11.46.02 - Mark
This is pretty dumb. Yet again I'm caught in Confruiter Apps and lsiting to a steaming pile of BS about verifying webpages. I'll conceed that some of its valid. Does it have an email, does it have a last updated comment, ect.
Those few true facts are quickly overshadowed by the BS. Is the author someone you recognize? How is that relevant? Granted I look at an author and may compare it to another article they've written but for the most part the web is an unknown. Suggesting that a site should be evaluated on its advertizing, hosts and sponcers is outrageous.
I have google ad words on this page, with ads for tools that I use for this blog. On my main pages I do the same Does that mean I'm not creditable? How about the fact that I'm using a .tk domain and .mac as a host? Does that mean my content is being piped out by Apple and a small Pacific Island?
I don't think so. My information is biased - everything is. I certainly don't see good reason for denying that or attemping to hide it like the mass media does.
Now we're studing email (we shifted focus as I type/typed this) and now the teacher is confusing the uses for POP and SMTP. Its so sad its not worth correcting...
Oh and as a side note I'm posting picts of the wearable display later today, so keep an eye on the main pages.