Why would it be replacing Javascript? It's just for those situations where you want to run something that needs better hardware access, like games. Judging by the documentation it doesn't even have access to the DOM. Besides, I don't think other browsers will be implementing it anytime soon. It's just another Chrome-only thing they're adding to try to break compatibility.
Yeah, and if it weren't for the high cost of steel, labor, and know-how, anybody could be building and selling aircraft carriers. Some things are hard to do and require an enormous investment. It is not society or government's job to make it so every tom dick and harry in their garage can get into any business they want and be on equal footing with incumbent players. What you are asking for is prima facie ludicrous.
Now that's just idiotic comparison. Cost of steel, labor and know-how is a fixed cost. You pay it, you get it. The data that Google has compared to competitors can't be bought.
I would personally hate if someone always called me about every mundane detail in their life. I have lots of things to do, I don't want to chit-chat in phone unless it's actually something important. However I can go to Facebook when I have time and most of my friends (you know, you can choose them and even ignore the real life friends who spam shit) post only interesting or fun stuff. Besides, how do you show photos via phone?
Social networks aren't the problem here, they're really good especially if you know people from several parts of the world or travel a lot. You just have to use them correctly.
On July 29, 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo! announced a deal in which Bing would power Yahoo! Search.[3] All Yahoo! Search global customers and partners are expected to be transitioned by early 2012.[4]
This is also why Google+ will fail unless they get these types of people in.. And the majority of Google+'s users, those who tried to escape all the games and these users there, will be surprised. However, a social network is dead if no one is saying or sharing anything.
I never said it's only that data. Search engines now are huge algorithms combined with lots of user data and even more related keyword data. Algorithms are the base, but all that data is what makes them work. This includes user data like click stream and also keywords that users enter to search. Since Bing has a much smaller market share they cannot get this data. What's interesting about this is that while Google got in as a first actually good search engine everywhere else in the world, China and notably Russia has their own search engines. Yandex is still used by majority of russians and Google is struggling to get by, as they cannot get that kind of data there.
better sorting of the data you have, so on and so forth.
That's exactly why you need that huge amount of user data. If it was just the case of algorithms Google wouldn't be collecting all that data and there would be much more competition. As for "better services, better interface, more convenient searching", how exactly would you improve that? It's already pretty much as convenient as it gets.
Anyone still using IE has no idea other browsers exist, or are MS fanboys.
That's just ignorance at its best. What about businesses? You know, IE is still the only browser that has site wide policies that can be applied organization wide easily by the IT department. Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari.. None have these. And businesses are a huge market, as people need to work. Are you saying they're all either MS fanboys or don't know about other browsers?
What sort of constant bombardment? You mean marketing? I fail to see how people using Google complain that google advertises their products. Don't like those, try another search engine, there are a plethora to choose from.
Yeah, you mean just like in the 90s people could had just bought from vendors that didn't make uncompetitive deals with Microsoft, even if the damage still happened? Same situation. Google is acting uncompetitive by promoting their services over competitors and even scraping content from said competitors that are then included in top of the search results. You might say it's their search results and they can do as they please, but that didn't work for Windows and IE either. In both cases you are unfairly leveraging a monopoly position to push competitors off from other markets.
It's more complex than that. Web Search now is the ultimate vendor lock, just because it's based on so much data. Data that you can't generate just by improving your algorithms. That's why Google follows what results you pick from the search results, that's why they collect so much data about keywords people use and which ones are relevant to each other and lately they even started following how much time people spend on the website Google referred people to. If user comes back to the search page quickly, it means that page was poor for the keyword that user used to do the search. So to compete with Google and improve your search engine you need at least as much of that data as Google, which you cant get because Google has a monopoly and their results are pretty good, again because they get so much data that competitors don't. The ultimate lock-in and uncompetitive position.
It did take time but finally someone is putting a stop to Google's monopolistic business strategies. I'm surprised they would repeat exactly the same mistakes Microsoft did in the 90's. Preventing Android smartphone vendors from using other services than Google's is exactly the same kind of deal and is highly anti-competitive, as is their favoring of their own services above competing ones.
Anti-competitive laws are exactly this - you should not use your monopoly in another area to gain unfair advantage in other market. What you especially should not do is prevent vendors from using other providers. Google has been doing all of this, but they do it really sneakily. Most of their marketing is really wise social engineering, the best example of being constant bombardment to download and switch to Chrome if you use IE.
Just because Google offers services for free and gets paid for them via advertisements and privacy violating data mining doesn't mean they can get away with everything. Most slashdotters seem to be blinded by the whole free and supposedly open thing, while most of their products are actually closed.
Yes, technically the emails come from their mail servers. I actually wrote that in the message first, but then I thought slashdotters would be wise enough not to nitpick and to understand that it's the person sending you the invitation and it doesn't matter so much where they technically come from. How wrong I was..
If I were to use any such thing, it would be something like a private instance of Diaspora that I have full control over.
So your suggestion is for everyone to create their own isolated "social network" which they have full control over, and hence are the only persons there? What about if you just don't put stuff on the internet that you don't want there?
But that's because of the people who want to add you there. They give them your email and LinkedIn sends you the friend request as per your friends wishes. Facebook, Google+, and every other site on the internet that has invites/add friends would do the same.
What short term gain? Microsoft is interested to gain more visitor (and hence user data that they can use to improve Bing's search algorithms) and Firefox is interested to get revenue from its users. The deal doesn't need to be anything else than Microsoft paying certain percent (lets say 70%) from the ad clicks that Firefox users generate. In fact, there's already similar programs for the Bing toolbar (and Google toolbar too), but they usually pay $1 one time payment per user. With the traffic Firefox can send them, I'm sure they can also negotiate revenue share too. They don't need to do anything else. Besides, Microsoft has changed a lot recently, and to the good direction. Google on the other hand is going the opposite way.
That article says they can't bring FarmVille and CityVille to Google+ because of deals with Facebook, but it does link to another interesting article - Google investing $100-200 million to Zynga. So much for the another usual slashdot argument about Google just providing neutral platform for others to use - it's a highly strategic game, such that every other huge company in the industry plays as well.
You know, you can just not allow it to post. Google+ has the exact same thing, they described how you can post "your high scores" and everything else for others to see.
For the other end it's also not that complicated to block those updates. The first time you get them, click the x and select hide updates. There's also the dropdown box next to latest updates link which allows you to select which kind of updates and from who you like to see. They're improved it a lot since a some years ago.
At least Google isn't dumb enough to forget that people want to play games and spend times on social networking sites. It's also interesting to see that Zynga is there.. There goes two usual slashdot arguments straight out of the window, one being that Zynga is somehow completely relies on Facebook and that Google+ is in some way different social network than Facebook. It is currently, but only because they're lagging behind in development. And to be honest, the place is completely dead without casual people, games and pages. The latter one they still need to add too.
Google+ is so direct copy of Facebook that it isn't even funny. The whole thing even looks almost exactly the same, just that it has different colors and is lacking features that Facebook has. What exactly is Google trying to archieve here? They aren't innovating, they're just copying. I rather don't have everything about me known by a single company, so I like to use Facebook much more than let Google know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet (via Google Analytics). Putting that much information to a single company is just plain stupid, especially when they just a few days ago revealed they're been secretly handing European citizens information to US agencies, even when it's illegal to do so in the EU.
This is Google poking fun at the patent office. They probably have hundreds of these in the pipeline, all with the same purpose: find out "How stupid a patent can you get?"
Now seriously. This is just on the side where I don't know if you're serious or poking fun at the Google fanboys who really believe that Google is some kind of new jesus on earth. If this was Microsoft patenting this there would be huge outcry about it. But when it's Google, it's suddenly "poking fun at the patent office" and trying to find some kind of higher meaning in it. There isn't one. They patented it because they also do specialize in such applications. It's strictly for business purposes, not some kind of "poking fun at the system".
Judging by the market, I think drops will be completely handled on blizzards server. Probably various other parts of the game logic too. That's a huge work for the crackers to replicate, and it will never be like the original game.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would it be replacing Javascript? It's just for those situations where you want to run something that needs better hardware access, like games. Judging by the documentation it doesn't even have access to the DOM. Besides, I don't think other browsers will be implementing it anytime soon. It's just another Chrome-only thing they're adding to try to break compatibility.
It's currently in use in USA and Canada. Stop acting like North America is the whole world.
Yeah, and if it weren't for the high cost of steel, labor, and know-how, anybody could be building and selling aircraft carriers. Some things are hard to do and require an enormous investment. It is not society or government's job to make it so every tom dick and harry in their garage can get into any business they want and be on equal footing with incumbent players. What you are asking for is prima facie ludicrous.
Now that's just idiotic comparison. Cost of steel, labor and know-how is a fixed cost. You pay it, you get it. The data that Google has compared to competitors can't be bought.
I would personally hate if someone always called me about every mundane detail in their life. I have lots of things to do, I don't want to chit-chat in phone unless it's actually something important. However I can go to Facebook when I have time and most of my friends (you know, you can choose them and even ignore the real life friends who spam shit) post only interesting or fun stuff. Besides, how do you show photos via phone?
Social networks aren't the problem here, they're really good especially if you know people from several parts of the world or travel a lot. You just have to use them correctly.
Interestingly, that pop-up is weighted 2/3 Bing as Bing gives the results for Yahoo now so Google is actually at a disadvantage in their own browser.
Yahoo doesn't completely use Bing yet. They announced the transition in 2009 but it will happen by the next year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search
On July 29, 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo! announced a deal in which Bing would power Yahoo! Search.[3] All Yahoo! Search global customers and partners are expected to be transitioned by early 2012.[4]
This is also why Google+ will fail unless they get these types of people in.. And the majority of Google+'s users, those who tried to escape all the games and these users there, will be surprised. However, a social network is dead if no one is saying or sharing anything.
I never said it's only that data. Search engines now are huge algorithms combined with lots of user data and even more related keyword data. Algorithms are the base, but all that data is what makes them work. This includes user data like click stream and also keywords that users enter to search. Since Bing has a much smaller market share they cannot get this data. What's interesting about this is that while Google got in as a first actually good search engine everywhere else in the world, China and notably Russia has their own search engines. Yandex is still used by majority of russians and Google is struggling to get by, as they cannot get that kind of data there.
better sorting of the data you have, so on and so forth.
That's exactly why you need that huge amount of user data. If it was just the case of algorithms Google wouldn't be collecting all that data and there would be much more competition. As for "better services, better interface, more convenient searching", how exactly would you improve that? It's already pretty much as convenient as it gets.
Anyone still using IE has no idea other browsers exist, or are MS fanboys.
That's just ignorance at its best. What about businesses? You know, IE is still the only browser that has site wide policies that can be applied organization wide easily by the IT department. Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari.. None have these. And businesses are a huge market, as people need to work. Are you saying they're all either MS fanboys or don't know about other browsers?
What sort of constant bombardment? You mean marketing? I fail to see how people using Google complain that google advertises their products. Don't like those, try another search engine, there are a plethora to choose from.
Yeah, you mean just like in the 90s people could had just bought from vendors that didn't make uncompetitive deals with Microsoft, even if the damage still happened? Same situation. Google is acting uncompetitive by promoting their services over competitors and even scraping content from said competitors that are then included in top of the search results. You might say it's their search results and they can do as they please, but that didn't work for Windows and IE either. In both cases you are unfairly leveraging a monopoly position to push competitors off from other markets.
Bing isn't a monopoly or a market leader. Google pretty much is.
It's more complex than that. Web Search now is the ultimate vendor lock, just because it's based on so much data. Data that you can't generate just by improving your algorithms. That's why Google follows what results you pick from the search results, that's why they collect so much data about keywords people use and which ones are relevant to each other and lately they even started following how much time people spend on the website Google referred people to. If user comes back to the search page quickly, it means that page was poor for the keyword that user used to do the search. So to compete with Google and improve your search engine you need at least as much of that data as Google, which you cant get because Google has a monopoly and their results are pretty good, again because they get so much data that competitors don't. The ultimate lock-in and uncompetitive position.
That whole thing was a hoax.
It did take time but finally someone is putting a stop to Google's monopolistic business strategies. I'm surprised they would repeat exactly the same mistakes Microsoft did in the 90's. Preventing Android smartphone vendors from using other services than Google's is exactly the same kind of deal and is highly anti-competitive, as is their favoring of their own services above competing ones.
Anti-competitive laws are exactly this - you should not use your monopoly in another area to gain unfair advantage in other market. What you especially should not do is prevent vendors from using other providers. Google has been doing all of this, but they do it really sneakily. Most of their marketing is really wise social engineering, the best example of being constant bombardment to download and switch to Chrome if you use IE.
Just because Google offers services for free and gets paid for them via advertisements and privacy violating data mining doesn't mean they can get away with everything. Most slashdotters seem to be blinded by the whole free and supposedly open thing, while most of their products are actually closed.
Yes, technically the emails come from their mail servers. I actually wrote that in the message first, but then I thought slashdotters would be wise enough not to nitpick and to understand that it's the person sending you the invitation and it doesn't matter so much where they technically come from. How wrong I was..
I learned Basic, VB, C, FoxPro, Cobol, and Assembler, but the languages I used the most were Pascal and Delphi.
The language is called Assembly, not Assembler. Assembler is used to compile ASM code.
You aren't opted-in before you join either. It's not the site sending those invites, it's the users who invite you.
If I were to use any such thing, it would be something like a private instance of Diaspora that I have full control over.
So your suggestion is for everyone to create their own isolated "social network" which they have full control over, and hence are the only persons there? What about if you just don't put stuff on the internet that you don't want there?
But that's because of the people who want to add you there. They give them your email and LinkedIn sends you the friend request as per your friends wishes. Facebook, Google+, and every other site on the internet that has invites/add friends would do the same.
What short term gain? Microsoft is interested to gain more visitor (and hence user data that they can use to improve Bing's search algorithms) and Firefox is interested to get revenue from its users. The deal doesn't need to be anything else than Microsoft paying certain percent (lets say 70%) from the ad clicks that Firefox users generate. In fact, there's already similar programs for the Bing toolbar (and Google toolbar too), but they usually pay $1 one time payment per user. With the traffic Firefox can send them, I'm sure they can also negotiate revenue share too. They don't need to do anything else. Besides, Microsoft has changed a lot recently, and to the good direction. Google on the other hand is going the opposite way.
That article says they can't bring FarmVille and CityVille to Google+ because of deals with Facebook, but it does link to another interesting article - Google investing $100-200 million to Zynga. So much for the another usual slashdot argument about Google just providing neutral platform for others to use - it's a highly strategic game, such that every other huge company in the industry plays as well.
You know, you can just not allow it to post. Google+ has the exact same thing, they described how you can post "your high scores" and everything else for others to see.
For the other end it's also not that complicated to block those updates. The first time you get them, click the x and select hide updates. There's also the dropdown box next to latest updates link which allows you to select which kind of updates and from who you like to see. They're improved it a lot since a some years ago.
At least Google isn't dumb enough to forget that people want to play games and spend times on social networking sites. It's also interesting to see that Zynga is there.. There goes two usual slashdot arguments straight out of the window, one being that Zynga is somehow completely relies on Facebook and that Google+ is in some way different social network than Facebook. It is currently, but only because they're lagging behind in development. And to be honest, the place is completely dead without casual people, games and pages. The latter one they still need to add too.
Google+ is so direct copy of Facebook that it isn't even funny. The whole thing even looks almost exactly the same, just that it has different colors and is lacking features that Facebook has. What exactly is Google trying to archieve here? They aren't innovating, they're just copying. I rather don't have everything about me known by a single company, so I like to use Facebook much more than let Google know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet (via Google Analytics). Putting that much information to a single company is just plain stupid, especially when they just a few days ago revealed they're been secretly handing European citizens information to US agencies, even when it's illegal to do so in the EU.
This is Google poking fun at the patent office. They probably have hundreds of these in the pipeline, all with the same purpose: find out "How stupid a patent can you get?"
Now seriously. This is just on the side where I don't know if you're serious or poking fun at the Google fanboys who really believe that Google is some kind of new jesus on earth. If this was Microsoft patenting this there would be huge outcry about it. But when it's Google, it's suddenly "poking fun at the patent office" and trying to find some kind of higher meaning in it. There isn't one. They patented it because they also do specialize in such applications. It's strictly for business purposes, not some kind of "poking fun at the system".
It works in Steam too, since they also changed to WebKit. The in-game and Steam store browsers feel so much faster with it, too.
Judging by the market, I think drops will be completely handled on blizzards server. Probably various other parts of the game logic too. That's a huge work for the crackers to replicate, and it will never be like the original game.