... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently? I have 3.5.2, but it crashes way too often and feels slower. Javascript also stutters. It pauses now and again, as if it were trying to catch up to something. It could be blazing fast between pauses, but if its freezing, it ain't blazing.
You can tout your own horn all you want, but show me the evidence.
The only dumb move, and I mean really dumb move, is that facebook didn't default all privacy settings to "no one" upon adding their new feature. Users need to opt in to things like this, not be forced to opt out. They opened a huge can of worms. Literally.
Am I the only one who thinks the new facebook is buggy as hell?
I think the problem is google knows you are logged in... even when you do everything else. Meaning, if you log into gmail, then when you search in another tab, Google knows.
So you'd need another browser to keep a separate session. Or some other trick to keep your gmail and other parts of google disassociated.
I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.
If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it. Sure, there will be costs. But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation. I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit. It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.
Working without music is fine, as long as there isn't any noise to avert your concentration.
... and if you complain about the noise, and they can't find a solution, suggest music. That is how you'd get your music back.
Hey, at least you have your own music player. A place I visited had people listening off their computers. Do I need mention they were searching and downloading as well.
For one thing, all data isn't information. A book is less in bytes, but could be more informative than video, which requires exponentially larger throughput. Bytes measures data, not information.
Another thing is this study doesn't answer its own question. I assume this is some media study, but it doesn't say so.
The real answer would be a biological one. Humans consume information through data obtained from its senses, and the senses are constantly on. Eyesight alone is the brain's FPS x sight resolution x hours awake - the time blinking. Add hearing, touch, smell, taste, and an active imagination, and zettabytes will not cut it.
The problem is no longer about privacy. It is about how to protect us so that we can safely live publicly and putting in place the right triggers for when violations occur.
The electric companies too are subjected to the new orders of the world. Their activities are just as trackable as ours are to them. In exchange for them tracking us, we should be able to track them with regards to our information, and they should have to pay for their mistakes.
It may take a long time, but by the time the courts are through with "information breach" lawsuits, the companies will come to the conclusion that holding on to all this information is not worth the risk. As long as the laws pass that prevent them from selling it, trust me, they will destroy it.
There is such a thing as too much information.
PS. Dear Privacy Advocates: They just want to make money, not harm your kids.
Tell that to the companies that are making millions and millions. Didn't IBM invest a billion in Linux a few years back, and then claim that they'd more than recouped their investment in fairly short order?
Using GPL software to make money and selling GPL software are two different things. Those who write GPL software aren't making much money. Business models are built around GPL software, not on top of it.
2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.
The GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation. You don't enforce it, you ignore it and sue for copyright violation. [...]
The GPL is a copyright license, so enforcement is suing for a copyright violation. It is an agreement, that when violated, makes you liable, in this case, liable for noncompliance. Copyright violations are criminal, but damages are a civil matter. Fines are not damages.
3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.
A) how do you know that? and B) how is that relevant to anything? Anything at all?
First, free software users aren't the best audience to sell software to, especially software you stole from them. Second, stolen code is most likely going into proprietary software or into hardware where it cannot be found. Third, if GPL software is being sold to people who would never have used it without the violators selling it to them, then the authors are not at a loss. It is a situation where someone else gained from an area in which you would have never gained anything. So it's about the only thing that matters in a civil case, really: what harm did it do to you?
4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.
This sentence doesn't even make any sense.[...]
A group of geographically scattered coders will not be equally represented in court as Microsoft or Apple. That is all I am saying.
To sue, one must prove damages.
And it's not hard to prove. [...]
Damages don't have to be monetary, but monetary damages are often the only damages that matter. I violated. I lost. So I was forced to release the code. Big whoop. Compare that to having to pay 20 million dollars. To a business, money matters more than compliance. And only when compliance becomes a monetary issue are they inclined to comply. Like parking tickets.
Hence: There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.
Put even simpler: The cops won't come after you, only recreational coders with no lawyers. If and when they do, and you lose, you *might* have to comply depending on the judge. Not a very scary situation.
Hackers coming after you is far scarier, but then again, relying on retaliation against civil violations with criminal acts will not get an industry very far.
There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.
Here is the problem.
1) GPL software is not very profitable. 2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court. 3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to. 4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.
Who would feel threatened under these conditions?
To sue, one must prove damages. Record companies use the CD MSRP * copies made formula which is very effective. $0 times anything is zero. And the 2 developers who write code in their free time aren't going to chase anyone no matter how blatant the violation.
So I say GPL needs a damages clause:
"If I do not comply, I agree to pay all associated legal fees and 1 million dollars in damages per copy of proprietary software that I sell which includes any code from this software."
There is no report on who will write the next one, but whoever does he has put paid to the canard that ZDNet and intelligence are incompatible, for all time.
This is why educators and reformers that blame bad parenting for the failures of their students are a sham. They are creating an intellectual divide between the haves and have nots, in this case, those who have intellectual parents.
Another huge common misconception is that children do as they are told by their parents, hence children that lack discipline lack proper parenting. Children absolutely do not what they are told just because they were told to do so. They mimic their parents. If their parents do not respect authority, or are not manner oriented or intellectually minded, there is nothing a parent can say that will make their children so. Those children simply need to be placed near more obedient, polite and intellectual people so that they can mimic and absorb those traits.
Children learn by example. Only adults learn from books.
Cars are tested an insane amount before they are put on our roads. The easiest part of a car to test is its software. We aren't talking about a CGI script by a teenager here. And software doesn't erode or malfunction or break. If it has bugs, it always has them, and they will be there from the beginning, meaning they will be found.
If there is some real glitch, it would have to be mechanical or in the wiring. Like a switch not getting flipped, or some sensor going wack.
An all or nothing subscription model does not work online, and you sacrifice the interactivity and viral attributes of the internet - which to most is the most important.
Newspapers need to realize the paper is more of a tradition at this point. And the tradition is over.
Web 101: - If one page out of a free book isn't free, we will skip that page. - If pages require special steps to view them, you are censoring your own content from the web. - We simply do not read whole sites. Most of us don't read an entire newspaper, but its way worse online. You cannot sell a whole site.
This article is definitive proof of someone with no definitive proof using the faucets given to them as a journalist to demonize a class of people whom she has little ties with and knows absolutely nothing about. Maybe she forgives on Sundays, but every other day of the week, it appears she's throwing punches.
Considering such hear-say proof will mess with all equations. That is exactly what most of us do, because we do not know better, and how we end up hanging the innocent in the name of justice and faith. Years later we shudder at our own ignorance, and promise we'll do better. That pretty much sums up the history of civilization, and if you think that somehow ends with us, then you are part of the problem.
Google will provide a new separate data environment
This is precisely why the cloud will never take off, and proof it is just semantic fluffware. If "a new separate data environment" were better than the cloud, then we'd all just get servers... which happens to be what we all already have now.
Either the government is being duped into buying something that should be way cheaper, or google is completely lying about the security and stability of the cloud service they are offering to the public.
The last time I checked, Google Apps is absolutely free.
This is business as usual. Seriously what is wrong with an upgrade? Sony cuts their PS sizes in half every couple of years, and Nintendo has always been about selling hardware anyway. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Just, plenty of people want it, so it will go on sale.
the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term.
... and the pay-to-view model is not sustainable period.
The only model that has a narrow chance is if they charge something like 5 dollars per year, but also get rid of their randomly disappearing and reappearing content. No one will complain while its free, but when I start watching a series from season 1, I expect season 5 to still be there when I get there. I'm just sayin'.
Honestly, I wonder how many people post stuff on some obscure URL thinking only the friends and family they send it to would see it, just to find out watching CNN Headline News that it got indexed by Google and journalists were reporting on bloggers blogging about it.
Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.
These are straight arrow examples of the dedicated clouds I was referring to. Make no mistake, amazon and google are not offering dedicated cloud solutions last I checked. They are offering to share their clouds, and neither of these companies would even contemplate paying someone else for a shared cloud service to sustain their entire business.
Facebook, mySpace, and I suspect even Twitter (more recently after all their mishaps) have all moved on to virtualizing their server farms to maximize redundancy and cost efficiency. That is the natural evolution of any such mammoth web service - to turn rain drops into mist, and eliminate bottlenecks. To say all that these companies or any other company would need to do in the future is pay for some shared spot in a monolithic cloud is beyond just a leap. It is nonsensical, and will not happen.
After some more thought and some more beers, I had an Oprah ah-ha moment:
Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling.
They have found someone to sell to: The US government. Who else would pay disproportionate amounts of money for something that sounds new, but actually doesn't do anything new?
The government is paid to spend money. If they had to spend the money they earned by actually doing something, they would not be so reckless. In fact they would be bankrupt. And China is the only reason they are not.
What is worse, the government is usually the last on any bandwagon.
If they bought it, I say cloud season is officially over folks.
I am not sure we are in much disagreement here. I would say your case would fall under:
...a market for super cheap hosting for the masses by selling competitive hosting packages by leveraging the cost efficiency and performance benefits of a cloud.
Such cases definitely exist, and it is great for those who feel they have achieved maximum value for their money. Still, I suspect there aren't enough of you. Zero market disruption.
Slashdot Mirror
... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently? I have 3.5.2, but it crashes way too often and feels slower. Javascript also stutters. It pauses now and again, as if it were trying to catch up to something. It could be blazing fast between pauses, but if its freezing, it ain't blazing.
You can tout your own horn all you want, but show me the evidence.
The only dumb move, and I mean really dumb move, is that facebook didn't default all privacy settings to "no one" upon adding their new feature. Users need to opt in to things like this, not be forced to opt out. They opened a huge can of worms. Literally.
Am I the only one who thinks the new facebook is buggy as hell?
AJAX + unresponsive backend = awkward moment
Considering Microsoft's new ad campaign, we shouldn't be so surprised...
Windows 7 was my idea.
Literally, Windows 7 was my fucking idea.
I think the problem is google knows you are logged in... even when you do everything else. Meaning, if you log into gmail, then when you search in another tab, Google knows.
So you'd need another browser to keep a separate session. Or some other trick to keep your gmail and other parts of google disassociated.
I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.
If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it. Sure, there will be costs. But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation. I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit. It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.
Man, am I proud to be an American.
Same in California. It's also hard to respect the law when the governor's wife is constantly getting caught with a phone in her hand.
Working without music is fine, as long as there isn't any noise to avert your concentration.
... and if you complain about the noise, and they can't find a solution, suggest music. That is how you'd get your music back.
Hey, at least you have your own music player. A place I visited had people listening off their computers. Do I need mention they were searching and downloading as well.
*That* my friend is a distraction.
For one thing, all data isn't information. A book is less in bytes, but could be more informative than video, which requires exponentially larger throughput. Bytes measures data, not information.
Another thing is this study doesn't answer its own question. I assume this is some media study, but it doesn't say so.
The real answer would be a biological one. Humans consume information through data obtained from its senses, and the senses are constantly on. Eyesight alone is the brain's FPS x sight resolution x hours awake - the time blinking. Add hearing, touch, smell, taste, and an active imagination, and zettabytes will not cut it.
Seriously people.
How many young aspiring racing drivers haven't played Grand Turismo?
Great story, but this isn't news.
No real programmer really likes their tools. That is the punchline.
And dead funny? I mean, they seem like fun loving people, but I'd stop at "funny."
The problem is no longer about privacy. It is about how to protect us so that we can safely live publicly and putting in place the right triggers for when violations occur.
The electric companies too are subjected to the new orders of the world. Their activities are just as trackable as ours are to them. In exchange for them tracking us, we should be able to track them with regards to our information, and they should have to pay for their mistakes.
It may take a long time, but by the time the courts are through with "information breach" lawsuits, the companies will come to the conclusion that holding on to all this information is not worth the risk. As long as the laws pass that prevent them from selling it, trust me, they will destroy it.
There is such a thing as too much information.
PS. Dear Privacy Advocates: They just want to make money, not harm your kids.
1) GPL software is not very profitable.
Tell that to the companies that are making millions and millions. Didn't IBM invest a billion in Linux a few years back, and then claim that they'd more than recouped their investment in fairly short order?
Using GPL software to make money and selling GPL software are two different things. Those who write GPL software aren't making much money. Business models are built around GPL software, not on top of it.
2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.
The GPL is a defense against charges of copyright violation. You don't enforce it, you ignore it and sue for copyright violation. [...]
The GPL is a copyright license, so enforcement is suing for a copyright violation. It is an agreement, that when violated, makes you liable, in this case, liable for noncompliance. Copyright violations are criminal, but damages are a civil matter. Fines are not damages.
3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.
A) how do you know that? and B) how is that relevant to anything? Anything at all?
First, free software users aren't the best audience to sell software to, especially software you stole from them. Second, stolen code is most likely going into proprietary software or into hardware where it cannot be found. Third, if GPL software is being sold to people who would never have used it without the violators selling it to them, then the authors are not at a loss. It is a situation where someone else gained from an area in which you would have never gained anything. So it's about the only thing that matters in a civil case, really: what harm did it do to you?
4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.
This sentence doesn't even make any sense.[...]
A group of geographically scattered coders will not be equally represented in court as Microsoft or Apple. That is all I am saying.
To sue, one must prove damages.
And it's not hard to prove. [...]
Damages don't have to be monetary, but monetary damages are often the only damages that matter. I violated. I lost. So I was forced to release the code. Big whoop. Compare that to having to pay 20 million dollars. To a business, money matters more than compliance. And only when compliance becomes a monetary issue are they inclined to comply. Like parking tickets.
Hence: There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.
Put even simpler: The cops won't come after you, only recreational coders with no lawyers. If and when they do, and you lose, you *might* have to comply depending on the judge. Not a very scary situation.
Hackers coming after you is far scarier, but then again, relying on retaliation against civil violations with criminal acts will not get an industry very far.
There is no legal pressure on any company that steals GPL code.
Here is the problem.
1) GPL software is not very profitable.
2) The GPL is only enforceable in civil court.
3) Those who use GPL software aren't the people violators sell to.
4) GPL software lacks civil and legal representation.
Who would feel threatened under these conditions?
To sue, one must prove damages. Record companies use the CD MSRP * copies made formula which is very effective. $0 times anything is zero. And the 2 developers who write code in their free time aren't going to chase anyone no matter how blatant the violation.
So I say GPL needs a damages clause:
"If I do not comply, I agree to pay all associated legal fees and 1 million dollars in damages per copy of proprietary software that I sell which includes any code from this software."
Parent put it very nicely.
The article is horrible. It's like me saying:
There is no report on who will write the next one, but whoever does he has put paid to the canard that ZDNet and intelligence are incompatible, for all time.
You tend to mimic the lifestyle of your parents
This is why educators and reformers that blame bad parenting for the failures of their students are a sham. They are creating an intellectual divide between the haves and have nots, in this case, those who have intellectual parents.
Another huge common misconception is that children do as they are told by their parents, hence children that lack discipline lack proper parenting. Children absolutely do not what they are told just because they were told to do so. They mimic their parents. If their parents do not respect authority, or are not manner oriented or intellectually minded, there is nothing a parent can say that will make their children so. Those children simply need to be placed near more obedient, polite and intellectual people so that they can mimic and absorb those traits.
Children learn by example. Only adults learn from books.
Cars are tested an insane amount before they are put on our roads. The easiest part of a car to test is its software. We aren't talking about a CGI script by a teenager here. And software doesn't erode or malfunction or break. If it has bugs, it always has them, and they will be there from the beginning, meaning they will be found.
If there is some real glitch, it would have to be mechanical or in the wiring. Like a switch not getting flipped, or some sensor going wack.
An all or nothing subscription model does not work online, and you sacrifice the interactivity and viral attributes of the internet - which to most is the most important.
Newspapers need to realize the paper is more of a tradition at this point. And the tradition is over.
Web 101:
- If one page out of a free book isn't free, we will skip that page.
- If pages require special steps to view them, you are censoring your own content from the web.
- We simply do not read whole sites. Most of us don't read an entire newspaper, but its way worse online. You cannot sell a whole site.
I sense sarcasm, but I need to make this point.
This article is definitive proof of someone with no definitive proof using the faucets given to them as a journalist to demonize a class of people whom she has little ties with and knows absolutely nothing about. Maybe she forgives on Sundays, but every other day of the week, it appears she's throwing punches.
Considering such hear-say proof will mess with all equations. That is exactly what most of us do, because we do not know better, and how we end up hanging the innocent in the name of justice and faith. Years later we shudder at our own ignorance, and promise we'll do better. That pretty much sums up the history of civilization, and if you think that somehow ends with us, then you are part of the problem.
That is what this article is evidence of.
Maybe we're meant to be on Earth after all? The conditions seem just fine, ... for now at least.
But please, send more robots first. They can do a lot more with a lot less controversy.
Bit late to post but...
Google will provide a new separate data environment
This is precisely why the cloud will never take off, and proof it is just semantic fluffware. If "a new separate data environment" were better than the cloud, then we'd all just get servers... which happens to be what we all already have now.
Either the government is being duped into buying something that should be way cheaper, or google is completely lying about the security and stability of the cloud service they are offering to the public.
The last time I checked, Google Apps is absolutely free.
This is business as usual. Seriously what is wrong with an upgrade? Sony cuts their PS sizes in half every couple of years, and Nintendo has always been about selling hardware anyway. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Just, plenty of people want it, so it will go on sale.
the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term.
... and the pay-to-view model is not sustainable period.
The only model that has a narrow chance is if they charge something like 5 dollars per year, but also get rid of their randomly disappearing and reappearing content. No one will complain while its free, but when I start watching a series from season 1, I expect season 5 to still be there when I get there. I'm just sayin'.
Honestly, I wonder how many people post stuff on some obscure URL thinking only the friends and family they send it to would see it, just to find out watching CNN Headline News that it got indexed by Google and journalists were reporting on bloggers blogging about it.
Amazon and Google have been using it for over a decade with great success.
These are straight arrow examples of the dedicated clouds I was referring to. Make no mistake, amazon and google are not offering dedicated cloud solutions last I checked. They are offering to share their clouds, and neither of these companies would even contemplate paying someone else for a shared cloud service to sustain their entire business.
Facebook, mySpace, and I suspect even Twitter (more recently after all their mishaps) have all moved on to virtualizing their server farms to maximize redundancy and cost efficiency. That is the natural evolution of any such mammoth web service - to turn rain drops into mist, and eliminate bottlenecks. To say all that these companies or any other company would need to do in the future is pay for some shared spot in a monolithic cloud is beyond just a leap. It is nonsensical, and will not happen.
After some more thought and some more beers, I had an Oprah ah-ha moment:
Cloud providers need to think again about what and to whom they are selling.
They have found someone to sell to: The US government. Who else would pay disproportionate amounts of money for something that sounds new, but actually doesn't do anything new?
The government is paid to spend money. If they had to spend the money they earned by actually doing something, they would not be so reckless. In fact they would be bankrupt. And China is the only reason they are not.
What is worse, the government is usually the last on any bandwagon.
If they bought it, I say cloud season is officially over folks.
I am not sure we are in much disagreement here. I would say your case would fall under:
...a market for super cheap hosting for the masses by selling competitive hosting packages by leveraging the cost efficiency and performance benefits of a cloud.
Such cases definitely exist, and it is great for those who feel they have achieved maximum value for their money. Still, I suspect there aren't enough of you. Zero market disruption.