The problem with advertisements now is that the vast majority of them don't appeal to me.
I hate advertising. I don't let myself be influenced by it if at all possible. I laugh at the funny stuff, but even that is not enough to get me to use a particular product or service. I like to try things out for myself and determine if I think they are worthwhile.
And now, because I own and perhaps use a Bluetooth-enabled device, they are going to use that information to tailor advertising? Fine. I'm chucking all my Bluetooth, which thankfully is only a cordless headset to use with my mobile phone. I'm doing it for the same reason that I don't give out information at the store when they ask for it, don't give out my email address willy-nilly, and have all my phone numbers on the National Do Not Call list -- because advertisers don't need to know anything about me. Let their products stand on their own; if they suck, they'll have to make them better. Don't tell me how much better you are -- show me.
I wonder if that has more to do with lack of education regarding bank/web security or have phishers just gotten that much better?
Phishers have gotten better, but the bottom line is: the average on-line banking customer is still pretty clueless. They subscribe to the theory, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck," which on the Internet is akin to measuring the speed of a bus by being hit by it and seeing how much it hurts.
My maxim has been: if it's actually from my bank, then I should be able to take a copy of the email to my local branch or call the bank and ask if the information in it is correct, i.e. have they lost all my data? The answer in 99.9% of cases will be no; of course there are increasingly less rare occasions where the bank has lost your data or let it get out into the wild. In those cases, the bank isn't generally going to admit it until some plucky person figures it out and makes them own up to it.
...whoop-dee-dooooo! If you find some use for it, great, but the fact is, I can build my own personal web site to do all the communicating with others I need, and I can control the content, and I don't have to worry about the vagueries of someone deciding to change the rules. Facebook, like MySpace, is overrated.
The content creators, especially the original content creators are generating value to Youtube, and should be rewarded for their effort, not having to pay for the privilege.
But why do I care? If I'm YouTube, what you put up is of little consequence (save for moral, ethical, and legal complications). Bandwidth can be expanded, but servers that are constantly having to serve up these enormous files constantly are going to break down, need to be maintained to extend their lifespans, need backup in case they do fail, and must be upgraded constantly to allow users the maximum benefit. So there's equipment and manpower costs right there to keep my system running.
It's like owning a parking garage -- I don't care what kind of car you drive, I'm simply charging you for the space to park it. I also don't care who uses your car; if you pay me monthly to have a space, anyone can drive yoru car in and out of the space as often as they like, as long as I get my money.
Now, before everyone goes bonkers, lets think about this critically. Servers, the power to run them, the buildings to house them, the people to keep them running, the people to write the code that makes the site run -- these are not free. If you don't have a huge wad of cash burning a hole in your bank, then you've got to find a source of funding, one which won't suddenly dry up and leave you with no way to run the show.
So charge for the service. Plumbers do it, lawyers do it (excessively it seems), hospitals do it... why not an Internet service? You pay your $20 a year and get free unlimited uploads. For those who don't like the model, you can have a free account, but we charge you a nickel for every upload. It might cut down on the megatons of crap that get uploaded, which would ease the strain on infrastructure and storage, generate constant revenue, which would ease money headaches, and generally improve things. And then, when YouTube gets so successful that it's ubiquitous, its CEO can embezzle huge amounts of money and leave the company broken while he sails away on his yacht.
It's pretty sad that this sort of thing needs to be said, but it still needs to be said to a generation growing up in a world of Livejournals and Myspaces and Facebooks.
In the "good old days," all the people on your street used to know what you were up to. If you did something, the grapevine usually got that information to your folks before you got home. Of course it wasn't a perfect system and if you worked at it, you could hide your deeds from prying eyes (that's what tree forts were for).
Now, people are actually writing down the things they're doing and placing that information where anyone on the planet can see it. It really should come as no shock now. Was Facebook wrong for not doing a better job of protecting privacy? Sure. Are people culpable if they're silly enough to put embarassing and/or potentially damaging information on the Internet? You bet. The fact is, the younger generations don't understand the whole "global neighborhood" concept and it taskes something like this to make them aware that something they think is local is most assuredly not.
Obviously, yes. Otherwise, open source would be closed-source.
The numbers look large given that Firefox is supposed to be the superior browser, but can you imagine what those same numbers would look like for IE? Think Gates & Co. would care to give up the source code to do a head-to-head comparison? I'll bet the folks in Redmond are looking at these numbers and wondering just how to get IE's numbers that low.
So it's easy to compromise the security of a Diebold voting machine -- news? This has been going on for a while in one form or another ever since Diebold got into the business. I'd have been more shocked if they would have found that you couldn't force it without breaking the seal.
If states/counties are smart, they'll avoid Diebold like the plague and stick to the old voting systems until a virtually fool-proof system can be designed and built. In the meantime, this won't have much effect on voting, since fewer and fewer people vote all the time.
BTW, that website with the detail is a trociously put together.
Honestly... I remember that quote about how cities would be re-designed around the thing - was anyone anywhere actually expecting something like that to happen in 5 years?
Heck, they haven't even redesigned New York City to handle cars efficiently -- what made anyone think the Segway was going to force changes that millions of drivers couldn't?
Under the program, called Project Strikeback, the Education Department received names from the F.B.I. and checked them against its student aid database, forwarding information. Each year, the Education Department collects information from 14 million applications for federal student aid.
Not much more complicated than when cops run a suspect's financial records or call records. They're simply looking for more information about suspects/known criminals. Hardly newsworthy ala the NSA or AOL.
This is part of an under-handed campaign by hardware manufacturers. Why? Simple: to generate sales. Face it, if they make products with long lifesapns, there's no incentive for you to buy new things (laptops, hard drives, etc.). You'll keep your trusty equipment until it suffers a massive failure, which given average quality, might last ten years. Result: slow sales and low turnover. Solution: cause products to self-destruct! The only problem Dell had with the plan is that they got caught by a wave of incendiary laptops. While I doubt Maxtor would make it so obvious, if there's a spate of HDs bursting into flames, don't say you weren't warned.
Under the new approach, page edits will no longer be immediately applied to pages but will instead have to be approved by an administrator before they become visible. Vandalism or changes which are not approved will not appear.
This is a major shift, from a "publish and fix" policy to one of prior restraint, where a cadre of privileged users will supervise what appears.
It is still only a proposal, so it is not yet clear if the new checks would be applied to every page, but this is obviously being considered seriously by Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales, and the site's Wikimedia Foundation.
And who decides who will be part of the cadre? Jimmy? I think we can see from his past actions, that he may not be the best judge of who would make the best administrator. I think they need to take a vote within the ranks, and let the editing community decide, then give Jimmy a limited number of vetoes to remove people he doesn't want.
Face it folks, your "blogosphere" is a mob of people who believe anything that their favorite "blog aka news site" posts, and that is ANYTHING AT ALL at times, and repost it themselves, often not even bothering to change a single character. They have no power, and never will. It's essentially the same as the fat outraged bloke in the pub that never shuts up about what he read in The Sun, despite not ever checking facts, figures, or common sense. I wish people would stop glamorising this crap.
There will come a day when innuendo replaces fact, thanks to the rapidity with which things spread on the Internet. One blogger picks up on something, two more repeat it, and so forth and so on. Of course, like the game we all used to play in school, where someone whispered something to you, and you to the next person, invariably the original message becomes garbled. The Internet is just a large example of this, as the story gets repeated and tweaked with each iteration, as bloggers apply their own personal view to it. There comes a point where fact-checking is impossible, because the "facts" are no longer that, facts.
There is no reason to think that JUST because the images and such where going around the web, Dell wouldnt have recalled them any later than they had.
No, but it certainly was a powerful incentive, given that negative publicity, despite what they say, isn't necessarily a good thing. Dell couldn't afford to have Sony's problem destroy their laptop business; in turn, they simply couldn't roll over on Sony, given the business relationship. In the end, the Internet end of the campaign was only one component of the change, and though important, was probably not the biggest factor.
Once again, technology triumphs over common sense -- did anybody ask the casual fan if this was a good idea? Why is it necessary to somehow "fix" things that aren't broken. The Original Series does not need Next Generation-like effects; it will lose all its charm and character, not to mention the historical context. It was a 60's show -- making it look like something from the turn of the new century destroys its technical merit for being ahead of its time in the 60's. The Star Trek franchise continues to sink slowly into the sunset...
Each person who received the email should give the boy a swift kick in the a**; I think a few million boots to the bum would help him remember the lesson.
As with the change of "brontosaurus" to "apatosaurus", this is completely foolish. Given the level of scientific illiteracy, what the hell is the point of taking something that everyone does know and declaring it to be wrong?
Ask the Creationists.
To stay on topic, now that Pluto is no longer an "official" planet, Jupiter should be next. It's a brown dwarf star after all, isn't it? Even the definition of is a little up in the air.
Beyond the fact that Clyde Tombaugh got eyestrain looking at photogrpahic plates trying to find the damned thing in the first place (he's doing 7200 RPM in his grave as we speak - people in Las Cruces can hear the high-pitched whine), the fact is we all grew up thinking of Pluto as a planet and this whole fracas has been nothing but a circus of uptight astronomers, lame-brained reporters, and fringe wackos.
I for one am not going to give in -- Pluto's a planet, case closed. When we go whippinng through other star systems with our handy "Guide to What Plaents Are," then this whole thing will make sense, but for right now, right here, on our lonely little mudball, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
From the article: 'These kids are saying: forget it! I don't want to work with you. I don't want to work at a place where I can't be freely online during the day," said Microsoft Senior Design Anthropologist Ann Kiera. She dubbed internet-wary employers "digital immigrants" and said the new wave of younger workers were "digital natives".'
Amazing how you can pervert one science to make yourself sound smarter. Senior Design Anthropologist? What does she do? Dig through old Commodore PET and TRS-80 computers looking for clues to the outgrowth of the Internet?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with advertisements now is that the vast majority of them don't appeal to me.
I hate advertising. I don't let myself be influenced by it if at all possible. I laugh at the funny stuff, but even that is not enough to get me to use a particular product or service. I like to try things out for myself and determine if I think they are worthwhile.
And now, because I own and perhaps use a Bluetooth-enabled device, they are going to use that information to tailor advertising? Fine. I'm chucking all my Bluetooth, which thankfully is only a cordless headset to use with my mobile phone. I'm doing it for the same reason that I don't give out information at the store when they ask for it, don't give out my email address willy-nilly, and have all my phone numbers on the National Do Not Call list -- because advertisers don't need to know anything about me. Let their products stand on their own; if they suck, they'll have to make them better. Don't tell me how much better you are -- show me.
I wonder if that has more to do with lack of education regarding bank/web security or have phishers just gotten that much better?
Phishers have gotten better, but the bottom line is: the average on-line banking customer is still pretty clueless. They subscribe to the theory, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck," which on the Internet is akin to measuring the speed of a bus by being hit by it and seeing how much it hurts.
My maxim has been: if it's actually from my bank, then I should be able to take a copy of the email to my local branch or call the bank and ask if the information in it is correct, i.e. have they lost all my data? The answer in 99.9% of cases will be no; of course there are increasingly less rare occasions where the bank has lost your data or let it get out into the wild. In those cases, the bank isn't generally going to admit it until some plucky person figures it out and makes them own up to it.
...whoop-dee-dooooo! If you find some use for it, great, but the fact is, I can build my own personal web site to do all the communicating with others I need, and I can control the content, and I don't have to worry about the vagueries of someone deciding to change the rules. Facebook, like MySpace, is overrated.
The content creators, especially the original content creators are generating value to Youtube, and should be rewarded for their effort, not having to pay for the privilege.
But why do I care? If I'm YouTube, what you put up is of little consequence (save for moral, ethical, and legal complications). Bandwidth can be expanded, but servers that are constantly having to serve up these enormous files constantly are going to break down, need to be maintained to extend their lifespans, need backup in case they do fail, and must be upgraded constantly to allow users the maximum benefit. So there's equipment and manpower costs right there to keep my system running.
It's like owning a parking garage -- I don't care what kind of car you drive, I'm simply charging you for the space to park it. I also don't care who uses your car; if you pay me monthly to have a space, anyone can drive yoru car in and out of the space as often as they like, as long as I get my money.
Charge a membership fee.
Now, before everyone goes bonkers, lets think about this critically. Servers, the power to run them, the buildings to house them, the people to keep them running, the people to write the code that makes the site run -- these are not free. If you don't have a huge wad of cash burning a hole in your bank, then you've got to find a source of funding, one which won't suddenly dry up and leave you with no way to run the show.
So charge for the service. Plumbers do it, lawyers do it (excessively it seems), hospitals do it... why not an Internet service? You pay your $20 a year and get free unlimited uploads. For those who don't like the model, you can have a free account, but we charge you a nickel for every upload. It might cut down on the megatons of crap that get uploaded, which would ease the strain on infrastructure and storage, generate constant revenue, which would ease money headaches, and generally improve things. And then, when YouTube gets so successful that it's ubiquitous, its CEO can embezzle huge amounts of money and leave the company broken while he sails away on his yacht.
In the "good old days," all the people on your street used to know what you were up to. If you did something, the grapevine usually got that information to your folks before you got home. Of course it wasn't a perfect system and if you worked at it, you could hide your deeds from prying eyes (that's what tree forts were for).
Now, people are actually writing down the things they're doing and placing that information where anyone on the planet can see it. It really should come as no shock now. Was Facebook wrong for not doing a better job of protecting privacy? Sure. Are people culpable if they're silly enough to put embarassing and/or potentially damaging information on the Internet? You bet. The fact is, the younger generations don't understand the whole "global neighborhood" concept and it taskes something like this to make them aware that something they think is local is most assuredly not.
Murderer: What you in for, boy?
Spammer: Uh... I... I, uh... sent people spam emails... lots of 'em...
Murderer: That make you feel tough, boy?
Spammer: Oh no... no... not at all... got pretty rich though...
Murderer: That so? Well, Daddy's gonna make you his pretty little rich boy... [resting arm on Spammer's shoulder and winking]
Spammer: Guard!!!! Help!!!!!!!
...this was an article about an explosive device capable of cracking Bill Gates' innermost thoughts... but perhaps I was mistaken...
Obviously, yes. Otherwise, open source would be closed-source.
The numbers look large given that Firefox is supposed to be the superior browser, but can you imagine what those same numbers would look like for IE? Think Gates & Co. would care to give up the source code to do a head-to-head comparison? I'll bet the folks in Redmond are looking at these numbers and wondering just how to get IE's numbers that low.
So it's easy to compromise the security of a Diebold voting machine -- news? This has been going on for a while in one form or another ever since Diebold got into the business. I'd have been more shocked if they would have found that you couldn't force it without breaking the seal.
If states/counties are smart, they'll avoid Diebold like the plague and stick to the old voting systems until a virtually fool-proof system can be designed and built. In the meantime, this won't have much effect on voting, since fewer and fewer people vote all the time.
BTW, that website with the detail is a trociously put together.
Honestly ... I remember that quote about how cities would be re-designed around the thing - was anyone anywhere actually expecting something like that to happen in 5 years?
Heck, they haven't even redesigned New York City to handle cars efficiently -- what made anyone think the Segway was going to force changes that millions of drivers couldn't?
Not much more complicated than when cops run a suspect's financial records or call records. They're simply looking for more information about suspects/known criminals. Hardly newsworthy ala the NSA or AOL.
This is part of an under-handed campaign by hardware manufacturers. Why? Simple: to generate sales. Face it, if they make products with long lifesapns, there's no incentive for you to buy new things (laptops, hard drives, etc.). You'll keep your trusty equipment until it suffers a massive failure, which given average quality, might last ten years. Result: slow sales and low turnover. Solution: cause products to self-destruct! The only problem Dell had with the plan is that they got caught by a wave of incendiary laptops. While I doubt Maxtor would make it so obvious, if there's a spate of HDs bursting into flames, don't say you weren't warned.
And who decides who will be part of the cadre? Jimmy? I think we can see from his past actions, that he may not be the best judge of who would make the best administrator. I think they need to take a vote within the ranks, and let the editing community decide, then give Jimmy a limited number of vetoes to remove people he doesn't want.
There will come a day when innuendo replaces fact, thanks to the rapidity with which things spread on the Internet. One blogger picks up on something, two more repeat it, and so forth and so on. Of course, like the game we all used to play in school, where someone whispered something to you, and you to the next person, invariably the original message becomes garbled. The Internet is just a large example of this, as the story gets repeated and tweaked with each iteration, as bloggers apply their own personal view to it. There comes a point where fact-checking is impossible, because the "facts" are no longer that, facts.
No, but it certainly was a powerful incentive, given that negative publicity, despite what they say, isn't necessarily a good thing. Dell couldn't afford to have Sony's problem destroy their laptop business; in turn, they simply couldn't roll over on Sony, given the business relationship. In the end, the Internet end of the campaign was only one component of the change, and though important, was probably not the biggest factor.
Once again, technology triumphs over common sense -- did anybody ask the casual fan if this was a good idea? Why is it necessary to somehow "fix" things that aren't broken. The Original Series does not need Next Generation-like effects; it will lose all its charm and character, not to mention the historical context. It was a 60's show -- making it look like something from the turn of the new century destroys its technical merit for being ahead of its time in the 60's. The Star Trek franchise continues to sink slowly into the sunset...
Each person who received the email should give the boy a swift kick in the a**; I think a few million boots to the bum would help him remember the lesson.
Don't forget Ganymede!
From NinePlanets.org: Mercury is slightly smaller in diameter than the moons Ganymede and Titan but more than twice as massive.
Ask the Creationists.
To stay on topic, now that Pluto is no longer an "official" planet, Jupiter should be next. It's a brown dwarf star after all, isn't it? Even the definition of is a little up in the air.
Beyond the fact that Clyde Tombaugh got eyestrain looking at photogrpahic plates trying to find the damned thing in the first place (he's doing 7200 RPM in his grave as we speak - people in Las Cruces can hear the high-pitched whine), the fact is we all grew up thinking of Pluto as a planet and this whole fracas has been nothing but a circus of uptight astronomers, lame-brained reporters, and fringe wackos.
I for one am not going to give in -- Pluto's a planet, case closed. When we go whippinng through other star systems with our handy "Guide to What Plaents Are," then this whole thing will make sense, but for right now, right here, on our lonely little mudball, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Informative? Try "Troll" or better yet "Lacking Sense of Humor"
...want a space station? To spy on Redmond?
Sorry, once upon a time I went and married an anthropologist. She could be a bit touchy on the subject.
I sympathize -- I married a project manager. I'm always missing milestones...
Amazing how you can pervert one science to make yourself sound smarter. Senior Design Anthropologist? What does she do? Dig through old Commodore PET and TRS-80 computers looking for clues to the outgrowth of the Internet?