to me that it would be "better" (in an as-objective-as-I-can-be sense of the word) for people to care more about preserving historical artifacts, buildings, etc. The case can certainly be made that Bletchley isn't exactly a Parthenon or a Pyramid, but it has a pretty significant place in world history (I know I am biased on this building in particular as a bit of a WW2 nerd).
The world needs some tolerance of others a lot more than it needs money.
Totally agree - starting with tolerance of gays would be a great start if it would free up ~$70m for something useful :)
...that just spent US$73 million dollars arguing over Proposition 8 - should there be same sex marriage in the state of California.
I'm not American, or gay, but it fucking shits me when I see this sort of money being thrown around - in the middle of this epic credit crisis, no less - over something as utterly trivial as whether or not gay people can get married, when there's actual, serious, important things all over the world that get practically no funding.
I don't know how much money came from where but the AP article I read indicates that (unsurprisingly) lots of it comes from various religious organisations, including the Mormon Church which various sources say have raised between US$8 million and US$17 million alone.
Pretty sad state of affairs, really.
...I'd be already over this after just having had to do it all on Vista. Now they're going to have to go through the same thing immediately, which I suspect most of them won't bother doing, thinking "oh, it's years away from release".
I don't know if Vista driver support has improved significantly since its release (surely it has; I'm still happily running XP), but I suspect there's still a lot of consumer demand for certain/older driver fixes for Vista that are still on the TODO list for many hardware developers.
It's great, but at the same time I think the reasons behind it are sort of sad. The rest of the world doesn't want to see the US invading other countries for bullshit reasons, pissing away its potential for greatness in a never-ending, pointless, money-wasting war on terror that is unpopular both at home and internationally.
We're also sad about seeing attacks on the US, 9/11, American troops dying overseas, and the constant and growing hatred of the US not just amongst the Middle East but amongst the population of other "allied" nations.
International people are interested not really for the well-being of the USA and the well-being of Americans - but because the USA is one of the few countries that can royally fuck things up for a lot of people everywhere else around the world.
The thing that saddens and frustrates me more than anything else is the amazing achievements that have come from the USA - things like being the first country to put a man on the moon. I can't help but wonder where humanity might be if the last 8 years had gone a different way and all those trillions of dollars had been pumped into something other than a black hole. I'm sure the citizens of the USA would be better off and I feel that the rest of the planet would be as well.
I would have voted for Obama if I was a US citizen and I'm glad he got in. Like most of the non-US people I have hope for the first time since 9/11 that things might just have a small chance of getting better.
Yep. This is why i'm hanging out for HTML's video tag and the Theora/Ogg online revolution!
I would also not attach our foreign policy blunders to the collective views of the American people. The administration has consistently been a lone cowboy (pun intended) in this area - very few viewpoints had a place at the table in the last 8 years (even our own secretary of state was sidelined).
I'm not American either and I agree with the GP. I don't know who else to blame BUT the American people. I know lots of Americans and have lived there and travel there a lot for work and holidays - most of the Americans I know are utterly embarrassed by the state of the country (my aunt is so horrified she has been volunteering and donating a LOT of her time for Obama because she believes he's the only chance to save face and get out of the woeful situation the US is in now).
I can't quite reconcile how every American I meet though is hideously embarrassed by Bush, with the fact that he got another four years. So I have to blame the American people that I haven't met, of which there are quite a lot. My aunt likes to quote me to her friends when I told her "Americans just suck at voting".
Hopefully the US voters do a better job next time around (ie, this week :)
I'd like to completely not care about what happens in the US election. But it shapes the entire world because of the way you carry on in foreign policy. Sadly my country (Australia) has hitched our little red wagon to the US in a lot of ways - hopefully we can break the habit before it is too late.
If Mozilla and webkit and co keep improving the performance of Javascript this might be a real option soon :)