@pixelsnader: To your points:
1. It is best for situations where RAM is limited. It's faster than swapping on systems with traditional harddisks. However, even on systems with 4GB+ of RAM, smaller improvements can be realized.
2. Microsoft says cards should last for 10+ years. Even if it only lasts for 3 years, so what? Flash is getting cheaper and faster. Your current card will be worth $0 in the near future anyway.
3. You will bork your cache, that's it.
4. No, your RAM wouldn't be slower than your harddrive. First, you're looking at sequential I/O reads. ReadyBoost takes advantage of short seek times. Second, ReadyBoost is smart about which source (cache or HDD) it uses. Third, ReadyBoost can use the ReadyBoost cache and the disk in parallel.
@Pesti-Esti: It's disingenuous to imply that page views equate to support for articles.
Have never read an article you didn't like or generated several page views by following comment threads? Do you think none of those 190,360 page views were people nodding along to the complaints or reading responses to their own? Haven't you ever seen a quality article get less views than a flaimbait article?
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this particular article. There are definitely parts of it I do not support and my first reaction to those parts was to be offended. I'm not entirely sure the article isn't ironic flamebait.
As a result, I've generated several page views, mostly reading comments about what others think and feel about the article. Yet, those are not "aye" votes by any means. I am currently, at best, neutral about this article.
So I just can't swallow the idea that page views are somehow indicative of a quality, community-approved article.
I love the idea of being able to vote an article up or down. Frankly, it's just another data point that readers can use to get at the content they want and avoid the content they don't want.
After hearing over and over again how readers can just avoid the articles they hate, I think it behooves Gizmodo to take further steps. The existing methods are either not working or readers feel the cost of using those methods outweighs the benefits.
I've read many comments here that complain about "arrogance" on the part of Gizmodo staff. While I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, I can understand it.
Gizmodo uses a carrot-and-stick approach, but the way they apply it is very inegalitarian. Gizmodo starts by assuming you can't be trusted to post. If you want a star you have to say the right thing at the right time with the right person around. Then, if you say the wrong thing, all that can be taken away. Maybe.
We don't know what the "right thing" or the "wrong thing" is and posts like the article don't really clear it up. To me, this article seems to imply that dissenting opinions are verboten. So, I can certainly understand why many people are upset and vocal about it.
Not only do I think KurganG's idea is a good one for helping readers find the articles they want, I think it will also help readers feel as if they are being treated more fairly by the Gizmodo staff. After all, if they can judge us, why can't we also judge them?
This is what Hulu needs to do to get my money:
1. No tiered subscriptions. I either want to pay a flat rate that everyone pays, pay based on usage, or pay a la carte based on the content. I want either access to everything or I want to pick and choose. I don't want the halfway structure that cable and satellite uses, where I have to pick an overpriced 'package' stuffed with channels I don't want just to get the one channel I'll actually watch.
2. No advertisements. I'd pay about 80% of DVD prices to watch shows as they 'air' with no advertisements.
3. Ease. Of. Use. I want to watch this on my television. I want a free disc or download for my PS3. I want a client included in my blu-ray player (or television or whatever). I don't want to have to stream to my computer and share it over the network via PlayOn.
4. A full selection. I want to see a HUGE back catalog of shows. I also want to see a decent movie collection. Right now, the only advantage Hulu has over Netflix is that they have recent TV shows. That's not enough. Netflix's selection, as paltry as it is, is much better than Hulu's selection. And with Netflix, even if they don't have it available instantly, I can always add the DVD to my queue.
I don't honestly believe Hulu will ever adopt 1 and 2, especially considering who owns it. But they'll have to if they want my money.
@Noobs-R-Us: @Noobs-R-Us: I am an avid reader. I don't see the iPad as a competitor to the Nook. LCD screens just aren't appropriate for serious reading. These eyes already spend too much time staring at LCD screens every day.
If it was a competitor, well, the Nook weighs half as much, is more appropriately sized for an e-reader (IMHO), generates no (noticeable) heat while reading, and is half the price or better.
The iPad is a generalized device. The Nook is a specialized device. As well say that Texas Instruments should have retired the TI-81 as soon as it came out because laptops could perform so many more calculations faster.
@noamjamski: I agree completely. Who buys a Nook to play games? For the price, you can get yourself a PSP and bunch of games. They should focus on what it is for: reading.
@kschang: Re-read my original post.
@jiggie82001: Ouch.
@kschang: The whole point of the card is that it can fall into the wrong hands. It's supposed to be carried in your wallet.
Someone finds or steals your wallet. They have your credit and ATM cards, so they know where you bank. They have your ID, so they know who you are and can guess at usernames. They have a relatively small list of passwords they can try - made smaller by whatever bounds your bank places on password length.
Also, many people live with others that they can't necessarily trust (e.g. a roommate, an insecure significant other, a child) who would know some usernames and have fairly easy access to the card.
As I said, the card is a neat idea, but it shouldn't be used in the way described.
@gMan: This will probably work fine against your average bot, as long as doing this doesn't become commonplace.
If it does, then you have "wasted" one or two characters of your password and made yourself more of a target (since a bot would then just fill in "f" or "fb" for facebook and if you had those in your password you'd be more likely to be hacked). For all I know some do this already.
The main hole I see is that your strategy depends on your attacker not knowing your strategy. So as long as you don't tell anyone... oops. :)
A person (say your ex-significant other) who gets one of your passwords and knows your strategy will have easy access to all of your accounts.
This is a neat idea, but if used as suggested...
An attacker can simply try each color starting with the minimum number of characters required and add a character at the front if it doesn't work.
It would be much better to remember "Green: note to club" or "Green: note 14" than just "Green: note"
Also, it would not hurt to choose columns which you exclude or modify (e.g. by changing the case). "I have a Yen for changing case."
Finally, you could also choose your passwords using multiple columns, and modify/exclude based on color.
This is a neat idea, but if used as suggested...
An attacker can simply try each color starting with the minimum number of characters required and add a character at the front if it doesn't work.
It would be much better to remember "Green: note to club" or "Green: note 14" than just "Green: note"
Also, it would not hurt to choose columns which you exclude or modify (e.g. by changing the case). "I have a Yen for changing case."
Finally, you could also choose your passwords using multiple columns, and modify/exclude based on color.
@helixed: Any dictionary worth its salt is going to include various substitution ciphers, including offsets.
When "password" becomes "pA55vv0Rd", rest assured it is still going to appear in the dictionary, so is "[sddeptf".
@helixed: Helix, this method doesn't avoid dictionary attacks at all. It's just a weak substitution cipher. It's not an "order of magnitude" better or even "a hell of a lot" better. It's useless.
Adam, please stop posting this crap. Half the John Pozadzides tips were useless for protecting passwords, but at least that article had some good information in it.
This article is 100% bullplop. Doing this won't make your passwords any safer.
Instead, how about some "mind hack" articles on how to memorize long, secure passwords?
@Metaltailz: Likewise, Star Ride isn't free either. Star Ride Free is free, but has ads.
@raygungirl: I'm not so sure. The number of people demanding this is probably pretty small. In fact, I'd rather have a subtitles option first.
Remember this is the same Netflix that thought it would be a good idea to get rid of profiles until those of us that did got all up in arms.
@Dan Cardin: More or less the point is that all the things I want fixed are problems Apple created on purpose, software and hardware. With the exception of multitasking, I don't expect 4.0 to deliver much.
@2 replies: Your post is exactly my point regarding ringtones. I found my previous Verizon phone easier to handle ringtones for - and that's saying something.
This *is* good news. The negative tone of the headline and article are baffling to me.
The number of Netflix subscribers who both rely on Netflix for timely new releases and do not use Watch Instantly must be very small. In my experience, Netflix has never been that great about getting new releases in the hands of subscribers anyway. I usually read "Short Wait" to mean "a few months".
I occasionally have new release movies in my queue, but I don't care when they arrive. If I cared, I probably would have seen the movie in a theater (and I 'care' less than once a year). Meanwhile there is a lot of other great stuff in my queue.
As someone who only buys DVDs for content I have already seen and want to add to my collection, it's a bit funny for me to see these companies thinking a delay will equate to more sales.
In no particular order:
Full bluetooth.
Deletable included apps.
Multitasking.
Lower price.
More storage.
User-replaceable battery.
Better camera.
Pie-in-the-sky:
tethering
non-app store apps
custom ringtones
pretty much anything a jailbroken iphone can do
