Saying "we don't really know how this coin is created" displays the author's fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon. You don't need to know the exact technical details- and I don't either- to understand that the process of bitcoin production is clearly defined and entirely transparent (for those who *do* understand the technical details). (*)
Of course, you *should* understand the principles of what has to be done, the nature of Bitcoin and the factors involved in it in general (such as the fact there will only ever be a finite number of Bitcoins). But saying that "we" (i.e. humanity) don't understand how it's created is nonsense; what he means is that *he* doesn't understand. "We" created the damn thing entirely ourselves along arbitrary lines!
IMHO, the real question is the philosophical one of whether Bitcoin's creation is an arbitrary, Sisyphian task and whether this makes any sense.
Also, the Bitcoin's value *is* fixed- a Bitcoin is worth 1 Bitcoin, just as a US Dollar is worth 1 US Dollar. Granted, in the real world the dollar is almost certainly a better measure of "absolute" value than the Bitcoin is at present. Still, this doesn't change the fact that in principle it has no more inherent value and stability than Bitcoin, only what it's worth against other currencies- and of course, the dollar is always going to be stable if you choose the dollar as your "stable" currency to measure it against.
(*) I was going to post this on the Forbes site too, but I notice the *first* comment there already made *exactly* the same point.
Some random guy on the internet is begging for money [..] Why should I believe this random guy can deliver what he is promising for that price?
Welcome to responsibility! No one expects you to blindly donate to something you don't believe will succeed. If you don't think they can succeed then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.
Well, he's quite entitled to voice his scepticism and/or criticism whether he intends "donating" or not. It's as simple as *that*. Matter of fact, if someone is soliciting donations, it's quite responsible for people to draw others' attention to potential shortcomings.
ONE comment, and you've already beaten me to the Val Kilmer joke...
Considering this is Slashdot, I'd have expected the obligatory joke "Iceman" reference to have been Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, not bloody Top Gun. I can't believe that I'm the first. Hand in your geek cards at once... >:-(
Anyway.... "Iceman had bad teeth? That's nothing, Firestar had BO and the other guy, er... could do what a spider can. Hang on, that last one's quite cool."
If Army is so cheap, how come I can hire a clown for my daughter birthday from the private sector?
Er, because the army doesn't, and has never dealt with the business of clowns, at least not intentionally.:)
Compare with the US Air Force, where planes and flying have some, er.... *minor* involvement in their raison d'etre.
Where's the Army clown here to entertain my daughter for cheaper, yet still more profit?
There aren't any, all the clowns gravitated towards the private sector.;-)
Disclaimer: I'm only saying this because I think your clowns analogy is rather silly.:-P I'm not concerned whether or not the US funds or doesn't fund an aerial display team I hadn't even heard of until today, and will never see since I don't plan on living there anyway. Your choice either way!
From their likening it to a laser printer, I'm assuming they're picking up "chiplets" instead of toner with a drum.
You're only assuming and guessing though... but that's not really your fault, because the article didn't explain any of this. Am I the only person that found it disappointing in terms of describing how *exactly* the process was supposed to work, rather than making generalised comparisons with a laser printer? A laser printer simply has to deposit a certain amount of a homogenous material in a given position, whereas this would have to deposit a specific component type (of a mixture) at a given location, and this major difference isn't addressed.
The closest it came to this was describing "microscopic electrical fields [that] control the precise placement of tiny electronic circuits — not just in the correct position, but with the proper orientation as well", but without saying how this was meant to work.
And the headline is self-contradictory. If there's a leak, then the container obiously doesn't hold.
Er, any normal reader knew damn well what it meant- it wasn't intended to mislead, and it didn't. You do realise that blatant pedantry is generally counter-productive towards one's case, since it looks like you have to resort to that rather than arguing the real issue.
That said, if we're playing that game, I'll point out that unless the tank emptied completely, then it's still holding *some* radioactive water... and it still has a leak. Ergo, it *is* a "tank holding radioactive water".:-P
While it's understandable, I'm not sure I'd call all the above "entirely straightforward".:-)
Also, when I said AmigaOne (the computer), I meant "Amiga Anywhere", which appears to be something to do with Java ME feature-phone software development... but whatever it is, nothing to do with the Amiga(!)
I *suspect* there was some moderate exaggeration for the sake of making a valid point(!)
Hi-Toro, Commodore, Escom, Gateway, Bill McEwen.
The Commodore name has been through the same number of post-demise owners: Escom, Tulip, Yeahronimo
Even assuming that *is* a complete list of all the *owners*, it doesn't account for the clusterf*** of licensing that is the Commodore IP rights, and more significantly, the Amiga IP rights.
As far as I know, the Amiga is split between the brand rights, the hardware rights, and the OS rights, all licensed to different people, changing over the years and subject to legal disputes. The latter two are aimed at getting the money off the few remaining diehard "Amiga" hobbyists, even though the current "Amiga" hardware has little to do with the original design.
There was also something called AmigaOne, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the original Amiga or its OS at all, but was sold by the then-current "Amiga" company a few years back.
Then there's also been transparent brand whoring, with the same people who recently launched the pretend "Commodore 64" (PC in a fake C64 case) also selling HTPC cases that had *nothing* to do with the Amiga under the Amiga 1000 name (and the like).
I can't keep track of this, and I don't care to either. There may as *well* have been 42 owners!
Did MSX even *exist* as a computer you could buy at any halfway normal retail store in the US, as opposed to importing one from Japan & paying more than you'd have spent to buy an Amiga 500?
Don't know personally, as I lived in the UK- however, I don't recall ever seeing one for sale here, and I don't know anyone who owned one.
Must have been *some* people who did as Mastertronic (a famous UK budget games software house) apparently made quite a few games for it, but it didn't seem to get much support at all in general.
The Sinclair QL... yeah, unlike its predecessor (the massively popular ZX Spectrum), that one didn't succeed even here, in its home market.
msx was still hugely popular. much more so than trs-80 and competed on the from mid 80's to late 80's market directly with c64.
That's *very* much dependent on where you lived.
MSX may have been a success in Japan- which is apparently where the concept was invented, and a lot of whose manufacturers were involved. And it also enjoyed success in certain European countries (but nothing like all of them) and elsewhere.
But in the major North American market- probably a far more disproportionate percentage of the world total than it is today- it went absolutely nowhere against the established C64. Similar in the UK where the ZX Spectrum was the undisputed leader of the pack with the C64 in strong second place; MSX was generally behind even the lesser-supported formats here (e.g. the BBC Micro, Atari 800, Commodore 16), I was barely aware of it at all- think I saw an MSX game for sale *once*(!)
Ah, XKCD: making cartoons of memes that have existed for 30 years. How unoriginal.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
Not really- the XKCD cartoon accepted and stated the "there are too many 'standards'" premise as its *setup*. The point it was making was regarding unilateral attempts to *solve* this problem and their unintended consequences.
FWIW, this may have something to say about open source. However, in the commercial world the problem is as much that various parties have a vested interest in ensuring that *their* solution is the "universal" one accepted. This applies even if there's already a more widely-accepted one that would otherwise have become standard and the new version in fact increases the risk of the market becoming fragmented.
For example, the dual layer version of DVD+R from the DVD+RW Alliance (DVD+R DL) came out quite a while before the rival DVD Forum (the DVD-R companies) had theirs ready. Hence +R DL was already dominant in terms of market share and pre-existing drive support. From a user point of view, there was no need for -R DL; it had negligible benefit (if any) over +R DL, was likely to be confused with +R DL while not being supported by older (+R DL only) writers and introducing another format and compatibility issue for no good reason.
No-one needed it (and +R DL remains dominant), but it suited the DVD Forum to give it a go anyway because DVD+R DL wasn't "their" format.
umm, duh? What's the point of making an awesome comment if it gets buried at the bottom and nobody reads it?
Er, yeah. Bad news if you think your comment was so damn "awesome" that it warranted that tedious attention grabbing... it wasn't.:-)
Basically, if everyone was as egotistical as you and followed the same trick every time, we'd end up- in effect- with strict chronological ordering and no nesting, which is a PITA to follow. As it would be if even a significant fraction of commenters did that (it'd still make the nesting near worthless).
Ironically, your comment had a similar effect on the geeky part of my brain.
You'd apparently posted a "reply" to something SCPRedMage said, which confused me briefly- nothing in their comment bore any relation to what was quoted and "replied to". I couldn't see any hidden comments, so... WTF was up with the nesting?
Until I twigged that your comment *had* been posted in that position but had nothing to do with the "parent"- you were in fact quoting (and addressing) the summary, but hadn't posted it as a top-level reply.
Hmm. This would have absolutely *nothing* to do with the fact that posting your comment in its correct (top level, end of thread chronological) position would have been much less favourable to its prominence than as an off-topic "reply" to the highest-placed "leaf comment" in the thread... would it?
Are you suggesting this as a serious possibility, or trying to illustrate (via ludicrousness) how unworkable such tactics would be unless we convert the Internet into something *totally* different to what it is today?
If the former, I'd like to point out that such tactics would be unworkable unless we converted the Internet into something totally different to what it is today.:-)
In all seriousness, there's no way that you'll *ever* be able to isolate any country on the Internet today from any other country- no matter how hard you try. Unless you totally isolate that country from *every* other one, and seal all holes, it'll still be possible to get through by indirect means.
"Secure Club"? Works well, provided there are absolutely *no* holes whatsoever in the outside of this massive infrastructure, and everyone is happy to go along with your plans exactly as you want them. Which is to say, it's not going to work in reality.
In fact, it's clear that even if the US decided it wanted to cut itself off entirely from *every* other country- while retaining approximately the same level of infrastructure within the US- it would be ludicrously difficult and unlikely to work.
As a side not he also recorverd some harddisks by placing them in the fridge to cool shaky electronics.
This one is actually quite a common tip for faulty HDDs, believe it or not, albeit with most versions I've heard recommending the freezer (and an appropriately sealed bag), not the fridge.
I have gotten PCS over the years that were working but loaded with dust. cleaning it out actually caused them to stop working, most likely due to static.
As the other person commented already, vacuum cleaners are likely to create a lot of static, as they have plastic parts and lots of static-inducing movement of motors. Did you actually touch the board etc. with the nozzle of the vacuum?
I'd consider blowing or sucking high pressure air from a vacuum cleaner (or similar) into a computer case with the nozzle at a moderate (safe) distance from physical contact. (Maybe even *that* is a crap idea). But I sure as hell *wouldn't* want to be actually poking the nozzle around in there, banging it against the board as I tried to get the dust out of the corners and the like(!)
And a great example of Betteridge's law of headlines [wikipedia.org].
Betteridge's law of headlines is mentioned only in the articles that it fits.
Not at all; while in the past I myself have criticised Slashdotters who assume that Betteridge automatically applies to *every* headline in the form of a question, this one *is* a case where the writer "knows the story is probably bollocks, and doesn't actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still wants to run it".
To nitpick, in this case the "story" is actually a (mis-)summary of others' stories that don't actually make this claim- which perhaps is what you meant- but IMHO the spirit in which Betteridge was clearly intended still applies.
there neighbour started doing this 4 only about and as of now took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Renault 4. go to,
"There" neighbour bought a "top of the range Renault 4"? Seriously?!
It makes a change from lying to us that he bought a Ferrari, or some other bullshit... perhaps you're trying to appeal to people who like 1960s and 70s French economy cars...:-)
If you're making anything IE6 compatible now a days, you should be shot.
The question is- why? Do web designers have the responsibility to actively force people off IE6?
I have to admit that- from a selfish point of view- I'm glad Google, MS etc. decided to stop supporting IE6 and start carrot-and-sticking people off it, because (aside from the security issues) IE6 was a nonstandard piece of crap that consumed time getting things to work and required bloated, stupid hacky code that got in the way of a more modern design and wasted time and resources that could have been much better spent. Personally, I've finally felt able to stop giving a t**s about getting sites to work in IE6 as its market share has shrunk massively- and will have shrunk even further in the near future.
But the problem with IE6 was that it was around for so damn long and became so damn established that even when technology was moving on it was out there in signficant numbers long after being superseded, like a damn millstone around designers' necks.
So yeah, I hate it, and I'm glad it's gone- but back to the question. If I was still deciding to support it, should I really be shot?!
I've never clicked on a single ad in any of my apps. I don't use an adblocker, I just don't click on ads. So they'd make more money from me by providing a paid for app.
Maybe they would, but you're a single data point and only count if you can show you're part of a group large enough to be worthwhile catering for. They're not going to write a non-ad version of the app specifically for you (well, not unless you pay them silly money (^_^)).
Yeah, and I'm sure there's very little street crime in a totalitarian police state too.
There probably is- they're just unlikely to let anyone report it freely. (Were you to try to do this, it's likely that you'd be in a *lot* more trouble than the actual criminals).
Slashdot Mirror
Saying "we don't really know how this coin is created" displays the author's fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon. You don't need to know the exact technical details- and I don't either- to understand that the process of bitcoin production is clearly defined and entirely transparent (for those who *do* understand the technical details). (*)
Of course, you *should* understand the principles of what has to be done, the nature of Bitcoin and the factors involved in it in general (such as the fact there will only ever be a finite number of Bitcoins). But saying that "we" (i.e. humanity) don't understand how it's created is nonsense; what he means is that *he* doesn't understand. "We" created the damn thing entirely ourselves along arbitrary lines!
IMHO, the real question is the philosophical one of whether Bitcoin's creation is an arbitrary, Sisyphian task and whether this makes any sense.
Also, the Bitcoin's value *is* fixed- a Bitcoin is worth 1 Bitcoin, just as a US Dollar is worth 1 US Dollar. Granted, in the real world the dollar is almost certainly a better measure of "absolute" value than the Bitcoin is at present. Still, this doesn't change the fact that in principle it has no more inherent value and stability than Bitcoin, only what it's worth against other currencies- and of course, the dollar is always going to be stable if you choose the dollar as your "stable" currency to measure it against.
(*) I was going to post this on the Forbes site too, but I notice the *first* comment there already made *exactly* the same point.
I wrote a journal entry about this in 2006 and it was on the front page but that discussion seems to have been lost to the ages.
And isn't *that* ironic? Don't you think....?
Some random guy on the internet is begging for money [..] Why should I believe this random guy can deliver what he is promising for that price?
Welcome to responsibility! No one expects you to blindly donate to something you don't believe will succeed. If you don't think they can succeed then you don't donate. It's as simple as that.
Well, he's quite entitled to voice his scepticism and/or criticism whether he intends "donating" or not. It's as simple as *that*. Matter of fact, if someone is soliciting donations, it's quite responsible for people to draw others' attention to potential shortcomings.
The fact that people have a free choice whether or not to donate or buy doesn't negate their right to criticism- implying that it does is just a variant of the annoyingly common "you don't have to buy it, so you've no right to criticise it" fallacy that keeps popping up here.
How is this insightful?
With a little trickery in the title line and a little lack of observation on your part ;-)
You're not ambitious enough with your titles! (^_^)
Not like he cares, he will Carreon regardless...
Hmm.... I don't know if that was an intentional reference, but assuming it was, how about...
Carreon at Your Inconvenience
Carreon Behind
Carreon Cruising
Carreon Dick
ONE comment, and you've already beaten me to the Val Kilmer joke...
Considering this is Slashdot, I'd have expected the obligatory joke "Iceman" reference to have been Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, not bloody Top Gun. I can't believe that I'm the first. Hand in your geek cards at once... >:-(
Anyway.... "Iceman had bad teeth? That's nothing, Firestar had BO and the other guy, er... could do what a spider can. Hang on, that last one's quite cool."
*ahem*
If Army is so cheap, how come I can hire a clown for my daughter birthday from the private sector?
Er, because the army doesn't, and has never dealt with the business of clowns, at least not intentionally. :)
Compare with the US Air Force, where planes and flying have some, er.... *minor* involvement in their raison d'etre.
Where's the Army clown here to entertain my daughter for cheaper, yet still more profit?
There aren't any, all the clowns gravitated towards the private sector. ;-)
:-P I'm not concerned whether or not the US funds or doesn't fund an aerial display team I hadn't even heard of until today, and will never see since I don't plan on living there anyway. Your choice either way!
Disclaimer: I'm only saying this because I think your clowns analogy is rather silly.
From their likening it to a laser printer, I'm assuming they're picking up "chiplets" instead of toner with a drum.
You're only assuming and guessing though... but that's not really your fault, because the article didn't explain any of this. Am I the only person that found it disappointing in terms of describing how *exactly* the process was supposed to work, rather than making generalised comparisons with a laser printer? A laser printer simply has to deposit a certain amount of a homogenous material in a given position, whereas this would have to deposit a specific component type (of a mixture) at a given location, and this major difference isn't addressed.
The closest it came to this was describing "microscopic electrical fields [that] control the precise placement of tiny electronic circuits — not just in the correct position, but with the proper orientation as well", but without saying how this was meant to work.
And the headline is self-contradictory. If there's a leak, then the container obiously doesn't hold.
Er, any normal reader knew damn well what it meant- it wasn't intended to mislead, and it didn't. You do realise that blatant pedantry is generally counter-productive towards one's case, since it looks like you have to resort to that rather than arguing the real issue.
:-P
That said, if we're playing that game, I'll point out that unless the tank emptied completely, then it's still holding *some* radioactive water... and it still has a leak. Ergo, it *is* a "tank holding radioactive water".
While it's understandable, I'm not sure I'd call all the above "entirely straightforward". :-)
Also, when I said AmigaOne (the computer), I meant "Amiga Anywhere", which appears to be something to do with Java ME feature-phone software development... but whatever it is, nothing to do with the Amiga(!)
Actually the figure is somewhat smaller [than 42]
I *suspect* there was some moderate exaggeration for the sake of making a valid point(!)
Hi-Toro, Commodore, Escom, Gateway, Bill McEwen.
The Commodore name has been through the same number of post-demise owners: Escom, Tulip, Yeahronimo
Even assuming that *is* a complete list of all the *owners*, it doesn't account for the clusterf*** of licensing that is the Commodore IP rights, and more significantly, the Amiga IP rights.
As far as I know, the Amiga is split between the brand rights, the hardware rights, and the OS rights, all licensed to different people, changing over the years and subject to legal disputes. The latter two are aimed at getting the money off the few remaining diehard "Amiga" hobbyists, even though the current "Amiga" hardware has little to do with the original design.
There was also something called AmigaOne, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the original Amiga or its OS at all, but was sold by the then-current "Amiga" company a few years back.
Then there's also been transparent brand whoring, with the same people who recently launched the pretend "Commodore 64" (PC in a fake C64 case) also selling HTPC cases that had *nothing* to do with the Amiga under the Amiga 1000 name (and the like).
I can't keep track of this, and I don't care to either. There may as *well* have been 42 owners!
Did MSX even *exist* as a computer you could buy at any halfway normal retail store in the US, as opposed to importing one from Japan & paying more than you'd have spent to buy an Amiga 500?
Don't know personally, as I lived in the UK- however, I don't recall ever seeing one for sale here, and I don't know anyone who owned one.
Must have been *some* people who did as Mastertronic (a famous UK budget games software house) apparently made quite a few games for it, but it didn't seem to get much support at all in general.
The Sinclair QL... yeah, unlike its predecessor (the massively popular ZX Spectrum), that one didn't succeed even here, in its home market.
msx was still hugely popular. much more so than trs-80 and competed on the from mid 80's to late 80's market directly with c64.
That's *very* much dependent on where you lived.
MSX may have been a success in Japan- which is apparently where the concept was invented, and a lot of whose manufacturers were involved. And it also enjoyed success in certain European countries (but nothing like all of them) and elsewhere.
But in the major North American market- probably a far more disproportionate percentage of the world total than it is today- it went absolutely nowhere against the established C64. Similar in the UK where the ZX Spectrum was the undisputed leader of the pack with the C64 in strong second place; MSX was generally behind even the lesser-supported formats here (e.g. the BBC Micro, Atari 800, Commodore 16), I was barely aware of it at all- think I saw an MSX game for sale *once*(!)
Ah, XKCD: making cartoons of memes that have existed for 30 years. How unoriginal.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
Not really- the XKCD cartoon accepted and stated the "there are too many 'standards'" premise as its *setup*. The point it was making was regarding unilateral attempts to *solve* this problem and their unintended consequences.
FWIW, this may have something to say about open source. However, in the commercial world the problem is as much that various parties have a vested interest in ensuring that *their* solution is the "universal" one accepted. This applies even if there's already a more widely-accepted one that would otherwise have become standard and the new version in fact increases the risk of the market becoming fragmented.
For example, the dual layer version of DVD+R from the DVD+RW Alliance (DVD+R DL) came out quite a while before the rival DVD Forum (the DVD-R companies) had theirs ready. Hence +R DL was already dominant in terms of market share and pre-existing drive support. From a user point of view, there was no need for -R DL; it had negligible benefit (if any) over +R DL, was likely to be confused with +R DL while not being supported by older (+R DL only) writers and introducing another format and compatibility issue for no good reason.
No-one needed it (and +R DL remains dominant), but it suited the DVD Forum to give it a go anyway because DVD+R DL wasn't "their" format.
umm, duh? What's the point of making an awesome comment if it gets buried at the bottom and nobody reads it?
Er, yeah. Bad news if you think your comment was so damn "awesome" that it warranted that tedious attention grabbing... it wasn't. :-)
Basically, if everyone was as egotistical as you and followed the same trick every time, we'd end up- in effect- with strict chronological ordering and no nesting, which is a PITA to follow. As it would be if even a significant fraction of commenters did that (it'd still make the nesting near worthless).
Obligatory [non-matched opening parenthesis] xkcd
Ironically, your comment had a similar effect on the geeky part of my brain.
You'd apparently posted a "reply" to something SCPRedMage said, which confused me briefly- nothing in their comment bore any relation to what was quoted and "replied to". I couldn't see any hidden comments, so... WTF was up with the nesting?
Until I twigged that your comment *had* been posted in that position but had nothing to do with the "parent"- you were in fact quoting (and addressing) the summary, but hadn't posted it as a top-level reply.
Hmm. This would have absolutely *nothing* to do with the fact that posting your comment in its correct (top level, end of thread chronological) position would have been much less favourable to its prominence than as an off-topic "reply" to the highest-placed "leaf comment" in the thread... would it?
Are you suggesting this as a serious possibility, or trying to illustrate (via ludicrousness) how unworkable such tactics would be unless we convert the Internet into something *totally* different to what it is today?
:-)
If the former, I'd like to point out that such tactics would be unworkable unless we converted the Internet into something totally different to what it is today.
In all seriousness, there's no way that you'll *ever* be able to isolate any country on the Internet today from any other country- no matter how hard you try. Unless you totally isolate that country from *every* other one, and seal all holes, it'll still be possible to get through by indirect means.
"Secure Club"? Works well, provided there are absolutely *no* holes whatsoever in the outside of this massive infrastructure, and everyone is happy to go along with your plans exactly as you want them. Which is to say, it's not going to work in reality.
In fact, it's clear that even if the US decided it wanted to cut itself off entirely from *every* other country- while retaining approximately the same level of infrastructure within the US- it would be ludicrously difficult and unlikely to work.
As a side not he also recorverd some harddisks by placing them in the fridge to cool shaky electronics.
This one is actually quite a common tip for faulty HDDs, believe it or not, albeit with most versions I've heard recommending the freezer (and an appropriately sealed bag), not the fridge.
I have gotten PCS over the years that were working but loaded with dust. cleaning it out actually caused them to stop working, most likely due to static.
As the other person commented already, vacuum cleaners are likely to create a lot of static, as they have plastic parts and lots of static-inducing movement of motors. Did you actually touch the board etc. with the nozzle of the vacuum?
I'd consider blowing or sucking high pressure air from a vacuum cleaner (or similar) into a computer case with the nozzle at a moderate (safe) distance from physical contact. (Maybe even *that* is a crap idea). But I sure as hell *wouldn't* want to be actually poking the nozzle around in there, banging it against the board as I tried to get the dust out of the corners and the like(!)
And a great example of Betteridge's law of headlines [wikipedia.org].
Betteridge's law of headlines is mentioned only in the articles that it fits.
Not at all; while in the past I myself have criticised Slashdotters who assume that Betteridge automatically applies to *every* headline in the form of a question, this one *is* a case where the writer "knows the story is probably bollocks, and doesn't actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still wants to run it".
To nitpick, in this case the "story" is actually a (mis-)summary of others' stories that don't actually make this claim- which perhaps is what you meant- but IMHO the spirit in which Betteridge was clearly intended still applies.
there neighbour started doing this 4 only about and as of now took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Renault 4. go to,
"There" neighbour bought a "top of the range Renault 4"? Seriously?!
:-)
It makes a change from lying to us that he bought a Ferrari, or some other bullshit... perhaps you're trying to appeal to people who like 1960s and 70s French economy cars...
If you're making anything IE6 compatible now a days, you should be shot.
The question is- why? Do web designers have the responsibility to actively force people off IE6?
I have to admit that- from a selfish point of view- I'm glad Google, MS etc. decided to stop supporting IE6 and start carrot-and-sticking people off it, because (aside from the security issues) IE6 was a nonstandard piece of crap that consumed time getting things to work and required bloated, stupid hacky code that got in the way of a more modern design and wasted time and resources that could have been much better spent. Personally, I've finally felt able to stop giving a t**s about getting sites to work in IE6 as its market share has shrunk massively- and will have shrunk even further in the near future.
But the problem with IE6 was that it was around for so damn long and became so damn established that even when technology was moving on it was out there in signficant numbers long after being superseded, like a damn millstone around designers' necks.
So yeah, I hate it, and I'm glad it's gone- but back to the question. If I was still deciding to support it, should I really be shot?!
If parent and grandparent were going for Karma, they should know that +Funny gives no Karma and hence would be rather pointless.
Well day-yum. Why didn't somebody tell me sooner?
Your ID is way older than mine, and I've known this for donkey's years...
I've never clicked on a single ad in any of my apps. I don't use an adblocker, I just don't click on ads. So they'd make more money from me by providing a paid for app.
Maybe they would, but you're a single data point and only count if you can show you're part of a group large enough to be worthwhile catering for. They're not going to write a non-ad version of the app specifically for you (well, not unless you pay them silly money (^_^)).
Yeah, and I'm sure there's very little street crime in a totalitarian police state too.
There probably is- they're just unlikely to let anyone report it freely. (Were you to try to do this, it's likely that you'd be in a *lot* more trouble than the actual criminals).