Being tough on those people may be able to get them a few more months so they can make a profit.
I don't dispute this. But I do have a problem with any business model which relies on stifling innovation and openness. To me, the means don't justify the ends.
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
IIRC these ideas and more where being thrown around on the OpenMoko mailing list before the iPhone was announced.
While I'm not going to dispute Apples success in putting everything together, I find it hard to credit them with technological innovation when these ideas were being casually thrown around by a bunch of random geeks on a mailing list.
By restricting the realm of what is an Apple device, this can be seen as an attempt to guarantee consistent quality.
Precisely. Which is why I say their marketing concepts are more innovative than their tech.
Not that many. Yes - sure, the ability to create something which will offend, will be attractive for some.. and griefers will take longer to get bored. But sooner or later, the novelty of creating giant animated penii will wear off.
I'll try not to pull a troll moment here either, but I don't find anything particularly innovative about either the iPhone or iPod apart from the concept of marketing high-tech to a non-geek demographic. To a massive extent that concept alone determines the direction which the technology has to follow.
favorites and comments (the basis of your original argument) have exactly nothing to do with storing IP addresses.
Activities requiring a user to be logged in require (at least temporary) storage of the IP address.
Since we're talking about logged-in users who have already verified their email address, this talk/concern over the IP address being stored by Google is the red-herring, as the ability to track down the individual already exists without it being stored permanently by YouTube.
I'd have to contort my mind into too many weird dimensions to even begin to contemplate what Viacom intended:-)
But, I'm sure that in a parallel universe somewhere, Viacom take a few squints at the data they receive (which I'd imagine contains at least a few unexpected surprises) and decide that it'd actually be more profitable to play nice with YouTube.
I know it pisses me off when I can't see my IP address on YouTube, oh wait, I can't, so there's no reason why I would want them to keep my IP address.
We're talking about logged-in YouTube users here, right? Not anonymous browsing.
So for a YouTube user who has already given their name and email address, it would seem pretty standard to record the IP address of at least the last successful login as part of the authentication mechanism.
Do we know if YouTube stores the IP for any longer than that? I'd think it could help track down account break-ins and abuse.
So you have two scenarios - either they keep your IP address and you can then successfully defend yourself against an accusation of uploading unauthorised content which occurred when your account was hacked, or the activity is linked purely to your username and you're on the hook.
That's not the kind of information the person was talking about. So basically you're attacking a ridiculous strawman.
The only danger of retaining an IP address is that it could be used to uniquely identify an individual -- even if they retain the IP-Username linkage for "a few days", that's still enough to match activity and identity using a dump of the records.
Um. So you upload or 'make favourite' or comment upon a bunch of videos to YouTube and "within days" that data is anonymised and you can't access this information - how does that help the user?
Well, it might not be that useless, if their goal was to go after individuals.
But I think the bigger prize here is getting their grubby paws on more accurate viewing figures than could ever be achieved by something like Nielson. That, after all, is why advertising $$$ continues to flow online -- a trend which (hopefully sooner rather than later) will wipe Viacom and all the rest of the old-media dinosaurs out.
Sockpuppets and meme seeding just seem to be strange background behavior to an already odd culture.;)
True, but at the same time we're at a unique point in the history of this experiment. When we're able to 'search memes' and trace the evolution of ideas back to their origins and mutation intersections, then intentional meme-seeding will have all the elegance and schoolyard wit of someone shouting "big bums!" in the middle of the street.
Microsoft are not "just a symptom", the people there actually shaped the current environment and continue to shape it (largely by political machinations). They are a part of the disease, not just a result.
Part of what makes OOXML such a terrible standard, is that it can't be implemented as written, and so it can't be a standard.
In other words - people need standards for documents for them to be useful.
This is precisely the emergent factor which drove Microsoft Office to dominance in the first place -- in lieu of a commonplace internet, people needed to go to the store, buy a few floppy disks and know that the contents would guarantee them interoperability.
Did Microsoft abuse it's monopoly position? The courts say yes -- but the point is that technological limitations and basic emergence mandated that there had to be one major OS/Application suite combo for each application area.
They are a symptom - nothing more important or significant than that.
Anyway, is it childish to address symptoms _anyway_? Of course not. Treating the symptoms of a cold may mean you don't get fired which means that you can afford medical care for when you have colds. Similarly, keeping micro$loth under attack keeps them from wiping us out totally before we can do something about the larger problems.
Not quite enough cars in your analogy there.
It is childish to keep the debate at the name-calling level when presented with evidence that the problem is actually a bit more complex than you originally thought. Calling Microsoft names is not an effective attack, in that it legitimizes them in relative terms by making those most vocal in their dissent look childish.
Well, admittedly, since I haven't been offered a development position on the Google Meme Search Team yet.. probably not so well.
Getting away from the meta-meme though - I really don't think calling Microsoft names, although fun, does anything but raise a cloud of dust over the abuses (alleged) of the ISO process.. and in that sense does benefit M$.
Using M$ is not "childish"; it is community spirit. [...] A derogatory epithet for the enemy binds the community together against a common foe.
Perhaps, but it is not the only way to engender community spirit.
If your intention is to provoke meaningful change outside of the community then it is counterproductive.. if your intention is to sustain a community for the sake of being part of a community then go right ahead.
To use someone's own chosen name is to honour them.
As someone from Great Britain, I can see why you might feel more strongly about that.
It is not childish, though it is militant. [...] Micro$hit do not deserve that honour.
Your complaint is not about Microsoft which, as an corporate animal, behaves in just the way you'd expect it to.. but against the greater environment which permits such creatures to abuse and leverage the power they have gained.
Yet you persist in attacking the symptom rather than appealing to the factors which may be able to alter the environment - I think childish sums it up quite well.
People who have a reason not to listen to you don't need to make up lame excuses.
For sure, but I'm talking about bringing the argument to the wider populace in order to enact change - not the minority with a vested interest.
As an ironic aside, the 'M$' meme, according to Google Meme Search, was originally planted by one of the thousands of Microsoft employees who frequent Slashdot in an attempt to equate Microsoft and Money and drive up stock.
To the GNU guys it is a moral ideological war they are waging, based loosely on the premise that society will be better off when technological progress is shared and that there are less barriers to education. Etc, etc.
So the slogans and propaganda are the goal, and asking them to cease it is entirely pointless.
The more interesting point to me, is that society needs extremists and people on the fringe like the GNU zealots as they expand the boundary of acceptability.. and the trends of social evolution will find a balance that 'works' within that enlarged environment.
Towards that end, the 'battles' between BSD and GPL licenses raise visibility for both.. and so each side has a motivation to keep up the appearances of hostility.
Well now it'll be every year that people consider whether to 'invest' in Microsoft Office, rather than every few years and generally with a new computer purchase.
Essentially then, the decision making surface area is increased, giving more chance for OpenOffice to gain traction, and more incentive for potential licensee's to pursue other options.
I think they shot themselves in the foot with this one, but then I'm not the marketing genius that came up with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Being tough on those people may be able to get them a few more months so they can make a profit.
I don't dispute this. But I do have a problem with any business model which relies on stifling innovation and openness. To me, the means don't justify the ends.
I didn't say human social evolution was a quick process.
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
IIRC these ideas and more where being thrown around on the OpenMoko mailing list before the iPhone was announced.
While I'm not going to dispute Apples success in putting everything together, I find it hard to credit them with technological innovation when these ideas were being casually thrown around by a bunch of random geeks on a mailing list.
By restricting the realm of what is an Apple device, this can be seen as an attempt to guarantee consistent quality.
Precisely. Which is why I say their marketing concepts are more innovative than their tech.
Not that many. Yes - sure, the ability to create something which will offend, will be attractive for some.. and griefers will take longer to get bored. But sooner or later, the novelty of creating giant animated penii will wear off.
I'll try not to pull a troll moment here either, but I don't find anything particularly innovative about either the iPhone or iPod apart from the concept of marketing high-tech to a non-geek demographic. To a massive extent that concept alone determines the direction which the technology has to follow.
Precisely. But since Apple is just brand image, they really do have no choice.
Apple have no choice - if only IBM had retained such control over the IBM PC. And where are IBM now?
Activities requiring a user to be logged in require (at least temporary) storage of the IP address.
Nope. Browser cookie.
Technically you're right, although I'd hope (and expect) that it would do some validation of the IP to prevent mischief.
Nitpicking aside, what is your point?
favorites and comments (the basis of your original argument) have exactly nothing to do with storing IP addresses.
Activities requiring a user to be logged in require (at least temporary) storage of the IP address.
Since we're talking about logged-in users who have already verified their email address, this talk/concern over the IP address being stored by Google is the red-herring, as the ability to track down the individual already exists without it being stored permanently by YouTube.
But, I'm sure that in a parallel universe somewhere, Viacom take a few squints at the data they receive (which I'd imagine contains at least a few unexpected surprises) and decide that it'd actually be more profitable to play nice with YouTube.
I know it pisses me off when I can't see my IP address on YouTube, oh wait, I can't, so there's no reason why I would want them to keep my IP address.
We're talking about logged-in YouTube users here, right? Not anonymous browsing.
So for a YouTube user who has already given their name and email address, it would seem pretty standard to record the IP address of at least the last successful login as part of the authentication mechanism.
Do we know if YouTube stores the IP for any longer than that? I'd think it could help track down account break-ins and abuse.
So you have two scenarios - either they keep your IP address and you can then successfully defend yourself against an accusation of uploading unauthorised content which occurred when your account was hacked, or the activity is linked purely to your username and you're on the hook.
That's not the kind of information the person was talking about. So basically you're attacking a ridiculous strawman.
The only danger of retaining an IP address is that it could be used to uniquely identify an individual -- even if they retain the IP-Username linkage for "a few days", that's still enough to match activity and identity using a dump of the records.
Where's the strawman?
Are they *all* wrong about their business?
In the past? No.
In the present? No.
When the majority of advertising dollars are spent online? Yes.
Um. So you upload or 'make favourite' or comment upon a bunch of videos to YouTube and "within days" that data is anonymised and you can't access this information - how does that help the user?
But I think the bigger prize here is getting their grubby paws on more accurate viewing figures than could ever be achieved by something like Nielson. That, after all, is why advertising $$$ continues to flow online -- a trend which (hopefully sooner rather than later) will wipe Viacom and all the rest of the old-media dinosaurs out.
Sockpuppets and meme seeding just seem to be strange background behavior to an already odd culture. ;)
True, but at the same time we're at a unique point in the history of this experiment. When we're able to 'search memes' and trace the evolution of ideas back to their origins and mutation intersections, then intentional meme-seeding will have all the elegance and schoolyard wit of someone shouting "big bums!" in the middle of the street.
We'll probably reminisce about it once it's gone.
Microsoft are not "just a symptom", the people there actually shaped the current environment and continue to shape it (largely by political machinations). They are a part of the disease, not just a result.
Part of what makes OOXML such a terrible standard, is that it can't be implemented as written, and so it can't be a standard.
In other words - people need standards for documents for them to be useful.
This is precisely the emergent factor which drove Microsoft Office to dominance in the first place -- in lieu of a commonplace internet, people needed to go to the store, buy a few floppy disks and know that the contents would guarantee them interoperability.
Did Microsoft abuse it's monopoly position? The courts say yes -- but the point is that technological limitations and basic emergence mandated that there had to be one major OS/Application suite combo for each application area.
They are a symptom - nothing more important or significant than that.
Anyway, is it childish to address symptoms _anyway_? Of course not. Treating the symptoms of a cold may mean you don't get fired which means that you can afford medical care for when you have colds. Similarly, keeping micro$loth under attack keeps them from wiping us out totally before we can do something about the larger problems.
Not quite enough cars in your analogy there.
It is childish to keep the debate at the name-calling level when presented with evidence that the problem is actually a bit more complex than you originally thought. Calling Microsoft names is not an effective attack, in that it legitimizes them in relative terms by making those most vocal in their dissent look childish.
How's that meme working out for you?
Well, admittedly, since I haven't been offered a development position on the Google Meme Search Team yet.. probably not so well.
Getting away from the meta-meme though - I really don't think calling Microsoft names, although fun, does anything but raise a cloud of dust over the abuses (alleged) of the ISO process.. and in that sense does benefit M$.
Using M$ is not "childish"; it is community spirit. [...] A derogatory epithet for the enemy binds the community together against a common foe.
Perhaps, but it is not the only way to engender community spirit.
If your intention is to provoke meaningful change outside of the community then it is counterproductive.. if your intention is to sustain a community for the sake of being part of a community then go right ahead.
To use someone's own chosen name is to honour them.
As someone from Great Britain, I can see why you might feel more strongly about that.
It is not childish, though it is militant. [...] Micro$hit do not deserve that honour.
Your complaint is not about Microsoft which, as an corporate animal, behaves in just the way you'd expect it to.. but against the greater environment which permits such creatures to abuse and leverage the power they have gained.
Yet you persist in attacking the symptom rather than appealing to the factors which may be able to alter the environment - I think childish sums it up quite well.
People who have a reason not to listen to you don't need to make up lame excuses.
For sure, but I'm talking about bringing the argument to the wider populace in order to enact change - not the minority with a vested interest.
As an ironic aside, the 'M$' meme, according to Google Meme Search, was originally planted by one of the thousands of Microsoft employees who frequent Slashdot in an attempt to equate Microsoft and Money and drive up stock.
Precisely the least effective way to ensure that your criticism gets taken seriously is to use childish monikers like 'M$', big ears.
So the slogans and propaganda are the goal, and asking them to cease it is entirely pointless.
The more interesting point to me, is that society needs extremists and people on the fringe like the GNU zealots as they expand the boundary of acceptability.. and the trends of social evolution will find a balance that 'works' within that enlarged environment.
Towards that end, the 'battles' between BSD and GPL licenses raise visibility for both.. and so each side has a motivation to keep up the appearances of hostility.
3 years subscribing: $210.00 Any questions?
Yes - what is your point?
It's a valid criticism, but OpenOffice really has improved dramatically in just the last four years.
Essentially then, the decision making surface area is increased, giving more chance for OpenOffice to gain traction, and more incentive for potential licensee's to pursue other options.
I think they shot themselves in the foot with this one, but then I'm not the marketing genius that came up with it.