I'm in the middle of reading "The Google Story" which, for me at least, provides some interesting insight into the origins of this "Do No Evil" company. What stood out for me was their philosophy of developing great ideas first and monetizing them second.
The irony is that the trends that are emerging in press articles: the AOL purchase, special ads and graphics in ads are pure commercialism: They are not about the user, or about innovation. They are about the dollars, plain and simpl.
This coming in the wake of recent "doomsday" articles about growth in server power consumption makes me think that perhaps innovation is dead at Google: Maybe they are beginning to think that they can no longer beat their competitors (MS? Yahoo?) by out-innovating them, and are now simply collecting the cash on the lead they still have.
The opposite rings true as well. I haven't looked into the technical feasibility of this, but how about an "emulate IE rendering" mode in Firefox, which can render IE-only sites properly? I use the "view in IE" extension to achieve this, but that still has me compromising and using IE sometimes.
That may be true, but if he's convicted, it sets an uncomfortable precedent. It's one thing to use the law in an innovative way to put a creep behind bars, quite another when it sets a precedent that can be used all too easily under other circumstances.
I think it's got a lot to do with the price of LCD panels coming down. The LCD was typically the most expensive part of the laptop; now that desktops are commonly sold with LCDs, the single most price sensitive component has become a non-issue. For most (non-gamer) users, the notebook offers everything the desktop does and more, and today you can opt for the notebook for a trivial price increment.
I think that's neat - I prefer Firefox and use it all the time but it's still annoying that some sites just don't render properly. I'd prefer to right-click and say "render IE style" than to launch IE...
Absolutely! A practical example of data never going away was when Deja-News suddenly pulishef 20 years of USENET archive (now Google Groups) a few years ago. A lot of people were suddenly very embarrassed that they'd used their real names on the inflammatory, idealistic posts of their youth...
I hate to be the one to bring up the old argument, but Windows machines are attacked more often because there are more of them; it's the bigger, easier target.
One could make the case, in fact, that security holes are found in Windows more often because, as the bigger target, there are more people out looking for them - exploit a new vulnerability and you stand to compromise a lot more Windows machines than Mac OS X machines, or Linux machines, or whatever.
Using Mac OS X (or any other OS) because it's attacked less often is another form of security by obscurity, and it's no security at all. By your argument, everyone should run OS X, because it does not get attacked, but when they do, then they will be the new target. Any security holes in Mac OS X (and there are *always* security holes in any system) will be exploited much more aggressively than they are now.
You are only (reasonably) secure if you run a patched box, regardless of OS.
That's a very informative comment, but, unfortunately, at least partly incorrect:
My HP notebook worked fine with an aftermarket upgrade to 802.11g until the very latest BIOS release. That's completely, 100%, functional and stable without any funny hacks required, until it got blocked in a BIOS update.
I've also heard the FCC story about certification and approval, but being a cynical SOB I think it's got more to do with charging a premium for "vendor approved" product...
On the contrary: if Windows includes basic antivirus, then Symantec/whoever has to come up with Double Super Plus Turbo Extended Anti-Virus. It has to have New! Improved! features just to be a saleable proposition compared to the freebie thrown in with Windows. This virtually guarantees it will be bloatware.
The other thing is that the large majority of users will never bother installing any product other than the basic one included in Windows. This shrinks the potential market for competitors and will inevitably drive some vendors out of a previously viable market.
In the short term, bundling is good for the consumer, because it's "something for nothing" but in the long term it's driving competitors in other markets out of business by bundling software at below cost with a product in which MS has a near monopoly, and that's bad for competition and bad for consumers.
While what you say in principle makes sense, it is also not fair to basically dump your no longer useful rubbish on third world countries and make the disposal thereof the third world country's problem. It's ideologically the same thing as dumping your toxic waste there, or setting up polluting industries in third-world countries because their environmental policies are not as strong.
The countries don't have funds to buy PCs, they certainly don't have funds for safe recycling.
Your suggestion would only be fair (and environmentally safe) if the first world country would agree to take back the machine for safe disposal/recycling at a future time.
There's no talk about region coding printers, so if the printers can't tell the difference it can only be to help HP identify grey-market (parallel) imports.
That way they can figure out which of their clients are exploiting the gap in the markets and try cut off supply.
Oh, and by the way, the dollar sliding has nothing do with it: People in Europe, Middle East and Africa routinely get ripped off compared to US prices, and not just on cartridges. Case in point: Launch price of the basic Mac Mini in South Africa is about USD750, or a full 50% more than the US price.
On the one hand people complain there's no need to buy new hardware because there's no "quantum leap" in software technology to take advantage of it. Then on the other, they complain that new software requires up-to-date hardware.
Come on, people, we're supposed to be computer geeks here. Bigger better faster more is a good thing, because maybe 3D menus aren't that exciting, and maybe MS is always the bad guy, but anything like this raises the bar for other innovations.
It doesn't mean you're going to need an ATI Super Turbo Wonder Extreme Plus ++ Exclamation Point either - most boards with built-in graphics today have a pretty capable 3D engine (no good for Doom 3, but probably fine for 3D menus, more visual manipulation of home photo libraries, more innovation of user interfaces, etc) and with halfway-decent Geforce or Radeon cards available for 50 bucks already TODAY (not in, say, 3 years when Longhorn hits the shelves) this is NOT a problem.
First thing I'd worry about is that they are going to use the "smart gun" to prove who committed the crime, which is all very well until the criminals figure out how to hack them.
Now, we all know it's a matter before these "secure" systems are hacked and your stolen firearm becomes a SERIOUS liability because any crime committed with your "smart gun" pretty much automatically puts you in the clink!
While I think this is a great idea, I always find these "innovations" are a couple of years behind as soon as they're launched.
Two years ago I would have loved one of these. Today, I expect my HTPC to play DivX/XVid, and stream from a network server as well. DVDs? That's old school!
And embedded also means it probably can't be upgraded all that easily to add these features; it'll mean buying version 2 in a year's time, by which time my requiremens will have moved on...
That said, while I don't consider myself an early adopter, I suppose I am by most (ie non Slashdot readers) standards.
Yes, but that meant writing on the data side of the disc, not the label side. Also, to leave room for a label, you had to leave off a lot of data. Not terribly practical, really.
The biggest problem with this one is that it requires special media. Might as well buy printable media and a cheap inkjet (like the Epson which comes with a CD caddy for next to nothing )./Not affiliated to Epson, just a happy Epson R200 owner:-)
Or something like that - the airlines always seem to charge to the max for onboard communications services. This is a nice idea if it was, say, free, to offset the discomfort of having to be on the plane in the first place, but I'll bet access to this server will cost a fair bit...
Seems to me to be the perfect opportunity to prepare a "statement" to send to them which looks entirely legit and behaves exactly right except instead of opening the statement shows the user a ticking bomb with the message "your account details have now been compromised."
Thorough contemplation? Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news, how many voters are even capable of thorough contemplation. Sure, Michael Moore plays the propaganda machine like a harp, but that doesn't mean his documentary shouldn't be shown on television.
That's all very well but a server-side patch means I need to trust all the sites I visit.
In this context, trust means that I give the site the ability to install software on my system without my knowledge or specific consent, since that is what the security hole allows. I don't trust the IT people in my own company to do that to my machine - I'm certainly not going to believe that some random webmaster's going to do their job properly. And even if the guy gets fired for not patching his servers, they're not likely to come forward and notify all visitors to their site that they have/may have been compromised in the meantime!
A server-side patch is as good as useless, if there's still a gaping hole in the client!
The irony of course is that this crap on the DVD actually encourages piracy.
Suddenly you're incentivised to get your hands on a pirate disc that has all the MPAA "special features" removed! Or alternatively, you buy the disc, rip it and remaster it without all the warnings and adverts and other crap, and while you're at it, burn a few copies for your buddies...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the middle of reading "The Google Story" which, for me at least, provides some interesting insight into the origins of this "Do No Evil" company. What stood out for me was their philosophy of developing great ideas first and monetizing them second.
The irony is that the trends that are emerging in press articles: the AOL purchase, special ads and graphics in ads are pure commercialism: They are not about the user, or about innovation. They are about the dollars, plain and simpl.
This coming in the wake of recent "doomsday" articles about growth in server power consumption makes me think that perhaps innovation is dead at Google: Maybe they are beginning to think that they can no longer beat their competitors (MS? Yahoo?) by out-innovating them, and are now simply collecting the cash on the lead they still have.
I hope not, I'm just saying, is all...
The opposite rings true as well. I haven't looked into the technical feasibility of this, but how about an "emulate IE rendering" mode in Firefox, which can render IE-only sites properly?
I use the "view in IE" extension to achieve this, but that still has me compromising and using IE sometimes.
90% of users use Windows. It's not being ignored, it's being assumed.
My guess would be that most of the readership of popular media think that Linux is an app that runs on their Windows PC.
Like it or not, Linux is still below the radar for most users.
That may be true, but if he's convicted, it sets an uncomfortable precedent.
It's one thing to use the law in an innovative way to put a creep behind bars, quite another when it sets a precedent that can be used all too easily under other circumstances.
I think it's got a lot to do with the price of LCD panels coming down. The LCD was typically the most expensive part of the laptop; now that desktops are commonly sold with LCDs, the single most price sensitive component has become a non-issue.
For most (non-gamer) users, the notebook offers everything the desktop does and more, and today you can opt for the notebook for a trivial price increment.
I think that's neat - I prefer Firefox and use it all the time but it's still annoying that some sites just don't render properly.
I'd prefer to right-click and say "render IE style" than to launch IE...
11. They won't ship internationally and don't state this anywhere obvious /Until you try to enter your address!
Absolutely! A practical example of data never going away was when Deja-News suddenly pulishef 20 years of USENET archive (now Google Groups) a few years ago. A lot of people were suddenly very embarrassed that they'd used their real names on the inflammatory, idealistic posts of their youth...
I hate to be the one to bring up the old argument, but Windows machines are attacked more often because there are more of them; it's the bigger, easier target.
One could make the case, in fact, that security holes are found in Windows more often because, as the bigger target, there are more people out looking for them - exploit a new vulnerability and you stand to compromise a lot more Windows machines than Mac OS X machines, or Linux machines, or whatever.
Using Mac OS X (or any other OS) because it's attacked less often is another form of security by obscurity, and it's no security at all. By your argument, everyone should run OS X, because it does not get attacked, but when they do, then they will be the new target. Any security holes in Mac OS X (and there are *always* security holes in any system) will be exploited much more aggressively than they are now.
You are only (reasonably) secure if you run a patched box, regardless of OS.
That's a very informative comment, but, unfortunately, at least partly incorrect:
My HP notebook worked fine with an aftermarket upgrade to 802.11g until the very latest BIOS release. That's completely, 100%, functional and stable without any funny hacks required, until it got blocked in a BIOS update.
I've also heard the FCC story about certification and approval, but being a cynical SOB I think it's got more to do with charging a premium for "vendor approved" product...
On the contrary: if Windows includes basic antivirus, then Symantec/whoever has to come up with Double Super Plus Turbo Extended Anti-Virus. It has to have New! Improved! features just to be a saleable proposition compared to the freebie thrown in with Windows. This virtually guarantees it will be bloatware.
The other thing is that the large majority of users will never bother installing any product other than the basic one included in Windows. This shrinks the potential market for competitors and will inevitably drive some vendors out of a previously viable market.
In the short term, bundling is good for the consumer, because it's "something for nothing" but in the long term it's driving competitors in other markets out of business by bundling software at below cost with a product in which MS has a near monopoly, and that's bad for competition and bad for consumers.
THAT's what the EU Media Player case was about.
The countries don't have funds to buy PCs, they certainly don't have funds for safe recycling.
Your suggestion would only be fair (and environmentally safe) if the first world country would agree to take back the machine for safe disposal/recycling at a future time.
That way they can figure out which of their clients are exploiting the gap in the markets and try cut off supply.
Oh, and by the way, the dollar sliding has nothing do with it: People in Europe, Middle East and Africa routinely get ripped off compared to US prices, and not just on cartridges. Case in point: Launch price of the basic Mac Mini in South Africa is about USD750, or a full 50% more than the US price.
Come on, people, we're supposed to be computer geeks here. Bigger better faster more is a good thing, because maybe 3D menus aren't that exciting, and maybe MS is always the bad guy, but anything like this raises the bar for other innovations.
It doesn't mean you're going to need an ATI Super Turbo Wonder Extreme Plus ++ Exclamation Point either - most boards with built-in graphics today have a pretty capable 3D engine (no good for Doom 3, but probably fine for 3D menus, more visual manipulation of home photo libraries, more innovation of user interfaces, etc) and with halfway-decent Geforce or Radeon cards available for 50 bucks already TODAY (not in, say, 3 years when Longhorn hits the shelves) this is NOT a problem.
Now, we all know it's a matter before these "secure" systems are hacked and your stolen firearm becomes a SERIOUS liability because any crime committed with your "smart gun" pretty much automatically puts you in the clink!
While I think this is a great idea, I always find these "innovations" are a couple of years behind as soon as they're launched.
Two years ago I would have loved one of these. Today, I expect my HTPC to play DivX/XVid, and stream from a network server as well. DVDs? That's old school!
And embedded also means it probably can't be upgraded all that easily to add these features; it'll mean buying version 2 in a year's time, by which time my requiremens will have moved on...
That said, while I don't consider myself an early adopter, I suppose I am by most (ie non Slashdot readers) standards.
Yes, but that meant writing on the data side of the disc, not the label side. Also, to leave room for a label, you had to leave off a lot of data.
/Not affiliated to Epson, just a happy Epson R200 owner :-)
Not terribly practical, really.
The biggest problem with this one is that it requires special media. Might as well buy printable media and a cheap inkjet (like the Epson which comes with a CD caddy for next to nothing ).
Or something like that - the airlines always seem to charge to the max for onboard communications services.
This is a nice idea if it was, say, free, to offset the discomfort of having to be on the plane in the first place, but I'll bet access to this server will cost a fair bit...
Famouse? This sounds suspiciously like something out of a cartoon...
To put the bluntly?
:-)
Which category do you fall into?
Seems to me to be the perfect opportunity to prepare a "statement" to send to them which looks entirely legit and behaves exactly right except instead of opening the statement shows the user a ticking bomb with the message "your account details have now been compromised."
THEN they might get the message.
Thorough contemplation? Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news, how many voters are even capable of thorough contemplation.
Sure, Michael Moore plays the propaganda machine like a harp, but that doesn't mean his documentary shouldn't be shown on television.
I do.
I use Firefox 99% of the time, but still today some sites just don't work properly if it's not IE.
You might say "don't use the site" but if that's the only place you can get the driver update for your obscure piece of hardware you'd reconsider too.
In this context, trust means that I give the site the ability to install software on my system without my knowledge or specific consent, since that is what the security hole allows. I don't trust the IT people in my own company to do that to my machine - I'm certainly not going to believe that some random webmaster's going to do their job properly. And even if the guy gets fired for not patching his servers, they're not likely to come forward and notify all visitors to their site that they have/may have been compromised in the meantime!
A server-side patch is as good as useless, if there's still a gaping hole in the client!
The irony of course is that this crap on the DVD actually encourages piracy.
Suddenly you're incentivised to get your hands on a pirate disc that has all the MPAA "special features" removed! Or alternatively, you buy the disc, rip it and remaster it without all the warnings and adverts and other crap, and while you're at it, burn a few copies for your buddies...