If they're using it wrong, then they have a problem with it. Whom is pretty much deprecated anyway. Telling them the rule which is natural to you is one method. Telling them to use who is another method. Either way, you'll end up speaking in a manner that isn't generally considered incorrect.
This isn't about version numbers. This is about end-of-life for "old" versions.
What's relevant isn't that Firefox's version numbers are going up so fast per se, it's that no version gets more than six weeks worth of security updates. They're coupled, and I think that's a poor choice because it means you can only choose two of the following three options:
IE9 is a fine browser and probably better suited to those who want long-term support. It’ll always be behind the consumer browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera) but it does offer enterprises a more conservative and slow-moving option.
There's really nothing dishonest here. Firefox is making a choice, explicitly and consciously, and their employees are promoting that choice. Their choice is for enterprises to be low priority. Some enterprises who bet on Firefox are disappointed. Of course the competitor that chooses to make enterprises high priority will jump in with their offering. I mean, when even Mozilla employees suggest IE for a use scenario, there's really nothing dastardly about it.
Asa seems generally okay with ceding that part of the market to IE (at least as long as it's IE9 or higher), and seems to argue that it's kind of small beans anyway.
He didn't say Google has a monopoly, he talked about if they have a monopoly. That would be one thing this investigation would try to decide.
If they have any monopoly I would say it's probably a monopoly on ad space. You don't need 100% marketshare to fit the legal criteria. Just so dominant as to create an extreme power imbalance vs. its competitors. Google is certainly a dominant player in ad space -- dominant enough to trigger antitrust problems? I don't know.
There is absolutely no way to confuse the chart that appears as the result of a search for a stock ticker symbol as part of the general page.
Have you ever asked a non-technical person, especially a non-technical person who hit adulthood before ever using the Internet, whether they can tell the difference? I think a statistically significant portion of those people will surprise you with their answers. Regardless, just because you can tell the difference doesn't mean their placement has no importance.
In which case, please explain why any other company is allowed to display links to its properties on a page it owns. Start with Microsoft and Apple.
He already did: if they are a monopoly in a relevant field, then new rules on advertising. Microsoft and Apple do not appear to hold monopolies in that field, though they each have completely different fields where they dominate and have or may have monopolies. Does Google? Well, that's what would be investigated.
No. They appeal to the techie crowd because their products are pretty friggin awesome.
That's not a contradiction; that's changing the subject completely.
Because they have consistently met high expectations. Other companies have not.
You're essentially arguing that people lower their expectations because Google meets their high expectations. Because giving them the benefit of the doubt where others would not get it, IS expecting less of Google. This naturally makes it easier to meet the "high" expectations later, meanwhile the "high" expectations can easily dip behind the "low" expectations of group B whose "low" expectations keep getting higher because they failed to meet past low expectations.
It's self-reinforcing bias, which is something everybody should be wary of. To the extent possible, everybody should try and step back and analyse things like companies from a consistent standard. Especially since they are formed of an ever changing mass of people.
You're either shilling for them, or swallowed their crap hook, line and sinker.
You're way off base and ranting about a completely different subject from what everybody else was talking about. The AC wasn't making any value judgements, he was describing motivations.
As the barriers to having fun with a computer are lowered, the motivation to learn how to overcome barriers in computer use is likewise lowered. That doesn't mean that computers used to be more fun when you had to edit config scripts or whatever, or that there's anything wrong with lowering the barriers to entry, and it CERTAINLY doesn't you need to be an HVAC technician to have a cool house (WTF?).
Well, eliminating everything in angle brackets makes for easier scrubbing of markup. This simplicity means there's a substantial security advantage in having the site markup be a different format than the markup submitted by your users.
I love the comments there. Compared to the consensus of the commenters (circa 2000, anyway -- by 2005 they started approaching conventional wisdom), Intel was extremely conservative.
1. While there are differences in circumstances, why on Earth wouldn't you compare the US to other countries? 2. Health Care is absolutely a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." 3. Funny, I know you don't want to compare to Canada, but that's how the Canadian provinces handle healthcare, and the systems can be very different. At the federal level there is encouragement in the form of tax transfers to each province on the condition that they have some level of healthcare. Also, the assumption that it costs more tax money to implement public healthcare than to leave the costs up to the individual is understandable but unsupported, and the evidence (yes, from other countries) doesn't support it. 4. The US's healthcare bill may well have been worse than not doing anything; it was so crippled.
That's kind of a self-defeating example. I last saw a vinyl record as a very young child. Even if there's a large absolute number of vinyl records being pressed, they really aren't common.
A quick search finds that less than a million were sold per year as of 2007, about 1/500th of album sales. Those numbers are probably just the US, but still it leaves very large numbers of people never seeing them. You're far more likely to own a Nintendogs title than a vinyl record from the past couple decades.
Except they have far fewer of them in a much smaller area.
People are poo-pooing this, and it is a relatively small problem, but it is still an actual problem with wind power (well, the intersection of wind power and light aircraft designed to fly low, and take off and land on unpaved surfaces). It seems solvable though. Maybe the windmills could broadcast something other than visible light which is picked up by required instrument in such light aircraft.
I don't get why people think you can only have one power source. Like we're picking wind power or nuclear. IMO, we just need to get off fossils. All of the others have their advantages and should be used in their proper places.
That might be a bad comparison. The power cables are all underground everywhere I've lived. Out of sight, out of mind. The few times I've had to deal with that outside a window, other than the car window, I thought it was a hideous eyesore.
Driving through rural areas though you definitely see the power and telephone lines strung up on evenly spaced poles along the side of the road.
But then, driving through those same rural areas these days I see the occasional windmill dotting the landscape. So I agree with you in the sense that when you already have power lines, a windmill doesn't make things worse. Frankly, it's an improvement if it draws your eyes from those things (especially the high-voltage lines that look like ominous Space Invaders enemies made manifest).
We should build both. Solar has strong advantages in peak-load power supply. Nuclear has strong advantages in baseload. Both have geographically-linked disadvantages (avoid building Nuclear sites near volcanos, don't build solar plants underneath the canopy of the rainforest...you can come up with less extreme examples for each).
Just because Nuclear is a good idea doesn't mean that every other energy source is a bad idea.
Also, they tend to have a useful life in the range of decades, so your grandchildren might not get to really enjoy them anyway (depending on your age, whether you already have a child, and the length of a generation in your family). Not that solar plants have an infinite lifespan either, just sayin' it's not like the sun's going to disappear either (the Matrix notwithstanding).
I really think this talk about docking a tablet is backwards. I don't think anyone will want to dock their tablet.
My vision of the future is basically everything doing wireless syncing, and a lot of one-off devices that don't meaningfully connect in any manner other than being sync clients. The syncing could be more significant than just file sharing. In many ways it is kind of like docking without any actual docking occurring.
Convergence makes sense when you want to stuff more and more functionality into your pocket. And to a lesser extent convergence can help with things like desk space in a cramped urban apartment, etc. But there's very little reason to have a desktop setup that's completely useless unless you sacrifice your tablet. Docking is just one more pain in the ass, one more little token you have to carry around, and it doesn't need to happen.
Just what makes you think they're different? Especially given they showed the old UI running Excel and some other things alongside the new apps.
Unless you have a deviant definition of OS, this has all appearances of being "the same" (obviously updated from Windows 7 in the same sense as 7 from Vista, Vista from XP, etc., and obviously recompiled and fixed up for ARM, but essentially a new version of the same OS). I don't understand why you're skeptical?
That's very unlikely to be a meaningful outlet for human population. It may have other advantages.
Even if you could just terraform an earth-sized world in a day and then teleport half the Earth's population over, infrastructure included...that buys you like 40 years with extreme optimism. And such a project, I predict, will take longer than 40 years to happen in reality...
Now, on the one hand population growth rates are declining, and may hit a peak in the lifetime of some slashdot readers. On the other hand the consumption rate isn't projected to slow down in the same way.
Whatever the ultimate carrying capacity of the Earth is, we have to be under it (not at it, under it -- the more of a gap there is the higher our potential quality of life, to a degree). We can work on space simultaneously but even extreme optimism wouldn't make it a solution, not by itself. As far as increasing the carrying capacity of the Universe, it's an extremely slow play.
Really? 37-41 is already older than the average American, period (I assume this study refers to Americans because the ESA is American). This already implies that older people are more likely to game than younger people. I'll grant that you can take infants out of the young end of potential gamers, and then 37-41 might be below the adjusted average American's age. But upping that range to 52-61 is an enormous skew toward older people playing games and younger people not playing them (either that, or an enormous change in demographics).
You might not even find it funny but right now you're playing the role of giant stick in the mud. There's two pieces of that: not allowing any position between utterly unfunny and "hoo-hawing to the point of passing out", and insisting that anybody who doesn't think it utterly unfunny (and who is therefore "hoo-hawing" and "slapping [their] knees") must have a profound irrational emotional position to one or both of these companies.
It's a damn prank, not an attempt at the a transcendent humour experience. It's petty vandalism, and as such the vandals should pay back Apple any cost to undo the vandalism and accept the legally required slap on the wrist. But there's not much call to read any deeper into it. People do this all the time for sports rivalries that they don't even care about, they slap stickers for company A on their competitors' products, etc..
Also, you appear to have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. Assange is a hero and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, pure and simple. There is no "other side" to the story, any more than there's an "other side" to the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Are you fucking kidding me? Whether or not Assange is a hero, saying something like this is pretty clear evidence that your opinions have been entirely replaced by somebody's propaganda.
Also, if you look at the bigger picture, the Earth orbits the solar barycenter, which is not always inside the surface of the sun (though it is always quite close).
I am Anonymous Coward. I do not understand metaphor.
All instances of the word "God" refer invariably to literal belief in the being described in the King James Version of the Bible (on sale now at a bookstore near you!).
I'm not sure the vast majority of people actually agree with the "it's not OK to start violence" part. But leaving that aside, you end up in a semantic game. What is violence? Is breathing violent? No? Is second hand smoke violent? No? Then is spraying gaseous cyanide at people violent? Yes? Okay, so where's the crossover?
What about theft? Let's leave aside copyright infringement and theft of service and just talk about somebody taking your physical things. Is that violent? I don't generally think so, and yet it's not conducive to society. There hasn't been a society yet that was completely absent the concept of ownership, although the details have varied over times and places. Yet it only has meaning if either every last person agrees that it does (and they don't), or it is backed with the threat of initiation of violence (or you define violence to include taking your property).
The violence that is threatened for patent infringement, by the way, is basically fines. And if you refuse that, then conitnued refusal to participate in society. Maybe in extraordinary cases somebody might be captured by police and thrown into jail. It's not violence in the sense of torturing and beating a person senseless and maybe killing some dudes.
And when arresting a suspect in a crime, does that have an exception? After all, we don't know he's guilty yet, so it is therefore you who are initiating force (I'm assuming you don't want to throw out presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial).
So under the definition of violence I'm inferring from your statements, I reject the idea that being "backed by threat of initiation of violence" is a moral failing when it comes to lawmaking.
I don't think whether they benefit has anything to do with the ethics. It's more important whether they harmed people. So if that's grey it's a very very dark grey.
And I wouldn't say this is telling the owners that you've done it. It's more like "steal all the TVs, then take out an ad in the classified section of the local newspaper mentioning that you'd done it".
He said the Zune wasn't marketed. He never said the phone wasn't marketed. It clearly is (though I've seen a *lot* of Android and iPhone marketing too).
Slashdot Mirror
If they're using it wrong, then they have a problem with it. Whom is pretty much deprecated anyway. Telling them the rule which is natural to you is one method. Telling them to use who is another method. Either way, you'll end up speaking in a manner that isn't generally considered incorrect.
This isn't about version numbers. This is about end-of-life for "old" versions.
What's relevant isn't that Firefox's version numbers are going up so fast per se, it's that no version gets more than six weeks worth of security updates. They're coupled, and I think that's a poor choice because it means you can only choose two of the following three options:
1. Secure
2. Stable
3. Firefox
But that's their choice to make.
Asa himself suggested IE to enterprises. This Asa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler. It's sort of a backhanded compliment, but it's pretty clear:
IE9 is a fine browser and probably better suited to those who want long-term support. It’ll always be behind the consumer browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera) but it does offer enterprises a more conservative and slow-moving option.
cite: http://mike.kaply.com/2011/06/23/understanding-the-corporate-impact/#comment-10692
There's really nothing dishonest here. Firefox is making a choice, explicitly and consciously, and their employees are promoting that choice. Their choice is for enterprises to be low priority. Some enterprises who bet on Firefox are disappointed. Of course the competitor that chooses to make enterprises high priority will jump in with their offering. I mean, when even Mozilla employees suggest IE for a use scenario, there's really nothing dastardly about it.
Asa seems generally okay with ceding that part of the market to IE (at least as long as it's IE9 or higher), and seems to argue that it's kind of small beans anyway.
How did you total them up? It's nontrivial to compare memory usage of multi-process applications.
What does Google have a monopoly on?
He didn't say Google has a monopoly, he talked about if they have a monopoly. That would be one thing this investigation would try to decide.
If they have any monopoly I would say it's probably a monopoly on ad space. You don't need 100% marketshare to fit the legal criteria. Just so dominant as to create an extreme power imbalance vs. its competitors. Google is certainly a dominant player in ad space -- dominant enough to trigger antitrust problems? I don't know.
There is absolutely no way to confuse the chart that appears as the result of a search for a stock ticker symbol as part of the general page.
Have you ever asked a non-technical person, especially a non-technical person who hit adulthood before ever using the Internet, whether they can tell the difference? I think a statistically significant portion of those people will surprise you with their answers. Regardless, just because you can tell the difference doesn't mean their placement has no importance.
In which case, please explain why any other company is allowed to display links to its properties on a page it owns. Start with Microsoft and Apple.
He already did: if they are a monopoly in a relevant field, then new rules on advertising. Microsoft and Apple do not appear to hold monopolies in that field, though they each have completely different fields where they dominate and have or may have monopolies. Does Google? Well, that's what would be investigated.
No. They appeal to the techie crowd because their products are pretty friggin awesome.
That's not a contradiction; that's changing the subject completely.
Because they have consistently met high expectations. Other companies have not.
You're essentially arguing that people lower their expectations because Google meets their high expectations. Because giving them the benefit of the doubt where others would not get it, IS expecting less of Google. This naturally makes it easier to meet the "high" expectations later, meanwhile the "high" expectations can easily dip behind the "low" expectations of group B whose "low" expectations keep getting higher because they failed to meet past low expectations.
It's self-reinforcing bias, which is something everybody should be wary of. To the extent possible, everybody should try and step back and analyse things like companies from a consistent standard. Especially since they are formed of an ever changing mass of people.
You're either shilling for them, or swallowed their crap hook, line and sinker.
Oh please.
You're way off base and ranting about a completely different subject from what everybody else was talking about. The AC wasn't making any value judgements, he was describing motivations.
As the barriers to having fun with a computer are lowered, the motivation to learn how to overcome barriers in computer use is likewise lowered. That doesn't mean that computers used to be more fun when you had to edit config scripts or whatever, or that there's anything wrong with lowering the barriers to entry, and it CERTAINLY doesn't you need to be an HVAC technician to have a cool house (WTF?).
Well, eliminating everything in angle brackets makes for easier scrubbing of markup. This simplicity means there's a substantial security advantage in having the site markup be a different format than the markup submitted by your users.
I love the comments there. Compared to the consensus of the commenters (circa 2000, anyway -- by 2005 they started approaching conventional wisdom), Intel was extremely conservative.
1. While there are differences in circumstances, why on Earth wouldn't you compare the US to other countries?
2. Health Care is absolutely a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
3. Funny, I know you don't want to compare to Canada, but that's how the Canadian provinces handle healthcare, and the systems can be very different. At the federal level there is encouragement in the form of tax transfers to each province on the condition that they have some level of healthcare. Also, the assumption that it costs more tax money to implement public healthcare than to leave the costs up to the individual is understandable but unsupported, and the evidence (yes, from other countries) doesn't support it.
4. The US's healthcare bill may well have been worse than not doing anything; it was so crippled.
That's kind of a self-defeating example. I last saw a vinyl record as a very young child. Even if there's a large absolute number of vinyl records being pressed, they really aren't common.
A quick search finds that less than a million were sold per year as of 2007, about 1/500th of album sales. Those numbers are probably just the US, but still it leaves very large numbers of people never seeing them. You're far more likely to own a Nintendogs title than a vinyl record from the past couple decades.
Except they have far fewer of them in a much smaller area.
People are poo-pooing this, and it is a relatively small problem, but it is still an actual problem with wind power (well, the intersection of wind power and light aircraft designed to fly low, and take off and land on unpaved surfaces). It seems solvable though. Maybe the windmills could broadcast something other than visible light which is picked up by required instrument in such light aircraft.
I don't get why people think you can only have one power source. Like we're picking wind power or nuclear. IMO, we just need to get off fossils. All of the others have their advantages and should be used in their proper places.
That might be a bad comparison. The power cables are all underground everywhere I've lived. Out of sight, out of mind. The few times I've had to deal with that outside a window, other than the car window, I thought it was a hideous eyesore.
Driving through rural areas though you definitely see the power and telephone lines strung up on evenly spaced poles along the side of the road.
But then, driving through those same rural areas these days I see the occasional windmill dotting the landscape. So I agree with you in the sense that when you already have power lines, a windmill doesn't make things worse. Frankly, it's an improvement if it draws your eyes from those things (especially the high-voltage lines that look like ominous Space Invaders enemies made manifest).
You're misquoting. He said "the government is not a legitimate entity unto itself". The "unto itself" part is important.
We should build both. Solar has strong advantages in peak-load power supply. Nuclear has strong advantages in baseload. Both have geographically-linked disadvantages (avoid building Nuclear sites near volcanos, don't build solar plants underneath the canopy of the rainforest...you can come up with less extreme examples for each).
Just because Nuclear is a good idea doesn't mean that every other energy source is a bad idea.
Also, they tend to have a useful life in the range of decades, so your grandchildren might not get to really enjoy them anyway (depending on your age, whether you already have a child, and the length of a generation in your family). Not that solar plants have an infinite lifespan either, just sayin' it's not like the sun's going to disappear either (the Matrix notwithstanding).
I really think this talk about docking a tablet is backwards. I don't think anyone will want to dock their tablet.
My vision of the future is basically everything doing wireless syncing, and a lot of one-off devices that don't meaningfully connect in any manner other than being sync clients. The syncing could be more significant than just file sharing. In many ways it is kind of like docking without any actual docking occurring.
Convergence makes sense when you want to stuff more and more functionality into your pocket. And to a lesser extent convergence can help with things like desk space in a cramped urban apartment, etc. But there's very little reason to have a desktop setup that's completely useless unless you sacrifice your tablet. Docking is just one more pain in the ass, one more little token you have to carry around, and it doesn't need to happen.
Mine still works.
I almost wish it had failed because the newer ones are reputedly quieter and consume less power, but it works.
Just what makes you think they're different? Especially given they showed the old UI running Excel and some other things alongside the new apps.
Unless you have a deviant definition of OS, this has all appearances of being "the same" (obviously updated from Windows 7 in the same sense as 7 from Vista, Vista from XP, etc., and obviously recompiled and fixed up for ARM, but essentially a new version of the same OS). I don't understand why you're skeptical?
That's very unlikely to be a meaningful outlet for human population. It may have other advantages.
Even if you could just terraform an earth-sized world in a day and then teleport half the Earth's population over, infrastructure included...that buys you like 40 years with extreme optimism. And such a project, I predict, will take longer than 40 years to happen in reality...
Now, on the one hand population growth rates are declining, and may hit a peak in the lifetime of some slashdot readers. On the other hand the consumption rate isn't projected to slow down in the same way.
Whatever the ultimate carrying capacity of the Earth is, we have to be under it (not at it, under it -- the more of a gap there is the higher our potential quality of life, to a degree). We can work on space simultaneously but even extreme optimism wouldn't make it a solution, not by itself. As far as increasing the carrying capacity of the Universe, it's an extremely slow play.
Really? 37-41 is already older than the average American, period (I assume this study refers to Americans because the ESA is American). This already implies that older people are more likely to game than younger people. I'll grant that you can take infants out of the young end of potential gamers, and then 37-41 might be below the adjusted average American's age. But upping that range to 52-61 is an enormous skew toward older people playing games and younger people not playing them (either that, or an enormous change in demographics).
Wait what, you're worried about the a shortage or make-work jobs for skilled doctors? Are you kidding me?
You might not even find it funny but right now you're playing the role of giant stick in the mud. There's two pieces of that: not allowing any position between utterly unfunny and "hoo-hawing to the point of passing out", and insisting that anybody who doesn't think it utterly unfunny (and who is therefore "hoo-hawing" and "slapping [their] knees") must have a profound irrational emotional position to one or both of these companies.
It's a damn prank, not an attempt at the a transcendent humour experience. It's petty vandalism, and as such the vandals should pay back Apple any cost to undo the vandalism and accept the legally required slap on the wrist. But there's not much call to read any deeper into it. People do this all the time for sports rivalries that they don't even care about, they slap stickers for company A on their competitors' products, etc..
It's kind of like this picture that made many slashdotters smile: http://www.linux-magazine.com/var/linux_magazin/storage/images/media/linux-magazine-eng-us/images/news-images/linus-windows-7-rocks/380058-1-eng-US/Linus-Windows-7-rocks.jpg. The difference is just that a little more went into this prank, but it's the same kind of prank.
Also, you appear to have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. Assange is a hero and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, pure and simple. There is no "other side" to the story, any more than there's an "other side" to the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Are you fucking kidding me? Whether or not Assange is a hero, saying something like this is pretty clear evidence that your opinions have been entirely replaced by somebody's propaganda.
Also, if you look at the bigger picture, the Earth orbits the solar barycenter, which is not always inside the surface of the sun (though it is always quite close).
Translated:
I am Anonymous Coward. I do not understand metaphor.
All instances of the word "God" refer invariably to literal belief in the being described in the King James Version of the Bible (on sale now at a bookstore near you!).
I'm not sure the vast majority of people actually agree with the "it's not OK to start violence" part. But leaving that aside, you end up in a semantic game. What is violence? Is breathing violent? No? Is second hand smoke violent? No? Then is spraying gaseous cyanide at people violent? Yes? Okay, so where's the crossover?
What about theft? Let's leave aside copyright infringement and theft of service and just talk about somebody taking your physical things. Is that violent? I don't generally think so, and yet it's not conducive to society. There hasn't been a society yet that was completely absent the concept of ownership, although the details have varied over times and places. Yet it only has meaning if either every last person agrees that it does (and they don't), or it is backed with the threat of initiation of violence (or you define violence to include taking your property).
The violence that is threatened for patent infringement, by the way, is basically fines. And if you refuse that, then conitnued refusal to participate in society. Maybe in extraordinary cases somebody might be captured by police and thrown into jail. It's not violence in the sense of torturing and beating a person senseless and maybe killing some dudes.
And when arresting a suspect in a crime, does that have an exception? After all, we don't know he's guilty yet, so it is therefore you who are initiating force (I'm assuming you don't want to throw out presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial).
So under the definition of violence I'm inferring from your statements, I reject the idea that being "backed by threat of initiation of violence" is a moral failing when it comes to lawmaking.
I don't think whether they benefit has anything to do with the ethics. It's more important whether they harmed people. So if that's grey it's a very very dark grey.
And I wouldn't say this is telling the owners that you've done it. It's more like "steal all the TVs, then take out an ad in the classified section of the local newspaper mentioning that you'd done it".
He said the Zune wasn't marketed. He never said the phone wasn't marketed. It clearly is (though I've seen a *lot* of Android and iPhone marketing too).