That's a good point, but I tend to believe "Save the children" laws alright so long as they don't interfere with the rights of full citizens. Banning sale of cigarettes to teens? Fine. Blocking all inappropriate content from public airwaves? Not so much.
I completely understand that if Facebook adopts OpenSocial, it will be able to interoperate with other applications. I also understand that if Facebook adopts OpenSocial, they have to share their ad revenue with other applications. And, I realize that OpenSocial doesn't really provide any new functionality that the Facebook API doesn't have, and only serves to open up the data to other social networking sites. And if Facebook doesn't use OpenSocial, Facebook data will not be accesible to users who aren't logged into Facebook. And if no users have data that is accessible to OpenSocial (I'm not even sure I want any of my data accessible through OpenSocial), OpenSocial will be useless.
(1) OpenSocial isn't an application, its a set of technologies on which applications are built;
Of course, but those applications as an aggregate require interest for any of them to be worthwhile.
(2) Actually, you need lots of people involved in the social network, which serves as the "database" of the social networking application. They don't have to use the particular application, much less be interested in the particular set of APIs on which the application is built; and
(3) Lots of people can be not interested in something (the supposed 50 million Facebook "developers") and still have lots of other people interested in it. "Lots of people aren't interested in X" does not imply the falsity of "lots of people are interested in X".
Uhhh.... What? Sure, if you can find 50 million users outside of Facebook who are interested in OpenSocial, it might work. But I think it's pretty obvious that if 50 million Facebook users aren't going to switch over, there's not much of a market share left for OpenSocial, especially since people who are joining a social network for the first time will most likely join the one that most of their friends are on, i.e., Facebook.
Certainly not while you are doing that; outside of that time, social networking functionality would be useful to just that kind of group, too. My point is, social networking applications are most useful to connect with those you don't associate with the most on a normal basis. If I need a social networking application to keep track of what my best friends are up to, it really is a sad state of affairs for me.
So? What does that have to do with OpenSocial APIs? Your friends don't have to use the OpenSocial APIs, or even applications built with them, for them to be part of the network you access if you use them. You seem to be confusing social networks with social networking applications and with social networking technologies and confusing developers with users. First of all, I can care less about developers. It is the users who make the applications important, and honestly, Facebook would be better off without "developers."
And yes, my friends do have to be in the OpenSocial data store in order to be part of my network, and I'm not going to find any of my old friends in OpenSocial apps if they're only using Facebook. In order for it to be useful, they have to put their information into OpenSocial.
Well, I think TFA made a pretty good case that the OpenSocial API is functionally the equivalent of the Facebook API. Maybe OpenSocial is simply a standard (or whatever), but realistically it is nothing more than another networking service that is consumed by multiple web applications, rather than a networking service that is consumed by a single web application.
Sorry, but in order for a social networking application to be useful, [i]lots of people have to be interested in it[/i]. You don't need a social networking application to connect to your friends whom you sit around with in the basement playing D&D. You're not going to reconnect with old friends (which is what I use Facebook for) if none of your old friends use it.
So, the Linux vs. Windows analogy isn't really fitting...
...and agree with TFA. OpenSocial will be nothing more than a Google version of Facebook, and I'm not sure I want that, or that any significant amount of people will switch over. And besides, the only thing worse than a 5% MS Facebook is a 100% Google Facebook.
It might make enterprise development easier if you're forcing users to have a certain browser platform available, but it will make extranet web development an even bigger nightmare.
It's bad enough as it is already: if(browserSupportsPlatformA)
doSomethingThatBrowserSupports(); else if(broswerSupportsPlatformB)
doTheSameThingButInADifferentWay(); else
doSomeFallbackCodeSoSiteIsntTotallyUnusable();
And then you'd have to somehow write fallback code in a different scripting language in case one scripting language is completely unsupported.
It's bad enough as it is. And you know exactly what will happen: web sites will be built for only two browsers (maybe three if you're extra lucky), so you have no choice but to have those browsers installed, even if you hate them, while the browsers (such as Opera) that actually *follow the correct standards* are left out because they don't render websites as expected because those websites are built to suit Microsoft's and Mozilla's deviant specifications.
The whole browser architecture we have is absurd. Web development is almost like having to write XML files that are deserializable in two or three different XML schemas. The JavaScript DOM is at least common enough so that you can easily go to the W3C website and quickly see what you can do in all three or four major browsers... The last thing we need is less compatibility.
Probably quite a few of them, actually. But the real question is, how many actual votes does that translate into? If he was actually on the ballot, I'd actually wager a large number of people would vote for him, out of nothing more than frustration over the current political landscape. He'd get alot of votes (a) from people who simply think it is hilarious that he is running, and are really not concerned about anything but entertainment; and (b) people who realize that even a joke satirical candidate would do less harm than a joke of a serious candidate.
Well, technically I don't remember whether it actually said "cube" or not, but from what I recall, it seems like it did. I know the answer if you made that assumption was not available (multiple choice).
My brother teaches a high school math class here, and I saw one of the questions they as on the test every student in the state now has to pass...
It said, "suppose you toss a cube 40 times, and 10 times the face showing has a four. If you flip the cube 360 times, how many time can you expect to roll a four?" Is thought, "Well, it depends on how many sides there are and whether they are identical." The "correct" answer was 90 of course, but the question obviously didn't account for independent events (and didn't explicity state that any assumptions about independence should be made).
Somehow this made the bad statistics the media always points out seem not so surprising. I think the general population just has a really poor understanding of probability.
While I'd agree that the Religious Right has done more damage than Greenpeace, I think it's safe to say the Religious Right is much, much larger than Greenpeace.
What if what attracted me to use Facebook in the first place is the fact that only those whom I authorize can view my profile data? How are they going to achieve that with an open platform? If they require authorization, for example, then the users need to be using that open platform as well, and by extension, all users need to be using that open platform. Guess what you have then? Another Facebook!
It's good in theory, but what if you don't care about the majority of the crap music that is out there, and it is really obscure stuff you're looking for? That's where the internet really comes in handy... I really can't see some of the music I have in my collection turning up in any of my friends' collections.
I do think it would be much a much better framework for sharing movies and tv shows. But that's just because I'm not as into movies and TV as I am music, and I'm more satisfied with relatively mainstream material.
In addition to recovering from a blowout, I wonder how many people actually keep their tires in good shape. My last set of tires was officially "rated" for 80,000 miles, but they started separating at around 35,000 (NEVER buy off-brand tires... lol). Had I simply assumed they were fine and avoided checking the air in them regularly, I could've been in for a disaster. I think car maintenance in general can definitely help in avoiding accidents.
For the reasons you stated... It's faster, uses less of Radiohead's bandwidth, and I heard the site was down or crawling for the better part of the day. And I know for a fact that some people paid for the CD through the Radiohead site, but downloaded it by torrent instead.
I still think Facebook is very useful despite the profile clutter. So far, it's not as absurd as Myspace, what with the blinking text and ridiculous "pimped" backgrounds or whatever.
I do like the idea of applications, but it is taken too far. I have apps like "CDs" and "Where I've Been"... You know, things that are actually reflections of who you are. The ones I hate are crap like "Super Poke", "Advanced Wall", "Graffiti", etc. The "fun" ones are stupid. I use Facebook to network, not to screw around and waste time.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point, but I tend to believe "Save the children" laws alright so long as they don't interfere with the rights of full citizens. Banning sale of cigarettes to teens? Fine. Blocking all inappropriate content from public airwaves? Not so much.
So would we essentially be accomplishing the same thing if every other social networking site just started using the Facebook API?
I completely understand that if Facebook adopts OpenSocial, it will be able to interoperate with other applications. I also understand that if Facebook adopts OpenSocial, they have to share their ad revenue with other applications. And, I realize that OpenSocial doesn't really provide any new functionality that the Facebook API doesn't have, and only serves to open up the data to other social networking sites. And if Facebook doesn't use OpenSocial, Facebook data will not be accesible to users who aren't logged into Facebook. And if no users have data that is accessible to OpenSocial (I'm not even sure I want any of my data accessible through OpenSocial), OpenSocial will be useless.
Of course, but those applications as an aggregate require interest for any of them to be worthwhile.
(2) Actually, you need lots of people involved in the social network, which serves as the "database" of the social networking application. They don't have to use the particular application, much less be interested in the particular set of APIs on which the application is built; and (3) Lots of people can be not interested in something (the supposed 50 million Facebook "developers") and still have lots of other people interested in it. "Lots of people aren't interested in X" does not imply the falsity of "lots of people are interested in X".
Uhhh.... What? Sure, if you can find 50 million users outside of Facebook who are interested in OpenSocial, it might work. But I think it's pretty obvious that if 50 million Facebook users aren't going to switch over, there's not much of a market share left for OpenSocial, especially since people who are joining a social network for the first time will most likely join the one that most of their friends are on, i.e., Facebook.
Certainly not while you are doing that; outside of that time, social networking functionality would be useful to just that kind of group, too. My point is, social networking applications are most useful to connect with those you don't associate with the most on a normal basis. If I need a social networking application to keep track of what my best friends are up to, it really is a sad state of affairs for me.
So? What does that have to do with OpenSocial APIs? Your friends don't have to use the OpenSocial APIs, or even applications built with them, for them to be part of the network you access if you use them. You seem to be confusing social networks with social networking applications and with social networking technologies and confusing developers with users. First of all, I can care less about developers. It is the users who make the applications important, and honestly, Facebook would be better off without "developers."
And yes, my friends do have to be in the OpenSocial data store in order to be part of my network, and I'm not going to find any of my old friends in OpenSocial apps if they're only using Facebook. In order for it to be useful, they have to put their information into OpenSocial.
Well, I think TFA made a pretty good case that the OpenSocial API is functionally the equivalent of the Facebook API. Maybe OpenSocial is simply a standard (or whatever), but realistically it is nothing more than another networking service that is consumed by multiple web applications, rather than a networking service that is consumed by a single web application.
Sorry, but in order for a social networking application to be useful, [i]lots of people have to be interested in it[/i]. You don't need a social networking application to connect to your friends whom you sit around with in the basement playing D&D. You're not going to reconnect with old friends (which is what I use Facebook for) if none of your old friends use it.
So, the Linux vs. Windows analogy isn't really fitting...
...and agree with TFA. OpenSocial will be nothing more than a Google version of Facebook, and I'm not sure I want that, or that any significant amount of people will switch over. And besides, the only thing worse than a 5% MS Facebook is a 100% Google Facebook.
It might make enterprise development easier if you're forcing users to have a certain browser platform available, but it will make extranet web development an even bigger nightmare.
It's bad enough as it is already:
if(browserSupportsPlatformA)
doSomethingThatBrowserSupports();
else if(broswerSupportsPlatformB)
doTheSameThingButInADifferentWay();
else
doSomeFallbackCodeSoSiteIsntTotallyUnusable();
And then you'd have to somehow write fallback code in a different scripting language in case one scripting language is completely unsupported.
It's bad enough as it is. And you know exactly what will happen: web sites will be built for only two browsers (maybe three if you're extra lucky), so you have no choice but to have those browsers installed, even if you hate them, while the browsers (such as Opera) that actually *follow the correct standards* are left out because they don't render websites as expected because those websites are built to suit Microsoft's and Mozilla's deviant specifications.
The whole browser architecture we have is absurd. Web development is almost like having to write XML files that are deserializable in two or three different XML schemas. The JavaScript DOM is at least common enough so that you can easily go to the W3C website and quickly see what you can do in all three or four major browsers... The last thing we need is less compatibility.
Probably quite a few of them, actually. But the real question is, how many actual votes does that translate into? If he was actually on the ballot, I'd actually wager a large number of people would vote for him, out of nothing more than frustration over the current political landscape. He'd get alot of votes (a) from people who simply think it is hilarious that he is running, and are really not concerned about anything but entertainment; and (b) people who realize that even a joke satirical candidate would do less harm than a joke of a serious candidate.
Yeah, they need to proteKct Fripp's copyrights. Otherwise, he won't have money to have sex, sleep, eat, drink, dream.
Well, technically I don't remember whether it actually said "cube" or not, but from what I recall, it seems like it did. I know the answer if you made that assumption was not available (multiple choice).
My brother teaches a high school math class here, and I saw one of the questions they as on the test every student in the state now has to pass...
It said, "suppose you toss a cube 40 times, and 10 times the face showing has a four. If you flip the cube 360 times, how many time can you expect to roll a four?" Is thought, "Well, it depends on how many sides there are and whether they are identical." The "correct" answer was 90 of course, but the question obviously didn't account for independent events (and didn't explicity state that any assumptions about independence should be made).
Somehow this made the bad statistics the media always points out seem not so surprising. I think the general population just has a really poor understanding of probability.
While I'd agree that the Religious Right has done more damage than Greenpeace, I think it's safe to say the Religious Right is much, much larger than Greenpeace.
Most of them speak English and/or French anyways.
I don't think they have alleys in the South Bronx. I didn't notice any, anyhow.
What if what attracted me to use Facebook in the first place is the fact that only those whom I authorize can view my profile data? How are they going to achieve that with an open platform? If they require authorization, for example, then the users need to be using that open platform as well, and by extension, all users need to be using that open platform. Guess what you have then? Another Facebook!
It's good in theory, but what if you don't care about the majority of the crap music that is out there, and it is really obscure stuff you're looking for? That's where the internet really comes in handy... I really can't see some of the music I have in my collection turning up in any of my friends' collections.
I do think it would be much a much better framework for sharing movies and tv shows. But that's just because I'm not as into movies and TV as I am music, and I'm more satisfied with relatively mainstream material.
In addition to recovering from a blowout, I wonder how many people actually keep their tires in good shape. My last set of tires was officially "rated" for 80,000 miles, but they started separating at around 35,000 (NEVER buy off-brand tires... lol). Had I simply assumed they were fine and avoided checking the air in them regularly, I could've been in for a disaster. I think car maintenance in general can definitely help in avoiding accidents.
I just wrote a browser that renders all '\n' characters as physical line breaks.
Am I covered?
For the reasons you stated... It's faster, uses less of Radiohead's bandwidth, and I heard the site was down or crawling for the better part of the day. And I know for a fact that some people paid for the CD through the Radiohead site, but downloaded it by torrent instead.
Do they have antiperspirants without Alum yet? I don't like my armpits turning yellow. (I think it's the Alum that makes them turn yellow, anyhow...)
I think it would be something like:
1. Let gravity pull water through hole.
2. Earth heats up water and causes steam.
3. ????
4. Profit!
I don't need a lawyer to tell me that stealing is taking something from someone such that the victim no longer has that particular item.
I can think of a really easy way to get out of the contract.
Release nine greatest hits and live albums.
I still think Facebook is very useful despite the profile clutter. So far, it's not as absurd as Myspace, what with the blinking text and ridiculous "pimped" backgrounds or whatever.
I do like the idea of applications, but it is taken too far. I have apps like "CDs" and "Where I've Been"... You know, things that are actually reflections of who you are. The ones I hate are crap like "Super Poke", "Advanced Wall", "Graffiti", etc. The "fun" ones are stupid. I use Facebook to network, not to screw around and waste time.