The article states that videos with gratuitous or graphic violence is against YouTube's TOS and that is why the account was suspended.
Then they (YouTube and, by extension, their parent company Google) are just a fucking joke. A great place for video of dogs doing stupid things, I suppose, but a waste of a real opportunity to be anything more.
And, yes, they are free to do what they want with their own servers (within the law). I am also free to think it sucks.
Somewhere in Google's Scrooge McDuck swimming pool of money you have to think a salary or two could be found to establish an "important speech" review section to ensure that politically important videos (e.g. TFA) don't get pulled. They could probably get a volunteer board to at least maintain a suggested list of protected video.
Of course, maybe the videos were causing them back-channel grief in Egypt or setting a dangerous example with some future strategy of theirs.
All solid points, but why does it have to be either or? You could have a mix: A normal PC that can do all of the things we expect a PC to do with an optional "Google layer" (or whatever) that gives you a thin-client experience to your mail, docs, etc.
I would imagine you'd eventually see a split between ultra-cheap machines that just do the layer and normal PCs that can do everything they currently do. About 80% of the people I know would be much better served with a computer that would just run a browser and store all their data over https at a secure facility. There are serious issues that you pointed out, but they are not impossible to sort out.
Of course I would not go for it nor would you nor would most of the people reading this site. But there is a large market that would.
Adobe makes lots of money. That is what always puzzles me about this shit. Why does it have to constantly be more more more more. They have some quality products, good ideas in the pipeline (e.g. flash). Why be abusive?
Your point is, of course, correct. It's up to end-users as to what they will accept or not. I just don't get what is so wrong with making your hundred millions or so and continuing to make cool products.
I get what you are saying but I disagree in one sense. If you are talking about the next 10 or 20 years of computing (and not, say, the next 3 to 5 years), I think you can argue that Microsoft has been defeated. As much as many people here hate it, web-based applications are going to become more and more prevalent. That means as long as your OS can run a browser with compatible tech (AJAX or whatever) than it won't matter what OS you have to access your web-based email, word proc., spread sheet, etc.
In this sense, not only has MSFT not done so well I don't think they will; the shift will be too much of a culture shock to them and I don't think they are innovative enough to compete. IBM looked unbeatable once too; same story.
Exchange is s a beast to beat because it is entrenched and it has a feature set that I simply have been unable to find elsewhere. But I don't think that will last forever and I doubt the whole model over the next decade or two.
I have been looking more and more at Google as a replacement tech for exchange (amongst other tech). $50 per user per year is cheap compared to the Exchange (os cost, exchange cost, exchange cal fee, hardware costs, bandwidth costs, backup costs and administration costs).
The one thing that they don't have is the ability for gMail to sync-in to mobile devices - e.g. not as a web-based app but into the mail handler/software itself. I am guessing that the gPhone platform may solve this. It would indeed be quite the killer.
You're correct that Yahoo has not come right out and said that Zimbra will be buried in incoherent, bureaucratic mess of confused web strategy but I am certainly cautious.
I was looking at Zimbra as a possible exchange replacement tech to flog to some smb clients but the Yahoo acquisition put the project on hold. Who knows if they just want the underlying tech or if they want to continue to support the project.
And, as I intimated above, even if Yahoo has the best intentions, I am not sure they can accomplish it due to (what is to me)an unclear web strategy.
I know this will blow most slashdot posters' minds but most companies, indeed, even most people don't install their own operating systems when they buy a computer. This is really for companies who bought computers from a supplier that only sells computers with Vista installed (i.e. most of them, but fewer every day it seems) and want to install XP instead.
I would say that (easily) more than 50% of corp/biz Windows PCs are re-imaged before they leave the basement. I would agree that most individuals do not but I think you're viewpoint on companies is off.
Thank you. I've been trying to put words on what it was about the ending that bugged me -- "hack writer's easiest way to make his story seem more profound than it actually is" is perfect.
You are correct on that point but I think what the poster was saying is a valid point -- specifically: Why is it that ISPs can avoid being sued for delivering contraband via their networks but can, when the delivery of the contraband causes them inconvenience, suddenly shape delivery?
It is not a hard case of a law being violated, to be sure, but it would, I think, be a valid, rhetorical, question to be asked in a **AA vs. Telco lawsuit. It could be used to show that the ISPs were aware of the content and had the means to shape it to their own needs but refused to do so to the needs of the suing **AA.
From an end-user's prospective, perhaps. But from a developer's perspective, the GPL takes away the right to distribute closed-source programs if you, in any way, use an GPL'd product. That would be a large TAKING AWAY of a right if one didn't read and understand the contract.
They don't have to use windows now - true. But, mate, it's only one IE-specific-will-only-run-on-genuine-windows feature away. Microsoft isn't stupid or shy and when they offer something for free, they have a reason behind it. I personally don't think it's criminal on Microsoft's part; It's that the CIOs who fall for it are negligent.
The worst effect of the recent & current political system in the US, in my opinion, is the fact that people can barely communicate about any topic without it stalling into a political shouting match. Look at this site if you want proof.
Busting the possiblities for dialogue between people is a horrid consequence and - ultimatly, it may very well lead to the very things you are afraid of.
But, in all your fears, you don't really realize that you are playing your part - in the same way that Bush is - do you?
Actually, there's really not a lot of exclusivity between the two services.
Well, I see your point, but I think there is some exclusivity.
Take the case of Opie & Anthony (XM) vs. Stern (Sirius). There are large numbers of people who are very attached to both shows. If the two companies were to merge, Stern would likely have the pull to take them off the air (their relationship seems that bitter). That would stifle a creative show. Maybe you don't agree with the example, but think about it in platform terms.
Hegemony fucking kills innovation; We know it in tech. I think it would follow in satellite radio as well.
While I've never owned an Apple product, I would also have to add that I suspect that Apple would find a way to make this stuff actually work when they do get into it. They seem to have both the ability to negotiate the deals they want with content providers and create products that people might actually use.
The fucking baffling thing about a lot of the decisions that Microsoft has made of late (i.e. Vista) is that they are creating products for a phantom user base. It's too complicated for basic users to understand (seven fucking versions of Windows?) and it's too restrictive for advanced users (when can I and when can't I re-install Vista? I am still unclear on this point).
I mean, look at the above discussion. All of this mind-numbing technical jargon to just play a movie? What demographic is going to sort through all of this? 90% of the people who understand this shit will just pirate the damn film to begin with.
I hope this rubbish ends Monday. Tuesday would be fine. So would Wednesday.
Do you think -- really think -- that even in a Republican's worst nightmare, that a new, Democratic institution (even another 4 years out with both houses and the presidency) would somehow make this all go away? I think you say things like "I hope it stops on Tuesday" because that's all you have to hope for. It is easy to say "Bush is the problem". While he might be part of it, terrorism is a problem that faces the entire country. There is a limited game set from which any government has to choose from.
Ultimately, it is going to come down to "We take the risk and keep the rights or the reverse". There isn't another question or choice at the heart of the matter. The answer to that choice isn't going to come from a political party (either one); It will have to come from the citizens. Do you think that the citizens of this country -- be they Republican or Democratic -- are willing to make that choice? I don't. That is what scares me. More than Bush or Hillary or any politician to be, I am creeped out because people will choose safety -- for them, for their lifestyle, for their children -- over some philosophical idea of freedom.
If your friend thinks an offer to help the people of his country is "arrogant" than I think that title is misplaced.
If this project reminds you of England's actions in India than I have to think the closest you have ever come to a history book is that time one fell on your head.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard Wahlberg say in an interview that it (Max Payne) "blows the Matrix away" so, yeah, I think they are going to abuse bullet time.
and you could export your documents to whatever format you'd like before canceling your subscription to this, no?
i've never laughed at xkcd until that link
Then they (YouTube and, by extension, their parent company Google) are just a fucking joke. A great place for video of dogs doing stupid things, I suppose, but a waste of a real opportunity to be anything more.
And, yes, they are free to do what they want with their own servers (within the law). I am also free to think it sucks.
Of course, maybe the videos were causing them back-channel grief in Egypt or setting a dangerous example with some future strategy of theirs.
I would imagine you'd eventually see a split between ultra-cheap machines that just do the layer and normal PCs that can do everything they currently do. About 80% of the people I know would be much better served with a computer that would just run a browser and store all their data over https at a secure facility. There are serious issues that you pointed out, but they are not impossible to sort out.
Of course I would not go for it nor would you nor would most of the people reading this site. But there is a large market that would.
Your point is, of course, correct. It's up to end-users as to what they will accept or not. I just don't get what is so wrong with making your hundred millions or so and continuing to make cool products.
I agree with you 100%. Did you guys look at hosted Exchange? 10 users x $7.95 month = $954 yearly with anti-spam, anti-virus, backup, etc.
In this sense, not only has MSFT not done so well I don't think they will; the shift will be too much of a culture shock to them and I don't think they are innovative enough to compete. IBM looked unbeatable once too; same story.
Exchange is s a beast to beat because it is entrenched and it has a feature set that I simply have been unable to find elsewhere. But I don't think that will last forever and I doubt the whole model over the next decade or two.
The one thing that they don't have is the ability for gMail to sync-in to mobile devices - e.g. not as a web-based app but into the mail handler/software itself. I am guessing that the gPhone platform may solve this. It would indeed be quite the killer.
I was looking at Zimbra as a possible exchange replacement tech to flog to some smb clients but the Yahoo acquisition put the project on hold. Who knows if they just want the underlying tech or if they want to continue to support the project.
And, as I intimated above, even if Yahoo has the best intentions, I am not sure they can accomplish it due to (what is to me)an unclear web strategy.
i know the numbers too but man you need to actually use an EDGE smartphone to fully appreicate the latency
I would say that (easily) more than 50% of corp/biz Windows PCs are re-imaged before they leave the basement. I would agree that most individuals do not but I think you're viewpoint on companies is off.
Thank you. I've been trying to put words on what it was about the ending that bugged me -- "hack writer's easiest way to make his story seem more profound than it actually is" is perfect.
It is not a hard case of a law being violated, to be sure, but it would, I think, be a valid, rhetorical, question to be asked in a **AA vs. Telco lawsuit. It could be used to show that the ISPs were aware of the content and had the means to shape it to their own needs but refused to do so to the needs of the suing **AA.
From an end-user's prospective, perhaps. But from a developer's perspective, the GPL takes away the right to distribute closed-source programs if you, in any way, use an GPL'd product. That would be a large TAKING AWAY of a right if one didn't read and understand the contract.
They don't have to use windows now - true. But, mate, it's only one IE-specific-will-only-run-on-genuine-windows feature away. Microsoft isn't stupid or shy and when they offer something for free, they have a reason behind it. I personally don't think it's criminal on Microsoft's part; It's that the CIOs who fall for it are negligent.
Busting the possiblities for dialogue between people is a horrid consequence and - ultimatly, it may very well lead to the very things you are afraid of.
But, in all your fears, you don't really realize that you are playing your part - in the same way that Bush is - do you?
Well, I see your point, but I think there is some exclusivity.
Take the case of Opie & Anthony (XM) vs. Stern (Sirius). There are large numbers of people who are very attached to both shows. If the two companies were to merge, Stern would likely have the pull to take them off the air (their relationship seems that bitter). That would stifle a creative show. Maybe you don't agree with the example, but think about it in platform terms.
Hegemony fucking kills innovation; We know it in tech. I think it would follow in satellite radio as well.
The fucking baffling thing about a lot of the decisions that Microsoft has made of late (i.e. Vista) is that they are creating products for a phantom user base. It's too complicated for basic users to understand (seven fucking versions of Windows?) and it's too restrictive for advanced users (when can I and when can't I re-install Vista? I am still unclear on this point).
I mean, look at the above discussion. All of this mind-numbing technical jargon to just play a movie? What demographic is going to sort through all of this? 90% of the people who understand this shit will just pirate the damn film to begin with.
If results are all you care about, then why let people go outside to begin with? Lock them up right in their homes and watch the murder rate decline.
Do you think -- really think -- that even in a Republican's worst nightmare, that a new, Democratic institution (even another 4 years out with both houses and the presidency) would somehow make this all go away? I think you say things like "I hope it stops on Tuesday" because that's all you have to hope for. It is easy to say "Bush is the problem". While he might be part of it, terrorism is a problem that faces the entire country. There is a limited game set from which any government has to choose from.
Ultimately, it is going to come down to "We take the risk and keep the rights or the reverse". There isn't another question or choice at the heart of the matter. The answer to that choice isn't going to come from a political party (either one); It will have to come from the citizens. Do you think that the citizens of this country -- be they Republican or Democratic -- are willing to make that choice? I don't. That is what scares me. More than Bush or Hillary or any politician to be, I am creeped out because people will choose safety -- for them, for their lifestyle, for their children -- over some philosophical idea of freedom.
Europe 39-45 would beg to differ. I could go on, but I think you are obtuse on purpose.
If this project reminds you of England's actions in India than I have to think the closest you have ever come to a history book is that time one fell on your head.