And a lot of people have turned $1 into millions of dollars with a lottery ticket, but that doesn't mean people who buy lottery tickets aren't morons.. While there are success stories, the economics for the average developer may not be quite so bright, as this article suggests. It may not be dead on and things have probably changed somewhat with iAds, but it probably isn't a good choice by itself.
If IE is actually detecting that it's dead code, then it's not really a problem. If the fact that it's dead code is more or less a coincidence and it doesn't do the same things with similar dead code, then it would be cheating.
I think people thought that since Obama could competently use a computer, he would actually take a better stance than others. The problem, it seems, is that he knows just enough to be dangerous. That, and Hollywood has fairly strong ties to the Dems.
1) They can tell the RIAA to fuck off and get screwed on financial aid.
2) They can implement some mechanism that is only nominally proactive,
3) They can do some active scanning for specific torrents
4) They can ban all p2p, screwing many legitimate users over.
5) They can ban internet usage altogether or anything outside of perhaps a whitelist of purely academic sites.
If they want the RIAA off their ass, they could go with 5, but 2 seems to be their best option. The only reason in my mind to choose 4 is because it may be the best way to show the absurdity and impracticality of this law.
It is a choice when it is a choice and isn't when it isn't. However, I would say that public universities generally have an ethical responsibility to not discriminate against legitimate traffic when they have a choice.
The choices may be limited, as many universities require freshmen to live on campus their first year.
What is offered is generic internet. If this was a purely academic network not to be used for anything but research, you'd have a point, but it isn't. They need a good reason for blocking torrents and there isn't one. Possibly or even likely illegal usage also applies to http, as does high bandwidth usage. The differences between the protocols is how often each protocol engages in each behavior in normal usage, and that's just dealing with averages. If they are throttling or banning heavy users or users engaged in illegal traffic, that's one thing, but that's not the stated policy.
If your primary residence is in your dorm room, I don't see another good way of getting said updates conveniently besides direct downloads that are going to cost these companies additional money.
So, are they blocking Hulu and Netflix as well? Those are going to be huge bandwidth hogs with no real educational value. Why not just limit the network to purely educational sites? Facebook doesn't provide significant amounts of scholarly material, let's block it too.
WoW alone is arguably a big justification. Someone here has already done some number crunching to suggest that the latest update is responsible for roughly 60 PB of data. That would seem to have saved Blizzard a pretty penny, and there's not a legitimate reason to stop them from saving said money. We have the technology, it can save many people money, and there's not a good reason to not use it.
It varies from university to university, but I remember my school having ridiculously fast speeds in my dorm days despite practically everyone on campus using limeware and such 24/7. The only time there was congestion was during class registration.
Also, you can saturate a connection through methods other than p2p. If this was a consistent action against heavy users, then you might have a point, but it seems pretty clear this in not about the bandwidth.
Nah, cops get super aggressive about minor traffic violations when things get boring around here, despite not really bringing any glory to speak of. IIRC, they even get a little kickback for each ticket they give.
No, there a rather large share of it is legal. And it's better to let a thousand guilty people off than convict a single innocent person, particularly when there isn't any scientific evidence of harm caused by p2p. We have due process for a reason.
Apple has a monopoly on in-store demonstrations of Wi-Fi-only MIDs in that size range.
I suppose I'll grant you that rather odd niche that isn't really internet related.
Piracy costs several thousand dollars even when done by a home user. Capitol v. Thomas.
Statistically, it costs basically nothing for home users. Every lawsuit they bring against individuals is a huge net loss, so they aren't going to sue more than one person a year. Let's say 100 million people pirate a year in the US, and that when the lawsuit is over, they end up paying a million dollars. Averaged against the people who don't pay, that's a penny per year per person for piracy.
As I said, some people don't want another phone line. There are plenty of BlackBerry and Android counterparts to the iPhone, but which counterpart to the iPod touch do you recommend that people try?
Probably some archos handheld, or a MID. You might even argue that a netbook competes to some degree. And once again, apps are not internet businesses, so it's not even relevant. App store kind of is, but half of those have competition even on the iPhone through web sites anyway.
For this reason, few established companies will try making a bullet point out of ability to play warez.
I agree, but the entire point I'm making is that you don't need a company for some kind of competition. iTunes is competing with piracy, which keeps their prices lower than they would be if people somehow weren't capable of piracy.
So when you post status updates on Twitter, Tumblr, Identi.ca, or Facebook, you have an application that sees what you have posted and reposts it to the other three networks. Is that what you were thinking of? That'd be like having one mobile phone and phone bill for Verizon, one for Sprint, one for AT&T, and one for T-Mobile, so that you can call people on other networks.
It varies. As far as status updates go, the could be more or less put into one application. For everything else, you check your facebook, your myspace, etc. Most of these services have email notifications, so you can check your email and find out who has sent you messages.
It is in North America, where Nokia has little presence. And smart phones aren't the entire market; some people want a device that doesn't cost $600 or come with yet another $70 per month phone bill. Can you name some smart MP3 players that are in major electronics store chains across the United States, other than iPod touch? I checked Sears and Best Buy, but I could find neither Archos 43 nor Samsung Galaxy Player 50,
It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but I think blackberry has a larger market than Apple in the US, and Android is pretty competitive as well.
Again, iTunes Store is a platform through which a user obtains major-label music and videos. The "decentralized peer to peer networks" that you mention usually either lack major-label music and videos or have only infringing copies.
Infringing copies play just as well as legitimate copies on any device you have. In fact, they generally don't have DRM, meaning they play on more devices. Copyright infringement does act as a competitor to prevent certain abuses of a monopoly. As far as legit services go, Amazon has comparable selections to iTunes, and I'm sure there are plenty of other services that compare pretty well.
For Facebook, the alternative would be to be an added network which may eventually supplant the old network, which isn't that outrageous to do. I'm sure there are lots of people who have myspace, facebook, and twitter accounts without any negative repercussions.
Apps wouldn't really be an internet thing, and Apple isn't actually the dominant force in smartphones. TFA said that Apple's dominance is in online content delivery (iTunes), and there are lots of alternatives, including decentralized peer to peer networks.
It would probably be fair to call these things monopoly, but monopoly doesn't inherently equal an abusive monopoly. Google dominates the search market, but if Google results start sucking, I'll switch to something else. The frictional cost of changing search engines is pretty low in most cases. Thus, in order to maintain ~90% of the search market, Google has to keep having kick ass search results. It's true that a startup with marginally better results probably wouldn't be able to take over because the cost of switching wouldn't outweigh the benefits, but most people don't claim that free markets are perfectly efficient, but rather that they are more efficient than anything else.
You can't even apply free market principles to companies that are largely based around the government backed monopolies of copyright and patents. Those things are regulations, and those regulations help preserve monopolies. Same goes to telecoms, where the FCC et al create artificial barriers to entry.
Slashdot Mirror
We all knew it, but it seems that now, somebody in a position to do something about it is doing something about it..
Part of the problem is that apps are often used as stand-ins for websites.
Being more popular than /. doesn't make engadget not a third-rate site.
And a lot of people have turned $1 into millions of dollars with a lottery ticket, but that doesn't mean people who buy lottery tickets aren't morons.. While there are success stories, the economics for the average developer may not be quite so bright, as this article suggests. It may not be dead on and things have probably changed somewhat with iAds, but it probably isn't a good choice by itself.
If IE is actually detecting that it's dead code, then it's not really a problem. If the fact that it's dead code is more or less a coincidence and it doesn't do the same things with similar dead code, then it would be cheating.
They have shown their Sunspider results quite a few times on http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/
No, it's just stating that it has basically become a standard benchmark despite Apple not being a standards organization.
I think people thought that since Obama could competently use a computer, he would actually take a better stance than others. The problem, it seems, is that he knows just enough to be dangerous. That, and Hollywood has fairly strong ties to the Dems.
They've got a couple of options.
1) They can tell the RIAA to fuck off and get screwed on financial aid.
2) They can implement some mechanism that is only nominally proactive,
3) They can do some active scanning for specific torrents
4) They can ban all p2p, screwing many legitimate users over.
5) They can ban internet usage altogether or anything outside of perhaps a whitelist of purely academic sites.
If they want the RIAA off their ass, they could go with 5, but 2 seems to be their best option. The only reason in my mind to choose 4 is because it may be the best way to show the absurdity and impracticality of this law.
It is a choice when it is a choice and isn't when it isn't. However, I would say that public universities generally have an ethical responsibility to not discriminate against legitimate traffic when they have a choice.
The choices may be limited, as many universities require freshmen to live on campus their first year. What is offered is generic internet. If this was a purely academic network not to be used for anything but research, you'd have a point, but it isn't. They need a good reason for blocking torrents and there isn't one. Possibly or even likely illegal usage also applies to http, as does high bandwidth usage. The differences between the protocols is how often each protocol engages in each behavior in normal usage, and that's just dealing with averages. If they are throttling or banning heavy users or users engaged in illegal traffic, that's one thing, but that's not the stated policy.
If your primary residence is in your dorm room, I don't see another good way of getting said updates conveniently besides direct downloads that are going to cost these companies additional money.
It's a public university funded by taxpayer dollars, so calling it 'their network' is a bit disingenuous.
So, are they blocking Hulu and Netflix as well? Those are going to be huge bandwidth hogs with no real educational value. Why not just limit the network to purely educational sites? Facebook doesn't provide significant amounts of scholarly material, let's block it too.
WoW alone is arguably a big justification. Someone here has already done some number crunching to suggest that the latest update is responsible for roughly 60 PB of data. That would seem to have saved Blizzard a pretty penny, and there's not a legitimate reason to stop them from saving said money. We have the technology, it can save many people money, and there's not a good reason to not use it.
It varies from university to university, but I remember my school having ridiculously fast speeds in my dorm days despite practically everyone on campus using limeware and such 24/7. The only time there was congestion was during class registration. Also, you can saturate a connection through methods other than p2p. If this was a consistent action against heavy users, then you might have a point, but it seems pretty clear this in not about the bandwidth.
Nah, cops get super aggressive about minor traffic violations when things get boring around here, despite not really bringing any glory to speak of. IIRC, they even get a little kickback for each ticket they give.
It's a public university, so it is at the very least bad taste to be oppressive enforcers of an agenda in opposition to legitimate free culture.
No, there a rather large share of it is legal. And it's better to let a thousand guilty people off than convict a single innocent person, particularly when there isn't any scientific evidence of harm caused by p2p. We have due process for a reason.
I suppose I'll grant you that rather odd niche that isn't really internet related.
Statistically, it costs basically nothing for home users. Every lawsuit they bring against individuals is a huge net loss, so they aren't going to sue more than one person a year. Let's say 100 million people pirate a year in the US, and that when the lawsuit is over, they end up paying a million dollars. Averaged against the people who don't pay, that's a penny per year per person for piracy.
Probably some archos handheld, or a MID. You might even argue that a netbook competes to some degree. And once again, apps are not internet businesses, so it's not even relevant. App store kind of is, but half of those have competition even on the iPhone through web sites anyway.
I agree, but the entire point I'm making is that you don't need a company for some kind of competition. iTunes is competing with piracy, which keeps their prices lower than they would be if people somehow weren't capable of piracy.
It varies. As far as status updates go, the could be more or less put into one application. For everything else, you check your facebook, your myspace, etc. Most of these services have email notifications, so you can check your email and find out who has sent you messages.
It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but I think blackberry has a larger market than Apple in the US, and Android is pretty competitive as well.
Infringing copies play just as well as legitimate copies on any device you have. In fact, they generally don't have DRM, meaning they play on more devices. Copyright infringement does act as a competitor to prevent certain abuses of a monopoly. As far as legit services go, Amazon has comparable selections to iTunes, and I'm sure there are plenty of other services that compare pretty well.
For Facebook, the alternative would be to be an added network which may eventually supplant the old network, which isn't that outrageous to do. I'm sure there are lots of people who have myspace, facebook, and twitter accounts without any negative repercussions. Apps wouldn't really be an internet thing, and Apple isn't actually the dominant force in smartphones. TFA said that Apple's dominance is in online content delivery (iTunes), and there are lots of alternatives, including decentralized peer to peer networks.
It would probably be fair to call these things monopoly, but monopoly doesn't inherently equal an abusive monopoly. Google dominates the search market, but if Google results start sucking, I'll switch to something else. The frictional cost of changing search engines is pretty low in most cases. Thus, in order to maintain ~90% of the search market, Google has to keep having kick ass search results. It's true that a startup with marginally better results probably wouldn't be able to take over because the cost of switching wouldn't outweigh the benefits, but most people don't claim that free markets are perfectly efficient, but rather that they are more efficient than anything else.
You can't even apply free market principles to companies that are largely based around the government backed monopolies of copyright and patents. Those things are regulations, and those regulations help preserve monopolies. Same goes to telecoms, where the FCC et al create artificial barriers to entry.