endtwist

I think Atwood is missing the bigger picture that both writing and programming are forms of creating. They are both textual, sure, but they fall better under this bigger umbrella of design.

So I wouldn't say coding is just writing, they just both happen to involve text.

This is actually fascinating.

I'm not totally surprised by these numbers (350 million messages, only 28 sales), but I am glad to see that there are people out there actually attempting to figure out what the true numbers are (as opposed to the tens of millions of dollars myth). Based on what the story says, spammers are potentially earning about $2 million a year. I suppose larger spammers could be earning 3 - 4x that (so, $6 - 8 million), and this obviously isn't chump change.

This study points out what we already know, though: there is a problem with email. The barrier to entry is too low which is both a blessing and a curse. It allows people communicate with ease, but it also allows people to send millions or billions of emails at little or no cost to them. Now, I know that these are hijacked computers, but the point remains that since it is so easy and cost-efficient to send email, it becomes profitable at virtually any scale because of the non-existent cost.

I'm not saying that we should charge for every email, since that may not be a viable solution (though it could work), but there does need to be something done besides continuously improving our spam filters.

Also, isn't the methodology used by the researchers technically illegal?

"The team used these machines to control a total of 75,869 hijacked machines and routed their own fake spam campaigns through them."

This is particularly interesting, especially as opposed to the plastic and resin-based printers. While less useful should someone want to actually use the printed parts, it definitely has its uses under a great number of circumstances, such as models (e.g.: dental, as they show), or cheap custom-fit packaging.

Looking at the cost of these models ($9 for the model of a head, $1 for the model of the teeth), I would love to have one of these just to print up things for prototyping ideas or just as models to paint. As well, I could see many companies adopting this as a secondary tool to the resin-based machines, being a cheaper way to prototype things roughly so they can refine it and then print a more complete prototype on the resin-machine.

On that note, anyone have any idea how much this machine will cost?

Don't forget about IETester: http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage

Though there are a couple minor bugs, it works fantastically for testing IE6, 7, and 8 without jumping through hoops.

Combine IETester with Safari for Windows, Firefox 3 (and 2), Opera, and perhaps Chrome and you've got a full suite of browsers to test with just on Windows. For the most part, that will give an accurate view of how it will look on Mac and Linux, but it doesn't hurt to have a VM of both a Linux distro and (cough) OS X available to test properly with.

The problem isn't that the project lost sight of its original goals. It sounds more like the goal of this project wasn't clear between groups.

Stallman stated that "the plans aimed for low cost, enabling many children to use the machines, and free software, so they would have freedom while using them." From what I understood, the goal of the project was to get computers into the hands of children in third-world countries, so they could simply get experience with computers -- period. It was my belief that the fact that free software was used was simply out of convenience; since free software was also free (as in beer), it was another step in cutting the costs of the laptop.

When Microsoft stepped in and "offered up" its OS at the extremely cut costs, Negroponte decided that would be a more useful option; I don't think his intention is to force-feed proprietary software to children. Either he believes Windows is a better option, or he is an economically self-serving individual. Regardless, I sense that the ultimate purpose of this project was unclear to certain people.

On a less direct note, I can't stand Stallman's zealotry. It's great that he is able to stand so firm on one particular point, but it is also a terrible trait, considering that he isn't willing to even give a moments consideration to alternative options on a scope/level _outside_ his "cause."

Both of these options are very similar ;)

Ignoring that, though, the fact of the matter is that I don't think most of us come here for political discussion (I know I don't). If I want that, I'll go to Reddit for the immature discussion, or to the major news outlets for the latest update. This is a community of entrepreneurs and, while the elections are important, I don't think having multiple election stories here is appropriate discussion material. Someone winning, sure -- that's news that affects the entire world -- but I'd limit it to a single discussion on the winner.

While I agree with what the general gist of the article entails, don't let the UI get in the way, I don't particularly agree with all of the specifics.

My main problem with this article is the fact that the author pits "experience" against "function," and thereby separates the two into different camps. He doesn't have any in-between, wherein there would be a balance of experience _and_ function; instead, he focuses only on the two extremes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a very functional website. I'm a fan of minimal (functional) design, but at the same time, if you're able to make a site beautiful as well as functional, there is no reason not to do so. I thought his use of newspond was a particularly poor example: it is a perfectly functional website, but happens to be very well designed. As a designer, I obsess over the design, but as a user, I have no trouble getting content out of the site.

I would say that experience, from a user's perspective, is about 40% of what is expected. A good experience, a smooth interface. On the other 60% is the functionality, which is a given.

There is no reason you can't have both, you just need to know _how much_ of each is necessary in your particular application.

(This article reads a little like cannon fodder, as well, but at least it brings up a valid--albeit age-old--discussion.)

It should start filling up quite a bit more today...the word had just rolled over last night (from "debate" to "absurd") and my friends have not submitted new images quite yet. I do very much appreciate the input, though!

That was my sign during last night's pre- and post-debate, on MSNBC. It got me a few new users, but not quite as many as I'd have hoped.

I'm really curious to see what happens with this. Obviously, Microsoft wants to match (and eventually outdo) Google in the advertising market, hence their desperate attempts to swallow Yahoo.

Unfortunately, I don't actually think an acquisition like this will pan out for anyone -- neither Microsoft, nor the customers. Mind you, my commentary is purely armchair speculation, but I really can't see how this will put Microsoft on any positive track. Without a doubt, after attaining Yahoo/AOL, everything will receive some sort of (unnecessary) overhaul to better integrate it with their business. This could, in turn, anger a hell of a lot of users of services that Yahoo provides. As well, I can see AOL disappearing into MSN, and Yahoo being refocused and shrunk to merely a marketing sector of Microsoft. Everything else will either be discarded, sold off, or overhauled on a massive scale.

Perhaps I'm completely wrong about everything, but I don't like the direction this is going. Also, this is all very speculative to begin with, since it relies on a very significant sequence of events.

I...don't really like this article, frankly.

Other than being fairly light on information to begin with, the title brings up (what I believe is) the least important part of the article. I can't really speak to being married and trying to run a start-up (still in college), but from what I've read, it is entirely possible. The major thing is having kids -- not being married, or even who you are married to (at least, not nearly as much). If the "married" thing is a metaphor for some of the other rules, such as #2, then they're really stretching it.

I do agree with numbers 1 through 4, though they really could have beefed up the article with some more information and detail. For example, one sentence for #3 gets the point across, but leaves me hanging a bit.

On my earlier note though, can anyone speak to being married/having kids and trying to...start...a start-up? I'm curious what the experience is like, as opposed to being single and/or just having a girlfriend.

The meat and potatoes of this article: "Muxtape is relaunching as a service exclusively for bands, offering an extremely powerful platform with unheard-of simplicity for artists to thrive on the internet."

So, in essence, it is no longer really Muxtape, but an entirely different idea that is just a nod towards what it started out as. This may not be all bad for Muxtape, but it definitely goes to show two things:

1. The major labels/RIAA are far too stiff and don't seem to understand how to work with websites for their own profit. If they had worked out a fair deal, this could have undoubtedly be incredibly profitable for both Muxtape and the labels.

2. Attempting to do something like this will take either a bigger backer (more money), or for the RIAA to suddenly gain an understanding of the internet's true potential.

Regardless, it is a bit disappointing that Muxtape is no longer Muxtape -- however, there are imitators out there working to provide a similar concept, and one of those might just succeed. This has just been a jumping-off point for a lot of people...even if this one doesn't succeed, it's made its mark.

This is definitely not a particularly _new_ idea (I can't recall the name of the service, but there was one -- "Web 1.0" service if you will -- that existed a number of years ago), but I like this implementation. The plug-in, as opposed to a web-proxy method (which is what others I've seen have used), definitely has a more solid look-and-feel. As well, it'll undoubtedly work a lot better since there is no processing of the page involved. This isn't the type of service I would particularly use, but I can see the appeal of it.

Congrats on launching, I'm curious to see how you guys do.

This is oh-so-true, and applies to me quite well -- but I wouldn't, on a whole, say it's a bad thing. While being able to stay "on track" is (of course) very useful, if you do get distracted so easily then perhaps you just need some temporary distance from what you're working on. Or, perhaps, you're working on the wrong thing altogether.

As in my case, I got distracted by a whole new idea while working on one of my other concepts. Was it a good idea to get distracted? Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, after some evaluation, I felt as though I needed to take a step away from my other project, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.

I like the way you put you reply, and it's interesting to get another point of view.

To share my own present experience, I'm still in college myself and working with nearly all of my free time on various projects of my own, summers included. In contrast to you, though, I've kept up fairly well with the things going on outside of my own world (please note this is not a knock on you). While I haven't heard quite the same things you have, I've definitely heard some fairly awful stories about what people get themselves up to with too much time and not enough to do.

Even now, I can appreciate the concept that in the future, I'll already have a significant amount of experience to rely on when I may have to address a specific problem. Undoubtedly, it may be a little lonelier while you're working your ass off to get ahead, but it also doesn't mean that a person has to be totally isolated -- I still have a circle of friends, and go out on a regular basis. I just may do it less often than a person who isn't working quite as hard.

While this article is supposed to be satirical (I hope), it fails at even being remotely humorous. As much as I love reading an invented rant, the excessive amount of swearing just ruins the whole effect of the article and reduces it to a childish game of "look how much I can swear!"