While I respect the integrity of your comment, if you only have one product to sell, why is this not on a static page with a static price?
Then it becomes trivially simply to change the price, plus, you know that every single concurrent user is seeing the exact same content. In addition, it will save on the hosting costs!!!
"By the way, if the government wants to track you they can do it without a phone."
Sure, but why not force them to do it the "hard way" via boots on the ground and with a valid *specific* court order?
It's a little bit like having an "expensive" computation as part of an encryption routine: if tracking an individual is "expensive" then it will only be used when absolutely necessary, which in my opinion is a good thing.
"The ability to check if I closed the back door from the comfort of a warm bed."
An extension of this would be knowing that the doors are locked and secure. For no other reason than satisfying that irrational fear we all have, around two minutes after leaving a house: "did I lock the door?"
For that reason alone a lock monitor (not for mechanized remote access) to simply verify that the doors are closed and locked would be very attractive to many people.
The classic case for things going wrong was when you plugged your iPod into someone else's computer.
It could go wrong in a few different ways. Either iTunes would sync to the iPod and accept the *iPod* as the master copy, thus deleting all of that person's music from their computer. Or it would go the other way, and wipe the iPod and sync up the song (or whatever else) was selected from that person's computer.
There was basically no way to just mix and match files (like every other portable player) without using 3rd party software.
I thought this was common knowledge, among my friends at the time it was well known to *never* plug your iPod into someone else's computer or bad things would happen...
Hang on, it depends on what the user is trying to do, and how much they understand about bandwidth.
So yes, for a naive user who doesn't know anything, then not doing anything in parallel is best: just do what the user is currently looking at. But this attitude that "everyone is stupid" is terribly dismissive and very unfair.
Fora start, for anyone that does understand bandwidth it's just a pain since typically it's nice to be able to do things in parallel. And since I appreciate entirely how buffering the other videos will slow me down I can adjust my behavior accordingly. In addition, the most common situation for me is when I *want* to watch a video in HD, and I'm prepared to wait. What I want to do in this case is start the video buffering and then go do something else, knowing full well that it could be some time before it is ready. But I can't do that now, since when I go away to another tab the YouTube video stops buffering.
I know many different kinds of users, and have spoken to many that would not know what "bandwidth" was yet even they would talk about opening many tabs and waiting and having a feel for what worked for them and what didn't. They too would know that buffering more than one video will slow the others down, yet would find the "sweet spot" for their connection, where maybe 2 in parallel is faster than 2 in series, yet 4 or 5 is now. This happens because humans are incredibly flexible, learn very quickly, and can work out what works and what doesn't, even if they don't understand a formal model of what is going on.
Anyway, none of this matters. I can see very clearly the obstructive behavior of YouTube for what it is. In addition, and it's off-topic, but I also think they are showing too many advertisements now, certainly more (in proportion to content) than what I used to see on TV. So I just don't watch it. It's not that important.
The optimial is to allow the user to open a series of tabs in a row, start buffering the videos, but not to play them. Once the user arrives at the tabs the content should be there ready to go.
Obviously they are trying to limit their bandwidth costs by only streaming what is deemed to be necessary. But in my experience the buffering on YoutTube is so biased towards saving bandwidth for Google that it doesn't really work for the user at all.
Plenty of other options available these days. For my own video hosting, it's amazing that you can simply put an mp4 file on the web server and most browsers will ply it, and even stream it, for the user. Very nice and simple way to go.
"Windows Universal App" looks like it will burn out just like "Silverlight", and to some extent "Windows Presentation Foundation" did .
What I meant by going out of their way, is that to do this they had to find a dev team with some experience with WUA, or train their current team on how to use it. This is in comparison to the scores of programmers already experienced with C++ Win32 development or.NET. Either of which will run on all Windows versions from XP upwards.
Furthermore this would just be a simple GUI application with a custom networking protocol.
I guess WUA gets them into the Microsoft Store: Why does that matter for something that you are giving away?...maybe I just don't get it.
It's absolutely ridiculous. I think you would actually have to go out of your way to write a W8 only application, so I wonder what the angle is. Did Microsoft pay them to do this? I wonder if it's a part of Microsoft's forced migration?
How is this being funded? Take a look here. They claim that it is free and will always be free.
I just don't understand the angle here. Is it just a honeypot? Is it a long-term investment?
They primary concern I have for both WhatsApp and Telegram is that to use either you *must* disclose a telephone number. By definition that number is tied to some kind of billing account and is traceable. Even if you buy a pre-paid SIM (depending on jurisdiction you may have to provide ID) the number can be traced and located trivially. I've looked into it and there is no way to create an account with either service without using a telephone number. It's almost strange, and I have some grave reservations about what's really going on here.
Anyway, here are some interesting bits from the Telegram FAQ, but I would recommend reading all of it before installing and using the service.
-------------------
Q: Who are the people behind Telegram?
Telegram is supported by Pavel and Nikolai Durov. Pavel supports Telegram financially and ideologically while Nikolai's input is technological. To make Telegram possible, Nikolai developed a unique custom data protocol, which is open, secure and optimized for work with multiple data-centers. As a result, Telegram combines security, reliability and speed on any network.
While the Durov brothers were born in Russia, as were some of the key developers, Telegram is not connected to Russia – legally or physically. Telegram's HQ is in Berlin.
Q: Will you have ads? Or sell my data? Or steal my beloved and enslave my children?
No.
Q: How are you going to make money out of this?
We believe in fast and secure messaging that is also 100% free.
Pavel Durov, who shares our vision, supplied Telegram with a generous donation through his Digital Fortress fund, so we have quite enough money for the time being. If Telegram runs out, we'll invite our users to donate and add non-essential paid options to break even. But making profits will never be a goal for Telegram.
Q: Why not just make all chats ‘secret’?
While all Telegram messages are always securely encrypted, messages in Secret Chats use client-client encryption, while cloud chats use client-server/server-client encryption and are stored encrypted in the Telegram Cloud (more here). This enables your cloud messages to be both secure and immediately accessible from any of your devices, you can also easily find them using server search — which is very useful at times.
The idea behind Telegram is to bring something more secure to the masses, who understand nothing about security and want none of it. Being merely secure is not enough to achieve this — you also need to be fast, powerful and user-friendly. This allows Telegram to be widely adopted in broad circles, not just by activists and dissidents so that the simple fact of using Telegram does not mark users as targets for heightened surveillance in certain countries.
Q: Why not open source everything?
All code will be released eventually. We started with the most useful parts — a well-documented API that allows developers to build new Telegram apps, and open source clients that can be verified by security specialists.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. A "taxi" or a "cab" in the general sense is any vehicle driven by someone else who you pay to take you places. How you book it, how you hail it, how you get in it, and what kind of music you play while travelling, are all linguistic gymnastics.
In addition, any such attempts to make up definitions will vary tremendously across the world. You can read about the official definitions for the UK here. You can read about the US here. A key observation is that the general trend in English is to refer to these kinds of vehicles as a "taxicab". As such, using "taxi" or "cab" would be a reasonable slang abbreviation.
So let's just stick to the facts.
Uber is running an illegal operation nearly everywhere. Do not conflate the problems with the possibly over-regulated taxicab industry by supporting an illegal operation, even moreso one that is extremely well funded and backed by assholes such as Goldman Sachs. I'll gladly shirk the law to fight for a movement that is decent and right, but I will not do so just to line their greedy pockets.
The phrase "sharing economy" is complete and utter bullshit. Uber is not some grassroots movement that should be allowed to side-step existing legislation because it brings about a greater good for the community. It is a well-planned and strategic attempt to break the established taxicab cartels. I don't think that's important enough to justify breaking the law over, but it seems that you do?
Since 2011 the air marshal program has killed more people on flights than terrorists have. Sure, the number is pretty low, but it's larger than 0. Those deaths were 100% avoidable.
On top of this, and I don't have any hard data I'm afraid, but we know that X-Ray exposure can lead to cancer. Since the back-scatter X-Ray scanners were not assessed or approved by the FDA we do not know their power output. But since the power output is more than 0W/cm2 we can conclude that these scanners, used on millions of people daily, over ten years, will have killed a good number of people. How many? I'd be guessing if I suggested anything, it depends on the power output.
The "new" terahertz/mm wave scanners are also questionable. They have also not been approved by the FDA. Some studies suggest interesting interactions between DNA molecules and THz signals. Obviously more study is required before these devices can be certified as safe. Until then, I refuse to voluntarily let myself be scanned by one. However you may not know that flying in/out of Australia the scan is compulsory (though not always enforced, depending on the chaos of the security queue) and refusal to take the scan when asked will result in a refusal to fly.
The US did design and build a nuclear powered plane, though the plane was not technically powered by the reactors that it carried. Really interesting stuff.
"A nuclear-powered aircraft is an aircraft that is powered by nuclear energy. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union researched nuclear-powered bomber aircraft, the greater endurance of which could enhance nuclear deterrence, but neither country created any such operational aircraft. One inadequately solved design problem was the need for heavy shielding to protect the crew from acute radiation syndrome. The advent of ICBMs in the 1960s greatly diminished the tactical advantage of such aircraft, and respective projects were cancelled; the inherent danger of the technology has prevented its civilian use."
"The NB-36H was converted from a B-36H that had been damaged by a tornado. The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass.[1][2][3][4] Unlike the planned Convair X-6, the three-megawatt air-cooled reactor in the NB-36H did not power any of the aircraft's systems, nor did it provide propulsion, but was placed on the NB-36H to measure the effectiveness of the shielding.[1]"
Slashdot Mirror
As a fellow developer I would only claim to understand about half of what you're written.
For this reason, I'd like to start a meta-discussion about why and how the complexity has grown to be this insane?
Yes, we have code running on the server, and code running on the client. But why should this be inherently any more complex than HTTP?
Everyone in this game is striving to solve the same problems, yet why are we all doing such a piss poor job of making things simpler?
It really bums me out...
While I respect the integrity of your comment, if you only have one product to sell, why is this not on a static page with a static price?
Then it becomes trivially simply to change the price, plus, you know that every single concurrent user is seeing the exact same content. In addition, it will save on the hosting costs!!!
No.
Next question?
"The only problem is they can't use common proprietary methods of communication."
There is so much wrong with this sentence, I don't even know what to write...
"By the way, if the government wants to track you they can do it without a phone."
Sure, but why not force them to do it the "hard way" via boots on the ground and with a valid *specific* court order?
It's a little bit like having an "expensive" computation as part of an encryption routine: if tracking an individual is "expensive" then it will only be used when absolutely necessary, which in my opinion is a good thing.
"The ability to check if I closed the back door from the comfort of a warm bed."
An extension of this would be knowing that the doors are locked and secure. For no other reason than satisfying that irrational fear we all have, around two minutes after leaving a house: "did I lock the door?"
For that reason alone a lock monitor (not for mechanized remote access) to simply verify that the doors are closed and locked would be very attractive to many people.
Ironically, you have just identified the true "sharing economy" - which is interacting with and helping each other in times of need.
The "sharing economy" being championed by Uber is **nothing** of the sort.
The classic case for things going wrong was when you plugged your iPod into someone else's computer.
It could go wrong in a few different ways. Either iTunes would sync to the iPod and accept the *iPod* as the master copy, thus deleting all of that person's music from their computer. Or it would go the other way, and wipe the iPod and sync up the song (or whatever else) was selected from that person's computer.
There was basically no way to just mix and match files (like every other portable player) without using 3rd party software.
I thought this was common knowledge, among my friends at the time it was well known to *never* plug your iPod into someone else's computer or bad things would happen...
These two videos are an excellent introduction to audio signal theory.
Highly recommended to all readers enjoying this thread.
Hang on, it depends on what the user is trying to do, and how much they understand about bandwidth.
So yes, for a naive user who doesn't know anything, then not doing anything in parallel is best: just do what the user is currently looking at. But this attitude that "everyone is stupid" is terribly dismissive and very unfair.
Fora start, for anyone that does understand bandwidth it's just a pain since typically it's nice to be able to do things in parallel. And since I appreciate entirely how buffering the other videos will slow me down I can adjust my behavior accordingly. In addition, the most common situation for me is when I *want* to watch a video in HD, and I'm prepared to wait. What I want to do in this case is start the video buffering and then go do something else, knowing full well that it could be some time before it is ready. But I can't do that now, since when I go away to another tab the YouTube video stops buffering.
I know many different kinds of users, and have spoken to many that would not know what "bandwidth" was yet even they would talk about opening many tabs and waiting and having a feel for what worked for them and what didn't. They too would know that buffering more than one video will slow the others down, yet would find the "sweet spot" for their connection, where maybe 2 in parallel is faster than 2 in series, yet 4 or 5 is now. This happens because humans are incredibly flexible, learn very quickly, and can work out what works and what doesn't, even if they don't understand a formal model of what is going on.
Anyway, none of this matters. I can see very clearly the obstructive behavior of YouTube for what it is. In addition, and it's off-topic, but I also think they are showing too many advertisements now, certainly more (in proportion to content) than what I used to see on TV. So I just don't watch it. It's not that important.
But, they also don't buffer the content any more.
The optimial is to allow the user to open a series of tabs in a row, start buffering the videos, but not to play them. Once the user arrives at the tabs the content should be there ready to go.
Obviously they are trying to limit their bandwidth costs by only streaming what is deemed to be necessary. But in my experience the buffering on YoutTube is so biased towards saving bandwidth for Google that it doesn't really work for the user at all.
Plenty of other options available these days. For my own video hosting, it's amazing that you can simply put an mp4 file on the web server and most browsers will ply it, and even stream it, for the user. Very nice and simple way to go.
Uninstalled 15 minutes ago.
Easiest decision I had to make today.
Your logic is perfect.
Yet "we" still get hurt.
So how is this system supposed to protect us?
Just downloaded my data and uninstalled the app from my phone.
No time for BS like this, the meager benefit derived from the app was definitely not worth it.
OP here. In my defense I was really really pissed!
Sure, shoot the messenger and the fidelity of the message all you want.
Or try to read between the lines and discern what you will.
Again, good luck my friends!
*UWP, sorry, Microsoft calls it UWP.
"Windows Universal App" looks like it will burn out just like "Silverlight", and to some extent "Windows Presentation Foundation" did .
What I meant by going out of their way, is that to do this they had to find a dev team with some experience with WUA, or train their current team on how to use it. This is in comparison to the scores of programmers already experienced with C++ Win32 development or .NET. Either of which will run on all Windows versions from XP upwards.
Furthermore this would just be a simple GUI application with a custom networking protocol.
I guess WUA gets them into the Microsoft Store: Why does that matter for something that you are giving away? ...maybe I just don't get it.
It's absolutely ridiculous. I think you would actually have to go out of your way to write a W8 only application, so I wonder what the angle is. Did Microsoft pay them to do this? I wonder if it's a part of Microsoft's forced migration?
Careful with labelling Telegram as "Open Source", it is not completely open source by any measure.
Have a look at their website.
How is this being funded? Take a look here. They claim that it is free and will always be free.
I just don't understand the angle here. Is it just a honeypot? Is it a long-term investment?
They primary concern I have for both WhatsApp and Telegram is that to use either you *must* disclose a telephone number. By definition that number is tied to some kind of billing account and is traceable. Even if you buy a pre-paid SIM (depending on jurisdiction you may have to provide ID) the number can be traced and located trivially. I've looked into it and there is no way to create an account with either service without using a telephone number. It's almost strange, and I have some grave reservations about what's really going on here.
Anyway, here are some interesting bits from the Telegram FAQ, but I would recommend reading all of it before installing and using the service.
-------------------
Q: Who are the people behind Telegram?
Telegram is supported by Pavel and Nikolai Durov. Pavel supports Telegram financially and ideologically while Nikolai's input is technological. To make Telegram possible, Nikolai developed a unique custom data protocol, which is open, secure and optimized for work with multiple data-centers. As a result, Telegram combines security, reliability and speed on any network.
While the Durov brothers were born in Russia, as were some of the key developers, Telegram is not connected to Russia – legally or physically. Telegram's HQ is in Berlin.
Q: Will you have ads? Or sell my data? Or steal my beloved and enslave my children?
No.
Q: How are you going to make money out of this?
We believe in fast and secure messaging that is also 100% free.
Pavel Durov, who shares our vision, supplied Telegram with a generous donation through his Digital Fortress fund, so we have quite enough money for the time being. If Telegram runs out, we'll invite our users to donate and add non-essential paid options to break even. But making profits will never be a goal for Telegram.
Q: Why not just make all chats ‘secret’?
While all Telegram messages are always securely encrypted, messages in Secret Chats use client-client encryption, while cloud chats use client-server/server-client encryption and are stored encrypted in the Telegram Cloud (more here). This enables your cloud messages to be both secure and immediately accessible from any of your devices, you can also easily find them using server search — which is very useful at times.
The idea behind Telegram is to bring something more secure to the masses, who understand nothing about security and want none of it. Being merely secure is not enough to achieve this — you also need to be fast, powerful and user-friendly. This allows Telegram to be widely adopted in broad circles, not just by activists and dissidents so that the simple fact of using Telegram does not mark users as targets for heightened surveillance in certain countries.
Q: Why not open source everything?
All code will be released eventually. We started with the most useful parts — a well-documented API that allows developers to build new Telegram apps, and open source clients that can be verified by security specialists.
Actually, this is great advice, and good to hear it's working for you. I read this about it and think I'll give it a go myself.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. A "taxi" or a "cab" in the general sense is any vehicle driven by someone else who you pay to take you places. How you book it, how you hail it, how you get in it, and what kind of music you play while travelling, are all linguistic gymnastics.
In addition, any such attempts to make up definitions will vary tremendously across the world. You can read about the official definitions for the UK here. You can read about the US here. A key observation is that the general trend in English is to refer to these kinds of vehicles as a "taxicab". As such, using "taxi" or "cab" would be a reasonable slang abbreviation.
So let's just stick to the facts.
Uber is running an illegal operation nearly everywhere. Do not conflate the problems with the possibly over-regulated taxicab industry by supporting an illegal operation, even moreso one that is extremely well funded and backed by assholes such as Goldman Sachs. I'll gladly shirk the law to fight for a movement that is decent and right, but I will not do so just to line their greedy pockets.
The phrase "sharing economy" is complete and utter bullshit. Uber is not some grassroots movement that should be allowed to side-step existing legislation because it brings about a greater good for the community. It is a well-planned and strategic attempt to break the established taxicab cartels. I don't think that's important enough to justify breaking the law over, but it seems that you do?
Wow, just wow.
"Austin will go without [an illegal taxi] service just because they both leave"
Fixed that for you.
Since 2011 the air marshal program has killed more people on flights than terrorists have. Sure, the number is pretty low, but it's larger than 0. Those deaths were 100% avoidable.
On top of this, and I don't have any hard data I'm afraid, but we know that X-Ray exposure can lead to cancer. Since the back-scatter X-Ray scanners were not assessed or approved by the FDA we do not know their power output. But since the power output is more than 0W/cm2 we can conclude that these scanners, used on millions of people daily, over ten years, will have killed a good number of people. How many? I'd be guessing if I suggested anything, it depends on the power output.
The "new" terahertz/mm wave scanners are also questionable. They have also not been approved by the FDA. Some studies suggest interesting interactions between DNA molecules and THz signals. Obviously more study is required before these devices can be certified as safe. Until then, I refuse to voluntarily let myself be scanned by one. However you may not know that flying in/out of Australia the scan is compulsory (though not always enforced, depending on the chaos of the security queue) and refusal to take the scan when asked will result in a refusal to fly.
The US did design and build a nuclear powered plane, though the plane was not technically powered by the reactors that it carried. Really interesting stuff.
"A nuclear-powered aircraft is an aircraft that is powered by nuclear energy. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union researched nuclear-powered bomber aircraft, the greater endurance of which could enhance nuclear deterrence, but neither country created any such operational aircraft. One inadequately solved design problem was the need for heavy shielding to protect the crew from acute radiation syndrome. The advent of ICBMs in the 1960s greatly diminished the tactical advantage of such aircraft, and respective projects were cancelled; the inherent danger of the technology has prevented its civilian use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H
"The NB-36H was converted from a B-36H that had been damaged by a tornado. The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass.[1][2][3][4] Unlike the planned Convair X-6, the three-megawatt air-cooled reactor in the NB-36H did not power any of the aircraft's systems, nor did it provide propulsion, but was placed on the NB-36H to measure the effectiveness of the shielding.[1]"