All those f*ckin' tiles drive me nuts! It's like a kindergardener's art project!
This sounds like people's complaints about other helpful lmitiations 1) single menu at the top, rather than per window 2) interfaces that must be operable by one mouse button. 3) white space blocks in python
Sometimes human interface guidelines are empowering not limiting. And when you get down to something as small as phone, I can see how this matters more and more. The Windows abstractions to tiles and metaphor on a larger sheet you are viewing a slice of make sense to me. The obvious question is how not to get lost on the larger hidden sheet and how to provide quick access without resorting to clumsy menu hierachies is what windows seems to be solving in a nice way. Apple spent a lot of time thinking about it too. What will matter is intutiive and consistent application of guidelines will empower users by giving them strong mental models of how to interact.
I can't say if I like win phones or not. Haven't had to live with one.
The main reason I probably won't try is over years I've standardized my needs to macs, so for me it's going to be either an iphone, or disposable phone whose OS won't be important to me.
C3 already was doing this a couple years ago. Apple bought C3, and we've heard nothing more. But there is a rumor Apple is going to debut the 3D maps next week on iphones. Google annoiuncing progress on their developments in this area sounds like a pre-emptive publicity strike from google to blunt the Apple first.
Look at Objective-C. No pressure for years let this language mature and not have to be a stakced series of kludges. It's a language that hasn't gone off the rails like Java did and now python is about to. It kept to it's low level roots and didn't have to build in every gimmick of the day. I gave up on java after about 1.4 because every program I had written was using deprecated syntax and libraries within a year.
Python when I first started was brilliantly simple. I was one of those imbeciles that ridiculed the whites space, and the lack of multiple approaches to things. Then I noticed that I could read everyone elses python and they could read mine. White space is brilliant! And having single idioms for any major concept means everyone can read everyone elses program. Insanely great language. Or it was. Now it's got some much library bloat and idiom bloat that it's becoming a dark art and old code will wither as libraries go unsupported.
Interestingly things I wrote decades ago in perl still work just fine. that language just reached maturity and mostly stopped.
The way I compare languages now is I measure the thickness of the O Reily pocket guide. Perl is very slim-- even slimmer than C++. Yet perl without adding any external libraries has high level capabilities.
No I'm not arguing YouTube cant exist. I'm saying that their business model is inherently problematic. They need to find one that can work. Like for example profit sharing as I mentioned.
The closest analogy I can think of to you tube is a consignment shop or pawn shop. Sometimes goods in a pawn shop are stolen goods. Yet we let pawnshops continue to operate. Yet there is an important difference. The pawnshop operator meets every person with goods, he take careful records, and spends time on each item. We would not tolerate automated anonymous pawnshops. That's what You tube is.
Saying that, well given the volume of business you tube does they cant vet everything, is not an excuse for them, just like it would not be an excuse for the automated pawnshop.
In a way they are lucky that RIAA and MPAA exist. Otherwise they would be in the impossible position of having to negotiate with everyone with a copyright. It is not necessary that RIAA and MPAA cover the rights of every copyright, just a large fraction. We don't require perfect vetting by pawnshops either.
So what? Were all in agreement it might be expensive for you tube to excersize diligence. That was the point of the story of potash fertilizer. They either have to do it or youtube needs to find a different business model. For example, youtube could profit share with the RIAA and MPAA.
That might turn your stomach but at present the facts are 1) they are making money 2) they would not be making money if they were diligent about broadcasting copyrighted works.
Just because they are doing it does not give them the right to continue doing it.
Just because due diligence would kill the market does not mean it should not be required.
for example, if I am mining potash to make fertilizer and in doing so am spewing gobs of arsenic and uranium over NY city, I can't say, well the cost of not doing that would make my fertalizer cost $500 a pound. Ironically, this is an interesting example: potash fertilizer mining has exceptions for allowed uranium release. But still it's regulated and that regulation causes costs.
At one time steamships were having boiler explosions at an alarming rate. Despite the deaths and cost of repairs it was still economically better to use cheap boilers than pay for better ones. The US instituted standards and inspections, and even forced owners to pay for inspections. This drove up the cost of shipping in the short run.
The same was true of the train industry. Indeed deaths and poor working conditions are what led to the formation of the first US trade unions.
In both cases it was claimed that due diligence would put the industry out of bussiness. it didn't. Costs were higher, yes.
But the problem here is one of externalities. Youtube is infringing on copyrights and making money by not having to pay for that infringement. that's the same as me polluting and not having to pay the consequences.
The starting place for the negotiation needs to be not starting with zero and working up, but starting with the maximum cost and working down. This makes it incumbent on the infringer/polluter to come to the table.
If you are playing PC games the lights all over the house may be turned off. If you were not playing PC games then you might be moving around the house with the lights on. Likewise in winter your heating from the game is just heating your house. Even better it's heating the room you are in, so you can let the house be more cool. If you were not gaming perhaps you would be driving your car somewhere, like your girl friends house, and using gasoline. It could be that gaming saves you money over alternative activities in terms of electricity.
while apple is filling many of the publisher's roles taking on some of it's costs and slightly more of its profits. If everything stayed the same then this would mean less money left over for author development via advances and promotion. Apple uses none of it's income for that.
But it may be the case the market for reading increases. That's not clear. The public can only read so much. But maybe they might consume (without reading) more if it is made easy. In which case they offset the profits they remove by expanding the pie.
The people getting hurt are definitely the brick and mortar stores. Which is sad if you are a bibliophile. browsing is wonderful and so is talking to a shrewd librarian or bookstore person about what you might like to read next. I suspect that recommendation systems on online can't match that.
I suspect we will see two divergent phenomena. A narrowing of general tastes while at the same time an enlargement of specialized tastes. That is, fewer books will be read a lot by mainstream readers while rare titles will become more available to those seeking them.
In such a case there is less incentive for the advance or the book tour for marginal authors.
This is nothing more than some twisting to make it "nerdy" article. The original pagerank algorithm is just about relations between different pages. Gee, how did not anyone think about there being relation between different body parts when cancer spreads??
Amen. This is EXACLTY how every does it, and always has. Where do you think google got it's idea from?
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance.
I've heard that said a few times but it seems nuts that China would sell these things at a loss, if that's really the case they will run out of money and be forced to stop fairly soon.
Do you have a citation for the claim that China is selling solar at a loss?
Well think about it. There's two reasons you sell things at a loss.
One is if it's an investment you will be making back later. In the case of solar cells this means buying market share, or if you are lucky buying monopoly pricing. You don't need monopoly pricing to earn it back because Market share is sticky. Market share comes not simply setting your prices or offering what people want, it's capacity, distribution networks, and standards.
Two is if you are looking at the wrong market. If there is a regional job shortage it may be cheaper for the Govt to subsidize and industry than pay unemployment costs. That would be unemployment costs not just to those workers but the whole regional economy it supports.
If DNS changer redirects gov.au then I could be looking at the look-alike DNS changer checker telling me all is fine? They should have listed this as an IP address. My computer says it is 165.191.2.65 Is that what yours says?
I've read that this can bollix things like Limewire to Akamai by sending you to a far away source rather thant near one that your ISP's DNS would select. I won't pretend to understand that.
The problem is not how to check of a range is between bounds. Rather the problem is knowing you need to range check at that point. After all a higher subroutine might have already range checked it. Unnecessary range checks on every subroutine entrance would be inefficient. Thus this is a global design issue and takes a comprehensive knowledge to know. It's that knwoeledge that google stole by copying the pattern from oracle. Other design issues are, how do you pass in or obtain the bounds? Those are data structure issues. What exception to call? how do you make sure it does not break legacy code depending on some behaviour?
The problem here is the Lawyers are too simple minded to understand it's not the code itself but how the code affects the design that matters. And the judge knows just enough to understand that code itself is trivial but not enough to look beyond what the lawyers say is important.
since car analogies are obligate: It's like the guy that goes to the mechanic with a mysterious clunking noise. The mechanic listens for 5 seconds then pulls out a ball peen hammer and whacks the side of the alternator one time. The noise goes away. The guy gets his bill and it says $100. He says it only took the mechanic 5 seconds to do the job. The mechanic takes the bill and itemizes it.
tapping the alternator: 1$ knowing where to tap: 99$.
If dish can skip content then there is no reason why they can't replace content. THey could start inserting their own ads.
Also as far as implementing this goes, there's no need to auto-detect commercials. just pay some mechanical Turk to do it. sounds like an easy job to watch say 8 hours of TV and mark the commercials. It's only 4 or 5 channels so that's like 20 people to pay.
The problem is that they would have to individually master each disk or find some way to do that with a part of the disc which would drastically increase the cost.
Blue rays have some way of identifying every disk so this is possible. Not quite sure how it works.
Google has not innovated. They are a fast follower with a big bank roll. Like Microsoft's office suit, their undeniably excellent search platform lets them weave new technologies in for an unbeatable combination. For example, their maps or online doc or shopping search or payment systemed were no better than what others offered, but they were easy to get to from any place in the googlesphere.
The one area one can give a credit to them is refining the implementation of active online web pages. Their work on Ajax and things like google gears made the browser more of an app backed by a huge database.
There is a certain irony to this move to more active web page portals however. They become unsearchable and unlinkable. Thus while the google sphere grows more integrated it becomes more of a walled garden. Worse it can't search other walled gardens like facebook.
Google page rank and text ads was a break through but everything else has just been due to the wads of cash and monopolistic leveraging of services by "integration".
Nokia is an old time innnovator and a big player in the industry. No way can they be called a patent troll. Conversely HTC, viewsonic have a bussiness model of fast followers and copying, respectively. Viewsonic is not an innovator just a cheapenator. they rarely even make their own stuff. HTC simply adds fashion to existing tech. I can't really say much about rimm. They definitely innovated in the field but they are desperately trying to catch up hardware wise. So it depends what the patents are.
I have little doubt they have a case since they had a case against apple on basic ideas in how to conduct cell phone operations. Apple settled or at least cross licencenced.
Finally this is obviously not an attempt to black mail these companies. Their market share is miniscule. Instead, Nokia needs cash flow so they are going after places they know they can win but ignored when they had bigger fish to fry.
SO many of these patent claims seem to be the same ones. Didn't motorola just get slapped down for trying to impose restrictions on FRAND granted H264 patents in some other case? it's all so confusing. I need a chart.
Slashdot Mirror
All those f*ckin' tiles drive me nuts! It's like a kindergardener's art project!
This sounds like people's complaints about other helpful lmitiations
1) single menu at the top, rather than per window
2) interfaces that must be operable by one mouse button.
3) white space blocks in python
Sometimes human interface guidelines are empowering not limiting. And when you get down to something as small as phone, I can see how this matters more and more. The Windows abstractions to tiles and metaphor on a larger sheet you are viewing a slice of make sense to me. The obvious question is how not to get lost on the larger hidden sheet and how to provide quick access without resorting to clumsy menu hierachies is what windows seems to be solving in a nice way. Apple spent a lot of time thinking about it too. What will matter is intutiive and consistent application of guidelines will empower users by giving them strong mental models of how to interact.
I can't say if I like win phones or not. Haven't had to live with one.
The main reason I probably won't try is over years I've standardized my needs to macs, so for me it's going to be either an iphone, or disposable phone whose OS won't be important to me.
C3 already was doing this a couple years ago. Apple bought C3, and we've heard nothing more. But there is a rumor Apple is going to debut the 3D maps next week on iphones. Google annoiuncing progress on their developments in this area sounds like a pre-emptive publicity strike from google to blunt the Apple first.
Yes it is, one of those.
Look at Objective-C. No pressure for years let this language mature and not have to be a stakced series of kludges. It's a language that hasn't gone off the rails like Java did and now python is about to. It kept to it's low level roots and didn't have to build in every gimmick of the day. I gave up on java after about 1.4 because every program I had written was using deprecated syntax and libraries within a year.
Python when I first started was brilliantly simple. I was one of those imbeciles that ridiculed the whites space, and the lack of multiple approaches to things. Then I noticed that I could read everyone elses python and they could read mine. White space is brilliant! And having single idioms for any major concept means everyone can read everyone elses program. Insanely great language. Or it was. Now it's got some much library bloat and idiom bloat that it's becoming a dark art and old code will wither as libraries go unsupported.
Interestingly things I wrote decades ago in perl still work just fine. that language just reached maturity and mostly stopped.
The way I compare languages now is I measure the thickness of the O Reily pocket guide. Perl is very slim-- even slimmer than C++. Yet perl without adding any external libraries has high level capabilities.
No I'm not arguing YouTube cant exist. I'm saying that their business model is inherently problematic. They need to find one that can work. Like for example profit sharing as I mentioned.
The closest analogy I can think of to you tube is a consignment shop or pawn shop. Sometimes goods in a pawn shop are stolen goods. Yet we let pawnshops continue to operate. Yet there is an important difference. The pawnshop operator meets every person with goods, he take careful records, and spends time on each item. We would not tolerate automated anonymous pawnshops. That's what You tube is.
Saying that, well given the volume of business you tube does they cant vet everything, is not an excuse for them, just like it would not be an excuse for the automated pawnshop.
In a way they are lucky that RIAA and MPAA exist. Otherwise they would be in the impossible position of having to negotiate with everyone with a copyright. It is not necessary that RIAA and MPAA cover the rights of every copyright, just a large fraction. We don't require perfect vetting by pawnshops either.
So what? Were all in agreement it might be expensive for you tube to excersize diligence. That was the point of the story of potash fertilizer. They either have to do it or youtube needs to find a different business model. For example, youtube could profit share with the RIAA and MPAA.
That might turn your stomach but at present the facts are
1) they are making money
2) they would not be making money if they were diligent about broadcasting copyrighted works.
Just because they are doing it does not give them the right to continue doing it.
Just because due diligence would kill the market does not mean it should not be required.
for example, if I am mining potash to make fertilizer and in doing so am spewing gobs of arsenic and uranium over NY city, I can't say, well the cost of not doing that would make my fertalizer cost $500 a pound. Ironically, this is an interesting example: potash fertilizer mining has exceptions for allowed uranium release. But still it's regulated and that regulation causes costs.
At one time steamships were having boiler explosions at an alarming rate. Despite the deaths and cost of repairs it was still economically better to use cheap boilers than pay for better ones. The US instituted standards and inspections, and even forced owners to pay for inspections. This drove up the cost of shipping in the short run.
The same was true of the train industry. Indeed deaths and poor working conditions are what led to the formation of the first US trade unions.
In both cases it was claimed that due diligence would put the industry out of bussiness. it didn't. Costs were higher, yes.
But the problem here is one of externalities. Youtube is infringing on copyrights and making money by not having to pay for that infringement. that's the same as me polluting and not having to pay the consequences.
The starting place for the negotiation needs to be not starting with zero and working up, but starting with the maximum cost and working down. This makes it incumbent on the infringer/polluter to come to the table.
If you are playing PC games the lights all over the house may be turned off. If you were not playing PC games then you might be moving around the house with the lights on. Likewise in winter your heating from the game is just heating your house. Even better it's heating the room you are in, so you can let the house be more cool. If you were not gaming perhaps you would be driving your car somewhere, like your girl friends house, and using gasoline. It could be that gaming saves you money over alternative activities in terms of electricity.
while apple is filling many of the publisher's roles taking on some of it's costs and slightly more of its profits. If everything stayed the same then this would mean less money left over for author development via advances and promotion. Apple uses none of it's income for that.
But it may be the case the market for reading increases. That's not clear. The public can only read so much. But maybe they might consume (without reading) more if it is made easy. In which case they offset the profits they remove by expanding the pie.
The people getting hurt are definitely the brick and mortar stores. Which is sad if you are a bibliophile. browsing is wonderful and so is talking to a shrewd librarian or bookstore person about what you might like to read next. I suspect that recommendation systems on online can't match that.
I suspect we will see two divergent phenomena. A narrowing of general tastes while at the same time an enlargement of specialized tastes. That is, fewer books will be read a lot by mainstream readers while rare titles will become more available to those seeking them.
In such a case there is less incentive for the advance or the book tour for marginal authors.
Goombah99. Honest.
This is nothing more than some twisting to make it "nerdy" article. The original pagerank algorithm is just about relations between different pages. Gee, how did not anyone think about there being relation between different body parts when cancer spreads??
Amen. This is EXACLTY how every does it, and always has. Where do you think google got it's idea from?
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance.
I've heard that said a few times but it seems nuts that China would sell these things at a loss, if that's really the case they will run out of money and be forced to stop fairly soon.
Do you have a citation for the claim that China is selling solar at a loss?
Well think about it. There's two reasons you sell things at a loss.
One is if it's an investment you will be making back later. In the case of solar cells this means buying market share, or if you are lucky buying monopoly pricing. You don't need monopoly pricing to earn it back because Market share is sticky. Market share comes not simply setting your prices or offering what people want, it's capacity, distribution networks, and standards.
Two is if you are looking at the wrong market. If there is a regional job shortage it may be cheaper for the Govt to subsidize and industry than pay unemployment costs. That would be unemployment costs not just to those workers but the whole regional economy it supports.
If DNS changer redirects gov.au then I could be looking at the look-alike DNS changer checker telling me all is fine? They should have listed this as an IP address.
My computer says it is 165.191.2.65 Is that what yours says?
I've read that this can bollix things like Limewire to Akamai by sending you to a far away source rather thant near one that your ISP's DNS would select. I won't pretend to understand that.
The problem is not how to check of a range is between bounds. Rather the problem is knowing you need to range check at that point. After all a higher subroutine might have already range checked it. Unnecessary range checks on every subroutine entrance would be inefficient. Thus this is a global design issue and takes a comprehensive knowledge to know. It's that knwoeledge that google stole by copying the pattern from oracle. Other design issues are, how do you pass in or obtain the bounds? Those are data structure issues. What exception to call? how do you make sure it does not break legacy code depending on some behaviour?
The problem here is the Lawyers are too simple minded to understand it's not the code itself but how the code affects the design that matters. And the judge knows just enough to understand that code itself is trivial but not enough to look beyond what the lawyers say is important.
since car analogies are obligate: It's like the guy that goes to the mechanic with a mysterious clunking noise. The mechanic listens for 5 seconds then pulls out a ball peen hammer and whacks the side of the alternator one time. The noise goes away. The guy gets his bill and it says $100. He says it only took the mechanic 5 seconds to do the job. The mechanic takes the bill and itemizes it.
tapping the alternator: 1$
knowing where to tap: 99$.
Right above the calendar is an ad from an insurance agent.
If dish can skip content then there is no reason why they can't replace content. THey could start inserting their own ads.
Also as far as implementing this goes, there's no need to auto-detect commercials. just pay some mechanical Turk to do it. sounds like an easy job to watch say 8 hours of TV and mark the commercials. It's only 4 or 5 channels so that's like 20 people to pay.
The problem is that they would have to individually master each disk or find some way to do that with a part of the disc which would drastically increase the cost.
Blue rays have some way of identifying every disk so this is possible. Not quite sure how it works.
Or use a DVD player that is not blessed by the DVD consortium.
Is it so hard to make a DVD player that plays the movie when you put it in?
A No it is not hard, just not allowed.
http://www.geexbox.org/ Play your movie. The menu and extras can be viewed if desired.
This is exactly the question I was wondering. But why is it not allowed.
or
...a kick in the pants!
by a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.
Metaphors can be hard to interpret but similes can be obscure.
The Canine speech decoder already exists:
http://d1syadvoyajtpr.cloudfront.net/534fa0b9aacaf866a8eb6c6f51fa1388_500.jpg
Google has not innovated. They are a fast follower with a big bank roll. Like Microsoft's office suit, their undeniably excellent search platform lets them weave new technologies in for an unbeatable combination. For example, their maps or online doc or shopping search or payment systemed were no better than what others offered, but they were easy to get to from any place in the googlesphere.
The one area one can give a credit to them is refining the implementation of active online web pages. Their work on Ajax and things like google gears made the browser more of an app backed by a huge database.
There is a certain irony to this move to more active web page portals however. They become unsearchable and unlinkable. Thus while the google sphere grows more integrated it becomes more of a walled garden. Worse it can't search other walled gardens like facebook.
Google page rank and text ads was a break through but everything else has just been due to the wads of cash and monopolistic leveraging of services by "integration".
That's not the worst of it. The real outcome is that TSA will now ban all electronic devices as deadly terrorist weapons.
Nah. Just the ones with removable batteries that could be manipulated in flight.
Nokia is an old time innnovator and a big player in the industry. No way can they be called a patent troll. Conversely HTC, viewsonic have a bussiness model of fast followers and copying, respectively. Viewsonic is not an innovator just a cheapenator. they rarely even make their own stuff. HTC simply adds fashion to existing tech. I can't really say much about rimm. They definitely innovated in the field but they are desperately trying to catch up hardware wise. So it depends what the patents are.
I have little doubt they have a case since they had a case against apple on basic ideas in how to conduct cell phone operations. Apple settled or at least cross licencenced.
Finally this is obviously not an attempt to black mail these companies. Their market share is miniscule. Instead, Nokia needs cash flow so they are going after places they know they can win but ignored when they had bigger fish to fry.
SO many of these patent claims seem to be the same ones. Didn't motorola just get slapped down for trying to impose restrictions on FRAND granted H264 patents in some other case? it's all so confusing. I need a chart.