I disagree about limited bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is flexible, and cheap. If you don't buy enough that's no fault other than the ISP themselves.
You can always set up emergency tier 1 ISP lease plans where they lease you extra bandwidth so you don't end up short, although its less cost efficient than making an enormous profit off light users to subsidize the heavy ones.
The current way we deal with internet (consumer to corporation) is like charging X dollars/gallon for gas, but only if you buy less than 5 gallons a month....sure, the super light cars would live painfully, but the SUV owners (and other things that guzzle gas but are legit such as diesel, freight, airplanes) would be screaming out. For internet purposes replace diesel, freight, airplanes with fileservers, bittorrent, streaming video, and downloaders/gamers. Yes, at that extreme just like internet, people will stop using it as much, because at that point it becomes practically extortion (and in the case of gas, the oil industry would be kaputz/pay in blood for charging so much, however there is competition enough that if they all do that there are other gas options). When there are no options, this extortion has no retribution, thats where we're at now with internet.
This comparison isn't 100%, but it's the closest I could think of at the time.
Don't like comcast, time warner, etc? You have nowhere to go, and you're paying the 20$ no matter what you drive, even though they could be charging 2$ or 3$.
It's ridiculously cheap to make a fast wireless mesh network in a decent sized neighborhood even without subsidies....(say 600 people who can average comcast's download speed for upload as well ends up around 60$/month )kinda makes you wonder just how much is siphoned to CEO's, huh?
combination approaches are better, I would definitely agree with that. They explain the basic premise of "1 password is not enough" but it becomes increasingly hard to remember stuff like that...and if it's too simple, then it's too easy to guess...and if it's too complex, then you'll lock yourself out.
And if you have any sort of failsafe in place for when you lose your passwords, people will use that to obtain access.
Basically, the moment anyone has physical access to your machine fingerprint readers make it easier, usb tokens make it easier, facial recognition makes it easier (chances of you having a photo around somewhere near your laptop? probably pretty likely unless you are robbed/stolen in public.
I don't mean to rip on what you say, I just think it's hard to come up with a real security system that would work. Maybe one where you have to enter a string of acharacters and then after that you can continue to type anything (:and as long as the string matches the rest auto-matches).....so that you could randomize your own password every time....thats the only idea I can come up with off the top of my head that might be a first step towards improvement.
What I mean is like....password is john1234....as long as in the entry box you start with john1234 you can follow that up with john1234hasabunnyinthecookingpot would still be accepted as long as the exact string wasn't recently used....course this leaves open brute force vulnerabilities so I think its back to square one....would only maybe help if soeone was trying to steal your password by watching you/catching with a keylogger./resigns//if someone's going to hack you, steal your info, etc....you're fucked....thats the basic end of it anyway
For your second example, what are you talking about?
You just explained it for why you have to hit enter: everytime the cookies expire I have to click the "Enter" again.
This is how they keep track of the you agreed thing. If you clear that cookie of course its going to ask you to click enter. There is no site you are routed to other than youporn.com that your browser sees. It's not like tube8 or other websites that actually take you from 1 site to another.
Slashdot certainly does get sub pages including your logged in profile page. I'm confused, it sounds like you're having a rough time personally due to whateever but not so much like the problems are firefox.
This seems kinda extra nitpicky to complain about though, honestly...although I find it contradictory to my own results. Any websites that the title was set to forums, or the forums.etc were in the link show up for me as well.
I'm not trying to make your own sound invalid, but I'm saying you can make what you want occur, just go do so!
Windows changes = you're f'd, too bad. firefox changes = make it do what you want. Don't like XYZ? I bet you're not the only one and people have a fix or an addon that can do whatever it is.
are you typing "forums", are you typign tdi? There are many ways via firefox's logic to make it show up first. One of which would be to tag it, another would be to bookmark it.
If you went si, unless you have a ton of sites starting with si, it'll still find it that way. This isn't any different than other autocompletes.
Your difference between 1 and two letters is the same as anywhere else. Honestly, autocomplete tracks most used links too so what's your point? Your comment seems to contradict itself a little on what your problem with how the new awesomebar works, which is same as before in your case really. an AC who got a +4 put dead on your options.
Firefox 3 in my opinion is huge improvements all around.
The article is completely off with its "There will be no real money to be made in direct sales of cheap mini-notebooks to consumers. " statement. Tell that to every business who has taken a smaller per-item profit to dynamically increase revenue via volume.
It's the truth of all business and a continually evolving economy and the technology underlying: building something expensive, make it cheaper, sell tons, build something better to replace it.
Once this occurs and computers/laptops/asus eee equivalents get to be in the range of "absolutely anyone can afford one for a decent one", everyone will have one just like how everyone can afford a cellphone nowadays.
Hey, its not like that...although I was so off today I read/proc like 30 times and thought it was a folder off/usr/bin or something lol.
If you have a system that either a: identifies improperly, b: uses virtual cores, or c: you only want to use X number of your cores, it makes sense to have the option to specify, plus not everyone wants to be at 100% processor usage, etc.
There is really good stitching software out there, specifically one similar to your username (hugin's panorama stitcher) which is multi-core friendly (literally an option says: "how many cores do you have" to multithread it).
You don't even need a tripod because technically it can stich vertically and not just horizontally in that case. It also stiches fast (5 shots that were 7.2 megapixel were able to be stitched together in about 30 seconds, ending with a 6600x1300 resolution)
Note their example image on that. I imagine with a more powerful PC (maybe a fast phenom) you could probably do it realtime instead....it went damn fast for me with an E6700.
Silverlight however, doesn't follow things such as linux...I don';t know where it stands with unix but there are some big issues with legality right now.
There are such things as natural monopolies from simply making better products.
However, it's different when you squash the competition. You can do better than them, that is completely acceptable, but to force everyone to not buy their stuff, is not acceptable.
Difference: I own the world market on water. Someone else wants to produce water too. Do I continue to produce safer and better water (aka compete and also give a reason for my competitor to do better), or do I abuse my market control by doing something financially that the competitor cannot compete with (and/or making people agree to such things).
Another fine example (which I suspect will hit monopoly issues/etc) was when (MS was it?) made a company sign an agreement to agree to not produce HDDVDs (or was it bluray discs) with a major manufacturer. Legal? 100%, actually. Monopoly abuse/attempt? 100%.
Running silverlight on anything non-windows is like shoving legal issues up someone's ass and waiting for them to cough out the settlement.
Ruby on rails also seemed to work just fine without siverlight...and as comments show, more languages in the mix is not a good thing.
So yes, people are trashing MS because there is something wrong with this. If MS did anything right, we wouldnt' trash MS, we'd praise them. In this case, as usual, they haven't done anything right. I'd be glad to praise MS if they actually did something that wasn't underhanded, but when was the last time you can recall them doing that?
It's the FCC on a huge merger. Of course it's going to be slow. I hate to say it, but thats not a surprise nor is it likely aimed at XM/Sirius. It's more likely that they just work that slow period. Even if FCC disapproves I suspect there may be an appeal process ( I don't know myself) but it would be just as lengthy.
Why not just use Google's ads (which are far superior) and monetize them? It's not like google refuses to cut you a share of the profits.
Or you can use completely irrelevant ads that nobody reads, that don't work, such as the viagra/enhance your mangina ads. If an ad isn't relevant and interesting, nobody will read it. This is more on the intrusive category, which means its unwelcome and useless.
Also, what about the funds the companies already have? Surely you dont' think they'd keep pocketing the money like they already do or anything, right?
Not quite, the money's already been paid in its own form recently for this marketshare (aka bribes:
It's Microsoft's "OnMyWay". Groklaw has coverage. So yeah, the bribes are pretty much out in the open on this. It's just a continuation of the OOXML bribes fiasco for marketshare.
Once you have a presence, there are an infinite number of ways to make money. Even small advertisements can begin to rack up huge money at that point. Plenty of companies can make a living off for example, google ads revenue, no? If you drive that much traffic to your website for example. Or, promoting a product AFTER you have the presence, even at a loss, will get you enormous volume in sales and make a huge profit overall.
Charging money before the presence however, will cost you an infinite loss of presence and being disregarded (the way you can still get presence in such a scenario is when a record company pays to have you marketed - doesn't mean whatever you're selling is any less crap)
The lawyer making the post is 100% hype and false information. The only reason they're interviewing a lawyer is thats the only kind of person who can make a false statement and still defend themselves legally. Thus it's called "bending the truth", especially with phrases such as (from the article) "Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software."
What part of having the open source software and doing whatever you can with it to benefit your own company is denied? Nothing. It's a matter of distribution. Nothing at all is stopping you from making changes for your own companies use and not giving it to anyone else. If you sell it to someone (thus commercial), then it is an entirely different ballgame.
Yes, you do. âoeFair useâ is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about itâ"in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license."
"Rights holders must get paid one way or another" is something the MPAA/RIAA says only.
Untrue. The real values are the ones that are not put into actual cash values, aka how well known a company is in the market and the loyalty they create through their customers.
Getting paid for your work is a shortsighted answer to a long term problem: Just because you charge people for something doesn't mean they care to buy it at all.
In contrast, radiohead's selling their cd online and nine inch nails doing the same should be a perfect example of this: they gave people the option to buy free and the real value was how they increased their worldwide presence, which is something that doesn't have a cash value.
Take away all rights from the record companies and watch the industry flourish. Technobrega in brazil is a great example of that.
I know it sounds good as a way to shaft people, but horrible business sense...why do people honestly not use good business sense in the face of reality? This has to be the most shortsighted idea I've ever seen out of TWC. How many new subscribers are there in an obscure Texas town, 5-10 and/or whatever market numbers they magically create via using family employees?
I think market response will be strong enough to tell TWC to go fly a kite, hopefully forever.
Even Tmobile's Blackberry plan is more competitive than this Time-Warner piece of crap that they are putting out there. Tmobiles = 30$/month unlimited edege.
In the meantime, why did some random town in Texas get chosen to test this?
Why didn't they try somewhere that there are enough people who will voice their opinions that the idea is garbage and just a money extraction?
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's really late to this debate,
but if I recall right wasn't Tabula Rasa almost completely in python?
Yes, because all 5 people include the thousands that all play Eve, right?
Despite this being a completely stupid TSA policy, is this even technically legal to refuse flight on refused ID? Would this pass muster in court?
I disagree about limited bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is flexible, and cheap. If you don't buy enough that's no fault other than the ISP themselves.
You can always set up emergency tier 1 ISP lease plans where they lease you extra bandwidth so you don't end up short, although its less cost efficient than making an enormous profit off light users to subsidize the heavy ones.
The current way we deal with internet (consumer to corporation) is like charging X dollars/gallon for gas, but only if you buy less than 5 gallons a month....sure, the super light cars would live painfully, but the SUV owners (and other things that guzzle gas but are legit such as diesel, freight, airplanes) would be screaming out. For internet purposes replace diesel, freight, airplanes with fileservers, bittorrent, streaming video, and downloaders/gamers. Yes, at that extreme just like internet, people will stop using it as much, because at that point it becomes practically extortion (and in the case of gas, the oil industry would be kaputz/pay in blood for charging so much, however there is competition enough that if they all do that there are other gas options). When there are no options, this extortion has no retribution, thats where we're at now with internet.
This comparison isn't 100%, but it's the closest I could think of at the time.
Don't like comcast, time warner, etc? You have nowhere to go, and you're paying the 20$ no matter what you drive, even though they could be charging 2$ or 3$.
It's ridiculously cheap to make a fast wireless mesh network in a decent sized neighborhood even without subsidies....(say 600 people who can average comcast's download speed for upload as well ends up around 60$/month )kinda makes you wonder just how much is siphoned to CEO's, huh?
combination approaches are better, I would definitely agree with that. They explain the basic premise of "1 password is not enough" but it becomes increasingly hard to remember stuff like that...and if it's too simple, then it's too easy to guess...and if it's too complex, then you'll lock yourself out.
/resigns //if someone's going to hack you, steal your info, etc....you're fucked....thats the basic end of it anyway
And if you have any sort of failsafe in place for when you lose your passwords, people will use that to obtain access.
Basically, the moment anyone has physical access to your machine fingerprint readers make it easier, usb tokens make it easier, facial recognition makes it easier (chances of you having a photo around somewhere near your laptop? probably pretty likely unless you are robbed/stolen in public.
I don't mean to rip on what you say, I just think it's hard to come up with a real security system that would work. Maybe one where you have to enter a string of acharacters and then after that you can continue to type anything (:and as long as the string matches the rest auto-matches).....so that you could randomize your own password every time....thats the only idea I can come up with off the top of my head that might be a first step towards improvement.
What I mean is like....password is john1234....as long as in the entry box you start with john1234 you can follow that up with john1234hasabunnyinthecookingpot would still be accepted as long as the exact string wasn't recently used....course this leaves open brute force vulnerabilities so I think its back to square one....would only maybe help if soeone was trying to steal your password by watching you/catching with a keylogger.
For your second example, what are you talking about?
You just explained it for why you have to hit enter:
everytime the cookies expire I have to click the "Enter" again.
This is how they keep track of the you agreed thing. If you clear that cookie of course its going to ask you to click enter. There is no site you are routed to other than youporn.com that your browser sees. It's not like tube8 or other websites that actually take you from 1 site to another.
Slashdot certainly does get sub pages including your logged in profile page. I'm confused, it sounds like you're having a rough time personally due to whateever but not so much like the problems are firefox.
so tag with "for"
This seems kinda extra nitpicky to complain about though, honestly...although I find it contradictory to my own results. Any websites that the title was set to forums, or the forums.etc were in the link show up for me as well.
I'm not trying to make your own sound invalid, but I'm saying you can make what you want occur, just go do so!
Windows changes = you're f'd, too bad.
firefox changes = make it do what you want. Don't like XYZ? I bet you're not the only one and people have a fix or an addon that can do whatever it is.
depends on how you type it.
are you typing "forums", are you typign tdi? There are many ways via firefox's logic to make it show up first. One of which would be to tag it, another would be to bookmark it.
Umm you still have this.
If you went si, unless you have a ton of sites starting with si, it'll still find it that way. This isn't any different than other autocompletes.
Your difference between 1 and two letters is the same as anywhere else. Honestly, autocomplete tracks most used links too so what's your point? Your comment seems to contradict itself a little on what your problem with how the new awesomebar works, which is same as before in your case really. an AC who got a +4 put dead on your options.
Firefox 3 in my opinion is huge improvements all around.
Short answer: I would agree with you that we are.
Long answer:
The article is completely off with its "There will be no real money to be made in direct sales of cheap mini-notebooks to consumers. " statement. Tell that to every business who has taken a smaller per-item profit to dynamically increase revenue via volume.
It's the truth of all business and a continually evolving economy and the technology underlying: building something expensive, make it cheaper, sell tons, build something better to replace it.
Once this occurs and computers/laptops/asus eee equivalents get to be in the range of "absolutely anyone can afford one for a decent one", everyone will have one just like how everyone can afford a cellphone nowadays.
Hey, its not like that...although I was so off today I read /proc like 30 times and thought it was a folder off /usr/bin or something lol.
If you have a system that either a: identifies improperly, b: uses virtual cores, or c: you only want to use X number of your cores, it makes sense to have the option to specify, plus not everyone wants to be at 100% processor usage, etc.
There is really good stitching software out there, specifically one similar to your username (hugin's panorama stitcher) which is multi-core friendly (literally an option says: "how many cores do you have" to multithread it).
You don't even need a tripod because technically it can stich vertically and not just horizontally in that case. It also stiches fast (5 shots that were 7.2 megapixel were able to be stitched together in about 30 seconds, ending with a 6600x1300 resolution)
Note their example image on that. I imagine with a more powerful PC (maybe a fast phenom) you could probably do it realtime instead....it went damn fast for me with an E6700.
It's all the same as all MS: vaporware.
Silverlight however, doesn't follow things such as linux...I don';t know where it stands with unix but there are some big issues with legality right now.
There are such things as natural monopolies from simply making better products.
However, it's different when you squash the competition. You can do better than them, that is completely acceptable, but to force everyone to not buy their stuff, is not acceptable.
Difference: I own the world market on water. Someone else wants to produce water too. Do I continue to produce safer and better water (aka compete and also give a reason for my competitor to do better), or do I abuse my market control by doing something financially that the competitor cannot compete with (and/or making people agree to such things).
Another fine example (which I suspect will hit monopoly issues/etc) was when (MS was it?) made a company sign an agreement to agree to not produce HDDVDs (or was it bluray discs) with a major manufacturer. Legal? 100%, actually. Monopoly abuse/attempt? 100%.
He is a troll/schmuck. Go look at his other user comments and the shit he says.
examples: look at his open source comments, etc.
Why?
Why is this good to run Silverlight?
Running silverlight on anything non-windows is like shoving legal issues up someone's ass and waiting for them to cough out the settlement.
Ruby on rails also seemed to work just fine without siverlight...and as comments show, more languages in the mix is not a good thing.
So yes, people are trashing MS because there is something wrong with this. If MS did anything right, we wouldnt' trash MS, we'd praise them. In this case, as usual, they haven't done anything right. I'd be glad to praise MS if they actually did something that wasn't underhanded, but when was the last time you can recall them doing that?
It's the FCC on a huge merger. Of course it's going to be slow. I hate to say it, but thats not a surprise nor is it likely aimed at XM/Sirius. It's more likely that they just work that slow period. Even if FCC disapproves I suspect there may be an appeal process ( I don't know myself) but it would be just as lengthy.
What the heck are you talking about? unsuccessful troll.
Sirius/xm was approved.
Uh?
Why not just use Google's ads (which are far superior) and monetize them? It's not like google refuses to cut you a share of the profits.
Or you can use completely irrelevant ads that nobody reads, that don't work, such as the viagra/enhance your mangina ads. If an ad isn't relevant and interesting, nobody will read it. This is more on the intrusive category, which means its unwelcome and useless.
Also, what about the funds the companies already have? Surely you dont' think they'd keep pocketing the money like they already do or anything, right?
Not quite, the money's already been paid in its own form recently for this marketshare (aka bribes:
It's Microsoft's "OnMyWay". Groklaw has coverage. So yeah, the bribes are pretty much out in the open on this. It's just a continuation of the OOXML bribes fiasco for marketshare.
Once you have a presence, there are an infinite number of ways to make money. Even small advertisements can begin to rack up huge money at that point. Plenty of companies can make a living off for example, google ads revenue, no? If you drive that much traffic to your website for example. Or, promoting a product AFTER you have the presence, even at a loss, will get you enormous volume in sales and make a huge profit overall.
Charging money before the presence however, will cost you an infinite loss of presence and being disregarded (the way you can still get presence in such a scenario is when a record company pays to have you marketed - doesn't mean whatever you're selling is any less crap)
The lawyer making the post is 100% hype and false information. The only reason they're interviewing a lawyer is thats the only kind of person who can make a false statement and still defend themselves legally. Thus it's called "bending the truth", especially with phrases such as (from the article) "Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software."
What part of having the open source software and doing whatever you can with it to benefit your own company is denied? Nothing. It's a matter of distribution. Nothing at all is stopping you from making changes for your own companies use and not giving it to anyone else. If you sell it to someone (thus commercial), then it is an entirely different ballgame.
From the GPLv3 faq: "Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?
Yes, you do. âoeFair useâ is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about itâ"in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license."
"Rights holders must get paid one way or another" is something the MPAA/RIAA says only.
Untrue. The real values are the ones that are not put into actual cash values, aka how well known a company is in the market and the loyalty they create through their customers.
Getting paid for your work is a shortsighted answer to a long term problem: Just because you charge people for something doesn't mean they care to buy it at all.
In contrast, radiohead's selling their cd online and nine inch nails doing the same should be a perfect example of this: they gave people the option to buy free and the real value was how they increased their worldwide presence, which is something that doesn't have a cash value.
Take away all rights from the record companies and watch the industry flourish. Technobrega in brazil is a great example of that.
I know it sounds good as a way to shaft people, but horrible business sense...why do people honestly not use good business sense in the face of reality? This has to be the most shortsighted idea I've ever seen out of TWC.
How many new subscribers are there in an obscure Texas town, 5-10 and/or whatever market numbers they magically create via using family employees?
I think market response will be strong enough to tell TWC to go fly a kite, hopefully forever.
Even Tmobile's Blackberry plan is more competitive than this Time-Warner piece of crap that they are putting out there.
Tmobiles = 30$/month unlimited edege.
In the meantime, why did some random town in Texas get chosen to test this?
Why didn't they try somewhere that there are enough people who will voice their opinions that the idea is garbage and just a money extraction?