This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.
> You can't copyright or patent a programming languges or an API, your making up shit.
Wish he were. That is indeed the current line of attack in the Oracle vs. Google lawfare. Common sense says they can't do that but law != common sense and hasn't for decades, too much progressive thought codified in precedent including the obsession with precedent over the original written laws.
> That depends on if you expect Apple's record-breaking growth to continue or to taper off.
It must. If you don't believe they have a shot at overtaking Microsoft on the desktop it will slow pretty soon now. And if you assume Google and the hordes of clones will supplant iOS in exactly the same way the hordes unleased by Compaq's cloning of the IBM PC doomed both IBM and Apple to Microsoft's domination back in the day then their growth curve is probably close to max right now. But even if both assumptions are incorrect they will not be able to maintain their current growth a whole decade because at current growth rates they will be bigger than the entire PC, tablet and smartphone ecosystems before then and that isn't probable if ya know what I mean.
> But I agree--it's hard to see Objective-C as the most popular language.
Same here, even if Apple remains a dominating influence. Because HTML5 + Javascript is the future on damned near everything with a GUI. Bleh.
Could that be because a) everybody then was wanting nuke power for electricity and b) because the regime at the time wasn't doing daily choruses of "Death to America!"
With the current rulers and their current production levels of natural gas and oil paired against the current costs of electricity from nuke the claim isn't very plausible. Then combine with the reasonable suspicion that they are desperate for a bomb and their clearly stated hostility to us and our various interests and we would be fools to allow them to succeed. WHen the circumstances change over time it is totally reasonable and consistent for our position to change. Unfortunately we currently have either a fool or a knave in charge here so they will probably have a bomb and we will have to cope. Have a terrible suspicion millions will die because the American people allowed themselves to be duped by the media in '08. (And the Stupid Party putting up the weakest candidate in a generation, never forget that part... especially as they appear desperate to repeat the mistake with the second weakest candidate in a generation.)
Dude, is your brain a 6502? (Ripping on your nick.) Get an upgrade, cuz you can't think too good with that pokey old thing.
Iran is no threat? The country where they all come together and shout "Death to America" every single day? For over thirty years and counting? And you paultards want to let em have nukes? Those guys might be crazy enough to use em straight up in a first strike. And ya can't even say that about the Norks so I'd say that puts em in a special category of their own.
Now back on topic, nobody gives a rats ass about India rattling a saber at China because:
a) India is a stable country with almost zero chance of launching a first strike.
b) India has been launching stuff into space for years already. If you would upgrade yer brain to at least a 6809 you could figure out that any launcher that can put up a geostationary sat is more than capable of being repurposed to deliver atomic greetings anywhere on earth. So their explicitly demoing one labeled as a missle was purely public relations.
> Surely this is a "go back into the trees" type comment, if Ernest Rutherford had thought that way > back at Manchester University we probably wouldn't have nuclear power at all.
Not at all. EVERYTHING is a tradeoff. There ain't no shipstones likely to become available anytime soon. Fusion will likely be a major step forward but not without issues. We can already state with a high level of confidence that at a minimum it will leave super hot containment vessels behind to dispose of every so often. Nature of the beast, turn that many hot neutrons loose around metal and you get interesting isotopes. Better than dealing with fision reactors? Yup. Free lunch? Nope.
> Fukushima has cost Japan a hell of a lot and it's still early days in term...
Isn't it nice how some folks obsess over the reactor in Fukushima and totally forget the trillon or so in 'normal' damage suffered during the same earthquake and then want to attribute almost all of the losses to the nuke part. Japan got it's ass kicked, the reactor meltdown was only a minor part of their problems that horrible day. But being Japanese they have bounced back from most of the rest of it; they buried their dead, cleared the debris away and are getting on with rebuilding. Also being Japanese this incident appears to have increased their existing fear of the N word over their normal practicalility regarding the need to have electricity to power their civilization.
> Also: where did you read the nonsense about "tiny amounts"?
There was no major breach. The Japanese build a lot better than the Russians so there isn't going to be a huge no man's land that will be required to be maintained for generations around the site. Some nasty stuff managed to outgas, some 'hot' water leaked and so yes there are some hotspots to deal with because of that. But lets get a grip on reality here. If that was anything like the worst case scenario it was certainly survivable and always remember that this was a first generation reactor that was ran decades beyond its design lifetime because the anticipated replacements got lost in the paperwork created by the very greens who oppose any nukes at all.
In other words, this was an own goal more than a natural disaster. Yelling and hollering about no nukes can convince politicians to snarl up licensing on new plants but barring a disaster on this scale it won't push em to shut down running plants and force everyone to sweat in the summer. So the old plants kept running while politicians and greens preened in front of the cameras. And because they control the media they haven't been forced to answer for their actions.
There isn't a safe method of power generation. And there won't be. No, unicorn farts aren't going to be available someday. Even if fusion, which is fifty years off and has been for the last fifty years, comes along we already know it will also have problems. We all know the problems with fossil fuels and all the 'green' alternatives are flawed in at least one way. So we either accept the risks, doing what is possible to mitigate the worst of them, or declare the whole civilization thing a big mistake and go back into the trees.
Looks like it. Remember guys, fear is the mind killer.
Yes, if a record earthquake whips up a wave nobody could have thought possible hits a land that suddenly sinks a foot or two, AND they make several other mistakes.... then a old first generation nuke plant can have a total failure and what? Leak tiny amounts of radiation?
Suck it up, turn on the frickin' lights and start designing better reactors. Live and learn.
> Considering the assets required to not have the game look like shit at native resolution compared to the low-res Palms, yes.
Oh you 20th Century primitives with your stacks of bitmaps at every possible resolution. Scalable art is where it is at. And it also tends to be smaller than even a single bitmap. But that gets back to my original point, so long as there isn't a price to be paid for being ignorant nobody will bother going to the trouble of changing ways that worked well originally. In the old days throwing a fixed resolution bitmap at the problem was the simple and best solution, and this was adapted to the new problem of multiple resolution displays by simply packing multiple versions of all art because it was the easy fix requiring the least change in thinking. And if it bloats, who cares; yet.
No it isn't. If the average visitor isn't impacted the devels don't care. But if the average user were impacte dthey would. Which is the problem with the concept under discussion. The belief that bloat MUST be therefore there being nothing that can be done we are all doomed to spend ourselves into poverty fighting a problem that will never exist.
Because as soon as it becomes a problem, suddenly the average pageview will suddenly be able to shrink in half without impacting usability at all and if that doesn't do it it can cut in half again with minimal impact. And it isn't just webpages, most everything suffers the same bloating. Does a simple little game that was a 50K download on Palm OS really need to be a 1MB app on Android or iOS? Nope. But because users don't care the developers don't care either. And again, if the first part of that statement changes you can bet yer butt the second one will.
Short version: This is a self correcting non-problem.
> Also being a 'seasoned' developer I'm wondering why not a 'real' language like C
There is a lot to learn about programming. C would require taking on everything all at once and few would survive that. Learn the basics first, then tackle a low level language. It is how almost all oldtimers did it, BASIC then something else. In my case it was assembly, first as speedups for BASIC via usr() then whole programs.
Starting with a shell never hurt anyone, if one is to be a real programmer familiarity with one is a requirement anyway. Give em a copy of the fish.
> Exxon Mobil made $9.25 billion in profit in Q4 2011.
So? THEY made that profit, it didn't come from taxpayers. And they spread economic activity throughout the world while doing it and paid a crapload in taxes. Compare to Apple, 2011 Q4 reporting.... They cleared 13B. Since they make nothing in the US we will ignore cost of goods, since that went directly to China, Inc. That only leaves 3.7B of R&D, sales, advertising, etc. that could have possibly impacted the US economy plus another 4.4B in taxes to feed leviathian.
Exxon on the other hand reported making $10B in capital expenditures in Q4. And check out the 8.4B in sales tax, 10.2B in 'other taxes and duties' along with 8B in income taxes. Now tell me which one is making a bigger difference to the economy at large. Not to mention that without Apple you wouldn't have a iPhone, while without Exxon you wouldn't get to work.
> Indeed. "OOoh! An ASTRONAUT is talking about the climate?!?
Not exactly. Astronauts should however be considered an authority on NASA. They have Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Shuttle astronauts on board with this, get one of the Mercury guys and you would have the complete set. As a rule they are all 'company men' when it comes to NASA, so if they are sounding an alarm you should probably take it serious. They see NASA making a fool of itself and debasing science itself in the process. They want a viable space program, duh astronauts, and are speaking out to prevent the eventual fiasco from setting NASA back even more.
And if they aren't building rockets they should at least be something something related. Research into human factors, sensors, something. No tie in to rockets, planes, astronauts, space and really cool stuff and NASA should not be doing it, period, full stop.
> The only thing worse than what Bush did is what Obama is doing.
And the only thing worse that that is what Obama is going to do after he beats the crap out of Romney and doesn't have to worry about elections anymore.
> Off-topic, but speaking of CNN what is up with scam sites using AS SEEN ON CNN, MSNBC, etc. for stuff?
Trying to make the mark think it is a legit product. They want em to think CNN or MSNBC has done a story about their miracle product. Kinda funny that, scammers are usually at the forefront of trends so they can screw people and they still think anybody still respects either of those brands. MSNBC never had it and the last employee at CNN will be turning the uplink off on the way out any day now.
Only until they can have their own 'keyword'. It has to annoy their PR depts to be giving all that unpaid advertising to Facebook and Twitter by displaying their logos in all of their advertising. Notice how neither facebook or twitter has ever had to spend dollar one on advertising because they can free ride? Ad buyers have noticed, they can't help but notice.
But then I have yet to have anybody explain what CNN or any other large outfit gets out of a facebook or twitter account that an RSS feed wouldn't be a better fit for. Yes, if you are some regular slob it makes sense to use a free account somewhere, but CNN already has an extensive Internet presence, why are they throwing that under the bus and handing out millions in free advertising for Facebook? Never have understood that.
A person or Corporation. Just that would slow things down since filing papers to encorporate is a lot more expensive than registering a domain. I'd like to make wholly owned entitites of another have to use a subdomain of the parent but that would be a paperwork nightmare and in a world where M&A activity is as furious as today it just wouldn't work.
It won't be better this time that when they were AOL Keywords. Guess now every ad will have an "Internet Keyword" on it?
I say we go the opposite direction. Stop new registrations in.com,.net,.org, etc. and drive peopke to the country specific doimains. That gives a big "now STFU!" to the anti-US agitators. who expend endless energy hating 'US domination of the Internet".
Step two, on the.us domain, only allow a entity to register a single domain, requiring them to use subdomains for additional needs.
If Google builds the binary it is Chrome and gets bundled with the special version of the Flash Player. If you build the source it is Chromium and links to the NSPI plugin version of Flash. Kinda like if Moz Corp or someone who has entered into a trademark license agreement builds it you can call it Firefox, otherwise Iceweasel or something else has to get branded onto it.
> it's for Enterprises and Educational institutions.
In other words, wouldn't they be happier with TERMINALS? That is what we are talking about after all, reinvent terminals and centralized computing, the priesthood and all that stuff people snuk in Apple ][ machines all those years ago to escape from? Only instead of VT102 escape codes we are using HTML5 on much more capable terminals. And now there is a cool video by some hipster douche telling us we don't want a computer anymore, we just want to use Google's instead of a blue suited IBM rep selling a mainframe.
But it is the same siren song, users with computers is dangerous, expensive, etc. Let US take all that away... for low monthly payments.
Yea, worst of all worlds. It only runs web apps but few are so totally 100% always on that they are going to be comfortable with that. So now they add a desktop but it has fewer apps than any other possible system and will for a while unless they dump a ton of cash into it. Even Linux (as in a typical Linux/GNU/X distribution) has tons more apps.
The problem is the whole net centrism of Chrome OS. By definition it can't offer anything that any other platform that can run Chrome the browser can't also run. So that means anything developed for Chrome OS also runs everywhere Chrome the browser runs. Which means Chrome the OS, by definition, runs a pure subset of what every other Chrome the browser platform can run. Every other platform gets 100% of Chrome OS's app pool + it's own. And since they were stupid enough to put Intel chips in the machines they don't even get a power/battery life advantage. In fact an ARM based netbook/laptop running Linux + Chromium (Don't think Chrome itself is available on Linux/ARM but the unofficial Chromium almost certainly is.) probably would be a better deal
LA as in Lousiana. LPB as in Louisiana Public Broadcasting. The first station to go all HD around here, because they are flush with cash. The NBC station still does all local material and commercials SD, even commercials produced in HD get double letterboxed into an SD frame and upconverted back to 1080i on the HD stream. Yuck.
These next few years are going to be a nightmare of black bars and fat people. Amazing how many TVs you see using stretch mode... which wouldn't even be exposed in the UI of the average TV if not for a stupid patent pissing fight that kept most TVs from autodetecting the flags in the VBI of DVD content. Grrr.
We have gobs of empty spectrum but transmitters are scarce resources which will be utilized to maximum profit. Picture quality doesn't sell commercials.
> I hope the companies that are doing whitespace crap realize that in the most populous cities they aren't going to have much success.
Big metro areas have good 4G coverage and WiMax. When that isn't enough there is high enough customer density to support microcells. Whitespace on VHF means they might be able to cover us folk in flyover country with wireless broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.
> You can't copyright or patent a programming languges or an API, your making up shit.
Wish he were. That is indeed the current line of attack in the Oracle vs. Google lawfare. Common sense says they can't do that but law != common sense and hasn't for decades, too much progressive thought codified in precedent including the obsession with precedent over the original written laws.
> That depends on if you expect Apple's record-breaking growth to continue or to taper off.
It must. If you don't believe they have a shot at overtaking Microsoft on the desktop it will slow pretty soon now. And if you assume Google and the hordes of clones will supplant iOS in exactly the same way the hordes unleased by Compaq's cloning of the IBM PC doomed both IBM and Apple to Microsoft's domination back in the day then their growth curve is probably close to max right now. But even if both assumptions are incorrect they will not be able to maintain their current growth a whole decade because at current growth rates they will be bigger than the entire PC, tablet and smartphone ecosystems before then and that isn't probable if ya know what I mean.
> But I agree--it's hard to see Objective-C as the most popular language.
Same here, even if Apple remains a dominating influence. Because HTML5 + Javascript is the future on damned near everything with a GUI. Bleh.
> And the USA was SUPPORTING IT.
Could that be because a) everybody then was wanting nuke power for electricity and b) because the regime at the time wasn't doing daily choruses of "Death to America!"
With the current rulers and their current production levels of natural gas and oil paired against the current costs of electricity from nuke the claim isn't very plausible. Then combine with the reasonable suspicion that they are desperate for a bomb and their clearly stated hostility to us and our various interests and we would be fools to allow them to succeed. WHen the circumstances change over time it is totally reasonable and consistent for our position to change. Unfortunately we currently have either a fool or a knave in charge here so they will probably have a bomb and we will have to cope. Have a terrible suspicion millions will die because the American people allowed themselves to be duped by the media in '08. (And the Stupid Party putting up the weakest candidate in a generation, never forget that part... especially as they appear desperate to repeat the mistake with the second weakest candidate in a generation.)
Dude, is your brain a 6502? (Ripping on your nick.) Get an upgrade, cuz you can't think too good with that pokey old thing.
Iran is no threat? The country where they all come together and shout "Death to America" every single day? For over thirty years and counting? And you paultards want to let em have nukes? Those guys might be crazy enough to use em straight up in a first strike. And ya can't even say that about the Norks so I'd say that puts em in a special category of their own.
Now back on topic, nobody gives a rats ass about India rattling a saber at China because:
a) India is a stable country with almost zero chance of launching a first strike.
b) India has been launching stuff into space for years already. If you would upgrade yer brain to at least a 6809 you could figure out that any launcher that can put up a geostationary sat is more than capable of being repurposed to deliver atomic greetings anywhere on earth. So their explicitly demoing one labeled as a missle was purely public relations.
> Surely this is a "go back into the trees" type comment, if Ernest Rutherford had thought that way
> back at Manchester University we probably wouldn't have nuclear power at all.
Not at all. EVERYTHING is a tradeoff. There ain't no shipstones likely to become available anytime soon. Fusion will likely be a major step forward but not without issues. We can already state with a high level of confidence that at a minimum it will leave super hot containment vessels behind to dispose of every so often. Nature of the beast, turn that many hot neutrons loose around metal and you get interesting isotopes. Better than dealing with fision reactors? Yup. Free lunch? Nope.
> Fukushima has cost Japan a hell of a lot and it's still early days in term...
Isn't it nice how some folks obsess over the reactor in Fukushima and totally forget the trillon or so in 'normal' damage suffered during the same earthquake and then want to attribute almost all of the losses to the nuke part. Japan got it's ass kicked, the reactor meltdown was only a minor part of their problems that horrible day. But being Japanese they have bounced back from most of the rest of it; they buried their dead, cleared the debris away and are getting on with rebuilding. Also being Japanese this incident appears to have increased their existing fear of the N word over their normal practicalility regarding the need to have electricity to power their civilization.
> Also: where did you read the nonsense about "tiny amounts"?
There was no major breach. The Japanese build a lot better than the Russians so there isn't going to be a huge no man's land that will be required to be maintained for generations around the site. Some nasty stuff managed to outgas, some 'hot' water leaked and so yes there are some hotspots to deal with because of that. But lets get a grip on reality here. If that was anything like the worst case scenario it was certainly survivable and always remember that this was a first generation reactor that was ran decades beyond its design lifetime because the anticipated replacements got lost in the paperwork created by the very greens who oppose any nukes at all.
In other words, this was an own goal more than a natural disaster. Yelling and hollering about no nukes can convince politicians to snarl up licensing on new plants but barring a disaster on this scale it won't push em to shut down running plants and force everyone to sweat in the summer. So the old plants kept running while politicians and greens preened in front of the cameras. And because they control the media they haven't been forced to answer for their actions.
There isn't a safe method of power generation. And there won't be. No, unicorn farts aren't going to be available someday. Even if fusion, which is fifty years off and has been for the last fifty years, comes along we already know it will also have problems. We all know the problems with fossil fuels and all the 'green' alternatives are flawed in at least one way. So we either accept the risks, doing what is possible to mitigate the worst of them, or declare the whole civilization thing a big mistake and go back into the trees.
> Or are they back into the dark ages now?
Looks like it. Remember guys, fear is the mind killer.
Yes, if a record earthquake whips up a wave nobody could have thought possible hits a land that suddenly sinks a foot or two, AND they make several other mistakes.... then a old first generation nuke plant can have a total failure and what? Leak tiny amounts of radiation?
Suck it up, turn on the frickin' lights and start designing better reactors. Live and learn.
> Considering the assets required to not have the game look like shit at native resolution compared to the low-res Palms, yes.
Oh you 20th Century primitives with your stacks of bitmaps at every possible resolution. Scalable art is where it is at. And it also tends to be smaller than even a single bitmap. But that gets back to my original point, so long as there isn't a price to be paid for being ignorant nobody will bother going to the trouble of changing ways that worked well originally. In the old days throwing a fixed resolution bitmap at the problem was the simple and best solution, and this was adapted to the new problem of multiple resolution displays by simply packing multiple versions of all art because it was the easy fix requiring the least change in thinking. And if it bloats, who cares; yet.
> But it's not just slashdot.
No it isn't. If the average visitor isn't impacted the devels don't care. But if the average user were impacte dthey would. Which is the problem with the concept under discussion. The belief that bloat MUST be therefore there being nothing that can be done we are all doomed to spend ourselves into poverty fighting a problem that will never exist.
Because as soon as it becomes a problem, suddenly the average pageview will suddenly be able to shrink in half without impacting usability at all and if that doesn't do it it can cut in half again with minimal impact. And it isn't just webpages, most everything suffers the same bloating. Does a simple little game that was a 50K download on Palm OS really need to be a 1MB app on Android or iOS? Nope. But because users don't care the developers don't care either. And again, if the first part of that statement changes you can bet yer butt the second one will.
Short version: This is a self correcting non-problem.
> Also being a 'seasoned' developer I'm wondering why not a 'real' language like C
There is a lot to learn about programming. C would require taking on everything all at once and few would survive that. Learn the basics first, then tackle a low level language. It is how almost all oldtimers did it, BASIC then something else. In my case it was assembly, first as speedups for BASIC via usr() then whole programs.
Starting with a shell never hurt anyone, if one is to be a real programmer familiarity with one is a requirement anyway. Give em a copy of the fish.
> Exxon Mobil made $9.25 billion in profit in Q4 2011.
So? THEY made that profit, it didn't come from taxpayers. And they spread economic activity throughout the world while doing it and paid a crapload in taxes. Compare to Apple, 2011 Q4 reporting.... They cleared 13B. Since they make nothing in the US we will ignore cost of goods, since that went directly to China, Inc. That only leaves 3.7B of R&D, sales, advertising, etc. that could have possibly impacted the US economy plus another 4.4B in taxes to feed leviathian.
Exxon on the other hand reported making $10B in capital expenditures in Q4. And check out the 8.4B in sales tax, 10.2B in 'other taxes and duties' along with 8B in income taxes. Now tell me which one is making a bigger difference to the economy at large. Not to mention that without Apple you wouldn't have a iPhone, while without Exxon you wouldn't get to work.
> Indeed. "OOoh! An ASTRONAUT is talking about the climate?!?
Not exactly. Astronauts should however be considered an authority on NASA. They have Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Shuttle astronauts on board with this, get one of the Mercury guys and you would have the complete set. As a rule they are all 'company men' when it comes to NASA, so if they are sounding an alarm you should probably take it serious. They see NASA making a fool of itself and debasing science itself in the process. They want a viable space program, duh astronauts, and are speaking out to prevent the eventual fiasco from setting NASA back even more.
> Anybody who still recites this incident as anything more than a gaffe...
Some of know that in Washington a 'gaffe' is when someone accidentally speaks the truth.
A FUCKEN' MEN DUDE!!!
And if they aren't building rockets they should at least be something something related. Research into human factors, sensors, something. No tie in to rockets, planes, astronauts, space and really cool stuff and NASA should not be doing it, period, full stop.
> The only thing worse than what Bush did is what Obama is doing.
And the only thing worse that that is what Obama is going to do after he beats the crap out of Romney and doesn't have to worry about elections anymore.
> Off-topic, but speaking of CNN what is up with scam sites using AS SEEN ON CNN, MSNBC, etc. for stuff?
Trying to make the mark think it is a legit product. They want em to think CNN or MSNBC has done a story about their miracle product. Kinda funny that, scammers are usually at the forefront of trends so they can screw people and they still think anybody still respects either of those brands. MSNBC never had it and the last employee at CNN will be turning the uplink off on the way out any day now.
"Find us on twitter @" is the new "AOL Keyword".
Only until they can have their own 'keyword'. It has to annoy their PR depts to be giving all that unpaid advertising to Facebook and Twitter by displaying their logos in all of their advertising. Notice how neither facebook or twitter has ever had to spend dollar one on advertising because they can free ride? Ad buyers have noticed, they can't help but notice.
But then I have yet to have anybody explain what CNN or any other large outfit gets out of a facebook or twitter account that an RSS feed wouldn't be a better fit for. Yes, if you are some regular slob it makes sense to use a free account somewhere, but CNN already has an extensive Internet presence, why are they throwing that under the bus and handing out millions in free advertising for Facebook? Never have understood that.
> What constitutes an entity?
A person or Corporation. Just that would slow things down since filing papers to encorporate is a lot more expensive than registering a domain. I'd like to make wholly owned entitites of another have to use a subdomain of the parent but that would be a paperwork nightmare and in a world where M&A activity is as furious as today it just wouldn't work.
It won't be better this time that when they were AOL Keywords. Guess now every ad will have an "Internet Keyword" on it?
I say we go the opposite direction. Stop new registrations in .com, .net, .org, etc. and drive peopke to the country specific doimains. That gives a big "now STFU!" to the anti-US agitators. who expend endless energy hating 'US domination of the Internet".
Step two, on the .us domain, only allow a entity to register a single domain, requiring them to use subdomains for additional needs.
If Google builds the binary it is Chrome and gets bundled with the special version of the Flash Player. If you build the source it is Chromium and links to the NSPI plugin version of Flash. Kinda like if Moz Corp or someone who has entered into a trademark license agreement builds it you can call it Firefox, otherwise Iceweasel or something else has to get branded onto it.
> it's for Enterprises and Educational institutions.
In other words, wouldn't they be happier with TERMINALS? That is what we are talking about after all, reinvent terminals and centralized computing, the priesthood and all that stuff people snuk in Apple ][ machines all those years ago to escape from? Only instead of VT102 escape codes we are using HTML5 on much more capable terminals. And now there is a cool video by some hipster douche telling us we don't want a computer anymore, we just want to use Google's instead of a blue suited IBM rep selling a mainframe.
But it is the same siren song, users with computers is dangerous, expensive, etc. Let US take all that away... for low monthly payments.
Yea, worst of all worlds. It only runs web apps but few are so totally 100% always on that they are going to be comfortable with that. So now they add a desktop but it has fewer apps than any other possible system and will for a while unless they dump a ton of cash into it. Even Linux (as in a typical Linux/GNU/X distribution) has tons more apps.
The problem is the whole net centrism of Chrome OS. By definition it can't offer anything that any other platform that can run Chrome the browser can't also run. So that means anything developed for Chrome OS also runs everywhere Chrome the browser runs. Which means Chrome the OS, by definition, runs a pure subset of what every other Chrome the browser platform can run. Every other platform gets 100% of Chrome OS's app pool + it's own. And since they were stupid enough to put Intel chips in the machines they don't even get a power/battery life advantage. In fact an ARM based netbook/laptop running Linux + Chromium (Don't think Chrome itself is available on Linux/ARM but the unofficial Chromium almost certainly is.) probably would be a better deal
LA as in Lousiana. LPB as in Louisiana Public Broadcasting. The first station to go all HD around here, because they are flush with cash. The NBC station still does all local material and commercials SD, even commercials produced in HD get double letterboxed into an SD frame and upconverted back to 1080i on the HD stream. Yuck.
These next few years are going to be a nightmare of black bars and fat people. Amazing how many TVs you see using stretch mode... which wouldn't even be exposed in the UI of the average TV if not for a stupid patent pissing fight that kept most TVs from autodetecting the flags in the VBI of DVD content. Grrr.
We have gobs of empty spectrum but transmitters are scarce resources which will be utilized to maximum profit. Picture quality doesn't sell commercials.
> I hope the companies that are doing whitespace crap realize that in the most populous cities they aren't going to have much success.
Big metro areas have good 4G coverage and WiMax. When that isn't enough there is high enough customer density to support microcells. Whitespace on VHF means they might be able to cover us folk in flyover country with wireless broadband.