I'm not following your logic. As long as the competitors offer roughly comparable shopping experiences, then there is no competitive advantage if the browser makes all of the websites look better. Of course the ceteris paribus is never fully the case, and the e-commerce website that has the best programmers has the advantage, but once again without regard to the browser. Actually, improving one particular browser may even upset the competitive balance if certain customers prefer the "wrong" browser, for whatever reason. (Yes, I do prefer Firefox, though I use Safari, Chrome, and even Opera for various purposes. Pretty sure at least one other on one of my smartphones.)
There is actually a lot of research on these UI topics. People do want fast responses, but they can't really measure response times very accurately.
You obviously don't understand or don't agree with my description of the problem. Notwithstanding, I have put my constructive suggestion on the table. So what's yours?
I am NOT saying that saving time is intrinsically bad. If I was saying anything along those lines it would be that I would rather save time by seeing fewer ads, but the decision for this feature is clearly driven by a desire to shove more ads into my face. I certainly would NOT pay for more ads if I had my druthers. If the development of Chrome (or any other browser) was more clearly driven by the desires of the users, then I think the objective would be fewer ads overall, with higher relevance for the surviving ads, but without giving up personal information and privacy.
I think you are becoming intellectually dishonest. This branch of the "discussion" seems to be entering the dead zone.
Mostly I'm talking about the failure of Ubuntu to become a serious alternative for "the filthy masses". Linux remains a niche market. Actually, the most successful new OS is probably Android (and yes, I know it has some links to Linux), but that's actually another bid-donor model. Again, it's driven by the good (or bad) decisions of the donor (whose real and non-charitable objective is to obtain more advertising revenue).
No, I obviously can't prove things should have gone differently, but... I'm still convinced that Windows 8 presented a really great opportunity to push Microsoft out of its dominant position.
Anyway, on the substance, I think you are focusing on one of the old financial models, the eyeballs (or earlobes) for advertisers model. The main proponent of that model these days is probably CNN rather than the clickbait websites. I think it works extremely badly, especially since con artists like #PresidentTweety know how to milk it for free publicity. But it has MANY flaws and weaknesses because time is linear and real news is not.
I think the most successful model was actually the public service model, but that was based on frequency monopolies that have almost no relevance now. Then there is the last-newspaperman-standing model, which is mostly the battleground of the NY Times versus WaPo. There was also a reader subscription model, but the Internet has really thrashed and shredded that one because it's way too hard to compete with "free". The most successful model of the day seems to be paid propaganda with pretenses of journalism to increase the credibility of the spam, a la FAUX "news".
But I asked about SOLUTIONS. My own favored approach would be to focus more on solutions. I see (or imagine) a fundamental symmetry between the problems that are reported by the journalists and the solutions to those problems.
Hmm... I feel like there is some confusion about the nature of advertising here. Probably too complicated a topic? One of the dimensions is the old struggle between substance and presentation, and another major dimension involves privacy versus relevance. The more technical dimension of how fast the ads are displayed seems relatively minor to me. There's also an element of propaganda involved, insofar as improved caching is part of it. I frankly believe the liars are more concerned with the number of repetitions than the honest people. The liars know that they need to repeat their lies frequently to give them a greater veneer of truth...
If you actually have the best value for a certain customer, then all you need to do is inform the customer about what you have and how much it costs. That's NOT how most advertising works. Rather than making great products, there are just a lot of fuzzy attempts to persuade customers that "good enough" products are actually "superior" and worth high, even exorbitant, prices. In the best cases, some of the products actually are superior, but producing superior products is always much more expensive (and less effective in competition) than flogging good enough.
Of course this is already an effectively dead discussion on Slashdot. There should be some mechanism whereby the lifespan of discussions could be extended. Hmm... Perhaps allow late participants to add special mod points?
That is precisely what I am advertising. The specific mechanism that I advocate can be described as a "charity share brokerage". There needs to be a coordinating mechanism of some sort, and the objectives of the CSB are to address some of the problems of existing crowd funding mechanisms by supporting more planning and accountability.
Yes, I understand what a cache is. I even know why additional working memory can improve cache performance, and the new computer I mentioned will probably have more memory for caching. If that was your question, then it is answered. Politely, even though such a question could be regarded as rude.
On the other hand, if you have nothing to say, then perhaps you should say nothing.
That is the big-donor model. The one that has worked so poorly for Ubuntu and various other examples. Depends on having much deeper pockets than mine, but even deep pockets can be negated due to bad decisions by or ulterior motivations of the wealthy donor.
I could explain more, but your unprovoked and dickish rudeness merits nothing. Nor shall I hold my breath waiting for you to come up with a constructive or useful thought.
Due to your brevity, I'm not sure if you were deliberately being insightful or it was some sort of joke. However, it is true that the economic model is driving the behaviors, but only indirectly in this case through the google's invasive ad business. Even from that perspective there are other options for new features that make much more sense than this.
If the user is dissatisfied with the speed, they can buy a faster Internet connection or a faster computer or both. Much more than $10 in such cases.
Error in the original Subject. Last part should have been "Me neither."
As usual, someone else is insisting on what the users REALLY want. The financial models don't really make it possible to do otherwise, eh?
Let me put it this way: If you had the option to donate $10 toward the implementation of this feature, would you? What feature do you actually want instead? Wouldn't it be nice if someone cared enough to ask?
No profit in that cheap-assed approach to solving the piracy "problem". Dare I say "crisis"? The greedy bastards certainly dare.
The ACTUAL solution approach that I favor would be to focus on cost recovery and accountability without the unending quest for obscene profits. That's a fake problem because there is NO amount of profit that can solve the problem, in start contrast to all the actual problems we have to deal with.
I still can't figure out why such approaches have so little appeal on Slashdot. Must be my attitude. Ergo, I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
The idea is cost recovery and accountability, not massive profit. Wannabe donors would pledge shares, perhaps $10, toward the project proposal. It might be a proposal for new software, for a solution to the problem described in an article, for running a server for the next year, for another article on a related topic, or for something else. Each proposal would be vetted to make sure it's complete. That means a plausible schedule, a realistic budget, committed resources, sufficient testing, and success criteria. When the project gets sufficient donors, then it gets the funds and the CSB will make sure the results are assessed and reported to the donors and the public.
Time to go see if it's worth submitting the idea directly, but I bid Slashdot the usual ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Tech angle of this story seems kind of minimal, but I was interested in terms of logistics optimization and the ways of high-tech corporate cancers (AKA Amazon). I'm confident that Amazon is using sophisticated knapsack algorithms to pack their chartered planes to capacity--but that should not have been a factor in this crash since it was coming in for a landing. By that point in the flight, the plane would be much lighter because of all the fuel it had consumed on route. However, I am confident that Amazon picked the low bidder for the deliveries and kept up constant pressure to cut the costs more on each flight... One possibility is that the pressures could have affected the maintenance and helped lead to the apparent mechanical failure.
Couldn't find any mention of Guy Steele, so I'll throw in The New Hacker's Dictionary, which I once owned in dead tree form. Not sure if Version 4.4.7 http://catb.org/jargon/html/ is the latest online... Also remember a couple of his language manuals. Probably used the Common Lisp one the most...
Didn't find any mention of a lot of books that I consider highly relevant, but that may reflect my personal bias towards history. Not really relevant for most programmers.
TMI, but if I open up my database on all the computer science stuff, the "score" is 352, of which the first 22 are in Japanese.
You young whippersnappers don't 'preciate how good you have it!
Back in my day, the only book about programming was the 1401 assembly language manual!
But seriously, folks, it's pretty clear we still don't know shite about how to program properly. We have some fairly clear success criteria for improving the hardware, but the criteria for good software are clear as mud, and the criteria for ways to produce good software are much muddier than that.
Having said that, I will now peruse the thread rather carefully looking for interesting books to read. Nothing but time these years.
My solution approach would be to use MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) to help the trolls in rendering themselves invisible, except to each other and to people who actually want to play with the trolls.
Where are the jokes about creating evil super-villains? Or am I joking?
Actually I think it's way too early to speculate on the effects of this essentially random experiment. In nature most mutations are on the scale from bad to terrible, and the bigger the mutation, the more likely it's fatal.
Unclear what you are tying to say. About the most charitable interpretation I can imagine is that you are confused about reverse engineering and standardization. The entire IP question is a can of worms that I did not particularly want to open here.
My (intended) focus was on Huawei's pretenses of being an international company...
In general that website is not a credible source, though it is possible the specific author is an outlier. If you want to cite such sources, you need to include something to indicate that you or the source are worth paying attention to.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not following your logic. As long as the competitors offer roughly comparable shopping experiences, then there is no competitive advantage if the browser makes all of the websites look better. Of course the ceteris paribus is never fully the case, and the e-commerce website that has the best programmers has the advantage, but once again without regard to the browser. Actually, improving one particular browser may even upset the competitive balance if certain customers prefer the "wrong" browser, for whatever reason. (Yes, I do prefer Firefox, though I use Safari, Chrome, and even Opera for various purposes. Pretty sure at least one other on one of my smartphones.)
There is actually a lot of research on these UI topics. People do want fast responses, but they can't really measure response times very accurately.
You obviously don't understand or don't agree with my description of the problem. Notwithstanding, I have put my constructive suggestion on the table. So what's yours?
I am NOT saying that saving time is intrinsically bad. If I was saying anything along those lines it would be that I would rather save time by seeing fewer ads, but the decision for this feature is clearly driven by a desire to shove more ads into my face. I certainly would NOT pay for more ads if I had my druthers. If the development of Chrome (or any other browser) was more clearly driven by the desires of the users, then I think the objective would be fewer ads overall, with higher relevance for the surviving ads, but without giving up personal information and privacy.
I think you are becoming intellectually dishonest. This branch of the "discussion" seems to be entering the dead zone.
Mostly I'm talking about the failure of Ubuntu to become a serious alternative for "the filthy masses". Linux remains a niche market. Actually, the most successful new OS is probably Android (and yes, I know it has some links to Linux), but that's actually another bid-donor model. Again, it's driven by the good (or bad) decisions of the donor (whose real and non-charitable objective is to obtain more advertising revenue).
No, I obviously can't prove things should have gone differently, but... I'm still convinced that Windows 8 presented a really great opportunity to push Microsoft out of its dominant position.
Hm... Is your handle some sort of radish joke?
Anyway, on the substance, I think you are focusing on one of the old financial models, the eyeballs (or earlobes) for advertisers model. The main proponent of that model these days is probably CNN rather than the clickbait websites. I think it works extremely badly, especially since con artists like #PresidentTweety know how to milk it for free publicity. But it has MANY flaws and weaknesses because time is linear and real news is not.
I think the most successful model was actually the public service model, but that was based on frequency monopolies that have almost no relevance now. Then there is the last-newspaperman-standing model, which is mostly the battleground of the NY Times versus WaPo. There was also a reader subscription model, but the Internet has really thrashed and shredded that one because it's way too hard to compete with "free". The most successful model of the day seems to be paid propaganda with pretenses of journalism to increase the credibility of the spam, a la FAUX "news".
But I asked about SOLUTIONS. My own favored approach would be to focus more on solutions. I see (or imagine) a fundamental symmetry between the problems that are reported by the journalists and the solutions to those problems.
Hmm... I feel like there is some confusion about the nature of advertising here. Probably too complicated a topic? One of the dimensions is the old struggle between substance and presentation, and another major dimension involves privacy versus relevance. The more technical dimension of how fast the ads are displayed seems relatively minor to me. There's also an element of propaganda involved, insofar as improved caching is part of it. I frankly believe the liars are more concerned with the number of repetitions than the honest people. The liars know that they need to repeat their lies frequently to give them a greater veneer of truth...
If you actually have the best value for a certain customer, then all you need to do is inform the customer about what you have and how much it costs. That's NOT how most advertising works. Rather than making great products, there are just a lot of fuzzy attempts to persuade customers that "good enough" products are actually "superior" and worth high, even exorbitant, prices. In the best cases, some of the products actually are superior, but producing superior products is always much more expensive (and less effective in competition) than flogging good enough.
Of course this is already an effectively dead discussion on Slashdot. There should be some mechanism whereby the lifespan of discussions could be extended. Hmm... Perhaps allow late participants to add special mod points?
Your tone sounds like you disagree, though you seem to be advocating just how I think the CSB should work.
That is precisely what I am advertising. The specific mechanism that I advocate can be described as a "charity share brokerage". There needs to be a coordinating mechanism of some sort, and the objectives of the CSB are to address some of the problems of existing crowd funding mechanisms by supporting more planning and accountability.
Yes, I understand what a cache is. I even know why additional working memory can improve cache performance, and the new computer I mentioned will probably have more memory for caching. If that was your question, then it is answered. Politely, even though such a question could be regarded as rude.
On the other hand, if you have nothing to say, then perhaps you should say nothing.
That is the big-donor model. The one that has worked so poorly for Ubuntu and various other examples. Depends on having much deeper pockets than mine, but even deep pockets can be negated due to bad decisions by or ulterior motivations of the wealthy donor.
I could explain more, but your unprovoked and dickish rudeness merits nothing. Nor shall I hold my breath waiting for you to come up with a constructive or useful thought.
Due to your brevity, I'm not sure if you were deliberately being insightful or it was some sort of joke. However, it is true that the economic model is driving the behaviors, but only indirectly in this case through the google's invasive ad business. Even from that perspective there are other options for new features that make much more sense than this.
If the user is dissatisfied with the speed, they can buy a faster Internet connection or a faster computer or both. Much more than $10 in such cases.
Error in the original Subject. Last part should have been "Me neither."
Do you even have a suggestion to make it better?
My own suggestion involves solutions linked to the problems the journalists keep telling us about.
As usual, someone else is insisting on what the users REALLY want. The financial models don't really make it possible to do otherwise, eh?
Let me put it this way: If you had the option to donate $10 toward the implementation of this feature, would you? What feature do you actually want instead? Wouldn't it be nice if someone cared enough to ask?
ADSAuPR, atAJG.
s/Best/Worst/
No profit in that cheap-assed approach to solving the piracy "problem". Dare I say "crisis"? The greedy bastards certainly dare.
The ACTUAL solution approach that I favor would be to focus on cost recovery and accountability without the unending quest for obscene profits. That's a fake problem because there is NO amount of profit that can solve the problem, in start contrast to all the actual problems we have to deal with.
I still can't figure out why such approaches have so little appeal on Slashdot. Must be my attitude. Ergo, I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
So I'll flog it again: "Charity Share Brokerage".
The idea is cost recovery and accountability, not massive profit. Wannabe donors would pledge shares, perhaps $10, toward the project proposal. It might be a proposal for new software, for a solution to the problem described in an article, for running a server for the next year, for another article on a related topic, or for something else. Each proposal would be vetted to make sure it's complete. That means a plausible schedule, a realistic budget, committed resources, sufficient testing, and success criteria. When the project gets sufficient donors, then it gets the funds and the CSB will make sure the results are assessed and reported to the donors and the public.
Time to go see if it's worth submitting the idea directly, but I bid Slashdot the usual ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Tech angle of this story seems kind of minimal, but I was interested in terms of logistics optimization and the ways of high-tech corporate cancers (AKA Amazon). I'm confident that Amazon is using sophisticated knapsack algorithms to pack their chartered planes to capacity--but that should not have been a factor in this crash since it was coming in for a landing. By that point in the flight, the plane would be much lighter because of all the fuel it had consumed on route. However, I am confident that Amazon picked the low bidder for the deliveries and kept up constant pressure to cut the costs more on each flight... One possibility is that the pressures could have affected the maintenance and helped lead to the apparent mechanical failure.
Also the hull number of Captain Kirk's starship. NCC-1701 ring a bell?
Couldn't find any mention of Guy Steele, so I'll throw in The New Hacker's Dictionary , which I once owned in dead tree form. Not sure if Version 4.4.7 http://catb.org/jargon/html/ is the latest online... Also remember a couple of his language manuals. Probably used the Common Lisp one the most...
Didn't find any mention of a lot of books that I consider highly relevant, but that may reflect my personal bias towards history. Not really relevant for most programmers.
TMI, but if I open up my database on all the computer science stuff, the "score" is 352, of which the first 22 are in Japanese.
http://shanenj.tripod.com/cgi-...
You have to be careful about redefining keywords with pragmas. The compiler might wind up in an infinite loop! Or would that be the macro assembler?
You young whippersnappers don't 'preciate how good you have it!
Back in my day, the only book about programming was the 1401 assembly language manual!
But seriously, folks, it's pretty clear we still don't know shite about how to program properly. We have some fairly clear success criteria for improving the hardware, but the criteria for good software are clear as mud, and the criteria for ways to produce good software are much muddier than that.
Having said that, I will now peruse the thread rather carefully looking for interesting books to read. Nothing but time these years.
One must ask "What language did Nike use to program shooting itself in the foot?"
Another obligatory reference: http://www.toodarkpark.org/com...
(It's a fairly comprehensive list of languages, even including some of the young whippersnappers like Python.)
My solution approach would be to use MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) to help the trolls in rendering themselves invisible, except to each other and to people who actually want to play with the trolls.
Time's up, but I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Where are the jokes about creating evil super-villains? Or am I joking?
Actually I think it's way too early to speculate on the effects of this essentially random experiment. In nature most mutations are on the scale from bad to terrible, and the bigger the mutation, the more likely it's fatal.
Unclear what you are tying to say. About the most charitable interpretation I can imagine is that you are confused about reverse engineering and standardization. The entire IP question is a can of worms that I did not particularly want to open here.
My (intended) focus was on Huawei's pretenses of being an international company...
In general that website is not a credible source, though it is possible the specific author is an outlier. If you want to cite such sources, you need to include something to indicate that you or the source are worth paying attention to.