All I can see from the article and comments is that as no standard exists for this type of interaction (the whole labels instead of folders thing) google chose to implement it their own way.
From the article the actual mail standards IMAP or "(shudder POP)", shouldn't be used as "you get a severely compromised experience". Instead google should reverse it's decision to drop active directory support for free users. This seems to be mainly driven by the fact that the mail standards can't handle your contacts or calendars and that they are not "instant" (saw something about PUSH notifications from the server that you got new mail), only folks I know that "need" to get e-mails that fast are businesses (if my family needs my attention that fast I get a call not an e-mail).
This also gets to the paid vs free users, author writes "Google had licensed EAS in 2009 because its enterprise customers demanded it." followed by "Outlook on Windows and on the Mac still has to connect to Gmail via IMAP, and there's no way (short of buying a third-party add-on or paying $50 a year for a Google Apps for Business account) to get all of your Gmail/Google Apps data into Outlook.". Maybe I'm overlooking something but this seems like simple business sense to me, why pay another company to cover your entire user base for a feature that a particular segment of your user base wants? If recieving your e-mail 5 minutes later will cost you that much then spending less than $5 a month sounds like a cheap sacrifice.
I don't particularly care for the current state of affairs, but I find it hard to blame google in this case. They should have gotten their modifications to IMAP standardized, Am I going to hold that against them? Not really, a standard takes allot of time to get finalized and at the end of the day they are a business that needs to keep running in the mean time. Also I find it odd that one one hand the author is bashing google about open standards yet pushing active directory's sync. I'll end with this question, instead of creating active directory sync why didn't microsoft extend IMAP and build a better standard that we could all use?
Given that we are talking about charging ports I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you also think standard electrical plugs should also have been left to the market and are consumer-unfriendly?
I'm not following this argument, what difference does it make who helped invalidate the patent?
Now your competition knows what you are doing (whether they helped invalidate the patent or not) and especially if the patent is denied they can move to mess with your market by releasing a competing product: - The patent application will show them how your proposed device works - The fact that it was denied means you can't sue them for copying.
I think the market of Chinese knock offs showed how effective this tactic is, quality won't have to be sacrificed for a lower price than you on the basis of you have R&D costs to re-coup, they don't.
The end result I can see is companies will only file when they are quite certain that the patent will be issued, which should put an end to the "shotgun" approach we see now.
This is still a very important first step, at the very least if we can reduce the number of new patents at some point the old patents will expire (or be invalidated) and the pools will dry up.
First step of getting yourself out of a hole, stop digging.
Would it really matter if they hid the patent-invalidation activity behind shell companies?
If the end result is a patent that shoundn't be issued ending up not being issued do we really care if its some shell company or the parent?
Businesses will just become batter at tearing down the layers of shell companies to determine who the parent is, assuming they are remotely interested in that information.
Indeed, even if the hard drive contains state secrets could they just keep the hard drive but give you everything else? The donor can decide if to destroy or how they want the data erased (hopefully they can be convinced to just scrub it a whole lot and then give it to you anyway).
Much less wastage that way, eBay has 80GB velociraptors going for $20-30 bucks (yes I know this is overkill), will increase the price of your $50 PC to $80 but I think that's still reasonable.
As a side note to all of this, wouldn't / shouldn't such data be held on a central server and not on the local hard drives of the various office users? I would completely understand treating the server's hard drives differently (at least there should be far fewer of them), but I'm sure the normal user's hard drive isn't protected by raid or something similar (next power fluctuation = bye bye secret documents).
Then can the browser vendors at least look at the fucked up work arounds they had to do to get jquery to even work and fix them?
That way the implementations are at least somewhat consistent? Things are much better than they once were but it still sucks.
My view on the matter is anyone who is criticizing Jquery / Dojo / and is suggesting vanilla javascript is completely ignoring the fact that the reason allot of these frameworks exists is the base implementations are horribly, horribly broken and the effects of a piece of javascript can be inconsistent even within the same browser.
HTML & CSS suffer from the same problem though thankfully to a lesser degree.
Here's a question I would put to you why I would still think electric may make sense outside of France & Sweden.
If I have a gallon of gasoline will I get more energy in the end (include the losses associated with transmission of the electricity) by giving it to a power station or by putting it in someone's car?
I'd hazard a guess the efficiencies gained just by running consistently would be quite large, some existing data on this point would be to compare highway mpg vs the city mpg of a car. The benefits of running at large scales should increase this difference even more. Also my meager understanding is that by law the power station will produce much less emissions per gallon than any car (way the fuel is burnt, much more filtering to remove particles from the output before being released into the air, etc).
I agree with your point that today having everyone move to electric may not make economic sense I guess we are all waiting for that time when it does.
I guess as a supporting argument to your second point (seeing as the case brought up was the state of affairs in the business world), allot of businesses have gone to some sort of CRM almost all of which have a business intelligence module.
Heck, I was recently asked by someone if they should learn "advanced" Excel. I asked them what they wanted to use it for and the response was analysis of sales records, I spent about 10 minutes firing up Access instead and showing them some simple select queries (apparently I blew their mind when they saw what GROUP BY could do). They knew enough excel already to import their Access reports to the appropriate points on the spreadsheet but that was far from "advanced" excel.
IMHO, Excel is a good presentation tool which has some data processing / simple analysis tools (don't NEED to fire up an external too to do a sum on a column) but really shouldn't be used for heavy data analysis. Reason I care about this is now when this employee has really big data to analyze (Its just a matter of time) we can load the data up on one of the servers and point a ODBC connection over to that database instead of Access. If the solution was purely Excel, I've been told by my manager "You should have tried to be more helpful" after telling (a different) employee "I really can't help you, that amount of data won't fit in Excel" (this was pre-2007, but it won't be long before 1 million rows starts becoming a limiting factor).
IMHO, for last mile and some access layer backhaul I think wireless will win out, core backhaul will remain wired.
My reasons: - Once wireless's speeds become "good enough", the focus will be more on reliability and security. - Given that its now near impossible to knock a RC plane out of the sky with interference unless you blanket the entire 2.4 band (while not impossible, still somewhat difficult to do over a wide area, plus tracking down such a large transmission source would be extremely easy and consume allot of power, only really possible for a government).
It will take some time to reach this point so I guess these are medium to long term predictions.
Books I understand, the people who bought iDevices paid a premium fully knowing cheaper "viable" alternatives existed. I don't follow why they should get anything back, those were fully informed decisions.
I think you are arguing something different to GP, you are arguing that the transistor count specified by Moore's Law is increasing, GP is arguing that it doesn't matter as much of today's software is single threaded and hence single threaded performance dominates most PC performance today.
If it didn't then OpenCL / CUDA (heck everyone would be going nuts over a 6 or 8-core and dumping their quad cores, most seem happy with dual-cores) should have blown everyone's mind (It does for some people but most of those are in specialized fields), most software isn't even multi-threaded so sure there may be more transistors but for 90%+ of the tasks a normal computer performs only a fraction are in use at a particular time.
Just so I understand your point, which person is being identified by the wifi cafe's public ip address? Assuming the ISP keeps those type of logs, which person is being identified by the public address given by your ISP?
"Personally Identifiable Information (PII), as used in information security, is information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context" - This is the definition from wikipedia, if you are happy with this definition then all of the above case are quite valid as they fail to identify a single person.
I am aware that the wikipedia page points to a NIST document that identifies ip addresses as PII but a read of the actual NIST document shows the circumstances under which such an conclusion is reached (example 2 on page 22). It revolves around having the equivalent of a domain access system (or at the very least 802.1x) which keeps track of all ips and which users were logged into them at the times which allow ip data to be co-related (typical of an enterprise network). Both NAT and an unlogged DHCP server break those assumptions (even if the DHCP server is logged the mac can still be spoofed, something not easily doable in an enterprise environment).
Slashdot Mirror
All I can see from the article and comments is that as no standard exists for this type of interaction (the whole labels instead of folders thing) google chose to implement it their own way.
From the article the actual mail standards IMAP or "(shudder POP)", shouldn't be used as "you get a severely compromised experience". Instead google should reverse it's decision to drop active directory support for free users. This seems to be mainly driven by the fact that the mail standards can't handle your contacts or calendars and that they are not "instant" (saw something about PUSH notifications from the server that you got new mail), only folks I know that "need" to get e-mails that fast are businesses (if my family needs my attention that fast I get a call not an e-mail).
This also gets to the paid vs free users, author writes "Google had licensed EAS in 2009 because its enterprise customers demanded it." followed by "Outlook on Windows and on the Mac still has to connect to Gmail via IMAP, and there's no way (short of buying a third-party add-on or paying $50 a year for a Google Apps for Business account) to get all of your Gmail/Google Apps data into Outlook.". Maybe I'm overlooking something but this seems like simple business sense to me, why pay another company to cover your entire user base for a feature that a particular segment of your user base wants? If recieving your e-mail 5 minutes later will cost you that much then spending less than $5 a month sounds like a cheap sacrifice.
I don't particularly care for the current state of affairs, but I find it hard to blame google in this case. They should have gotten their modifications to IMAP standardized, Am I going to hold that against them? Not really, a standard takes allot of time to get finalized and at the end of the day they are a business that needs to keep running in the mean time. Also I find it odd that one one hand the author is bashing google about open standards yet pushing active directory's sync. I'll end with this question, instead of creating active directory sync why didn't microsoft extend IMAP and build a better standard that we could all use?
Given that we are talking about charging ports I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you also think standard electrical plugs should also have been left to the market and are consumer-unfriendly?
You've never been in a plane with kids I'm guessing...
Let one of them get bored / cranky and its like a nuclear reaction...
Post to remove moderation
I'm not following this argument, what difference does it make who helped invalidate the patent?
Now your competition knows what you are doing (whether they helped invalidate the patent or not) and especially if the patent is denied they can move to mess with your market by releasing a competing product:
- The patent application will show them how your proposed device works
- The fact that it was denied means you can't sue them for copying.
I think the market of Chinese knock offs showed how effective this tactic is, quality won't have to be sacrificed for a lower price than you on the basis of you have R&D costs to re-coup, they don't.
The end result I can see is companies will only file when they are quite certain that the patent will be issued, which should put an end to the "shotgun" approach we see now.
This is still a very important first step, at the very least if we can reduce the number of new patents at some point the old patents will expire (or be invalidated) and the pools will dry up.
First step of getting yourself out of a hole, stop digging.
Would it really matter if they hid the patent-invalidation activity behind shell companies?
If the end result is a patent that shoundn't be issued ending up not being issued do we really care if its some shell company or the parent?
Businesses will just become batter at tearing down the layers of shell companies to determine who the parent is, assuming they are remotely interested in that information.
Indeed, even if the hard drive contains state secrets could they just keep the hard drive but give you everything else? The donor can decide if to destroy or how they want the data erased (hopefully they can be convinced to just scrub it a whole lot and then give it to you anyway).
Much less wastage that way, eBay has 80GB velociraptors going for $20-30 bucks (yes I know this is overkill), will increase the price of your $50 PC to $80 but I think that's still reasonable.
As a side note to all of this, wouldn't / shouldn't such data be held on a central server and not on the local hard drives of the various office users? I would completely understand treating the server's hard drives differently (at least there should be far fewer of them), but I'm sure the normal user's hard drive isn't protected by raid or something similar (next power fluctuation = bye bye secret documents).
Then can the browser vendors at least look at the fucked up work arounds they had to do to get jquery to even work and fix them?
That way the implementations are at least somewhat consistent? Things are much better than they once were but it still sucks.
My view on the matter is anyone who is criticizing Jquery / Dojo / and is suggesting vanilla javascript is completely ignoring the fact that the reason allot of these frameworks exists is the base implementations are horribly, horribly broken and the effects of a piece of javascript can be inconsistent even within the same browser.
HTML & CSS suffer from the same problem though thankfully to a lesser degree.
Compiled library vs interpreted library, not really a fair comparison.
Look at the glibc source and it will probably be a bit smaller than that 1.3MB.
Here's a question I would put to you why I would still think electric may make sense outside of France & Sweden.
If I have a gallon of gasoline will I get more energy in the end (include the losses associated with transmission of the electricity) by giving it to a power station or by putting it in someone's car?
I'd hazard a guess the efficiencies gained just by running consistently would be quite large, some existing data on this point would be to compare highway mpg vs the city mpg of a car. The benefits of running at large scales should increase this difference even more. Also my meager understanding is that by law the power station will produce much less emissions per gallon than any car (way the fuel is burnt, much more filtering to remove particles from the output before being released into the air, etc).
I agree with your point that today having everyone move to electric may not make economic sense I guess we are all waiting for that time when it does.
I'm assuming you mean HAS been the drug of choice.
Theres my daily dose of laughter and loss of faith in humanity,
One of my suggestions was "attorneys are doctors"!
The funny one was "attorneys aren't us" (a play on alcho annonomous)
Coming to a train station near you.
Never used eBay have you?
The apple accounts can be disabled. That still falls well within their control.
1 billion combinations is hard to brute force these days?
I'm a bit confused here or maybe I missed it in your links, I saw no reference to windows or a large cluster / data analysis on windows.
I too am curious, I figure just out of sheer numbers there must be at least one outlier.
I guess as a supporting argument to your second point (seeing as the case brought up was the state of affairs in the business world), allot of businesses have gone to some sort of CRM almost all of which have a business intelligence module.
Heck, I was recently asked by someone if they should learn "advanced" Excel. I asked them what they wanted to use it for and the response was analysis of sales records, I spent about 10 minutes firing up Access instead and showing them some simple select queries (apparently I blew their mind when they saw what GROUP BY could do). They knew enough excel already to import their Access reports to the appropriate points on the spreadsheet but that was far from "advanced" excel.
IMHO, Excel is a good presentation tool which has some data processing / simple analysis tools (don't NEED to fire up an external too to do a sum on a column) but really shouldn't be used for heavy data analysis. Reason I care about this is now when this employee has really big data to analyze (Its just a matter of time) we can load the data up on one of the servers and point a ODBC connection over to that database instead of Access. If the solution was purely Excel, I've been told by my manager "You should have tried to be more helpful" after telling (a different) employee "I really can't help you, that amount of data won't fit in Excel" (this was pre-2007, but it won't be long before 1 million rows starts becoming a limiting factor).
IMHO, for last mile and some access layer backhaul I think wireless will win out, core backhaul will remain wired.
My reasons:
- Once wireless's speeds become "good enough", the focus will be more on reliability and security.
- Given that its now near impossible to knock a RC plane out of the sky with interference unless you blanket the entire 2.4 band (while not impossible, still somewhat difficult to do over a wide area, plus tracking down such a large transmission source would be extremely easy and consume allot of power, only really possible for a government).
It will take some time to reach this point so I guess these are medium to long term predictions.
Books I understand, the people who bought iDevices paid a premium fully knowing cheaper "viable" alternatives existed. I don't follow why they should get anything back, those were fully informed decisions.
P.S. I prefer android personally.
I think you are arguing something different to GP, you are arguing that the transistor count specified by Moore's Law is increasing, GP is arguing that it doesn't matter as much of today's software is single threaded and hence single threaded performance dominates most PC performance today.
If it didn't then OpenCL / CUDA (heck everyone would be going nuts over a 6 or 8-core and dumping their quad cores, most seem happy with dual-cores) should have blown everyone's mind (It does for some people but most of those are in specialized fields), most software isn't even multi-threaded so sure there may be more transistors but for 90%+ of the tasks a normal computer performs only a fraction are in use at a particular time.
Until you know everything that is going to go into it and more importantly the usage patterns that are common, you can't determine energy consumption.
Until you know the realistic energy consumption you can't determine what size battery to put into it to give a runtime of at least X hours.
Can I get your SSN, bank account numbers and e-mail passwords?
Hmm, this person is hiding these details from me, he must be doing something wrong...
Just so I understand your point, which person is being identified by the wifi cafe's public ip address? Assuming the ISP keeps those type of logs, which person is being identified by the public address given by your ISP?
"Personally Identifiable Information (PII), as used in information security, is information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context" - This is the definition from wikipedia, if you are happy with this definition then all of the above case are quite valid as they fail to identify a single person.
I am aware that the wikipedia page points to a NIST document that identifies ip addresses as PII but a read of the actual NIST document shows the circumstances under which such an conclusion is reached (example 2 on page 22). It revolves around having the equivalent of a domain access system (or at the very least 802.1x) which keeps track of all ips and which users were logged into them at the times which allow ip data to be co-related (typical of an enterprise network). Both NAT and an unlogged DHCP server break those assumptions (even if the DHCP server is logged the mac can still be spoofed, something not easily doable in an enterprise environment).