Advertisers will go to where the biggest return is. and if 90% of the public is searching on google, it makes sense to advertise there. Google isn't making people advertise with them. No one is forced to do business with Google.
Google are in this position because no one else has managed to draw a crowd yet. if all the web surfers went elsewhere then the advertisers would switch too.
1: You don't have to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. You just have to be significantly larger than your nearest rival.
2: Drastically undercutting your opponents prices in a new market by leveraging profits from a different market to support it can be seen as anti-competitive. Many for profit vendors see google pushing open source products as this.
?? but their competitors can use the same open source products without fees...and some do.
Nothing wrong with undercutting your opponents prices either, so long as you are not selling below cost (or at a loss). undercutting your opponents prices is called "competition" - I dont see how "competition" can be anti-competitive...
So you claim that there is some of the internet which is inaccessible via google, inferring that there may be sites google doesn't want you to see, so it blocks them.
Well how did you find out about these sites in the first place? and once you know about them, couldn't you just type the ip or web address in and go right there?
Or maybe you're just ASSUMING that there are sites that google is stopping you from seeing, which are so important to you (even though you dont know what they are), and so creating a conspiracy theory against google is clearly the obvious choice, instead of realizing that google might be the biggest search engine but you dont have to use it...and people dont have to submit their sites to google, but they do so by choice.
"What specifically caused life to begin on Earth remains a mystery. Professor Pizzarello hypothesises material from a meteor may have interacted with environments on Earth such as volcanoes or tidal pools, but says all remains a matter of guess work."
glad you found the time to label me a troll whilst adding nothing of value or substance to the conversation.
at the point where you need to belittle the opponent, you have lost the argument. if you're willing to discuss my comments, I'm happy to chat...but it seems you decided to go for a cheap shot instead. Meh...whatever.
The problem I have is that you call something that can replicate itself "simple". How many living things can do that? A cell can replicate itself, but its not simple. Most of the more complex living creatures need a mate in order to reproduce...
replication is not simple. It is not automatic. My point was that it is unlikely the first living thing was able to replicate. Or the second. And then even if something could replicate, it had to get it right, the first time. And the replicated "thing" had to also be able to replicate. I just dont see how all this random stuff can produce such a near-perfect system. Let me be more specific, I do see how it *could*, but it defies probability...hence why I claim that whether you believe in creation or evolution, it requires a belief in miracles.
Evolution that continues to happen now is fine - we can prove and witness almost all of it...but that's just part of the system. Why is the system so well thought out? or so it seems to be? why cant humans create anything nearly as good as what is in nature? I'm sure there's some intelligent reasons for all of this...but the existence of a God can also explain it all too.
I'm not arguing that evolution (origin of earth etc) cant be right...I'm arguing that evolution doesn't HAVE to be right, and it doesn't prove creation wrong. The bits of evolution that are actually proveable beyond doubt are only a drop in a bucket compared to what we dont know or cant explain. And the bits that are proveable are really just what we can observe now. Scientists argue over the other details all the time...so we cant be so definite as to disregard anything that doesn't fit with some pre-conceived model.
My point is that I'm not convinced, and despite so many people claiming that evolution is based on evidence and proof, I've yet to see it. All I have seen is circular references and circular reasoning.
At the end of the day what I see happening is no different to churches brainwashing their members.
A lot of people believe evolution, yet very few know why.
Going back to your comments...what makes you think God only could have created the first bit. Surely a God that is capable of creating life is also capable of guiding the entire process? That requires less dependence on living things being really lucky, and starts to explain why we have the ability to think, and why we naturally have the capacity to worship. I'm not arguing against the whole process of the formation of earth being wrong...I'm just suggesting that it may not have all happened as "randomly" as the scientists want us to believe. There are always other possibilities that are summarily dismissed as "silly" just because they are not convenient.
To believe in a God is to believe that we are responsible to Him and not free to do as we please. That is the issue. I'm not saying evolutionists consciously are trying to deceive themselves or others...but humanity as a whole does not like the idea of being inferior or subservient to a higher being.
I've seen more undeniable proofs in the Bible in the form of fulfilled prophecy than I have evidence of evolution (formation of earth and all life etc by random chance)...
The jews are God's witness. He said so. People have tried to remove them and failed. If Israel ever ceases to exist as a nation called Israel, then I will burn my Bible and admit I was wrong (I have no affiliation with any action or motive the jews might display nowadays...only a biblical belief that God made a promise to their ancestors and has plans for their future - even God does not necessarily endorse everything or anything they do now) Their return to the land they now occupy was predicted some 2000 years earlier. The fall of Tyre was predicted over 400 years in advance. There is a lot more...but I'm probably wasting my time.
obviously if you say it over and over enough times you start to believe it...
i'm not denying evidence based science...just that the conclusions aren't always thought through very well. I can see the same results and think of a dozen other conclusions that the original scientists obviously thought were inconvenient or didn't fit in with their grand plan...or they just never sat down and tried to think of ALL the possibilities.
yeah and it just got really really really really really lucky 1 billion billion times in a row...
remember the 2nd living organism didn't have a million years to form...it only had as much time as the first one was alive. and yet we dont know of any single living entity that can survive on its own. we know of single cells, but just adding the word 'single' in front of something doesn't mean there's only 1 part. a cell is more complex than a boeing 767...so you need to think much smaller than that.
if you believe in evolution you believe in miracles. it requires faith. lots of it.
that isn't a proof of evolution, its just the existence of life. If you won the lottery, then by the same logic it would be the same probability...but that's not my point.
My point was that if I asked you if you to bet your house on you winning the lottery tomorrow, you wouldn't. And yet the odds of earth's existence being due to a process beginning with nothing and with no outside influence by something more intelligent, are much, much worse. Actually there is no comparison.
Just because A+B appears to equal C, it doesn't mean that wherever we see C it must have been formed by A+B. Hope that makes sense.
People dont spend a lot of their time thinking about these things, and in fact if you ask person A for a proof of evolution the answer is typically that person B has proved it. And if you ask person B they will point to person C who has proved it this other way, and that supports their theory. And then person C will say that their thoery is supported by person D's findings. And you get all the way through to Z and person Z has proved their theory because of what person B has found. Or in any case, you never really get to the end of the chain (because no one REALLY knows), and most of the arguments do not cover all possible cases. Rather than giving answers, it just raises more questions. And when you summarily refuse to accept some of the possibilities because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived theory...then it is no longer science. This works both ways. (btw I dont believe creation is a "science" in any way)
Life didn't have millions of years to evolve. It only had as much time as the first living "thing" survived. And that thing cannot have been a cell, because a cell requires all parts to be operating at once, before it is a cell...so bacteria doesn't count, and indeed most bacteria cant survive on its own, and in any case, for most of evolution it is itself evolving because the reality is that we just dont know most of the pieces yet....and we probably never will. Not knowing is not a disproof, but forming a theory based on 3 or 4 pieces of a 1 million piece jigsaw puzzle is not exactly a proof.
It takes just as much faith not to believe in a God as it does to believe in one.
More food for thought: if humans manage to create life from non-life, does that prove evolution? or does it prove creation? hmm.
Why couldn't "micro-evolution" have been designed and planned? Its a better system than what we humans can design. But if you think about it, if we were not designed, then anything we do or think, is also not design. It is just purely coincidental. what is free will? does it exist? how did something that was formed by chance suddenly not leave things up to chance any more. i'm getting confused now...
well who says they failed at social? they did orkut but never really marketted it (not in australia at least)...possibly because they knew it wouldn't win.
but youtube is the world's most popular video sharing website, and it certainly comes under the "social" banner.
So they failed at things like wave, and then buzz isn't what it could have been due to a few blunders, and they're not competing with facebook (yet).
but I dont think we've seen the end of google in this area. There's a lot of social aspects to google that people use without realising it. Google allows you to share your data in a lot of ways (google apps, picasaweb, docs) - its just that it hasn't tackled facebook/twitter head on yet and won...
Yeah, like a solution to the problem of chocolate melting in your hands is including a personal maid with every purchase that feeds you the chocolate herself.
It may be a nice fantasy to the average Slashdotter, but anyone with half a brain would realize it's simply not cost-effective at any scale whatsoever.
or perhaps the technology to do it isn't invented yet.
With little basis to go on, I'd have to say this is a perception problem, and was guaranteed to happen.
Back in the early days, search wasn't that great. Google simplified it and beat the others by a smarter algorithm.
Now that everyone is used to it, they expect to keep getting that same improvement, year on year.
When it doesn't happen, suddenly Google appears to be stagnating when in fact it just isn't advancing like the users want.
Otherwise it should be easy for some other search engine to just do what google did 3 years ago and profit. This isn't happening...so maybe people aren't searching for the same things, or there is more crap on the internet, or what was relevant years ago is no longer relevant now...and vice versa...
I think your diagnosis is too narrow. How do you judge search engine relevance? There are no criteria, really.
exactly. I'd say their best days in terms of users worshipping them are behind them...but their best days in terms of their company's success are still to come.
amazing how evolution can go billions of years without making one fatal mistake, and yet most of us will never win the lottery even once (which, probabilistically speaking is many million times more likely to happen).
You mean... "God would have created us in such a manner or in a location so as to tolerate the particle flux. In the ocean, for example." Right?
If God created the earth, the sun, and the said charged particles, and the magnetic field, how is this difficult to understand? God didn't have to work within a set of parameters...he created the parameters!
You claim below that it is based on personal preference. Most of the world considers Windows to be easier to use than any alternative.
Macs selling faster...hmmm I have a problem with that. See, mac came out before windows...and windows has like 90% of the desktop market...which by definition means windows sells a LOT more over shorter time...which means windows sells faster. Maybe the iphone/ipad craziness has turned that around a little nowadays, but lets just wait and see if it leads anywhere.
The original post complained that some things were not logical or not intuitive.
And I stated those were matters of personal preference. Do you have scientific studies showing one GUI is better than others? Or are you letting your emotions dictate your reactions?
Your post didn't confirm anything about it being personal preference, and neither did the parent post deny that. You may have felt it was implicit, but I disagree.
I agree it is about preference...but that wasn't the point of either of the previous posts.
The walled garden is not perfect either (how could it be?).
I believe there is a happy medium...and Google would do well to find a solution to this problem before we all require anti-virus apps on our android phones. They went after something like the windows model, but surely we dont want to copy ALL of it...
I'm sorry, in what world does "I am so used to OSX I dont notice myself doing this thing and so it is easy" become an answer to "new users will find this difficult and unintuitive"??
The original post complained that some things were not logical or not intuitive.
So explaining why they work for you because you've always done it that way, is not actually a valid response. You didn't address any of the issues, except to say that if you do it enough it becomes habit. If you use this line of argument, then there is no such thing as a bad UI.
Slashdot Mirror
haha i love it!
you must be new here.
and by "here", I mean the internet...
I dont understand what the solution is.
Advertisers will go to where the biggest return is. and if 90% of the public is searching on google, it makes sense to advertise there. Google isn't making people advertise with them. No one is forced to do business with Google.
Google are in this position because no one else has managed to draw a crowd yet. if all the web surfers went elsewhere then the advertisers would switch too.
where is the lock-in with google?
1: You don't have to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. You just have to be significantly larger than your nearest rival.
2: Drastically undercutting your opponents prices in a new market by leveraging profits from a different market to support it can be seen as anti-competitive. Many for profit vendors see google pushing open source products as this.
?? but their competitors can use the same open source products without fees...and some do.
Nothing wrong with undercutting your opponents prices either, so long as you are not selling below cost (or at a loss). undercutting your opponents prices is called "competition" - I dont see how "competition" can be anti-competitive...
I dont understand.
So you claim that there is some of the internet which is inaccessible via google, inferring that there may be sites google doesn't want you to see, so it blocks them.
Well how did you find out about these sites in the first place? and once you know about them, couldn't you just type the ip or web address in and go right there?
Or maybe you're just ASSUMING that there are sites that google is stopping you from seeing, which are so important to you (even though you dont know what they are), and so creating a conspiracy theory against google is clearly the obvious choice, instead of realizing that google might be the biggest search engine but you dont have to use it...and people dont have to submit their sites to google, but they do so by choice.
"What specifically caused life to begin on Earth remains a mystery. Professor Pizzarello hypothesises material from a meteor may have interacted with environments on Earth such as volcanoes or tidal pools, but says all remains a matter of guess work."
We should totally base our worldview around this.
glad you found the time to label me a troll whilst adding nothing of value or substance to the conversation.
at the point where you need to belittle the opponent, you have lost the argument. if you're willing to discuss my comments, I'm happy to chat...but it seems you decided to go for a cheap shot instead. Meh...whatever.
The problem I have is that you call something that can replicate itself "simple". How many living things can do that? A cell can replicate itself, but its not simple. Most of the more complex living creatures need a mate in order to reproduce...
replication is not simple. It is not automatic. My point was that it is unlikely the first living thing was able to replicate. Or the second. And then even if something could replicate, it had to get it right, the first time. And the replicated "thing" had to also be able to replicate. I just dont see how all this random stuff can produce such a near-perfect system. Let me be more specific, I do see how it *could*, but it defies probability...hence why I claim that whether you believe in creation or evolution, it requires a belief in miracles.
Evolution that continues to happen now is fine - we can prove and witness almost all of it...but that's just part of the system. Why is the system so well thought out? or so it seems to be? why cant humans create anything nearly as good as what is in nature? I'm sure there's some intelligent reasons for all of this...but the existence of a God can also explain it all too.
I'm not arguing that evolution (origin of earth etc) cant be right...I'm arguing that evolution doesn't HAVE to be right, and it doesn't prove creation wrong. The bits of evolution that are actually proveable beyond doubt are only a drop in a bucket compared to what we dont know or cant explain. And the bits that are proveable are really just what we can observe now. Scientists argue over the other details all the time...so we cant be so definite as to disregard anything that doesn't fit with some pre-conceived model.
My point is that I'm not convinced, and despite so many people claiming that evolution is based on evidence and proof, I've yet to see it. All I have seen is circular references and circular reasoning.
At the end of the day what I see happening is no different to churches brainwashing their members.
A lot of people believe evolution, yet very few know why.
Going back to your comments...what makes you think God only could have created the first bit. Surely a God that is capable of creating life is also capable of guiding the entire process? That requires less dependence on living things being really lucky, and starts to explain why we have the ability to think, and why we naturally have the capacity to worship. I'm not arguing against the whole process of the formation of earth being wrong...I'm just suggesting that it may not have all happened as "randomly" as the scientists want us to believe. There are always other possibilities that are summarily dismissed as "silly" just because they are not convenient.
To believe in a God is to believe that we are responsible to Him and not free to do as we please. That is the issue. I'm not saying evolutionists consciously are trying to deceive themselves or others...but humanity as a whole does not like the idea of being inferior or subservient to a higher being.
I've seen more undeniable proofs in the Bible in the form of fulfilled prophecy than I have evidence of evolution (formation of earth and all life etc by random chance)...
The jews are God's witness. He said so. People have tried to remove them and failed. If Israel ever ceases to exist as a nation called Israel, then I will burn my Bible and admit I was wrong (I have no affiliation with any action or motive the jews might display nowadays...only a biblical belief that God made a promise to their ancestors and has plans for their future - even God does not necessarily endorse everything or anything they do now) Their return to the land they now occupy was predicted some 2000 years earlier. The fall of Tyre was predicted over 400 years in advance. There is a lot more...but I'm probably wasting my time.
obviously if you say it over and over enough times you start to believe it...
i'm not denying evidence based science...just that the conclusions aren't always thought through very well. I can see the same results and think of a dozen other conclusions that the original scientists obviously thought were inconvenient or didn't fit in with their grand plan...or they just never sat down and tried to think of ALL the possibilities.
yeah and it just got really really really really really lucky 1 billion billion times in a row...
remember the 2nd living organism didn't have a million years to form...it only had as much time as the first one was alive. and yet we dont know of any single living entity that can survive on its own. we know of single cells, but just adding the word 'single' in front of something doesn't mean there's only 1 part. a cell is more complex than a boeing 767...so you need to think much smaller than that.
if you believe in evolution you believe in miracles. it requires faith. lots of it.
that isn't a proof of evolution, its just the existence of life. If you won the lottery, then by the same logic it would be the same probability...but that's not my point.
My point was that if I asked you if you to bet your house on you winning the lottery tomorrow, you wouldn't. And yet the odds of earth's existence being due to a process beginning with nothing and with no outside influence by something more intelligent, are much, much worse. Actually there is no comparison.
Just because A+B appears to equal C, it doesn't mean that wherever we see C it must have been formed by A+B. Hope that makes sense.
People dont spend a lot of their time thinking about these things, and in fact if you ask person A for a proof of evolution the answer is typically that person B has proved it. And if you ask person B they will point to person C who has proved it this other way, and that supports their theory. And then person C will say that their thoery is supported by person D's findings. And you get all the way through to Z and person Z has proved their theory because of what person B has found. Or in any case, you never really get to the end of the chain (because no one REALLY knows), and most of the arguments do not cover all possible cases. Rather than giving answers, it just raises more questions. And when you summarily refuse to accept some of the possibilities because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived theory...then it is no longer science. This works both ways. (btw I dont believe creation is a "science" in any way)
Life didn't have millions of years to evolve. It only had as much time as the first living "thing" survived. And that thing cannot have been a cell, because a cell requires all parts to be operating at once, before it is a cell...so bacteria doesn't count, and indeed most bacteria cant survive on its own, and in any case, for most of evolution it is itself evolving because the reality is that we just dont know most of the pieces yet....and we probably never will. Not knowing is not a disproof, but forming a theory based on 3 or 4 pieces of a 1 million piece jigsaw puzzle is not exactly a proof.
It takes just as much faith not to believe in a God as it does to believe in one.
More food for thought: if humans manage to create life from non-life, does that prove evolution? or does it prove creation? hmm.
Why couldn't "micro-evolution" have been designed and planned? Its a better system than what we humans can design. But if you think about it, if we were not designed, then anything we do or think, is also not design. It is just purely coincidental. what is free will? does it exist? how did something that was formed by chance suddenly not leave things up to chance any more. i'm getting confused now...
well who says they failed at social? they did orkut but never really marketted it (not in australia at least)...possibly because they knew it wouldn't win.
but youtube is the world's most popular video sharing website, and it certainly comes under the "social" banner.
So they failed at things like wave, and then buzz isn't what it could have been due to a few blunders, and they're not competing with facebook (yet).
but I dont think we've seen the end of google in this area. There's a lot of social aspects to google that people use without realising it. Google allows you to share your data in a lot of ways (google apps, picasaweb, docs) - its just that it hasn't tackled facebook/twitter head on yet and won...
It still remains to be seen whether Android will be able to contribute significantly to the company's revenue growth.
um...where have you been?
http://www.businessinsider.com/android-revenue-2010-8
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2010/10/googles-android-starts-paying-for-itself-via-ad-revenues/
its 2011 now, and google own the worlds dominant smartphone platform...are you with us or what?
And yet Google still remains my #1 used web site online. Some may only ever browse what others point you at, but I actually go out and find things.
It sounds to me like you mostly browse where google points at.
Umm...
as opposed to?
Yeah, like a solution to the problem of chocolate melting in your hands is including a personal maid with every purchase that feeds you the chocolate herself.
It may be a nice fantasy to the average Slashdotter, but anyone with half a brain would realize it's simply not cost-effective at any scale whatsoever.
or perhaps the technology to do it isn't invented yet.
With little basis to go on, I'd have to say this is a perception problem, and was guaranteed to happen.
Back in the early days, search wasn't that great. Google simplified it and beat the others by a smarter algorithm.
Now that everyone is used to it, they expect to keep getting that same improvement, year on year.
When it doesn't happen, suddenly Google appears to be stagnating when in fact it just isn't advancing like the users want.
Otherwise it should be easy for some other search engine to just do what google did 3 years ago and profit. This isn't happening...so maybe people aren't searching for the same things, or there is more crap on the internet, or what was relevant years ago is no longer relevant now...and vice versa...
I think your diagnosis is too narrow. How do you judge search engine relevance? There are no criteria, really.
exactly. I'd say their best days in terms of users worshipping them are behind them...but their best days in terms of their company's success are still to come.
amazing how evolution can go billions of years without making one fatal mistake, and yet most of us will never win the lottery even once (which, probabilistically speaking is many million times more likely to happen).
You mean... "God would have created us in such a manner or in a location so as to tolerate the particle flux. In the ocean, for example." Right?
If God created the earth, the sun, and the said charged particles, and the magnetic field, how is this difficult to understand? God didn't have to work within a set of parameters...he created the parameters!
well here is the issue, what anti-virus do you trust on android?
when the claimed anti-virus apps perform worse than a virus, the situation just gets worse.
So many people blindly run anti-virus apps that dont explain what they do...
Given that no known viruses currently exist on android market, I'm not sure what these anti-virus apps do?
Google cannot sit back and watch this issue...
In what world is MS Windows easier to use? Not this one, or the one where Macs are growing faster. Of course Yale is too uppity.
You claim below that it is based on personal preference. Most of the world considers Windows to be easier to use than any alternative.
Macs selling faster...hmmm I have a problem with that. See, mac came out before windows...and windows has like 90% of the desktop market...which by definition means windows sells a LOT more over shorter time...which means windows sells faster. Maybe the iphone/ipad craziness has turned that around a little nowadays, but lets just wait and see if it leads anywhere.
The original post complained that some things were not logical or not intuitive.
And I stated those were matters of personal preference. Do you have scientific studies showing one GUI is better than others? Or are you letting your emotions dictate your reactions?
Your post didn't confirm anything about it being personal preference, and neither did the parent post deny that. You may have felt it was implicit, but I disagree.
I agree it is about preference...but that wasn't the point of either of the previous posts.
The guy is a high-profile "celebrity", so the media will follow him around just like they do any other celebrity.
"It comes with the job" is all I'm saying.
shopping on an app store that contains infected apps is not a guarantee that your phone will get malware on it.
The golden rule is "dont download apps you dont trust".
that said, it would make me wary of anything on those alternative stores...
The walled garden is not perfect either (how could it be?).
I believe there is a happy medium...and Google would do well to find a solution to this problem before we all require anti-virus apps on our android phones.
They went after something like the windows model, but surely we dont want to copy ALL of it...
I'm sorry, in what world does "I am so used to OSX I dont notice myself doing this thing and so it is easy" become an answer to "new users will find this difficult and unintuitive"??
The original post complained that some things were not logical or not intuitive.
So explaining why they work for you because you've always done it that way, is not actually a valid response. You didn't address any of the issues, except to say that if you do it enough it becomes habit. If you use this line of argument, then there is no such thing as a bad UI.