Most of Google's products are developed in house (even if they are based on open standards). Most of their big projects were not swallowed and absorbed from existing companies (ala Microsoft and Hotmail).
And really, I like it that way. Is there a better method for insuring that the project "does no evil"?
I can put together a computer from Newegg for less than 299 (Dell's rock bottom price). The system would use AMD (which I personally prefer), and would not include any keylogging devices. Though It would have similar specs to the Dell system and is only marginally cheaper, the upgrade path would be far cheaper (Dell screws you on the upgrades), and would also include "goodies" like an AGP slot which Dells are often missing.
If anybody is too lazy to go to newegg and try yourself, respond and I'll post a summary.
One last thing. I suspect that their 300 PC barely makes them a profit. That line probably exists largely for mindshare and marketability. They're profit margins probably increase substantially with the model price. Run newegg against one of their $2000 gaming PCs, and you'll really see how Dells sticks it to you.
Nice quote, but the thing is, that's all we CAN do here. Slashdot is not a place to do software development; it isn't set up for that. It's a place for discussion. So basically, discuss, praise the author, try & review the software, but if you want to "help with code", you're in the wrong place.
Why does that matter? Most of the features in sourceforge are basically designed to be responses to the code/applications anyway (bug reports, forums, etc). So it will get plenty of use. But even if it didn't, why not use it to host a couple of open source files that people want?
I assume you mean "have essentially nothing on them". If so, why do you say that? I has the source code for the free bitkeeper tool that he designed. What more would people want?
That E17 article is insanely old (almost 4 years old). Normally, it wouldn't matter, except that I think E17 has gone through redesign[s] since then. Just check out the screenshots; nothing like the last taste of E17 we got late last year. I wouldn't count on any of the information being useful or up-to-date
At least for my part, I believe that all IP should be default BSD license style. In other words, I believe the government should leave people alone with respect to IP. So, if you can keep your IP secret, then you can exclusively use that IP. Otherwise, it's simply free. Somebody who believes as I do might try to make a license (acknowledged by the Government) that provides that the code will never be subject to petty restrictions. This way, more of the world's IP can be free as we believe it ought to be.
The GPL was designed to be such a license. People cry out when the GPL gets violated not because the IP has been violated, but because the IP has become less free.
Google is the Search King. Don't you think they'll be able to create an automated system for straining out bad submissions (porn or copyright violations)? I mean, even if the the title or description of a video submission itself aren't incriminating enough, the probably have plenty of other methods for getting context about a video. The probability that a violating video already exists on the net is large, so they could make a system to identify a video by general characteristics (obviously a digest-hash would not be appropriate across formats, but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it).
I think the grandparent is suggesting that the article's poster actually pose the same question to a third-party registrar (rather than slashdot), which isn't a bad idea at all.
In other words, rather than just trying to transfer the domain using automatic means, he might try getting in touch with a third party registrar's service line. They might know the best way to get this resolved, and might even have certain mutual contacts that could easily put them in touch with Jump Domain.
He already has domains registered with Jump Domain. He does not want to abandon those domains, and he can't seem to transfer them. You could suggest a thousands amazing registrars, and it won't help him with this problem
Why do you claim service markets can't exist without a goods market? More and more, people have all the technology they need to have pretty much every type of content (interactive or not) delivered to their home without the need for physical goods. This means that education, news, entertainment, communication, and most business can be done over the internet.
But honestly, I'm asking, why does there need to be a substantial goods market to back up these services (given that many people already have the technology to do all these things)?
It may not be a majority or even a large minority, but 8% is indeed considerable because it forces developers to recheck their code with Firefox. And indeed, developers do seem to be watching. Just check out the W3C browser statistics which are as good a gauge as any for what developers are using. For those who don't feel like following the link, probably within a month, fully 25% of developers will be using Firefox.
More than that, if you imagine that there are 300 million people on the web (I don't know what the figure is now; it's just a guess), and 8% use Firefox (24 million), a company who thinks they can gather, say, 1/6 of that submarket, probably considers that a decent consumer base (4 million customers).
It would be a huge problem for Unbuntu especially, because AFAIK, Unbuntu could not survive without the work that Debian provides. By usurping Debian (without giving back in any significant measure), Unbuntu might accidently obliterate the hand that feeds it.
It is not my claim that humans ought to survive (I'm not making a claim either way on that one). It is a viewpoint that was assumed by the article.
And, in fact, it was not very presumptious for them to assume that, as survival is a basic instinct in most humans (something that has been naturally selected for many years). I would venture to say that if you do not care at all about survival of our species, than you are the exception rather than the rule. And more interestingly, if caring about survival and procreation is in any way genetic, your type is likely to become more rare as the years go by.
we could probably... build a network of satellites to... diffuse all the nuclear weapons
Assuming you could, somebody else could build better weapons that would defy the diffusing process. If history has taught us anything, it's that weapons technology has always scaled against weapons protection technology.
And I hope you're not talking about the sun dying - that'll take billions of years and we'd have to be a lot farther away then Mars to be safe.
Now that you mention it, it is an inevitability. Clearly, you seem to be assuming that the article content has something to do with Mars. I don't think it does. It's just a brief justification for humans in space. While we're at it, when it talks about survival, it doesn't enforce a time cap. So, if we want to survive as a species for longer than a few billion years, it would be reasonable assume that we ought to colonize another solar system.
That kind of argument can potentially keep humans out of space forever. Theoretically, there will always be superior technology on the horizon, and if we always decide to wait for it, then we'll never get anywhere.
Also, there is the distinct possibility that the decision for humans to travel to space would actually act as a catalyst for innovation. After all, necessity is the mother of invention.
Assuming that you're correct and man cannot damage the earth to the point of it being uninhabitable, there are certainly plenty of other ways for us to not survive here that the article specifically mentions
Not the least of which is self-annihilation by nuclear or biological weapons (which have proven that they are ready and capable of killing many of us very quickly). The article also mentions natural disasters, which (once again) have proven themselves able to wipe out huge portions of the earth.
We are also aware of certain natural disasters that might be able to wipe out ALL LIFE on this planet pretty much within a day. I won't bother naming any because most educated people should be able to come up with at least 3 good ones, including as least one inevitability.
the article really shold have focused on a) the abundant energy and raw materials available in space
The article was not about why crap in general should be in space.
It was in fact about the top reasons for humans in space.
In fact, having humans in space is not a necessary condition for gathering "abundant energy and raw materials" of other planets. The article just makes the arguments that humans would be better suited than robots to work in space.
I think the point is that 5 years into this century, we can't tell a whole heck of a lot about what the rest of the century will hold.
Right now, the center of software IT power is squarely seated in the US and western Europe. Think Microsoft (one of the primary targets of eastern Asian countries). Even the majority of the Free software movement has taken place in US (esp academic strongholds as in California, and Massachusetts) and Europe. This is apparently what China wants India to help change.
It's very possible that cooperation of this kind would result in a major shift in IT, just as it is suggested that it could.
You and a few other people seem to be making the same mistake about your parent post. He is saying that Vorbis, AAC, and WMA all have superior quality to MP3, yet have failed to catch on. He's just trying to establish the importance of momentum in this market.
All things being equal, I would agree. This format has no actually value in the community. However, this format has one huge advantage; name recognition. Look at the new Napster: absolutely no advantage over any other existing service, but it did a great deal of business because people recognized the name. There's a very good posibility that soon, people will want to be able to say they have a "super mp3 player" because they think it makes them sound cool, and people just know the 'mp3' name.
The fact is, computer-based news/facts are so much more easily obtained on the web (with a computer, of all devices). What you're suggesting is like making a radio station dedicated to innovations-in and methods-of television broadcasting.
I can understand what you're looking for, but television is the wrong medium. Stations like G4/TechTV will always be targeted towards those who plan to make the jump into computers, or who have only been recently indoctrinated into the WWW.
If you ask me, the press and major political parties still have that power.
This is true right now. However, this will eventually begin to change. Just because the article overstated things abit does not change the validity of the point it is trying to make.
Eventually, paper publication and television broadcast popularity will begin to dwindle as people can more effectly replace those media forms with internet content (of many different types).
In addition to changing how candidates market themselves, it inernet also might change who is electable. Because it is easier to create and distribute online content to the masses, third/obscure partie members and independents will (hopefully) have a better chance in the US government.
Regardless of whether or not they censor albums, they will have, at best, the same meager ridiculous selection that every other service has.
Every time a new legal online-music appears, I take a look for the music that I like to listen to (Failure, Sneaker Pimps, etc; check my audioscrobbler if you're curious). Granted, they aren't exactly mainstream pop, but they aren't that uncommon. I still haven't found a service that reliably has some of those lesser-known artists (I just checked Wal-Mart's site, and they are no exception). If I'm going to do online music, then the selection had better be about as good as Amazon's.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of Google's products are developed in house (even if they are based on open standards). Most of their big projects were not swallowed and absorbed from existing companies (ala Microsoft and Hotmail).
And really, I like it that way. Is there a better method for insuring that the project "does no evil"?
I can put together a computer from Newegg for less than 299 (Dell's rock bottom price). The system would use AMD (which I personally prefer), and would not include any keylogging devices. Though It would have similar specs to the Dell system and is only marginally cheaper, the upgrade path would be far cheaper (Dell screws you on the upgrades), and would also include "goodies" like an AGP slot which Dells are often missing.
If anybody is too lazy to go to newegg and try yourself, respond and I'll post a summary.
One last thing. I suspect that their 300 PC barely makes them a profit. That line probably exists largely for mindshare and marketability. They're profit margins probably increase substantially with the model price. Run newegg against one of their $2000 gaming PCs, and you'll really see how Dells sticks it to you.
Nice quote, but the thing is, that's all we CAN do here. Slashdot is not a place to do software development; it isn't set up for that. It's a place for discussion. So basically, discuss, praise the author, try & review the software, but if you want to "help with code", you're in the wrong place.
Why does that matter? Most of the features in sourceforge are basically designed to be responses to the code/applications anyway (bug reports, forums, etc). So it will get plenty of use. But even if it didn't, why not use it to host a couple of open source files that people want?
I assume you mean "have essentially nothing on them". If so, why do you say that? I has the source code for the free bitkeeper tool that he designed. What more would people want?
That E17 article is insanely old (almost 4 years old). Normally, it wouldn't matter, except that I think E17 has gone through redesign[s] since then. Just check out the screenshots; nothing like the last taste of E17 we got late last year. I wouldn't count on any of the information being useful or up-to-date
At least for my part, I believe that all IP should be default BSD license style. In other words, I believe the government should leave people alone with respect to IP. So, if you can keep your IP secret, then you can exclusively use that IP. Otherwise, it's simply free. Somebody who believes as I do might try to make a license (acknowledged by the Government) that provides that the code will never be subject to petty restrictions. This way, more of the world's IP can be free as we believe it ought to be.
The GPL was designed to be such a license. People cry out when the GPL gets violated not because the IP has been violated, but because the IP has become less free.
Google is the Search King. Don't you think they'll be able to create an automated system for straining out bad submissions (porn or copyright violations)? I mean, even if the the title or description of a video submission itself aren't incriminating enough, the probably have plenty of other methods for getting context about a video. The probability that a violating video already exists on the net is large, so they could make a system to identify a video by general characteristics (obviously a digest-hash would not be appropriate across formats, but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it).
I think the grandparent is suggesting that the article's poster actually pose the same question to a third-party registrar (rather than slashdot), which isn't a bad idea at all.
In other words, rather than just trying to transfer the domain using automatic means, he might try getting in touch with a third party registrar's service line. They might know the best way to get this resolved, and might even have certain mutual contacts that could easily put them in touch with Jump Domain.
He already has domains registered with Jump Domain. He does not want to abandon those domains, and he can't seem to transfer them. You could suggest a thousands amazing registrars, and it won't help him with this problem
Why do you claim service markets can't exist without a goods market? More and more, people have all the technology they need to have pretty much every type of content (interactive or not) delivered to their home without the need for physical goods. This means that education, news, entertainment, communication, and most business can be done over the internet.
But honestly, I'm asking, why does there need to be a substantial goods market to back up these services (given that many people already have the technology to do all these things)?
It may not be a majority or even a large minority, but 8% is indeed considerable because it forces developers to recheck their code with Firefox. And indeed, developers do seem to be watching. Just check out the W3C browser statistics which are as good a gauge as any for what developers are using. For those who don't feel like following the link, probably within a month, fully 25% of developers will be using Firefox.
More than that, if you imagine that there are 300 million people on the web (I don't know what the figure is now; it's just a guess), and 8% use Firefox (24 million), a company who thinks they can gather, say, 1/6 of that submarket, probably considers that a decent consumer base (4 million customers).
It would be a huge problem for Unbuntu especially, because AFAIK, Unbuntu could not survive without the work that Debian provides. By usurping Debian (without giving back in any significant measure), Unbuntu might accidently obliterate the hand that feeds it.
It is not my claim that humans ought to survive (I'm not making a claim either way on that one). It is a viewpoint that was assumed by the article.
And, in fact, it was not very presumptious for them to assume that, as survival is a basic instinct in most humans (something that has been naturally selected for many years). I would venture to say that if you do not care at all about survival of our species, than you are the exception rather than the rule. And more interestingly, if caring about survival and procreation is in any way genetic, your type is likely to become more rare as the years go by.
Why wait until some undefined "later" point to explain one's self, if one has nothing to hide?
for legal reasons
we could probably ... build a network of satellites to ... diffuse all the nuclear weapons
Assuming you could, somebody else could build better weapons that would defy the diffusing process. If history has taught us anything, it's that weapons technology has always scaled against weapons protection technology.
And I hope you're not talking about the sun dying - that'll take billions of years and we'd have to be a lot farther away then Mars to be safe.
Now that you mention it, it is an inevitability. Clearly, you seem to be assuming that the article content has something to do with Mars. I don't think it does. It's just a brief justification for humans in space. While we're at it, when it talks about survival, it doesn't enforce a time cap. So, if we want to survive as a species for longer than a few billion years, it would be reasonable assume that we ought to colonize another solar system.
That kind of argument can potentially keep humans out of space forever. Theoretically, there will always be superior technology on the horizon, and if we always decide to wait for it, then we'll never get anywhere.
Also, there is the distinct possibility that the decision for humans to travel to space would actually act as a catalyst for innovation. After all, necessity is the mother of invention.
Assuming that you're correct and man cannot damage the earth to the point of it being uninhabitable, there are certainly plenty of other ways for us to not survive here that the article specifically mentions
Not the least of which is self-annihilation by nuclear or biological weapons (which have proven that they are ready and capable of killing many of us very quickly). The article also mentions natural disasters, which (once again) have proven themselves able to wipe out huge portions of the earth.
We are also aware of certain natural disasters that might be able to wipe out ALL LIFE on this planet pretty much within a day. I won't bother naming any because most educated people should be able to come up with at least 3 good ones, including as least one inevitability.
the article really shold have focused on a) the abundant energy and raw materials available in space
The article was not about why crap in general should be in space.
It was in fact about the top reasons for humans in space.
In fact, having humans in space is not a necessary condition for gathering "abundant energy and raw materials" of other planets. The article just makes the arguments that humans would be better suited than robots to work in space.
I think the point is that 5 years into this century, we can't tell a whole heck of a lot about what the rest of the century will hold. Right now, the center of software IT power is squarely seated in the US and western Europe. Think Microsoft (one of the primary targets of eastern Asian countries). Even the majority of the Free software movement has taken place in US (esp academic strongholds as in California, and Massachusetts) and Europe. This is apparently what China wants India to help change. It's very possible that cooperation of this kind would result in a major shift in IT, just as it is suggested that it could.
You and a few other people seem to be making the same mistake about your parent post. He is saying that Vorbis, AAC, and WMA all have superior quality to MP3, yet have failed to catch on. He's just trying to establish the importance of momentum in this market.
He isn't at all putting down vorbis
All things being equal, I would agree. This format has no actually value in the community. However, this format has one huge advantage; name recognition. Look at the new Napster: absolutely no advantage over any other existing service, but it did a great deal of business because people recognized the name. There's a very good posibility that soon, people will want to be able to say they have a "super mp3 player" because they think it makes them sound cool, and people just know the 'mp3' name.
I hope you're right, but I'm not sure you are.
The fact is, computer-based news/facts are so much more easily obtained on the web (with a computer, of all devices). What you're suggesting is like making a radio station dedicated to innovations-in and methods-of television broadcasting.
I can understand what you're looking for, but television is the wrong medium. Stations like G4/TechTV will always be targeted towards those who plan to make the jump into computers, or who have only been recently indoctrinated into the WWW.
If you ask me, the press and major political parties still have that power.
This is true right now. However, this will eventually begin to change. Just because the article overstated things abit does not change the validity of the point it is trying to make.
Eventually, paper publication and television broadcast popularity will begin to dwindle as people can more effectly replace those media forms with internet content (of many different types).
In addition to changing how candidates market themselves, it inernet also might change who is electable. Because it is easier to create and distribute online content to the masses, third/obscure partie members and independents will (hopefully) have a better chance in the US government.
Regardless of whether or not they censor albums, they will have, at best, the same meager ridiculous selection that every other service has.
Every time a new legal online-music appears, I take a look for the music that I like to listen to (Failure, Sneaker Pimps, etc; check my audioscrobbler if you're curious). Granted, they aren't exactly mainstream pop, but they aren't that uncommon. I still haven't found a service that reliably has some of those lesser-known artists (I just checked Wal-Mart's site, and they are no exception). If I'm going to do online music, then the selection had better be about as good as Amazon's.