Correct. However, the next-gen "mesh service providers" could build out lots of intermediate stationary nodes. On top of telephone poles (I know unlikely) or some other place. That could provide a basic amount of coverage. However, the beauty of mesh networking is that as more people come into an area, the bandwidth will increase. Shared spectrum works just the opposite...more people, less per person.
Now, whether or not that pipe dream will ever come about? Your guess is as good as mine. The concept was previously infeasible due to the processing power required. Now, we have some cell phones that have more processing power that desktop computer of just a few years ago.
The biggest question/holdup is going to be "what would the business model for mesh networking be?" There are very creative people, but *if* there were to be a ratified standard with a "true" promise of "free" coverage everywhere (maybe from my first paragraph). "Free" coverage where you could make VoIP calls from (more or less) anywhere. Then it wouldn't really be that difficult to sell $X00 phones that could take advantage of that capacity. (Basic marketing: You used to spend $50/mo. This pays for itself in 6-8 months, then you pay nothing more!!!) Give the service away, make money on the hardware...
Good luck convincing the current telcos and wireless telcos to get on board though.
I completely agree and a great point to bring to light. Doesn't matter which side you are on...they are both guilty.
Although it is sad, it is actually a great tactic. You get to pick and choose what issues you (as a politician) want to highlight/debate. Kinda like being able to pre-screen all questions before an interview. You can formulate your plans and catch-phrases well in advance.
Overall our political process has become, well, too political. It is somewhat humorous that one of the big "issues" this past election was "corruption." It was "corruption" that brought the republicans to power a few years back. Dems will probably take the new "good image" and run with it for a few years, then the tables will turn again. Something to the effect of "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Anyway, good little/. political debate. I'll look a little more closely at the book.
It does look like an interesting read as looking at issues from different points of view is a good thing. However I doubt it is as "straight shooting" or unbiased as it would like you to believe. I find myself pretty much right in the middle on most issues. I do take offense to the notion that *all* republicans are elitist and wealthy just as much as saying all democrats are your "average workers or below." I choose my side on those type of issues from the respective parties underlying philosophies.
All in all, I want to gov't to do less and have less power. I want my taxes lower. I think I can better distribute my money to beneficial causes than layers upon layers of bureaucracy.
Am I against welfare, no. Do I think that %50+ people on it should not be, yes. Does that mean I am an elitist for saying that those %50+ percent are "scamming the system" and should either get a job or starve...you decide. There are no free lunches, ever under any circumstances. However, it *seems* as though we are generating more and more people that think they are entitled to them. I work to put food on my table. Unless you are incapable of doing this same, you should work for that same privilege.
If you can come up with a plan that can even come close to implementing that, they I'd love to hear it. However, since these people that that you speak of happen to own/run/are employed by/profit from said horrible corporations, they are more or less inseparable for all practical purposes. Even if you do succeed in finding a way to stop corporations from directly giving to political entities, then there will *always* be a way around it. They could have another CE* who gets paid roughly the exact same amount that they previously donated. He/she may not really have to "work" that much at the corporation because they will be out wining and dining/funding politicians with their "personal finances" in their "spare time."
Whether or not corporations should have a say in gov't is debatable (I think they should have some since gov't affects them).
We've given the corporations entirely too much power.
That may be so, but corporations must have customers. You essentially "vote" for corporations and their underlying politics any time you purchase their products. So instead of complaining about corrupt corporations run a "campaign" against them. Encourage other to vote for the alternate candidate (buy their products). In a sense corporations are exactly like politicians. They become the voice of a group of people...so put the products you buy through the same scrutiny you put your political figures through.
Very true. Politics has become more like gambling. They probably have big boardroom meetings to decide which issue they are going "push" then hope that they chose the one that will a) be a decisive issue (abortion, gay marriage, etc) b) have a potential "event" (war, homeland security, etc)
I'm all for everyone voting, but I wish more people would actually think about what their vote really means and understand its consequences.
I'll go ahead and say it in the face of being considered "pro-corporation" but how else are corporations supposed to solve the problem?
Hypothetical example: You are a CEO of a company that produces widgets. There is a person/politician ("Bob") that sees the benefit of your product. He wants to ensure your company succeeds (for the betterment of society, haha). There is also another person/politician ("Larry") that things your widgets are harmful to society and in turn wants to levy additional sin/widget taxes. You, acting in the best interest of the corporation, are going to want the pro-widget politician, Bob, to win. If Bob were to win, you would get a tax break worth $500,000. If Larry were to win you would have additional taxes of $500,000. A $1mil swing in total costs for you. What business owner wouldn't want to contribute a decent percentage of that potential swing to "help" Bob?
Granted the situation is usually one where there is a lot more scandal involved. However, in some ways corporations have voting power just like citizens (except with contributions and usually with bigger budgets). People (at least should) vote for representatives that provide them what what they perceive will give them the best benefit. Why should corporations be/act any differently?
In a slightly more controversial/real situation. You are a corporation that disposes of toxic waste. While nobody would argue that having legislation that encourages lessening the environmental impact of industry processes is a good thing. If your industry is affected, then that additional legislation adds additional costs. Does that mean that you should resist the legislation? If you do, are you evil (for supporting the "destruction of the environment")? If everything was black and white, laws and life would be a lot easier. But as the saying goes there are two sides to every coin.
Lets not get into a spiritual/biblical debate here on/. But here is the definition of a fact
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. --Idioms 6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact. 7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact. 8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.
I don't know what you consider the Bible to be, but at worst it could be considered a history book. One that is just a recollection by normal people of the events they had witnessed (see #3).
Unless you can proveany of the accounts of the Bible false, then I will consider them facts.
We run across the same problems for every interface we set up as well. But the reason usually isn't that the base format isn't different (although that does occur). It usually arises from one company wanting some arbitrary piece of data that the official "spec" didn't outline in all of its loosey-goosey glory.
We are hopeful that v3 is going to solve some of the minor issues, but they just better not get too overzealous and not leave room for the "unexpected." However, it is going to take some major players to adopt the new format before it picks up any steam since it is such a large departure from the previous two major versions. Small to medium sized businesses aren't going to spend the development/research time to implement it until it starts affecting bottom line. I'm guessing at least 3-5 years before that happens.
Completely agree about the failures occurring during a change in power status.
You are also correct on the after-hours updates. However, *if* you were just worried about the energy consumption then you could have the IT dept be responsible for shutting down all of the computers. If they needed to install patches/whatever, they work till they are done, *then* then shut down the computers (via a script/remote procedure). If you didn't have anything to do...have a cron job set to run at 6...you can leave early all while keeping the appearance that you actually work hard/long hours. The *best* sysadmins are the laziest ones (in a good way though).
Despite the startup/shutdown problem, this is a good thing. I understand trying to think actions/policies all the way through, but don't dismiss them because you can find a single (not to mention easily solvable) problem.
However, if, eventually, enough people get sick enough of the MS locked down systems...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that has been the line for everything that the/. crowd has for anything that comes out of Redmond. "Just wait, people are going to get fed up with ___"
Its been said that people are going to boycot iTunes because they are going to get "fed up with DRM" but I'll believe that when I see it.
Its been said that people are going to boycot Vista because of "not supporting legacy hardware", "not supporting legacy software", "not providing adequate reason to upgrade", "increasing the DRM", "unfair pricing", and just about any other gripe conceivable. But when those people come back to reality they will sit and watch as Vista will eventually be on %60-70 of all desktops.
In a rush, so not even going to give my "I really do like FOSS" disclaimer (even though I don't need the karma). All I'm going to say is I hope the LinixBIOS project does take off and really become supported by all major manufacturers.
The 30% bump in price IS a big deal. Especially since it won't directly improve the structure being built. So instead of trying to get companies to foot the bill, why not have special interest groups (SIG) that raise funding. Then whenever a new project is being built, they can provide the difference in cost. That way people that really care can get involved with the SIG. Also, the companies that do take the SIG up on the offer can use that as publicity...publicity that would be essentially free.
Why do people make problems that can easily be solved so hard?
First, I haven't seen anyone being overly negative about the.net.
That said, I completely agree with you about.net being versatile. I got contracted to develop a PocketPC app. I chose c#.net because it was the easiest/best tool for the job. Well...as it turned out, they needed a desktop interface. I was able to use a lot of the PPC code in the desktop version without any real changes. So yes, in that sense it is versatile and powerful. The language really isn't that bad either (kinda javaish in the class hierarchy style)
Ok, now I've got to give my/. disclaimer. I am currently working on a web startup..net/microsoft is the last thing that I was thinking of for my platform. Frankly, Apache was a non-brainer. The core site is in php which ended up being more of a long-term business decision due to larger developer base. I really did think of going the perl route as it is probably my favorite language. Whenever I have a scripting need, it is the route I go. I'm currently using mysql as the database, but postgres is a very tempting option. I've been using pear::db so if I do want to switch in the future, the migration effort will be greatly reduced.
Back to getting a little more on topic..net is good. perl is good. Both WILL have job opportunities for at least the next 10 or so years. However, just as.net kinda burst on the scene, so will something else. Choose a job that you will enjoy. Money is great, but if you hate your job then your just going to waste it at bars trying to drown your sorrows.
Very true. However, it adds another step, and requires them to provide additional information about themselves (email address, domain, mail server it was sent from, etc) not to mention a corresponding increase in bandwidth/processing for the mail and additional page request. That additional information can also be gathered/compiled to more effectively prevent future attempts. I doubt that there will ever a *perfect* method to completely get rid of spam, etc. However, raising the cost associated with doing it will make the task less appealing. The hard part is making it difficult for spammers, but (too) hard for legitimate users.
So far, the approaches I've heard that I like the best are simple human question (what is X times/plus/minus X, what is the second word in this sentence, etc). Field obfuscation and embedded public/private keys are pretty useful techniques. Even though I don't like making a form only work when javascript is enabled, but there was a pretty clever little script that didn't apply the "action" of the form until is submitted would probably confuse a lot of spam bots as well.
However, I really haven't heard much mention of using email verification. Unless you are a registered user, then you have to provide an email address that a confirmation email is sent to. Once you click on the link that is sent in an email, then the comment becomes active. That is one method that I am currently using and so far so good (also engadget uses this method).
So, what are the drawbacks of the email verification method other than some people not wanting to give an email address just to post a comment? I think it significantly raises the "cost" of trying to spam since that process can't as easily be automated and would require them to have to check a specific email address (future attempts could be blacklisted by either email address or domain).
Have you played guitar hero? It can sound pretty bad when you aren't hitting the notes. Crank it up enough and the neighbors are going to complain even if you nail Cowboys From Hell on expert.
Guess we know which side of the fence you are on...haha
I like playing the role of devils advocate, so here goes.
Can they really be said to be "better" or "faster"
Ok, then name one company that can push technology better/fast than them? Don't use the "their technology sucks" or "their just pushing evil" rebuttal. Please, just name one company that does it better than them.
The outcome that Microsoft would really like -- one platform, under EULA, with per-seat licensing and DRM for all, Amen
Obviously, I think that would be the outcome just about *any* software corporation would want if they were actually able to achieve it. Ok, there are some companies that may have differing objectives. However, given the choice that IS the route that would be preferred. You may not personally agree and find that an atrocity. If that is true, then you are *probably* not a corporate officer that is trying to maximize your businesses profits. If you aren't trying to maximize your businesses profits, then you aren't going to make it very far in the corporate world. That said I do believe that open standards are a good thing and that you don't have to use those business practices to succeed. But again, if you were given the choice what you would really want?
if you compare it to what might exist in the absence of such a distorting influence
You are exactly right. We also might have world peace, with North Korea realizing that democracy is a better form of government if Bush wasn't president. It is really easy to make blanket statements without any way of determining the outcome otherwise. Great little FUD statement.
Microsoft didn't 'bring computers to business;' businesses would have bought computers in the absence of Microsoft
Man, you are on fire. If Henry Ford hadn't made horseless carriages mainstream, then yes we probably would have eventually still progressed to having cars and trucks like we do today? But using your thought process it is more like the popularity of ground transportation is the biggest setback in flying cars and teleportation. Microsoft has enabled business to use desktop computing whether or not you are too biased to see that. Now, whether or not they have done it in a manner that has realized the greatest benefit for the consumer/world at large is a completely different argument that your points are more valid in.
people in all corners of the globe pulled that technology to themselves; they bought and paid for it because of the benefits it offered
You sir are...correct. Hopefully people evaluate what is going to be the *best* decision for their company and act appropriately. The benefits that the software did offer hopefully outweighed the pricetag. The rest of your statements were a lot more FUD and bias.
MS didn't invent email, or CRM systems, or word processing, or spreadsheets -- and there's little that Microsoft offers that wouldn't be offered by somebody else in their stead
Again, right on the money. However, they do offer products that people find useful/desire. They have done it through having acceptable technology but better marketing. I'm sorry if Linux/whatever doesn't have the ability/desire/whatever to compete on the marking front. There are obviously much better products being offered. However, hoping that technology will sell itself is little more than a dream, so just deal with reality and we'll be a lot better off.
Being an open-source bigot is just as bad as being a patent everything/proprietary bigot. You obviously have a closed mindset about technology. You are on a board where most people tend to agree with you and feel justified in your thoughts because people here agree with you. I prefer open standards to proprietary ones. However, there are cases for both and I understan
Three words. You - Bun - Too or Ubuntu if you couldn't follow the phonetics.
Run it on my laptop and it *just works*. Running it on 4-5 servers and couldn't be happier.
I've never used SuSE for any extended period of time, so I can't compare/contrast, only give credit to the distribution that I know/use.
Quick thought on the article. I find the different thought patterns concerning microsoft hilarious. On one side there is nothing the company can do right. They could completely open source *ALL* of their entire software portfolio under the GPL and those people would still be yelling "its a trap." On the other side people admire their business/marketing savvy and realize that even if it doesn't come up with truly innovative solutions, it is able to push technology all over the globe (better/faster than any other company in the world).
Simple answer for the MPAA. Start patenting plots and situational humor. Then whenever people produce this non-sense content they can come after them with lawyers...that will keep them at bay.
As sarcastic as I was trying to seem, I bet there is probably someone sitting there thinking...man, that is a *great idea.
Completely off topic, but man do I miss *good* cartoons.
I keep telling my wife that when we have kids I'm going to stock up on tons of Looney Toons and stuff from the good ole days (probably more for my own enjoyment than the kids) and make the kids watch that instead of the crap they have on today.
Ok, on-topic comment...RIAA sucks (that should get me modded back up)
Re:We need steenking standards!
on
Slashdot's Vastu
·
· Score: 1
I think Firefox needs to start popping up warning dialogs for bad HTML.
There is already something out there HTML Validator that does pretty much just that.
However, that isn't that useful for users since its the site owners that actually need to take notice. What *could* actually be good is instead of firefox popping up a message, it should send an email to the webmaster. The email could be informative in that it would let them know the errors, but give them insight into why fixing them could/should be a priority. There are probably a lot of webmaster that just don't understand the benefits of having good standardized code (like better search engine rankings).
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. However, the next-gen "mesh service providers" could build out lots of intermediate stationary nodes. On top of telephone poles (I know unlikely) or some other place. That could provide a basic amount of coverage. However, the beauty of mesh networking is that as more people come into an area, the bandwidth will increase. Shared spectrum works just the opposite...more people, less per person.
Now, whether or not that pipe dream will ever come about? Your guess is as good as mine. The concept was previously infeasible due to the processing power required. Now, we have some cell phones that have more processing power that desktop computer of just a few years ago.
The biggest question/holdup is going to be "what would the business model for mesh networking be?" There are very creative people, but *if* there were to be a ratified standard with a "true" promise of "free" coverage everywhere (maybe from my first paragraph). "Free" coverage where you could make VoIP calls from (more or less) anywhere. Then it wouldn't really be that difficult to sell $X00 phones that could take advantage of that capacity. (Basic marketing: You used to spend $50/mo. This pays for itself in 6-8 months, then you pay nothing more!!!) Give the service away, make money on the hardware...
Good luck convincing the current telcos and wireless telcos to get on board though.
I completely agree and a great point to bring to light. Doesn't matter which side you are on...they are both guilty.
/. political debate. I'll look a little more closely at the book.
Although it is sad, it is actually a great tactic. You get to pick and choose what issues you (as a politician) want to highlight/debate. Kinda like being able to pre-screen all questions before an interview. You can formulate your plans and catch-phrases well in advance.
Overall our political process has become, well, too political. It is somewhat humorous that one of the big "issues" this past election was "corruption." It was "corruption" that brought the republicans to power a few years back. Dems will probably take the new "good image" and run with it for a few years, then the tables will turn again. Something to the effect of "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Anyway, good little
It does look like an interesting read as looking at issues from different points of view is a good thing. However I doubt it is as "straight shooting" or unbiased as it would like you to believe. I find myself pretty much right in the middle on most issues. I do take offense to the notion that *all* republicans are elitist and wealthy just as much as saying all democrats are your "average workers or below." I choose my side on those type of issues from the respective parties underlying philosophies.
All in all, I want to gov't to do less and have less power. I want my taxes lower. I think I can better distribute my money to beneficial causes than layers upon layers of bureaucracy.
Am I against welfare, no. Do I think that %50+ people on it should not be, yes. Does that mean I am an elitist for saying that those %50+ percent are "scamming the system" and should either get a job or starve...you decide. There are no free lunches, ever under any circumstances. However, it *seems* as though we are generating more and more people that think they are entitled to them. I work to put food on my table. Unless you are incapable of doing this same, you should work for that same privilege.
Whether or not corporations should have a say in gov't is debatable (I think they should have some since gov't affects them).
That may be so, but corporations must have customers. You essentially "vote" for corporations and their underlying politics any time you purchase their products. So instead of complaining about corrupt corporations run a "campaign" against them. Encourage other to vote for the alternate candidate (buy their products). In a sense corporations are exactly like politicians. They become the voice of a group of people...so put the products you buy through the same scrutiny you put your political figures through.
Very true. Politics has become more like gambling. They probably have big boardroom meetings to decide which issue they are going "push" then hope that they chose the one that will a) be a decisive issue (abortion, gay marriage, etc) b) have a potential "event" (war, homeland security, etc)
I'm all for everyone voting, but I wish more people would actually think about what their vote really means and understand its consequences.
I'll go ahead and say it in the face of being considered "pro-corporation" but how else are corporations supposed to solve the problem?
Hypothetical example: You are a CEO of a company that produces widgets. There is a person/politician ("Bob") that sees the benefit of your product. He wants to ensure your company succeeds (for the betterment of society, haha). There is also another person/politician ("Larry") that things your widgets are harmful to society and in turn wants to levy additional sin/widget taxes. You, acting in the best interest of the corporation, are going to want the pro-widget politician, Bob, to win. If Bob were to win, you would get a tax break worth $500,000. If Larry were to win you would have additional taxes of $500,000. A $1mil swing in total costs for you. What business owner wouldn't want to contribute a decent percentage of that potential swing to "help" Bob?
Granted the situation is usually one where there is a lot more scandal involved. However, in some ways corporations have voting power just like citizens (except with contributions and usually with bigger budgets). People (at least should) vote for representatives that provide them what what they perceive will give them the best benefit. Why should corporations be/act any differently?
In a slightly more controversial/real situation. You are a corporation that disposes of toxic waste. While nobody would argue that having legislation that encourages lessening the environmental impact of industry processes is a good thing. If your industry is affected, then that additional legislation adds additional costs. Does that mean that you should resist the legislation? If you do, are you evil (for supporting the "destruction of the environment")? If everything was black and white, laws and life would be a lot easier. But as the saying goes there are two sides to every coin.
On to more important issues...M$ sucks (now were back to a normal
Unless you can prove any of the accounts of the Bible false, then I will consider them facts.
Its *kinda* a sad day when we have to resort to wikipedia to get Biblical facts...
You must be in the medical industry...
We run across the same problems for every interface we set up as well. But the reason usually isn't that the base format isn't different (although that does occur). It usually arises from one company wanting some arbitrary piece of data that the official "spec" didn't outline in all of its loosey-goosey glory.
We are hopeful that v3 is going to solve some of the minor issues, but they just better not get too overzealous and not leave room for the "unexpected." However, it is going to take some major players to adopt the new format before it picks up any steam since it is such a large departure from the previous two major versions. Small to medium sized businesses aren't going to spend the development/research time to implement it until it starts affecting bottom line. I'm guessing at least 3-5 years before that happens.
Completely agree about the failures occurring during a change in power status.
You are also correct on the after-hours updates. However, *if* you were just worried about the energy consumption then you could have the IT dept be responsible for shutting down all of the computers. If they needed to install patches/whatever, they work till they are done, *then* then shut down the computers (via a script/remote procedure). If you didn't have anything to do...have a cron job set to run at 6...you can leave early all while keeping the appearance that you actually work hard/long hours. The *best* sysadmins are the laziest ones (in a good way though).
Despite the startup/shutdown problem, this is a good thing. I understand trying to think actions/policies all the way through, but don't dismiss them because you can find a single (not to mention easily solvable) problem.
But its kinda like taxes. The top 1% pays 99% or something like that...
Its been said that people are going to boycot iTunes because they are going to get "fed up with DRM" but I'll believe that when I see it.
Its been said that people are going to boycot Vista because of "not supporting legacy hardware", "not supporting legacy software", "not providing adequate reason to upgrade", "increasing the DRM", "unfair pricing", and just about any other gripe conceivable. But when those people come back to reality they will sit and watch as Vista will eventually be on %60-70 of all desktops.
In a rush, so not even going to give my "I really do like FOSS" disclaimer (even though I don't need the karma). All I'm going to say is I hope the LinixBIOS project does take off and really become supported by all major manufacturers.
reality...
/.'ers don't have much interaction with this "reality" that you speak of...
You forget, most
The 30% bump in price IS a big deal. Especially since it won't directly improve the structure being built. So instead of trying to get companies to foot the bill, why not have special interest groups (SIG) that raise funding. Then whenever a new project is being built, they can provide the difference in cost. That way people that really care can get involved with the SIG. Also, the companies that do take the SIG up on the offer can use that as publicity...publicity that would be essentially free.
Why do people make problems that can easily be solved so hard?
First, I haven't seen anyone being overly negative about the .net.
.net being versatile. I got contracted to develop a PocketPC app. I chose c#.net because it was the easiest/best tool for the job. Well...as it turned out, they needed a desktop interface. I was able to use a lot of the PPC code in the desktop version without any real changes. So yes, in that sense it is versatile and powerful. The language really isn't that bad either (kinda javaish in the class hierarchy style)
/. disclaimer. I am currently working on a web startup. .net/microsoft is the last thing that I was thinking of for my platform. Frankly, Apache was a non-brainer. The core site is in php which ended up being more of a long-term business decision due to larger developer base. I really did think of going the perl route as it is probably my favorite language. Whenever I have a scripting need, it is the route I go. I'm currently using mysql as the database, but postgres is a very tempting option. I've been using pear::db so if I do want to switch in the future, the migration effort will be greatly reduced.
.net is good. perl is good. Both WILL have job opportunities for at least the next 10 or so years. However, just as .net kinda burst on the scene, so will something else. Choose a job that you will enjoy. Money is great, but if you hate your job then your just going to waste it at bars trying to drown your sorrows.
That said, I completely agree with you about
Ok, now I've got to give my
Back to getting a little more on topic.
Very true. However, it adds another step, and requires them to provide additional information about themselves (email address, domain, mail server it was sent from, etc) not to mention a corresponding increase in bandwidth/processing for the mail and additional page request. That additional information can also be gathered/compiled to more effectively prevent future attempts. I doubt that there will ever a *perfect* method to completely get rid of spam, etc. However, raising the cost associated with doing it will make the task less appealing. The hard part is making it difficult for spammers, but (too) hard for legitimate users.
So far, the approaches I've heard that I like the best are simple human question (what is X times/plus/minus X, what is the second word in this sentence, etc). Field obfuscation and embedded public/private keys are pretty useful techniques. Even though I don't like making a form only work when javascript is enabled, but there was a pretty clever little script that didn't apply the "action" of the form until is submitted would probably confuse a lot of spam bots as well.
However, I really haven't heard much mention of using email verification. Unless you are a registered user, then you have to provide an email address that a confirmation email is sent to. Once you click on the link that is sent in an email, then the comment becomes active. That is one method that I am currently using and so far so good (also engadget uses this method).
So, what are the drawbacks of the email verification method other than some people not wanting to give an email address just to post a comment? I think it significantly raises the "cost" of trying to spam since that process can't as easily be automated and would require them to have to check a specific email address (future attempts could be blacklisted by either email address or domain).
Have you played guitar hero? It can sound pretty bad when you aren't hitting the notes. Crank it up enough and the neighbors are going to complain even if you nail Cowboys From Hell on expert.
I like playing the role of devils advocate, so here goes.
Ok, then name one company that can push technology better/fast than them? Don't use the "their technology sucks" or "their just pushing evil" rebuttal. Please, just name one company that does it better than them.
Obviously, I think that would be the outcome just about *any* software corporation would want if they were actually able to achieve it. Ok, there are some companies that may have differing objectives. However, given the choice that IS the route that would be preferred. You may not personally agree and find that an atrocity. If that is true, then you are *probably* not a corporate officer that is trying to maximize your businesses profits. If you aren't trying to maximize your businesses profits, then you aren't going to make it very far in the corporate world. That said I do believe that open standards are a good thing and that you don't have to use those business practices to succeed. But again, if you were given the choice what you would really want?
You are exactly right. We also might have world peace, with North Korea realizing that democracy is a better form of government if Bush wasn't president. It is really easy to make blanket statements without any way of determining the outcome otherwise. Great little FUD statement.
Man, you are on fire. If Henry Ford hadn't made horseless carriages mainstream, then yes we probably would have eventually still progressed to having cars and trucks like we do today? But using your thought process it is more like the popularity of ground transportation is the biggest setback in flying cars and teleportation. Microsoft has enabled business to use desktop computing whether or not you are too biased to see that. Now, whether or not they have done it in a manner that has realized the greatest benefit for the consumer/world at large is a completely different argument that your points are more valid in.
You sir are...correct. Hopefully people evaluate what is going to be the *best* decision for their company and act appropriately. The benefits that the software did offer hopefully outweighed the pricetag. The rest of your statements were a lot more FUD and bias.
Again, right on the money. However, they do offer products that people find useful/desire. They have done it through having acceptable technology but better marketing. I'm sorry if Linux/whatever doesn't have the ability/desire/whatever to compete on the marking front. There are obviously much better products being offered. However, hoping that technology will sell itself is little more than a dream, so just deal with reality and we'll be a lot better off.
Being an open-source bigot is just as bad as being a patent everything/proprietary bigot. You obviously have a closed mindset about technology. You are on a board where most people tend to agree with you and feel justified in your thoughts because people here agree with you. I prefer open standards to proprietary ones. However, there are cases for both and I understan
Run it on my laptop and it *just works*. Running it on 4-5 servers and couldn't be happier.
I've never used SuSE for any extended period of time, so I can't compare/contrast, only give credit to the distribution that I know/use.
Quick thought on the article. I find the different thought patterns concerning microsoft hilarious. On one side there is nothing the company can do right. They could completely open source *ALL* of their entire software portfolio under the GPL and those people would still be yelling "its a trap." On the other side people admire their business/marketing savvy and realize that even if it doesn't come up with truly innovative solutions, it is able to push technology all over the globe (better/faster than any other company in the world).
Simple answer for the MPAA. Start patenting plots and situational humor. Then whenever people produce this non-sense content they can come after them with lawyers...that will keep them at bay.
As sarcastic as I was trying to seem, I bet there is probably someone sitting there thinking...man, that is a *great idea.
Completely off topic, but man do I miss *good* cartoons.
I keep telling my wife that when we have kids I'm going to stock up on tons of Looney Toons and stuff from the good ole days (probably more for my own enjoyment than the kids) and make the kids watch that instead of the crap they have on today.
Ok, on-topic comment...RIAA sucks (that should get me modded back up)
However, that isn't that useful for users since its the site owners that actually need to take notice. What *could* actually be good is instead of firefox popping up a message, it should send an email to the webmaster. The email could be informative in that it would let them know the errors, but give them insight into why fixing them could/should be a priority. There are probably a lot of webmaster that just don't understand the benefits of having good standardized code (like better search engine rankings).