"It definitely is functional but hardly has any of the features consumers demand."
isn't this expected (or at least not surprising). if I were a NASA engineer, I'd see the program as a tool to help me accomplish the larger task. the more time I spend on tools, the less time I spend on progress to the larger objective. I'd write the program as quickly as I could.. would not care about UI, functionality, usability or anything else, I built it for me to use - as long as the output satisfies my needs, i'd consider the task done and move on.
I don't know if it's related or not, but that has been the primary problem with open source projects thus far.
That would actually be nice. If every site I ever went to was cached locally. Like having a browser cache with unlimited size. It would be miles better than archive.org, if you remember a site from years ago and wish you could go back. Even better if it prefetched links you never clicked on.
I don't agree with this. I think awarding them for making the web safer by removing javascript is like awarding somebody for keeping children from hurting themselves by locking them in cages. Of course you're safer if you don't do anything. But the real goal should be to make things safer while still being able to use those features. they might as well give an award to Lynx for safe browsing.
It's a shame those people don't realize you can type the same name in Facebook. It only returns Facebook results and narrows the list down based on your friends list and their friends lists. If you search for John Smith, you might actually find the one you're looking for because he's the only one on three of your friends' friends lists. As opposed to a regular search engine which will give you a million john smith results, even a million Facebook pages for john smiths. And if you search on Facebook, you get the john smiths who have opted to be hidden from search engines but still show up to "friends of friends".
And really, I'm no Facebook lover. I only get on there because everybody else is on there. If everybody moves to google, I guess I'll be moving too. Just I think all the "Google is so good and they're going to kill evil Facebook" is a bit much. First of all, they're equally evil. Second, Google has watched Facebook turn into a monster that probably surpasses every Google property except YouTube in traffic. I wouldn't say they're going to lose to Facebook. But it's not like they've been successful against Facebook any time during the last few years.
My nieces and nephews all got MacBooks issued to them from their school. Just like the ones in that webcam scandal. So the school had a firewall installed that was supposed to block inappropriate sites. It was amazing how fast people, who had never owned a computer before, learned how to use a proxy, and learned to put that s on the end of https because apparently the firewall didn't filter sites using ssl. And one of the first things they learned was electrical tape defeats the webcam.
Cousins got iPhones. It was amazing how people who didn't even know what firmware was learned the concept of jailbreaking. No, they didn't all know how to do it. But they knew how to go on Facebook and ask "does anybody know how to jailbreak an iPhone"?
The moral of this story is, if you try to take it away and there is a way to get it back, they'll find it even if they have no idea how to do it right now. It's not that they're incapable of learning. It's they have had no reason to up until now.
I try not to spend too much time on Google discussions because their googlebots always mod me down if I say anything anti-Google and it just irks me. But what irks me even more is people assuming I'm male.
Anyway, I'm just saying Facebook doesn't need Google. Google doesn't need Facebook either. It just doesn't matter if Google removes Facebook from its search. I am sure there are people out there who will not be able to find Facebook if not for Google. But they probably can't use Facebook anyway because they're stuck on some guy's blog, trying to figure out why they can't log in.
And seriously, if you can't type Facebook.com, how are you going to type Google.com? I think if the web browser's address bar wasn't programmed to turn into a Google bar automatically, the numbers would look different. And honestly, if Google can kill Facebook by removing Facebook from the search index, then they should just do it already, instead of making apps to harvest Facebook information and running ads on Facebook.
While they're at it, maybe they can run an ad to the people searching Google, explaining how inefficient it is to go to a search engine and type a full website address. I understand it will correct the addresses but the web browsers have the anti-phishing built in, you know.
I truly don't think Facebook needs ads or Google at this point. Like Google, they are basically making sure you can't use anything electronic without seeing them. Also, Google marketing has managed to make Google the new word for search and Facebook has people asking for Facebook invites as if they're asking for a phone number. Really neither of them need each other. And both of them are obviously afraid of each other. If I were Facebook right now, I'd be looking to create my own YouTube and search engine.
Who goes to Google to find Facebook? The only Facebook-related thing Google is good for is finding the Facebook page of an individual who probably doesn't even want to be found. Google actually should ban Facebook from its search results.
Micropayments with Magazines and Newspapers would be nice. How many magazines are sold just because of the person on the cover, only for the buyer to find out that picture on the cover is the only thing about that person in the magazine? The same goes for the front page article that people buy a paper to see. It would be nice to only lose the 2 cents rather than the 300 cents or whatever. The problem with micropayments is they have to get you to make enough of them to make the profit huge. So with magazines, they'd take the article you want to read and split it into 15 parts that you have to pay for separately. Perhaps webpages with click-thru ads are a form of micropayments for magazines.
I don't know if it matters but I do think there is one glaring difference between what this guy is doing and what all of the favorite targets of Slashdotters are doing. That is, the believers of real religious faiths actually do believe in what they're doing, even the apparel they wear as part of their worship. Does anybody truly believe this guy believes in a spaghetti god or any supernatural reason to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head?
If he doesn't, and the only reason he's wearing this thing is to make a political statement, then he shouldn't be compared to any member of a real religious faith. Instead, maybe he should be compared to PETA people who put on animal makeup and get photographed naked in cages to protest animal abuse. They're doing something outrageous to draw attention to a cause they believe in.
Maybe he shouldn't even be compared to them. Maybe he's more like Howard Stern, just doing whatever he can to get attention. But I certainly don't believe he's fighting for religious freedom, which is what he claims to be fighting for. In fact, if his goal is to mock people who are allowed to practice their religious beliefs then he's actually fighting to take away religious freedom.
I'm not saying what he's doing is bad or wrong. I'm just saying there is a difference between fighting for what you believe in and fighting against what other people believe in. I have issues with a lot of people who claim to be Jewish and people who claim to be Christian. But what they wear on their head isn't one of those issues. And I wouldn't have a problem with this guy wearing a spaghetti strainer on his head, except for the fact that the only reason he's doing it is to insult people who believe in things he doesn't believe in. I can understand him being upset if the person believes in something that hurts him. But what they wear on their head doesn't hurt him.
Same here. I will never know what this thing looks like unless it shows up somewhere else. Also, the domain name led me to think it might redirect me to something other than a classic video game.
I don't know if I find it offensive. I've had my lesbian moments. And there are probably a few drunken upskirt pictures of me still on the internet from the 90's. However, I do think it's an incredibly stupid name for a project. I had never heard of it until I read the Slashdot summary. When I read the name, I assumed Python had a script that automatically download's pictures of women's panties. Had I been looking at my Linux repository and saw that name, I would have skipped over it with the assumption that it was useless. Why not give it a name that gives people an indication of what it does, or at least doesn't imply that it's useless?
So now we know the computers in Star Trek will never be a reality. Because these guys have a patent on a machine responding to "Computer, here is the list of songs I would like to hear..."
And these patents will be extended well past the 24th century.
Google doesn't care about anybody's privacy. They just noticed Facebook has figured out how to get people to volunteer a thousand times more information about themselves and their friends than Google could hope to extract from their search results. They just want all of those people giving that information to Google instead of Facebook. Nothing else matters.
Promising to protect your privacy means nothing because Google is not going to protect your privacy from Google.
I think the real lesson here is you can't assume MySQL is useless and unsuitable for a major website just because Slashdotters hate it and declare it unsuitable for a major website. Even in the midst of news that its being used successfully on the biggest website in the world, Slashdot still says it can't work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet you're going to get modded down even though what you said is true.
"It definitely is functional but hardly has any of the features consumers demand."
isn't this expected (or at least not surprising). if I were a NASA engineer, I'd see the program as a tool to help me accomplish the larger task. the more time I spend on tools, the less time I spend on progress to the larger objective. I'd write the program as quickly as I could.. would not care about UI, functionality, usability or anything else, I built it for me to use - as long as the output satisfies my needs, i'd consider the task done and move on.
I don't know if it's related or not, but that has been the primary problem with open source projects thus far.
Where were you and the parent poster when the discussion was Linux vs Windows?
But there will be an exemption to the rule, allowing citizens of India to be certified for free.
That made me think, if he actually goes down for this then we can assume rickrolling is now a federal crime.
And if it's a crime in the United States then it's a violation against the new world order and therefore it's a crime everywhere.
That would actually be nice. If every site I ever went to was cached locally. Like having a browser cache with unlimited size. It would be miles better than archive.org, if you remember a site from years ago and wish you could go back. Even better if it prefetched links you never clicked on.
So Facebook apps destroy privacy. However, that does not change the point that some Android apps are doing the same thing.
At least we know a whole different group of people put together Google+ and it's totally secure...
I don't agree with this. I think awarding them for making the web safer by removing javascript is like awarding somebody for keeping children from hurting themselves by locking them in cages. Of course you're safer if you don't do anything. But the real goal should be to make things safer while still being able to use those features. they might as well give an award to Lynx for safe browsing.
It's a shame those people don't realize you can type the same name in Facebook. It only returns Facebook results and narrows the list down based on your friends list and their friends lists. If you search for John Smith, you might actually find the one you're looking for because he's the only one on three of your friends' friends lists. As opposed to a regular search engine which will give you a million john smith results, even a million Facebook pages for john smiths. And if you search on Facebook, you get the john smiths who have opted to be hidden from search engines but still show up to "friends of friends".
And really, I'm no Facebook lover. I only get on there because everybody else is on there. If everybody moves to google, I guess I'll be moving too. Just I think all the "Google is so good and they're going to kill evil Facebook" is a bit much. First of all, they're equally evil. Second, Google has watched Facebook turn into a monster that probably surpasses every Google property except YouTube in traffic. I wouldn't say they're going to lose to Facebook. But it's not like they've been successful against Facebook any time during the last few years.
My nieces and nephews all got MacBooks issued to them from their school. Just like the ones in that webcam scandal. So the school had a firewall installed that was supposed to block inappropriate sites. It was amazing how fast people, who had never owned a computer before, learned how to use a proxy, and learned to put that s on the end of https because apparently the firewall didn't filter sites using ssl. And one of the first things they learned was electrical tape defeats the webcam.
Cousins got iPhones. It was amazing how people who didn't even know what firmware was learned the concept of jailbreaking. No, they didn't all know how to do it. But they knew how to go on Facebook and ask "does anybody know how to jailbreak an iPhone"?
The moral of this story is, if you try to take it away and there is a way to get it back, they'll find it even if they have no idea how to do it right now. It's not that they're incapable of learning. It's they have had no reason to up until now.
I try not to spend too much time on Google discussions because their googlebots always mod me down if I say anything anti-Google and it just irks me. But what irks me even more is people assuming I'm male.
Anyway, I'm just saying Facebook doesn't need Google. Google doesn't need Facebook either. It just doesn't matter if Google removes Facebook from its search. I am sure there are people out there who will not be able to find Facebook if not for Google. But they probably can't use Facebook anyway because they're stuck on some guy's blog, trying to figure out why they can't log in.
And seriously, if you can't type Facebook.com, how are you going to type Google.com? I think if the web browser's address bar wasn't programmed to turn into a Google bar automatically, the numbers would look different. And honestly, if Google can kill Facebook by removing Facebook from the search index, then they should just do it already, instead of making apps to harvest Facebook information and running ads on Facebook.
While they're at it, maybe they can run an ad to the people searching Google, explaining how inefficient it is to go to a search engine and type a full website address. I understand it will correct the addresses but the web browsers have the anti-phishing built in, you know.
1. How many of those people realize it's a search engine and not an address bar?
2. How many of those people actually typed it in an address bar but their web browser's address bar is also a Google search bar?
I truly don't think Facebook needs ads or Google at this point. Like Google, they are basically making sure you can't use anything electronic without seeing them. Also, Google marketing has managed to make Google the new word for search and Facebook has people asking for Facebook invites as if they're asking for a phone number. Really neither of them need each other. And both of them are obviously afraid of each other. If I were Facebook right now, I'd be looking to create my own YouTube and search engine.
Who goes to Google to find Facebook? The only Facebook-related thing Google is good for is finding the Facebook page of an individual who probably doesn't even want to be found. Google actually should ban Facebook from its search results.
Kind of like those people who expect you to feel better about your situation because they say "there are people in a worse situation".
Micropayments with Magazines and Newspapers would be nice. How many magazines are sold just because of the person on the cover, only for the buyer to find out that picture on the cover is the only thing about that person in the magazine? The same goes for the front page article that people buy a paper to see. It would be nice to only lose the 2 cents rather than the 300 cents or whatever. The problem with micropayments is they have to get you to make enough of them to make the profit huge. So with magazines, they'd take the article you want to read and split it into 15 parts that you have to pay for separately. Perhaps webpages with click-thru ads are a form of micropayments for magazines.
I don't know if it matters but I do think there is one glaring difference between what this guy is doing and what all of the favorite targets of Slashdotters are doing. That is, the believers of real religious faiths actually do believe in what they're doing, even the apparel they wear as part of their worship. Does anybody truly believe this guy believes in a spaghetti god or any supernatural reason to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head?
If he doesn't, and the only reason he's wearing this thing is to make a political statement, then he shouldn't be compared to any member of a real religious faith. Instead, maybe he should be compared to PETA people who put on animal makeup and get photographed naked in cages to protest animal abuse. They're doing something outrageous to draw attention to a cause they believe in.
Maybe he shouldn't even be compared to them. Maybe he's more like Howard Stern, just doing whatever he can to get attention. But I certainly don't believe he's fighting for religious freedom, which is what he claims to be fighting for. In fact, if his goal is to mock people who are allowed to practice their religious beliefs then he's actually fighting to take away religious freedom.
I'm not saying what he's doing is bad or wrong. I'm just saying there is a difference between fighting for what you believe in and fighting against what other people believe in. I have issues with a lot of people who claim to be Jewish and people who claim to be Christian. But what they wear on their head isn't one of those issues. And I wouldn't have a problem with this guy wearing a spaghetti strainer on his head, except for the fact that the only reason he's doing it is to insult people who believe in things he doesn't believe in. I can understand him being upset if the person believes in something that hurts him. But what they wear on their head doesn't hurt him.
If Slashdot loves it, I can already predict they will not get very many Facebook users to convert. Those are two different audiences.
Same here. I will never know what this thing looks like unless it shows up somewhere else. Also, the domain name led me to think it might redirect me to something other than a classic video game.
I don't know if I find it offensive. I've had my lesbian moments. And there are probably a few drunken upskirt pictures of me still on the internet from the 90's. However, I do think it's an incredibly stupid name for a project. I had never heard of it until I read the Slashdot summary. When I read the name, I assumed Python had a script that automatically download's pictures of women's panties. Had I been looking at my Linux repository and saw that name, I would have skipped over it with the assumption that it was useless. Why not give it a name that gives people an indication of what it does, or at least doesn't imply that it's useless?
So now we know the computers in Star Trek will never be a reality. Because these guys have a patent on a machine responding to "Computer, here is the list of songs I would like to hear..."
And these patents will be extended well past the 24th century.
Google also has an impressive number of Googlebots working slashdot to mod down anybody who isn't pro-Google.
Google doesn't care about anybody's privacy. They just noticed Facebook has figured out how to get people to volunteer a thousand times more information about themselves and their friends than Google could hope to extract from their search results. They just want all of those people giving that information to Google instead of Facebook. Nothing else matters.
Promising to protect your privacy means nothing because Google is not going to protect your privacy from Google.
I think the real lesson here is you can't assume MySQL is useless and unsuitable for a major website just because Slashdotters hate it and declare it unsuitable for a major website. Even in the midst of news that its being used successfully on the biggest website in the world, Slashdot still says it can't work.