Sorry but isn't some Google bashing due here? And for that matter MS and FB don't figure here so why would you expect them to get mentioned? Predicting reasonable reactions doesn't make them trollish, just predictable.
Anyway if we wanted to know if this TechGuys is a MS/FB shill wouldn't it be enough to ask him: "Hey TechGuys, do you think MS/FB behave ethically?". Anything other than a negative would indicate such.
We already have so many Media Center GUIs for Linux starting with the XBMC, why is Cannonical not building uppon accepted and popular community made interfaces and instead rolling their own? I mean, again?
But rather than a lesson for Google, this should be a lesson for us. Even if Google claims that this was the action of a rouge element and not representative of Google as a whole it still means that you cannot thrust them not to misuse their information, and that's even if they are not lieing which is another possibility altoghether.
So either the corporation will misbehave or an element will misbehave. Either way you shouldn't thrust them, so you should always double check.
Maybe it's the enginieer in me but couldn't we make a machine to test the authenticity of metal coins? Given that metals have specific density and conductivity it would be pretty hard to make a coin with the same size, shape and conductivy than a silver or gold one for instance.
Actually it sounds facetious since it is already a thing but the "next big thing" is user generated content, and that is 2D.
Already we geeks and some definitively non geeks have hooked our TVs to the net but that's still not a reality for the vast majority of people. Most people still watch regular TV, either via cable or air waves. Even Netflix is in many ways "Old Media".
But as HTPC become the norm more and more people will start watching user generated content predominantly. It is already the case that I can be entertained for weeks just by watching and reading stuff that's not only completely free but desperate to get any attention at all. And as technology improves, the quality of content will only improve. And the content that doesn't improve in production quality will improve in other ways. As wifi access becomes more ubiquos and SSD become cheaper more people will start making recording on the spot, Meaning that there won't be a public event small enough to not be filmed.
And on top of that there is the rise of public domain content. Yes there is a market for old movies, and old movies are getting newer each year, and it's not only old movies, public domain content includes government funded productions too, including educational and artistic stuff that doesn't sell well but is popular enough when free.
Big Media will always exist but their market-share can only shrink. I see the insistence on 3D as an attempt at making themselves seem irreplaceable. If they convince people that content must be 3D, then they are the only ones making content. But I don't see that happening.
Bonus point: Last year scientist made a humble first step into reconstructing images from the visual cortex activity (link) , a previously though impossible feat. If that technology only doubles each year we might be watching dream movies in less than a decade.
Sorry I need to correct that last statement. When I said "applications with a huge set of relatively simple functionality, as opposed to a small set of complex behaviour." I shouldn't have used the words "simple" and "complex".
"Simple" ASP pages features such mind bogglingly roundabout behaviour that will make you wonder if they were striving to appear in The Daily WTF. What I should have said is "default" or "vanilla" behaviour. And instead of "complex" I should have said "customised" or "controlled" behaviour.
ASP itself does not hinder complexity at the business layer, it can be as complex as necessary. As long as you lose any expectations of controlling the application output, you shouldn't have a problem with it.
Also having experience in both Let me take this opportunity to throw my two cents.
ASP.NET truly is impressive, but it will probably drive you crazy. ASP:NET has some remarkably sophisticated tools to do things that other frameworks can't dream of. Custom ASP controls are much more powerful than ToscaWidgets for instance, and they are even installable via GUI by the grunt programmers.
Where it fails is at the middle level, where I suspect a seasoned web developer will spend most of his day. In ASP, anything that is not insultingly easy is deeply mysterious. You will constantly find yourself doing a lot of research trying to twist the framework into doing some fairly simple things from a PHP developer view point. And you will end up with a mess that's not portable at all. But if you spend even more time researching trying to do it "the right way", who knows, maybe you will end up with something that you can resell later, but unless you are interested in selling ASP extensions you will wonder why did you had to go to that extent to make something that would be trivial in PHP.
ASP is really geared towards a combination of a couple senior gurus surrounded by an army of highly replaceable (and constantly replaced) code monkeys.
Consequently, the kind of applications it favours are "wide", meaning, applications with a huge set of relatively simple functionality, as opposed to a small set of complex behaviour.
In other words this Ariely guy is an idiot with too much money who wants people to give "them" more money, where "them" is some vaguely defined term referring to an elite group which probably includes him.
Yeah pretty much. Browser users don't read the paper much I guess, and really it wasn't that big of a marketing campaign, it just was a huge project for Mozilla.
Digital Restriction Management indeed... DRM is the reason Netflix isn't available o Linux. DRM takes the customer as the enemy so there can't be FOSS DRM. (pirates don't suffer from DRM) DRM hardware chips enable device makers to leverage the free work of the FOSS community without actually giving anything back. Without allowing people to use their computer as they want. DRM hardware is what enables TiVos and Roku boxes to function. I have no doubt DRM hardware is the reason Boxee is leaving desktop users out in the cold. DRM is the reason XBMC can't play blueray discs or Netflix. It's the reason device makers manage to monopolise the market, by rising the cost for small players and making it impossible to play nice for independent and home-made players.
Without DRM there would be a revolution in Media players and Media Centers, In fact there is already one, it's just either illegal or nearly frozen.
Ultimately DRM attacks the wrong end of the distribution chain. IDIOTS! I WANT TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF, what are you afraid I might do with your stream? Post it online? There is no need! IT IS ALREADY ONLINE! I can stream it from anywhere in the world into the very same media center you don't want me to use to consume your damn service.
It's too late because Google is putting a formidable marketing force behind Chrome. We need some Firefox super bowl ads, oh an let's advertise it in a very high traffic page like youtube!
I also want to add that all the popularity of Firefox is due to it's own quality.
Chrome is aggressively advertised in all Google services, specially Youtube. It also has TV ads including Super Bowl ads, using celebrities like Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and even Hatsune Miku!
It also tries to sneak installs by sponsoring freeware downloads with chrome bundled. Opt-out of course.
They even messed up with the opt out option to make it hard to opt-out. I am specially offended by that *because* it is such a petty thing to muck with. It was a simple, straight forward Windows form but the opt-out option was semi-disabled. Oh come on that's just childish!
So I'm not impressed by Chrome's market share. It mostly shows the efficacy of strong marketing. I'm not saying it is a bad browser, or that Firefox is perfect, just that Chrome's success isn't really due to some sense of superiority.
And another thing.
What is with Chrome fanboys? Google is a for-profit corporation vent on market domination. It is NOT a good thing if Chrome kills Firefox, the last thing we need is another browser monoculture.
I agree, I admitted that P2P was more disruptive than book sharing, and it is game changing, but it's not like preventing P2P would be the end of the distress of publishers. When people are relatively sure that content is going to stay around forever, they are more than happy to part with it.
The most obvious examples are second-hand shops. Books, videogames, and for that matter used cars are routinely sold and buyed again over and over. There are cafés in Japan where you can drop off your read manga and pick up something you haven't read yet.
This is legal, but of course media companies hate it.
I used to worship Nintendo as a child, I remember the point when Nintendo shamelessly linked used game shops with piracy was when it downed to me that they were just a corporation and would sink as low as necessary for a buck.
I think there was a line in the Steam TOS where it said that sharing my account was grounds for termination. Which I find ludicrous. If I play on weekends and my wife plays on weekdays why would we have to buy the same game twice?
Which is why I call bullshit on anyone defending copyrights on ethical or legal basis. This is an economics matter.
Music is more consumed more whimsically, we can't really plan when we will want to listen to some song but I'm fairly certain that no individual track is getting played simultaneously more than a hundred times globally. Meaning that there is a legal basis for a system that would allow people to share the same copy of a track provided that the track is not being simultaneously listened more times than it has been uploaded (allegedly from a legally acquired source).
Of course because it is on the computer the industry would make sure that such service never sees the day of light, but it is basically operating the same as a super efficient library.
Bullshit, there will always be plausible denial. Further more while it's prudent to assume that any safeguards to your identity can potentially be breached, it's absurd to just give up on them altogether.
That's like saying "locks can be broken so never use them".
This is exactly the kind of bullshit that facebook wants you to think. Unfortunately I don't think you are a paid shill.
More importantly, who cares about Banshee? Okay I know a lot do since it's popular but I can't seriously understand why would you want a media player running on mono with the slugginess that such implies, with silly album galleries that hardly match the way we listen to music today and that pointlessly tries to also manage video file without actually making the commitment to being a media center.
The album galleries drive me crazy, this is almost as bad as the physical bookshelf in the iPad. Music players these days are search based *because* it was realised that music can be grouped into more categories than what physical disc they were published in. The files don't need to be in an specific hierarchy nor in the same computer any more.
Yet that doesn't make for pretty thumbnails, and because everything must be thumbnails banshee presents music in little graphical boxes with a thumbnail of a CD case that you probably don't have, successfully reproducing the experience of browsing a physical music library from 1995 in 2011!
I have my complains about Rhythmbox but exactly what has Banshee (or Exaile) that Rhythmbox doesn't?
What he means is that things have changed such that rulings from 1800 are not *necessarily* good for today. The fact that the rulings of 1700 ARE better than what we have today is not so much because the Statute of Anne was perfect as much as because the Mickey Mouse Protection Act is insane.
To wit, authors of 1709 were turning a profit on books with only 14 years of protection. This at a time when few people could read, distribution was expensive, printing was expensive and "piracy" (in the form of book sharing) was running rampant.
And enforcement only implicated regulating publishing companies.
Nowadays companies claim to need 120 years of protection, at a time when consumption is widespread, copying and international distribution is practically free and even more convenient than asking a friend to lend you a copy.
Granted, P2P file sharing is more disruptive than book lending, but enforcement against that requires to essentially attach a police man to every device, watching anything that the citizens do, with all the implications to civil liberties that such implicates.
1800 laws certainly aren't good for these days, it's just that today's laws are even worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but isn't some Google bashing due here? And for that matter MS and FB don't figure here so why would you expect them to get mentioned? Predicting reasonable reactions doesn't make them trollish, just predictable.
Anyway if we wanted to know if this TechGuys is a MS/FB shill wouldn't it be enough to ask him: "Hey TechGuys, do you think MS/FB behave ethically?". Anything other than a negative would indicate such.
We already have so many Media Center GUIs for Linux starting with the XBMC, why is Cannonical not building uppon accepted and popular community made interfaces and instead rolling their own? I mean, again?
But rather than a lesson for Google, this should be a lesson for us. Even if Google claims that this was the action of a rouge element and not representative of Google as a whole it still means that you cannot thrust them not to misuse their information, and that's even if they are not lieing which is another possibility altoghether.
So either the corporation will misbehave or an element will misbehave. Either way you shouldn't thrust them, so you should always double check.
Obligatory youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo
Maybe it's the enginieer in me but couldn't we make a machine to test the authenticity of metal coins? Given that metals have specific density and conductivity it would be pretty hard to make a coin with the same size, shape and conductivy than a silver or gold one for instance.
I resist. Try http://duckduckgo.com/ or http://startpage.com./ It's possible.
Actually it sounds facetious since it is already a thing but the "next big thing" is user generated content, and that is 2D.
Already we geeks and some definitively non geeks have hooked our TVs to the net but that's still not a reality for the vast majority of people. Most people still watch regular TV, either via cable or air waves. Even Netflix is in many ways "Old Media".
But as HTPC become the norm more and more people will start watching user generated content predominantly. It is already the case that I can be entertained for weeks just by watching and reading stuff that's not only completely free but desperate to get any attention at all. And as technology improves, the quality of content will only improve. And the content that doesn't improve in production quality will improve in other ways. As wifi access becomes more ubiquos and SSD become cheaper more people will start making recording on the spot, Meaning that there won't be a public event small enough to not be filmed.
And on top of that there is the rise of public domain content. Yes there is a market for old movies, and old movies are getting newer each year, and it's not only old movies, public domain content includes government funded productions too, including educational and artistic stuff that doesn't sell well but is popular enough when free.
Big Media will always exist but their market-share can only shrink. I see the insistence on 3D as an attempt at making themselves seem irreplaceable. If they convince people that content must be 3D, then they are the only ones making content. But I don't see that happening.
Bonus point: Last year scientist made a humble first step into reconstructing images from the visual cortex activity (link) , a previously though impossible feat. If that technology only doubles each year we might be watching dream movies in less than a decade.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes
Sorry I need to correct that last statement. When I said "applications with a huge set of relatively simple functionality, as opposed to a small set of complex behaviour." I shouldn't have used the words "simple" and "complex".
"Simple" ASP pages features such mind bogglingly roundabout behaviour that will make you wonder if they were striving to appear in The Daily WTF. What I should have said is "default" or "vanilla" behaviour. And instead of "complex" I should have said "customised" or "controlled" behaviour.
ASP itself does not hinder complexity at the business layer, it can be as complex as necessary. As long as you lose any expectations of controlling the application output, you shouldn't have a problem with it.
Also having experience in both Let me take this opportunity to throw my two cents.
ASP.NET truly is impressive, but it will probably drive you crazy. ASP:NET has some remarkably sophisticated tools to do things that other frameworks can't dream of. Custom ASP controls are much more powerful than ToscaWidgets for instance, and they are even installable via GUI by the grunt programmers.
Where it fails is at the middle level, where I suspect a seasoned web developer will spend most of his day. In ASP, anything that is not insultingly easy is deeply mysterious. You will constantly find yourself doing a lot of research trying to twist the framework into doing some fairly simple things from a PHP developer view point. And you will end up with a mess that's not portable at all. But if you spend even more time researching trying to do it "the right way", who knows, maybe you will end up with something that you can resell later, but unless you are interested in selling ASP extensions you will wonder why did you had to go to that extent to make something that would be trivial in PHP.
ASP is really geared towards a combination of a couple senior gurus surrounded by an army of highly replaceable (and constantly replaced) code monkeys.
Consequently, the kind of applications it favours are "wide", meaning, applications with a huge set of relatively simple functionality, as opposed to a small set of complex behaviour.
In other words this Ariely guy is an idiot with too much money who wants people to give "them" more money, where "them" is some vaguely defined term referring to an elite group which probably includes him.
Yeah pretty much. Browser users don't read the paper much I guess, and really it wasn't that big of a marketing campaign, it just was a huge project for Mozilla.
That would be adobe I think, I'm relatively sure it was a Flash install. Either that or Java. It was a fresh system...
Yes I should have said qualities. Thanks.
Digital Restriction Management indeed...
DRM is the reason Netflix isn't available o Linux.
DRM takes the customer as the enemy so there can't be FOSS DRM. (pirates don't suffer from DRM)
DRM hardware chips enable device makers to leverage the free work of the FOSS community without actually giving anything back.
Without allowing people to use their computer as they want.
DRM hardware is what enables TiVos and Roku boxes to function.
I have no doubt DRM hardware is the reason Boxee is leaving desktop users out in the cold.
DRM is the reason XBMC can't play blueray discs or Netflix.
It's the reason device makers manage to monopolise the market, by rising the cost for small players and making it impossible to play nice for independent and home-made players.
Without DRM there would be a revolution in Media players and Media Centers, In fact there is already one, it's just either illegal or nearly frozen.
Ultimately DRM attacks the wrong end of the distribution chain. IDIOTS! I WANT TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF, what are you afraid I might do with your stream? Post it online? There is no need! IT IS ALREADY ONLINE! I can stream it from anywhere in the world into the very same media center you don't want me to use to consume your damn service.
Imbecile Mother Fuckers.
It's too late because Google is putting a formidable marketing force behind Chrome. We need some Firefox super bowl ads, oh an let's advertise it in a very high traffic page like youtube!
I also want to add that all the popularity of Firefox is due to it's own quality.
Chrome is aggressively advertised in all Google services, specially Youtube.
It also has TV ads including Super Bowl ads, using celebrities like Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and even Hatsune Miku!
It also tries to sneak installs by sponsoring freeware downloads with chrome bundled. Opt-out of course.
They even messed up with the opt out option to make it hard to opt-out. I am specially offended by that *because* it is such a petty thing to muck with. It was a simple, straight forward Windows form but the opt-out option was semi-disabled. Oh come on that's just childish!
So I'm not impressed by Chrome's market share. It mostly shows the efficacy of strong marketing. I'm not saying it is a bad browser, or that Firefox is perfect, just that Chrome's success isn't really due to some sense of superiority.
And another thing.
What is with Chrome fanboys? Google is a for-profit corporation vent on market domination. It is NOT a good thing if Chrome kills Firefox, the last thing we need is another browser monoculture.
I agree, I admitted that P2P was more disruptive than book sharing, and it is game changing, but it's not like preventing P2P would be the end of the distress of publishers. When people are relatively sure that content is going to stay around forever, they are more than happy to part with it.
The most obvious examples are second-hand shops. Books, videogames, and for that matter used cars are routinely sold and buyed again over and over. There are cafés in Japan where you can drop off your read manga and pick up something you haven't read yet.
This is legal, but of course media companies hate it.
I used to worship Nintendo as a child, I remember the point when Nintendo shamelessly linked used game shops with piracy was when it downed to me that they were just a corporation and would sink as low as necessary for a buck.
I think there was a line in the Steam TOS where it said that sharing my account was grounds for termination. Which I find ludicrous. If I play on weekends and my wife plays on weekdays why would we have to buy the same game twice?
Which is why I call bullshit on anyone defending copyrights on ethical or legal basis. This is an economics matter.
Music is more consumed more whimsically, we can't really plan when we will want to listen to some song but I'm fairly certain that no individual track is getting played simultaneously more than a hundred times globally. Meaning that there is a legal basis for a system that would allow people to share the same copy of a track provided that the track is not being simultaneously listened more times than it has been uploaded (allegedly from a legally acquired source).
Of course because it is on the computer the industry would make sure that such service never sees the day of light, but it is basically operating the same as a super efficient library.
Bullshit, there will always be plausible denial. Further more while it's prudent to assume that any safeguards to your identity can potentially be breached, it's absurd to just give up on them altogether.
That's like saying "locks can be broken so never use them".
This is exactly the kind of bullshit that facebook wants you to think. Unfortunately I don't think you are a paid shill.
The explanation is that MS is NOT in a dominant position in the smart phone market. The lesson here is that competition is always good.
Like the guys at wall street.
It's called "griefing".
More importantly, who cares about Banshee? Okay I know a lot do since it's popular but I can't seriously understand why would you want a media player running on mono with the slugginess that such implies, with silly album galleries that hardly match the way we listen to music today and that pointlessly tries to also manage video file without actually making the commitment to being a media center.
The album galleries drive me crazy, this is almost as bad as the physical bookshelf in the iPad. Music players these days are search based *because* it was realised that music can be grouped into more categories than what physical disc they were published in. The files don't need to be in an specific hierarchy nor in the same computer any more.
Yet that doesn't make for pretty thumbnails, and because everything must be thumbnails banshee presents music in little graphical boxes with a thumbnail of a CD case that you probably don't have, successfully reproducing the experience of browsing a physical music library from 1995 in 2011!
I have my complains about Rhythmbox but exactly what has Banshee (or Exaile) that Rhythmbox doesn't?
tl:dr version
Rule #1 of Adblock: Don't talk about Adblock.
What he means is that things have changed such that rulings from 1800 are not *necessarily* good for today. The fact that the rulings of 1700 ARE better than what we have today is not so much because the Statute of Anne was perfect as much as because the Mickey Mouse Protection Act is insane.
To wit, authors of 1709 were turning a profit on books with only 14 years of protection. This at a time when few people could read, distribution was expensive, printing was expensive and "piracy" (in the form of book sharing) was running rampant.
And enforcement only implicated regulating publishing companies.
Nowadays companies claim to need 120 years of protection, at a time when consumption is widespread, copying and international distribution is practically free and even more convenient than asking a friend to lend you a copy.
Granted, P2P file sharing is more disruptive than book lending, but enforcement against that requires to essentially attach a police man to every device, watching anything that the citizens do, with all the implications to civil liberties that such implicates.
1800 laws certainly aren't good for these days, it's just that today's laws are even worse.