I had an IPv6 connection 6 or 7 years ago (from HE.net). It's never really been a technological limitation that has slowed or prevented IPv6 adoption.
IPv6 has been around for 13 years already.
MS IE 6 has been around for 10 years. IE 7 came out 5 years later. IE 6 is still widely in use, but new browsers have shown far faster growth than IPv6.
I know that's apples and oranges, but it's far easier to upgrade the browswer than to get IPv6 working meaningfully at home, and yet IE 6 (like IPv4) still holds onto a large portion of users.
If people can't be bothered to upgrade it, why would I expect IPv6 to be fully adopted within the next 3 years?!?
In your opinion, what social change will cause people, people that have had 13 years to move to IPv6, to adopt it in the next 3 years?
Hell, the web 13 years ago favored individual sites WAY more than the web of today with all the facebooks, blogs, flikrs, cloud drives, and other centralized content publishing. The only companies that want users hosting content from home are domain sellers, and there's far less money in a domain name than hosting services. What percentage of users had their own website 13 years ago? What percentage has their own site now?
Neither companies nor users are pushing towards decentralized services. The IP shortage actually helps companies maintain their control over data and services (and your wallet).
Do I think it'll take 113 years? No, but changing 2014 to 2114 looked better than changing it to 2034 or 2044. I think you're dreaming if you think even half the current end users will have easy access to IPv6 in 3 years. It's a good dream, but nothing is trending that way (except IPv4 exhaustion - but as said, that helps the companies in control).
When IPV6 becomes more widely adopted and we dispose of all this NATting more devices will be on a classless network and this sort of service will be sold at best buy to run on your own mini-NAS build into your year 2114 computer.
My last.* is taken My first-last.* is taken My firstlast.* is taken as is firstmiddlelast.*, first-middle-last.*, Flast.*, F-last.*, FMlast.*, F-M-last.*, first-L.*, firstL.*, as well as all of those with my shortened version of my first name (think "steve" instead of "steven").
Granted, the ".*" is a slight exaggeration, but * includes com, net, and org, and many others for most of those. It's also hard as hell to find me on any social site unless you know my email or some other more specific information.
AND, I just tried creating a temp account on yahoo and found out the reverse of my last name, reversed lastfirst, and reversed firstlast are all taken as well (ex. htims, htimsnhoj, nhojhtims) as are most of those reversed name domains! WTF!
If I could get my "firstlast.com", I'd gladly give out subdomains to others with my name.
True, and I get the point your making, but Java wasn't just some (draft) spec that a bunch of different groups were implementing independently, and it didn't have to have backwards compatibility mixed in to deal with old specs and non-spec features.
The GP statement doesn't make sense to me either - this is "browser wars". Chome on all OS's that support it with the same revision runs stuff close enough to the same on all OS's. It's Chrome versus IE versus Netscape versus Opera versus all the previous versions of all of those that is the problem.
I mean, yay HTML5 and all that, but it'll be years (maybe 10?) until most of that spec is supported in 90+% of browsers that are in use. At least with java, one could just point to Sun and tell the user to d/l what's needed for their OS, and they're off to the races for all java apps. I'm just glad it's Chrome/Safari they picked to support (because it's on most OS's and has an open source version) rather than IE (which could have happened if they targeted Windows Mobile).
This is why I believe Flash will stay around for a long time to come (even if I dislike it), as will non-HTML5 web pages, java apps, native apps, etc.
Bump. I agree, though I think the parent may just be a good troll.
It's double painful to hear it mixed with "Had any other company done this, then people would be up in arms..."
How about turning that around - what other mobile OS companies are open sourcing that much of their offering? Microsoft - zilch (or near zilch). Apple - only the bare minimum (see Safari - they contribute to webkit, but not the browser source).
Why isn't PickyH3D up in arms about every other piece of proprietary software out there that has ever gone dead? This happens to tons of other companies and products all the time, except they usually aren't so generous as to offer what they have back as open source. What Google is doing with App Inventor is an ideal example of exactly what should happen if a company wants to discontinue a product (I'm not saying it should be legally mandated - just saying it's awesome, and the only other option that could be considered better would be to put it in public domain or BSD license, but that's just picking the finer points).
Chrome is an entirely different case, and you would have a very valid point if they had a majority position they could abuse. MS abused their (near) monopoly position in more ways than just including IE, but that was certainly one of them.
Also, you CAN replace the default browser on Android with another browser. There was never a case for removing the HTML rendering engine that Windows used internally for stuff like their help system and file browser... the problem had multiple parts which made it bad: * you couldn't remove IE the browser * It was forced on the user by abuse of their monopoly position in OS's * they made it difficult to switch default browsers * some OS tasks still rely on the IE browser (ex. windows upgrade)
I don't know if you can remove the browser component from Android, but the rest of those points do not exist on Android. And, you get free-as-in-speech browser and OS as well, so you can remove or modify it yourself (and handset manufacturers do modify it - something Microsoft did not allow distributors to do to Windows).
Agreed, but more importantly (IMO), they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search.
Microsoft didn't just give IE away for free... they took their dominant position of OS distribution, and bundled in a free-as-in-beer IE, AND (initially) did not provide any way to remove it. They also provided major "incentives" (read; deterrents) to hardware distributors to encourage them to only ship Windows.
Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android. And many of those (ex. HTC) make just as many handsets that run other OS's, and push/market them equally. When Dell started selling some boxes with linux on them, it was only a couple, and they were underpowered; ditto for their no-os choices; and the price difference was not the equal of the cost of a Windows license.
Google's offering is also free-as-in-freedom, which IE was not. You can argue about v3.0 if you like, but it's not officially in distribution yet, and the source to IE was never free.
Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either. A more comparative example - when a mobile user goes to google.com, they can still use the site just as well as if they came from Andoid. When a Netscape user went to Windows Update, it simply did not work - and still does not work - it requires IE.
Can some similarities be drawn? Yes. Fortunately, by doing so, it should be obvious that they are actually making the right decisions with how to distribute this product, as opposed to the many anti-competitive choices that Microsoft made.
How is the 100,000 visitors a valuable thing for Amazon, but worth nothing of value for the developer? Either visits and exposure are good (and they both benefit) or it's worth nothing (and neither benefits), though it's probably somewhere in the middle... some visits are valuable, some aren't.
My gut feeling is that Amazon probably gets less out of this than the developer. These 100,000 downloads grabbed the developers app. They're less likely to grab some other app, cause they just downloaded something new. And the developer has a (non-paying) customer now... but it's a customer that can be upgraded to a paying customer. Just release a version 2 with a new API like all the other bait-and-switch people do... those that would have paid will likely pay, and maybe some that wouldn't have made the jump originally will now pay cause they've found value in your app.
"No publicity is bad publicity"... this article is probably doing more for Amazons benefit than the free downloads from this app.
How are they reaching these numbers? Every time I got to http://plus.google.com/ it says: "Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon."
Lot's of early adopters - sure... but where are any new numbers coming from!?!? seriously, cause I'd like to check it out. Is there a backdoor?
...even 0.1% would be a reasonable amount of revenue).
0.1% of the $50,000 they would have made that day is only $50, and only 100 downloads.
The 0.1% is completely pulled out of the air, but since it's your number, I'll use it... that would mean that actual losses that day were only $50, because all those other people wouldn't have bought the app anyway, and they gained exposure to 1000x's the people they normally would have - people that might buy their next app, or the next version - let alone the people that saw it and didn't get it - that's eyeballs, and easily worth the $50.
We're all taking about make-believe money in a situation they agreed to and knew full well going in that they wouldn't make the money. I don't see where the complaint is. Or even the warning... they got 100k downloads that day! that's an advertisement that it works!
Wrong. They come out printed... at least according to the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfVKTM_LiD8 It all looks so real it's tough to believe it's not photoshopped.
I foresee a lot of software breaking, but not the obvious website url stuff. http://citibank/ will probably work just fine in all browsers... though if it doesn't exist, the browser will automatically try citibank.com, citibank.net, or default to a search for it these days.
I'm betting the bigger problem will be in all the ad-hoc validation code out there. For example, email validation... it often requires two parts to the domain portion (user@domain.something), so "user@citibank.com" works, "user@mail.citibank" will probably work, but "user@citibank" is probably going to fail with existing most existing software.
The other part will be length checking on the TLD... all TLD's these days are very short, though the DNS protocol allows for longer ones (up to 63 chars). Again, most of the stuff that uses the names will be fine (things that just pass it off to the name service resolver). But it'll require a lot of software updates to lots of odds and ends sites and programs. Those things could be labeled as poorly coded, but they're really just trying to protect users from ignorant mistakes.
IMO, I see no value in this at all, except to ICANN so they can get some extra cash flow. Even worse, this will cost businesses money, cause they'll feel the same need to protect their name here as they do on.com/.net/.org/etc, but instead of an extra $20/yr, it's $185000 + $20000/yr or more.
The only benefit I see on the business side is that maybe, just maybe, all of a companies subsidiaries will now show up under one hierarchy. For example, time warner has a TON of different domains, many location and product specific (ex. twcny.com). So maybe the extra cost will encourage them to make better use of the resource. But it really really really doesn't matter.
The theory that they'll vet these domains to make sure the owner is the right person is horribly misplaced. That should go to the SSL providers, who used to do a decent job of this before competition drove down both the cost and the benefit.
The Phishing angle just seems like a stawman to me. This is just a solution looking for a problem... a problem that isn't there. The idea that business "want" this is (IMO) a misreading of a statistic... it's been talked about for decades, so they're interested in knowing when they'll have to grab up their realestate.
Um... pandora isn't exactly unpopular, and uses flash to play music to many many people.
IMHO, the roadblock to moving away from flash isn't that local media players were hard to work with or something like that... it's because pandora can lock down the stream more using flash. If it were javascript delivered to the client to play the stream, it'd make it easier to hack, and come at a performance hit compared to flash, and would lack all the other goodies flash gives them.
For any service were I can get access to the mp3's (cloud drive included), I'd much rather use my local media player and have it support that as a data provider.
I agree with where you ended up ("Except that this does absolutely jack and shit to phase out flash for almost anyone"), but not with how you arrived at that conclusion. There are loads of good uses for a web based media player (or media player controller), but this is unlikely to have a substantial impact on any of those for many other reasons.
passwindow (what shieldpass uses) doesn't even have a valid SSL cert. Maybe it's an ok product, but I have trouble trusting a web security provider with an expired SSL cert (and it was only valid from 2011-05-23 - today).
It also completely ignores other auth channels - how about email, ssh, imap, ldap, radius, etc?
And it's only 4 digits, and parts of those digits are sent to the user - enough that one should be able to narrow it down quite a bit.
Worse, there's two huge proximity weaknesses...
* if someone shoulder surfs, they can easily see the code as it's displayed right up on your monitor. They'd have to act fast, but it's definitely not as personal as something displayed on your phone.
* While you have your card blatantly held up on your monitor, anyone could snap a pic of it. Then, they have your passwindow, and can easily make their own copy (it's just a couple black lines on a something transparent).
It does look like a novel and very simple idea, but it's raising way too many red flags.
"Human Readable" in his short story collection "With a Little Help". Really enjoyable read, as are all his books. And you can read 'em for free if you like (most, if not all, are under creative commons), so there's no harm in checking it out:-)
I'd love to explain the story, cause it's really great, but that'd give away too much.
I've been through this. Haven't noticed any other replies in any threads that have had to go through this.
I've got tons of backups and drives and external drives and network filesystems... all with my users uids in the low 500's. I left them there... and IMO, that *should* just work.
The biggest annoying problem I ran into - GDM wouldn't display those logins. They had the same group bindings, but it wouldn't show them. I dug around all over, and couldn't figure out where to change this "low uid" setting... and I haven't seen that posted here either!
I'm perfectly fine with them changing the default... but MAKE IT CONFIGURABLE! It'd just have to be one file in/etc, so one could easily jack with it for migrations. How difficult is that?!? Who knows, maybe it already exists and I just couldn't find it?
As others have mentioned, it's not just file ownership (though that's a significant undertaking when you consider NFS, removable drives, and backups - especially backups). Anything that's honoring this low-uid stuff, and anything that has uid's stored in configs, will need tweaking. Just make it easy to change the default, and this would blow over.
Two is a no-brainer IMO, especially since most video cards support it already. I've had three or more in the past, but always had to use another video card... are there any good (cheap) ways around that these days?
IE. do any mid-level consumer video cards support 3+ monitors from one card? I've even got a 3rd lcd monitor sitting in my closet... just nothing worth plugging it into.
So many posts, like this one, make me thing "gee, if my coworkers are reading this, they're going to think my/. nick is Entrope"
Been there on the code-reformat as part of a large functional change within one patchset. Make me feel old when that happens, cause no one that has ever had to troubleshoot/bugfix someone else's patch like that would ever again do it themselves.
There is a point where there is too much process, but that's often process that's mandated for management reporting purposes and not something that makes development smoother. On the dev side, we mandate a Changelog entry in a specific format, but since we did it, we can also automate that - a script grabs the version control logs on that branch and formats the changelog entry for the developer, and they just have to paste it in and maybe clean up any krufty log messages they had put on their changes.... that's easier and more accurate. On the other hand, requiring project management entries, and change control tickets, and manager signoff, and hours accurals, etc etc etc for a bugfix that simply has to go to production ASAP is just silly, and doesn't help matters at all.
I think it's a signal to noise ratio issue. Example - tons of my classmates used to refer to their teachers as jerks, or say they were out to get them, or that they were boring or rude... but EVERY teacher got those complaints from someone, and not every teacher could possibly be the same.
Rather than create fake facebook accounts to call the kids names (as another post said), do it to call ALL teachers in the state - every last one of them - a pedophile and rapist. If they're all labeled that way in facebook, the value of a post stating that goes down significantly and would blend into the norm.
If there is a real problem, they should report it to a responsible adult (their parents, a teacher they do trust, the police, etc) and make a formal complaint. Facebook should not be considered a formal complaint, and should not be seen as some sign that gets a teacher in trouble... so make that happen by drowning them out.
Mod parent up. It's as close to false advertising as it gets. There isn't even a planned release date for Hulu yet, and that word isn't even present on their blog.
Their claims that netflix would be ready be end of year failed too, as did their Feb 1 date.
I understand that things slip and that the netflix support was not completely in their control, but their product page and their blog is within their control. A little forthright honesty isn't too much to ask for. Their boxee box product page has had netflix as a "featured content provider" since the start. Until recently (feb 14), that was extremely misleading IMO.
Apple 17" MBP: $2499 Dell XPS 17 3D (1080p): $1798
And the comparable Apple would be more (+$250) because the dell is a 2.3GHz i7 processor.
There are minor differences, but they balance out. * 500GB SATA 7200 RPM HDD (Apple has that option for the same prices as their 750GB 5200rpm). * Different video card, but I'm certain it's comparable (1GB Nvidia GT550M) * Dell optical drive can also read Blu-ray (I don't see that option on any MBP's) * Dell screen is 1080p, so it's probably 1920x1080, versus MBP 1920x1200. * Dell screen is 3d capable (120Hz refresh) - that makes up for the minor diff in resolution IMO * I have no idea on real world battery life of either system.
All that said, I'll agree that in many cases the Apple offerings as of late are hard to match and hit the same or lower price, and at the very least, they're somewhat fair (certainly not 2x or 3x the cost of a building the same PC). The advantage of building your own PC, however, is that you can eliminate features that don't matter to you and get a far cheaper system that does as much or more than the Mac in the areas you need.
I'll also say I really love to hate Dell. I detest their interface for finding computers/stuff, and the arbitrary limits/requirements they impose (ex. why isn't a 1tb drive an option in a low-end system? why do some systems require a monitor to be included? why aren't all the monitor choices available on those that do require them? Why is the above Dell laptop the ONLY one with a 17" 1080p screen (I'd be happy with a much slower laptop with a high-res screen)? And why limit the Windows options on different products (and why not have a no-OS option)? Why does their 30" monitor cost 50% MORE than it did two years ago? etc etc etc. Comparing to Apple though, they only have one model with a 17" screen, so there is no additional level of customization there either.
Kindle works really well on ipad. It also works really well on Winders, OSX, Blackberry and Android phones and tablets, and it gives you access to your titles regardless of platform....
I have a kindle, and I agree that, for purchases from amazon, it's great that it syncs just about everywhere (even notes and last read spots and bookmarks; exception being that they don't have a client for linux or any other OSS platform).
However, "...access to your titles regardless...", um, I WISH, but no. I buy some books, but more than half are from feedbooks or project gutenberg or other ebook stores (eg. O'Reilly). Those do NOT sync. Technically, you're right in that you can still access those books, but not the "kindle" way. It would take very very very little effort for them to allow that (upload your own books to add to your collection), but they don't allow that.
To be honest, I think there's a huge market potential for that... a provider that lets you add whatever books you want, and it'll take care of syncing with all your random devices. For Amazon native titles, it could act as a subscribed kindle and talk to amazon to do the kindle sync. For others, it could handle the sync itself, etc.
Anyway... Amazon isn't open either. I detest the way Apple is running things with apps - not buying there iProducts isn't enough, because they are consuming mindshare and marketshare that could go towards a better (more open) landscape. But Amazon is certainly not exempt from walled garden approach. If they added everything from feedbooks as free books, that would get closer, but it still wouldn't cover me buying ebooks from elsewhere (NOTE: I can read those on my kindle... just without the added benefits of whispersync... but I can NOT read those titles in my Kindle app on my PC or on my Android, WTF?).
The Kindle app could easily be a MUCH better product. IMO, Amazon just doesn't want to let you do what you want with it. It's there for them to sell you stuff; anything else is second rate or worse. It'd be a lot easier for me to defend Amazon's right to their app doing what it does if they allowed the user to do what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
I had an IPv6 connection 6 or 7 years ago (from HE.net). It's never really been a technological limitation that has slowed or prevented IPv6 adoption.
IPv6 has been around for 13 years already.
MS IE 6 has been around for 10 years. IE 7 came out 5 years later. IE 6 is still widely in use, but new browsers have shown far faster growth than IPv6.
I know that's apples and oranges, but it's far easier to upgrade the browswer than to get IPv6 working meaningfully at home, and yet IE 6 (like IPv4) still holds onto a large portion of users.
If people can't be bothered to upgrade it, why would I expect IPv6 to be fully adopted within the next 3 years?!?
In your opinion, what social change will cause people, people that have had 13 years to move to IPv6, to adopt it in the next 3 years?
Hell, the web 13 years ago favored individual sites WAY more than the web of today with all the facebooks, blogs, flikrs, cloud drives, and other centralized content publishing. The only companies that want users hosting content from home are domain sellers, and there's far less money in a domain name than hosting services. What percentage of users had their own website 13 years ago? What percentage has their own site now?
Neither companies nor users are pushing towards decentralized services. The IP shortage actually helps companies maintain their control over data and services (and your wallet).
Do I think it'll take 113 years? No, but changing 2014 to 2114 looked better than changing it to 2034 or 2044. I think you're dreaming if you think even half the current end users will have easy access to IPv6 in 3 years. It's a good dream, but nothing is trending that way (except IPv4 exhaustion - but as said, that helps the companies in control).
When IPV6 becomes more widely adopted and we dispose of all this NATting more devices will be on a classless network and this sort of service will be sold at best buy to run on your own mini-NAS build into your year 2114 computer.
FTFY
My last.* is taken
My first-last.* is taken
My firstlast.* is taken
as is firstmiddlelast.*, first-middle-last.*, Flast.*, F-last.*, FMlast.*, F-M-last.*, first-L.*, firstL.*, as well as all of those with my shortened version of my first name (think "steve" instead of "steven").
Granted, the ".*" is a slight exaggeration, but * includes com, net, and org, and many others for most of those.
It's also hard as hell to find me on any social site unless you know my email or some other more specific information.
AND, I just tried creating a temp account on yahoo and found out the reverse of my last name, reversed lastfirst, and reversed firstlast are all taken as well (ex. htims, htimsnhoj, nhojhtims) as are most of those reversed name domains! WTF!
If I could get my "firstlast.com", I'd gladly give out subdomains to others with my name.
True, and I get the point your making, but Java wasn't just some (draft) spec that a bunch of different groups were implementing independently, and it didn't have to have backwards compatibility mixed in to deal with old specs and non-spec features.
The GP statement doesn't make sense to me either - this is "browser wars". Chome on all OS's that support it with the same revision runs stuff close enough to the same on all OS's. It's Chrome versus IE versus Netscape versus Opera versus all the previous versions of all of those that is the problem.
I mean, yay HTML5 and all that, but it'll be years (maybe 10?) until most of that spec is supported in 90+% of browsers that are in use. At least with java, one could just point to Sun and tell the user to d/l what's needed for their OS, and they're off to the races for all java apps. I'm just glad it's Chrome/Safari they picked to support (because it's on most OS's and has an open source version) rather than IE (which could have happened if they targeted Windows Mobile).
This is why I believe Flash will stay around for a long time to come (even if I dislike it), as will non-HTML5 web pages, java apps, native apps, etc.
Bump. I agree, though I think the parent may just be a good troll.
It's double painful to hear it mixed with "Had any other company done this, then people would be up in arms..."
How about turning that around - what other mobile OS companies are open sourcing that much of their offering? Microsoft - zilch (or near zilch). Apple - only the bare minimum (see Safari - they contribute to webkit, but not the browser source).
Why isn't PickyH3D up in arms about every other piece of proprietary software out there that has ever gone dead? This happens to tons of other companies and products all the time, except they usually aren't so generous as to offer what they have back as open source. What Google is doing with App Inventor is an ideal example of exactly what should happen if a company wants to discontinue a product (I'm not saying it should be legally mandated - just saying it's awesome, and the only other option that could be considered better would be to put it in public domain or BSD license, but that's just picking the finer points).
Thank you for that! Silly me, I've been sitting on an invite, but every time I checked their site I saw that message, so I didn't bother with it.
Chrome is an entirely different case, and you would have a very valid point if they had a majority position they could abuse. MS abused their (near) monopoly position in more ways than just including IE, but that was certainly one of them.
Also, you CAN replace the default browser on Android with another browser. There was never a case for removing the HTML rendering engine that Windows used internally for stuff like their help system and file browser... the problem had multiple parts which made it bad:
* you couldn't remove IE the browser
* It was forced on the user by abuse of their monopoly position in OS's
* they made it difficult to switch default browsers
* some OS tasks still rely on the IE browser (ex. windows upgrade)
I don't know if you can remove the browser component from Android, but the rest of those points do not exist on Android. And, you get free-as-in-speech browser and OS as well, so you can remove or modify it yourself (and handset manufacturers do modify it - something Microsoft did not allow distributors to do to Windows).
Agreed, but more importantly (IMO), they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search.
Microsoft didn't just give IE away for free... they took their dominant position of OS distribution, and bundled in a free-as-in-beer IE, AND (initially) did not provide any way to remove it. They also provided major "incentives" (read; deterrents) to hardware distributors to encourage them to only ship Windows.
Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android. And many of those (ex. HTC) make just as many handsets that run other OS's, and push/market them equally. When Dell started selling some boxes with linux on them, it was only a couple, and they were underpowered; ditto for their no-os choices; and the price difference was not the equal of the cost of a Windows license.
Google's offering is also free-as-in-freedom, which IE was not. You can argue about v3.0 if you like, but it's not officially in distribution yet, and the source to IE was never free.
Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either. A more comparative example - when a mobile user goes to google.com, they can still use the site just as well as if they came from Andoid. When a Netscape user went to Windows Update, it simply did not work - and still does not work - it requires IE.
Can some similarities be drawn? Yes. Fortunately, by doing so, it should be obvious that they are actually making the right decisions with how to distribute this product, as opposed to the many anti-competitive choices that Microsoft made.
How is the 100,000 visitors a valuable thing for Amazon, but worth nothing of value for the developer? Either visits and exposure are good (and they both benefit) or it's worth nothing (and neither benefits), though it's probably somewhere in the middle... some visits are valuable, some aren't.
My gut feeling is that Amazon probably gets less out of this than the developer. These 100,000 downloads grabbed the developers app. They're less likely to grab some other app, cause they just downloaded something new. And the developer has a (non-paying) customer now... but it's a customer that can be upgraded to a paying customer. Just release a version 2 with a new API like all the other bait-and-switch people do... those that would have paid will likely pay, and maybe some that wouldn't have made the jump originally will now pay cause they've found value in your app.
"No publicity is bad publicity"... this article is probably doing more for Amazons benefit than the free downloads from this app.
How are they reaching these numbers? Every time I got to http://plus.google.com/ it says:
"Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon."
Lot's of early adopters - sure... but where are any new numbers coming from!?!? seriously, cause I'd like to check it out. Is there a backdoor?
...even 0.1% would be a reasonable amount of revenue).
0.1% of the $50,000 they would have made that day is only $50, and only 100 downloads.
The 0.1% is completely pulled out of the air, but since it's your number, I'll use it... that would mean that actual losses that day were only $50, because all those other people wouldn't have bought the app anyway, and they gained exposure to 1000x's the people they normally would have - people that might buy their next app, or the next version - let alone the people that saw it and didn't get it - that's eyeballs, and easily worth the $50.
We're all taking about make-believe money in a situation they agreed to and knew full well going in that they wouldn't make the money. I don't see where the complaint is. Or even the warning... they got 100k downloads that day! that's an advertisement that it works!
Er... I mean they come out of the printer in color already.
Wrong. They come out printed... at least according to the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfVKTM_LiD8
It all looks so real it's tough to believe it's not photoshopped.
I foresee a lot of software breaking, but not the obvious website url stuff. http://citibank/ will probably work just fine in all browsers... though if it doesn't exist, the browser will automatically try citibank.com, citibank.net, or default to a search for it these days.
I'm betting the bigger problem will be in all the ad-hoc validation code out there. For example, email validation... it often requires two parts to the domain portion (user@domain.something), so "user@citibank.com" works, "user@mail.citibank" will probably work, but "user@citibank" is probably going to fail with existing most existing software.
The other part will be length checking on the TLD... all TLD's these days are very short, though the DNS protocol allows for longer ones (up to 63 chars). Again, most of the stuff that uses the names will be fine (things that just pass it off to the name service resolver). But it'll require a lot of software updates to lots of odds and ends sites and programs. Those things could be labeled as poorly coded, but they're really just trying to protect users from ignorant mistakes.
IMO, I see no value in this at all, except to ICANN so they can get some extra cash flow. Even worse, this will cost businesses money, cause they'll feel the same need to protect their name here as they do on .com/.net/.org/etc, but instead of an extra $20/yr, it's $185000 + $20000/yr or more.
The only benefit I see on the business side is that maybe, just maybe, all of a companies subsidiaries will now show up under one hierarchy. For example, time warner has a TON of different domains, many location and product specific (ex. twcny.com). So maybe the extra cost will encourage them to make better use of the resource. But it really really really doesn't matter.
The theory that they'll vet these domains to make sure the owner is the right person is horribly misplaced. That should go to the SSL providers, who used to do a decent job of this before competition drove down both the cost and the benefit.
The Phishing angle just seems like a stawman to me. This is just a solution looking for a problem... a problem that isn't there. The idea that business "want" this is (IMO) a misreading of a statistic... it's been talked about for decades, so they're interested in knowing when they'll have to grab up their realestate.
Um... pandora isn't exactly unpopular, and uses flash to play music to many many people.
IMHO, the roadblock to moving away from flash isn't that local media players were hard to work with or something like that... it's because pandora can lock down the stream more using flash. If it were javascript delivered to the client to play the stream, it'd make it easier to hack, and come at a performance hit compared to flash, and would lack all the other goodies flash gives them.
For any service were I can get access to the mp3's (cloud drive included), I'd much rather use my local media player and have it support that as a data provider.
I agree with where you ended up ("Except that this does absolutely jack and shit to phase out flash for almost anyone"), but not with how you arrived at that conclusion. There are loads of good uses for a web based media player (or media player controller), but this is unlikely to have a substantial impact on any of those for many other reasons.
passwindow (what shieldpass uses) doesn't even have a valid SSL cert. Maybe it's an ok product, but I have trouble trusting a web security provider with an expired SSL cert (and it was only valid from 2011-05-23 - today).
It also completely ignores other auth channels - how about email, ssh, imap, ldap, radius, etc?
And it's only 4 digits, and parts of those digits are sent to the user - enough that one should be able to narrow it down quite a bit.
Worse, there's two huge proximity weaknesses...
* if someone shoulder surfs, they can easily see the code as it's displayed right up on your monitor. They'd have to act fast, but it's definitely not as personal as something displayed on your phone.
* While you have your card blatantly held up on your monitor, anyone could snap a pic of it. Then, they have your passwindow, and can easily make their own copy (it's just a couple black lines on a something transparent).
It does look like a novel and very simple idea, but it's raising way too many red flags.
"Human Readable" in his short story collection "With a Little Help". :-)
Really enjoyable read, as are all his books. And you can read 'em for free if you like (most, if not all, are under creative commons), so there's no harm in checking it out
I'd love to explain the story, cause it's really great, but that'd give away too much.
I've been through this. Haven't noticed any other replies in any threads that have had to go through this.
I've got tons of backups and drives and external drives and network filesystems... all with my users uids in the low 500's. I left them there... and IMO, that *should* just work.
The biggest annoying problem I ran into - GDM wouldn't display those logins. They had the same group bindings, but it wouldn't show them. I dug around all over, and couldn't figure out where to change this "low uid" setting... and I haven't seen that posted here either!
I'm perfectly fine with them changing the default... but MAKE IT CONFIGURABLE! It'd just have to be one file in /etc, so one could easily jack with it for migrations. How difficult is that?!? Who knows, maybe it already exists and I just couldn't find it?
As others have mentioned, it's not just file ownership (though that's a significant undertaking when you consider NFS, removable drives, and backups - especially backups). Anything that's honoring this low-uid stuff, and anything that has uid's stored in configs, will need tweaking. Just make it easy to change the default, and this would blow over.
Two is a no-brainer IMO, especially since most video cards support it already.
I've had three or more in the past, but always had to use another video card... are there any good (cheap) ways around that these days?
IE. do any mid-level consumer video cards support 3+ monitors from one card? I've even got a 3rd lcd monitor sitting in my closet... just nothing worth plugging it into.
So many posts, like this one, make me thing "gee, if my coworkers are reading this, they're going to think my /. nick is Entrope"
Been there on the code-reformat as part of a large functional change within one patchset. Make me feel old when that happens, cause no one that has ever had to troubleshoot/bugfix someone else's patch like that would ever again do it themselves.
There is a point where there is too much process, but that's often process that's mandated for management reporting purposes and not something that makes development smoother. On the dev side, we mandate a Changelog entry in a specific format, but since we did it, we can also automate that - a script grabs the version control logs on that branch and formats the changelog entry for the developer, and they just have to paste it in and maybe clean up any krufty log messages they had put on their changes.... that's easier and more accurate. On the other hand, requiring project management entries, and change control tickets, and manager signoff, and hours accurals, etc etc etc for a bugfix that simply has to go to production ASAP is just silly, and doesn't help matters at all.
Agreed.
I think it's a signal to noise ratio issue. Example - tons of my classmates used to refer to their teachers as jerks, or say they were out to get them, or that they were boring or rude... but EVERY teacher got those complaints from someone, and not every teacher could possibly be the same.
Rather than create fake facebook accounts to call the kids names (as another post said), do it to call ALL teachers in the state - every last one of them - a pedophile and rapist. If they're all labeled that way in facebook, the value of a post stating that goes down significantly and would blend into the norm.
If there is a real problem, they should report it to a responsible adult (their parents, a teacher they do trust, the police, etc) and make a formal complaint. Facebook should not be considered a formal complaint, and should not be seen as some sign that gets a teacher in trouble... so make that happen by drowning them out.
I once thought the same thing of laptops.
Mod parent up. It's as close to false advertising as it gets. There isn't even a planned release date for Hulu yet, and that word isn't even present on their blog.
Their claims that netflix would be ready be end of year failed too, as did their Feb 1 date.
I understand that things slip and that the netflix support was not completely in their control, but their product page and their blog is within their control. A little forthright honesty isn't too much to ask for. Their boxee box product page has had netflix as a "featured content provider" since the start. Until recently (feb 14), that was extremely misleading IMO.
Unless Dell dropped their price by $700 since you looked, I call BS.
"Dell XPS 17 3D (1080p)" - http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-l702x/pd?oc=dndocq1&variant=2:I72820Q~3:4G2D133~6:5503DUT~8:500GG72~11:W7HP6E~16:BDCMBRX&model_id=xps-l702x
Apple 17" MBP: $2499
Dell XPS 17 3D (1080p): $1798
And the comparable Apple would be more (+$250) because the dell is a 2.3GHz i7 processor.
There are minor differences, but they balance out.
* 500GB SATA 7200 RPM HDD (Apple has that option for the same prices as their 750GB 5200rpm).
* Different video card, but I'm certain it's comparable (1GB Nvidia GT550M)
* Dell optical drive can also read Blu-ray (I don't see that option on any MBP's)
* Dell screen is 1080p, so it's probably 1920x1080, versus MBP 1920x1200.
* Dell screen is 3d capable (120Hz refresh) - that makes up for the minor diff in resolution IMO
* I have no idea on real world battery life of either system.
All that said, I'll agree that in many cases the Apple offerings as of late are hard to match and hit the same or lower price, and at the very least, they're somewhat fair (certainly not 2x or 3x the cost of a building the same PC). The advantage of building your own PC, however, is that you can eliminate features that don't matter to you and get a far cheaper system that does as much or more than the Mac in the areas you need.
I'll also say I really love to hate Dell. I detest their interface for finding computers/stuff, and the arbitrary limits/requirements they impose (ex. why isn't a 1tb drive an option in a low-end system? why do some systems require a monitor to be included? why aren't all the monitor choices available on those that do require them? Why is the above Dell laptop the ONLY one with a 17" 1080p screen (I'd be happy with a much slower laptop with a high-res screen)? And why limit the Windows options on different products (and why not have a no-OS option)? Why does their 30" monitor cost 50% MORE than it did two years ago? etc etc etc. Comparing to Apple though, they only have one model with a 17" screen, so there is no additional level of customization there either.
Kindle works really well on ipad. It also works really well on Winders, OSX, Blackberry and Android phones and tablets, and it gives you access to your titles regardless of platform. ...
I have a kindle, and I agree that, for purchases from amazon, it's great that it syncs just about everywhere (even notes and last read spots and bookmarks; exception being that they don't have a client for linux or any other OSS platform).
However, "...access to your titles regardless...", um, I WISH, but no. I buy some books, but more than half are from feedbooks or project gutenberg or other ebook stores (eg. O'Reilly). Those do NOT sync. Technically, you're right in that you can still access those books, but not the "kindle" way. It would take very very very little effort for them to allow that (upload your own books to add to your collection), but they don't allow that.
To be honest, I think there's a huge market potential for that... a provider that lets you add whatever books you want, and it'll take care of syncing with all your random devices. For Amazon native titles, it could act as a subscribed kindle and talk to amazon to do the kindle sync. For others, it could handle the sync itself, etc.
Anyway... Amazon isn't open either. I detest the way Apple is running things with apps - not buying there iProducts isn't enough, because they are consuming mindshare and marketshare that could go towards a better (more open) landscape. But Amazon is certainly not exempt from walled garden approach. If they added everything from feedbooks as free books, that would get closer, but it still wouldn't cover me buying ebooks from elsewhere (NOTE: I can read those on my kindle... just without the added benefits of whispersync... but I can NOT read those titles in my Kindle app on my PC or on my Android, WTF?).
The Kindle app could easily be a MUCH better product. IMO, Amazon just doesn't want to let you do what you want with it. It's there for them to sell you stuff; anything else is second rate or worse. It'd be a lot easier for me to defend Amazon's right to their app doing what it does if they allowed the user to do what they want.