The more power people have, the more they'll use it and sometimes they'll use it for bad things.
The more expression people have, the more they'll express and sometimes they'll say fraudulent things.
There. Can we now stop treating it as big news every damn time it happens with every damn trivial variation, have the debates one last time, and then agree that we need to kill humanity in order to save it?
That sounds like a reason to not care about the contents of the video. It doesn't sound like a good reason to make it a crime to record the video. Sure, you might say the purpose of the video is to spread propaganda that food isn't food, but propaganda shouldn't be a crime, even if you think it's bullshit.
It's batshit insane (well, no, actually just plain corrupt) that such a bill is even seriously considered.
Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone??
No reason, except that the fact that you bought an iPhone, is itself a statement that you desire electronics which serve other parties' interests in preference to your own.
The reminds me of peoples' complaints about Windows. A Windows 3.0 user probably deserves to be cut some slack when he bitches about it. Maybe an iPhone 1.0 user does too. But surely at some point, when certain properties of the platform are well-known (and arguable indirectly even parts of its marketing), people who buy it are implicitly consenting to -- nay, even choosing -- those properties.
iPhones consider the users' desires to be of secondary importance to certain other things. You know this before you buy one. You know that you are not allowed to run certain types of applications if Apple or Apple's partners feel is it contrary to their interests for you to do that.
If that sounds bad, one way people look at it (which I think is horrible but I sort of see the point of view), is that your impulsive desires may conflict with your rational interests. (If Apple were to allow you to make a VoIP call over a certain cell network whose contracts with users prohibit that, that would eventually get the users in trouble with that provider, or otherwise result in the provider increasing their rates. If Apple were to allow you to use your camera in theaters, the theater might call the cops on you.) By denying you the capability to offend other parties, they're keeping you out of conflict.
(You must remember that we have always been at war with Eurasia. If you sometimes mistakenly feel an impulse to claim otherwise, isn't it in the interests of truth and accuracy that your mistake be censored, until you have time to catch it yourself? It's really for your own good that you have someone helping you do what you really want.)
But whether this way of looking at it makes sense or not (I think it's disgusting), you know that the device is hostile to your desires (if not hostile to your ultimate interests of getting along with others). If you buy it anyway, then you're actively taking a postition in favor of that behavior. Claiming ignorance of this property of iPhones, is like claiming ignorance of Windows' friendliness to malware.
If someone says they don't know that iPhones have this sort of relationship with their users, I find that far-fetched, but I guess I can't contradict what someone else claims to have in their head. But let's get serious: how many more years of this, before it is reasonable to expect people to be aware, and call them careless and negligent (rather than innocent victims) if they continue to maintain they don't know? We eventually need to draw a line.
So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?
They will not be preventing the general public from recording them; they will be preventing Apple customers from recording them, thereby keeping cops from feeling like they have to go over to the Apple customer and beat them too and stomp on their phone. This means that if you buy Apple products, you will have a more harmonious relationship with authorities. (I don't know whether to put a smiley after that last sentence or not, as I'm being both sarcastic and sincere at the same time.)
This smells like another ARexx port, D-Bus, RMI/COM/CORBA, etc, just Android's version of it. My guess is that Google's trying to encourage people to think more broadly, to include hardware, rather than just talking to Amarok or a spreadsheet, because if hardware is involved, then more companies see the potential to make a buck.
I think toggling light bulbs is being mentioned just as an extremely simple example application, and people are taking it too seriously. OTOH at least there's someone out there to sell you the expens-- I mean -- nifty light bulbs. If people just keep thinking in terms of software, then we get more "Mythmote" type apps which are kind of "neat" but almost nobody's selling the other side of it, so no one is advertising that they sell products that talk the protocol. No money for Google and no buzz. Software is free, so it's not advertised much, thus Google wants people to think of hardware applications for this Yet-Another-Remote-Method-Call thing.
Any hardware that has "controls" on it, is something I think they're going to encourage you to make network-controllable. Honestly, I'm kind of drawing a blank on what all that might be, other than light bulbs and appliances that traditionally use remote controls (e.g. TVs), but I'm hardly the most creative person. Surely there are other possibilities and they're trying to get peoples' imaginations going. Whether or not they all end up being useful applications -- who cares?
If all your other (wall-mounted, not battery-powered) control panels are dead because of lack of power, then your lights are going to be off anyway.
Unless they're skylights and it's daytime. Now that would suck: it's daytime and the power's out and it's too bright, and you can't send the command to the electric motors to close the skylight shutters, not that the electric motors would work anyway. You'll have to get your ladder and climb up there and handcrank them closed.. but then it'll be too dark and you'll fall off your ladder and die.
And it'll be Google's fault you're dead, because the reason the power's out is that their datacenter drew too much power trying to figure out to whom to show light bulb ads.
BBC isn't going to report on your mayor, city council, governor, or state legislature. Up from there, maybe they've got your back, but there's still a gap.
Think back to when you were a kid and your parents dropped you off at the library
Um, I think what I did was pretty quickly wander out of the kids section, because the books in that area were boring. If a kid wants to read Peter Benchley stories about sharks or eels, they will. (Er, at least that was my thing at the time. Person next to me was into knights and dragons, also not in kids section.)
It's such a silly assumption, that I don't know why anyone other than a Science Fiction author would bother with the mental exercise of answering your question about that other universe.
Fred wants steel to make his railroad, in order to transport cargo from NY to LA. Joe has a steel mill. Alas, Fred and Joe don't know about each other, so the cargo stays in NY.
What a great example. That's exactly the kind of business where someone is likely to be thinking in terms of "I'll try it out, if it's cheap" and there's virtually nothing you can say, or people can read, ahead of time that'll convince them they're going to like it. Trying it is the only way.
Then maybe you hook 'em, maybe you don't. And virtually no marginal cost even if you don't.
Groupon itself may be a bad business, but here's a case where the basic idea really does make sense.
Perhaps you could reduce the risk to the consumer by standing behind your product instead of offering a coupon....
In this scenario, the premise is that the customer doesn't know anything about you yet. It is impossible to credibly offer them anything in terms of having a good product, "standing behind the product" or whatever, even if that's really what you offer. From a buyers' point of view, it is a totally legitimate strategy (even if it's not always the best strategy) to manage risk by simply looking at how much money comes out of their wallet, while assuming a worst-case scenario that they'll receive nothing of real value in exchange for that money.
If you believe that potential customers are running this strategy, then coupons are a good way to work with them. And some potential customers probably are running it, even if part time.
Here's where it gets iffy: the premise is that the customer knows nothing, but for the types of businesses that typically use half-price coupons -- RESTAURANTS!! -- looking up reviews is just as easy as buying the coupons. Once someone starts reading reviews, the premise is violated and the customer is no longer running this strategy, so selling discount coupons is probably not a winning move. If someone goes to the trouble to buy a restaurant coupon, I think they've likely already gone to the trouble to read reviews, so they've already made up their mind that they think they're going to like the food, and buying the coupons is more about merely saving money (i.e. denying you revenue) than managing risk.
Another iffy thing is: do people use that strategy on, say, coffee shops? I don't think I have ever got a bad cup of coffee at any coffee shop. When I go to a coffee shop, I only worry about my expenses; I'm never worried about what I'm going to get for that expense. Coffee is too easy; nobody fucks it up.
Maybe it makes sense for a limited time for absolutely new restaurants (provided the product is fuck-up-able), and I can see how it would make sense for other types of businesses, where customers aren't in the habit of researching prior to transacting.
Just in case someone really believes it's not a fact...
I work for "the media" and receive emails from my city's police department.. oh, every couple weeks.. telling me exactly when they're going to have a checkpoint and in what neighborhood. Really. These are emails from the police, days in advance. I don't know if this includes every DUI checkpoint, though it might.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that if they didn't do this, the checkpoints would would be illegal (or "more" illegal in some people's view). If the public (theoretically) knows where the checkpoints are, then people must be "choosing" to drive to those checkpoints, rather than getting randomly searched for no reason. At least I think that's the logic. But the notices directly from the police are very real.
You know how Bart Simpson tells his sister Lisa that he's going to swing his arms around and if she gets hit, it's her fault? And then he does it? Something like that.
I don't see the objection to having Apple, Google etc block apps which have no purpose other than letting people drink-drive.
That's not what people are objecting to. They object to apps being blocked, which have the purpose of letting people know where checkpoints are.
This kind of thing is just like DRM: it's impossible for a computer to know why a user wants something, so a computer that always prohibits certain generic activities, is always going to be making mistakes.
If your computer is constantly making mistakes to your advantage (e.g. alerts you about checkpoints at times when you happen to be drunk, allows you to copy something for which you intend to infringe copyright), you (the owner of the computer) don't care. That computer is still just as useful to you.
If your computer is constantly making mistakes to your disadvantage (e.g. refuses to alert you about checkpoints when you're sober, refuse to let you copy something for which you're not going to infringe copyright), then it's time to get a different computer that is more user-friendly.
But one way or another, "constantly making mistakes" is guaranteed to happen, until some sort of AI revolution that puts two opposing lawyers and a judge inside of each device.
Microformats don't extend HTML or add any new attributes. With a few minor exceptions, all microformats do is say that your class names are not merely abstract symbols -- that the actual character strings that you use, convey meaning. Prior to just a few years ago, a browser or spider sees <span class="foo"> and <span class="review" > as being the same thing, because "foo" and "review" are just names. It's just like how it doesn't matter whether you name a variable i or x in a computer program (shut up, Fortran IV programmers, I'm not talking to you).
Of course, when a human rather than a computer is reading things, suddenly class names (and variable names) do matter. Microformats come along and say let's let computers also infer meaning from the attribute values that we use.
The advantage of this, is that you don't have to learn anything fancy; your 1990s HTML knowledge (and tools, maybe) is still all you need. And it's very simple.
The disadvantage is that some things and relationships are hard to express by merely naming them. So RDFa and microdata came along and actually added some new attributes that HTML guys might not normally be very familiar with, and some rules for how to structure things. Microdata is more expressive than microformats, but also a little more complicated.
My bitch isn't that microdata is stupid; it's that it doesn't really solve anything that RDFa didn't already solve just as well, and RDFa is already very widely deployed. Changing from microformats to microdata or RDFa isn't necessarily gratuitous (though in many cases it could be), but changing from RDFa to microdata (or vice-versa, I'll admit) is. This is purely wasteful, offering nothing. Thus, I hate.
If the KZ government wants certain conditions for hosts whose names are in the.kz domain, this isn't somethiing Google can work around with redirects. It's KZ's namespace and if they don't like google.kz redirecting to get around their law's intent, then Google won't have google.kz to redirect from for very long.
OTOH there isn't any reason at all, that Google should give a rat's ass. If they want to market to KZ citizens, they don't need a.kz domain.
Both sides simultaneously win and lose, to no effect. So: who cares?
I am a whore and have to do whatever the big guys say, because I want their traffic. Ok, so I admit it.
But dammit, did it have to be microdata? I already mark up with microformat classes and RDFa (both the sortof standardized namespaces and Google's) and Google was handling it pretty well, and every once in a while it looked like Yahoo grokked it too. Microdata was the ugly stepchild third choice, the least well-supported one, with the fewest number of parsers out there in the wild.. So I left that one out, because nobody cared. Now it's going to be The One?
I have better things to do than add Yet Another fucking attribute to my generated HTML which is already bloated with otherwise unnecessary classes and properties and typeofs. Now I'm going to have itemscope and itemtype attributes too, huh? Just how many characters long can we make each element become, just so that everything can make sense of it? Fuck you guys. No seriously, fuck you. Yes, I'm going to do it anyway, but even so, fuck you.
Skype user interface doesn't have any place where you enter/verify the key fingerprints of the person you're talking to. The other identity seems to have always been magically introduced to you, apparently by the one single universe-wide trusted authority, and coincidentally..
..Skype has made deals with certain governments to allow them to monitor their citizens' phone calls.
(All being things which don't happen in a p2p system, unless at least some vital part of it isn't p2p.)
Look at the evidence and decide. I'd say look at the source, but Skype doesn't give you that. That's right folks, they don't allow security auditing for -- no, not a game.. no, not a 3d driver -- a communications tool. I am struggling to think of a class of applications (which aren't specialized for certain industries, like nuclear, medical, aviation, etc -- I mean stuff used by "regular people") where that's more necessary.
if i were going to design a full featured application i wouldn't choose javascript
Nobody would.
Javascript is adequate. I am never going to complain that Javascript somehow keeps me from doing my job. I can do anything in Javascript. I have bigger fish to fry and the need to occasionally write Javascript doesn't make the list of my "real" problems.
But Javascript sucks. It is wrong. I would rather program in PHP (!) than Javascript. (Maybe even perl? Well, no. I would rather program in Javascript than perl.) But anyway: Classes. Prototypes are lame. Anyone who starts a new project involving Javascript in any situation other than running in a web browser, is totally fucked in the head. Someone has so many choices and they pick Javascript? Please. Yes, it can function as a general-purpose programming language, but it's not one, and it is very sad that the world is possibly going to be forever burdened by it.
Damn you, Netscape. You may end up being a longer-lasting plague than Microsoft.
why not use the app as the author intended or else find some other app that conforms more to your expectations ?
Those are two options, and sometimes, selecting one of them is the best thing to do. And other times, a third option (using the app as the author didn't intend) is the best thing to do.
A good computer will recognize that sometimes the owner's interests conflict with
other parties' interests
random fate
and will always take the owner's side in this conflict.
A lot of it is probably insurance. Nobody really wants to be liable for the costs of a solar spill.
And then there's the extra construction cost, due to the workers all having to wear SPF 5000 sunscreen. Extra security, because of all the monotheists who will be protesting the false god Apollo. Fuel costs. MirrorUniverseWalls. You can't imagine all the expensive problems involved in a project like this.
It sounds like they don't know that "add" includes "set."
Granddaddy used to drive his car to the store, and couldn't understand that certifying a request to schedule an airshuttle pickup was just a simpler way of accomplishing the same goal. Old people are so stupid!
Yes, the whole Apple culture/worldview/aura is very L. Ron Hubbardesque.
Um, but just to get a little serious for a minute here... Jobs hasn't said it's perfectly fine to kill people who give Apple products negative reviews. (Steve Ballmer, OTOH, might have the right attitude, but doesn't have the manipulative talent.)
Comparing brands to religions is fine, but comparing them even some of the craziest ones to Scientology, is still a bit of a stretch. There's evil as in bland suckiness that you can trivially opt out of, and then there's evil as in a guy posing in black armor, holding out his fist and meeting your gaze with an intense stare, while muttering something about awesome power that will crush all those who defy him. Jobs isn't in Hubbard's league yet.
Slashdot Mirror
The more power people have, the more they'll use it and sometimes they'll use it for bad things.
The more expression people have, the more they'll express and sometimes they'll say fraudulent things.
There. Can we now stop treating it as big news every damn time it happens with every damn trivial variation, have the debates one last time, and then agree that we need to kill humanity in order to save it?
That sounds like a reason to not care about the contents of the video. It doesn't sound like a good reason to make it a crime to record the video. Sure, you might say the purpose of the video is to spread propaganda that food isn't food, but propaganda shouldn't be a crime, even if you think it's bullshit.
It's batshit insane (well, no, actually just plain corrupt) that such a bill is even seriously considered.
No reason, except that the fact that you bought an iPhone, is itself a statement that you desire electronics which serve other parties' interests in preference to your own.
The reminds me of peoples' complaints about Windows. A Windows 3.0 user probably deserves to be cut some slack when he bitches about it. Maybe an iPhone 1.0 user does too. But surely at some point, when certain properties of the platform are well-known (and arguable indirectly even parts of its marketing), people who buy it are implicitly consenting to -- nay, even choosing -- those properties.
iPhones consider the users' desires to be of secondary importance to certain other things. You know this before you buy one. You know that you are not allowed to run certain types of applications if Apple or Apple's partners feel is it contrary to their interests for you to do that.
If that sounds bad, one way people look at it (which I think is horrible but I sort of see the point of view), is that your impulsive desires may conflict with your rational interests. (If Apple were to allow you to make a VoIP call over a certain cell network whose contracts with users prohibit that, that would eventually get the users in trouble with that provider, or otherwise result in the provider increasing their rates. If Apple were to allow you to use your camera in theaters, the theater might call the cops on you.) By denying you the capability to offend other parties, they're keeping you out of conflict.
(You must remember that we have always been at war with Eurasia. If you sometimes mistakenly feel an impulse to claim otherwise, isn't it in the interests of truth and accuracy that your mistake be censored, until you have time to catch it yourself? It's really for your own good that you have someone helping you do what you really want.)
But whether this way of looking at it makes sense or not (I think it's disgusting), you know that the device is hostile to your desires (if not hostile to your ultimate interests of getting along with others). If you buy it anyway, then you're actively taking a postition in favor of that behavior. Claiming ignorance of this property of iPhones, is like claiming ignorance of Windows' friendliness to malware.
If someone says they don't know that iPhones have this sort of relationship with their users, I find that far-fetched, but I guess I can't contradict what someone else claims to have in their head. But let's get serious: how many more years of this, before it is reasonable to expect people to be aware, and call them careless and negligent (rather than innocent victims) if they continue to maintain they don't know? We eventually need to draw a line.
They will not be preventing the general public from recording them; they will be preventing Apple customers from recording them, thereby keeping cops from feeling like they have to go over to the Apple customer and beat them too and stomp on their phone. This means that if you buy Apple products, you will have a more harmonious relationship with authorities. (I don't know whether to put a smiley after that last sentence or not, as I'm being both sarcastic and sincere at the same time.)
This smells like another ARexx port, D-Bus, RMI/COM/CORBA, etc, just Android's version of it. My guess is that Google's trying to encourage people to think more broadly, to include hardware, rather than just talking to Amarok or a spreadsheet, because if hardware is involved, then more companies see the potential to make a buck.
I think toggling light bulbs is being mentioned just as an extremely simple example application, and people are taking it too seriously. OTOH at least there's someone out there to sell you the expens-- I mean -- nifty light bulbs. If people just keep thinking in terms of software, then we get more "Mythmote" type apps which are kind of "neat" but almost nobody's selling the other side of it, so no one is advertising that they sell products that talk the protocol. No money for Google and no buzz. Software is free, so it's not advertised much, thus Google wants people to think of hardware applications for this Yet-Another-Remote-Method-Call thing.
Any hardware that has "controls" on it, is something I think they're going to encourage you to make network-controllable. Honestly, I'm kind of drawing a blank on what all that might be, other than light bulbs and appliances that traditionally use remote controls (e.g. TVs), but I'm hardly the most creative person. Surely there are other possibilities and they're trying to get peoples' imaginations going. Whether or not they all end up being useful applications -- who cares?
If all your other (wall-mounted, not battery-powered) control panels are dead because of lack of power, then your lights are going to be off anyway.
Unless they're skylights and it's daytime. Now that would suck: it's daytime and the power's out and it's too bright, and you can't send the command to the electric motors to close the skylight shutters, not that the electric motors would work anyway. You'll have to get your ladder and climb up there and handcrank them closed .. but then it'll be too dark and you'll fall off your ladder and die.
And it'll be Google's fault you're dead, because the reason the power's out is that their datacenter drew too much power trying to figure out to whom to show light bulb ads.
BBC isn't going to report on your mayor, city council, governor, or state legislature. Up from there, maybe they've got your back, but there's still a gap.
Um, I think what I did was pretty quickly wander out of the kids section, because the books in that area were boring. If a kid wants to read Peter Benchley stories about sharks or eels, they will. (Er, at least that was my thing at the time. Person next to me was into knights and dragons, also not in kids section.)
It's such a silly assumption, that I don't know why anyone other than a Science Fiction author would bother with the mental exercise of answering your question about that other universe.
Fred wants steel to make his railroad, in order to transport cargo from NY to LA. Joe has a steel mill. Alas, Fred and Joe don't know about each other, so the cargo stays in NY.
What a great example. That's exactly the kind of business where someone is likely to be thinking in terms of "I'll try it out, if it's cheap" and there's virtually nothing you can say, or people can read, ahead of time that'll convince them they're going to like it. Trying it is the only way.
Then maybe you hook 'em, maybe you don't. And virtually no marginal cost even if you don't.
Groupon itself may be a bad business, but here's a case where the basic idea really does make sense.
In this scenario, the premise is that the customer doesn't know anything about you yet. It is impossible to credibly offer them anything in terms of having a good product, "standing behind the product" or whatever, even if that's really what you offer. From a buyers' point of view, it is a totally legitimate strategy (even if it's not always the best strategy) to manage risk by simply looking at how much money comes out of their wallet, while assuming a worst-case scenario that they'll receive nothing of real value in exchange for that money.
If you believe that potential customers are running this strategy, then coupons are a good way to work with them. And some potential customers probably are running it, even if part time.
Here's where it gets iffy: the premise is that the customer knows nothing, but for the types of businesses that typically use half-price coupons -- RESTAURANTS!! -- looking up reviews is just as easy as buying the coupons. Once someone starts reading reviews, the premise is violated and the customer is no longer running this strategy, so selling discount coupons is probably not a winning move. If someone goes to the trouble to buy a restaurant coupon, I think they've likely already gone to the trouble to read reviews, so they've already made up their mind that they think they're going to like the food, and buying the coupons is more about merely saving money (i.e. denying you revenue) than managing risk.
Another iffy thing is: do people use that strategy on, say, coffee shops? I don't think I have ever got a bad cup of coffee at any coffee shop. When I go to a coffee shop, I only worry about my expenses; I'm never worried about what I'm going to get for that expense. Coffee is too easy; nobody fucks it up.
Maybe it makes sense for a limited time for absolutely new restaurants (provided the product is fuck-up-able), and I can see how it would make sense for other types of businesses, where customers aren't in the habit of researching prior to transacting.
Just in case someone really believes it's not a fact...
I work for "the media" and receive emails from my city's police department .. oh, every couple weeks .. telling me exactly when they're going to have a checkpoint and in what neighborhood. Really. These are emails from the police, days in advance. I don't know if this includes every DUI checkpoint, though it might.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that if they didn't do this, the checkpoints would would be illegal (or "more" illegal in some people's view). If the public (theoretically) knows where the checkpoints are, then people must be "choosing" to drive to those checkpoints, rather than getting randomly searched for no reason. At least I think that's the logic. But the notices directly from the police are very real.
You know how Bart Simpson tells his sister Lisa that he's going to swing his arms around and if she gets hit, it's her fault? And then he does it? Something like that.
That's not what people are objecting to. They object to apps being blocked, which have the purpose of letting people know where checkpoints are.
This kind of thing is just like DRM: it's impossible for a computer to know why a user wants something, so a computer that always prohibits certain generic activities, is always going to be making mistakes.
If your computer is constantly making mistakes to your advantage (e.g. alerts you about checkpoints at times when you happen to be drunk, allows you to copy something for which you intend to infringe copyright), you (the owner of the computer) don't care. That computer is still just as useful to you.
If your computer is constantly making mistakes to your disadvantage (e.g. refuses to alert you about checkpoints when you're sober, refuse to let you copy something for which you're not going to infringe copyright), then it's time to get a different computer that is more user-friendly.
But one way or another, "constantly making mistakes" is guaranteed to happen, until some sort of AI revolution that puts two opposing lawyers and a judge inside of each device.
Microformats don't extend HTML or add any new attributes. With a few minor exceptions, all microformats do is say that your class names are not merely abstract symbols -- that the actual character strings that you use, convey meaning. Prior to just a few years ago, a browser or spider sees <span class="foo"> and <span class="review" > as being the same thing, because "foo" and "review" are just names. It's just like how it doesn't matter whether you name a variable i or x in a computer program (shut up, Fortran IV programmers, I'm not talking to you).
Of course, when a human rather than a computer is reading things, suddenly class names (and variable names) do matter. Microformats come along and say let's let computers also infer meaning from the attribute values that we use.
The advantage of this, is that you don't have to learn anything fancy; your 1990s HTML knowledge (and tools, maybe) is still all you need. And it's very simple.
The disadvantage is that some things and relationships are hard to express by merely naming them. So RDFa and microdata came along and actually added some new attributes that HTML guys might not normally be very familiar with, and some rules for how to structure things. Microdata is more expressive than microformats, but also a little more complicated.
My bitch isn't that microdata is stupid; it's that it doesn't really solve anything that RDFa didn't already solve just as well, and RDFa is already very widely deployed. Changing from microformats to microdata or RDFa isn't necessarily gratuitous (though in many cases it could be), but changing from RDFa to microdata (or vice-versa, I'll admit) is. This is purely wasteful, offering nothing. Thus, I hate.
If the KZ government wants certain conditions for hosts whose names are in the .kz domain, this isn't somethiing Google can work around with redirects. It's KZ's namespace and if they don't like google.kz redirecting to get around their law's intent, then Google won't have google.kz to redirect from for very long.
OTOH there isn't any reason at all, that Google should give a rat's ass. If they want to market to KZ citizens, they don't need a .kz domain.
Both sides simultaneously win and lose, to no effect. So: who cares?
What does a person with godly powers need a government-granted monopoly?
Ouch! Damn, that's cold.
I am a whore and have to do whatever the big guys say, because I want their traffic. Ok, so I admit it.
But dammit, did it have to be microdata? I already mark up with microformat classes and RDFa (both the sortof standardized namespaces and Google's) and Google was handling it pretty well, and every once in a while it looked like Yahoo grokked it too. Microdata was the ugly stepchild third choice, the least well-supported one, with the fewest number of parsers out there in the wild.. So I left that one out, because nobody cared. Now it's going to be The One?
I have better things to do than add Yet Another fucking attribute to my generated HTML which is already bloated with otherwise unnecessary classes and properties and typeofs. Now I'm going to have itemscope and itemtype attributes too, huh? Just how many characters long can we make each element become, just so that everything can make sense of it? Fuck you guys. No seriously, fuck you. Yes, I'm going to do it anyway, but even so, fuck you.
Best Penrose argument summary ever.
The evidence for it being p2p is:
The evidence against it being p2p is:
(All being things which don't happen in a p2p system, unless at least some vital part of it isn't p2p.)
Look at the evidence and decide. I'd say look at the source, but Skype doesn't give you that. That's right folks, they don't allow security auditing for -- no, not a game .. no, not a 3d driver -- a communications tool. I am struggling to think of a class of applications (which aren't specialized for certain industries, like nuclear, medical, aviation, etc -- I mean stuff used by "regular people") where that's more necessary.
Nobody would.
Javascript is adequate. I am never going to complain that Javascript somehow keeps me from doing my job. I can do anything in Javascript. I have bigger fish to fry and the need to occasionally write Javascript doesn't make the list of my "real" problems.
But Javascript sucks. It is wrong. I would rather program in PHP (!) than Javascript. (Maybe even perl? Well, no. I would rather program in Javascript than perl.) But anyway: Classes. Prototypes are lame. Anyone who starts a new project involving Javascript in any situation other than running in a web browser, is totally fucked in the head. Someone has so many choices and they pick Javascript? Please. Yes, it can function as a general-purpose programming language, but it's not one, and it is very sad that the world is possibly going to be forever burdened by it.
Damn you, Netscape. You may end up being a longer-lasting plague than Microsoft.
Those are two options, and sometimes, selecting one of them is the best thing to do. And other times, a third option (using the app as the author didn't intend) is the best thing to do.
A good computer will recognize that sometimes the owner's interests conflict with
and will always take the owner's side in this conflict.
A lot of it is probably insurance. Nobody really wants to be liable for the costs of a solar spill.
And then there's the extra construction cost, due to the workers all having to wear SPF 5000 sunscreen. Extra security, because of all the monotheists who will be protesting the false god Apollo. Fuel costs. MirrorUniverseWalls. You can't imagine all the expensive problems involved in a project like this.
It sounds like they don't know that "add" includes "set."
Granddaddy used to drive his car to the store, and couldn't understand that certifying a request to schedule an airshuttle pickup was just a simpler way of accomplishing the same goal. Old people are so stupid!
Get your reason out of my fantasy!
Um, but just to get a little serious for a minute here... Jobs hasn't said it's perfectly fine to kill people who give Apple products negative reviews. (Steve Ballmer, OTOH, might have the right attitude, but doesn't have the manipulative talent.)
Comparing brands to religions is fine, but comparing them even some of the craziest ones to Scientology, is still a bit of a stretch. There's evil as in bland suckiness that you can trivially opt out of, and then there's evil as in a guy posing in black armor, holding out his fist and meeting your gaze with an intense stare, while muttering something about awesome power that will crush all those who defy him. Jobs isn't in Hubbard's league yet.