I thought I was pretty clear. It wasn't about what they said, it was that they couldn't back it up.
This is in reply to someone who had put a lot of personal stuff up there including a username.
But people like you come along and read it out of context and think I'm talking in the general sense.
Its not that their argument was meaningless - its that it lacked weight because they weren't standing behind it...in a situation where the original poster had stood firmly by his argument.
No sorry, you're wrong. There's nothing illegal about being a monopoly. Nothing. Its only when you use that monopoly in ways that the law says you cant.
With IE, you weren't allowed to remove it. Microsoft also used their market power to give IE away for free, which almost put the others out of business. The lawsuit was from competing products, not microsoft's customers. So the equivalent in this case would be other advertising/search companies complaining.
The other problem is that search/advertising IS Google's market. They're not using some other market to promote search illegally or anti-competitively. That is their only real market.
Also, Microsoft certainly DID stop vendors using other software. If a vendor sold linux, then they lost the right to sell windows.
Google does none of this.
The only way Google would be illegal in the same way is if they offered free advertising in order to send their competition broke. But they dont - if anything, Google is the most expensive. I just dont see what the complaint is.
Google have the biggest market only because so many people choose to use Google for search. Any one of those people could choose Bing instead, and if they all chose Bing, then Google's market share would be effectively 0.
Google could abuse their monopoly by marketing their own products above everyone else's - and then refusing to advertise anything that competes with them...and there are claims of this - which is probably the only claim I've ever heard against Google that actually could carry some weight. As yet though, it still has not been proven true in a court of law...so its merely speculation at this point in time.
funny that the only replies you got were from AC's.
They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.
There was a dark spot on the wall that the ball went right through. Aside from the dimensions of the playing field corresponding to the dimensions of the building, there wasn't a building-game correspondence. Even if there was, it still wouldn't be impressive, but the story summary and the website talk like this 80s video game projected against a wall is really something amazing, when it simply isn't.
This isn't nearly as impressive as those displays on the ground where there's a projected soccer ball field where the ball can be kicked. And that is cheesy shit that has been around for five or ten years.
Maybe the video didn't help, with the focus problems and the music video feel.
The ball bounced off the circular window at the top. I dare say that is what it was supposed to do. If they wanted it to bounce off every "dark spot" they could but it'd get pretty ridiculous.
You have the choice not to advertise. Sure, your business might not survive but its still a choice.
Its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its only lock-in if you're not allowed to advertise elsewhere.
What you're saying is if you want to be successful you need to advertise and if you want to advertise effectively, it needs to be on Google. I dont see a problem with that. If Google then treat you poorly you might have a case, but I've used Adwords before and its pretty easy to use.
I dont think Google are acting illegally just by being the biggest. If your company was incredibly successful and ended up owning 90% of the market, would you stop doing business so that your competitors could catch up? is it illegal to be that successful? of course not!
Maybe you do have a good reason to accuse Google of illegality - feel free to post it.
The problem I have with the patent system is this:
Using the LZW algorithm as an example - say I had no knowledge of this algorithm but through my own independent research I developed something very similar. Even though I had nothing to do with the original patent author, I'm not entitled to use my own invention, because someone else had already invented it.
I understand that you should profit from your work, but why should someone else not profit from there's just because it is similar to yours (without copying).
If someone DID copy your work - you could claim copyright.
Here is my solution:
1. If you have a patent and a 3rd party wants to license it, you MUST let them (all patented works would then be considered public - but for a fee).
2. Licensing a patent would still be worth money, so the patent owner still profits from it, but the price / payment plan of the patent would be agreed between the patent owner and patent office at the time the patent is granted, and any changes would require authorization by the patent office. Any patent that is less complex or trivial (but still considered patentable) would get a low maximum price. Other parties would also be able to appeal at a later stage to have these prices lowered.
I think this would guarantee progress. There are many benefits.
The problem with patents are that the patent owner can sit and do nothing, thus blocking progress. The other problem is that patent owners can sit and wait until the other party has earnt significant income from the "infringed" patent, and then strike when there is profit to be made.
I think my solution above solves both these issues.
This might be true if your first introduction to code was your first day at uni.
Many software engineers started out as kids coding their own games and learning stuff on their own. The software development doesn't stop with your job.
I always have several projects on the go at home. These days they're mostly geared towards earning a second income, and some have been successful. But to see my life as a software engineer as purely what I do for my employment - that would make me cry.
My job just pays the bills - yes I write code for a living and I do enjoy my job (as much as that is even possible), but none of it compares to the stuff I tinker with in my own time. Software engineering is a way of life, not just something you do for a job.
2nd grade might be too young to teach anything other than a vague concept of what it means.
I think a simple game would be the best bet - but I suspect the only thing you could convey to them is some demonstration of "i type this code, turn it into something the computer can understand, and when you run it, it looks like this".
I taught myself programming at ~10 years old by borrowing books from the library where you could type in the 10-50 line BASIC programs and run them. I learnt to tweak them to do other things, and eventually had a breakthrough in grade 6 where I discovered how to move characters around on the screen, in response to keyboard input.
I'm not sure if a 2nd grader would be ready to do that, but who knows in today's world? These kids grew up with computers - whereas I only got access to my first computer when I was 8. And it was an Amstrad CPC6128.
Anyway, I suspect what you're really trying to do is impress them with what it means to become a software engineer. You're not teaching them software engineering - you're showing them that if they like to create things, and invent things, using computers, then software engineering can take them there. Show them what is possible, and some idea of how to get there, and you'll have several class members decide right then that they're going to be a programmer when they grow up.
I knew from 10 years old that I wanted to be a programmer. Now, 20 years later, I'm living that dream.
Never underestimate the impact of a simple demonstration on young minds. My motivation was initially game development but as I grew older my love of games faded. I still like to create games, but I'm equally interested in other applications too.
That use case (no flash) isn't satisfied by any of those points.
I believe you can disable flash in chrome, if it bothers you. The linux version doesn't include it so its a non-issue there too.
Not that I'm saying you should use chrome, or any other browser. It just reads exactly like you started with Firefox and thought up a set of criteria that only Firefox can satisfy.
I dont have it in front of me, but from memory, the functions of the original File->Page Setup ended up spread all over different toolbars in places where they didn't seem to fit.
I cant really comment more than that. Pointing out where the features are now is like telling someone 3 years later why their car's brakes failed.
The reason most people are doubly frustrated is because many of us were quite proficient at previous versions of Office. And we don't use it enough to learn a whole new layout that's nothing like any other software we've EVER used, nor like anything we currently use (I dont use windows much).
Google is pretty poor at supporting anything longer than a week past the initial launch date.
The whole Google business model appears to go like this: 1. Invent cool tech 2. Make it into an awesome product. Functional, and working, but not finished. 3. Dump it on the public (as a "beta") with a half-hearted launch effort. 4. Start on next project.
For GMail - it worked, partially because a functional product is really all most of us want.
Search is one of the few projects they continually work on - because its what makes them money.
For many of their projects, including Google+, they fail because Google fails at marketing and seeing a project through. Have a look at how Apple launch a product, compared to Google. Apple are often still telling us how wonderful they are even years later, while Google seems to forget about its own achievements after a week.
I like Google - I use many of their services, and have and Android phone + tablet and develop Android apps...but its just plain disappointing to see how little effort is put into their products post-launch. I'm specifically talking about marketing effort, as I'm sure they are working hard behind the scenes.
I offer you a challenge then: Force yourself to use the ribbon interface until you become comfortable with it, then try and go back. After doing this tell me whether you still think the ribbon is a bad idea. Personally I believe almost everyone who bitches about the ribbon is actually complaining about change in general - so eliminate that from the equation.
The ribbon is an improvement in user interface design, even if you don't personally like it.
um, those of us who complain about it, only complain because we've actually used it. This isn't some complaint based on hearsay or the like.
I've tried using Word with the ribbon interface and I still cant use it well. So many things are not in a logical grouping that it just gets frustrating. At some point you have to completely ignore what the interface is telling you and just go on a hide-and-seek search for the option, through every toolbar you can find, even when it doesn't make sense. Find me the old "Page Setup" screen? well, you can't because its all spread out all over the place - yet the "page setup" window was largely unchanged. I worked out that if you go "margins->custom" or something like that you could get to it.
Claiming it is better design is just ridiculous. They just changed the UI for the sake of change - it forces people to upgrade for no reason. If you believe anything else then you dont know how Microsoft works.
They always start with something terrible so they can sell you new versions that make things better. Whether its by design or just the fact they just cant get it right, I dont know.
I use a process of elimination starting with the most important.
I want to know if the browser is usable on any machine I use. Firefox, Chrome, Opera. I want to know if the browser is capable of displaying content I access without extensions. Firefox, Opera. I want to know if the browser is capable of protecting me from certain content. Firefox, Opera I want to know if I can enhance the browsers abilities. Firefox
this seems a bit inconsistent don't you think?
Surely criteria #4 makes #2 irrelevant, if #4 satisfies #2 (minus the "without extensions" bogus requirement).
It reads like you actually started with Firefox as your answer and then constructed the criteria afterwards...
Who cares about market share? Its a geek site, so linux is not outside their scope by any stretch of the imagination. OSX only has 9-10% doesn't it? and yet they include that without any quibble about market share.
It appears they did include linux in earlier benchmarks (this article is Web Browser Grand Prix 6, and there were 5 others before it).
I'd say the complaint about linux missing is valid...however I'd say they would have used ubuntu due to its popularity and maybe the linux crowd would still complain that it wasn't fedora, or opensuse, or gentoo...
In practice I think it depends on the type of geek.
Certainly in all of the places I've worked, the software developers are all fairly social people, most of them married or at least attached.
I fitted into the stereotype a bit more as a teenager but we learn to become much more social as the years go by.
I viewed "social" as just another skill I could pick up and another "technology" that I could learn. Some are better at it naturally, but I think everyone can learn to at least succeed at it.
except there's one BIG problem. The keyboard sucks.
No, I'm not claiming the Android keyboard is any better.
Before buying an Android tablet, I tested a few different ones, including the iPad. Its just that the whole touchpad keyboard thing sucks. every 3rd or 4th keypress isn't registered, and by then you've pressed space and moved on.
Add to that the annoying auto-correct and it gets worse.
If you can use a physical keyboard, then its probably a bit better, but then you have a problem with how long your arms are, because the tablet sits in FRONT of the keyboard, and yet you want both to be at a comfortable distance...not gonna happen.
You also have no mouse. A lot of things require the extra precision of a mouse. I'd really like to see you doing graphics work using your finger. Or maybe you need one of these styluses that work on the ipad screen. which is just another tool to carry around, much like a mouse, but you still have the reach problem, and it can get difficult to see what you're doing because your hand is in the way.
I love my Android tablet, and I've gotta say tablets do have their place for now...but they are a convenience thing, not a standalone tool. They cannot replace a desktop, so they are not the answer in the end. They're just another tool.
Slashdot Mirror
its all about the context.
I thought I was pretty clear. It wasn't about what they said, it was that they couldn't back it up.
This is in reply to someone who had put a lot of personal stuff up there including a username.
But people like you come along and read it out of context and think I'm talking in the general sense.
Its not that their argument was meaningless - its that it lacked weight because they weren't standing behind it...in a situation where the original poster had stood firmly by his argument.
surely the plane had a GPS as well?
I mean, were they relying on the iPhone for navigation?
that might explain something...
No sorry, you're wrong. There's nothing illegal about being a monopoly. Nothing. Its only when you use that monopoly in ways that the law says you cant.
With IE, you weren't allowed to remove it.
Microsoft also used their market power to give IE away for free, which almost put the others out of business. The lawsuit was from competing products, not microsoft's customers. So the equivalent in this case would be other advertising/search companies complaining.
The other problem is that search/advertising IS Google's market. They're not using some other market to promote search illegally or anti-competitively. That is their only real market.
Also, Microsoft certainly DID stop vendors using other software. If a vendor sold linux, then they lost the right to sell windows.
Google does none of this.
The only way Google would be illegal in the same way is if they offered free advertising in order to send their competition broke. But they dont - if anything, Google is the most expensive. I just dont see what the complaint is.
Google have the biggest market only because so many people choose to use Google for search. Any one of those people could choose Bing instead, and if they all chose Bing, then Google's market share would be effectively 0.
Google could abuse their monopoly by marketing their own products above everyone else's - and then refusing to advertise anything that competes with them...and there are claims of this - which is probably the only claim I've ever heard against Google that actually could carry some weight. As yet though, it still has not been proven true in a court of law...so its merely speculation at this point in time.
funny that the only replies you got were from AC's.
They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.
Good on you :-)
There was a dark spot on the wall that the ball went right through. Aside from the dimensions of the playing field corresponding to the dimensions of the building, there wasn't a building-game correspondence. Even if there was, it still wouldn't be impressive, but the story summary and the website talk like this 80s video game projected against a wall is really something amazing, when it simply isn't.
This isn't nearly as impressive as those displays on the ground where there's a projected soccer ball field where the ball can be kicked. And that is cheesy shit that has been around for five or ten years.
Maybe the video didn't help, with the focus problems and the music video feel.
The ball bounced off the circular window at the top. I dare say that is what it was supposed to do.
If they wanted it to bounce off every "dark spot" they could but it'd get pretty ridiculous.
Are you always this negative?
You have the choice not to advertise. Sure, your business might not survive but its still a choice.
Its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its only lock-in if you're not allowed to advertise elsewhere.
What you're saying is if you want to be successful you need to advertise and if you want to advertise effectively, it needs to be on Google. I dont see a problem with that. If Google then treat you poorly you might have a case, but I've used Adwords before and its pretty easy to use.
I dont think Google are acting illegally just by being the biggest. If your company was incredibly successful and ended up owning 90% of the market, would you stop doing business so that your competitors could catch up? is it illegal to be that successful? of course not!
Maybe you do have a good reason to accuse Google of illegality - feel free to post it.
The problem I have with the patent system is this:
Using the LZW algorithm as an example - say I had no knowledge of this algorithm but through my own independent research I developed something very similar. Even though I had nothing to do with the original patent author, I'm not entitled to use my own invention, because someone else had already invented it.
I understand that you should profit from your work, but why should someone else not profit from there's just because it is similar to yours (without copying).
If someone DID copy your work - you could claim copyright.
Here is my solution:
1. If you have a patent and a 3rd party wants to license it, you MUST let them (all patented works would then be considered public - but for a fee).
2. Licensing a patent would still be worth money, so the patent owner still profits from it, but the price / payment plan of the patent would be agreed between the patent owner and patent office at the time the patent is granted, and any changes would require authorization by the patent office. Any patent that is less complex or trivial (but still considered patentable) would get a low maximum price. Other parties would also be able to appeal at a later stage to have these prices lowered.
I think this would guarantee progress. There are many benefits.
The problem with patents are that the patent owner can sit and do nothing, thus blocking progress.
The other problem is that patent owners can sit and wait until the other party has earnt significant income from the "infringed" patent, and then strike when there is profit to be made.
I think my solution above solves both these issues.
Argue with the title all you like, but its my job title - as in that's what is on my contract.
Its just a title. I dont think I'm an engineer, but if people ask what I do for work, I tell them what my contract says.
Even without slashdot, I imagine the Reg gets a fair amount of traffic.
I wonder if the hacker realised just how much...
You wanna impersonate them? here, have their traffic...see how your servers cope. Who pays for the bandwidth in this case?
This might be true if your first introduction to code was your first day at uni.
Many software engineers started out as kids coding their own games and learning stuff on their own.
The software development doesn't stop with your job.
I always have several projects on the go at home. These days they're mostly geared towards earning a second income, and some have been successful.
But to see my life as a software engineer as purely what I do for my employment - that would make me cry.
My job just pays the bills - yes I write code for a living and I do enjoy my job (as much as that is even possible), but none of it compares to the stuff I tinker with in my own time. Software engineering is a way of life, not just something you do for a job.
2nd grade might be too young to teach anything other than a vague concept of what it means.
I think a simple game would be the best bet - but I suspect the only thing you could convey to them is some demonstration of "i type this code, turn it into something the computer can understand, and when you run it, it looks like this".
I taught myself programming at ~10 years old by borrowing books from the library where you could type in the 10-50 line BASIC programs and run them. I learnt to tweak them to do other things, and eventually had a breakthrough in grade 6 where I discovered how to move characters around on the screen, in response to keyboard input.
I'm not sure if a 2nd grader would be ready to do that, but who knows in today's world? These kids grew up with computers - whereas I only got access to my first computer when I was 8. And it was an Amstrad CPC6128.
Anyway, I suspect what you're really trying to do is impress them with what it means to become a software engineer. You're not teaching them software engineering - you're showing them that if they like to create things, and invent things, using computers, then software engineering can take them there. Show them what is possible, and some idea of how to get there, and you'll have several class members decide right then that they're going to be a programmer when they grow up.
I knew from 10 years old that I wanted to be a programmer. Now, 20 years later, I'm living that dream.
Never underestimate the impact of a simple demonstration on young minds. My motivation was initially game development but as I grew older my love of games faded. I still like to create games, but I'm equally interested in other applications too.
That use case (no flash) isn't satisfied by any of those points.
I believe you can disable flash in chrome, if it bothers you. The linux version doesn't include it so its a non-issue there too.
Not that I'm saying you should use chrome, or any other browser. It just reads exactly like you started with Firefox and thought up a set of criteria that only Firefox can satisfy.
I dont have it in front of me, but from memory, the functions of the original File->Page Setup ended up spread all over different toolbars in places where they didn't seem to fit.
I cant really comment more than that. Pointing out where the features are now is like telling someone 3 years later why their car's brakes failed.
The reason most people are doubly frustrated is because many of us were quite proficient at previous versions of Office. And we don't use it enough to learn a whole new layout that's nothing like any other software we've EVER used, nor like anything we currently use (I dont use windows much).
Good for you.
I switched to Linux. Same result.
No kidding.
Everyone's talking about reasons for leaving Google, as if Google is a bad employer.
Lets put thing in perspective here...
A job at Google would be great as far as large companies go. Good work-life balance, great work conditions, great benefits etc.
But come on, he's going to be working on high-tech robots! Nothing is cooler for a developer (well, most anyway) than robotics!
I dont blame him at all!!
Are you surprised?
Google is pretty poor at supporting anything longer than a week past the initial launch date.
The whole Google business model appears to go like this:
1. Invent cool tech
2. Make it into an awesome product. Functional, and working, but not finished.
3. Dump it on the public (as a "beta") with a half-hearted launch effort.
4. Start on next project.
For GMail - it worked, partially because a functional product is really all most of us want.
Search is one of the few projects they continually work on - because its what makes them money.
For many of their projects, including Google+, they fail because Google fails at marketing and seeing a project through. Have a look at how Apple launch a product, compared to Google. Apple are often still telling us how wonderful they are even years later, while Google seems to forget about its own achievements after a week.
I like Google - I use many of their services, and have and Android phone + tablet and develop Android apps...but its just plain disappointing to see how little effort is put into their products post-launch. I'm specifically talking about marketing effort, as I'm sure they are working hard behind the scenes.
Further, Apple is a successful company, but Microsoft is an Empire.
If you didn't have the damn ribbon interface (like it used to be) you wouldn't need to minimize it.
Then wouldn't it not matter what the menu interface is, you're using the keyboard anyway?
yes, it would matter for the people who DONT do it often.
I offer you a challenge then: Force yourself to use the ribbon interface until you become comfortable with it, then try and go back. After doing this tell me whether you still think the ribbon is a bad idea. Personally I believe almost everyone who bitches about the ribbon is actually complaining about change in general - so eliminate that from the equation.
The ribbon is an improvement in user interface design, even if you don't personally like it.
um, those of us who complain about it, only complain because we've actually used it. This isn't some complaint based on hearsay or the like.
I've tried using Word with the ribbon interface and I still cant use it well. So many things are not in a logical grouping that it just gets frustrating.
At some point you have to completely ignore what the interface is telling you and just go on a hide-and-seek search for the option, through every toolbar you can find, even when it doesn't make sense.
Find me the old "Page Setup" screen? well, you can't because its all spread out all over the place - yet the "page setup" window was largely unchanged. I worked out that if you go "margins->custom" or something like that you could get to it.
Claiming it is better design is just ridiculous. They just changed the UI for the sake of change - it forces people to upgrade for no reason. If you believe anything else then you dont know how Microsoft works.
They always start with something terrible so they can sell you new versions that make things better. Whether its by design or just the fact they just cant get it right, I dont know.
I use a process of elimination starting with the most important.
I want to know if the browser is usable on any machine I use. Firefox, Chrome, Opera.
I want to know if the browser is capable of displaying content I access without extensions. Firefox, Opera.
I want to know if the browser is capable of protecting me from certain content. Firefox, Opera
I want to know if I can enhance the browsers abilities. Firefox
this seems a bit inconsistent don't you think?
Surely criteria #4 makes #2 irrelevant, if #4 satisfies #2 (minus the "without extensions" bogus requirement).
It reads like you actually started with Firefox as your answer and then constructed the criteria afterwards...
Who cares about market share? Its a geek site, so linux is not outside their scope by any stretch of the imagination. OSX only has 9-10% doesn't it? and yet they include that without any quibble about market share.
It appears they did include linux in earlier benchmarks (this article is Web Browser Grand Prix 6, and there were 5 others before it).
I'd say the complaint about linux missing is valid...however I'd say they would have used ubuntu due to its popularity and maybe the linux crowd would still complain that it wasn't fedora, or opensuse, or gentoo...
I think its more like folklore.
In practice I think it depends on the type of geek.
Certainly in all of the places I've worked, the software developers are all fairly social people, most of them married or at least attached.
I fitted into the stereotype a bit more as a teenager but we learn to become much more social as the years go by.
I viewed "social" as just another skill I could pick up and another "technology" that I could learn. Some are better at it naturally, but I think everyone can learn to at least succeed at it.
What the summary doesn't inform us is how long before you die you have to start this regimen in order to get the full 3-year benefit,
I'm guessing its some considerable time before your 97th birthday...
except there's one BIG problem. The keyboard sucks.
No, I'm not claiming the Android keyboard is any better.
Before buying an Android tablet, I tested a few different ones, including the iPad. Its just that the whole touchpad keyboard thing sucks. every 3rd or 4th keypress isn't registered, and by then you've pressed space and moved on.
Add to that the annoying auto-correct and it gets worse.
If you can use a physical keyboard, then its probably a bit better, but then you have a problem with how long your arms are, because the tablet sits in FRONT of the keyboard, and yet you want both to be at a comfortable distance...not gonna happen.
You also have no mouse. A lot of things require the extra precision of a mouse. I'd really like to see you doing graphics work using your finger. Or maybe you need one of these styluses that work on the ipad screen. which is just another tool to carry around, much like a mouse, but you still have the reach problem, and it can get difficult to see what you're doing because your hand is in the way.
I love my Android tablet, and I've gotta say tablets do have their place for now...but they are a convenience thing, not a standalone tool. They cannot replace a desktop, so they are not the answer in the end. They're just another tool.