maybe they just are aware of better (or at least tastier) ways of disinfecting water.
Well, certainly there are, and nobody says they shouldn't use them if that is their wish. That is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. What is germane are ways in which an entire population can be served with water that won't make them sick. That's not so simple.
I object to such people because they feel that their unscientific and dangerous ideas about health should supersede decades of research and the generally excellent track record of the American water supply. They are nuts, and they fit right in with the people who don't feel that children should be vaccinated against disease. I just don't see any reason to defend willful ignorance, especially when it can affect the health and well-being of so many people.
Besides, this discussion is about public health, not individual preference. That is, ways in which the well-being of hundreds of millions of people can be reasonably assured without each household being required to maintain a water filter because our cities failed to treat our drinking water properly, or our society risking multiple pandemics because of irrational fear of vaccines.
The fact that tap water may not be as "tasty" as some people would like is completely outside the purview of public health. Government's legitimate concern is that said water be adequately free of contaminants and pathogens. Besides, if these wingnuts want a product that is at the same time tastier and less safe than their tap water, let them buy it in bottles. Problem solved, although according to Penn & Teller's Bullshit! program on this subject, most people prefer New York tap water to any of several bottled brands.
Only in America would this be modded "insightful"...
So, a poster on a U.S. Web site acknowledges that there's actually more to the world than the United States... and you criticize him? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
"Don't you DARE use our jargon the way the mainstream uses it, right HERE in our private space!"
I don't care how he uses it. Don't care how you use it. You and the GP, on the other hand, seem to care how I use it. My point is that when you are in the middle of a group of people who are communicating a certain way, expecting them to just adapt to your own prejudices is inconsiderate at best. If there's any elitism here, it's not me. Dude, when in Rome, you shoot Roman candles.
Tell you what, go tell your lawyer not to communicate with other lawyers using legal terminology. He'll tell you that you're nuts. Try telling your doctor to talk to other doctors without using their own vocabulary. You'll get the same response.
When I deal with people outside my own group, I accept without comment usage of many words that may have different meaning in other contexts. The GP was attempting to tell me that I must always use what our media moguls define as "common usage", no matter with whom I'm communicating.
I disagree, especially when dealing with what American media considers acceptable.
But.. developers. Its not about providing tools and saying 'off you go then', MS actively courts devs, look at how.NET dev has finally taken off, MS has pushed massive amounts of marketing, hype, tooling and stuff at devs everytime it can, and the number of C# jobs is the result.
Yeah, you're probably right there, but what you're talking about is really more Microsoft courting PHBs than courting developers. At my job, anyway, I get told what programming tools I have to use, whether I want to or not. That's the case throughout most of corporate America. I've been coding on Microsoft products since DOS 1.0., and like anyone who has been in the business for a while, you have to work to convince me that your latest shiny tool is the best thing since the invention of the wheel. Particularly if there are better alternatives available, since I'll be the one dealing with all the crap a bad decision will bring down on me.
But it's not people like you and me who make purchasing decisions: it's the people who get to go to lunch with Microsoft reps who do. So when Ballmer said "Developers, developers, developers, developers" he wasn't just saying, "Let's make great tools so programmers will flock to us" he was saying "we're directing more funds to the sales force."
You seem to have the idea that Apple desires to dominate the market, for reasons I can't really understand.
Well, "dominate" can be used to mean different things. Apple dominates the market for overpriced computer hardware and dominates the market for overpriced music players. Does that mean they dominate the market for personal computers or music players? No, not at all. But in their particular market segments Apple reigns supreme. And, so far as iTunes is concerned, well, they do actually dominate music sales in the U.S.
However, you are correct in that Apple has been a niche player for a long time, and has been happy in that niche. Where they dominate is in public perception of their being something exceptional, beyond the pale.
It's full of opinions masquerading as facts, as well as outright falsehoods. It has now reached +5 Insightful because of the well known Slashdot tendency to mod up anything that bashes Microsoft, no matter how tenuously said bashing is related to the topic. In fact, I suspect that's why you liked it.
If I misspoke myself, feel free to correct me (with facts, since you brought that up) rather than simply doing the same thing you claim I did. Furthermore, the poster I was replying to made a comparison to Microsoft and IBM that I felt was unwarranted. So your "tenuousness" complaint is likewise unwarranted.
And one last point, this is a public forum where people go to express their opinions. That's what I was doing. If you are unable to determine when a person is expressing an opinion or making a statement as to fact, I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong Web site.
1 thing about that, Google is milking the ads like they'll be nothing eventually, and looking to the future for potential alternatives (or additives). Microsoft is only just jumping on the ad bandwagon and trying to slap them everywhere they can. I can imagine Microsoft putting ads into Office soon and alienating its users, while Google moves on to something even more profitable (probably a % of subscription services, micro-paid for from your mobile contract or somesuch).
Hard to say, but you're probably right that Google will find something to replace or substantially augment their current model. They're still capable of looking forward: Microsoft (in spite of the considerable sums it spends on Microsoft Research) spends more effort trying to maintain the status quo. Oh, Google is a big operation now and certainly has a significant level of inertia, but I think its longer term prospects are better. You're also right about something else: when Google releases something it's usually executed competently from a technical perspective. Even when they do buy up a company (like, for instance, Grand Central) it usually ends up pretty well integrated.
but you missed one important thing: developers.
Well, that's true of course, but there's an important difference. Because Google is implementing their externally-facing services in a standards-compliant way (hell, they're a Linux shop through-and-through) they don't really have to worry too much about courting developers. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always gone its own way in terms of programming methodologies, languages and tools, and thus has an uphill battle to keep Web developers interested. Google just has to use the tools everyone who codes for the Internet and the World Wide Web already knows and keep doing really nifty things with them.
Android, now, is something of a hybrid but it is something that Java devs can get into fairly quickly. I've often wondered why Google chose to base Android development around a bastardized Java, but if anything it was probably to attract enterprise-level Java developers. Google obviously wants to break into the enterprise market, because a. the Cloud's the Word and b. there's serious money there. Using a language with which in-house corporate developers are already familiar and already runs a lot of heavy-duty back-end stuff was probably a smart move. I don't know: I'm not exactly on first-name terms with Larry and Sergey.
I'd go so far as to say that if the Year of Linux on the Desktop ever happens, it will likely be because of Google.
There's a lot of folks like yourself that figure third-world manufacturers work with stoop labour in candle-lit shacks to outproduce the super-efficient West. It's just not so.
Never said it was. You seem to want to say some things, but you're putting some words in my mouth that weren't there before. And if your argument is that the cost of labor in developing nations was not a factor in the ability of said nations to undersell Western manufacturers, I'm going to disagree with you.
The reality is that the Japanese (and the Chinese, now) used business tactics that are illegal in the U.S. to destroy their competition here. This was not a simple matter of making things more efficiently, it was about using one's economy as a weapon. Japan (our erstwhile ally), for example, walked down our entire electronics supply chain, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake... they started with individual components and worked their way up to finished products. They did that by a using a number of methods, one of which is the familiar "dumping" technique, whereby a product is sold at a loss until any competition is put out of business. That requires a lot of money, but Japan and its government tend to work much more closely than is traditional in the U.S. Also, by starting out with simple components (resistors, capacitors, etc.) and eliminating domestic manufacturing of same, they forced outfits which used those parts to buy from Japan. Then they forced those companies out of business. It was a very calculated series of events, executed with near-military precision.
They also simply took whatever they needed in the way of patents: I know several people who had meetings with Japanese industrialists, and were simply told, "we're making you an offer for your patent. You will take it." If they didn't, well, it usually didn't go so well for them.
Which gets back to the real point that I was trying to make, that we sold ourselves out. Yes, other countries industrialized, and that was to be expected. For us to have simply given up and handed many those markets over, as we did, was foolish on our part. We had (and still have) considerable advantages in infrastructure over most developing countries. We should be using those to maintain a competitive advantage, but instead we seem content to let lawyers paper us over with "intellectual property" and rest on our laurels.
I think you've got some things mixed up. There is no need to fluoridate water if people actually do brush their teeth. There is more than enough fluoride in tooth paste. For those who don't, fluoridated table salt isn't a bad method. As to chlorinated drinking water, I've got my share of it living in the USSR. In Germany, where I live for the last 17 years, chlorination is only seldom used, the water is usually purified by UV and ozone (with the exception of swimming pool water, of course). The water tastes much better this way.
No, I don't. You're just being pedantic. My point is that people who complain about fluoridation (whether it be in your water supply, your toothpaste or your table salt is irrelevant to the discussion) are just as irrational and incapable of making reasonable tradeoffs as those who are against vaccination.
needs to be qualified to read "most popular 'SMARTPHONE' operating system". globally, ordinary mobiles ("non smartphones") will still rule the roost in 4 years.
Well, sure. I thought that was implicitly stated, since by definition a non-smartphone isn't going to run Android.
You still have the choice of buying an unbranded phone. Why anyone would buy a phone that is locked to one carrier is beyond me, but it might be different over the pond in the US.
It is. Many carriers simply don't allow phones not purchased from them on their networks. But I agree: why we put up with that is ridiculous. I'm on T-Mobile here (e.g. Deutsche Telekom) and they've been by far the best carrier I've used (I don't know if any Germans would agree with that assessment) but that's probably because they're the underdog next to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Still, if there was any reason to believe that competition is good for the consumer, this is it. I've been on AT&T (voice service was spotty in my area, no customer service issues), Sprint (good service, damn near criminal billing practices and unintelligible CS reps), U.S. Cellular (decent at the time) and now T-Mobile. So long as they keep it up, I'll stick with them.
Android will become the most popular OS by 2014, or it will not.
Android handsets are already outselling iPhones. I don't think it will take until 2014 until it's eclipsed just about everyone in the market. It's even shipping on devices that don't even have cellular access, so sales are probably much better than we are being led to believe. About the only thing I see slowing it down at all would be Oracle's lawsuit, but that won't have much effect outside the U.S. if it goes badly for Google. The open source daemon is pretty hard to stuff back in the bottle once it's out, trademark and patent concerns aside. All that may happen here is that we can't get an Android phone in the U.S. for a while.
I actually think that Android won't become super fragmented but will break into 3 main branches
Don't forget D. Third-party ROMs like Cyanogenmod and others. They have a pretty substantial following (they're the real reason people root their phones in many cases.)
Ultimately, so long as there are carriers like T-Mobile that will let me go buy an unlocked phone (like the N1) and pop in my SIM card, fragmentation will be less of an issue.
The problem, for carriers, is that people want advanced network-based services like the so-called "Google Experience", they want the ability to run any application they choose. Carriers that refuse to acknowledge this are nothing but a business opportunity for those that do. Right now, that's why I'm on T-Mobile... they never gave me any grief whatsoever for using my Android phone any way I wanted to. For the past year or so (since I first got a G1 and flashed it with Cyanogenmod) I've been tethering my laptop to it and running Skype, and doing other things that AT&T wouldn't allow, for example, an iPhone user to do. I pay my T-Mobile bill quite happily each month because they're giving me what I want from my carrier.
The cell phone market has changed forever now that they're not phones anymore but pocket-sized personal computers. The cellular outfits are rapidly being relegated to their proper role as telecommunications providers: fat wireless pipes, no more. They don't like that, but unfortunately in world where the terminal equipment is smarter than desktop PCs were only a few years ago, they're going to have a harder and harder time justifying such things as "airtime" and 15c per text message. And that's good: I don't expect my home broadband provider to nickel-and-dime me for using specific Internet applications and services, and ideally would rather my wireless provider didn't do anything similar. Yet, that's exactly what they're currently doing.
Google will be (or already is?) the new Microsoft.
Just as Microsoft was the new IBM.
That always sounds like a reasonable comparison, but under Google's current leadership, and their current business focus, that probably won't ever be the case. Microsoft got where it is by committing a whole host of illegal, anti-competitive acts (still are, actually) and can be legitimately said to have retarded progress over the past thirty-odd years. Google isn't really doing anything of that nature, and if anything is pushing the state-of-the-art. Google's external operations are also very standards-based and, so far as I'm aware, Google hasn't pulled anything like what Microsoft did with the ISO approval process.
Google isn't charging an arm-and-a-leg to phone makers for Android, matter of fact, it isn't charging anything. It also offers a remarkable suite of online services... also for free. Of course, there's a reason for that: the only thing Google really "sells" is ad space, and that will only make money for them as long as they can attract eyeballs. I look at Google's rather massive investment in R&D and outpouring of free cloud-based services as being very future-oriented: they know that they may not be able to subsist on ad revenue forever, and would like to have other options. Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years, but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of operating systems and office suites. Likewise, Google isn't making much money, directly, from its online services (other than its bread-and-butter ad views) but in the meantime we get to play with some cool stuff and they get to sell some more advertising. Some of that nifty online stuff may stick, and eventually start making Google some serious money. Only time will tell.
But they're far from a monopoly, illegal or otherwise (as of now, anyway), and any comparison to Microsoft or IBM in terms of ethics or monopolism is really undeserved at this point. Not saying that will always be true: companies do change, but in this case I think we'll have to wait until Brin & Page retire. Hopefully their successors will be at least as good, business-ethics-wise (well, better than Gates' replacement, anyway, which wouldn't be too hard.)
Perhaps I misunderstand something here but wouldn't the 'locating data' only tell something about the whereabouts of the PHONE?
Yes, the presumption on the part of law enforcement being that you are carrying your own phone. Kinda like the RIAA assuming that a file being downloaded by a specific IP address is guaranteed to identify the holder of the ISP account in question.
What it comes down to is that if you're a crook who wants to use a cell phone for voice communication during the commission of a crime, go on EBay and by the oldest, dumbest phone you can that will take a SIM card and work on your network. Make sure that it has no location capability whatsoever. Then call your partners in crime on the thing and speak in code because you never know when somebody might be listening.
But seriously, doing "standard" software development work isn't "hacking" as far as I'm concerned. A hack is by it's nature something ad-hoc, usually non-general, a quick (and preferably brilliant) solution to a particular problem. I sure hope that does not describe how Linux kernel is developed these days...:-)
Not really, I think you're confusing two entirely different processes. The result of "hacking" is not necessarily to produce a hack. Hacking is a state of mind, and a hacker is someone is capable of, and and enjoys being in, that state. A hack is just, as you say, a quick solution which has nothing to do with "hacking" per se. One does not need to be a hacker to produce a hack, and in fact, most hacks are produced by hacks (that is, third-rate coders who couldn't write a decent like of code if you paid them) not hackers.
The meanings of words change, deal with it. In popular usage, hacker means someone who does illegal things with computers. I don't care if that wasn't what it was supposed to me, that is what it means. You have to deal with that in terms of common usage.
The Hell I do. Every sub-group in a complex culture has its own terminology, its own private vocabulary, its own jargon. Doctors do, lawyers do, mechanics do, soldiers do, programmers do... and I feel perfectly free to use the term "hacker" as it was originally intended when communicating with a group of largely like-minded individuals (like here, on Slashdot.) You either learn to communicate on our terms, or find another site that habitually uses the more common usage.
It is silly to get all overly pedantic about it because it accomplishes nothing. You have to accept that languages are living things, and usages change.
Sure it does, it accomplishes quite a lot, in fact. When people who regularly interact use certain words to mean certain things, to use as verbal shortcuts, it can enhance their communication. An outsider may find that confusing, but that's irrelevant... either that person learns the jargon, or stays confused. In this case, you comprehend the true meaning of "hacker", but you just want all of us to use the corrupted popular term, one that you find more appealing.
Thing is, there's no reason whatsoever that we should. I will continue to use the term "hacker" to mean someone who lives, eats, and breathes technology, and is always trying to push the limit, to see if he can make another hacker who is at least as good as he himself is say, "Whoa. Now that is cool."
The popular media can go on about "evil" hackers trying to breaking into banks and classified military installations, but those of us who know better call such people what they are: criminals.
If Apple charged less of a premium for their products over PC's you would see people flock to Macs in such large numbers that Apple wouldn't even be able to keep up.
Probably not. That's a long-time fantasy of Apple lovers, but the reality is that inertia will keep people and companies using Windows even in the face of "better" (and that's a relative term) and free (as in Linux.)
Apple is a hardware company, and they like those big profits. That's not likely to change anytime soon.
Neither company is really worthy of all that much respect when you get right down to it, unless your only measure of a corporation's worth is the size of their dividends.
Except Apple makes products that work. You can at least respect them for that.
I have news for you Apple types... Microsoft also "makes products that work." And, actually, they work better now than at any time since Windows 3.x. Those who know me know I'm no Apple fanboy, and I certainly recognize Microsoft for what it is (I write Windows code for a living, so I know why and how Windows sucks.) But times change. You need to get away from "Windows 95 = Mac '86" mindset: yes, the difference is there, but for 99% of computer users it's not significant and never, ever will be.
The point being, there's a lot more to a corporation than whether or not it nets big profits and has popular products.
Well, this kind of tech at least has the potential for significant civilian spinoffs. Flying communications drones, for example, are being considered for providing broadband connectivity.
The problem is, you are not actually buying something. You are acquiring a license to use. If you disagree with those terms, don't enter into them.
This is not flamebait, you fruitcake mods, he's calling like it is. And the only reason I don't agree with him 100% is because of the sleazy way these companies are presenting these so-called "licenses."
When the terms of said license are not disclosed until after the sale, after the customer has paid out his hard-earned money, there is a problem. Yes, I know the publisher is legally required to refund the purchase price if the customer isn't willing to accept this (ahem!) "contract" after reading it, but let's get real. They have the customer's money, and they know that the odds are slim that a screwed-over customer will take them to court, possession being nine tenths of the law and all that. Is this legal? Apparently so... but it's still wrong.
Put the license agreement on the side of the box (or create a standard license for all your products that customers can read in the store before they buy your product) and I wouldn't have a problem. They wouldn't like that, because word would get out very quickly if a particular license is suspect, one-sided or otherwise unacceptable to the customer. We should treat shrink-wrap licenses the way we treat food-labeling. Let the consumer know what he or she is getting into before the purchase, not after.
However, instead of being up front about their policies, these outfits weasel money out of people and then shaft them later. This is what the majority software companies are doing, and they're being supported in this highly-unethical, downright consumer-unfriendly behavior by the courts.
Companies who pull this shit have no right, in my opinion, to complain about the ethics of those who make illegal copies of their software. Sometimes turnabout is fair play.
Yes, well, I didn't, and the summary was so far off-base to make me wonder why I bothered reading it. That applies to a lot of Slashdot summaries, now that I think about it. This story was actually about the U.S. military doing the right thing.
Ah, well. Not the first time I went off half cocked.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say they're still sore about the "I'm a Mac" ads. Although they weren't very accurate and they were arrogant as hell, Microsoft's responses ("look ma, cheap PC with a ton of bloatware I don't need!" and of course Seinfeld & Bill) have been absolutely pathetic-- and in the case of mobile, they had a golden opportunity to rip Apple a good one over their response to the iPhone 4 antenna design flaw. I mean, come on... they had a ton of examples from other handset makers.
Watching Microsoft's recent PR is sort of like watching a grown man miss a tee-ball. In three swings.
I tend to agree. With all the money those companies wield, how hard is it to hire a top-notch ad agency? Or, for that matter, hire the best advertising people in the business and turn them loose. Microsoft's people must think that PC means "Politically Correct" not "Personal Computer."
Really, many of Microsoft's commercials are just painful to watch ("Windows 7 was my idea!" What the hell does that mean?) Well, now there was that cool X-Box ad with the baby being ejected from his mother's body, flying through the air aging as we watch, and then landing as an old man in an already-prepared grave. Weird, but kinda cool. If I remember right (and I might not be) it was banned in England.
Of course, Apple has certainly changed its tune from that original "1984" ad. Far from being about freedom, choice and creativity, Apple is now about limitations and restrictions, indeed they've become a high-profile promoter of the "walled garden", at least when it comes to an iAnything. I feel bad about that, because I used to be a major Apple supporter back in the Apple ][ days. They were a really neat outfit, I wrote and sold a lot of code for the Apple ][-series. The Macintosh held little interest for me, because I could see where it was heading ("computing appliance" indeed.) Today, the only distinction between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple... well, Microsoft is... I mean, Apple is definitely better because... ah well. Not so much.
Neither company is really worthy of all that much respect when you get right down to it, unless your only measure of a corporation's worth is the size of their dividends.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe they just are aware of better (or at least tastier) ways of disinfecting water.
Well, certainly there are, and nobody says they shouldn't use them if that is their wish. That is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. What is germane are ways in which an entire population can be served with water that won't make them sick. That's not so simple.
I object to such people because they feel that their unscientific and dangerous ideas about health should supersede decades of research and the generally excellent track record of the American water supply. They are nuts, and they fit right in with the people who don't feel that children should be vaccinated against disease. I just don't see any reason to defend willful ignorance, especially when it can affect the health and well-being of so many people.
Besides, this discussion is about public health, not individual preference. That is, ways in which the well-being of hundreds of millions of people can be reasonably assured without each household being required to maintain a water filter because our cities failed to treat our drinking water properly, or our society risking multiple pandemics because of irrational fear of vaccines.
The fact that tap water may not be as "tasty" as some people would like is completely outside the purview of public health. Government's legitimate concern is that said water be adequately free of contaminants and pathogens. Besides, if these wingnuts want a product that is at the same time tastier and less safe than their tap water, let them buy it in bottles. Problem solved, although according to Penn & Teller's Bullshit! program on this subject, most people prefer New York tap water to any of several bottled brands.
Only in America would this be modded "insightful"...
So, a poster on a U.S. Web site acknowledges that there's actually more to the world than the United States ... and you criticize him? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
"Don't you DARE use our jargon the way the mainstream uses it, right HERE in our private space!"
I don't care how he uses it. Don't care how you use it. You and the GP, on the other hand, seem to care how I use it. My point is that when you are in the middle of a group of people who are communicating a certain way, expecting them to just adapt to your own prejudices is inconsiderate at best. If there's any elitism here, it's not me. Dude, when in Rome, you shoot Roman candles.
Tell you what, go tell your lawyer not to communicate with other lawyers using legal terminology. He'll tell you that you're nuts. Try telling your doctor to talk to other doctors without using their own vocabulary. You'll get the same response.
When I deal with people outside my own group, I accept without comment usage of many words that may have different meaning in other contexts. The GP was attempting to tell me that I must always use what our media moguls define as "common usage", no matter with whom I'm communicating.
I disagree, especially when dealing with what American media considers acceptable.
But.. developers. Its not about providing tools and saying 'off you go then', MS actively courts devs, look at how .NET dev has finally taken off, MS has pushed massive amounts of marketing, hype, tooling and stuff at devs everytime it can, and the number of C# jobs is the result.
Yeah, you're probably right there, but what you're talking about is really more Microsoft courting PHBs than courting developers. At my job, anyway, I get told what programming tools I have to use, whether I want to or not. That's the case throughout most of corporate America. I've been coding on Microsoft products since DOS 1.0., and like anyone who has been in the business for a while, you have to work to convince me that your latest shiny tool is the best thing since the invention of the wheel. Particularly if there are better alternatives available, since I'll be the one dealing with all the crap a bad decision will bring down on me.
But it's not people like you and me who make purchasing decisions: it's the people who get to go to lunch with Microsoft reps who do. So when Ballmer said "Developers, developers, developers, developers" he wasn't just saying, "Let's make great tools so programmers will flock to us" he was saying "we're directing more funds to the sales force."
You seem to have the idea that Apple desires to dominate the market, for reasons I can't really understand.
Well, "dominate" can be used to mean different things. Apple dominates the market for overpriced computer hardware and dominates the market for overpriced music players. Does that mean they dominate the market for personal computers or music players? No, not at all. But in their particular market segments Apple reigns supreme. And, so far as iTunes is concerned, well, they do actually dominate music sales in the U.S.
However, you are correct in that Apple has been a niche player for a long time, and has been happy in that niche. Where they dominate is in public perception of their being something exceptional, beyond the pale.
It's full of opinions masquerading as facts, as well as outright falsehoods. It has now reached +5 Insightful because of the well known Slashdot tendency to mod up anything that bashes Microsoft, no matter how tenuously said bashing is related to the topic. In fact, I suspect that's why you liked it.
If I misspoke myself, feel free to correct me (with facts, since you brought that up) rather than simply doing the same thing you claim I did. Furthermore, the poster I was replying to made a comparison to Microsoft and IBM that I felt was unwarranted. So your "tenuousness" complaint is likewise unwarranted.
And one last point, this is a public forum where people go to express their opinions. That's what I was doing. If you are unable to determine when a person is expressing an opinion or making a statement as to fact, I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong Web site.
1 thing about that, Google is milking the ads like they'll be nothing eventually, and looking to the future for potential alternatives (or additives). Microsoft is only just jumping on the ad bandwagon and trying to slap them everywhere they can. I can imagine Microsoft putting ads into Office soon and alienating its users, while Google moves on to something even more profitable (probably a % of subscription services, micro-paid for from your mobile contract or somesuch).
Hard to say, but you're probably right that Google will find something to replace or substantially augment their current model. They're still capable of looking forward: Microsoft (in spite of the considerable sums it spends on Microsoft Research) spends more effort trying to maintain the status quo. Oh, Google is a big operation now and certainly has a significant level of inertia, but I think its longer term prospects are better. You're also right about something else: when Google releases something it's usually executed competently from a technical perspective. Even when they do buy up a company (like, for instance, Grand Central) it usually ends up pretty well integrated.
but you missed one important thing: developers.
Well, that's true of course, but there's an important difference. Because Google is implementing their externally-facing services in a standards-compliant way (hell, they're a Linux shop through-and-through) they don't really have to worry too much about courting developers. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always gone its own way in terms of programming methodologies, languages and tools, and thus has an uphill battle to keep Web developers interested. Google just has to use the tools everyone who codes for the Internet and the World Wide Web already knows and keep doing really nifty things with them.
Android, now, is something of a hybrid but it is something that Java devs can get into fairly quickly. I've often wondered why Google chose to base Android development around a bastardized Java, but if anything it was probably to attract enterprise-level Java developers. Google obviously wants to break into the enterprise market, because a. the Cloud's the Word and b. there's serious money there. Using a language with which in-house corporate developers are already familiar and already runs a lot of heavy-duty back-end stuff was probably a smart move. I don't know: I'm not exactly on first-name terms with Larry and Sergey.
I'd go so far as to say that if the Year of Linux on the Desktop ever happens, it will likely be because of Google.
There's a lot of folks like yourself that figure third-world manufacturers work with stoop labour in candle-lit shacks to outproduce the super-efficient West. It's just not so.
Never said it was. You seem to want to say some things, but you're putting some words in my mouth that weren't there before. And if your argument is that the cost of labor in developing nations was not a factor in the ability of said nations to undersell Western manufacturers, I'm going to disagree with you.
... they started with individual components and worked their way up to finished products. They did that by a using a number of methods, one of which is the familiar "dumping" technique, whereby a product is sold at a loss until any competition is put out of business. That requires a lot of money, but Japan and its government tend to work much more closely than is traditional in the U.S. Also, by starting out with simple components (resistors, capacitors, etc.) and eliminating domestic manufacturing of same, they forced outfits which used those parts to buy from Japan. Then they forced those companies out of business. It was a very calculated series of events, executed with near-military precision.
The reality is that the Japanese (and the Chinese, now) used business tactics that are illegal in the U.S. to destroy their competition here. This was not a simple matter of making things more efficiently, it was about using one's economy as a weapon. Japan (our erstwhile ally), for example, walked down our entire electronics supply chain, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake
They also simply took whatever they needed in the way of patents: I know several people who had meetings with Japanese industrialists, and were simply told, "we're making you an offer for your patent. You will take it." If they didn't, well, it usually didn't go so well for them.
Which gets back to the real point that I was trying to make, that we sold ourselves out. Yes, other countries industrialized, and that was to be expected. For us to have simply given up and handed many those markets over, as we did, was foolish on our part. We had (and still have) considerable advantages in infrastructure over most developing countries. We should be using those to maintain a competitive advantage, but instead we seem content to let lawyers paper us over with "intellectual property" and rest on our laurels.
I think you've got some things mixed up. There is no need to fluoridate water if people actually do brush their teeth. There is more than enough fluoride in tooth paste. For those who don't, fluoridated table salt isn't a bad method. As to chlorinated drinking water, I've got my share of it living in the USSR. In Germany, where I live for the last 17 years, chlorination is only seldom used, the water is usually purified by UV and ozone (with the exception of swimming pool water, of course). The water tastes much better this way.
No, I don't. You're just being pedantic. My point is that people who complain about fluoridation (whether it be in your water supply, your toothpaste or your table salt is irrelevant to the discussion) are just as irrational and incapable of making reasonable tradeoffs as those who are against vaccination.
Pedants. Cripes.
needs to be qualified to read "most popular 'SMARTPHONE' operating system". globally, ordinary mobiles ("non smartphones") will still rule the roost in 4 years.
Well, sure. I thought that was implicitly stated, since by definition a non-smartphone isn't going to run Android.
You still have the choice of buying an unbranded phone. Why anyone would buy a phone that is locked to one carrier is beyond me, but it might be different over the pond in the US.
It is. Many carriers simply don't allow phones not purchased from them on their networks. But I agree: why we put up with that is ridiculous. I'm on T-Mobile here (e.g. Deutsche Telekom) and they've been by far the best carrier I've used (I don't know if any Germans would agree with that assessment) but that's probably because they're the underdog next to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Still, if there was any reason to believe that competition is good for the consumer, this is it. I've been on AT&T (voice service was spotty in my area, no customer service issues), Sprint (good service, damn near criminal billing practices and unintelligible CS reps), U.S. Cellular (decent at the time) and now T-Mobile. So long as they keep it up, I'll stick with them.
Android will become the most popular OS by 2014, or it will not.
Android handsets are already outselling iPhones. I don't think it will take until 2014 until it's eclipsed just about everyone in the market. It's even shipping on devices that don't even have cellular access, so sales are probably much better than we are being led to believe. About the only thing I see slowing it down at all would be Oracle's lawsuit, but that won't have much effect outside the U.S. if it goes badly for Google. The open source daemon is pretty hard to stuff back in the bottle once it's out, trademark and patent concerns aside. All that may happen here is that we can't get an Android phone in the U.S. for a while.
I actually think that Android won't become super fragmented but will break into 3 main branches
Don't forget D. Third-party ROMs like Cyanogenmod and others. They have a pretty substantial following (they're the real reason people root their phones in many cases.)
... they never gave me any grief whatsoever for using my Android phone any way I wanted to. For the past year or so (since I first got a G1 and flashed it with Cyanogenmod) I've been tethering my laptop to it and running Skype, and doing other things that AT&T wouldn't allow, for example, an iPhone user to do. I pay my T-Mobile bill quite happily each month because they're giving me what I want from my carrier.
Ultimately, so long as there are carriers like T-Mobile that will let me go buy an unlocked phone (like the N1) and pop in my SIM card, fragmentation will be less of an issue.
The problem, for carriers, is that people want advanced network-based services like the so-called "Google Experience", they want the ability to run any application they choose. Carriers that refuse to acknowledge this are nothing but a business opportunity for those that do. Right now, that's why I'm on T-Mobile
The cell phone market has changed forever now that they're not phones anymore but pocket-sized personal computers. The cellular outfits are rapidly being relegated to their proper role as telecommunications providers: fat wireless pipes, no more. They don't like that, but unfortunately in world where the terminal equipment is smarter than desktop PCs were only a few years ago, they're going to have a harder and harder time justifying such things as "airtime" and 15c per text message. And that's good: I don't expect my home broadband provider to nickel-and-dime me for using specific Internet applications and services, and ideally would rather my wireless provider didn't do anything similar. Yet, that's exactly what they're currently doing.
Google will be (or already is?) the new Microsoft.
Just as Microsoft was the new IBM.
That always sounds like a reasonable comparison, but under Google's current leadership, and their current business focus, that probably won't ever be the case. Microsoft got where it is by committing a whole host of illegal, anti-competitive acts (still are, actually) and can be legitimately said to have retarded progress over the past thirty-odd years. Google isn't really doing anything of that nature, and if anything is pushing the state-of-the-art. Google's external operations are also very standards-based and, so far as I'm aware, Google hasn't pulled anything like what Microsoft did with the ISO approval process.
... also for free. Of course, there's a reason for that: the only thing Google really "sells" is ad space, and that will only make money for them as long as they can attract eyeballs. I look at Google's rather massive investment in R&D and outpouring of free cloud-based services as being very future-oriented: they know that they may not be able to subsist on ad revenue forever, and would like to have other options. Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years, but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of operating systems and office suites. Likewise, Google isn't making much money, directly, from its online services (other than its bread-and-butter ad views) but in the meantime we get to play with some cool stuff and they get to sell some more advertising. Some of that nifty online stuff may stick, and eventually start making Google some serious money. Only time will tell.
Google isn't charging an arm-and-a-leg to phone makers for Android, matter of fact, it isn't charging anything. It also offers a remarkable suite of online services
But they're far from a monopoly, illegal or otherwise (as of now, anyway), and any comparison to Microsoft or IBM in terms of ethics or monopolism is really undeserved at this point. Not saying that will always be true: companies do change, but in this case I think we'll have to wait until Brin & Page retire. Hopefully their successors will be at least as good, business-ethics-wise (well, better than Gates' replacement, anyway, which wouldn't be too hard.)
Perhaps I misunderstand something here but wouldn't the 'locating data' only tell something about the whereabouts of the PHONE?
Yes, the presumption on the part of law enforcement being that you are carrying your own phone. Kinda like the RIAA assuming that a file being downloaded by a specific IP address is guaranteed to identify the holder of the ISP account in question.
What it comes down to is that if you're a crook who wants to use a cell phone for voice communication during the commission of a crime, go on EBay and by the oldest, dumbest phone you can that will take a SIM card and work on your network. Make sure that it has no location capability whatsoever. Then call your partners in crime on the thing and speak in code because you never know when somebody might be listening.
But seriously, doing "standard" software development work isn't "hacking" as far as I'm concerned. A hack is by it's nature something ad-hoc, usually non-general, a quick (and preferably brilliant) solution to a particular problem. I sure hope that does not describe how Linux kernel is developed these days... :-)
Not really, I think you're confusing two entirely different processes. The result of "hacking" is not necessarily to produce a hack. Hacking is a state of mind, and a hacker is someone is capable of, and and enjoys being in, that state. A hack is just, as you say, a quick solution which has nothing to do with "hacking" per se. One does not need to be a hacker to produce a hack, and in fact, most hacks are produced by hacks (that is, third-rate coders who couldn't write a decent like of code if you paid them) not hackers.
The meanings of words change, deal with it. In popular usage, hacker means someone who does illegal things with computers. I don't care if that wasn't what it was supposed to me, that is what it means. You have to deal with that in terms of common usage.
The Hell I do. Every sub-group in a complex culture has its own terminology, its own private vocabulary, its own jargon. Doctors do, lawyers do, mechanics do, soldiers do, programmers do ... and I feel perfectly free to use the term "hacker" as it was originally intended when communicating with a group of largely like-minded individuals (like here, on Slashdot.) You either learn to communicate on our terms, or find another site that habitually uses the more common usage.
It is silly to get all overly pedantic about it because it accomplishes nothing. You have to accept that languages are living things, and usages change.
Sure it does, it accomplishes quite a lot, in fact. When people who regularly interact use certain words to mean certain things, to use as verbal shortcuts, it can enhance their communication. An outsider may find that confusing, but that's irrelevant ... either that person learns the jargon, or stays confused. In this case, you comprehend the true meaning of "hacker", but you just want all of us to use the corrupted popular term, one that you find more appealing.
Thing is, there's no reason whatsoever that we should. I will continue to use the term "hacker" to mean someone who lives, eats, and breathes technology, and is always trying to push the limit, to see if he can make another hacker who is at least as good as he himself is say, "Whoa. Now that is cool."
The popular media can go on about "evil" hackers trying to breaking into banks and classified military installations, but those of us who know better call such people what they are: criminals.
If Apple charged less of a premium for their products over PC's you would see people flock to Macs in such large numbers that Apple wouldn't even be able to keep up.
Probably not. That's a long-time fantasy of Apple lovers, but the reality is that inertia will keep people and companies using Windows even in the face of "better" (and that's a relative term) and free (as in Linux.)
Apple is a hardware company, and they like those big profits. That's not likely to change anytime soon.
Except Apple makes products that work. You can at least respect them for that.
I have news for you Apple types ... Microsoft also "makes products that work." And, actually, they work better now than at any time since Windows 3.x. Those who know me know I'm no Apple fanboy, and I certainly recognize Microsoft for what it is (I write Windows code for a living, so I know why and how Windows sucks.) But times change. You need to get away from "Windows 95 = Mac '86" mindset: yes, the difference is there, but for 99% of computer users it's not significant and never, ever will be.
The point being, there's a lot more to a corporation than whether or not it nets big profits and has popular products.
further bankrupt the U.S.
Well, this kind of tech at least has the potential for significant civilian spinoffs. Flying communications drones, for example, are being considered for providing broadband connectivity.
A great vacation spot for diving, but flight testing?
Most test flights work fine over a desert. Trying it in a jungle is much more elucidative.
but test flights already demonstrate successively greater endurance, higher altitudes, more extensive autonomy, and greater payload.
Don't let the fact that it crashes bother you at all, this is the drone you want!
No big deal ... they just didn't put enough sugar water in the feeder.
It's in the copyright code, 17 USC 109.
The problem is, you are not actually buying something. You are acquiring a license to use. If you disagree with those terms, don't enter into them.
This is not flamebait, you fruitcake mods, he's calling like it is. And the only reason I don't agree with him 100% is because of the sleazy way these companies are presenting these so-called "licenses."
... but it's still wrong.
When the terms of said license are not disclosed until after the sale, after the customer has paid out his hard-earned money, there is a problem. Yes, I know the publisher is legally required to refund the purchase price if the customer isn't willing to accept this (ahem!) "contract" after reading it, but let's get real. They have the customer's money, and they know that the odds are slim that a screwed-over customer will take them to court, possession being nine tenths of the law and all that. Is this legal? Apparently so
Put the license agreement on the side of the box (or create a standard license for all your products that customers can read in the store before they buy your product) and I wouldn't have a problem. They wouldn't like that, because word would get out very quickly if a particular license is suspect, one-sided or otherwise unacceptable to the customer. We should treat shrink-wrap licenses the way we treat food-labeling. Let the consumer know what he or she is getting into before the purchase, not after.
However, instead of being up front about their policies, these outfits weasel money out of people and then shaft them later. This is what the majority software companies are doing, and they're being supported in this highly-unethical, downright consumer-unfriendly behavior by the courts.
Companies who pull this shit have no right, in my opinion, to complain about the ethics of those who make illegal copies of their software. Sometimes turnabout is fair play.
If you had read the story
Yes, well, I didn't, and the summary was so far off-base to make me wonder why I bothered reading it. That applies to a lot of Slashdot summaries, now that I think about it. This story was actually about the U.S. military doing the right thing.
Ah, well. Not the first time I went off half cocked.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say they're still sore about the "I'm a Mac" ads. Although they weren't very accurate and they were arrogant as hell, Microsoft's responses ("look ma, cheap PC with a ton of bloatware I don't need!" and of course Seinfeld & Bill) have been absolutely pathetic-- and in the case of mobile, they had a golden opportunity to rip Apple a good one over their response to the iPhone 4 antenna design flaw. I mean, come on... they had a ton of examples from other handset makers.
Watching Microsoft's recent PR is sort of like watching a grown man miss a tee-ball. In three swings.
I tend to agree. With all the money those companies wield, how hard is it to hire a top-notch ad agency? Or, for that matter, hire the best advertising people in the business and turn them loose. Microsoft's people must think that PC means "Politically Correct" not "Personal Computer."
... well, Microsoft is ... I mean, Apple is definitely better because ... ah well. Not so much.
Really, many of Microsoft's commercials are just painful to watch ("Windows 7 was my idea!" What the hell does that mean?) Well, now there was that cool X-Box ad with the baby being ejected from his mother's body, flying through the air aging as we watch, and then landing as an old man in an already-prepared grave. Weird, but kinda cool. If I remember right (and I might not be) it was banned in England.
Of course, Apple has certainly changed its tune from that original "1984" ad. Far from being about freedom, choice and creativity, Apple is now about limitations and restrictions, indeed they've become a high-profile promoter of the "walled garden", at least when it comes to an iAnything. I feel bad about that, because I used to be a major Apple supporter back in the Apple ][ days. They were a really neat outfit, I wrote and sold a lot of code for the Apple ][-series. The Macintosh held little interest for me, because I could see where it was heading ("computing appliance" indeed.) Today, the only distinction between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple
Neither company is really worthy of all that much respect when you get right down to it, unless your only measure of a corporation's worth is the size of their dividends.