The timing of collection is irrelevant. If I have to pay, and you have to pay, they should have to pay. The fight seems to be over loopholes/kickbacks they felt entitled to use.
If you cheered his 'liberation' of the PS3 you can't really be unhypocratically mad about Sony's response.
geohot didn't enable/endorse/provide piracy. he merely exposed a flaw, and took steps to specifically release and detail it that wouldn't allow you to use it for piracy. he's a hardware hacker in the old-school sense of wanting to learn, pick apart, see how things work and make them do what he wants, just to do it.
the fact others have used his work to further piracy isn't his fault and shouldn't be blamed on him.
To be honest I started using adblocker not because i didn't want to see ads. I didn't care about the banners and such originally. But then came the java applet ads, then the macromedia flash ads and I noticed the slowdown. Thats why I started. Although now I'd keep using it just because its jarring to use IE or a non-AdBlocked Firefox anymore. I noticed the other day when using IE from a machine that wasn't mine that the latest ad technique is a CSS float-over that pops up when your mouse goes over a link and,if you click the link, you're taken to the ad's site instead. Something for MS Live I believe.
Its crap like that that gives the ad industry a bad rep.
SSH or SSL tunnel to my home machine (depending on whether SSH is blocked) and proxy surfing and IM through that. Or, worst-case, using Tor.
Though I do agree it's less desirable to work for a place that restricts internet access, the truth is you're there to work, not surf. It wouldn't affect my decision unless I had a choice between two equal places where one does and one does not restrict, which isn't usually the case as there are for more important considerations than net freedom (i.e. salary, benefits, skills to aquire)
Seriously, if not being able to surf myspace or IM your buddy will keep you from accepting a position, that's just sad.
"planning to shift to an ad-supported business model"
Considering the amount of ads paid-subscribers endure, I'd say it's been effectively "ad-supported" for a decade now. At least, from an end-user perspective there will likely be no obvious change in AOL's appearance/presentation.
Unless they plan to replace what little remaining unique content they have with ads . . .
exactly why my VNC server only responds to localhost connections and I tunnel the connections in through ssh.
Well, not exactly why. not like I knew this particular exploit existed . . . but its why i only use ssh and terminal services over an ssh tunnel, 'cause you never know.
now if an exploit for openssh comes about allowing access without the publickey/private key, I guess I'm hosed . . .
While I agree with this article, and that this is a case where market forces will not correct for the use of GoodMail, etc, this section is wrong:
Private companies do not have the absolute right to do whatever they want with your mail. If you sign up to receive mail from someone, and they send you an e-mail, then that e-mail is your property; if your ISP knows that the sender is almost certainly not a spammer, then they are violating the sender's and receiver's rights if they block the message. (Not First Amendment rights -- those only apply to government laws -- but rights based on contracts and implied warranties, since I think an e-mail address comes with an implied warranty that your contacts will be able to send you mail for free
Unfortunately, no, your email is not your property. Once a copy is on your computer, you have right to it as with any other data on your machine but you don't own the data on the various servers involved in transmitting your message to you. Until your message reaches your computer, it's just data on someone else's system. And, for free web-based services, that data is never yours as it's never on your computer, aside from what is cached during the browsing session. At most, depending on the providor's usage agreement, you're granted certain rights to the message once it's within their systems.
Unless you have a contractual agreement with a company to provide service to you, as in the case of an ISP you pay for and that contractually states your mail delivery expectations, there is no guarantee that your email will reach you. The free services, Hotmail, Gmail, etc all explicitely state on their usage policy pages that their service is offered with no warranty, express or implied, regarding the services they provide to you. There is no implied warranty that you'll even receive your email, let alone "that your contacts will be able to send you mail for free". At most you can argue that by paying AOL to provide internet services you have an expectation of receiving email (as email is part of internet services and somethign an ISP would be expected to provide), but even that all depends on their usage policy/contract. I would think at most you could claim a service interruption unless the usage policy/contract allows for such interruptions.
In AOL's case, they've ammended their usage policy (which is referenced in their subscriber agreement/aka contract) to include their use of GoodMail. Therefore, continuing to use AOL is agreeing to have your email blocked by AOL and you have no legal recourse for those messages not reaching you (you do actually read that small print, right;-) ).
What I would find to be an interesting legal argument would be whether or not blocking senders who don't pay would qualify as discrimination. And in one sense, the practice is comparable to extortion: pay us or you'll get degraded service compared to everyone else. I would think this whole argument would be a long the same lines as the attempts by telcos to charge for preferential traffic prioritization.
1: DRM. When I buy something, I want to own it, not be restricted in where or how I can use it. If I have a choice of a locked digital version or a real book, I choose the real book.
2. Screen. I cannot stand reading text on computer screens for extended periods. I'm not talking typical computer usage of clicking, surfing, and working on my computer, which I do for 8-12 hours a day with no problem. But, sitting on the train with a PDA-sized screen, or even a laptop screen, can be unbearable for long periods. I'm not sure if it's the brightness of a screen over paper, the crispness of paper of a screen, or what, but it's intolerable reading long passages (i.e. short-story or longer) on a PDA-sized device.
I've noticed too many places decide this based on "what does Microsoft bundle in with Windows?", where Windows itself is chosen because "hey it looks like my Pee-Cee!"
While his spyware company and his actions are deplorable, how is that in any way related to his Olympic status and why should it in any way affect his ability to compete? I could understand if he were running for political office or trying to start an anti-virus or anti-spyware firm, but the Olympics? We're not talking steroid use or anything that could affect his athletic ability.
Why do people always want to push political agendas onto unrelated things? Why do people always want _their_ ethical or moral compass to be imposed on everyone else? Oh, you distributed spyware, you can't be in the Olympics . . . oh, you smoked pot, you can't be a politition . . . blah
Without mentioning the U.S.'s questionable human right's record, which makes this a bit hypocritical, I have to say that this is the appropriate response to the recent new regarding Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google complying with Chinese law. I've always felt the backlash against the technology companies was unfounded (in some cases like Google's censoring of Google.cn), since they're just complying with the local laws of where they're doing business.
You claim that China has the right to legislate as it sees fit. Where does this inalienable right come from?
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony. Not from the end of a gun. Whatever China does within its own borders is fine by me, so long as China is governed at the behest of the governed."
Where does your inalienable right to impose your views to another country come from?
However you personally feel about the legitimacy of another country's government, they are the government in charge and, more important to this discussion, they're the government recognized by the international community. Therefore, any company wanting to do business in their borders must comply with their laws.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support helping the chinese citizens bypass the firewalls to get to the information that is censored and I'd stand behind Google or Microsoft refusing to censor. But I do object to demonizing Google or Microsoft for complying with that country's government. And I object to any legislation that makes it illegal to comply with the local laws of another country.
If we, as Americans, have such a problem with the way China conducts itself, then we should impose a sanction. We should forbid all US companies from doing business with them. But we should not make it out as if the people or companies simply following the laws of a legitimate (as in, internationally recognized) government's laws are the bad guys.
I'm not supporting the censorship, I'm just supporting the companies for following local laws and I'm suggesting we stop demonizing them and instead focus the outrage where it belongs: at the chinese government for requiring censorship.
I certainly have no problem with people voicing their concerns over the policies of other people or companies. I do take issue with the calls for legislation banning companies from complying with the local laws of the other countries where they operate.
Whether you agree with Chinese policy or not, they are a sovereign nation. American companies do not have any _right_ to operate in their borders, they're allowed to operate; a permission the Chinese government can revoke at any point. Compliance with Chinese law is required for the ability to operate. We, the U.S., are the same. Any company not complying with U.S. law within our borders will not be allowed to do business. Google, Microsoft, the US Government . . . do not have the right to impose a viewpoint on China.
Does that mean I think Google should censor results for China? Absolutely not. I stand by the principles of free speech and think all content should be freely accessible to all people. But, I also recognize China has a right to legislate how it sees fit. I'd take issue if Google was censoring Google.com, but they're not, they're censoring Google.cn. As far as I'm concerned they're complying with local laws. Its an internal matter between China and a company operating within its borders.
The fact a US company is willing to work with a country whose policies we disagree with is just part of the same capitalism we hold so dear: China is a huge market and we place money above all other concerns.
- do not surf with IE (except for internal Intranet apps for work) - do not run under an Administrator account for normal usage - never run P2P apps or unknown apps from my actual Windows install (I use VirtualPC for this) - run ad-blocking software (Privoxy) and Firefox's ad-blocking extensions (seriously, not for the lack of ads, although that's a plus, but because unscrupulous advertisers will try and download something onto your machine) - run Norton GoBack so that those rare times that these precautions fail, I just reboot and choose a time I know I wasn't infected and, viola, no more nastiness
Take sick days. If you're looking to leave, why do you care if you're taking days off. While I'm not saying get yourself fired, there's no reason you can't let your performance suffer a bit to find a better position.
I know my previous employer was suspicious that I had so many "dentist appointments" in the week or so before I handing in my resignation . . .
Apple is going to be more expensive than other manufacturers. They are a luxury computing brand. However, having intel processors will give them better Windows compatibility, and a better price/performance ratio."
My point isn't regarding apple's luxury status. But, given the price disparity between PPC processors and Intel processors, one would expect the cost of the machines to become somewhat less.
On the other hand, Apple seems to have added in features (i.e. integrated iSight, more cache) without raising the cost, so I guess it's arguable that the cost savings from the processor are being put into integrated peripherals.
Would be nice if a Mac could come out with spec's meeting or topping those of a comparably-priced Intel machine. Especially now that they ARE Intel machines.
I love my PowerBook, but its getting harder and harder to justify to myself the expense of a new one when Dell and such have become so much cheaper.
As far as Powerbooks go, though, the lamely-named "MacBook Pro" is admittedly hot.
Its rare I read through the slashdot comments anyhow, at least beyond the first few, mostly for the reasons you mention. I come for the stories and my two cents is publish anything you find interesting, paying no attention to the submitter.
You might try getting rid of Anonymous Coward, that will cut down on a large bulk of the comment cruft. Require all comments to be by a logged in account. Then, repeat commentors who go off topic should get modded down and their initial comment level should be reflective of their standing as a commentor. Doesn't stop someone from making multiple Slashdot accounts, but if someone is that determined to post unimportant/off-topic comments, then obviously this is how they get joy into their lives and will find ways to do so anyhow.
"One was a communications feature, meant for network administrators, which sleazy operators misused to bombard people with ads. Why was that on my PC in the first place?"
Because, quite simply, home users buy what they're familiar with at the office. If Windows made a version that lacked the functionality of their office computer, people wouldn't purchase it in enough numbers for MS to care.
Look at XP Home vs XP Pro. How many of your coworerkers have asked for an XP Pro CD b/c thats what they have at work, or how many even know what the difference is when they pay the extra $50 to $100 for Pro over Home? And this is despite the fact that Home is nothing more than Pro with some security and domain-integration removed (and contains the very same Messenger service you complain of).
Its a similar reason as to why Macs don't take off more, despite being easier to use by non-techies (at least, everyone I've gotten to make the switch has loved it once getting over the differences).
The other thing to keep in mind is that this pandering to corporate IT departments does have some benefits. Remember the industry push for Palladium, the hardware-based DRM where your computer would have a section for data and apps you don't control and which would determin which of your purchased files you could access and for how long? That never made it to the consumer market, not from consumer push-back but from corporate IT pushback. It was seen as either an unneccesary expense by corporate IT or as a point of nervousness (what company wants their machines to be even partially locked down to them).
Right now, its sort of half and half in terms of good and bad. I don't think home users even know what they want, aside from the niche markets that service the build-to-order computers (like Alienware, etc). Most people just want something that works with their office computer, looks like their office computer, and that they don't have to know anything "extra" about to use.
who would seriously sign up for this?
on
You've Got Indictments
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Seriously, why would anyone make it easier for themselves to be indicted?
Legislation will only affect legitimate marketing firms under US jurisdiction and can never do anything about the unscrupulous ones or those outside US control. The only true answer to spam will be technical, when/if the current smtp system is upgraded/augmented.
Sure, qwerty has it's issues. Sure, there has to be a better way. But, sometimes the best technology isn't the answer. In the case of human interfaces with computers, what we have now may not be the best, but it's more than adequate for the majority of those using computers. I don't think a new keyboard will take off, not because it's better or worse, but because no one really cares. People are used to the qwerty layout and it serves well enough.
Just like there isn't going to be any major paradigm shift in GUI interaction (i.e. "3D" interfaces) anytime soon because people are used to interacting in a certain way and, lets face it, it works. If anything, the keyboard and mouse will get augmented by other inputs (touch screen, voice) over the next decade or so, but neither will be outright replaced by any radical new design.
Any major shift will likely only occur as part of a platform change, not as a replacement of an existing setup. I.e., I could see this keyboard taking off if it were embedded with, say, a set-top box where someone was already willing to learn a new method of interaction. No one balks at learning a new Play Station controller with each release, but if your Dell shipped with this New Standard Keyboard I guarantee it'd be the first thing replaced by a trip to Best Buy.
There's also the issue of people sticking with what they use at work. Many people have Windows machines at home because they have Windows machines at work, even if they have no need of "100% compatability" with their office equipment. I can't see the average user choosing to have this keyboard at home if the office computer stays qwerty.
deleted the group right away. it is annoying that they auto-added the bots to my buddy list, but then, it IS a free service, so I expect they'll try to leverage it for profit.
Hot air rises, cool air falls. The most efficient use of cooling would be to drop the air over the racks, the vents low from the ceiling so that the hot air would still rise up and be reclaimed.
Of course, with today's innovations in low-heat components, in-case cooling, and water-cooled racks, a truly efficient datacenter would use more than just under-floor cooling.
Exactly my reasons. My page load times go down by at least half for major sites like CNN (even if the ads are small, often the myriad connections to third party servers causes a delay as the page waits to retrieve/draw the content).
I use Privoxy (formly Junkbusters) that I proxy my work and home surfing through. I also use the Firefox AdBlocker extension, as well as the FlashBlock (flash ads are the most intrusive and annoying).
I also block cookies unless I explicitely accept them, since 90% of the cookies come from advertisers and not the site your surfing.
I don't view online ads different from magazine or TV, except that unlike a magazine, online ads scroll across the content, pop over the screen, redirect you to other sites, or in some cases, download software to your machine. Basically, online ads violate the passivity of other mediums, and try to actively control your session in an attempt to annoy you into buying something.
TV ads I pay little attention to, mostly b/c most of my TV watching is through Tivo, and I use the 30-second skip to bypass the commercials.
Magazine ads don't bother me at all because most of the time they're not obtrusive, and unlike TV or the Internet, they're almost always relevant to my interests, or at least to the topic I'm reading the magazine for.
Slashdot Mirror
The timing of collection is irrelevant. If I have to pay, and you have to pay, they should have to pay. The fight seems to be over loopholes/kickbacks they felt entitled to use.
Be sure to thank Geohotz for this.
If you cheered his 'liberation' of the PS3 you can't really be unhypocratically mad about Sony's response.
geohot didn't enable/endorse/provide piracy. he merely exposed a flaw, and took steps to specifically release and detail it that wouldn't allow you to use it for piracy. he's a hardware hacker in the old-school sense of wanting to learn, pick apart, see how things work and make them do what he wants, just to do it.
the fact others have used his work to further piracy isn't his fault and shouldn't be blamed on him.
To be honest I started using adblocker not because i didn't want to see ads. I didn't care about the banners and such originally. But then came the java applet ads, then the macromedia flash ads and I noticed the slowdown. Thats why I started. Although now I'd keep using it just because its jarring to use IE or a non-AdBlocked Firefox anymore. I noticed the other day when using IE from a machine that wasn't mine that the latest ad technique is a CSS float-over that pops up when your mouse goes over a link and,if you click the link, you're taken to the ad's site instead. Something for MS Live I believe.
Its crap like that that gives the ad industry a bad rep.
SSH or SSL tunnel to my home machine (depending on whether SSH is blocked) and proxy surfing and IM through that. Or, worst-case, using Tor.
Though I do agree it's less desirable to work for a place that restricts internet access, the truth is you're there to work, not surf. It wouldn't affect my decision unless I had a choice between two equal places where one does and one does not restrict, which isn't usually the case as there are for more important considerations than net freedom (i.e. salary, benefits, skills to aquire)
Seriously, if not being able to surf myspace or IM your buddy will keep you from accepting a position, that's just sad.
"planning to shift to an ad-supported business model"
Considering the amount of ads paid-subscribers endure, I'd say it's been effectively "ad-supported" for a decade now. At least, from an end-user perspective there will likely be no obvious change in AOL's appearance/presentation.
Unless they plan to replace what little remaining unique content they have with ads . . .
exactly why my VNC server only responds to localhost connections and I tunnel the connections in through ssh.
Well, not exactly why. not like I knew this particular exploit existed . . . but its why i only use ssh and terminal services over an ssh tunnel, 'cause you never know.
now if an exploit for openssh comes about allowing access without the publickey/private key, I guess I'm hosed . . .
Unfortunately, no, your email is not your property. Once a copy is on your computer, you have right to it as with any other data on your machine but you don't own the data on the various servers involved in transmitting your message to you. Until your message reaches your computer, it's just data on someone else's system. And, for free web-based services, that data is never yours as it's never on your computer, aside from what is cached during the browsing session. At most, depending on the providor's usage agreement, you're granted certain rights to the message once it's within their systems.
Unless you have a contractual agreement with a company to provide service to you, as in the case of an ISP you pay for and that contractually states your mail delivery expectations, there is no guarantee that your email will reach you. The free services, Hotmail, Gmail, etc all explicitely state on their usage policy pages that their service is offered with no warranty, express or implied, regarding the services they provide to you. There is no implied warranty that you'll even receive your email, let alone "that your contacts will be able to send you mail for free". At most you can argue that by paying AOL to provide internet services you have an expectation of receiving email (as email is part of internet services and somethign an ISP would be expected to provide), but even that all depends on their usage policy/contract. I would think at most you could claim a service interruption unless the usage policy/contract allows for such interruptions.
In AOL's case, they've ammended their usage policy (which is referenced in their subscriber agreement/aka contract) to include their use of GoodMail. Therefore, continuing to use AOL is agreeing to have your email blocked by AOL and you have no legal recourse for those messages not reaching you (you do actually read that small print, right
What I would find to be an interesting legal argument would be whether or not blocking senders who don't pay would qualify as discrimination. And in one sense, the practice is comparable to extortion: pay us or you'll get degraded service compared to everyone else. I would think this whole argument would be a long the same lines as the attempts by telcos to charge for preferential traffic prioritization.
1: DRM. When I buy something, I want to own it, not be restricted in where or how I can use it. If I have a choice of a locked digital version or a real book, I choose the real book.
2. Screen. I cannot stand reading text on computer screens for extended periods. I'm not talking typical computer usage of clicking, surfing, and working on my computer, which I do for 8-12 hours a day with no problem. But, sitting on the train with a PDA-sized screen, or even a laptop screen, can be unbearable for long periods. I'm not sure if it's the brightness of a screen over paper, the crispness of paper of a screen, or what, but it's intolerable reading long passages (i.e. short-story or longer) on a PDA-sized device.
I've noticed too many places decide this based on "what does Microsoft bundle in with Windows?", where Windows itself is chosen because "hey it looks like my Pee-Cee!"
While his spyware company and his actions are deplorable, how is that in any way related to his Olympic status and why should it in any way affect his ability to compete? I could understand if he were running for political office or trying to start an anti-virus or anti-spyware firm, but the Olympics? We're not talking steroid use or anything that could affect his athletic ability.
Why do people always want to push political agendas onto unrelated things? Why do people always want _their_ ethical or moral compass to be imposed on everyone else? Oh, you distributed spyware, you can't be in the Olympics . . . oh, you smoked pot, you can't be a politition . . . blah
Without mentioning the U.S.'s questionable human right's record, which makes this a bit hypocritical, I have to say that this is the appropriate response to the recent new regarding Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google complying with Chinese law. I've always felt the backlash against the technology companies was unfounded (in some cases like Google's censoring of Google.cn), since they're just complying with the local laws of where they're doing business.
Where does your inalienable right to impose your views to another country come from?
However you personally feel about the legitimacy of another country's government, they are the government in charge and, more important to this discussion, they're the government recognized by the international community. Therefore, any company wanting to do business in their borders must comply with their laws.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support helping the chinese citizens bypass the firewalls to get to the information that is censored and I'd stand behind Google or Microsoft refusing to censor. But I do object to demonizing Google or Microsoft for complying with that country's government. And I object to any legislation that makes it illegal to comply with the local laws of another country.
If we, as Americans, have such a problem with the way China conducts itself, then we should impose a sanction. We should forbid all US companies from doing business with them. But we should not make it out as if the people or companies simply following the laws of a legitimate (as in, internationally recognized) government's laws are the bad guys.
I'm not supporting the censorship, I'm just supporting the companies for following local laws and I'm suggesting we stop demonizing them and instead focus the outrage where it belongs: at the chinese government for requiring censorship.
I certainly have no problem with people voicing their concerns over the policies of other people or companies. I do take issue with the calls for legislation banning companies from complying with the local laws of the other countries where they operate.
Whether you agree with Chinese policy or not, they are a sovereign nation. American companies do not have any _right_ to operate in their borders, they're allowed to operate; a permission the Chinese government can revoke at any point. Compliance with Chinese law is required for the ability to operate. We, the U.S., are the same. Any company not complying with U.S. law within our borders will not be allowed to do business. Google, Microsoft, the US Government . . . do not have the right to impose a viewpoint on China.
Does that mean I think Google should censor results for China? Absolutely not. I stand by the principles of free speech and think all content should be freely accessible to all people. But, I also recognize China has a right to legislate how it sees fit. I'd take issue if Google was censoring Google.com, but they're not, they're censoring Google.cn. As far as I'm concerned they're complying with local laws. Its an internal matter between China and a company operating within its borders.
The fact a US company is willing to work with a country whose policies we disagree with is just part of the same capitalism we hold so dear: China is a huge market and we place money above all other concerns.
But then, I:
- do not surf with IE (except for internal Intranet apps for work)
- do not run under an Administrator account for normal usage
- never run P2P apps or unknown apps from my actual Windows install (I use VirtualPC for this)
- run ad-blocking software (Privoxy) and Firefox's ad-blocking extensions (seriously, not for the lack of ads, although that's a plus, but because unscrupulous advertisers will try and download something onto your machine)
- run Norton GoBack so that those rare times that these precautions fail, I just reboot and choose a time I know I wasn't infected and, viola, no more nastiness
Take sick days. If you're looking to leave, why do you care if you're taking days off. While I'm not saying get yourself fired, there's no reason you can't let your performance suffer a bit to find a better position.
I know my previous employer was suspicious that I had so many "dentist appointments" in the week or so before I handing in my resignation . . .
"I take it you don't buy luxury cars either, huh?
Apple is going to be more expensive than other manufacturers. They are a luxury computing brand. However, having intel processors will give them better Windows compatibility, and a better price/performance ratio."
My point isn't regarding apple's luxury status. But, given the price disparity between PPC processors and Intel processors, one would expect the cost of the machines to become somewhat less.
On the other hand, Apple seems to have added in features (i.e. integrated iSight, more cache) without raising the cost, so I guess it's arguable that the cost savings from the processor are being put into integrated peripherals.
Would be nice if a Mac could come out with spec's meeting or topping those of a comparably-priced Intel machine. Especially now that they ARE Intel machines.
I love my PowerBook, but its getting harder and harder to justify to myself the expense of a new one when Dell and such have become so much cheaper.
As far as Powerbooks go, though, the lamely-named "MacBook Pro" is admittedly hot.
Its rare I read through the slashdot comments anyhow, at least beyond the first few, mostly for the reasons you mention. I come for the stories and my two cents is publish anything you find interesting, paying no attention to the submitter.
You might try getting rid of Anonymous Coward, that will cut down on a large bulk of the comment cruft. Require all comments to be by a logged in account. Then, repeat commentors who go off topic should get modded down and their initial comment level should be reflective of their standing as a commentor. Doesn't stop someone from making multiple Slashdot accounts, but if someone is that determined to post unimportant/off-topic comments, then obviously this is how they get joy into their lives and will find ways to do so anyhow.
"One was a communications feature, meant for network administrators, which sleazy operators misused to bombard people with ads. Why was that on my PC in the first place?"
Because, quite simply, home users buy what they're familiar with at the office. If Windows made a version that lacked the functionality of their office computer, people wouldn't purchase it in enough numbers for MS to care.
Look at XP Home vs XP Pro. How many of your coworerkers have asked for an XP Pro CD b/c thats what they have at work, or how many even know what the difference is when they pay the extra $50 to $100 for Pro over Home? And this is despite the fact that Home is nothing more than Pro with some security and domain-integration removed (and contains the very same Messenger service you complain of).
Its a similar reason as to why Macs don't take off more, despite being easier to use by non-techies (at least, everyone I've gotten to make the switch has loved it once getting over the differences).
The other thing to keep in mind is that this pandering to corporate IT departments does have some benefits. Remember the industry push for Palladium, the hardware-based DRM where your computer would have a section for data and apps you don't control and which would determin which of your purchased files you could access and for how long? That never made it to the consumer market, not from consumer push-back but from corporate IT pushback. It was seen as either an unneccesary expense by corporate IT or as a point of nervousness (what company wants their machines to be even partially locked down to them).
Right now, its sort of half and half in terms of good and bad. I don't think home users even know what they want, aside from the niche markets that service the build-to-order computers (like Alienware, etc). Most people just want something that works with their office computer, looks like their office computer, and that they don't have to know anything "extra" about to use.
Seriously, why would anyone make it easier for themselves to be indicted?
hahahahahahahahahahaa
sorry, I assumed this was a joke.
My 200+ spams a day would indicate otherwise.
Legislation will only affect legitimate marketing firms under US jurisdiction and can never do anything about the unscrupulous ones or those outside US control. The only true answer to spam will be technical, when/if the current smtp system is upgraded/augmented.
Sure, qwerty has it's issues. Sure, there has to be a better way. But, sometimes the best technology isn't the answer. In the case of human interfaces with computers, what we have now may not be the best, but it's more than adequate for the majority of those using computers. I don't think a new keyboard will take off, not because it's better or worse, but because no one really cares. People are used to the qwerty layout and it serves well enough.
Just like there isn't going to be any major paradigm shift in GUI interaction (i.e. "3D" interfaces) anytime soon because people are used to interacting in a certain way and, lets face it, it works. If anything, the keyboard and mouse will get augmented by other inputs (touch screen, voice) over the next decade or so, but neither will be outright replaced by any radical new design.
Any major shift will likely only occur as part of a platform change, not as a replacement of an existing setup. I.e., I could see this keyboard taking off if it were embedded with, say, a set-top box where someone was already willing to learn a new method of interaction. No one balks at learning a new Play Station controller with each release, but if your Dell shipped with this New Standard Keyboard I guarantee it'd be the first thing replaced by a trip to Best Buy.
There's also the issue of people sticking with what they use at work. Many people have Windows machines at home because they have Windows machines at work, even if they have no need of "100% compatability" with their office equipment. I can't see the average user choosing to have this keyboard at home if the office computer stays qwerty.
deleted the group right away. it is annoying that they auto-added the bots to my buddy list, but then, it IS a free service, so I expect they'll try to leverage it for profit.
Hot air rises, cool air falls. The most efficient use of cooling would be to drop the air over the racks, the vents low from the ceiling so that the hot air would still rise up and be reclaimed.
Of course, with today's innovations in low-heat components, in-case cooling, and water-cooled racks, a truly efficient datacenter would use more than just under-floor cooling.
Exactly my reasons. My page load times go down by at least half for major sites like CNN (even if the ads are small, often the myriad connections to third party servers causes a delay as the page waits to retrieve/draw the content).
I use Privoxy (formly Junkbusters) that I proxy my work and home surfing through. I also use the Firefox AdBlocker extension, as well as the FlashBlock (flash ads are the most intrusive and annoying).
I also block cookies unless I explicitely accept them, since 90% of the cookies come from advertisers and not the site your surfing.
I don't view online ads different from magazine or TV, except that unlike a magazine, online ads scroll across the content, pop over the screen, redirect you to other sites, or in some cases, download software to your machine. Basically, online ads violate the passivity of other mediums, and try to actively control your session in an attempt to annoy you into buying something.
TV ads I pay little attention to, mostly b/c most of my TV watching is through Tivo, and I use the 30-second skip to bypass the commercials.
Magazine ads don't bother me at all because most of the time they're not obtrusive, and unlike TV or the Internet, they're almost always relevant to my interests, or at least to the topic I'm reading the magazine for.