What MS did was lock in computer OEMs so that they couldn't load another OS without risking their license to load Windows.
There are A LOT of other companies that have the same set-ups for their VAR's. This is not an uncommon practice. You can get a Linux box from Dell, I think thats the biggest End User to PC maker out there.
To compete in the OS market you need to invest billions of dollars.
What are the barriers to entry in the search market?
You switch the point of your argument here. Actually, barrier to entry into the OS market is now as easy as getting a version of Linux and then making your own distro, one guy could do it. Not expensive in the least. Now, to COMPETE - thats a whole different question.
To enter the Search Engine market all I have to do is write a search algo, build an index, and open a webpage pointing to it. Cost of entry is close to nothing.
Now lets get to the cost of COMPETING in the search market. 200K in servers isn't going to cut it, much less cover the costs for creating a new ontolology based algo that would kick the crap outta Googles. The costs of competing in search are staggering.
What do Google customers have that creates a barrier to using a different search site? I remember when Altavista was THE search engine. Or Yahoo.
OK, this is a very interesting point - but there are some serious market aspects that oen go ignored when analyzing this turn.
How many households had web access when Alta Vista was the king? Out of those households, how many had a broadband connection? The reality of the matter is that the internet was not really being used by Joe average until much later. Techies, geeks, and savvy users made up most of the web user demographic. We had our fingers on the pulse of the internet because it was a relatively small club.
Enter Yahoo. Internet use becomes a little more available to the masses, so something a little more user friendly was developed. Yahoo also had some portal services too, making it easier for the less savvy end user to find interesting parts of the internet. Broadband still isn't widespread, and alot of the material available out there wasn't aimed at Joe average. At this time, Yahoo and MSN get greedy - they start offereing higher placement for money.
We flipped out. The savvy user population decided to go to the new kid, Google. At this time internet usage goes up and broadband begins to become ubiquitous. New tools enable ANYONE to dump their content onto the web. Blogs allow everyone to be part of the web and better designers make it much easier to navigate.
We must be aware that the majority of web users now are Joe average non-savvy users. They won't respond to bad search results the same as the more technically inclined have in the past because they aren't even aware of it. As the market base grows, it's response to events becomes more and more apathetic.
It is Microsoft all over again, but people ignore it because they say - "I can switch." While that is most certainly true, the question that should be asked is "Will most of the peopel switch?" If not, and you controll a dominant market share, you are a canidate for defacto monopoly.
We can debate this all we want, but once Google hits 75%-80% US share, this issue will come up in a court. Until then, its all conjecture.
I don't disagree, but office doesn't come bundled with Windows anymore. This is a completely different issue.
I can't tell you how many average joe end users are pissed that it doesn't. They think its Microsoft being greedy trying to charge them for 2 products. They don't know the history.
Also, my math was a little off, it's more like $650 to buy Windows plus Office.
the most obvious is IE's dominance purely due to it's inclusion with Windows.
It wouldn't have anything to do with Netscape's browser sucking balls or Netscape trying its hand at the portal business at the wrong time or IE actually being BETTER at that time. You ignore alot of facts to supplement your own perceptions.
I do not see this with Google. First off, Google doesn't even have a 50% share of the global searches.
You said a lot of things, but I'm I didn't get any actual critcism out of it.
That's because I didn't criticize. I merely pointed out that Google is well on its way to being the defacto search monopoly. I also gave parallels to what happened to Microsoft and what will happen to google.
There is no indication that they will ever be a monopoly
It's simply too easy to buy an Apple or get a free Linux distro. The barrier to entry isn't the issue here, its the tendency of the user. The user doesn't want to switch search engines. Do you really think Joe enduser can tell bad search results from good? He is unmoitivated to switch.
As for Google offering the option to see other engine's results? They already do: it's called DogPile.
Google doesn't offer this, InfoSpace does. "They" is innappropriate here as it isn't Google doing it. Now, is there an option, yes. In the same way I have OS options, doesn't make MS any less of a Monopoly. Please don't try to blur the lines with semantics.
As I said, almost by definition, there will be no search monopoly because the cost of switching is almost zero to the end user.
And I said barrier to entry is not the defining point of monopoly, marketshare is. Googles trend since its launch has been increased market share every year. You assume the end user will know that there is a monopoly or will care. Thats alot of assuming to do. A monopoly in this case would be most relevant to the businesses involved with online components, not the end user.
Here's the thing, the end user you keep touting is Googles PRODUCT. Google uses search results to get the users and sell them to advertisers. You get a monopoly on that, there are serious issues that need to be discussed.
This is clearly not the case with Windows - many people dislike Windows, but they have so much invested in it that it makes it almost impossible to switch for non-geeks, and annoying even for the technically saavy.
This is only true of businesses, and that is quickly coming to an end with web standards used for integration.
The end user has less than $500 invested in Windows and plenty of options for Operating Systems. The problem is that they don't want to switch. They don't want to learn how to do something another way. That is a tendency of people, not any business practice.
Gmail - Data mining and spyware/ stop doint it Google Toolbar - Spyware/ stop doing it AdWords - No support for clickfraud/ support the people who make you money Google China - Following local laws at the expense of human decency/ Decide that money isn't everything
Google's page defaults to Google's services, and that's fine. Why? Because Google (as of November 2005 - I can't find any more recent statistics) has 46.3% of the search engine market. While this is more than any of their competitors, it is nothing like a monopoly.
Finally, someone who gets it. At this point, they may not be considered a Monopoly, but they are well on their way.
The numbers you show are for the US. Here are the globals for 2006 (so far). Now, the part I find interesting is that google is listed multiple times here. Adding up all of thier listings I get 65.68% of world share. That is pretty damn close to the 80% you quoted. Now maybe their services are open source, but they bundle Firefox and Nortons in their download pack.
Thier Monopoly would also be in a less defined area than Microsoft's. Businesses will all be at the mercy of google is they wish to have a web presence. This can be directly paralleled to Microsofts API shenanigans and perhaps to their VAR relationships.
If they make their search engine the default in their browser, bundled with their OS, then they are using their monopoly position in two markets to attempt to gain a monopoly in a third.
Yes, but it has been legally cleared. To be fair, what would you have Microsoft do as a business entity (which they are), not a person (which they aren't). To not attempt to do this would just be plain stupid. If the courts stop you, fine - stop doing it. If they don't, well full steam ahead.
I'm not saying that your incorrect. They most certainly ARE using a monopoly position to gain leverage in another market, it just hasn't been ruled as anti-competative.
You know, this short sighted argument in defense of Google will not hold up for much longer than a year or two. They have gained market share without fail since their inception.
Soon they will hit critical mass, become the defacto search choice, and are going to get the shit sued out of them by everyone and their mother. Everything from favored ranking positions to unfair bundling of free software in their download packs to the installation of thier software on Dell machines will be fair game.
You know who's going to be the biggest backer of this movement? Microsoft. They'll win too.
Let's take a look back. Before Microsoft there was no such thing as an OS monopoly. They were the first and have been dealt with heavy handed for some practices that deserved it and some that were just witch hunts. Everyone involved was essentially flying blind, or at least half blind, as this was completely new territory with no directly related reprocussions to base arguments on. Alot of it was conjecture, no one really knew what the results of certain behaviors would be.
Please, before someone loses their head and brings up the broken API's - that was pretty clear cut BS on Microsoft's part.
Let's take a look at Google now. As they approach global search dominance it soon becomes apparent that any business who wants a web presence will be at Google's mercy. If Google decides that they don't want your website listed, your screwed. If Google suddenly decides that they give priority to browsers with a certain agent id, users are screwed. If google decides that they are going to start offering a link to Firefox on their front page, the other browsers are screwed. If Google changes their algo just a little, and ends up drastically changing their rankings as result - the businesses are screwed. Every one of these behaviors has a relative action by Microsoft and a clearly defined result. How long before google has to start opening up the algo for us to see or has to stat giving us the option to use some other search engines results?
Google is quickly becoming a search monopoly, and I can't wait till they get knocked around a bit because of it. The delivery of information should NEVER go through such a pinch point. Do no evil? Bullshit, just make sure you're doing evil that the everyman has no clue about.
Goole toolbar tracks your clicks in a sesion and phones home with the results as a way to tweak their listings based on traffic patterns. You CAN turn is off, but the average user doesn't have a clue that they can or how to do it.
Google desktop phones home with user tendencies to "help" them build more user friendly tools. It ALSO phones home with your web surfing sessions.
The issue becomes a little cloudy when people don't agree on the definition of "spyware". Some people define it as anything that sends information about your activities, anonomous or not, to a collecting party. Some people say it has to have a personal identfier for you or it doesn't count as spyware. Others won't believe its spyware unless there is no way to disable the "feature." Alot of people like the qualifier that that the software has to be installed without the users consent. Pesonally I stick with the definition of anything that phones home with my activities.
What the hell is a Swiffer? I dunno, but the onomatapoia aspect certainly lends itself towards a quick cleaning tool. The point being that the product name has numerous functions besides "describe", it also has to differentiate itself and generate interest. A unique name with a whimsical tone for a gaming system is not a bad choice if you want to instantly convey fun and kid friendliness. It also clearly separates it from XBOX360 and Playstation 3, both which bring the connotation of "sequel" with their names.
In my professional opinion it is a very well thought out and subtley complex move with no down side.
Consumers in Poland have an average salary of X. Y number of consumers in Poland have historically bought Nintendo consoles. Using X and Y, product managers and marketers evaluate how many units they can sell at each price point. The best Unit Sold/Cost ratio is where the price is set for that area.
In America, Nintendo can make WAY more of a profit by selling the console for less because more people will buy it here in numbers that will justify the lower pricing. Poland doesn't have the average level of disposable income available to a demographic large enough to demand a lower price. So Nintendo charges more to maintain an acceptable margin.
Thanks for the information. A quick search for the W3C references on OWL fleshed out alot of what you were saying, and let me know know where I was getting off track.
I have done a little bit of casual research into ontology and have a question maybe you could answer.
Is it possible to have a markup structure that could handle this issue by searching for a "secondary key" bit of information to qualify the identifier? Using your example above of "apple":
I know the code is ugly, and probably incorrect, but its just for an example.
Using a structure such as this couldn't two pieces of information cross reference each other and evaluate their relevancy to each other based on the "supplementary" data? Since the two pieces of "Apple" data have nothing else in common, they must not be related at all. And as my limited understanding of xml structures leads me to believe, couldn't two non-identical (one has more or less children than another) XML entities still compare data with each other if they at least agreed on the heirarchy and naming convention, allowing items with greater description still be matched to those with lesser descriptions based on major characteristics?
What I really want to see is the search engine reduce the duplicated content to single entries (try Googling for a Java classname and you'll see how many Google-searched websites have the API on them), or order them by reoccurrance of the word or phrase giving the context more value than the popularity of the page.
There is a huge problem with this, and it goes back to the days of people jamming 1000 instances of their keywords at the bottom of their pages in the same fant color as the background. Also, your desire to rate the pages on context requires an ontology type algo, which is NOT easy. Google has been working on this for a little while now, but it is a big hill to climb. They are using popularity as a substitution for this. It is not the most effective, but it is a pretty decent second option.
There is another issue with the approach you suggest. If Google decides that javapage.htm is the end all be all of JAVA knowledge, and removes all other listings from their database - then everyone and their grandmother will be fed information from this one source. That will ultimately reduce the effectiveness of Google to return valid responses to people who do not use search like a robot.
There is a human element at play here that Google is attempting to cater to through sheer numbers. Not everyone knows how to use search properly, hell most people have no idea. Keyword order, booleans, quotes - these will all affect the results given back, but very few people use them right off the bat. If you reduce the number of returned listings for a single word search to one area that was detirmined to be the authority, you have just made your search engine less effective in the eyes of the less skilled. I would be willing to bet that this less skilled group composed most of Googles userbase.
If you don't cater to these people, then you lose marketshare, and then you lose revenue from advertisers, and then you go out of business.
Having said that I am an avid reader, I have not read Moby Dick, I think Dickens is boring and I play the occasonal game, if this makes me uneducated in the eyes of someone with a doctorate in nit-picking so be it.
Ummm, Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. Also, you haven't been bored to death by his writing until you've read "Billy Budd."
Exactly. This is why I beleive this medium should be explored as a legitimate form of communicating themes and events. The interactivity will allow you to feel some small tinges of emotional, moral, and ethical related to the activity.
I know I have felt a little dirty killing civilians in GTA - so I actually try not to do it. This can be explored instead to trying to influence emotions in a one dimensional sense.
Slashdot Mirror
What MS did was lock in computer OEMs so that they couldn't load another OS without risking their license to load Windows.
There are A LOT of other companies that have the same set-ups for their VAR's. This is not an uncommon practice. You can get a Linux box from Dell, I think thats the biggest End User to PC maker out there.
To compete in the OS market you need to invest billions of dollars.
What are the barriers to entry in the search market?
You switch the point of your argument here. Actually, barrier to entry into the OS market is now as easy as getting a version of Linux and then making your own distro, one guy could do it. Not expensive in the least. Now, to COMPETE - thats a whole different question.
To enter the Search Engine market all I have to do is write a search algo, build an index, and open a webpage pointing to it. Cost of entry is close to nothing.
Now lets get to the cost of COMPETING in the search market. 200K in servers isn't going to cut it, much less cover the costs for creating a new ontolology based algo that would kick the crap outta Googles. The costs of competing in search are staggering.
What do Google customers have that creates a barrier to using a different search site? I remember when Altavista was THE search engine. Or Yahoo.
OK, this is a very interesting point - but there are some serious market aspects that oen go ignored when analyzing this turn.
How many households had web access when Alta Vista was the king? Out of those households, how many had a broadband connection? The reality of the matter is that the internet was not really being used by Joe average until much later. Techies, geeks, and savvy users made up most of the web user demographic. We had our fingers on the pulse of the internet because it was a relatively small club.
Enter Yahoo. Internet use becomes a little more available to the masses, so something a little more user friendly was developed. Yahoo also had some portal services too, making it easier for the less savvy end user to find interesting parts of the internet. Broadband still isn't widespread, and alot of the material available out there wasn't aimed at Joe average. At this time, Yahoo and MSN get greedy - they start offereing higher placement for money.
We flipped out. The savvy user population decided to go to the new kid, Google. At this time internet usage goes up and broadband begins to become ubiquitous. New tools enable ANYONE to dump their content onto the web. Blogs allow everyone to be part of the web and better designers make it much easier to navigate.
We must be aware that the majority of web users now are Joe average non-savvy users. They won't respond to bad search results the same as the more technically inclined have in the past because they aren't even aware of it. As the market base grows, it's response to events becomes more and more apathetic.
It is Microsoft all over again, but people ignore it because they say - "I can switch." While that is most certainly true, the question that should be asked is "Will most of the peopel switch?" If not, and you controll a dominant market share, you are a canidate for defacto monopoly.
We can debate this all we want, but once Google hits 75%-80% US share, this issue will come up in a court. Until then, its all conjecture.
I don't disagree, but office doesn't come bundled with Windows anymore. This is a completely different issue.
I can't tell you how many average joe end users are pissed that it doesn't. They think its Microsoft being greedy trying to charge them for 2 products. They don't know the history.
Also, my math was a little off, it's more like $650 to buy Windows plus Office.
the most obvious is IE's dominance purely due to it's inclusion with Windows.
It wouldn't have anything to do with Netscape's browser sucking balls or Netscape trying its hand at the portal business at the wrong time or IE actually being BETTER at that time. You ignore alot of facts to supplement your own perceptions.
I do not see this with Google. First off, Google doesn't even have a 50% share of the global searches.
They have a little over 65% global. Your stats are for US.
You said a lot of things, but I'm I didn't get any actual critcism out of it.
That's because I didn't criticize. I merely pointed out that Google is well on its way to being the defacto search monopoly. I also gave parallels to what happened to Microsoft and what will happen to google.
There is no indication that they will ever be a monopoly
Its called a trend.
it is simply too easy to switch search engines.
It's simply too easy to buy an Apple or get a free Linux distro. The barrier to entry isn't the issue here, its the tendency of the user. The user doesn't want to switch search engines. Do you really think Joe enduser can tell bad search results from good? He is unmoitivated to switch.
As for Google offering the option to see other engine's results? They already do: it's called DogPile.
Google doesn't offer this, InfoSpace does. "They" is innappropriate here as it isn't Google doing it. Now, is there an option, yes. In the same way I have OS options, doesn't make MS any less of a Monopoly. Please don't try to blur the lines with semantics.
As I said, almost by definition, there will be no search monopoly because the cost of switching is almost zero to the end user.
And I said barrier to entry is not the defining point of monopoly, marketshare is. Googles trend since its launch has been increased market share every year. You assume the end user will know that there is a monopoly or will care. Thats alot of assuming to do. A monopoly in this case would be most relevant to the businesses involved with online components, not the end user.
Here's the thing, the end user you keep touting is Googles PRODUCT. Google uses search results to get the users and sell them to advertisers. You get a monopoly on that, there are serious issues that need to be discussed.
This is clearly not the case with Windows - many people dislike Windows, but they have so much invested in it that it makes it almost impossible to switch for non-geeks, and annoying even for the technically saavy.
This is only true of businesses, and that is quickly coming to an end with web standards used for integration.
The end user has less than $500 invested in Windows and plenty of options for Operating Systems. The problem is that they don't want to switch. They don't want to learn how to do something another way. That is a tendency of people, not any business practice.
Gmail - Data mining and spyware/ stop doint it
Google Toolbar - Spyware/ stop doing it
AdWords - No support for clickfraud/ support the people who make you money
Google China - Following local laws at the expense of human decency/ Decide that money isn't everything
Do I need to keep going?
Adding a RSS feed is not changing a service.
Google's page defaults to Google's services, and that's fine. Why? Because Google (as of November 2005 - I can't find any more recent statistics) has 46.3% of the search engine market. While this is more than any of their competitors, it is nothing like a monopoly.
Finally, someone who gets it. At this point, they may not be considered a Monopoly, but they are well on their way.
The numbers you show are for the US. Here are the globals for 2006 (so far). Now, the part I find interesting is that google is listed multiple times here. Adding up all of thier listings I get 65.68% of world share. That is pretty damn close to the 80% you quoted. Now maybe their services are open source, but they bundle Firefox and Nortons in their download pack.
Thier Monopoly would also be in a less defined area than Microsoft's. Businesses will all be at the mercy of google is they wish to have a web presence. This can be directly paralleled to Microsofts API shenanigans and perhaps to their VAR relationships.
If they make their search engine the default in their browser, bundled with their OS, then they are using their monopoly position in two markets to attempt to gain a monopoly in a third.
Yes, but it has been legally cleared. To be fair, what would you have Microsoft do as a business entity (which they are), not a person (which they aren't). To not attempt to do this would just be plain stupid. If the courts stop you, fine - stop doing it. If they don't, well full steam ahead.
I'm not saying that your incorrect. They most certainly ARE using a monopoly position to gain leverage in another market, it just hasn't been ruled as anti-competative.
You know, this short sighted argument in defense of Google will not hold up for much longer than a year or two. They have gained market share without fail since their inception.
Soon they will hit critical mass, become the defacto search choice, and are going to get the shit sued out of them by everyone and their mother. Everything from favored ranking positions to unfair bundling of free software in their download packs to the installation of thier software on Dell machines will be fair game.
You know who's going to be the biggest backer of this movement? Microsoft. They'll win too.
Let's take a look back. Before Microsoft there was no such thing as an OS monopoly. They were the first and have been dealt with heavy handed for some practices that deserved it and some that were just witch hunts. Everyone involved was essentially flying blind, or at least half blind, as this was completely new territory with no directly related reprocussions to base arguments on. Alot of it was conjecture, no one really knew what the results of certain behaviors would be.
Please, before someone loses their head and brings up the broken API's - that was pretty clear cut BS on Microsoft's part.
Let's take a look at Google now. As they approach global search dominance it soon becomes apparent that any business who wants a web presence will be at Google's mercy. If Google decides that they don't want your website listed, your screwed. If Google suddenly decides that they give priority to browsers with a certain agent id, users are screwed. If google decides that they are going to start offering a link to Firefox on their front page, the other browsers are screwed. If Google changes their algo just a little, and ends up drastically changing their rankings as result - the businesses are screwed. Every one of these behaviors has a relative action by Microsoft and a clearly defined result. How long before google has to start opening up the algo for us to see or has to stat giving us the option to use some other search engines results?
Google is quickly becoming a search monopoly, and I can't wait till they get knocked around a bit because of it. The delivery of information should NEVER go through such a pinch point. Do no evil? Bullshit, just make sure you're doing evil that the everyman has no clue about.
There is no reason we couldn't have done Ajax 5 years ago
We did, it was called remote scripting.
The shit is most definitely spyware.
Goole toolbar tracks your clicks in a sesion and phones home with the results as a way to tweak their listings based on traffic patterns. You CAN turn is off, but the average user doesn't have a clue that they can or how to do it.
Google desktop phones home with user tendencies to "help" them build more user friendly tools. It ALSO phones home with your web surfing sessions.
The issue becomes a little cloudy when people don't agree on the definition of "spyware". Some people define it as anything that sends information about your activities, anonomous or not, to a collecting party. Some people say it has to have a personal identfier for you or it doesn't count as spyware. Others won't believe its spyware unless there is no way to disable the "feature." Alot of people like the qualifier that that the software has to be installed without the users consent. Pesonally I stick with the definition of anything that phones home with my activities.
Pretty Straightforward != Good Marketing.
What the hell is a Swiffer? I dunno, but the onomatapoia aspect certainly lends itself towards a quick cleaning tool. The point being that the product name has numerous functions besides "describe", it also has to differentiate itself and generate interest. A unique name with a whimsical tone for a gaming system is not a bad choice if you want to instantly convey fun and kid friendliness. It also clearly separates it from XBOX360 and Playstation 3, both which bring the connotation of "sequel" with their names.
In my professional opinion it is a very well thought out and subtley complex move with no down side.
You wouldn't be talking about This tripe, would you? I know the URL looks shady, but its some Christian cartoonist.
You are correct sir, it definitely sucks.
Consumers in Poland have an average salary of X. Y number of consumers in Poland have historically bought Nintendo consoles. Using X and Y, product managers and marketers evaluate how many units they can sell at each price point. The best Unit Sold/Cost ratio is where the price is set for that area.
In America, Nintendo can make WAY more of a profit by selling the console for less because more people will buy it here in numbers that will justify the lower pricing. Poland doesn't have the average level of disposable income available to a demographic large enough to demand a lower price. So Nintendo charges more to maintain an acceptable margin.
Thanks for the information. A quick search for the W3C references on OWL fleshed out alot of what you were saying, and let me know know where I was getting off track.
Is it possible to have a markup structure that could handle this issue by searching for a "secondary key" bit of information to qualify the identifier? Using your example above of "apple":I know the code is ugly, and probably incorrect, but its just for an example.
Using a structure such as this couldn't two pieces of information cross reference each other and evaluate their relevancy to each other based on the "supplementary" data? Since the two pieces of "Apple" data have nothing else in common, they must not be related at all. And as my limited understanding of xml structures leads me to believe, couldn't two non-identical (one has more or less children than another) XML entities still compare data with each other if they at least agreed on the heirarchy and naming convention, allowing items with greater description still be matched to those with lesser descriptions based on major characteristics?
What I really want to see is the search engine reduce the duplicated content to single entries (try Googling for a Java classname and you'll see how many Google-searched websites have the API on them), or order them by reoccurrance of the word or phrase giving the context more value than the popularity of the page.
There is a huge problem with this, and it goes back to the days of people jamming 1000 instances of their keywords at the bottom of their pages in the same fant color as the background. Also, your desire to rate the pages on context requires an ontology type algo, which is NOT easy. Google has been working on this for a little while now, but it is a big hill to climb. They are using popularity as a substitution for this. It is not the most effective, but it is a pretty decent second option.
There is another issue with the approach you suggest. If Google decides that javapage.htm is the end all be all of JAVA knowledge, and removes all other listings from their database - then everyone and their grandmother will be fed information from this one source. That will ultimately reduce the effectiveness of Google to return valid responses to people who do not use search like a robot.
There is a human element at play here that Google is attempting to cater to through sheer numbers. Not everyone knows how to use search properly, hell most people have no idea. Keyword order, booleans, quotes - these will all affect the results given back, but very few people use them right off the bat. If you reduce the number of returned listings for a single word search to one area that was detirmined to be the authority, you have just made your search engine less effective in the eyes of the less skilled. I would be willing to bet that this less skilled group composed most of Googles userbase.
If you don't cater to these people, then you lose marketshare, and then you lose revenue from advertisers, and then you go out of business.
God isn't capitalized?
I dunno, Beowulf was pretty bad ass. I mean he held his breath for like a month looking for Grendel in that lake.
Having said that I am an avid reader, I have not read Moby Dick, I think Dickens is boring and I play the occasonal game, if this makes me uneducated in the eyes of someone with a doctorate in nit-picking so be it.
Ummm, Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick. Also, you haven't been bored to death by his writing until you've read "Billy Budd."
Yeah, but with the black ones you get to pretend you're a Sith.
Well, if you're looking for Buck Rogers, I have an article about him for you right here. There's no nudity or anything, but the language may be NSFW.
Anyway, the proof is - some of us DO remember the old stuff.
Exactly. This is why I beleive this medium should be explored as a legitimate form of communicating themes and events. The interactivity will allow you to feel some small tinges of emotional, moral, and ethical related to the activity.
I know I have felt a little dirty killing civilians in GTA - so I actually try not to do it. This can be explored instead to trying to influence emotions in a one dimensional sense.
From my understanding it's even older than that. I remember utilizing remote scripting back in 2001 for an insurance quote web application.
SON¥
But... let's face it... your first div probably wasn't semantic, was it?
I thought we all IDed our container div "Put the shit in here" as a matter of practice.