There are many ways to get applications that work on any OS. There's the Java/.NET model, where you can use any language that runs on a virtual machine. You can do a thin client. You can just use POSIX commands and compile C code for various platforms.
(Note: Browsers aren't 100% interchangeable.)
Further, I'll contend that it just pushed all the security issues from the OS... where there was a decent amount of control over what code you ran, to a dynamic linking opaque collection of code, making malware far easier to spread.
Other than the part where they have competition, you are in no way obliged to use them, they aren't restraining anybody from going elsewhere for search
You're confused. Obviously, I, as an individual, can use Bing, DDG or others. However, I, as a member of a company that wants to make money, have to make sure that when the 95% of people who use Google try to find [X], they can find me. It's a monopoly of eyeballs for their true customers.
You brought up the question of identity. But let's start with your "hangover-you". Can "hangover-you" make a commitment that prevents "going-out-later-you" from drinking. Hence, forbids any "future-you" from drinking? If yes, how is this different from "didn't-move-to-a-different-society-you" binding "suicidal-you". If no, how is this different from "suicidal-you" binding "over-it-you" that will exist 15 minutes from now (absent suicide).
Given, among other things, the above, I'll grant it's a tricky issue. But can we get on board that your "principle" is really just a thinly disguised slippery slope argument. And we totally prevent people from doing things because their future self wouldn't want it done. For example, we don't allow 17-year-olds to enter into contracts. We don't allow people to contractually give up certain rights. We don't allow you to be forced to repay debts instead of starting over cleanly. We force you to set aside money to pay your income tax so you don't end up in debt to the country. I'm sure I could think of other examples.
A proof for "All men are created equal" seems easier, as there's a lot more agreement on that point. (Although you do have to argue against the "I'm the only person/a brain in a jar" line of reasoning).
I know about some of the features, among other things, canvas and local storage. I wasn't saying "what technical features" I was saying "why do I, as a consumer, want this". It's unclear to me what value Canvas will supply. Nor do I particularly want local storage from websites. One of the first things I did on new installations of flash was turn off it's local storage. Again, I see why developers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advertisers want it. But I have no idea why I as a consumer would.
To be honest, I have no idea why I, as a developer, want any of the new features.
half as complex as a browser (which has the unenviable task of running arbitrary code from untrusted sources in a secure manner)
What if we redefined the browser's goal from "run arbitrary code" to "show static pages that people uploaded". And then maybe add some small subset of the interactivity we have now. You know, as though the primary things people did all day weren't easy to redo. Even Twitter and Facebook could be rewritten to be mostly static pages pretty easily.
Now, it would push the "run arbitrary code" to the servers of companies. Which may raise their costs a bit... but it also means they're the only ones who would have to worry about the security of their code.
But it's far better than before. Because Flash Player and ActiveX you were limited to waiting for a third party to fix the flaw. There's nothing the browser vendor or the user could do.
So you're saying that this is better because I'm waiting on Microsoft instead of Adobe?
, if it's open source, you or the community can fix it.
There was an open source flash plugin
he resolution of which is far easier. It may even be simply switching browsers!
Which brings different holes.
Look, the great thing about Flash was you could leave it deactivated 99% of the time. Whereas now, I have to use NoScript, and there are tons of overly complex webpages that don't need JS, but uses it anyway, making it far harder to deal with.
Of the days of the old web. We needed to install a program for almost everything, you needed an encyclopedia, then you put in that Encarta CD.
You're going to tell me that flat content is the killer app that JS/HTML5 solves???
Also, what's the disadvantage of software that I install vs. software I download and run? If it really were just security, we could just allow downloaded sandboxed apps... like phones do. Is it that I own it and cannot be forced to pay (in dollars or privacy) for continued access? That it limits what I can do, technically?
This is why back in the 1990's nearly everyone had to use windows. It is because buying a Mac, or using Linux will give you disadvantage in available software. The advanced browser opened up your Linux and Mac to the world, and people really don't care much what freaking OS you are using, because the content renders nearly the same.
And now people have to use FF, or Chrome, or IE, because not all of them work the same. I'd rather have a hard "does not work" instead of a soft "fails silently/randomly 10% of the time".
I really don't know what "vastly more functional modern web applications" even means. I get what AJAX and HTML4 added... and even there it seems like just a bit of an optimization over just using HTML. But I still have no clue what HTML5 added that is useful... other than built in video/audio playback.
As far as I can tell, the biggest users of the new technology are trackers/ads.
And there is a lot stopping me from going back. Old, functional pages keep getting replaced with JS ridden bullshit. Look, if you want to talk about applications, I'm happy to use ones that are on my desktop. But if you want to talk about content, I gain nothing but insecurity, tracking and difficulty from the javascriptification.
Wait, what? Did you really just claim that unless Amazon has a monopoly on the entire retail sector it isn't developing a monopoly on certain aspects. Retail is further divided by both,at least, a perceived quality of good and type of good
Walmart is the largest and most dominant of these had US sales of $337 Billion last year which is about 7.5% of the market.
This is really misleading. Retail is not fungible. There are tons of places in America where there is literally one shop (either a dollar store or a Walmart) within a reasonable driving distance.
Well, not to let research get in your way, but the vast majority of suicides are the result of (a) fleeting desire and (b) opportunity. To wit, those stupid "anti-jumping" fences you see on bridges? Those lower suicide rates - not move them. Therefore, preventing someone from committing suicide is a good thing. Usually, they will be happy about it in the future and will keep living. If they really, really want to die, they will find another way that doesn't allow you to prevent it.
It's entirely possible to have laws that are both good and paternalistic.
On an unrelated topic, since you seem to really care, can you please explain to me why you own your own existence. I mean, I get that it's an easy line against stupid and evil things (e.g. slavery), but what's the rationale behind believing it. I took quite a few philosophy classes, and I never understood beyond the "convenient assumption"
What problems does this actually solve, to put them all back-to-back-to-back. If anything it makes it difficult when the entire country coordinates its vacations to take advantage of a 5 day weekend.
There's not much scary here. I mean, it's not like Google has more sensitive information than domain registrations about every person ever. I'm glad that such information is so secure it only takes a minor bug to reveal it to the world. I feel so safe.
Yeah. Except you said a social question at an interview was out of bounds. And I doubt at that time you had to worry about a server melting down or were actively coding.
Look, no one's saying you shouldn't blow people off when the servers are on fire. It's just a normal thing. But you made it quite clear that you'll always actively seek out something more pressing than saying "Hello" in the hallway; some server issue, some code. This should not be confused with proactively finding and solving problems. I think you will seek out excuses, regardless of whether the things need to get done.
Maybe I'm wrong. The only interaction I've had with you is like 3 paragraphs of text over the internet. It could be that this week coworkers have been esp. annoying about ignoring the "leave me alone" sign by your desk.
Ask relevant, job-related questions - and nothing else. You don't need to know my community activities, why manhole covers are round, or my favorite band.
Not being an anti-social dick is a job skill. Yeah, we don't need to be buddies, but why hire someone who refuses to speak to coworkers, etc.
You have a better option for a free video conferencing service that can handle ten people at a time?
Yes. None.
Hangouts is part of a list of technologies that seems like it helps. But what it adds is outweighed by all the little bullshit technical problems. But at the time, it never feels like that. It's always almost there. So people use it. And all anyone remembers is that last half of the meeting when it worked, not the first half when everyone watched Joe in Wyoming fuck around trying to get something tweaked.
Although, for a serious answer, webex. It does screen sharing mostly, but it also lets you share video. I suppose it's more "one person controls the view"... although I think the chat on the side allows for N video connections. It worked well for me.
You have a better option for a free video conferencing service that can handle ten people at a time?
Yes. None.
Hangouts is part of a list of technologies that seems like it helps. But what it adds is outweighed by all the little bullshit technical problems. But at the time, it never feels like that. It's always almost there. So people use it. And all anyone remembers is that last half of the meeting when it worked, not the first half when everyone watched Joe in Wyoming fuck around trying to get something tweaked.
Although, for a serious answer, webex. It does screen sharing mostly, but it also lets you share video. I suppose it's more "one person controls the view"... although I think the chat on the side allows for N video connections. It worked well for me. It's only free up to 3 people however...
How did telephone service become a guaranteed-access human right and lifeline? When will the internet become so essential that to not have it is unacceptable and must be subsidized?
I cannot answer the former. But the answer to the latter is years ago.
. In that sense I watch and see some technologies become victims of their own success -- too many people "rely" on something, and you become a public good and it's out of your control.
That's not just technology. Larger companies have more regulations on hiring/firing than smaller companies. Richer people have to pay more taxes than poorer people. Fundamentally, it's unreasonable to expect a 2 person business to have the same HR structure as a Fortune 100 company, and it's unreasonable for a poor person to earn even 1% of a rich person's tax liability
A monopoly is when one company controls the vast majority of the market. FB (owning Instagram and WhatsApp) certainly qualifies for social networking. And Google certainly does for search.
Further, a social network is, literally, a textbook example of a natural monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many ways to get applications that work on any OS. There's the Java/.NET model, where you can use any language that runs on a virtual machine. You can do a thin client. You can just use POSIX commands and compile C code for various platforms.
(Note: Browsers aren't 100% interchangeable.)
Further, I'll contend that it just pushed all the security issues from the OS... where there was a decent amount of control over what code you ran, to a dynamic linking opaque collection of code, making malware far easier to spread.
You're confused. Obviously, I, as an individual, can use Bing, DDG or others. However, I, as a member of a company that wants to make money, have to make sure that when the 95% of people who use Google try to find [X], they can find me. It's a monopoly of eyeballs for their true customers.
It's a network effects problem.
You brought up the question of identity. But let's start with your "hangover-you". Can "hangover-you" make a commitment that prevents "going-out-later-you" from drinking. Hence, forbids any "future-you" from drinking? If yes, how is this different from "didn't-move-to-a-different-society-you" binding "suicidal-you". If no, how is this different from "suicidal-you" binding "over-it-you" that will exist 15 minutes from now (absent suicide).
Given, among other things, the above, I'll grant it's a tricky issue. But can we get on board that your "principle" is really just a thinly disguised slippery slope argument. And we totally prevent people from doing things because their future self wouldn't want it done. For example, we don't allow 17-year-olds to enter into contracts. We don't allow people to contractually give up certain rights. We don't allow you to be forced to repay debts instead of starting over cleanly. We force you to set aside money to pay your income tax so you don't end up in debt to the country. I'm sure I could think of other examples.
A proof for "All men are created equal" seems easier, as there's a lot more agreement on that point. (Although you do have to argue against the "I'm the only person/a brain in a jar" line of reasoning).
I know about some of the features, among other things, canvas and local storage. I wasn't saying "what technical features" I was saying "why do I, as a consumer, want this". It's unclear to me what value Canvas will supply. Nor do I particularly want local storage from websites. One of the first things I did on new installations of flash was turn off it's local storage. Again, I see why developers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advertisers want it. But I have no idea why I as a consumer would.
To be honest, I have no idea why I, as a developer, want any of the new features.
What if we redefined the browser's goal from "run arbitrary code" to "show static pages that people uploaded". And then maybe add some small subset of the interactivity we have now. You know, as though the primary things people did all day weren't easy to redo. Even Twitter and Facebook could be rewritten to be mostly static pages pretty easily.
Now, it would push the "run arbitrary code" to the servers of companies. Which may raise their costs a bit... but it also means they're the only ones who would have to worry about the security of their code.
So you're saying that this is better because I'm waiting on Microsoft instead of Adobe?
There was an open source flash plugin
Which brings different holes.
Look, the great thing about Flash was you could leave it deactivated 99% of the time. Whereas now, I have to use NoScript, and there are tons of overly complex webpages that don't need JS, but uses it anyway, making it far harder to deal with.
You're going to tell me that flat content is the killer app that JS/HTML5 solves???
Also, what's the disadvantage of software that I install vs. software I download and run? If it really were just security, we could just allow downloaded sandboxed apps... like phones do. Is it that I own it and cannot be forced to pay (in dollars or privacy) for continued access? That it limits what I can do, technically?
And now people have to use FF, or Chrome, or IE, because not all of them work the same. I'd rather have a hard "does not work" instead of a soft "fails silently/randomly 10% of the time".
I really don't know what "vastly more functional modern web applications" even means. I get what AJAX and HTML4 added... and even there it seems like just a bit of an optimization over just using HTML. But I still have no clue what HTML5 added that is useful... other than built in video/audio playback.
As far as I can tell, the biggest users of the new technology are trackers/ads.
And there is a lot stopping me from going back. Old, functional pages keep getting replaced with JS ridden bullshit. Look, if you want to talk about applications, I'm happy to use ones that are on my desktop. But if you want to talk about content, I gain nothing but insecurity, tracking and difficulty from the javascriptification.
Wait, what? Did you really just claim that unless Amazon has a monopoly on the entire retail sector it isn't developing a monopoly on certain aspects. Retail is further divided by both,at least, a perceived quality of good and type of good
This is really misleading. Retail is not fungible. There are tons of places in America where there is literally one shop (either a dollar store or a Walmart) within a reasonable driving distance.
M is like R. Absolutely fine. AO is like NC-17 - a no go commercially.
I in fact have noticed that. I'm a pretty brilliant amateur sociologist in fact. Please read a bit more about my insights.
Well, not to let research get in your way, but the vast majority of suicides are the result of (a) fleeting desire and (b) opportunity. To wit, those stupid "anti-jumping" fences you see on bridges? Those lower suicide rates - not move them. Therefore, preventing someone from committing suicide is a good thing. Usually, they will be happy about it in the future and will keep living. If they really, really want to die, they will find another way that doesn't allow you to prevent it.
It's entirely possible to have laws that are both good and paternalistic.
On an unrelated topic, since you seem to really care, can you please explain to me why you own your own existence. I mean, I get that it's an easy line against stupid and evil things (e.g. slavery), but what's the rationale behind believing it. I took quite a few philosophy classes, and I never understood beyond the "convenient assumption"
What problems does this actually solve, to put them all back-to-back-to-back. If anything it makes it difficult when the entire country coordinates its vacations to take advantage of a 5 day weekend.
Because Jews shouldn't be allowed to vote?
I love it when they refuse to accept payment. Free ride!
Well, if you think Internet access is a basic right, then you would of course think there's an entitlement to it.
There's not much scary here. I mean, it's not like Google has more sensitive information than domain registrations about every person ever. I'm glad that such information is so secure it only takes a minor bug to reveal it to the world. I feel so safe.
Yeah. Except you said a social question at an interview was out of bounds. And I doubt at that time you had to worry about a server melting down or were actively coding.
Look, no one's saying you shouldn't blow people off when the servers are on fire. It's just a normal thing. But you made it quite clear that you'll always actively seek out something more pressing than saying "Hello" in the hallway; some server issue, some code. This should not be confused with proactively finding and solving problems. I think you will seek out excuses, regardless of whether the things need to get done.
Maybe I'm wrong. The only interaction I've had with you is like 3 paragraphs of text over the internet. It could be that this week coworkers have been esp. annoying about ignoring the "leave me alone" sign by your desk.
Not being an anti-social dick is a job skill. Yeah, we don't need to be buddies, but why hire someone who refuses to speak to coworkers, etc.
Yes. None.
Hangouts is part of a list of technologies that seems like it helps. But what it adds is outweighed by all the little bullshit technical problems. But at the time, it never feels like that. It's always almost there. So people use it. And all anyone remembers is that last half of the meeting when it worked, not the first half when everyone watched Joe in Wyoming fuck around trying to get something tweaked.
Although, for a serious answer, webex. It does screen sharing mostly, but it also lets you share video. I suppose it's more "one person controls the view"... although I think the chat on the side allows for N video connections. It worked well for me.
Yes. None.
Hangouts is part of a list of technologies that seems like it helps. But what it adds is outweighed by all the little bullshit technical problems. But at the time, it never feels like that. It's always almost there. So people use it. And all anyone remembers is that last half of the meeting when it worked, not the first half when everyone watched Joe in Wyoming fuck around trying to get something tweaked.
Although, for a serious answer, webex. It does screen sharing mostly, but it also lets you share video. I suppose it's more "one person controls the view"... although I think the chat on the side allows for N video connections. It worked well for me. It's only free up to 3 people however...
I cannot answer the former. But the answer to the latter is years ago.
That's not just technology. Larger companies have more regulations on hiring/firing than smaller companies. Richer people have to pay more taxes than poorer people. Fundamentally, it's unreasonable to expect a 2 person business to have the same HR structure as a Fortune 100 company, and it's unreasonable for a poor person to earn even 1% of a rich person's tax liability
A monopoly is when one company controls the vast majority of the market. FB (owning Instagram and WhatsApp) certainly qualifies for social networking. And Google certainly does for search.
Further, a social network is, literally, a textbook example of a natural monopoly.
My point is only that Google will rank conclusions for "truth" as well as more objective facts.
Most people would be call the conclusion people are drawing from the settlement rate also a fact.