Sure, Microsoft hasn't displayed any competence when it comes to creating or running a social media site, so what's the purpose behind buying LinkedIn?
The data? The technology (wtf)? What's the move here, because I'm not seeing it. There's no obvious tie-in to the x-box. There's nothing to integrate into their OS or Office. Skype is dying on the vine -- and again, what's there to integrate into the existing software? Autopopulate a post to the professional dude-bro's hangout? What sense does that make?
As someone who constantly changes his FB feed to show the newest (because that's how I find the things I want to know about), I would like to say that it's a giant pain in the ass and that all of the corporations who think they know better than I as to what I want to see and when need to take a long walk off a short pier so they can go soak their head.
What you are doing is not "curation", it is propaganda. I, for one, am tired of it. And far sooner than you think, this will lose whatever effectiveness it once had. People have a way of becoming immune to it's influence. Learn from Mad Men. You have one chance to change people's minds. Don't squander it on the flavor of the month.
Or were these fishing expeditions whose point was to gin up some extra parallel discovery?
Here's the thing. What I mind about this situation is the opaqueness. The article is very light on details of what the FBI thought it was trying to find or why it was going about it without the warrants. Did the agents involve not get the memo? Did their supervisors not know what the agents were up to? Were the agents told to not do it this was and actively ignoring those orders? That is where my problem with this starts. We don't know those details and as a voter and citizen in order to make a good decision about this, I need to know.
Instead we'll get another "thin blue line" stall while the "appropriate authorities" investigate. It makes it hard to have faith in the FBI's work when something like this happens. To the rest of us, it looks like it's another CYA situation. Another where no real punishments are handed down and agents are shuffled around like priests to outlying and small churches in order to avoid any further embarrassment. I, for one, don't want "optics" to change my mind, I want to see the evidence. I want to see those in charge engage and manage. And most of all, I want to see heads roll IF AND ONLY IF that is appropriate in the situation.
But like I said before, I don't know the situation and no one is talking. That is a big problem.
I guess I'm finally there. I'm on my lawn and yelling at the kids, because I have no idea what the fuck that statement is supposed to mean.
Yes, I'm facebook. Yes, I use it to chat with friends. But never once would I have ever used "vivid" to describe those conversations. Maybe the report means the use of emoji and "stickers". In my experience those get in the way of meaning more than they add to it. Yes I can eventually understand what is meant, but it takes more time than simply typing out the meaning(s) in the first place. Maybe if you've used them for a long time you can translate faster, but that doesn't begin to explain why you'd want to begin using them in the first place.
Using chat to buy things strikes me as an idiot's way of losing money hand over fist.
are the OEMs getting paid to put this crap on there, is it just that cheap to let someone else do it (and buy some liability insurance), or a combination of the two?
It wasn't all that long ago we found out that the US and UK governments had tapped into the current Atlantic cables in order to spy. I presume that this new cable isn't going to hosting public traffic, just what those two companies and anyone who pays them send down them. If a government was attempt to tap into it, not only would it probably be fairly easy to detect but it'd also cause some actionable litigation. Which would be the last thing any spy would want to come to light.
Conversely, who knows what hoops they had to hop through in order to get this project off the ground. Would it surprise anyone if there was some governing language which says "you have to let us tap" no matter who owns the cable?
Microsoft deviated with having their custom data bus for their now failed Kinect. You know, that part that started out as completely necessary in order for the system to function? Not so much anymore. It is as many thought, able to be patched out.
Anyways, Sony was a bit smarted and had invested in the other direction going without any customized parts. In that respect, they get free upgrades as AMD's die-shrinks and revisions happen. Microsoft doesn't get any of that.
So what I think is that Microsoft is going to switch to the same SoC as Sony, foregoing the Kinect customization, and catch up with Sony hardware wise.
All of that said, I don't expect there to be a huge deal about this. Microsoft and Sony are smart enough to put detection code in their devkits and have the games auto-select which settings they need to run at themselves. Just like how PC games do it.
It says the lawsuits were filed in the US and China, but it doesn't list the patents nor where in the US the suit was filed. Was it east Texas or somewhere else?
Aside from that, what's the point to these suits. It feels like they're coming out of the blue. Nothing on any of the sites I read was saying anything about these two. Was there some negotiations that went sour that Huawei wants to revive? Did Samsung piss up some high level party in China to start this? Because this seems more political than business related.
And I would argue back that's because people in general are terrible at security. It takes a certain mindset to accept the purpose behind such things, let alone integrate them into anything approaching usefulness.
If I were to download a song and listen to it in the privacy of my own home/car/phone at work, I would be liable for a lot of money damages. But Fox gets to take a clip from YouTube, put it into a very successful commercial show and then turn around and claim that it came from them in the first place AND suffer no financial damage.
Interesting. It's like the law has been twisted so that it only benefits the wealthy and well-to-do.
My guess? Internal politics and fadishness rule the day behind the scenes.
Part of the problem is the branding of Google and people looking to the company as being the premiere purveyor of the latest and greatest. That means they redesign the wheel every few years in order to keep that mystique going as the longer term stuff simmers until its ready.
What's with this "bot" integration into messaging apps? Did I miss a meeting where this was all hashed out as a good thing?
Not to be standing on my lawn for too long, but I haven't seen an answer as to why this is a feature I'd want to use. If I'm not there, I don't want anything answering for me. Especially that I'm not around. And doubly so to strangers. Did anyone discuss the security implications of having what amounts to a chat answering machine?
What happened to having a simple interface and letting users decide how to proceed with the rest? Did marketing finally get in too deep into the design side of these places?
It bought them to put its tech into their office platform.
And now that has been completed, the company doesn't need anyone to use Skype anymore. So it's been put out to pasture, to let it grow old and die. It doesn't matter how many millions of people are using it or why it might be a good strategy for Microsoft to continue with the product.
The base goal was achieved and now management has moved onto other projects. All that remains is the husk, the shell of something once shining and bright. Sort of like those crabs the Vogons liked to crush for no good reason.
but from what I've seen here on/. the past few years, all it will take to screw it up is one bad actor and *boom*. So while I also express some discomfort for the thought of the adjustment period, I do wonder how all of these new robot pals are going to be secured against turning them into weapons (dropping packages from unsafe heights) or avoid industrial sabotage (by having their blades chop the crops they're supposed to be dusting or reporting they've dusted the crops when no such thing happened or being hijacked to go dust the local busy shopping center instead of the crops).
I don't expect things to be perfect out of the box but if the US military occasionally has trouble how are we going to be protecting ourselves?
...Periscope has been linked to inappropriate content
Exactly how is this software/company "linked" to inappropriate content in this case? Did someone from the company bully the young woman? Did someone from the company slip something into her coffee? I'm not certain how one logically links the actions of a third party to the platform they use to disseminate a message or actions.
Likewise, I'm going to avoid the "inappropriate" portion. Because that's even more silly. There's good reason we have safe harbor laws when it comes to this sort of thing. It's not Periscope's fault someone used their software to do this. It's not like they can control anyone's actions.
of course not. Gundams were for war, this is for entertainment!
Besides, once shown that it can be done, the military can't be all that far behind. Especially if it can be shown that one person piloting the robot can take on several others at the same time. Think of the cost savings!
Schneider explains, "[What's harder] is to find those Tuesday nights when it's not even raining and for some reason there's demand -- and to know that's coming. That's machine learning
That's not how it works. That's not how any of that works!
Deus! Stop your bullshit marketing and get back into whatever festering hole you crawled out of you twit!
The "end product" is a statistical model of each person accurate enough to manipulate you to spend more money...
Let's say that's the idea. To get someone to spend more based on questionable mathematics and bad assumptions. Let's further say that it is successful. I've watched the stock market long enough to know that once someone has a new way to strip mine pennies, everyone else jumps on it so they're not left answering their bosses as to why they didn't make an extra dollar this quarter.
So now every marketing group has the same, ultimate "power of persuasion" which means either I'm broke and have no more money to spend or they're all out of a job because there's no more marketing to do thanks to their new wonder-product. There's also the likely outcome that like certain forms of propaganda, we become inured to its influence and they have to start all over again with another set a research and questionable assumptions and so on and so forth.
Again, it seems to me that no-one has thought this all the way through.
Seriously, marketing is already drowning in data. What good and useful information is this going to provide that the data they already have couldn't? What is the end product going to be and how will it be useful to anyone?
Which can be wrong or miscalibrated or have any number of other errors. It's not reliable when not in your hands is what I'm saying. That's a basic security rule. One which I doubt has been taken account of in these plans.
First, this is a new one. Calling Uber a "taxi aggregator". Is that from one of their legal filings or something? It's disingenuous at best.
Second, isn't this just setting up a adversarial relationship between driver and passenger? It looks like it to me. How is Uber going to decide who was late? How are they going to keep people from gaming an already gamable system? Start charging both parties for acting like a dispute resolution company?
Slashdot Mirror
where /. was asking why people wanted or avoided "Smart" televisions?
Consider this exhibit A in the Not column.
Sure, Microsoft hasn't displayed any competence when it comes to creating or running a social media site, so what's the purpose behind buying LinkedIn?
The data? The technology (wtf)? What's the move here, because I'm not seeing it. There's no obvious tie-in to the x-box. There's nothing to integrate into their OS or Office. Skype is dying on the vine -- and again, what's there to integrate into the existing software? Autopopulate a post to the professional dude-bro's hangout? What sense does that make?
welcome our Finnish, mail delivering, and lawn-mowing overlords.
As someone who constantly changes his FB feed to show the newest (because that's how I find the things I want to know about), I would like to say that it's a giant pain in the ass and that all of the corporations who think they know better than I as to what I want to see and when need to take a long walk off a short pier so they can go soak their head.
What you are doing is not "curation", it is propaganda. I, for one, am tired of it. And far sooner than you think, this will lose whatever effectiveness it once had. People have a way of becoming immune to it's influence. Learn from Mad Men. You have one chance to change people's minds. Don't squander it on the flavor of the month.
Or were these fishing expeditions whose point was to gin up some extra parallel discovery?
Here's the thing. What I mind about this situation is the opaqueness. The article is very light on details of what the FBI thought it was trying to find or why it was going about it without the warrants. Did the agents involve not get the memo? Did their supervisors not know what the agents were up to? Were the agents told to not do it this was and actively ignoring those orders? That is where my problem with this starts. We don't know those details and as a voter and citizen in order to make a good decision about this, I need to know.
Instead we'll get another "thin blue line" stall while the "appropriate authorities" investigate. It makes it hard to have faith in the FBI's work when something like this happens. To the rest of us, it looks like it's another CYA situation. Another where no real punishments are handed down and agents are shuffled around like priests to outlying and small churches in order to avoid any further embarrassment. I, for one, don't want "optics" to change my mind, I want to see the evidence. I want to see those in charge engage and manage. And most of all, I want to see heads roll IF AND ONLY IF that is appropriate in the situation.
But like I said before, I don't know the situation and no one is talking. That is a big problem.
I guess I'm finally there. I'm on my lawn and yelling at the kids, because I have no idea what the fuck that statement is supposed to mean.
Yes, I'm facebook. Yes, I use it to chat with friends. But never once would I have ever used "vivid" to describe those conversations. Maybe the report means the use of emoji and "stickers". In my experience those get in the way of meaning more than they add to it. Yes I can eventually understand what is meant, but it takes more time than simply typing out the meaning(s) in the first place. Maybe if you've used them for a long time you can translate faster, but that doesn't begin to explain why you'd want to begin using them in the first place.
Using chat to buy things strikes me as an idiot's way of losing money hand over fist.
are the OEMs getting paid to put this crap on there, is it just that cheap to let someone else do it (and buy some liability insurance), or a combination of the two?
and how much of this is about security.
It wasn't all that long ago we found out that the US and UK governments had tapped into the current Atlantic cables in order to spy. I presume that this new cable isn't going to hosting public traffic, just what those two companies and anyone who pays them send down them. If a government was attempt to tap into it, not only would it probably be fairly easy to detect but it'd also cause some actionable litigation. Which would be the last thing any spy would want to come to light.
Conversely, who knows what hoops they had to hop through in order to get this project off the ground. Would it surprise anyone if there was some governing language which says "you have to let us tap" no matter who owns the cable?
But this generation are PCs under the hood.
Microsoft deviated with having their custom data bus for their now failed Kinect. You know, that part that started out as completely necessary in order for the system to function? Not so much anymore. It is as many thought, able to be patched out.
Anyways, Sony was a bit smarted and had invested in the other direction going without any customized parts. In that respect, they get free upgrades as AMD's die-shrinks and revisions happen. Microsoft doesn't get any of that.
So what I think is that Microsoft is going to switch to the same SoC as Sony, foregoing the Kinect customization, and catch up with Sony hardware wise.
All of that said, I don't expect there to be a huge deal about this. Microsoft and Sony are smart enough to put detection code in their devkits and have the games auto-select which settings they need to run at themselves. Just like how PC games do it.
Who knew the future of consoles was the PC?
It says the lawsuits were filed in the US and China, but it doesn't list the patents nor where in the US the suit was filed. Was it east Texas or somewhere else?
Aside from that, what's the point to these suits. It feels like they're coming out of the blue. Nothing on any of the sites I read was saying anything about these two. Was there some negotiations that went sour that Huawei wants to revive? Did Samsung piss up some high level party in China to start this? Because this seems more political than business related.
And I would argue back that's because people in general are terrible at security. It takes a certain mindset to accept the purpose behind such things, let alone integrate them into anything approaching usefulness.
If I were to download a song and listen to it in the privacy of my own home/car/phone at work, I would be liable for a lot of money damages. But Fox gets to take a clip from YouTube, put it into a very successful commercial show and then turn around and claim that it came from them in the first place AND suffer no financial damage.
Interesting. It's like the law has been twisted so that it only benefits the wealthy and well-to-do.
My guess? Internal politics and fadishness rule the day behind the scenes.
Part of the problem is the branding of Google and people looking to the company as being the premiere purveyor of the latest and greatest. That means they redesign the wheel every few years in order to keep that mystique going as the longer term stuff simmers until its ready.
What's with this "bot" integration into messaging apps? Did I miss a meeting where this was all hashed out as a good thing?
Not to be standing on my lawn for too long, but I haven't seen an answer as to why this is a feature I'd want to use. If I'm not there, I don't want anything answering for me. Especially that I'm not around. And doubly so to strangers. Did anyone discuss the security implications of having what amounts to a chat answering machine?
What happened to having a simple interface and letting users decide how to proceed with the rest? Did marketing finally get in too deep into the design side of these places?
It bought them to put its tech into their office platform.
And now that has been completed, the company doesn't need anyone to use Skype anymore. So it's been put out to pasture, to let it grow old and die. It doesn't matter how many millions of people are using it or why it might be a good strategy for Microsoft to continue with the product.
The base goal was achieved and now management has moved onto other projects. All that remains is the husk, the shell of something once shining and bright. Sort of like those crabs the Vogons liked to crush for no good reason.
but from what I've seen here on /. the past few years, all it will take to screw it up is one bad actor and *boom*. So while I also express some discomfort for the thought of the adjustment period, I do wonder how all of these new robot pals are going to be secured against turning them into weapons (dropping packages from unsafe heights) or avoid industrial sabotage (by having their blades chop the crops they're supposed to be dusting or reporting they've dusted the crops when no such thing happened or being hijacked to go dust the local busy shopping center instead of the crops).
I don't expect things to be perfect out of the box but if the US military occasionally has trouble how are we going to be protecting ourselves?
...Periscope has been linked to inappropriate content
Exactly how is this software/company "linked" to inappropriate content in this case? Did someone from the company bully the young woman? Did someone from the company slip something into her coffee? I'm not certain how one logically links the actions of a third party to the platform they use to disseminate a message or actions.
Likewise, I'm going to avoid the "inappropriate" portion. Because that's even more silly. There's good reason we have safe harbor laws when it comes to this sort of thing. It's not Periscope's fault someone used their software to do this. It's not like they can control anyone's actions.
Poppycock! It's all poppycock!
of course not. Gundams were for war, this is for entertainment!
Besides, once shown that it can be done, the military can't be all that far behind. Especially if it can be shown that one person piloting the robot can take on several others at the same time. Think of the cost savings!
Schneider explains, "[What's harder] is to find those Tuesday nights when it's not even raining and for some reason there's demand -- and to know that's coming. That's machine learning
That's not how it works. That's not how any of that works!
Deus! Stop your bullshit marketing and get back into whatever festering hole you crawled out of you twit!
Hari's shtick was all about the big movements that societies at large make. This is about individuals. AFAICT that part is still logically sound.
The "end product" is a statistical model of each person accurate enough to manipulate you to spend more money...
Let's say that's the idea. To get someone to spend more based on questionable mathematics and bad assumptions. Let's further say that it is successful. I've watched the stock market long enough to know that once someone has a new way to strip mine pennies, everyone else jumps on it so they're not left answering their bosses as to why they didn't make an extra dollar this quarter.
So now every marketing group has the same, ultimate "power of persuasion" which means either I'm broke and have no more money to spend or they're all out of a job because there's no more marketing to do thanks to their new wonder-product. There's also the likely outcome that like certain forms of propaganda, we become inured to its influence and they have to start all over again with another set a research and questionable assumptions and so on and so forth.
Again, it seems to me that no-one has thought this all the way through.
Seriously, marketing is already drowning in data. What good and useful information is this going to provide that the data they already have couldn't? What is the end product going to be and how will it be useful to anyone?
I don't know whether to yell at people for reinventing restful service calls or for not knowing what a network stack is used for.
I think I'm going to do both.
Which can be wrong or miscalibrated or have any number of other errors. It's not reliable when not in your hands is what I'm saying. That's a basic security rule. One which I doubt has been taken account of in these plans.
First, this is a new one. Calling Uber a "taxi aggregator". Is that from one of their legal filings or something? It's disingenuous at best.
Second, isn't this just setting up a adversarial relationship between driver and passenger? It looks like it to me. How is Uber going to decide who was late? How are they going to keep people from gaming an already gamable system? Start charging both parties for acting like a dispute resolution company?