In a desktop application, you get it as is, you could unplug it from internet and keep it that way, wont change by itself, newer versions are entirely new releases that you could choose to upgrade or not. Calling it beta or not mean that the developer say that you can trust it or not, as far as he knows. In that acception, Chrome IS beta, and when they think it is stable enough will be version 1.0 (this year or early next, not in 3-4 years).
In the other hand, while we see the web side of gmail as something that dont change a lot in the time and looks like working all ok, behind it could be heavy development still and changes. The nice face that the site shows to visitors could still be pretty rough on their side. Maybe their definition of beta goes around "this month we kept doing heavy changes on it".
That, or the real April 1st Joke they did when released it was that the full name of the app wasnt "GMail" but "GMail Beta", and that beta dont mean code quality, just a surname.
Some of the techniques recommended in the article work for all servers. While i don't share the pull model (not all the world have plenty of outgoing bandwidth to make this work, at least at peak hours), the other suggestions are valid and widely used (including the many eyeballs one, the kind you do when you press "report spam" in gmail).
But "just using gmail" is a good simplification of it... just let someone else worry about your problem.
The OS where it is running dont matter as much as what they are running on it. What childs see of XOs aren't linux, but Sugar, an environment thought for collaborating from the core to up.
The simplistic approach of "ok, lets give them plain windows XP" is as wrong as giving them plain ubuntu or mac os x, is not for that that the machines are meant. Put Sugar in Windows or an equivalent environment (and environment is a strong word here, is not a simple aggregation of isolated educational programs) with at least the same functionality that have under Linux, and we can start to talk about choice.
Of course, putting Windows in those machines have a meaning: the get one give one project. If you want to contribute to the project donating one of those machines to several of the countries that will implement them, you can get one of that machines, and probably you will want to run it with plain windows or ubuntu or whatever, as you are not meant to run it as an educational machine.
What is truth? or what is trustable? For some things we have a scientific method, that at least until proved wrong (or right) could put as current theory something completely false. And that is the best scenario. For things where "scientific method" dont apply, where there are subjective matters or things that cant be proved involved, things are worse.
If in the internet of 1000 years ago some website claimed that earth was round (yes, even with scientific evidence saying so) maybe the average people would rate that website of untrustable. Maybe more important, some truths (i.e. earth is not the center of the universe) would go against the official "truth" of that moment.
I agree that trustfulness of what you find online (and not online, i.e. newspapers, books, movies before internet age) is a problem, specially when you base on it to i.e. sell all your shares of a company because 5 years ago had economic problems, but the proposal wont solve the problem (in that example, the site could be trustable, the date not).
Maybe could help taking out the "truth" word of the middle and putting instead "consensus" or "the official truth", with all the grain of salts needed to say that is not the truth, but what most vocal people believes in a particular moment. And that, before even considering how to do it in a safe/not spammable way.
I'd be more worried about countries laws than about google's eula. Google could need to have stored data about users to be able to give some services or parts of the eula could be meant to avoid lawsuits.
But several countries (Brazil and USA to name 2 cases) required Google to give their user's data to government agencias, or to censor content to comply with local laws.
"Don't be evil" looks like an ok policy. But following law is good or evil? and what if that law (or at least the people behind it) is evil?
V 1.0 IPV4, world coverage, good speeds, Information Superhighway V 2.0 IPV6, much faster, light speed is the limit V 3.0 SSWW aka Solar System Wide Web, why run in a superhighway if you can crawl in the space?
Love how people take a generic tool, useful to all areas, and reject them because one of the potential uses happens to be child pornography, terrorism, abortion, or whatever socially unacceptable behaviour is around in that particular moment. What will be next? Medicine because it will let live sick kiddie pron collectors?
I agree that are tools for which most if not all uses are negative (guns?). But for this particular one, the potential good uses are too broad to just deny the entire idea. And privacy will demand that noone should be able to see whats there except the owner.
About speed, i suppose that it will depend of what will be the main use of it. But the biggest speed hit (and limit) will be the originator of the info, not the whole internet (is not like i.e. video streaming, that have a lot of viewers)
Most google products can have some edge related to improving search or finding (sometimes new) relevant information. For some games that have no meaning.
But a "game" that somewhat takes, improves and enables you to interact with real-world info, in a fun way, could fit in that scheme.
So a reader of an obscure newspaper voted up/submited an old archived story, it got popular from several others, got picked up by google news, then by market traders and, well, the perfect storm happened?
That is not the first time that automated scan of internet from google made big damages (remember the "hidden" passwords/files/ftplistings/etc that could still be found searching?), because people somewhat misbehaving creating sites, but at least is focused enough to be able to give some fast good hint on how much money was lost.
Now that google are scanning old newspapers, cant wait till someone pick a "new" story about the market crash of 1929.
Definition of success...
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
is that they made a singular discovery, as opposed as they discovered a singularity.
Probably they can take the raw pictures far before this, and do their own face recognition.
Is not the government that you must be afraid of, putting this in hands of everyone will ease a lot of things for normal people, and as tools, can be used with good and wrong intentions, and even be "accidents" making easier to see the right people in the wrong places or viceversa.
Giving that it is targetting security with the architecture, we will ever see extensions for it, a la firefox?
Some extensions could be just cosmetic, or have no sense in this new browser, or not having them could be a minor annoyances. Some could be made into the core distribution somewhat (greasemonkey?) if is essential enough, but the model of free development of addons could be the difference between success or not.
at least, according to the Official Google Blog. The beta will be released in 100 countries (i suppose that that means 100 languages, counting different things like English-US and English-UK), and, unfortunately, initially only for Windows (Mac/Linux version will be released later).
There are several answers for that question in the comic. Most of them can't be implemented in Firefox (in fact, any of the other browsers afaik) without a major rewrite, and you could want some of the features they are introducing there.
This isnt about "just another open source browser", it goes to the core of several problems that browsers have with today's web requirements.
For gathering more information from the user they dont need a completely new browser, that must start at zero marketshare. They already have widely used plugins for IE, extensions for Firefox, Google Desktop for linux/windows/mac(?), to count a few things that are running directly in the desktop over being totally on web.
Calling whatever related IE/MS the "non-evil choice" when they are the kings of pre-bundling deals (without starting to count other "positive" features of them) only makes it worse.
Can't be tied to a particular machine, it don't result in the physical transformation of an article, so this should apply, and the patent could be invalidated.
No need to be something incriminating or illegal... if there is something meant to be personal and private, or just embarrasing there, looks like a call for "pay, or else i will sell this to the press".
Wonder what would happen the second after they announce the same for George W. Bush's mails.
Dont attribute to malice what can be explained with stupidity... They know about this for 10 years. They dont need it to spy on you, they took care of laws for that. But they will get hit, directly or indirectly because of this problem, and the only ones to blame here will be them.
Slashdot Mirror
In a desktop application, you get it as is, you could unplug it from internet and keep it that way, wont change by itself, newer versions are entirely new releases that you could choose to upgrade or not. Calling it beta or not mean that the developer say that you can trust it or not, as far as he knows. In that acception, Chrome IS beta, and when they think it is stable enough will be version 1.0 (this year or early next, not in 3-4 years).
In the other hand, while we see the web side of gmail as something that dont change a lot in the time and looks like working all ok, behind it could be heavy development still and changes. The nice face that the site shows to visitors could still be pretty rough on their side. Maybe their definition of beta goes around "this month we kept doing heavy changes on it".
That, or the real April 1st Joke they did when released it was that the full name of the app wasnt "GMail" but "GMail Beta", and that beta dont mean code quality, just a surname.
A new breaktrough in loseless image compression, what really matters of that image in just 2 bytes.
Does it runs Chrome?
Some of the techniques recommended in the article work for all servers. While i don't share the pull model (not all the world have plenty of outgoing bandwidth to make this work, at least at peak hours), the other suggestions are valid and widely used (including the many eyeballs one, the kind you do when you press "report spam" in gmail).
But "just using gmail" is a good simplification of it... just let someone else worry about your problem.
Newer technologies in telescopes determined that the Mote in God's Eye is in fact the Moth in God's Eye,
All the naphthalene out there are there because God's will, to see if can get rid of that pest.
The OS where it is running dont matter as much as what they are running on it. What childs see of XOs aren't linux, but Sugar, an environment thought for collaborating from the core to up.
The simplistic approach of "ok, lets give them plain windows XP" is as wrong as giving them plain ubuntu or mac os x, is not for that that the machines are meant. Put Sugar in Windows or an equivalent environment (and environment is a strong word here, is not a simple aggregation of isolated educational programs) with at least the same functionality that have under Linux, and we can start to talk about choice.
Of course, putting Windows in those machines have a meaning: the get one give one project. If you want to contribute to the project donating one of those machines to several of the countries that will implement them, you can get one of that machines, and probably you will want to run it with plain windows or ubuntu or whatever, as you are not meant to run it as an educational machine.
Is what they will get after crashing Windows at Cray speed.
What is truth? or what is trustable? For some things we have a scientific method, that at least until proved wrong (or right) could put as current theory something completely false. And that is the best scenario. For things where "scientific method" dont apply, where there are subjective matters or things that cant be proved involved, things are worse.
If in the internet of 1000 years ago some website claimed that earth was round (yes, even with scientific evidence saying so) maybe the average people would rate that website of untrustable. Maybe more important, some truths (i.e. earth is not the center of the universe) would go against the official "truth" of that moment.
I agree that trustfulness of what you find online (and not online, i.e. newspapers, books, movies before internet age) is a problem, specially when you base on it to i.e. sell all your shares of a company because 5 years ago had economic problems, but the proposal wont solve the problem (in that example, the site could be trustable, the date not).
Maybe could help taking out the "truth" word of the middle and putting instead "consensus" or "the official truth", with all the grain of salts needed to say that is not the truth, but what most vocal people believes in a particular moment. And that, before even considering how to do it in a safe/not spammable way.
But several countries (Brazil and USA to name 2 cases) required Google to give their user's data to government agencias, or to censor content to comply with local laws.
"Don't be evil" looks like an ok policy. But following law is good or evil? and what if that law (or at least the people behind it) is evil?
V 1.0 IPV4, world coverage, good speeds, Information Superhighway
V 2.0 IPV6, much faster, light speed is the limit
V 3.0 SSWW aka Solar System Wide Web, why run in a superhighway if you can crawl in the space?
Love how people take a generic tool, useful to all areas, and reject them because one of the potential uses happens to be child pornography, terrorism, abortion, or whatever socially unacceptable behaviour is around in that particular moment. What will be next? Medicine because it will let live sick kiddie pron collectors?
I agree that are tools for which most if not all uses are negative (guns?). But for this particular one, the potential good uses are too broad to just deny the entire idea. And privacy will demand that noone should be able to see whats there except the owner.
About speed, i suppose that it will depend of what will be the main use of it. But the biggest speed hit (and limit) will be the originator of the info, not the whole internet (is not like i.e. video streaming, that have a lot of viewers)
Most google products can have some edge related to improving search or finding (sometimes new) relevant information. For some games that have no meaning.
But a "game" that somewhat takes, improves and enables you to interact with real-world info, in a fun way, could fit in that scheme.
So a reader of an obscure newspaper voted up/submited an old archived story, it got popular from several others, got picked up by google news, then by market traders and, well, the perfect storm happened?
That is not the first time that automated scan of internet from google made big damages (remember the "hidden" passwords/files/ftplistings/etc that could still be found searching?), because people somewhat misbehaving creating sites, but at least is focused enough to be able to give some fast good hint on how much money was lost.
Now that google are scanning old newspapers, cant wait till someone pick a "new" story about the market crash of 1929.
is that they made a singular discovery, as opposed as they discovered a singularity.
Im betting that it was a PEBKAC, specially the one that picked MS .NET for such critical app.
26 letters are enough to understand all english (and most of the other languages) literature?
Wonder what must be using the infinite amount of monkeys instead of typewriters to generate all possible mixes of those 68 molecules.
Google Beta Turns 15
Probably they can take the raw pictures far before this, and do their own face recognition.
Is not the government that you must be afraid of, putting this in hands of everyone will ease a lot of things for normal people, and as tools, can be used with good and wrong intentions, and even be "accidents" making easier to see the right people in the wrong places or viceversa.
Giving that it is targetting security with the architecture, we will ever see extensions for it, a la firefox?
Some extensions could be just cosmetic, or have no sense in this new browser, or not having them could be a minor annoyances. Some could be made into the core distribution somewhat (greasemonkey?) if is essential enough, but the model of free development of addons could be the difference between success or not.
at least, according to the Official Google Blog. The beta will be released in 100 countries (i suppose that that means 100 languages, counting different things like English-US and English-UK), and, unfortunately, initially only for Windows (Mac/Linux version will be released later).
There are several answers for that question in the comic. Most of them can't be implemented in Firefox (in fact, any of the other browsers afaik) without a major rewrite, and you could want some of the features they are introducing there.
This isnt about "just another open source browser", it goes to the core of several problems that browsers have with today's web requirements.
For gathering more information from the user they dont need a completely new browser, that must start at zero marketshare. They already have widely used plugins for IE, extensions for Firefox, Google Desktop for linux/windows/mac(?), to count a few things that are running directly in the desktop over being totally on web.
Calling whatever related IE/MS the "non-evil choice" when they are the kings of pre-bundling deals (without starting to count other "positive" features of them) only makes it worse.
Can't be tied to a particular machine, it don't result in the physical transformation of an article, so this should apply, and the patent could be invalidated.
No need to be something incriminating or illegal ... if there is something meant to be personal and private, or just embarrasing there, looks like a call for "pay, or else i will sell this to the press".
Wonder what would happen the second after they announce the same for George W. Bush's mails.
Dont attribute to malice what can be explained with stupidity... They know about this for 10 years.
They dont need it to spy on you, they took care of laws for that. But they will get hit, directly or indirectly because of this problem, and the only ones to blame here will be them.