The thing is that Twitter has already made it easy to communicate to not only hundreds but thousands of people. He was only trying to communicate with just dozens of people and found it noisy and difficult to track. He specifically says using it like Facebook or Twitter is not the way to use it.
I still fail to see what's so amazing about this Wave. I think the "Google" brand is a large cause of the hype surrounding it.
I think it's a little silly to dismiss criticism of Wave as fear of new technology. The complaints about Wave aren't due to being unfamiliar with the concept--real-time chatting is hardly a paradigm-shifting or even a new technology, and claiming such is a nice bit of hype on Google's part. The complaints about Wave are that it's just too noisy to use in that manner because replies to threads are appearing all over the place in real-time. Besides, who found email impossible to understand or deal with? Its accessibility was part of its huge success
Doesn't really qualify as an answer. Point out where Google claimed that they would magically take n-party interactions and make them as simple as two-party. No answer, eh?
"It's concurrent rich-text editing, where you see on your screen nearly instantly what your fellow collaborators are typing in your wave. That means Google Wave is just as well suited for quick messages as for persistent content--it allows for both collaboration and communication." - Lars Rasmussen
Google announced Wave as an all-in-one collaboration tool that could replace email and IM. They often implied it would be as huge a step forward as email and IM were.
IMs have the advantage of being organized by the window manager. In Wave, replies to threads are all appearing in the same inbox in real-time. Managing that clutter is the time sink he was talking about.
Then you would be advised to stop using Windows if it's such a problem for you. Just because a company does something you don't like doesn't automatically make it an antitrust issue. It simply means you choose something else as a customer.
Windows pretty much already ignores anything other operating systems installed, happily overwriting the MBR as needed.
I remember when chatting online and playing online games made me a nerd. By the time I hit high school, that had quickly changed, and almost everyone was chatting online and playing online games.
How about we see this against a version of FreeBSD that doesn't have debug on according to/usr/src/UPDATING?
NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 8.x IS SLOW: FreeBSD 8.x has many debugging features turned on, in both the kernel and userland. These features attempt to detect incorrect use of system primitives, and encourage loud failure through extra sanity checking and fail stop semantics. They also substantially impact system performance. If you want to do performance measurement, benchmarking, and optimization, you'll want to turn them off. This includes various WITNESS- related kernel options, INVARIANTS, malloc debugging flags in userland, and various verbose features in the kernel. Many developers choose to disable these features on build machines to maximize performance. (To disable malloc debugging, run ln -s aj/etc/malloc.conf.)
Free software licenses? You mean copyright licenses like the GPL, which the FSF website says "assures the copyright over the software?" I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?
This is evidence that climate change is a natural phenomena of a planet regardless of industrial revolutions or hockey stick models. Is there any way we can censor this news so that Al Gore can keep making money from his carbon credit company? You know, the one he just so happened to start right before making his climate change movie? The same company he paid when it was pointed out that his mansion has a huge carbon footprint (i.e., he paid himself)?
It doesn't even matter if they're a monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't inherently wrong. Abusing the power of being a monopoly is wrong, and I have yet to see convincing arguments that Apple has done that. An example would be when Microsoft punished OEMs with increased license fees if they offered computers without Windows.
Disney bought Pixar. They're not just a distributor anymore. They own the joint. The name "Pixar" now simply refers to that particular Disney animation studio, and that studio answers to Disney management, no matter how much you insist they have no influence on what Pixar puts out. Steve Jobs is on Disney's board of directors, and Lasseter is Disney's creative officer.
Geez, you're still spewing your insane crap in comments to this article.
Disney got a stranglehold because their version was the most successful and popular. People chose it. This drives you crazy. The fact you despise singing animals doesn't make them "vile, cynical bastards." I bet you've never met any of the directors or animators who work or worked at Disney that you're making judgements on.
Now you're going back on your earlier statement that they rape the public domain and claiming they instead rape cultures and twist through "sheer hatred." All they're doing is putting out cartoons. If Disney degrades everything it touches, don't watch their movies. Nobody's forcing you. I repeat--nobody is forcing you to watch a Disney movie, you kook.
Disney isn't some faceless, supernatural entity. It's just another entertainment company that employs animators, writers, and directors who put out some things I like and some I dislike. They affect my life in no way at all, just as they affect your life in no way at all. All entertainment is optional. You're every goofy, anti-capitalist, anti-copyright stereotype Slashdot has ever produced, willingly consuming what Disney puts out just so you have a reason to get up on a tired, old soapbox and use irrational, emotional words like "rape" and "evil." You like playing the victim because it gives you a reason to bitch and moan. Eject your Lion King DVD and quit complaining.
He said "literally raped," which implies literal rape.
And nobody "pilfered the public domain." These are all licensed properties, as stated in the article. I know Slashdot is filled to the brim with nutjobs teetering on the edge of full-blown anarchy due to their irrational hatred for any kind of capitalism, but none of these superheroes were in the public domain to begin with. You don't have some right or necessity of life that guarantees access to superheroes, you fucking loon.
You don't cite any examples of the "massive bribery," of course. The truth is that copyright law was revised to be relevant to modern times. You want copyright law to remain like it was centuries ago when we didn't live in a world of mass media in which properties continue to make money for copyright holders for longer than a century and don't deteriorate due to digital distribution.
Then you make a really stupid statement about how they "quite literally raped the public domain dry." First off, making money off a copyright property you own isn't evil, no matter how much anti-capitalist garbage you read around here. Second, you're saying they literally raped the public domain, which means you believe they actually did forcefully penetrate an orifice with a penis of some sort. You may want to look up the definition of "literally" before abusing it.
Finally, you make the crazy claim that the characters have been "treated like shit for years," despite hugely successful film franchises like Spider-man, Ironman, the Hulk, and more as well as countless videogames and comic books spanning decades. If you missed the summary, you'll notice that the companies have "licensed media rights," meaning they signed a licensing agreement which isn't a one-sided deal--someone representing Kirby also signed it. They didn't steal it. It was a legitimate deal. Slashdot is positioning it as some kind of reclamation from the evil media companies, because that's Slashdot's agenda to rile up people like you.
No sane system would throw beloved properties into the public domain and disallow the creators' estate to profit from the public's continued commercial interest in those properties. Despite what you've read around here, there's nothing wrong with making money off of something. Public domain access to popular superheroes isn't a right or a necessity of life.
If you're so opposed to copyrights, that must mean I can do anything I want with GPL code including violating the terms, since the GPL is a copyright license according to the FSF and relies on copyright law to have any legal power.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that Twitter has already made it easy to communicate to not only hundreds but thousands of people. He was only trying to communicate with just dozens of people and found it noisy and difficult to track. He specifically says using it like Facebook or Twitter is not the way to use it.
I still fail to see what's so amazing about this Wave. I think the "Google" brand is a large cause of the hype surrounding it.
I think it's a little silly to dismiss criticism of Wave as fear of new technology. The complaints about Wave aren't due to being unfamiliar with the concept--real-time chatting is hardly a paradigm-shifting or even a new technology, and claiming such is a nice bit of hype on Google's part. The complaints about Wave are that it's just too noisy to use in that manner because replies to threads are appearing all over the place in real-time. Besides, who found email impossible to understand or deal with? Its accessibility was part of its huge success
Then why stop using email?
"It's concurrent rich-text editing, where you see on your screen nearly instantly what your fellow collaborators are typing in your wave. That means Google Wave is just as well suited for quick messages as for persistent content--it allows for both collaboration and communication." - Lars Rasmussen
Google announced Wave as an all-in-one collaboration tool that could replace email and IM. They often implied it would be as huge a step forward as email and IM were.
IMs have the advantage of being organized by the window manager. In Wave, replies to threads are all appearing in the same inbox in real-time. Managing that clutter is the time sink he was talking about.
No, you can thank all the people who voted those corrupt Congress critters into office.
Then you would be advised to stop using Windows if it's such a problem for you. Just because a company does something you don't like doesn't automatically make it an antitrust issue. It simply means you choose something else as a customer.
Windows pretty much already ignores anything other operating systems installed, happily overwriting the MBR as needed.
I remember when chatting online and playing online games made me a nerd. By the time I hit high school, that had quickly changed, and almost everyone was chatting online and playing online games.
The Gameboy Color had a built-in list of palettes it would use for known games, and there are already emulators that simulate this.
Why don't you try reading the article? It might provide the answers you seek...
Remember, folks:
Yes, sir, the version of FreeBSD 8 used in this benchmark test is from before a couple of weeks ago.
How about we see this against a version of FreeBSD that doesn't have debug on according to /usr/src/UPDATING?
Free software licenses? You mean copyright licenses like the GPL, which the FSF website says "assures the copyright over the software?" I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?
Sheesh, next you'll tell me Windows 7 copied the Dock.
This is evidence that climate change is a natural phenomena of a planet regardless of industrial revolutions or hockey stick models. Is there any way we can censor this news so that Al Gore can keep making money from his carbon credit company? You know, the one he just so happened to start right before making his climate change movie? The same company he paid when it was pointed out that his mansion has a huge carbon footprint (i.e., he paid himself)?
Climate changes have been happening on Earth for far longer than 100 years...
PC gaming is dead because of rampant piracy. It's time for Slashdot to accept that.
It doesn't even matter if they're a monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't inherently wrong. Abusing the power of being a monopoly is wrong, and I have yet to see convincing arguments that Apple has done that. An example would be when Microsoft punished OEMs with increased license fees if they offered computers without Windows.
Yes, you do. Blizzard even used that wording in their presentation. Next.
Disney bought Pixar. They're not just a distributor anymore. They own the joint. The name "Pixar" now simply refers to that particular Disney animation studio, and that studio answers to Disney management, no matter how much you insist they have no influence on what Pixar puts out. Steve Jobs is on Disney's board of directors, and Lasseter is Disney's creative officer.
Pixar == Disney
You can't be serious. Your fanhood of Pixar is clouding your view. Disney owns Pixar--that means they control Pixar. They employ Pixar's workers, and Pixar answers to Disney. Pixar's founder, Steve Jobs, is on Disney's board of directors.
No, that's what Disney was before they bought Pixar. Now that Pixar is Disney, they are the producer.
Geez, you're still spewing your insane crap in comments to this article.
Disney got a stranglehold because their version was the most successful and popular. People chose it. This drives you crazy. The fact you despise singing animals doesn't make them "vile, cynical bastards." I bet you've never met any of the directors or animators who work or worked at Disney that you're making judgements on.
Now you're going back on your earlier statement that they rape the public domain and claiming they instead rape cultures and twist through "sheer hatred." All they're doing is putting out cartoons. If Disney degrades everything it touches, don't watch their movies. Nobody's forcing you. I repeat--nobody is forcing you to watch a Disney movie, you kook.
Disney isn't some faceless, supernatural entity. It's just another entertainment company that employs animators, writers, and directors who put out some things I like and some I dislike. They affect my life in no way at all, just as they affect your life in no way at all. All entertainment is optional. You're every goofy, anti-capitalist, anti-copyright stereotype Slashdot has ever produced, willingly consuming what Disney puts out just so you have a reason to get up on a tired, old soapbox and use irrational, emotional words like "rape" and "evil." You like playing the victim because it gives you a reason to bitch and moan. Eject your Lion King DVD and quit complaining.
He said "literally raped," which implies literal rape.
And nobody "pilfered the public domain." These are all licensed properties, as stated in the article. I know Slashdot is filled to the brim with nutjobs teetering on the edge of full-blown anarchy due to their irrational hatred for any kind of capitalism, but none of these superheroes were in the public domain to begin with. You don't have some right or necessity of life that guarantees access to superheroes, you fucking loon.
Give me a fucking break.
You don't cite any examples of the "massive bribery," of course. The truth is that copyright law was revised to be relevant to modern times. You want copyright law to remain like it was centuries ago when we didn't live in a world of mass media in which properties continue to make money for copyright holders for longer than a century and don't deteriorate due to digital distribution.
Then you make a really stupid statement about how they "quite literally raped the public domain dry." First off, making money off a copyright property you own isn't evil, no matter how much anti-capitalist garbage you read around here. Second, you're saying they literally raped the public domain, which means you believe they actually did forcefully penetrate an orifice with a penis of some sort. You may want to look up the definition of "literally" before abusing it.
Finally, you make the crazy claim that the characters have been "treated like shit for years," despite hugely successful film franchises like Spider-man, Ironman, the Hulk, and more as well as countless videogames and comic books spanning decades. If you missed the summary, you'll notice that the companies have "licensed media rights," meaning they signed a licensing agreement which isn't a one-sided deal--someone representing Kirby also signed it. They didn't steal it. It was a legitimate deal. Slashdot is positioning it as some kind of reclamation from the evil media companies, because that's Slashdot's agenda to rile up people like you.
No sane system would throw beloved properties into the public domain and disallow the creators' estate to profit from the public's continued commercial interest in those properties. Despite what you've read around here, there's nothing wrong with making money off of something. Public domain access to popular superheroes isn't a right or a necessity of life.
If you're so opposed to copyrights, that must mean I can do anything I want with GPL code including violating the terms, since the GPL is a copyright license according to the FSF and relies on copyright law to have any legal power.