Well, I think you may want to be a little more guarded in your approach. If it is a really good idea and you tell a forum filled w/capable programmers, there is some risk that someone will take the ball and run with it, excluding you from the benefits.
If it's something he wants, and can't find elsewhere, the benefits would be having it available for use.
What about a ratio system like they use on private torrent websites? One could have a ratio of upload and download and if you don't give back to the community, your IP is temporarily banned from using the network. That wouldn't pose a problem since knowing that IP adress is wants to use the network doesn't mean they know where it is going when it connects. You are still anonymous.
Tor is for everyone to use, even those that don't meet Tor's bandwidth standards for a relay.
I laughed (and then cried a little). Not really, but I do find it ironic that the only successful mainstream XMPP instant messenger client is done by Google.
I was quite excited when it came out. Google was smaller than today, but still a big force, and I thought it might be a step towards not having to beg people to use Jabber so I wouldn't have an empty contact list.
Now I have a few contacts that use Google Talk, primarily due to their Gmail integration and it's easy way around corporate firewalls, and for each new one I have to wait until their online, open up Gmail, open a conversation, and take that user off the record.
Until realizing this, of course, all the chats were logged and saved. There is the option to delete, but that goes back to the core issue of knowing the specific details: how is my information deleted? Are backup archives kept?
The scientific method may operate along those lines, but we still have "theories" of the universe and "laws" of the universe. A "law" regarding particular physics principles may be shown to be wrong in some of it's assumptions (it's caused by something else), but it doesn't reach that point of scientific acceptance if it's not been tested thoroughly (and likely has served, successfully, as a tool in more complicated models for quite a while).
The important thing to overstate in the Evolution vs. Creationism issue, is that any short-comings in Darwin's theory does NOT lend ANY weight to the Creationism specifically.
Something in Darwin's theory that isn't satisfactory may warrant scientific examination, but it's hardly evidence that a particular idea of how the world started (that happens to be contradicted by Evolution) is valid.
I also like to point out that the Big Bang and Evolution in no way contest that there is no God. That's something that science can't address (the topic at hand today?). There are Christian leaders who accept Evolution. Science only conflicts with religion when the human interpreters of that religion insist that it does.
That's actually exactly what he's claiming he meant, however.
From one of the articles:
In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."
It may be backtracking, but it still makes sense to me.
The main argument I put forth against Creationism/Intelligent Design, is that it can only be considered a religious view because it is only held by those of a particular religious background. If it's to be taught (in the US especially) in public schools, every other view on how the world was created that has representation in that country has to be treated equally. Basically, there's no way to make it a Creationism / Evolution issue, since Creationism is based solely on ONE strain of religion.
Letting the children decide is an absolutely fine point; they SHOULD decide. That's the whole point of learning to make your own decisions. I don't see how this factors into what's taught in schools, however. Children have parents, and if those parents believe in Creationism, they can pass those teachings to their children.
This is an ideal scenario to illustrate something that is the parents' responsibility rather than the school's.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time.
My pure-bred pets and genetically modified vegetables (that did not exist in their current form even 100 years ago) actually make evolution one of the most observable and simple scientific concepts to explain.
Gravity and electricity are more observable, but their explanations go into more complicated roots than the basic "you only germinate seeds from the tall plants, to get tall plants" concept.
You are confusing the "John Doe" cases with the "named defendant" cases. In the "named defendant" cases the MediaSentry investigator is the RIAA's sole fact witness.
It seems more likely I've misunderstood the process as outlined. Without the evidence gathered by MediaSentry's investigator, how does the RIAA obtain the ex parte ruling to proceed to the "Named Defendent" phase? A judge cannot order an ISP to turn over a specific account name without anything to identify the specific account. Isn't there a standard for evidence to obtain such a ruling, implying a presentation of the investigator as legitimate?
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal.
1. You might feel differently if someone accessed your hard drive under false pretenses.
The important thing is to separate false pretenses. I download files, use them, and have access to the IP addresses they came from every day. Those files are hosted with the intent to be served to clients, just as P2P clients do in the process of sharing the cost of bandwidth by acting both in the roles of client and server.
It is software. You haven't persuaded me it's "legitimate".
Hopefully, it won't be up to Safenet to argue in court that the nature behind P2P software is legitimate. Unless they are going beyond accessing shared files on a visible network, I don't see how it's the software that should be called into question.
It is looking like the law in Michigan hinges on receiving a fee with the intention for the gathered information to be used in court, so let's hope any prosecutors are informed enough to distinguish what is and what isn't part of the crime.
This move seems more like a maneuver against the RIAA then a chance to catch Safenet doing something illegal. The impression I received from reading the article you wrote concerning the RIAA's legal practices was that Safenet only made it to the stand a handful of times at most, and each time made no attempt to insist their methods met the relevant reliability standards.
With that in mind, it seems like the RIAA lawyers are the ones presenting Safenet as legitimate investigators, and then dismissing the case once in possession of the desired name. Putting Safenet under the spotlight puts their methods directly in question, and offers the chance to expose a part of the RIAA's own methodology that seems to much harder to achieve when directly dealing with the RIAA's suits and actions.
All the same, criminal charges against Safenet for what they are doing specifically with technology and information might have unintended, negative consequences. Is the push to prosecute Safenet being put specifically into terms of it's actions as agent in the RIAA cases?
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal. All normal things that legitimate software might do. Safenet hands that information over to the RIAA, and the RIAA of course misuses that.
Without being clear on the Michigan law, is it the last step, the releasing of that information to a client with the knowledge that it's going to be used in litigation, what specifically defines it as computer forensics and requires an investigator's license?
I don't share files with bit torrent or any other such bandwidth eating activities. It's was a huge inconvenience for me when a flatmate's BF started doing so. He did it at our place, because the internet was so infuriatingly slow for him. Why? Not because of the usage stats you listed, but because he was on a cheap DSL connection, and I was on a slightly more expensive cable connection (maybe $15/mo more, at most), that got at least 5 times the download speed (very conservative).
Now I've moved, and I'm on such a DSL connection. I use LESS bandwidth, because the connection is so poor. I don't get 25% of the advertised "speeds up to" number.
Ancestry.com is a great example. On cable it loaded in a few seconds, on DSL I gave up after minutes of a loading screen. Consistently, I've found "high speed" DSL to be in the ballpark cost of actual high speed connections, and in the case of my transition, the actual maximum transfer speed I can get was decimated (in the literal sense).
I mean to pose a good point: that the same usage under one service had the Internet blazingly fast, and under another service infuriatingly slow.
There's also an obligatory rant in here, which you can ignore. WHAT SORT OF HIGH SPEED CONNECTION IS TOO SLOW TO EVEN STREAM FROM HULU?
For download speeds, the service is for 1 mbps, and in speed tests I get 200-300 kbps. The cable service was only estimated to be around 8-10 mbps (for about $10-12/mo more), and speed tests always were in the 12-16 mbps range.
Why is the internet so infuriatingly slow? Because you have a poor service provider!
This is not about an iPhone just because it's about AT&T.
Yes it is, exactly as you state. This is Slashdot, a community that has made clear beyond doubt that they is interest in the companies and the policies of those companies behind specific technologies and products.
The iPhone is tied in to AT&T, and that's a BIG downside for many who are otherwise interested in owning the actual device. Stories that support the concept that AT&T does not have the consumer's best interest in mind will of course get coverage, in fact, a disproportionate amount as compared to other providers or stories that reflect well on AT&T.
Fair? Reasonable? Either interpretation doesn't make the association go away.
Do you have an explanation then why they included google gears instead of Webkits HTML 5 api? Really, just asking. The only reason I can think of is that they want to push their own implementation, but I would gladly be corrected.
I can't offer explanations, but I can think of an alternative theory or two.
1) Diversity and competition. This one stands out as most relevant / important here. We already have a popular browser using Webkit's HTML 5 API. Google has their own API. Really, we'd be at a disadvantage if they had gone the full Webkit route, because it would give us less of an opportunity to compare. ANY improvements and innovations in the browser-platform that favor web applications benefit Google, so I don't think one needs to assume an agenda of pushing their own implementation.
2) Seeing Gears as a larger project than a HTML5 API. "Webkit is an open source browser engine", and it has an HTML5 API. "Gears is a plug-in that extends your browser to create a richer platform for web applications", and it has an HTML5 API. It's entirely possible the Gears people have ambitious plans in the works to really extend what a browser can do with a web application (in the good sense). Building Chrome with Gears sets it up for a later attempt to shake up with browser market with innovation.
3) Development preference. Without being stupid or malicious, developers have preferences. Didn't Gears coders work on Chrome, at least to some extent? A chance to fully implement it in a browser and have a platform that really integrates it is a reason to make the choice on the development level.
Now, as it stands, web developers who want to use local, client side storage have to test for google gears AND for the webkit api, yet another fragmentation.
That's a big assumption. I can tell you from industry that fringe browser support is something to be considered if there's room in the timeline, or if the client has a preference. The numbers are still not persuasive enough. Firefox (Win/Mac) and Internet Explorer are always must-supports, Safari is a should-support if the client is a PC user (if something isn't working and the deadline comes, too bad Safari for users). Opera isn't even considered.
Chrome may have been released by Google, and it may jump to an amazing market share in terms of a brand new browser, but if it presents another fragmentation in support (which it claims no to), that doesn't mean developers will be clamoring to put in the extra work for a brand new browser.
It's not comparable to IE6, because IE is the dominant platform by a huge margin, and every site is expected to work on it. "Fringe" browsers (in quotes, to denote any browser that can easily be argued as fringe, regardless of use) do not produce that sort demand from clients.
As portable devices get more powerful and more capable, why are PCs even needed in this situation? Forget the thumb drive, plug your next-next-gen phone into your table, flip up the monitor, and use the full-sized keyboard (with touchpad, I suppose).
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Having thought about their business model, what difference does it make if there's an ad-block plug-in written for it? People everywhere are acting like Google will be pushing Chrome to be #1. Google isn'tt in the business of making browsers. It's how their software runs in browsers people use, that they care about.
Google open sourced technology that they expect will improve performance for their actual products, with the hope it will spread to all browsers. Not just so the existing apps are easier to use, but so they can innovate with the limitations pushed a little further away.
They've got money and time to burn, why not spend some effort to give the browsers that make up their product platform incentive and tools to improve? That sounds a whole lot more like the Google business model to me.
Any specific critiques of interface of licensing seem to be moot in the long run, since the stated goal of this browser is to release better tools for ALL the browsers, including ones that are fully open source.
There's not much point in arguing how much Google might monitor or claim usage-rights over, as the obvious goal is a backbone for all browsers that makes their applications run better and gives them more potential to develop new ones. Competing with IE and FF doesn't exactly fit well in their business plan.
The real questions are, if V8 actually does blow all current JS engines away, how soon are we going to see it in a Firefox release? If the independent handling of tabs prove to be the sensible way to handle it, will it make it into FF4?
If the things Google is introducing are better, V8 should get in there quickly, but multiprocess handling of tabs and plugins, etc, will require quite a bit of work to get into existing browsers.
I routinely admonish coworkers (above and below me) for sending email through a 3rd party webmail provider (usually them sending something to my gmail address rather than work address, for some unknown reason). When I'm working remotely and the normal server goes down, I'll use Google's SMTP server if it's the best working option, but it goes through encrypted.
"Establish the nationâ(TM)s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century."
I must say, I wasn't expecting that. Technology not only is the backbone of government functionality, it's a huge money drain when done poorly, or when there isn't standardization even within departments. A good CTO will take the responsibility from those who's job is things other than technology, and ensure it's done right, across the board.
Ideally speaking, of course. The first appointment could be Bill Gates, who's no doubt qualified for the position (if it weren't for the following point, I think Mr. Gates could be a good choice). Even if I concede a MS standardization in the government would meet stability, usability, and efficiency goals, I'm just not comfortable with private code running a public infrastructure.
If both candidates share the CTO plan, I hope the tech lobbies are already on the ball, explaining that an open platform means a US infrastructure, not a Microsoft infrastructure.
The iTunes Music Store is a big success for Apple. Do they really have much of an incentive to eliminate DRM? It seems like iTunes = iPod for the masses, and that Apple has as much to gain from maintaining their DRM's presence as much as the RIAA.
I don't get it. Buy $600 phone. Pay $60-90/month to use it. And you can't tether.
That's what I'd be the most interested in anyways. WOW on the go would be fun.
Well duh and i'd like a pony too. You are paying for the service you are getting not the one you wish you were getting. Maybe someome will write an app called "net-sell". and I can go to coffeeshops and rent my iphone connection to all the people in the room.
I think the point here is that you are OVER paying for the product you are getting, when tethering is, as far as I and every techie smart phone user I know goes, one of the main points of getting a smart phone. The whole point of spending such a high monthly service plan is the data transfer.
3G speeds don't seem fast enough to tempt users away from using old-fashioned internet when it's available (WoW with more than 120ms lag wouldn't be THAT much fun). I don't really see iPhone renting being popular in coffee shops when up against the common free WiFi.
Isn't this just another example of Apple innovating on a product to improve it's user experience and make it exciting, but then giving in on something that just restricts us the consumer?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think you may want to be a little more guarded in your approach. If it is a really good idea and you tell a forum filled w/capable programmers, there is some risk that someone will take the ball and run with it, excluding you from the benefits.
If it's something he wants, and can't find elsewhere, the benefits would be having it available for use.
"Successful tech-company is evil" is always headlining on slashdot. What's strange about that?
What about a ratio system like they use on private torrent websites? One could have a ratio of upload and download and if you don't give back to the community, your IP is temporarily banned from using the network. That wouldn't pose a problem since knowing that IP adress is wants to use the network doesn't mean they know where it is going when it connects. You are still anonymous.
Tor is for everyone to use, even those that don't meet Tor's bandwidth standards for a relay.
I laughed (and then cried a little). Not really, but I do find it ironic that the only successful mainstream XMPP instant messenger client is done by Google.
I was quite excited when it came out. Google was smaller than today, but still a big force, and I thought it might be a step towards not having to beg people to use Jabber so I wouldn't have an empty contact list.
Now I have a few contacts that use Google Talk, primarily due to their Gmail integration and it's easy way around corporate firewalls, and for each new one I have to wait until their online, open up Gmail, open a conversation, and take that user off the record.
Until realizing this, of course, all the chats were logged and saved. There is the option to delete, but that goes back to the core issue of knowing the specific details: how is my information deleted? Are backup archives kept?
Tor get a vote of confidence as it's endorsed by the EFF, which has an established reputation for privacy.
I don't know anything about I2P. If it's a better-than-Tor network, I hope they have the good sense to get trusted organizations on board.
+1 Insightful, cuts right to the heart of the matter.
As Google's presence on the Internet becomes more and more significant, specific details on how their operations can affect us become more important.
No scientific theory can be proven.
The scientific method may operate along those lines, but we still have "theories" of the universe and "laws" of the universe. A "law" regarding particular physics principles may be shown to be wrong in some of it's assumptions (it's caused by something else), but it doesn't reach that point of scientific acceptance if it's not been tested thoroughly (and likely has served, successfully, as a tool in more complicated models for quite a while).
The important thing to overstate in the Evolution vs. Creationism issue, is that any short-comings in Darwin's theory does NOT lend ANY weight to the Creationism specifically.
Something in Darwin's theory that isn't satisfactory may warrant scientific examination, but it's hardly evidence that a particular idea of how the world started (that happens to be contradicted by Evolution) is valid.
I also like to point out that the Big Bang and Evolution in no way contest that there is no God. That's something that science can't address (the topic at hand today?). There are Christian leaders who accept Evolution. Science only conflicts with religion when the human interpreters of that religion insist that it does.
That's actually exactly what he's claiming he meant, however.
From one of the articles:
In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."
It may be backtracking, but it still makes sense to me.
The main argument I put forth against Creationism/Intelligent Design, is that it can only be considered a religious view because it is only held by those of a particular religious background. If it's to be taught (in the US especially) in public schools, every other view on how the world was created that has representation in that country has to be treated equally. Basically, there's no way to make it a Creationism / Evolution issue, since Creationism is based solely on ONE strain of religion.
Letting the children decide is an absolutely fine point; they SHOULD decide. That's the whole point of learning to make your own decisions. I don't see how this factors into what's taught in schools, however. Children have parents, and if those parents believe in Creationism, they can pass those teachings to their children.
This is an ideal scenario to illustrate something that is the parents' responsibility rather than the school's.
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time.
My pure-bred pets and genetically modified vegetables (that did not exist in their current form even 100 years ago) actually make evolution one of the most observable and simple scientific concepts to explain.
Gravity and electricity are more observable, but their explanations go into more complicated roots than the basic "you only germinate seeds from the tall plants, to get tall plants" concept.
The bottom line here is- science is evidence seeking a conclusion. Creationism is a conclusion seeking evidence.
Well phrased!
Typical black hat hacking? Like bringing all the servers down, or taking private information for criminal use? Seriously?
Student looks around in his universities network. Goes past poorly implemented safeguards, writes about how it can be improved.
Sounds like an extra credit assignment to me.
You are confusing the "John Doe" cases with the "named defendant" cases. In the "named defendant" cases the MediaSentry investigator is the RIAA's sole fact witness.
It seems more likely I've misunderstood the process as outlined. Without the evidence gathered by MediaSentry's investigator, how does the RIAA obtain the ex parte ruling to proceed to the "Named Defendent" phase? A judge cannot order an ISP to turn over a specific account name without anything to identify the specific account. Isn't there a standard for evidence to obtain such a ruling, implying a presentation of the investigator as legitimate?
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal.
1. You might feel differently if someone accessed your hard drive under false pretenses.
The important thing is to separate false pretenses. I download files, use them, and have access to the IP addresses they came from every day. Those files are hosted with the intent to be served to clients, just as P2P clients do in the process of sharing the cost of bandwidth by acting both in the roles of client and server.
It is software. You haven't persuaded me it's "legitimate".
Hopefully, it won't be up to Safenet to argue in court that the nature behind P2P software is legitimate. Unless they are going beyond accessing shared files on a visible network, I don't see how it's the software that should be called into question.
It is looking like the law in Michigan hinges on receiving a fee with the intention for the gathered information to be used in court, so let's hope any prosecutors are informed enough to distinguish what is and what isn't part of the crime.
This move seems more like a maneuver against the RIAA then a chance to catch Safenet doing something illegal. The impression I received from reading the article you wrote concerning the RIAA's legal practices was that Safenet only made it to the stand a handful of times at most, and each time made no attempt to insist their methods met the relevant reliability standards.
With that in mind, it seems like the RIAA lawyers are the ones presenting Safenet as legitimate investigators, and then dismissing the case once in possession of the desired name. Putting Safenet under the spotlight puts their methods directly in question, and offers the chance to expose a part of the RIAA's own methodology that seems to much harder to achieve when directly dealing with the RIAA's suits and actions.
All the same, criminal charges against Safenet for what they are doing specifically with technology and information might have unintended, negative consequences. Is the push to prosecute Safenet being put specifically into terms of it's actions as agent in the RIAA cases?
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal. All normal things that legitimate software might do. Safenet hands that information over to the RIAA, and the RIAA of course misuses that.
Without being clear on the Michigan law, is it the last step, the releasing of that information to a client with the knowledge that it's going to be used in litigation, what specifically defines it as computer forensics and requires an investigator's license?
That discussion can't help bring this to mind:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/05/28/
I don't share files with bit torrent or any other such bandwidth eating activities. It's was a huge inconvenience for me when a flatmate's BF started doing so. He did it at our place, because the internet was so infuriatingly slow for him. Why? Not because of the usage stats you listed, but because he was on a cheap DSL connection, and I was on a slightly more expensive cable connection (maybe $15/mo more, at most), that got at least 5 times the download speed (very conservative).
Now I've moved, and I'm on such a DSL connection. I use LESS bandwidth, because the connection is so poor. I don't get 25% of the advertised "speeds up to" number.
Ancestry.com is a great example. On cable it loaded in a few seconds, on DSL I gave up after minutes of a loading screen. Consistently, I've found "high speed" DSL to be in the ballpark cost of actual high speed connections, and in the case of my transition, the actual maximum transfer speed I can get was decimated (in the literal sense).
I mean to pose a good point: that the same usage under one service had the Internet blazingly fast, and under another service infuriatingly slow.
There's also an obligatory rant in here, which you can ignore. WHAT SORT OF HIGH SPEED CONNECTION IS TOO SLOW TO EVEN STREAM FROM HULU?
For download speeds, the service is for 1 mbps, and in speed tests I get 200-300 kbps. The cable service was only estimated to be around 8-10 mbps (for about $10-12/mo more), and speed tests always were in the 12-16 mbps range.
Why is the internet so infuriatingly slow? Because you have a poor service provider!
This is not about an iPhone just because it's about AT&T.
Yes it is, exactly as you state. This is Slashdot, a community that has made clear beyond doubt that they is interest in the companies and the policies of those companies behind specific technologies and products.
The iPhone is tied in to AT&T, and that's a BIG downside for many who are otherwise interested in owning the actual device. Stories that support the concept that AT&T does not have the consumer's best interest in mind will of course get coverage, in fact, a disproportionate amount as compared to other providers or stories that reflect well on AT&T.
Fair? Reasonable? Either interpretation doesn't make the association go away.
Do you have an explanation then why they included google gears instead of Webkits HTML 5 api? Really, just asking. The only reason I can think of is that they want to push their own implementation, but I would gladly be corrected.
I can't offer explanations, but I can think of an alternative theory or two.
1) Diversity and competition. This one stands out as most relevant / important here. We already have a popular browser using Webkit's HTML 5 API. Google has their own API. Really, we'd be at a disadvantage if they had gone the full Webkit route, because it would give us less of an opportunity to compare. ANY improvements and innovations in the browser-platform that favor web applications benefit Google, so I don't think one needs to assume an agenda of pushing their own implementation.
2) Seeing Gears as a larger project than a HTML5 API. "Webkit is an open source browser engine", and it has an HTML5 API. "Gears is a plug-in that extends your browser to create a richer platform for web applications", and it has an HTML5 API. It's entirely possible the Gears people have ambitious plans in the works to really extend what a browser can do with a web application (in the good sense). Building Chrome with Gears sets it up for a later attempt to shake up with browser market with innovation.
3) Development preference. Without being stupid or malicious, developers have preferences. Didn't Gears coders work on Chrome, at least to some extent? A chance to fully implement it in a browser and have a platform that really integrates it is a reason to make the choice on the development level.
Now, as it stands, web developers who want to use local, client side storage have to test for google gears AND for the webkit api, yet another fragmentation.
That's a big assumption. I can tell you from industry that fringe browser support is something to be considered if there's room in the timeline, or if the client has a preference. The numbers are still not persuasive enough. Firefox (Win/Mac) and Internet Explorer are always must-supports, Safari is a should-support if the client is a PC user (if something isn't working and the deadline comes, too bad Safari for users). Opera isn't even considered.
Chrome may have been released by Google, and it may jump to an amazing market share in terms of a brand new browser, but if it presents another fragmentation in support (which it claims no to), that doesn't mean developers will be clamoring to put in the extra work for a brand new browser.
It's not comparable to IE6, because IE is the dominant platform by a huge margin, and every site is expected to work on it. "Fringe" browsers (in quotes, to denote any browser that can easily be argued as fringe, regardless of use) do not produce that sort demand from clients.
As portable devices get more powerful and more capable, why are PCs even needed in this situation? Forget the thumb drive, plug your next-next-gen phone into your table, flip up the monitor, and use the full-sized keyboard (with touchpad, I suppose).
Having thought about their business model, what difference does it make if there's an ad-block plug-in written for it? People everywhere are acting like Google will be pushing Chrome to be #1. Google isn'tt in the business of making browsers. It's how their software runs in browsers people use, that they care about.
Google open sourced technology that they expect will improve performance for their actual products, with the hope it will spread to all browsers. Not just so the existing apps are easier to use, but so they can innovate with the limitations pushed a little further away.
They've got money and time to burn, why not spend some effort to give the browsers that make up their product platform incentive and tools to improve? That sounds a whole lot more like the Google business model to me.
Quite right.
Any specific critiques of interface of licensing seem to be moot in the long run, since the stated goal of this browser is to release better tools for ALL the browsers, including ones that are fully open source.
There's not much point in arguing how much Google might monitor or claim usage-rights over, as the obvious goal is a backbone for all browsers that makes their applications run better and gives them more potential to develop new ones. Competing with IE and FF doesn't exactly fit well in their business plan.
The real questions are, if V8 actually does blow all current JS engines away, how soon are we going to see it in a Firefox release? If the independent handling of tabs prove to be the sensible way to handle it, will it make it into FF4?
If the things Google is introducing are better, V8 should get in there quickly, but multiprocess handling of tabs and plugins, etc, will require quite a bit of work to get into existing browsers.
I routinely admonish coworkers (above and below me) for sending email through a 3rd party webmail provider (usually them sending something to my gmail address rather than work address, for some unknown reason). When I'm working remotely and the normal server goes down, I'll use Google's SMTP server if it's the best working option, but it goes through encrypted.
"Establish the nationâ(TM)s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century."
I must say, I wasn't expecting that. Technology not only is the backbone of government functionality, it's a huge money drain when done poorly, or when there isn't standardization even within departments. A good CTO will take the responsibility from those who's job is things other than technology, and ensure it's done right, across the board.
Ideally speaking, of course. The first appointment could be Bill Gates, who's no doubt qualified for the position (if it weren't for the following point, I think Mr. Gates could be a good choice). Even if I concede a MS standardization in the government would meet stability, usability, and efficiency goals, I'm just not comfortable with private code running a public infrastructure.
If both candidates share the CTO plan, I hope the tech lobbies are already on the ball, explaining that an open platform means a US infrastructure, not a Microsoft infrastructure.
The iTunes Music Store is a big success for Apple. Do they really have much of an incentive to eliminate DRM? It seems like iTunes = iPod for the masses, and that Apple has as much to gain from maintaining their DRM's presence as much as the RIAA.
I don't get it.
Buy $600 phone.
Pay $60-90/month to use it.
And you can't tether.
That's what I'd be the most interested in anyways. WOW on the go would be fun.
Well duh and i'd like a pony too. You are paying for the service you are getting not the one you wish you were getting. Maybe someome will write an app called "net-sell". and I can go to coffeeshops and rent my iphone connection to all the people in the room.
I think the point here is that you are OVER paying for the product you are getting, when tethering is, as far as I and every techie smart phone user I know goes, one of the main points of getting a smart phone. The whole point of spending such a high monthly service plan is the data transfer.
3G speeds don't seem fast enough to tempt users away from using old-fashioned internet when it's available (WoW with more than 120ms lag wouldn't be THAT much fun). I don't really see iPhone renting being popular in coffee shops when up against the common free WiFi.
Isn't this just another example of Apple innovating on a product to improve it's user experience and make it exciting, but then giving in on something that just restricts us the consumer?
iPhone: AT&T => no tethering
iTunes: RIAA => DRM