but people shy away from it because "oh this app I don't need in my life is not available! Guess I have to get the less secure platform that is android!"
It's funny you say that, because that's the exact same argument that Windows (PC OS) users make for why people should stick with Windows on the desktop, and avoid Linux.
So which is it? Are apps important or aren't they? If they are, then Windows Phone is a terrible choice. It's not just silly games or other such apps, it's things like secure banking apps, apps to file your taxes (common in many European countries), etc.
but Windows runs acceptably in half the RAM of Android. Which is funny because in the non-Mobile world it's the other way around (Linux runs decently in half the RAM of Windows).
Building something on a Google web service is fine as long as it's one of the really successful ones: search, Gmail, etc. But if there's any question that it might not be around in a few years, don't do it.
Microsoft has not been that successful. They've blown enormous amounts of money on many different things, and if they were a normal company would have been out of business by now. They're "successful" because they can keep milking the Windows OS and Office cash cows endlessly, and keep trying (usually in vain) to move into other markets. How many billions did they spend on Xbox before that became profitable? Did they ever even make much of a profit on it? How many billions did they spend on Windows Phone, which has been nothing but a money loser? Remember Zune? There's a long line of losing projects they've poured money into. Face it, MS simply does not make products that people are excited to go out and buy (at least since Win95, over 20 years ago), they make products that people think they need because they dominate those particular markets (OS, Office software). Every time they try something new, they fall flat on their faces.
That said, I'm all in favor of them continuing to pour money into Windows 10 Phone, and in fact ramping it up enormously, perhaps even just giving the phones away and paying people to use them.
As well with almost all movies being reboots or remakes, and predictable, and Hey! another Marvel Comics superhero flick! How original!
Or worse yet, when you run out of ideas for new Marvel Comics superhero flicks, you make yet another reboot of a Marvel Comics superhero flick that's already been rebooted before...
Mister Nolan and Ms Coppolla - how much are you going to pay me to go to a theater?
Has Sophia Coppolla actually made any good movies? The only movie of hers I've seen was "The Virgin Suicides", years ago. It sucked. And so did her acting in Godfather III.
If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.
Oh please, you're ridiculous. Theaters offer many valuable features you simply cannot easily get at home. Here's a few:
* teenagers using cellphones * screaming kids (esp. in R-rated movies) * people talking about the movie * people talking *to* the movie * arguments between patrons * patrons shooting each other
Going to a movie at a theater isn't about technical specs, it's about the people there, who you get to have a shared viewing experience with. That's what's so special about going to a theater, and why you can't replicate it at home. At home, it's just a dry, inhuman experience with only you there alone, or maybe 1 or 2 other people. At a theater, you have a whole room full of wonderful people to share that experience with, along with all the other great things that come with being around other humans, including the talking, screaming kids, use of cellphones with bright screens, and shootings.
In my own home, I can also watch TV in bed with my arm around my girlfriend. Theater seats have immovable armrests which prevent getting close to your companion.
And yeah, it's nice being able to make any food or drink I want, instead of being limited to whatever overpriced shit they sell at the concessions stand. Not to mention being able to pause and rewind.
It sounds like a good idea to me, seriously. The problem is that if I do that, I'll surely go to jail for assault.
So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater. As a bonus, I'll save a bunch of money, which I can use instead for going out to eat at a nice, quiet upscale restaurant with my girlfriend. If the theaters go out of business, then so be it. The nice restaurants don't seem to have a problem keeping customers in line and tossing out rowdy people.
Common sense dictates that throwing 26 million Americans off of health insurance is bad idea. Hence, the bill died without a vote in Congress.
Huh? That's not the way the media is spinning it. According to them, and to Trump and Ryan, the bill died because the "House Freedom Caucus" (a bunch of hard-line conservatives) said they'd refuse to vote for it, mainly because it wasn't conservative enough for them, not because they gave a shit about 26 million poorer Americans losing health insurance. (Ironically, many of these caucus members were elected by poorer, working-class Americans who stood to lose their health insurance as a result of their voting for ultra-conservatives, but hey, that's OK if they die from preventable health problems as long as we can ban abortion again, right?)
Extra income for other jobs too, that require actual intelligence and decisions. Also for services.
For instance, if I have the choice of going to two coffee shops, one staffed entirely by robots, and the other having a robot making food/drinks, but some cute girls delivering them to my table, I'm going to choose the latter if the price isn't that much more.
Society's in big, big trouble when femme-bots are invented though....
Live concerts are not free to produce. You have to pay for the power (and that's a lot, for all the lights and amplifiers), the equipment, and you have to rent the stage/venue. You also have to publicize it somehow or no one's going to come. They don't have to be as expensive as many are now, but someone owns that venue (and has to maintain it), and you have to pay for that if you're going to perform there. Otherwise, they'll rent it to someone else who will.
No. I'm all for a UBI, but this is too much. If you give people stuff for free, they're going to hoard and take advantage. Resources and energy are not infinite or free.
Self-driving cars are a luxury. They absolutely should not be free. Eventually they should be mandatory for road-going vehicles because of safety, but they should never be free. They consume massive amounts of energy. If people want cheap transport, it has to be done by train or ship. Even that cannot be free.
This is why the UBI makes sense: it allots a certain amount of resources (represented by money) to everyone as a baseline, in return for them being part of society (and also not acting against society, i.e. not being a criminal). This affords them a certain amount of freebies: namely a place to live and food (and also healthcare for necessities, that really should be free and separate from the UBI) and maybe a few nice things, but limited to a certain monthly "allowance". So they'll be able to afford maybe one concert a month (on the lawn or maybe back rows), or they can spend it on a few smoothies, or save it up for a year and get front-row tickets or a trip somewhere, etc. And if this paltry but functional standard of living isn't enough for them, they can go find a job, or try making crafts and selling them, etc., and make more money, or maybe try writing a book and then becoming a millionaire like JK Rowling (who used to be on welfare).
No, air travel is not a basic necessity, nor will it ever be. Air travel is highly energy-intensive. If it were free, the demand would skyrocket and we'd have far more jet fuel being burned than today, with terrible consequences.
The only thing that should be an actual freebie is healthcare. Healthy people don't need it much anyway (just a check-up), and healthier people are more productive anyway (so more likely to go get a job, or do something productive that results in more economic activity, which in turns pays for the UBI and free-healthcare system for everyone through taxes). Everything else needs to be rationed for the the freeloaders; we can afford to let them have a small amount (which they choose by how they spend their UBI check), but that's it. If they want more, they have to contribute more to the economy and earn more money.
How about all the millions in Africa that the Christian missionaries "help" by spreading Christianity and teaching them to hate gay people, so that they pass laws legalizing murder of homosexuals?
No one is helped by Christianity, it's a religion that only spreads hate and demands money from its followers.
I have a FB account too. I rarely use it. My main reason for having it before was for services which used it as an authentication mechanism, namely Tinder. I have a gf now (no thanks to Tinder, but rather OKC), so I don't even need it for that now, but I'll keep it around just in case this one fails. Anyway, I also have a small handful of "friends" on FB, mostly family members, and some other friends of friends who got in there. I only do this really to seem "normal" and have a way of contacting these people just in case. Most of them just post stupid but harmless crap: family photos, "look at us on vacation!", "Junior at his baseball game!" type BS, and "liked" junk such as some cooking recipe or whatever. There have been some that started spewing a bunch of political crap (always right-wing like you mention), so I de-friended them. In short, I don't keep any "friends" there that spread that crap, and don't have very many friends, so I don't have to be disgusted. I'm disgusted enough with all the right-wing, nationalistic, xenophobic conspiracy-theory garbage right here on Slashdot and various other sites, but at least on FB I can filter it by defriending those people. Of course, that doesn't leave much of a reason to bother using the site, but that's OK. It's there in case I need it for something (sometimes someone will send me a link on there), and to make sure someone doesn't create a fake account in my name.
Currently it seems the favored solution is migrating to germany (yes, I know, jews running away to germany, ironic).
Maybe, maybe not.
Germany really seems to be a good example of the saying about how sometimes you need to burn something down to create something much better. Nazi Germany obviously was a horrible place in many ways, especially for certain people. Modern Germany seems to be one of the best nations in the world to live in. But it also seems to show the sad truism that the only way to normally make a change for the better like that is through a lot of violence and destruction.
You're talking about Eternal September. The Internet was a lot smaller back then, and had a lot less idiocy for sure, however I'm not so sure about "nicer". USENET was infamous for "flame wars". But the difference was that, back then, the flamewars were generally between intelligent academics, and were very nasty arguments between people but with actual reason and intelligence. Whereas today, you just need to read the comments below and mass-media news article (esp. anything political), or YouTube comments, and you'll see stuff that makes you wonder if those people ever even finished 6th grade or if they just got "social promotions" to graduate high school while being functionally illiterate.
I have to disagree about dealing with the general public. I've had to do that a little, but not that much, but I did have a grocery-bagging job in high school back when they still had such jobs. Most people were fine; a few were jerks, more than a few were thoughtless, but overall they weren't horrible, certainly not 90%. However, that's based on a pretty limited interaction, in public. The thing that's different about the internet is that people can be anonymous or semi-anonymous keyboard warriors, and aren't personally accountable for their comments. Just look at some of the outright hateful, mean-spirited, and even downright racist or genocidal comments after a political news article, especially from the Trump supporters. People don't generally act that nastily in public, because if they did say such things, they'd very likely get punched. (And I'm not sure they'd even be prosecuted for assault, as I'm pretty sure courts and prosecutors take into account verbal incitement.) But behind a keyboard, some fat-ass POS can spew white supremacist drivel on a public message board anonymously without much fear of repercussions. So likely, many of the people you walk past in public really *are* "fscked in the head" much worse than you realize, but they're keeping it under wraps while they're in public. The Internet lets them show that side of themselves.
And I don't see how that's likely to improve any time soon. Many (most?) people are nasty, vile, despicable creatures underneath, and the only way to hide that, the way we did in the pre-Internet days, is to severely curtail the forms of expression they have available to them, which means eliminating comment boards (as many sites have already done), or requiring people to post their real name, basically eliminating anonymity. Even that only has so much effect, because people can be anywhere, not local to those they offend.
Face it; the Internet's power is democratization, letting anyone and everyone have great power of global, inexpensive communication is going to have both positive and negative effects.
That's bullshit. I've seen it for myself: Christian soup kitchens require desperate, hungry people to sit for an hour for a sermon before they're allowed to have any food. Giving away something with strings attached, even if they're not actually financial, is not "giving from the bottom of your heart".
Whoops, sorry. I should have said they're sick of the English.
Also, won't Scots always be "Brits", no matter what? Scotland will always be part of both "Great Britain" (an island) and "the British Isles" (the group of islands which includes GB). Or is "Brit" in this context a demonym only for a citizen of the UK?
Naming in the British Isles is really, really confusing. (For example, is "Ireland" a country, or an island? It's both! And they're not the same, because the statement "Northern Ireland is part of Ireland" is simultaneously true and false.)
As I pointed out before, stuff like this just won't work. It doesn't matter how good it is technically, you can't get entrenched incumbents (like Apple that you mention) to adopt it, and without a critical mass, it fails. One company won't adopt it because they can't get vendor lock-in, another because they can't easily make money on it somehow, etc. For instance, why would the carriers want to adopt this, when they're making huge profits off of SMS messages now?
The only way stuff like this gets adopted is if it's forced on them somehow, and they really don't have a choice. Either some hugely powerful government forces them to adopt it, or it gets so much grassroots adoption that it becomes a de-facto standard. See web standards for the latter (everyone hated IE6 so much that they adopted Firefox/Chrome in such large numbers that web devs were forced to follow actual standards, and MS was then forced to follow suit. And this largely happened because of Chrome, which was made by Google, whose incentive was inserting spyware into the browser).
At this point, I really don't see what could force the big email providers (namely Google and MS) to adopt a new standard. It also doesn't help that so many businesses use Outlook, and frequently not the very latest version, so upgrading to a new standard isn't as easy as just hitting F5 on your browser as it is with a webmail system, though a fallback to SMTP would alleviate that, plus if enough large businesses really liked what Email2.0 had to offer (built-in encryption, etc.), they might willingly adopt new email clients just to get those features, though that's pretty hard to believe considering how stuck they've been on Outlook/Exchange for so many years, but if MS supported it quickly that would probably lead to quick overall adoption. But I don't see that happening because MS has a *long* history of hating open standards unless they can "embrace and extend" them to get vendor lock-in.
Slashdot Mirror
but people shy away from it because "oh this app I don't need in my life is not available! Guess I have to get the less secure platform that is android!"
It's funny you say that, because that's the exact same argument that Windows (PC OS) users make for why people should stick with Windows on the desktop, and avoid Linux.
So which is it? Are apps important or aren't they? If they are, then Windows Phone is a terrible choice. It's not just silly games or other such apps, it's things like secure banking apps, apps to file your taxes (common in many European countries), etc.
but Windows runs acceptably in half the RAM of Android. Which is funny because in the non-Mobile world it's the other way around (Linux runs decently in half the RAM of Windows).
So why is this anyway? Does anyone know?
Building something on a Google web service is fine as long as it's one of the really successful ones: search, Gmail, etc. But if there's any question that it might not be around in a few years, don't do it.
Microsoft has not been that successful. They've blown enormous amounts of money on many different things, and if they were a normal company would have been out of business by now. They're "successful" because they can keep milking the Windows OS and Office cash cows endlessly, and keep trying (usually in vain) to move into other markets. How many billions did they spend on Xbox before that became profitable? Did they ever even make much of a profit on it? How many billions did they spend on Windows Phone, which has been nothing but a money loser? Remember Zune? There's a long line of losing projects they've poured money into. Face it, MS simply does not make products that people are excited to go out and buy (at least since Win95, over 20 years ago), they make products that people think they need because they dominate those particular markets (OS, Office software). Every time they try something new, they fall flat on their faces.
That said, I'm all in favor of them continuing to pour money into Windows 10 Phone, and in fact ramping it up enormously, perhaps even just giving the phones away and paying people to use them.
As well with almost all movies being reboots or remakes, and predictable, and Hey! another Marvel Comics superhero flick! How original!
Or worse yet, when you run out of ideas for new Marvel Comics superhero flicks, you make yet another reboot of a Marvel Comics superhero flick that's already been rebooted before...
Mister Nolan and Ms Coppolla - how much are you going to pay me to go to a theater?
Has Sophia Coppolla actually made any good movies? The only movie of hers I've seen was "The Virgin Suicides", years ago. It sucked. And so did her acting in Godfather III.
If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.
Oh please, you're ridiculous. Theaters offer many valuable features you simply cannot easily get at home. Here's a few:
* teenagers using cellphones
* screaming kids (esp. in R-rated movies)
* people talking about the movie
* people talking *to* the movie
* arguments between patrons
* patrons shooting each other
Going to a movie at a theater isn't about technical specs, it's about the people there, who you get to have a shared viewing experience with. That's what's so special about going to a theater, and why you can't replicate it at home. At home, it's just a dry, inhuman experience with only you there alone, or maybe 1 or 2 other people. At a theater, you have a whole room full of wonderful people to share that experience with, along with all the other great things that come with being around other humans, including the talking, screaming kids, use of cellphones with bright screens, and shootings.
I'd love to. I enjoy seeing movies in a real theater.
But I have small children, so there is little opportunity to go out.
This must be some kind of attempt at a troll or something. Parents these days (in America at least) are never considerate like this.
In my own home, I can also watch TV in bed with my arm around my girlfriend. Theater seats have immovable armrests which prevent getting close to your companion.
And yeah, it's nice being able to make any food or drink I want, instead of being limited to whatever overpriced shit they sell at the concessions stand. Not to mention being able to pause and rewind.
It sounds like a good idea to me, seriously. The problem is that if I do that, I'll surely go to jail for assault.
So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater. As a bonus, I'll save a bunch of money, which I can use instead for going out to eat at a nice, quiet upscale restaurant with my girlfriend. If the theaters go out of business, then so be it. The nice restaurants don't seem to have a problem keeping customers in line and tossing out rowdy people.
He doesn't have that yet, but eventually they're going to invent femme-bots....
What state do you live in?
Common sense dictates that throwing 26 million Americans off of health insurance is bad idea. Hence, the bill died without a vote in Congress.
Huh? That's not the way the media is spinning it. According to them, and to Trump and Ryan, the bill died because the "House Freedom Caucus" (a bunch of hard-line conservatives) said they'd refuse to vote for it, mainly because it wasn't conservative enough for them, not because they gave a shit about 26 million poorer Americans losing health insurance. (Ironically, many of these caucus members were elected by poorer, working-class Americans who stood to lose their health insurance as a result of their voting for ultra-conservatives, but hey, that's OK if they die from preventable health problems as long as we can ban abortion again, right?)
Extra income for other jobs too, that require actual intelligence and decisions. Also for services.
For instance, if I have the choice of going to two coffee shops, one staffed entirely by robots, and the other having a robot making food/drinks, but some cute girls delivering them to my table, I'm going to choose the latter if the price isn't that much more.
Society's in big, big trouble when femme-bots are invented though....
Live concerts are not free to produce. You have to pay for the power (and that's a lot, for all the lights and amplifiers), the equipment, and you have to rent the stage/venue. You also have to publicize it somehow or no one's going to come. They don't have to be as expensive as many are now, but someone owns that venue (and has to maintain it), and you have to pay for that if you're going to perform there. Otherwise, they'll rent it to someone else who will.
No. I'm all for a UBI, but this is too much. If you give people stuff for free, they're going to hoard and take advantage. Resources and energy are not infinite or free.
Self-driving cars are a luxury. They absolutely should not be free. Eventually they should be mandatory for road-going vehicles because of safety, but they should never be free. They consume massive amounts of energy. If people want cheap transport, it has to be done by train or ship. Even that cannot be free.
This is why the UBI makes sense: it allots a certain amount of resources (represented by money) to everyone as a baseline, in return for them being part of society (and also not acting against society, i.e. not being a criminal). This affords them a certain amount of freebies: namely a place to live and food (and also healthcare for necessities, that really should be free and separate from the UBI) and maybe a few nice things, but limited to a certain monthly "allowance". So they'll be able to afford maybe one concert a month (on the lawn or maybe back rows), or they can spend it on a few smoothies, or save it up for a year and get front-row tickets or a trip somewhere, etc. And if this paltry but functional standard of living isn't enough for them, they can go find a job, or try making crafts and selling them, etc., and make more money, or maybe try writing a book and then becoming a millionaire like JK Rowling (who used to be on welfare).
No, air travel is not a basic necessity, nor will it ever be. Air travel is highly energy-intensive. If it were free, the demand would skyrocket and we'd have far more jet fuel being burned than today, with terrible consequences.
The only thing that should be an actual freebie is healthcare. Healthy people don't need it much anyway (just a check-up), and healthier people are more productive anyway (so more likely to go get a job, or do something productive that results in more economic activity, which in turns pays for the UBI and free-healthcare system for everyone through taxes). Everything else needs to be rationed for the the freeloaders; we can afford to let them have a small amount (which they choose by how they spend their UBI check), but that's it. If they want more, they have to contribute more to the economy and earn more money.
How about all the millions in Africa that the Christian missionaries "help" by spreading Christianity and teaching them to hate gay people, so that they pass laws legalizing murder of homosexuals?
No one is helped by Christianity, it's a religion that only spreads hate and demands money from its followers.
How are you disgusted by what you read on FB?
I have a FB account too. I rarely use it. My main reason for having it before was for services which used it as an authentication mechanism, namely Tinder. I have a gf now (no thanks to Tinder, but rather OKC), so I don't even need it for that now, but I'll keep it around just in case this one fails. Anyway, I also have a small handful of "friends" on FB, mostly family members, and some other friends of friends who got in there. I only do this really to seem "normal" and have a way of contacting these people just in case. Most of them just post stupid but harmless crap: family photos, "look at us on vacation!", "Junior at his baseball game!" type BS, and "liked" junk such as some cooking recipe or whatever. There have been some that started spewing a bunch of political crap (always right-wing like you mention), so I de-friended them. In short, I don't keep any "friends" there that spread that crap, and don't have very many friends, so I don't have to be disgusted. I'm disgusted enough with all the right-wing, nationalistic, xenophobic conspiracy-theory garbage right here on Slashdot and various other sites, but at least on FB I can filter it by defriending those people. Of course, that doesn't leave much of a reason to bother using the site, but that's OK. It's there in case I need it for something (sometimes someone will send me a link on there), and to make sure someone doesn't create a fake account in my name.
These voters will be *happy* to die because of GOP policies, as long as the GOP continues to blame some minority for all their problems.
Currently it seems the favored solution is migrating to germany (yes, I know, jews running away to germany, ironic).
Maybe, maybe not.
Germany really seems to be a good example of the saying about how sometimes you need to burn something down to create something much better. Nazi Germany obviously was a horrible place in many ways, especially for certain people. Modern Germany seems to be one of the best nations in the world to live in. But it also seems to show the sad truism that the only way to normally make a change for the better like that is through a lot of violence and destruction.
You're talking about Eternal September. The Internet was a lot smaller back then, and had a lot less idiocy for sure, however I'm not so sure about "nicer". USENET was infamous for "flame wars". But the difference was that, back then, the flamewars were generally between intelligent academics, and were very nasty arguments between people but with actual reason and intelligence. Whereas today, you just need to read the comments below and mass-media news article (esp. anything political), or YouTube comments, and you'll see stuff that makes you wonder if those people ever even finished 6th grade or if they just got "social promotions" to graduate high school while being functionally illiterate.
I have to disagree about dealing with the general public. I've had to do that a little, but not that much, but I did have a grocery-bagging job in high school back when they still had such jobs. Most people were fine; a few were jerks, more than a few were thoughtless, but overall they weren't horrible, certainly not 90%. However, that's based on a pretty limited interaction, in public. The thing that's different about the internet is that people can be anonymous or semi-anonymous keyboard warriors, and aren't personally accountable for their comments. Just look at some of the outright hateful, mean-spirited, and even downright racist or genocidal comments after a political news article, especially from the Trump supporters. People don't generally act that nastily in public, because if they did say such things, they'd very likely get punched. (And I'm not sure they'd even be prosecuted for assault, as I'm pretty sure courts and prosecutors take into account verbal incitement.) But behind a keyboard, some fat-ass POS can spew white supremacist drivel on a public message board anonymously without much fear of repercussions. So likely, many of the people you walk past in public really *are* "fscked in the head" much worse than you realize, but they're keeping it under wraps while they're in public. The Internet lets them show that side of themselves.
And I don't see how that's likely to improve any time soon. Many (most?) people are nasty, vile, despicable creatures underneath, and the only way to hide that, the way we did in the pre-Internet days, is to severely curtail the forms of expression they have available to them, which means eliminating comment boards (as many sites have already done), or requiring people to post their real name, basically eliminating anonymity. Even that only has so much effect, because people can be anywhere, not local to those they offend.
Face it; the Internet's power is democratization, letting anyone and everyone have great power of global, inexpensive communication is going to have both positive and negative effects.
That's bullshit. I've seen it for myself: Christian soup kitchens require desperate, hungry people to sit for an hour for a sermon before they're allowed to have any food. Giving away something with strings attached, even if they're not actually financial, is not "giving from the bottom of your heart".
Sounds like the "remain" people should move to Scotland, and the "leave" people should move to England.
Whoops, sorry. I should have said they're sick of the English.
Also, won't Scots always be "Brits", no matter what? Scotland will always be part of both "Great Britain" (an island) and "the British Isles" (the group of islands which includes GB). Or is "Brit" in this context a demonym only for a citizen of the UK?
Naming in the British Isles is really, really confusing. (For example, is "Ireland" a country, or an island? It's both! And they're not the same, because the statement "Northern Ireland is part of Ireland" is simultaneously true and false.)
As I pointed out before, stuff like this just won't work. It doesn't matter how good it is technically, you can't get entrenched incumbents (like Apple that you mention) to adopt it, and without a critical mass, it fails. One company won't adopt it because they can't get vendor lock-in, another because they can't easily make money on it somehow, etc. For instance, why would the carriers want to adopt this, when they're making huge profits off of SMS messages now?
The only way stuff like this gets adopted is if it's forced on them somehow, and they really don't have a choice. Either some hugely powerful government forces them to adopt it, or it gets so much grassroots adoption that it becomes a de-facto standard. See web standards for the latter (everyone hated IE6 so much that they adopted Firefox/Chrome in such large numbers that web devs were forced to follow actual standards, and MS was then forced to follow suit. And this largely happened because of Chrome, which was made by Google, whose incentive was inserting spyware into the browser).
At this point, I really don't see what could force the big email providers (namely Google and MS) to adopt a new standard. It also doesn't help that so many businesses use Outlook, and frequently not the very latest version, so upgrading to a new standard isn't as easy as just hitting F5 on your browser as it is with a webmail system, though a fallback to SMTP would alleviate that, plus if enough large businesses really liked what Email2.0 had to offer (built-in encryption, etc.), they might willingly adopt new email clients just to get those features, though that's pretty hard to believe considering how stuck they've been on Outlook/Exchange for so many years, but if MS supported it quickly that would probably lead to quick overall adoption. But I don't see that happening because MS has a *long* history of hating open standards unless they can "embrace and extend" them to get vendor lock-in.
And will be dead within 10 years. Hooray for the sudden outbreak of common sense (Trump, Brexit, etc)
Yes, because nepotism and cronyism is such a great way to run a country.
More likely, all of western civilization will be "dead" (i.e. turned into a has-been economic backwater) within a few decades.