What's wrong with the SSH approach? First time you see a cert, inform the user. If it changes in the future, freak the hell out.
It works great for ssh and solved the whole key distribution problem.
It's magnitudes better than the current situation in browsers.
The iPhone plan comes with something like 200 texts, so I don't know why you're paying $0.15 for each. MMS is still an issue though, but that's what email is for I guess.
Regardless, didn't AOL already announce an AIM app? I'm sure there will be plenty of chatting apps available.
Spam filtering should be done server side (this is highly debatable, but that's the stance myself and apparently Apple have taken). Although I don't use the mail app, I simply use gmail's iphone interface.
And 1st gen phones already handle location through triangulation based on wifi hotspots and cell towers.
-Steve
Don't forget to mention that when certain results are not shown, Google clearly states this on the page more or less saying "Hey, you're government is screwing you." Regards, Steve
The government does retain ownership, unfortunately it's in such a fashion that smaller companies can't get in on it. It's just the FCC wants a certain amount of money from leasing the spectrum, and it's fear was that it wouldn't make enough money by opening it up according to what Google, E-Bay and others wanted. Yes, the FCC is being greedy which is a whole other issue... but regardless Google stepped up and said "We'll guarantee you $4.6 billion if you open it up." Regards, Steve
They aren't being evil. The FCC's concern was that the FCC wouldn't make any money by opening the spectrum according to what Google, Ebay, and others wanted (which is a low maximum on what can be charged for the spectrum, allowing smaller companies to innovate), so Google stepped up and said "We've got money. We guarantee you that you'll get at least 4.6 billion from us if you open up the spectrum" Regards, Steve
Google's intentions here really are good. The theory is this: Decades ago, AT&T wouldn't let anyone plug anything other than AT&T devices into their lines. It wasn't until this restriction was lifted (which required quite a few years of effort) that fax machines, modems, and many other innovations were able to take place and develop without serious barriers. The wireless spectrum is currently in the same position that landlines were before. No one can "plug" random devices into the wireless spectrum without permission from some company first. Google wants that lifted, and wants the control to be taken away from certain unnamed corporations who have proven they can't be trusted. Opening up the spectrum should enable innovations that aren't even "on the radar" yet. Yes I'm a Google engineer, no this isn't an official response or anything... just another/.er's point of view, but opening up the spectrum is a win for everyone no matter if the final solution is "perfect" or not.
Regards, Steve
It's a little more complicated than the traditional salesman problem because these graphs are weighted and directed. Even then there are still good algorithms to calculate such routes. Most algorithms are "fast", but not 100ms or 200ms fast. For the speed and scale that Google does this at, it's pretty damn impressive. (Scale being both the size of the graph, and quantity of queries received) Regards, Steve
If this phone lasts 5 years, it could very well be the best made phone in existence. The contract only applies to the original iPhone, I doubt Jobs gave them exclusive access to iPhone v2.0 and iPhone Nano as well. Regards, Steve
Google is taking a whole bunch of approaches to saving the environment. See their solar page that went live yesterday. They also just got together a coalition of companies to start using significantly more efficient power supplies, which were R&D'd by Google. They do a ton of other things as well, most of which they surprisingly don't boast about or even try to get good PR from. Not to mention your claim about hybrids is patently false, doubly so when talking about plugin hybrids. If you only travel say 40 or 50 miles to work and back, you can pretty much get through your entire commute without touching any gas. And in states like California where around 40% (and rising) of their energy is produced by clean sources, this can really save the environment. Even if you're using traditional powerplants though, they still use fuel more efficiently than your car does, so it is still a net gain for the environment.
Regards,
Steve
Is it clear whether Google or Dell wrote this piece? In IE's addon manager it says it's a Dell product. Regardless, OpenDNS is a for profit company that has nothing to do with openness, and they are just pissed that this service competes with them by default. There is a huge bias that the author completely ignores. Regards, Steve
Just adding on to your comment, the OLPC currently has no power management... they are hoping to get the life up to around 24 hours when all is said and done:) Regards, Steve
I think the most common mistake is to blame the people and not the technology. I'm not saying I have a solution, but us software engineers never point the finger in our own direction. Regards, Steve
My understanding is that they currently just put a warning up to the user. If I'm wrong, my apologies, but the other points still remain valid:) Regards, Steve
Yea, it'd be nice to have operating systems that can't be taken advantage of, or a multitude of things... but we don't live in a perfect world. Google is helping with what they're best at doing, and it's a solution that works *now*... not some theoretical perfect browser. I doubt they'll outright block the sites, but rather notify the sites and in the meantime warn users while the sites still contain malicious content. In fact this will probably help content providers more than anything, because right now most have no way of checking their own sites for malicious things. Regards, Steve
That was the case 5 years ago. Flash drives have long since matched and beaten regular harddrives on reads/writes. The only aspect where they aren't superior to spindle based hard drives is in cost. Regards, Steve
One of the founders of Greenpeace spent 30 years preaching the same ignorance you just did. Then in 2006 came to his senses and wrote a nice article in the Washingpost about why nuclear energy may be the only thing that saves us. Read it here: Going Nuclear. Regards, Steve
Well I'd suppose that the 30c goes towards the higher bandwidth bills (the quality of the music is a higher bitrate, thus larger files), and the rest goes towards supplementing forecaasted losses through copying or something (something being the EMI execs demanded more). It is still cheaper to buy a $9.99 album from iTunes than to pay $15.00 to $20.00 for a newer release in a store. Regards, Steve
Google isn't just hiring random people. They are hiring literally the best people in the world, many of which already have proven track records of doing something that has changed the computing landscape and/or the world. People such as the man who created the TCP/IP protocol (Vint Cerf), the lead developer of Firefox (Ben Goodger), the creator of vim (Bram Moolenaar), a lead kernel dev (Andrew Morton),the man who wrote "the book" on artificial intelligence (Peter Norvig), the author of "The Unix Programming Environment", UTF-8, and developer of Unix (Rob Pike), the creator of Python (Guido van Rossum), and Ken Thompson who needs no explanation.
These are just a handful of their employees, and Google has very high hiring standards and yes I'd argue that their approach will succeed. Similar to distributed systems, they're getting a bunch of smart people together, and letting them distribute themselves however they want. Google doesn't make an engineer work on anything they don't want to, and if an engineer wants to join a different team, he'll be there the next day. No company has ever done it the way Google is doing it, and I think it's a very successful strategy. Regards,
Steve
The internet should legally be treated as a public space. If I walk around a city and take a picture of all the buildings and then sit in a park and show people these pictures and how to get to those buildings, the architect or owner of the building shouldn't be able to come up to me and say that I can't be using those pictures. Digital "property" can not and should not be treated the same as tangible items. A website on facing publicly on the internet should be able to be cached and copied without restriction. Every time we view a page in a browser it is copied... putting a website on a public network implicitly states that the public has rights to copy and retain a copy. We need to stop applying national laws and ideas to an international technology that has no precedent. Regards, Steve
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with the SSH approach? First time you see a cert, inform the user. If it changes in the future, freak the hell out. It works great for ssh and solved the whole key distribution problem. It's magnitudes better than the current situation in browsers.
The iPhone plan comes with something like 200 texts, so I don't know why you're paying $0.15 for each. MMS is still an issue though, but that's what email is for I guess. Regardless, didn't AOL already announce an AIM app? I'm sure there will be plenty of chatting apps available. Spam filtering should be done server side (this is highly debatable, but that's the stance myself and apparently Apple have taken). Although I don't use the mail app, I simply use gmail's iphone interface. And 1st gen phones already handle location through triangulation based on wifi hotspots and cell towers.
-Steve
This is why the facts need to be verified by the business afterward. RTA.
Regards,
Steve
Don't forget the number of horns on a unicorn.
Regards,
Steve
Don't forget to mention that when certain results are not shown, Google clearly states this on the page more or less saying "Hey, you're government is screwing you."
Regards,
Steve
The government does retain ownership, unfortunately it's in such a fashion that smaller companies can't get in on it. It's just the FCC wants a certain amount of money from leasing the spectrum, and it's fear was that it wouldn't make enough money by opening it up according to what Google, E-Bay and others wanted. Yes, the FCC is being greedy which is a whole other issue... but regardless Google stepped up and said "We'll guarantee you $4.6 billion if you open it up."
Regards,
Steve
They aren't being evil. The FCC's concern was that the FCC wouldn't make any money by opening the spectrum according to what Google, Ebay, and others wanted (which is a low maximum on what can be charged for the spectrum, allowing smaller companies to innovate), so Google stepped up and said "We've got money. We guarantee you that you'll get at least 4.6 billion from us if you open up the spectrum"
Regards,
Steve
Google's intentions here really are good. The theory is this: Decades ago, AT&T wouldn't let anyone plug anything other than AT&T devices into their lines. It wasn't until this restriction was lifted (which required quite a few years of effort) that fax machines, modems, and many other innovations were able to take place and develop without serious barriers. The wireless spectrum is currently in the same position that landlines were before. No one can "plug" random devices into the wireless spectrum without permission from some company first. Google wants that lifted, and wants the control to be taken away from certain unnamed corporations who have proven they can't be trusted. Opening up the spectrum should enable innovations that aren't even "on the radar" yet. Yes I'm a Google engineer, no this isn't an official response or anything... just another /.er's point of view, but opening up the spectrum is a win for everyone no matter if the final solution is "perfect" or not.
Regards,
Steve
With regard to point 2, have you never heard of folding@home or world community grid? Or did I miss understand what you were saying?
It's a little more complicated than the traditional salesman problem because these graphs are weighted and directed. Even then there are still good algorithms to calculate such routes. Most algorithms are "fast", but not 100ms or 200ms fast. For the speed and scale that Google does this at, it's pretty damn impressive. (Scale being both the size of the graph, and quantity of queries received)
Regards,
Steve
WoW will look so realistic. I can't wait!
Regards,
Steve
If this phone lasts 5 years, it could very well be the best made phone in existence. The contract only applies to the original iPhone, I doubt Jobs gave them exclusive access to iPhone v2.0 and iPhone Nano as well.
Regards,
Steve
Google is taking a whole bunch of approaches to saving the environment. See their solar page that went live yesterday. They also just got together a coalition of companies to start using significantly more efficient power supplies, which were R&D'd by Google. They do a ton of other things as well, most of which they surprisingly don't boast about or even try to get good PR from. Not to mention your claim about hybrids is patently false, doubly so when talking about plugin hybrids. If you only travel say 40 or 50 miles to work and back, you can pretty much get through your entire commute without touching any gas. And in states like California where around 40% (and rising) of their energy is produced by clean sources, this can really save the environment. Even if you're using traditional powerplants though, they still use fuel more efficiently than your car does, so it is still a net gain for the environment.
Regards,
Steve
Is it clear whether Google or Dell wrote this piece? In IE's addon manager it says it's a Dell product. Regardless, OpenDNS is a for profit company that has nothing to do with openness, and they are just pissed that this service competes with them by default. There is a huge bias that the author completely ignores.
Regards,
Steve
A little bit of both.
Just adding on to your comment, the OLPC currently has no power management... they are hoping to get the life up to around 24 hours when all is said and done :)
Regards,
Steve
I think the most common mistake is to blame the people and not the technology. I'm not saying I have a solution, but us software engineers never point the finger in our own direction.
Regards,
Steve
My understanding is that they currently just put a warning up to the user. If I'm wrong, my apologies, but the other points still remain valid :)
Regards,
Steve
Yea, it'd be nice to have operating systems that can't be taken advantage of, or a multitude of things... but we don't live in a perfect world. Google is helping with what they're best at doing, and it's a solution that works *now*... not some theoretical perfect browser. I doubt they'll outright block the sites, but rather notify the sites and in the meantime warn users while the sites still contain malicious content. In fact this will probably help content providers more than anything, because right now most have no way of checking their own sites for malicious things.
Regards,
Steve
You can run sugar just fine under linux. Go to laptop.org for more info.
Regards,
Steve
That was the case 5 years ago. Flash drives have long since matched and beaten regular harddrives on reads/writes. The only aspect where they aren't superior to spindle based hard drives is in cost.
Regards,
Steve
One of the founders of Greenpeace spent 30 years preaching the same ignorance you just did. Then in 2006 came to his senses and wrote a nice article in the Washingpost about why nuclear energy may be the only thing that saves us. Read it here: Going Nuclear.
Regards,
Steve
Well I'd suppose that the 30c goes towards the higher bandwidth bills (the quality of the music is a higher bitrate, thus larger files), and the rest goes towards supplementing forecaasted losses through copying or something (something being the EMI execs demanded more). It is still cheaper to buy a $9.99 album from iTunes than to pay $15.00 to $20.00 for a newer release in a store.
Regards,
Steve
Google isn't just hiring random people. They are hiring literally the best people in the world, many of which already have proven track records of doing something that has changed the computing landscape and/or the world. People such as the man who created the TCP/IP protocol (Vint Cerf), the lead developer of Firefox (Ben Goodger), the creator of vim (Bram Moolenaar), a lead kernel dev (Andrew Morton),the man who wrote "the book" on artificial intelligence (Peter Norvig), the author of "The Unix Programming Environment", UTF-8, and developer of Unix (Rob Pike), the creator of Python (Guido van Rossum), and Ken Thompson who needs no explanation.
These are just a handful of their employees, and Google has very high hiring standards and yes I'd argue that their approach will succeed. Similar to distributed systems, they're getting a bunch of smart people together, and letting them distribute themselves however they want. Google doesn't make an engineer work on anything they don't want to, and if an engineer wants to join a different team, he'll be there the next day. No company has ever done it the way Google is doing it, and I think it's a very successful strategy.
Regards,
Steve
The internet should legally be treated as a public space. If I walk around a city and take a picture of all the buildings and then sit in a park and show people these pictures and how to get to those buildings, the architect or owner of the building shouldn't be able to come up to me and say that I can't be using those pictures. Digital "property" can not and should not be treated the same as tangible items. A website on facing publicly on the internet should be able to be cached and copied without restriction. Every time we view a page in a browser it is copied... putting a website on a public network implicitly states that the public has rights to copy and retain a copy. We need to stop applying national laws and ideas to an international technology that has no precedent.
Regards,
Steve