Actually there were plenty of search engines like that before Google, and there will be many long after Google collapses. If having a box in the middle of the screen is Google's greatest innovation, then I doubt they will be remembered when they're gone.
I'll again point out my parallel with IE, which was also a very expensive to write program integrated with the OS for free.
That doesn't seem to have hurt Firefox. I don't think it's a bad thing that Microsoft has made it impractical to charge for a web browser. How is it a bad thing if they make it impractical to charge for anti-virus software?
simply because the internet is cheaper, updated more frequently and available 24 hours a day.
Cheaper? The newspaper on the bus is free. No electronic device can come close to that price. I can read a newspaper in all sorts of situations where it would be unfeasible to take a laptop.
Why did Europeans colonise the Americas? I mean, look at the expense!
The Americas had gravity, water, oxygen and food. Space has none of that.
It was also relatively cheap to set up in America, just build a hut and live off the local plants and animals. Even one person living in space requires a massive, expensive operation involving hundreds of people working constantly, and billions of dollars worth of technology.
Maybe they're not after that obsessive minority of fussy gamers? Believe it or not, most REAL gamers are interested in playing games, not in having computers from trendy brands.
The catch is that 99% of the company (i.e. all the PHDs eating free meals and writing perma-beta web services on $1000 chairs), is propped up by the 1% that actually brings in the money (i.e. the advertising).
If gmail, or google earth, or base, or whatever, were run as individual companies that had to survive off their own back, they'd all have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
Google is profitable because they're good at selling adverts.
This isn't anything to do with revolutionary management or development tactics, but good old fashioned advertising principles.
Excuse me if I don't join the worshipping of what at the end of the day is just a giant marketing corporation that makes a few novel permanently-beta web applications on the side.
What's so wrong with placing the burden on those who create the burden?
The burden is created not only by people who drive vehicles, but those who depend on and use services that are provided via vehicles, yet only the driver has to pay the tax.
Somehow, this world has become so short-sighted, in-the-moment, materialistic, and irresponsible, that we have this aversion to making some sacrifices that benefit humankind as a whole.
An oil tax will not benefit humankind, it will just benefit whoever's pocket the money goes into.
What's wrong with investing - heavily, I might add - in cleaner fuels?
This isn't investing in cleaner fuels. It's a money grab that will not invent or develop ANY cleaner fuels.
I can guarantee that Californians will be taxed to the hilt, and in the end they will get NO benfits from it. You can mark my words, nothing will come of this.
Unless you think that throwing money around will magically invent some clean fuel.
And to all the people out there that are spouting off numbers and guestimates: shut up Unless you know a number or percentage be quiet.
Then follow up with:
I'd like to see the numbers but I doubt that it's over a hundred bucks per editor to read a book and make some notes.
Is this intentional? Because I know I laughed. Maybe you should have spent a hundred bucks on an editor to catch that.
Considering that to read (I mean properly read, not scan though so you can say you've read it), a 800 page book could take 50 hours. Then to sort through thousands of grammatic errors, redundancies, rambling bits that don't go anywhere, lame dialogue, and all the things that can be wrong with a book, and correct them, you're talking hundreds if not thousands of hours.
At $100 per book, you're expecting editors to work for a few cents per hour.
No-one's being ripped off. If you don't like the price of a book you don't have to buy it. There are many other books you can buy which are much cheaper. The number of books being sold suggests that the prices are actually correct.
Books are a luxury entertainment product anyway, you can't cry about the prices like you can electricity or water.
Why would you need ten books on a journey unless you're a speedreader? Maybe you should move up from 'Spot goes to the Park' to something with a bit more depth.
If they did something like "The Office", except with an office of tech geeks, it could work.
A lot of people can relate to working in an office, not many can relate to being a tech geek. That's why The Office works whilst your idea wouldn't.
In fact if they did make it, the geeks would just watch it looking for mistakes, before writing about them on the Internet in Comic Book Guy style. Oh wait...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there were plenty of search engines like that before Google, and there will be many long after Google collapses. If having a box in the middle of the screen is Google's greatest innovation, then I doubt they will be remembered when they're gone.
That doesn't seem to have hurt Firefox. I don't think it's a bad thing that Microsoft has made it impractical to charge for a web browser. How is it a bad thing if they make it impractical to charge for anti-virus software?
I have never needed to search my emails. I put into folders the few I need to keep, then delete the rest.
How exactly do you sandbox Firefox in Linux so an exploit can't wipe out my home directory?
I actually agree with that, but did you have to post it a dozen times all over the discussion?
Like what, other than an awful 'labels' system and slow loading times?
Now add on the time to burn to the DVDs then read them back.
Cheaper? The newspaper on the bus is free. No electronic device can come close to that price. I can read a newspaper in all sorts of situations where it would be unfeasible to take a laptop.
That second Daily Mirror should actually be the Daily M*il.
The Americas had gravity, water, oxygen and food. Space has none of that.
It was also relatively cheap to set up in America, just build a hut and live off the local plants and animals. Even one person living in space requires a massive, expensive operation involving hundreds of people working constantly, and billions of dollars worth of technology.
AM is used for sports commentary, where is the stigma in that?
Why is it more acceptable to be offensive to the eye than to the nose?
Actually that happens all the time. However how the Americans are bitter that the boot's on the other foot.
Maybe they're not after that obsessive minority of fussy gamers? Believe it or not, most REAL gamers are interested in playing games, not in having computers from trendy brands.
The catch is that 99% of the company (i.e. all the PHDs eating free meals and writing perma-beta web services on $1000 chairs), is propped up by the 1% that actually brings in the money (i.e. the advertising).
If gmail, or google earth, or base, or whatever, were run as individual companies that had to survive off their own back, they'd all have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
Google is profitable because they're good at selling adverts.
This isn't anything to do with revolutionary management or development tactics, but good old fashioned advertising principles.
Excuse me if I don't join the worshipping of what at the end of the day is just a giant marketing corporation that makes a few novel permanently-beta web applications on the side.
I'll believe that when gmail loads more than 50% of the time, or when the search engine actually gives some relevant results.
The burden is created not only by people who drive vehicles, but those who depend on and use services that are provided via vehicles, yet only the driver has to pay the tax.
An oil tax will not benefit humankind, it will just benefit whoever's pocket the money goes into.
This isn't investing in cleaner fuels. It's a money grab that will not invent or develop ANY cleaner fuels.
I can guarantee that Californians will be taxed to the hilt, and in the end they will get NO benfits from it. You can mark my words, nothing will come of this.
Unless you think that throwing money around will magically invent some clean fuel.
Then follow up with:
Is this intentional? Because I know I laughed. Maybe you should have spent a hundred bucks on an editor to catch that.
Considering that to read (I mean properly read, not scan though so you can say you've read it), a 800 page book could take 50 hours. Then to sort through thousands of grammatic errors, redundancies, rambling bits that don't go anywhere, lame dialogue, and all the things that can be wrong with a book, and correct them, you're talking hundreds if not thousands of hours.
At $100 per book, you're expecting editors to work for a few cents per hour.
No-one's being ripped off. If you don't like the price of a book you don't have to buy it. There are many other books you can buy which are much cheaper. The number of books being sold suggests that the prices are actually correct.
Books are a luxury entertainment product anyway, you can't cry about the prices like you can electricity or water.
Why would you need ten books on a journey unless you're a speedreader? Maybe you should move up from 'Spot goes to the Park' to something with a bit more depth.
That's if you're not counting all the piss and dried up semen.
Then it's a pity most toilet seats are made out of plastic or wood.
Well she's not going to come out and say they're making huge markups on it is she?
A lot of people can relate to working in an office, not many can relate to being a tech geek. That's why The Office works whilst your idea wouldn't.
In fact if they did make it, the geeks would just watch it looking for mistakes, before writing about them on the Internet in Comic Book Guy style. Oh wait...