The end user just knows "it was slow and had popups" and we subsequently "fixed it." Indeed, speaking primarily as an end-user, as opposed to a programmer (because I haven't done a lot of it recently), I'm inclined to say that a lot of end-users have a hard time realizing that there is actually someone who is a "legitimate" company doing this to them. It is theoretically possible that someone would see 180Solutions as actively fighting spyware/adware, as opposed to simply being more passive in its support/condoning of adware.
Addiction is where any behavior begins to affect how you live your life. I'm addicted to breathing, eating and sleeping, but I can live a normal life doing all of these things. It's when you do something to such an extent that it significantly harms your way of life.
In Literature Theory class yesterday we were talking about Freud (yeah, was on/. so I don't know how it came up). His definition of insanity was that to be insane, you had to be unable to either work or love. And I can see Internet addiction doing that to some people.
Yes, that's true. I was only talking about the average user (and I'd say that I'm average in email usage) today, not everyone today or anyone in the future. My point was that size of inbox doesn't matter for the average person, unless they use it as backup of data. Granted, I may not be perfectly average, but I think that as a college student on a few email lists and a lot of high school friends scattered about the country, I get a reasonably average amount of email.
I agree. 2GBs is far more space than anyone needs. But we have it, because we always believe bigger is better. Really, they should all do 500 MB, and if you need bigger, you get more addresses for storage. Also, I just want to point out that they might not have the full 2GB in HD capacity sitting there. I mean, airlines (and some theatres) overbook, and banks keep only partial reserves, so they may only keep a few hundred MBs per person, and for every popular person who gets 200 emails a day and keeps all of them, there are a dozen people like me who have like a total of 200 saved ever.
Do keep in mind that this is America, and we buy stuff because it's bigger and "better" not because it is more useful.
I've always been interested in this logic. It's simply asinie to think that the value of a constituent's opinion varies in proportion to the amount of difficulty one has to undergo to have their opinion heard. While I agree with what "spun" and the AC said, there is a reason this is valid logic from the sheer pragmatic perspective. Amount of work I'm willing to put into something = importance to me. If something is important to me, I'll make it a voting issue in an election. 90% of a district could disagree with their representative over something minor, because they'll all vote the "big" issues anyways.
Well, the naming of the site, "SuperSite for Windows" should given people a clue as to the bias. Further poking around the site (read: going to the homepage) shows that the site pretty much discusses only Microsoft upcoming products, from Windows to Xbox360. I'm not insulting the site, or saying it's wrong about this Hotmail update, just that the site is biased in favor of MS, and we need to look at it from that angle.
Microsoft makes its money selling windows and office. I don't see that changing because of gmail. This seems more like a pissing contest than anything else.
Yeah, especially considering they are fighting them on size. Not only are they going 2 gig, but according to the article, you can ask for more. (Kahuna does offer a hefty 2 GB inbox...non-abusive users would be able to go above 2 GB without paying for the privilege.).
Personally, I almost feel like this is a result of Google moving to the desktop. MS didn't seem to react to the idea of a few companies making a lot of money on the Internet, but I think Google's expansion into, well, everything, worries them. I think the purpose of this is to put Google on the defensive.
I'm not a google fanboy, and I don't hate MS so much that I wouldn't use their stuff if it was the best choice. I think that the two of them competing is great, because I'll wind up with better stuff.
From the Full Article (emphasis mine): It's still not completely clear how either of Microsoft's desktop security products will be delivered, how deeply integrated into the operating system or Microsoft servers they could be, and how they will be priced
If Microsoft wants to create an unbreakable OS that spyware, malware, viruses and whatever are useless against, more power to them. That should be their job.
But if Microsoft wants to charge for the OS and not make it secure, they can't go out and sell the security stuff at extra charge. And if it comes autobundled, it better be superior to anything else, or else it is just like the browser fight.
Just my 4 cents (I found two extra in a payphone).
and I think that kids interested in science is something we really need. I mean, if we want to keep a strong science industry going, we need the future generation, basically anyone my age or younger (18), to not only use computers and techno-toys, but understand them to some degree.
And what good is a "federal overseer" when they have no jurisdiction over half of the network? This is my logic to have an international control of the Internet (predominated by the US).
But in terms of what they could do, did you really think they could bring down the Twin Towers? I mean, I figure that they can be pretty darn creative if they put their minds to it. And they seem to have decent monetary backing.
No, I think you were misunderstanding what I said or was trying to say. I was the first one to say the iPod is unnecessary, and all you need is the software. what I said in my most recent post is that the OSS has to fight the popularity of iTunes, which won't be easy. most people have iPods for the music reason, and have iTunes with the pod because they're lazy, or because it works well enough (I'm one of them). It has nothing to do with the people needing the iPods.
Sounds cool. But they'll suffer because almost everyone has an iPod, so they're competing for a smaller market. That's the glory of Apple's software/hardware one-two punch.
Until the company goes down the crapper because all the other companies are making billions by having lower health care costs and hiring people that correctly match their genetic makeup (yeah 3005 stuff).
Or IBM'll profit, because they'll still employ the people with slight genetic flaws who are still brilliant. They'll have an easier time competing for workers overall, as they'll be hiring from a larger base. We aren't talking about useless people here, these people would still be smart enough to be hired normally, and they may not have any long term problems, it's just that they might someday have a problem.
Well, fundamentally, you still have to download it, so this is just getting the whole thing at once. The other option is to not get an iPod, but just get iTunes or Windows Media Player (they have links on Yahoo! podcasts). No need for the actual iPod, unless you want to carry it with you.
You're both right. On the whole, it really isn't a time saver, as you still have to do some plugging in and setting up. But you don't have to have so many different power plugs, all of which hurt portability. This will become more useful as we get smaller and smaller devices. This is probably the first product of a line that will progressively get better. Afterall, that's part of the point of Slashdot, right? To bring us news on cool stuff before the masses realize how cool it is in two product cycles.
Now, a question from the economics major (read: lay person) - if I try to charge multiple devices, as Parent suggests is possible, don't I risk tripping a circuit or something? Or at least them all charging slower?
Yes, I know the Earth is round, I'm not an idiot. Since a previous poster said that the flight path goes over most of the continental US, and I'm sitting in a class and don't have a globe in front of me, I assumed he meant the "Great Circle" route - the fastest one when taking into account the Earth's curvature. Therefore, any deviation from the fastest route would take more time, fuel, and money. Since the flight becomes more expensive and takes longer for each forced change in distance because of regulations, it is a double reduction in worth. Therefore, the usefulness of a supersonic plane might be totally worthless, if it can only go supersonic over so long of an extra distance that it is no longer all that much faster. If it goes 2 times as fast over 1.5 times the distance, it isn't as much of a time saver, and the price would be a lot higher. I would pay double (as an example) only if there was a massive savings in time, not to save a few hours.
Based on the moderation that followed, I would say that "some people" don't like it when popular theories get questioned. Which just goes to show you--once a scientific "fact" has been established, our attachment to it becomes as dogmatic as any theological notion...
I think some of the issue in resistance to change in the scientific community - by which I mean not only scientists, but others affliated with them, esp. lay people - is the vastly different burden of proof. In science, if there is one thing wrong with a theory, it gets tossed/revised. But in the rest of the world, if something does 100 things right and one thing wrong, we still think it's pretty good. I don't know how much sense that makes, but it has rung with me when looking at some of this stuff.
That adds a lot of travel time, doesn't it? I mean, the most developed parts of Canada are near the US border, right? So that entails going pretty far North. Of course, supersonic flight just from LA to Japan or Australia or India is still an option, since those are usually very long flights. It'd also make LAX more crowded, and entail a transfer from LAX to anywhere in the US after you arrive.
That's what I was wondering. I mean, probably half the trip is over land. It's not like Concorde, where everything past Ireland could be over water, pretty much. Maybe if they went over Canada, are the laws there any different?
In terms of economics, no way can they afford a half-supersonic flight. It'd only reduce flight time by about a quarter I'd imagine, and increase the cost a lot, as it's a more powerful engine, even if only at 50% power most of the time.
Some smart guy could easily buy what he needs, rent some two room office in LA or NY, and rent out one or two studios at $50/hour, and then all you have to do to be decently recorded is get a few takes of each of your songs, then email it home to pretty much any decent computer to assemble. My buddy is a middle class student at Virginia Tech, and he's the probably comparable software in video editing to what's probably needed. People would need to only produce a few songs at a time, instead of a full CD. Really, if they made a few digital copies of their songs, then did a few minor local shows and made 1000 song sales (people telling friends and cousins or whatever), they'd break even, if they used their own drums and instruments.
Makes sense, they'd sort of have to have it reflect that, as it would be unethical to not have the Profiler show what is inside, but I figured it was worth confirming.
It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.
It'd be horrible. Rather than just buying off the US Gov't (directly or indirectly) they'd have to buy off the Canadians, and the Germans, and the French, and the British, and everyone else. To do that, they'd have to raise prices on everything. So it's really very bad for companies, consumers, and American politicians.
Ok, while I understand that what you describe is a valuable use for an 80gig iPod, why would Steve Jobs have made this secret announcement seem like a big deal? Just to drive us insane? I mean, it seems like something like that wouldn't be a big announcement, just a little side thing that they toss out in a press release. If it is only for like 1% of their user base...
Slashdot Mirror
The end user just knows "it was slow and had popups" and we subsequently "fixed it."
Indeed, speaking primarily as an end-user, as opposed to a programmer (because I haven't done a lot of it recently), I'm inclined to say that a lot of end-users have a hard time realizing that there is actually someone who is a "legitimate" company doing this to them. It is theoretically possible that someone would see 180Solutions as actively fighting spyware/adware, as opposed to simply being more passive in its support/condoning of adware.
Addiction is where any behavior begins to affect how you live your life. I'm addicted to breathing, eating and sleeping, but I can live a normal life doing all of these things. It's when you do something to such an extent that it significantly harms your way of life.
/. so I don't know how it came up). His definition of insanity was that to be insane, you had to be unable to either work or love. And I can see Internet addiction doing that to some people.
In Literature Theory class yesterday we were talking about Freud (yeah, was on
Yes, that's true. I was only talking about the average user (and I'd say that I'm average in email usage) today, not everyone today or anyone in the future. My point was that size of inbox doesn't matter for the average person, unless they use it as backup of data. Granted, I may not be perfectly average, but I think that as a college student on a few email lists and a lot of high school friends scattered about the country, I get a reasonably average amount of email.
I agree. 2GBs is far more space than anyone needs. But we have it, because we always believe bigger is better. Really, they should all do 500 MB, and if you need bigger, you get more addresses for storage. Also, I just want to point out that they might not have the full 2GB in HD capacity sitting there. I mean, airlines (and some theatres) overbook, and banks keep only partial reserves, so they may only keep a few hundred MBs per person, and for every popular person who gets 200 emails a day and keeps all of them, there are a dozen people like me who have like a total of 200 saved ever.
Do keep in mind that this is America, and we buy stuff because it's bigger and "better" not because it is more useful.
I've always been interested in this logic. It's simply asinie to think that the value of a constituent's opinion varies in proportion to the amount of difficulty one has to undergo to have their opinion heard.
While I agree with what "spun" and the AC said, there is a reason this is valid logic from the sheer pragmatic perspective. Amount of work I'm willing to put into something = importance to me. If something is important to me, I'll make it a voting issue in an election. 90% of a district could disagree with their representative over something minor, because they'll all vote the "big" issues anyways.
Better do it while you still can.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Well, the naming of the site, "SuperSite for Windows" should given people a clue as to the bias. Further poking around the site (read: going to the homepage) shows that the site pretty much discusses only Microsoft upcoming products, from Windows to Xbox360. I'm not insulting the site, or saying it's wrong about this Hotmail update, just that the site is biased in favor of MS, and we need to look at it from that angle.
Microsoft makes its money selling windows and office. I don't see that changing because of gmail. This seems more like a pissing contest than anything else.
Yeah, especially considering they are fighting them on size. Not only are they going 2 gig, but according to the article, you can ask for more. (Kahuna does offer a hefty 2 GB inbox...non-abusive users would be able to go above 2 GB without paying for the privilege.).
Personally, I almost feel like this is a result of Google moving to the desktop. MS didn't seem to react to the idea of a few companies making a lot of money on the Internet, but I think Google's expansion into, well, everything, worries them. I think the purpose of this is to put Google on the defensive.
I'm not a google fanboy, and I don't hate MS so much that I wouldn't use their stuff if it was the best choice. I think that the two of them competing is great, because I'll wind up with better stuff.
From the Full Article (emphasis mine):
It's still not completely clear how either of Microsoft's desktop security products will be delivered, how deeply integrated into the operating system or Microsoft servers they could be, and how they will be priced
If Microsoft wants to create an unbreakable OS that spyware, malware, viruses and whatever are useless against, more power to them. That should be their job.
But if Microsoft wants to charge for the OS and not make it secure, they can't go out and sell the security stuff at extra charge. And if it comes autobundled, it better be superior to anything else, or else it is just like the browser fight.
Just my 4 cents (I found two extra in a payphone).
and I think that kids interested in science is something we really need. I mean, if we want to keep a strong science industry going, we need the future generation, basically anyone my age or younger (18), to not only use computers and techno-toys, but understand them to some degree.
And what good is a "federal overseer" when they have no jurisdiction over half of the network?
This is my logic to have an international control of the Internet (predominated by the US).
But in terms of what they could do, did you really think they could bring down the Twin Towers? I mean, I figure that they can be pretty darn creative if they put their minds to it. And they seem to have decent monetary backing.
No, I think you were misunderstanding what I said or was trying to say. I was the first one to say the iPod is unnecessary, and all you need is the software. what I said in my most recent post is that the OSS has to fight the popularity of iTunes, which won't be easy. most people have iPods for the music reason, and have iTunes with the pod because they're lazy, or because it works well enough (I'm one of them). It has nothing to do with the people needing the iPods.
Sounds cool. But they'll suffer because almost everyone has an iPod, so they're competing for a smaller market. That's the glory of Apple's software/hardware one-two punch.
Until the company goes down the crapper because all the other companies are making billions by having lower health care costs and hiring people that correctly match their genetic makeup (yeah 3005 stuff).
Or IBM'll profit, because they'll still employ the people with slight genetic flaws who are still brilliant. They'll have an easier time competing for workers overall, as they'll be hiring from a larger base. We aren't talking about useless people here, these people would still be smart enough to be hired normally, and they may not have any long term problems, it's just that they might someday have a problem.
Well, fundamentally, you still have to download it, so this is just getting the whole thing at once. The other option is to not get an iPod, but just get iTunes or Windows Media Player (they have links on Yahoo! podcasts). No need for the actual iPod, unless you want to carry it with you.
You're both right. On the whole, it really isn't a time saver, as you still have to do some plugging in and setting up. But you don't have to have so many different power plugs, all of which hurt portability. This will become more useful as we get smaller and smaller devices. This is probably the first product of a line that will progressively get better. Afterall, that's part of the point of Slashdot, right? To bring us news on cool stuff before the masses realize how cool it is in two product cycles.
Now, a question from the economics major (read: lay person) - if I try to charge multiple devices, as Parent suggests is possible, don't I risk tripping a circuit or something? Or at least them all charging slower?
Yes, I know the Earth is round, I'm not an idiot. Since a previous poster said that the flight path goes over most of the continental US, and I'm sitting in a class and don't have a globe in front of me, I assumed he meant the "Great Circle" route - the fastest one when taking into account the Earth's curvature. Therefore, any deviation from the fastest route would take more time, fuel, and money. Since the flight becomes more expensive and takes longer for each forced change in distance because of regulations, it is a double reduction in worth. Therefore, the usefulness of a supersonic plane might be totally worthless, if it can only go supersonic over so long of an extra distance that it is no longer all that much faster. If it goes 2 times as fast over 1.5 times the distance, it isn't as much of a time saver, and the price would be a lot higher. I would pay double (as an example) only if there was a massive savings in time, not to save a few hours.
Based on the moderation that followed, I would say that "some people" don't like it when popular theories get questioned. Which just goes to show you--once a scientific "fact" has been established, our attachment to it becomes as dogmatic as any theological notion...
I think some of the issue in resistance to change in the scientific community - by which I mean not only scientists, but others affliated with them, esp. lay people - is the vastly different burden of proof. In science, if there is one thing wrong with a theory, it gets tossed/revised. But in the rest of the world, if something does 100 things right and one thing wrong, we still think it's pretty good. I don't know how much sense that makes, but it has rung with me when looking at some of this stuff.
That adds a lot of travel time, doesn't it? I mean, the most developed parts of Canada are near the US border, right? So that entails going pretty far North. Of course, supersonic flight just from LA to Japan or Australia or India is still an option, since those are usually very long flights. It'd also make LAX more crowded, and entail a transfer from LAX to anywhere in the US after you arrive.
That's what I was wondering. I mean, probably half the trip is over land. It's not like Concorde, where everything past Ireland could be over water, pretty much. Maybe if they went over Canada, are the laws there any different?
In terms of economics, no way can they afford a half-supersonic flight. It'd only reduce flight time by about a quarter I'd imagine, and increase the cost a lot, as it's a more powerful engine, even if only at 50% power most of the time.
Some smart guy could easily buy what he needs, rent some two room office in LA or NY, and rent out one or two studios at $50/hour, and then all you have to do to be decently recorded is get a few takes of each of your songs, then email it home to pretty much any decent computer to assemble. My buddy is a middle class student at Virginia Tech, and he's the probably comparable software in video editing to what's probably needed. People would need to only produce a few songs at a time, instead of a full CD. Really, if they made a few digital copies of their songs, then did a few minor local shows and made 1000 song sales (people telling friends and cousins or whatever), they'd break even, if they used their own drums and instruments.
Makes sense, they'd sort of have to have it reflect that, as it would be unethical to not have the Profiler show what is inside, but I figured it was worth confirming.
It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.
It'd be horrible. Rather than just buying off the US Gov't (directly or indirectly) they'd have to buy off the Canadians, and the Germans, and the French, and the British, and everyone else. To do that, they'd have to raise prices on everything. So it's really very bad for companies, consumers, and American politicians.
Ok, while I understand that what you describe is a valuable use for an 80gig iPod, why would Steve Jobs have made this secret announcement seem like a big deal? Just to drive us insane? I mean, it seems like something like that wouldn't be a big announcement, just a little side thing that they toss out in a press release. If it is only for like 1% of their user base...
What does System Profiler say? Does it identify the upgrades? Or did you just notice it was better than you thought, then saw the article?