The only person who filed today was google, not the judge. So where does this shit come from? This article is fud.
Because as we all know, it's what happens on Pamela Jones's blog, not what happens in court, that matters. I mean, the IT World article has some direct quotes from the letter they are describing, but Pamela Jones didn't say it, and that's what matters.
I'm not sure how you can tell a down-vote is from an employee as you claim (sounds a bit like sour grapes), but I suspect most technical companies do have employees who post here. And of course they'll be predisposed to supporting the company that pays their rent. I think it's great -- if you find one that's replied to you, and reply back -- you've just bypassed the whole "contact us" page and have expressed your view to someone who has (technical) weight in the organisation. Tech company people taking part in the community here is good news, not bad. I had an interaction with someone from Google on here the other week. He disagreed with me about some things, but that's fine.
(PS. Just so you don't get the wrong idea from the above, no I don't work for Facebook. I work for an Australian government-owned research organisation.)
This post will possibly get you downvoted very quickly by the fb trolls/"relationship managers", like the guy who posted this "news" or the first poster. They are getting less obvious (well, after the idiot RMs for wp7 they only could improve), but are quite easy to spot as drones working for a RM agency. And they are trying to do the same to slashdot as they did to techcrunch or betanews, were you can't find a decent comment in the middle of all the astroturfers. So you (and everyone who calls their game) will get downvoted in a second. As I will be, no doubt.
I'm not sure how you can tell a down-vote is from an employee as you claim (sounds a bit like sour grapes), but I suspect most technical companies do have employees who post here. And of course they'll be predisposed to supporting the company that pays their rent. I think it's great -- if you find one that's replied to you, and reply back -- you've just bypassed the whole "contact us" page and have expressed your view to someone who has (technical) weight in the organisation. Tech company people taking part in the community here is good news, not bad. I had an interaction with someone from Google on here the other week. He disagreed with me about some things, but that's fine.
I am sure there will be Facebook fans for sometime to come. I am sure that G+ won't take out Facebook. Facebook could implement the same controls that G+ has. G+ doesn't have Farmville, I'm sure that will hurt it by some people's standards. I don't worry about the integration with the rest of Google. It just tells me that Google is really very confident in their G+ product. The integration just makes sense. It is pretty obvious where they will integrate it further (e.g. Google Reader). G+ is a huge play for Google. It just feels better than anything they've done in the space so far.
I think Google just reckon they have to bet the farm on Google+. Google's current business relies on indexing content that's out on the Web, and that people find what they consume via search. Only more and more content is getting locked up where they can't get to it, and search is no longer the only game in town. A combination of app-ization and users moving from search to "social discovery". Time was the Google search box was the main way to hear about products. Now it's not. Time was, the Google search box was the only app store of significance (where you'd find your downloadable apps). Now it's not. Google's lunch is being eaten, and they need to act swiftly because in tech companies can go from hero to zero astonishingly quickly.
Hmm. Earlier this year... Oracle won't hand over the keys to OpenOffice or Hudson! Clearly they have it in for open source! Run for the hills! Today... Oracle have handed over the keys to OpenOffice and Hudson! Clearly they have it in for open source! Run for the hills! Somehow I think there are a few people inside Oracle today shaking their heads and muttering about the press.
Google recognizes that discomfort and provides tools for you to address it. I suppose some would argue that "opt-in" is a more appropriate model than "opt-out", but at least Google does make it possible -- and easy -- to opt out of all of their tracking.
Thanks for your reply, and good to hear you read these things. I realise it's technically possible for them to opt-out, but we could have a debate about "easy". I suspect it is only techies like us that even know there is something to opt-out from, let alone that if you (and the number of steps is quite impressive) click on the finest-print link at the foot of the page (Privacy), get past the fact that the next page does not include Analytics in the list of products, click on Privacy tools on the left (so you have to know there's a tool), scroll down to the third-from bottom link, and then download a plug--in that has "BETA" in big this-might-make-your-system-unstable letters. Given it's Analytics, perhaps I should ask you -- what's the conversion rate on that process! I'm sorry to say it really does remind me uncannily of Arthur Dent's locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet in a basement with no stairs and a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard"!
I realize a lot of people find it very hard to believe that a corporation really would want to help people to avoid the tracking that is in the corporations best interest, but Google's perspective is that long-term the very best approach is to do the thing that is right for the user.
Actually, that's not what makes me feel uncomfortable at all. I know very well Google is full of nice people because I've met lots of them. And sure enough, given the data Google has, I haven't seen them do anything nefarious with it. But I feel uneasy when society relies on companies "continuing to be nice", rather than putting well-thought out consumer protections in place -- especially when it comes to privacy and competition rules. The cod phrase I tend to use for this reasoning is "SCO was a nice and friendly company once too".
My bet is that this the result of a generic rule that boosts the importance of e-mails from Google, you know so that you're sure to see announcements of new gmail features, or Google account-related messages, etc., but no one thought to make an exception for Offers.
Excuse me for saying, but that does sounds like what the original article was claiming is a problem, and a parallel of the complaint in the anti-trust probes: I believe the concern is that Google's algorithms by default deem all content, email, and services from Google as "important" but do not offer the same by-default automatic promotion to their competitors. The article author's claim is that this advantages Google's products over its products over its competitors'.
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out -- as the Web more and more becomes people's desktop I think we'll see more of these kind of complaints. With Microsoft, it was possible to see arguments of "we just thought it'd be really useful to include a free media player and a web browser", but nonetheless the big stick was swung against them for bundling. Is there an equivalent of bundling in the Web world? Will litigiousness about this go to the extent that because Google's search home page links directly to GMail but not other email services (and the browser is the new desktop) that's deemed equivalent to every MS Windows desktop install having an Internet Explorer icon but no Opera icon by default? After all, you could install Opera onto the Windows desktop but you can't install Yahoo mail onto the Google search homepage (though you can into iGoogle).
Caveat: I'm mostly just an interested bystander (academic), though I do sometimes feel mildly uncomfortable from a libertarian perspective that theoretically it would now be very hard for someone to avoid giving Google data about themselves -- if they don't get it via search or email, they'll get it via Google Analytics installed on the other sites you visit. I think Google is now in a much more entrenched monopoly position than Microsoft was -- MS at its monopolistic height never had your data, they just constrained the format you had it in; Google does have your data and for much of it there is no "delete". That's quite a well-fortified position. You cannot simply take your eighteen-months-of-search-and-browsing-history that Google mine to a different provider.
Didn't spot the transparent strategy then? Hmm, Windows 8 apps look a lot like Windows Phone apps, and something similar is moving onto the XBox too...
The implication is that they intend Windows Phone apps will be the same apps you use on Windows 8 which will be the same apps you can access on XBox. The famous "three screens". And if you're not coding specifically for Windows, well standard HTML5 and Javascript apps will run just dandy on Windows 8 and the future version of Windows Phone too. I don't see there being a problem with getting apps, or with getting customers for your apps.
It's plain and simple leveraging from the PC market into the phone market. And my goodness there are a lot of Windows PC customers, and neither Google nor Apple have that advantage.
If it had a modern engine, it would probably get 75 mpg. As for safety, the original Mini was known for extremely good handling, and light weight means that modern brakes and tires can get a car stopped DAMN fast.
So, if a Mini were built with modern technology, but to the same crash safety standards and space as the original, it would probably weigh LESS, and have extremely good active safety, and get extremely good fuel economy.
Um, no. The later versions (the Mini was still being manufactured up until about 2000) had to have side impact bars added to the doors, which would have made it heavier. Meanwhile, according to the UK Department of Transport, the Mini was still one of the two least safe cars on the market, with 84% of drivers likely to be injured in a two car collision.
(And early models were also known for the petrol cap shearing off if the car rolled in a crash, pouring flammable liquid everywhere, and the ignition breaking your knee in a crash because of its positioning.)
It was a lovely car, my first car (a Mini that was just one year younger than me), and a joy to drive, but no it wasn't very safe.
This one sounds like the US has no real interest at all in the case, they are just trying to lower the bar for extradition cases, with the aim of targeting other people.
If so it's a dumb move. The coalition agreement has a specific commitment to review the Extradition Act in the light of the McKinnon case. If the US were interested in lowering the bar for extradition, they'd be keeping very very quiet right about now. (Meanwhile McKinnon is still in the UK, five years since the US kicked up a fuss, so it's not as if the American hullaballoo has got them all that far.)
If you observe someone else use the computer and simultaneously observe the electrical activity of CPU (and rest of the hardware) at transistor level, you would have a hard time mapping the program function to CPU activity.
Actually, that's not true -- it turns out that by analyzing the electromagnetic radiation from a CPU you can get quite a lot of information, to the point that electromagnetic snooping of what's going on inside the chip is a published security attack method! But anyway, most of what you were saying is an objection I already suggested -- that a materialist could object it is the nature of the activity that causes the distinction (and so two different activities would scan largely the same).
I don't know why parent is being modded up and the AC down. It's not like the researchers are saying to one another, "seeing as being dumped feels exactly like spilling hot coffee one the hand, we should check if this is backed by brain scans". You say that you know that the difference is, in fact, detectable between the two by adequate brain scanning equipment. You back this up by saying that the experiences feel different. That is as ridiculous as saying that you've rubbed charcoal and diamonds on paper, and you know they're different elements.
No, this raises an interesting question about another possible experiment, testing out philosophies of mind. Under materialism (as opposed to dualism) the experience is believed to be entirely contained within the brain (rather than an additional 'mind'). So, if the vast majority of subjects report the sensations as 'feeling' qualitatively different (that data hasn't been collected), then under materialism [good enough] scanning ought to be able to identify the difference. This suggests a possible experiment, though it wouldn't be conclusive as there are still significant get-out clauses in both directions: if it 'disproves' materialism then someone could claim the scanning equipment simply wasn't good enough or that the difference is not just in what areas are active but the nature of that activity; if it 'supports' materialism, someone could claim that the physical difference isn't the only difference.
No, but Apple could chose not to ship you anymore iP[a/o]ds. This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).
A small bank decides to run a "win one of 5 iPads" competition to new customers. How is Apple going to stop them from sending someone down to the local department store to buy them? (Or five staff to different stores if they want to be sneaky!) Heck, is Apple going to start interrogating every shopper in an Apple Store? "Admit it! You're going to give this way in some filthy raffle aren't you, Miss Whatever-your-name-is! And I bet that's not even a real beard!"
If you send the nation into poverty to clean the air
I think this is the aspect of the debate that annoys me the most - the hyberbolic exaggeration of the economic effects of reduced consumption of fossil fuels. There are of course real costs involved, but nothing that scientists or mainstream policy-makers have proposed is going to cause us to sink to Third World levels of deprivation, or revert to a pre-industrial economy. Citizens of Western Europe have been living with drastically higher gasoline prices than us for decades, and they don't seem impoverished to me. Downgrading to a smaller and more fuel-efficient car is not a huge decrease in living standards relative to what the rest of the world has to endure.
But you're responding with the equally hyperbolic fallacy of assuming that the sum total of fossil fuel consumption and carbon output is people driving cars, and that just getting SUVs off the road would fix everything. The guilty secret of why western Europe's carbon output has dropped so much is because a lot of the dirty stuff like mining and manufacturing has been outsourced, and many of the economies have refocused on finance. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that not every country can do that: you cannot have a world that is solely populated by bankers. China's, India's, even Australia's carbon outputs meanwhile have shot up as their share of the manufacturing and mining (particularly mining in Australia's case) load has increased. Only this time we also have the additional carbon output of shipping stuff all the way around the world as nothing is made locally any more.
The problem is Apple is NOT an OS maker, they are a system maker. In particular they make a unified system where they do it all. If you talk to a Mac head this is one of the things they talk about being so great, that Apple creates a "unified experience" and supports everything. They push the model of "Just bring it to the Mac store," as how you handle support and all that.
Fine but that means that you are going to get questions about malware and the like. They can't play it off with "But MS doesn't help!" They are selling the "We are the company that takes care of you and makes everything," they get to deal with the support calls.
Also, MS DOES in fact help with that shit. If nothing else they publish the malicious software removal tool (which Windows get automatically) and make Microsoft Security Essentials available for free. While they don't do everything, they do provide free tools to help.
And I suspect they'd do a darn sight more if there wasn't an anti-trust "bundling" lawsuit from McAfee and the like waiting in the wings for the moment they do.
The original blog post notes that the sandbox for Flash is a "first iteration" and that there is "more work to be done".
Yes, all engineers like to pull that excuse if all else fails. I'm pretty sure Windows Vista was the first iteration of Windows Vista with more work to be done too. I've probably used that excuse myself a few times too. It is quite brazen to make that argument when you're talking about version 11 of your product though (he says, checking the "About Google Chrome..." box)
Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?
Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.
Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.
Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.
--Jeremy
There's a difference. I don't see a problem with a sinner, sorry but that's the most convenient word, saying "we need to improve on morality". Just as I've been in plenty of meetings where time's been lost of everyone being late, and haven't felt the need to lambast the person who says "We really need to get these meetings started on time" with a cry of "Hypocrite!" Obama basing his campaign on being able to cut through all the Washington bull and excuses and, for instance, close Gitmo in a year, and then finding he can't cut through all the Washington bull and excuses and close Gitmo in a year - that was a genuine broken promise. No, the only complaint I've got against Gingrich is he's a Republican. (And much as I've been disappointed by Obama not being able to deliver, I'd still rather a President who struggled to deliver policies I like, rather than one who's very effective at delivering policies I don't like!) But then I'm a bloomin' foreigner that doesn't vote in the US anyway!
If you look at the world of open-source office suites you'll find that OpenOffice is the probably the most popular. There are clones and forks out there that add little functionality beyond changing the splash screen. This is likely what would happen to google if they open-sourced their search components.
I think that's clearly not true. Apache Hadoop (an open source project) was explicitly based on the methods Google say they used in their search components, and it is used for much much more than just Google-clones. (How "new" map-reduce really was is debatable, but Google publishing a paper opening up their use of it sparked plenty of innovation.) And I'm sure Google have clustering code that would be of interest to everything from language analysis to scientific data analysis. etc, etc.
If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.
By that reckoning, we should never have bothered with Linux or championed any other open source equivalent of a proprietary system. Sorry, this is a cheap and somewhat contrived shot, but...
"If Unix opened up their operating system wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If I'm not mistaken, the meat of an operating system is the algorithms and code. If you copy Unix's algorithms, your system produces results identical to those of Unix. How is that innovative? How does Unix keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Unix open-sourced their operating system it would allow hackers to see exactly how things tick and exploit Unix's security holes. That'd make it even more useless than it already is." (hypothetical rewriting of the same argument against a different system)
When they'll do it themselves on their own time and their own dime?
It depends on the topic. It is quite likely that the more interested engineers will teach themselves Scala or some other hot language after hours. It is much less likely that they will spend their home time learning how to integrate with AcmeHorribleLegacySystem or FooCorpProprietaryTechTheyCantAccess that you need your software to work with in order for your business to earn cash. And it's not terribly easy to direct what people learn after hours -- half the replies to this post might well say "Scala??? Why would you want to learn that, ${OtherTrendingLanguage} is the way of the future!".
The bigger problem with training from my perspective it that it is usually so dumbed down and slow.
What does that have to do with what merits I have? My family earned it in some manner of speaking, but really that has not a thing to do with it being a merit or not.
Unless you designed the universe, neither you nor your family nor mine even "earned" our own existence. And you have to go back hundreds of thousands of generations to find a member of your family that even "earned" your ability to breathe. And that does have a bearing on the "moral basis" of meritocracy you were talking about -- none of us earned what we've got. We don't automatically assume those who inherited lots of money are "meritous" so why should be assume that because I inherited some other unearned gifts that makes me more "meritous" than, say, someone who's not quite so good at sums?
Of course the real power to enter war is supposed to be with the People, as represented by their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately Congress is about as powerless today, as the Roman Senate was under the caesars. The Republic has fallen. The emperor has risen.
Ironically, in the UK where wars are constitutionally a "royal prerogative" and theoretically undemocratic, they are actually declared by the elected government in the Commons. It seems political double-speak works both ways.
You can close your windows and lock your doors yet your street address is still public information. This is directly analogous.
But "analogous" does not mean "ok." Actually, rather a lot of privacy-minded individuals would much prefer the electoral rolls and land registry not to be public information. Where you live is indeed very privacy-invading -- revealing your financial status (is it a rich or poor area? Does the land registry reveal the property is owned by the occupier?), likely number of children (flat versus house with a garden), etc. If your address suddenly changes from a three-bedroom house in the suburbs owned by yourself and one other person, to a small one-bedroom rented flat in the city, well how's that marital separation going then? Yup, your address information is indeed a big fat privacy leak. There's a reason why the famous mafia threat is "I know where you live."
...someone might make them wear some idiotic cape!
I have a nasty feeling it's going to be the next lay-off craze. "I turned up to work, and my password wouldn't work and someone had left this ridiculous cape on my desk...".
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about groklaw, but nothing shows for the judge asking anything other than telling Oracle to explain where it's magic numbers came from. Oh and potentially google seeking discovery sanctions on oracle but it has not been raised by google. That's about it. If this had actually linked groklaw somewhere, which it didn't. There is no "danger" for google in any form, nor did the judge imply it was plausible that google did anything. Where does TFS or the article make that shit up?
The only person who filed today was google, not the judge. So where does this shit come from? This article is fud.
Because as we all know, it's what happens on Pamela Jones's blog, not what happens in court, that matters. I mean, the IT World article has some direct quotes from the letter they are describing, but Pamela Jones didn't say it, and that's what matters.
I'm not sure how you can tell a down-vote is from an employee as you claim (sounds a bit like sour grapes), but I suspect most technical companies do have employees who post here. And of course they'll be predisposed to supporting the company that pays their rent. I think it's great -- if you find one that's replied to you, and reply back -- you've just bypassed the whole "contact us" page and have expressed your view to someone who has (technical) weight in the organisation. Tech company people taking part in the community here is good news, not bad. I had an interaction with someone from Google on here the other week. He disagreed with me about some things, but that's fine.
(PS. Just so you don't get the wrong idea from the above, no I don't work for Facebook. I work for an Australian government-owned research organisation.)
This post will possibly get you downvoted very quickly by the fb trolls/"relationship managers", like the guy who posted this "news" or the first poster. They are getting less obvious (well, after the idiot RMs for wp7 they only could improve), but are quite easy to spot as drones working for a RM agency. And they are trying to do the same to slashdot as they did to techcrunch or betanews, were you can't find a decent comment in the middle of all the astroturfers. So you (and everyone who calls their game) will get downvoted in a second. As I will be, no doubt.
I'm not sure how you can tell a down-vote is from an employee as you claim (sounds a bit like sour grapes), but I suspect most technical companies do have employees who post here. And of course they'll be predisposed to supporting the company that pays their rent. I think it's great -- if you find one that's replied to you, and reply back -- you've just bypassed the whole "contact us" page and have expressed your view to someone who has (technical) weight in the organisation. Tech company people taking part in the community here is good news, not bad. I had an interaction with someone from Google on here the other week. He disagreed with me about some things, but that's fine.
I am sure there will be Facebook fans for sometime to come. I am sure that G+ won't take out Facebook. Facebook could implement the same controls that G+ has. G+ doesn't have Farmville, I'm sure that will hurt it by some people's standards. I don't worry about the integration with the rest of Google. It just tells me that Google is really very confident in their G+ product. The integration just makes sense. It is pretty obvious where they will integrate it further (e.g. Google Reader). G+ is a huge play for Google. It just feels better than anything they've done in the space so far.
I think Google just reckon they have to bet the farm on Google+. Google's current business relies on indexing content that's out on the Web, and that people find what they consume via search. Only more and more content is getting locked up where they can't get to it, and search is no longer the only game in town. A combination of app-ization and users moving from search to "social discovery". Time was the Google search box was the main way to hear about products. Now it's not. Time was, the Google search box was the only app store of significance (where you'd find your downloadable apps). Now it's not. Google's lunch is being eaten, and they need to act swiftly because in tech companies can go from hero to zero astonishingly quickly.
Stick a fork in it. It's done.
Hmm. Earlier this year...
Oracle won't hand over the keys to OpenOffice or Hudson! Clearly they have it in for open source! Run for the hills!
Today...
Oracle have handed over the keys to OpenOffice and Hudson! Clearly they have it in for open source! Run for the hills!
Somehow I think there are a few people inside Oracle today shaking their heads and muttering about the press.
Google recognizes that discomfort and provides tools for you to address it. I suppose some would argue that "opt-in" is a more appropriate model than "opt-out", but at least Google does make it possible -- and easy -- to opt out of all of their tracking.
Thanks for your reply, and good to hear you read these things. I realise it's technically possible for them to opt-out, but we could have a debate about "easy". I suspect it is only techies like us that even know there is something to opt-out from, let alone that if you (and the number of steps is quite impressive) click on the finest-print link at the foot of the page (Privacy), get past the fact that the next page does not include Analytics in the list of products, click on Privacy tools on the left (so you have to know there's a tool), scroll down to the third-from bottom link, and then download a plug--in that has "BETA" in big this-might-make-your-system-unstable letters. Given it's Analytics, perhaps I should ask you -- what's the conversion rate on that process! I'm sorry to say it really does remind me uncannily of Arthur Dent's locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet in a basement with no stairs and a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard"!
I realize a lot of people find it very hard to believe that a corporation really would want to help people to avoid the tracking that is in the corporations best interest, but Google's perspective is that long-term the very best approach is to do the thing that is right for the user.
Actually, that's not what makes me feel uncomfortable at all. I know very well Google is full of nice people because I've met lots of them. And sure enough, given the data Google has, I haven't seen them do anything nefarious with it. But I feel uneasy when society relies on companies "continuing to be nice", rather than putting well-thought out consumer protections in place -- especially when it comes to privacy and competition rules. The cod phrase I tend to use for this reasoning is "SCO was a nice and friendly company once too".
My bet is that this the result of a generic rule that boosts the importance of e-mails from Google, you know so that you're sure to see announcements of new gmail features, or Google account-related messages, etc., but no one thought to make an exception for Offers.
Excuse me for saying, but that does sounds like what the original article was claiming is a problem, and a parallel of the complaint in the anti-trust probes: I believe the concern is that Google's algorithms by default deem all content, email, and services from Google as "important" but do not offer the same by-default automatic promotion to their competitors. The article author's claim is that this advantages Google's products over its products over its competitors'.
Given that Offers and gmail come from different groups within Google, and I'd expect that no one on the Offers team knows much about how priority inbox is implemented and no one on the gmail team was thinking much about Offers other than to note there was a launch party, I can see exactly how this would happen. Or maybe it is intentional... but I doubt it.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out -- as the Web more and more becomes people's desktop I think we'll see more of these kind of complaints. With Microsoft, it was possible to see arguments of "we just thought it'd be really useful to include a free media player and a web browser", but nonetheless the big stick was swung against them for bundling. Is there an equivalent of bundling in the Web world? Will litigiousness about this go to the extent that because Google's search home page links directly to GMail but not other email services (and the browser is the new desktop) that's deemed equivalent to every MS Windows desktop install having an Internet Explorer icon but no Opera icon by default? After all, you could install Opera onto the Windows desktop but you can't install Yahoo mail onto the Google search homepage (though you can into iGoogle).
Caveat: I'm mostly just an interested bystander (academic), though I do sometimes feel mildly uncomfortable from a libertarian perspective that theoretically it would now be very hard for someone to avoid giving Google data about themselves -- if they don't get it via search or email, they'll get it via Google Analytics installed on the other sites you visit. I think Google is now in a much more entrenched monopoly position than Microsoft was -- MS at its monopolistic height never had your data, they just constrained the format you had it in; Google does have your data and for much of it there is no "delete". That's quite a well-fortified position. You cannot simply take your eighteen-months-of-search-and-browsing-history that Google mine to a different provider.
Like customers for your apps, for example.
Didn't spot the transparent strategy then? Hmm, Windows 8 apps look a lot like Windows Phone apps, and something similar is moving onto the XBox too...
The implication is that they intend Windows Phone apps will be the same apps you use on Windows 8 which will be the same apps you can access on XBox. The famous "three screens". And if you're not coding specifically for Windows, well standard HTML5 and Javascript apps will run just dandy on Windows 8 and the future version of Windows Phone too. I don't see there being a problem with getting apps, or with getting customers for your apps.
It's plain and simple leveraging from the PC market into the phone market. And my goodness there are a lot of Windows PC customers, and neither Google nor Apple have that advantage.
If it had a modern engine, it would probably get 75 mpg. As for safety, the original Mini was known for extremely good handling, and light weight means that modern brakes and tires can get a car stopped DAMN fast.
So, if a Mini were built with modern technology, but to the same crash safety standards and space as the original, it would probably weigh LESS, and have extremely good active safety, and get extremely good fuel economy.
Um, no. The later versions (the Mini was still being manufactured up until about 2000) had to have side impact bars added to the doors, which would have made it heavier. Meanwhile, according to the UK Department of Transport, the Mini was still one of the two least safe cars on the market, with 84% of drivers likely to be injured in a two car collision.
(And early models were also known for the petrol cap shearing off if the car rolled in a crash, pouring flammable liquid everywhere, and the ignition breaking your knee in a crash because of its positioning.)
It was a lovely car, my first car (a Mini that was just one year younger than me), and a joy to drive, but no it wasn't very safe.
This one sounds like the US has no real interest at all in the case, they are just trying to lower the bar for extradition cases, with the aim of targeting other people.
If so it's a dumb move. The coalition agreement has a specific commitment to review the Extradition Act in the light of the McKinnon case. If the US were interested in lowering the bar for extradition, they'd be keeping very very quiet right about now. (Meanwhile McKinnon is still in the UK, five years since the US kicked up a fuss, so it's not as if the American hullaballoo has got them all that far.)
If you observe someone else use the computer and simultaneously observe the electrical activity of CPU (and rest of the hardware) at transistor level, you would have a hard time mapping the program function to CPU activity.
Actually, that's not true -- it turns out that by analyzing the electromagnetic radiation from a CPU you can get quite a lot of information, to the point that electromagnetic snooping of what's going on inside the chip is a published security attack method! But anyway, most of what you were saying is an objection I already suggested -- that a materialist could object it is the nature of the activity that causes the distinction (and so two different activities would scan largely the same).
I don't know why parent is being modded up and the AC down. It's not like the researchers are saying to one another, "seeing as being dumped feels exactly like spilling hot coffee one the hand, we should check if this is backed by brain scans". You say that you know that the difference is, in fact, detectable between the two by adequate brain scanning equipment. You back this up by saying that the experiences feel different. That is as ridiculous as saying that you've rubbed charcoal and diamonds on paper, and you know they're different elements.
No, this raises an interesting question about another possible experiment, testing out philosophies of mind. Under materialism (as opposed to dualism) the experience is believed to be entirely contained within the brain (rather than an additional 'mind'). So, if the vast majority of subjects report the sensations as 'feeling' qualitatively different (that data hasn't been collected), then under materialism [good enough] scanning ought to be able to identify the difference. This suggests a possible experiment, though it wouldn't be conclusive as there are still significant get-out clauses in both directions: if it 'disproves' materialism then someone could claim the scanning equipment simply wasn't good enough or that the difference is not just in what areas are active but the nature of that activity; if it 'supports' materialism, someone could claim that the physical difference isn't the only difference.
No, but Apple could chose not to ship you anymore iP[a/o]ds. This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).
A small bank decides to run a "win one of 5 iPads" competition to new customers. How is Apple going to stop them from sending someone down to the local department store to buy them? (Or five staff to different stores if they want to be sneaky!) Heck, is Apple going to start interrogating every shopper in an Apple Store? "Admit it! You're going to give this way in some filthy raffle aren't you, Miss Whatever-your-name-is! And I bet that's not even a real beard!"
If you send the nation into poverty to clean the air
I think this is the aspect of the debate that annoys me the most - the hyberbolic exaggeration of the economic effects of reduced consumption of fossil fuels. There are of course real costs involved, but nothing that scientists or mainstream policy-makers have proposed is going to cause us to sink to Third World levels of deprivation, or revert to a pre-industrial economy. Citizens of Western Europe have been living with drastically higher gasoline prices than us for decades, and they don't seem impoverished to me. Downgrading to a smaller and more fuel-efficient car is not a huge decrease in living standards relative to what the rest of the world has to endure.
But you're responding with the equally hyperbolic fallacy of assuming that the sum total of fossil fuel consumption and carbon output is people driving cars, and that just getting SUVs off the road would fix everything. The guilty secret of why western Europe's carbon output has dropped so much is because a lot of the dirty stuff like mining and manufacturing has been outsourced, and many of the economies have refocused on finance. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that not every country can do that: you cannot have a world that is solely populated by bankers. China's, India's, even Australia's carbon outputs meanwhile have shot up as their share of the manufacturing and mining (particularly mining in Australia's case) load has increased. Only this time we also have the additional carbon output of shipping stuff all the way around the world as nothing is made locally any more.
The problem is Apple is NOT an OS maker, they are a system maker. In particular they make a unified system where they do it all. If you talk to a Mac head this is one of the things they talk about being so great, that Apple creates a "unified experience" and supports everything. They push the model of "Just bring it to the Mac store," as how you handle support and all that.
Fine but that means that you are going to get questions about malware and the like. They can't play it off with "But MS doesn't help!" They are selling the "We are the company that takes care of you and makes everything," they get to deal with the support calls.
Also, MS DOES in fact help with that shit. If nothing else they publish the malicious software removal tool (which Windows get automatically) and make Microsoft Security Essentials available for free. While they don't do everything, they do provide free tools to help.
And I suspect they'd do a darn sight more if there wasn't an anti-trust "bundling" lawsuit from McAfee and the like waiting in the wings for the moment they do.
The original blog post notes that the sandbox for Flash is a "first iteration" and that there is "more work to be done".
Yes, all engineers like to pull that excuse if all else fails. I'm pretty sure Windows Vista was the first iteration of Windows Vista with more work to be done too. I've probably used that excuse myself a few times too. It is quite brazen to make that argument when you're talking about version 11 of your product though (he says, checking the "About Google Chrome..." box)
Hypocrisy - look it up. I don't care one whit if Gingrich fucks a busload of nuns during his spare time. I *do* care when he (and his party) make "morality" part of the platform, and then turns around and violates said morals. Why the fuck should I vote for someone who violates one of his main promises?
Your failure to understand seems to stem from the fact that you (and other slow thinkers like you) think adultery is automatically bad, and that we wouldn't vote for someone based on who they do and/or don't put their dick in.
Just like when Obama said "I'm going to close Gitmo" and "I'm going to investigate AT&T over the warrantless wiretaps" and then didn't do either of those things. That loses him points. It would then be sheer hypocrisy if he were to open more detention facilities, or ask for more wiretaps. But if he decides he wants to screw Hillary Clinton on the side? I don't care -- he never told me he wouldn't, and it's not something I'd base a vote on anyway.
Do you get it? It's not the extra marital affairs we care about. It's the hypocrisy.
--Jeremy
There's a difference. I don't see a problem with a sinner, sorry but that's the most convenient word, saying "we need to improve on morality". Just as I've been in plenty of meetings where time's been lost of everyone being late, and haven't felt the need to lambast the person who says "We really need to get these meetings started on time" with a cry of "Hypocrite!" Obama basing his campaign on being able to cut through all the Washington bull and excuses and, for instance, close Gitmo in a year, and then finding he can't cut through all the Washington bull and excuses and close Gitmo in a year - that was a genuine broken promise. No, the only complaint I've got against Gingrich is he's a Republican. (And much as I've been disappointed by Obama not being able to deliver, I'd still rather a President who struggled to deliver policies I like, rather than one who's very effective at delivering policies I don't like!) But then I'm a bloomin' foreigner that doesn't vote in the US anyway!
If you look at the world of open-source office suites you'll find that OpenOffice is the probably the most popular. There are clones and forks out there that add little functionality beyond changing the splash screen. This is likely what would happen to google if they open-sourced their search components.
I think that's clearly not true. Apache Hadoop (an open source project) was explicitly based on the methods Google say they used in their search components, and it is used for much much more than just Google-clones. (How "new" map-reduce really was is debatable, but Google publishing a paper opening up their use of it sparked plenty of innovation.) And I'm sure Google have clustering code that would be of interest to everything from language analysis to scientific data analysis. etc, etc.
If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.
By that reckoning, we should never have bothered with Linux or championed any other open source equivalent of a proprietary system. Sorry, this is a cheap and somewhat contrived shot, but...
"If Unix opened up their operating system wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If I'm not mistaken, the meat of an operating system is the algorithms and code. If you copy Unix's algorithms, your system produces results identical to those of Unix. How is that innovative? How does Unix keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Unix open-sourced their operating system it would allow hackers to see exactly how things tick and exploit Unix's security holes. That'd make it even more useless than it already is." (hypothetical rewriting of the same argument against a different system)
When they'll do it themselves on their own time and their own dime?
It depends on the topic. It is quite likely that the more interested engineers will teach themselves Scala or some other hot language after hours. It is much less likely that they will spend their home time learning how to integrate with AcmeHorribleLegacySystem or FooCorpProprietaryTechTheyCantAccess that you need your software to work with in order for your business to earn cash. And it's not terribly easy to direct what people learn after hours -- half the replies to this post might well say "Scala??? Why would you want to learn that, ${OtherTrendingLanguage} is the way of the future!".
The bigger problem with training from my perspective it that it is usually so dumbed down and slow.
I believe this thing is called a "javawocky."
...and I hear they've released it under the Grue Public Licence.
What does that have to do with what merits I have?
My family earned it in some manner of speaking, but really that has not a thing to do with it being a merit or not.
Unless you designed the universe, neither you nor your family nor mine even "earned" our own existence. And you have to go back hundreds of thousands of generations to find a member of your family that even "earned" your ability to breathe. And that does have a bearing on the "moral basis" of meritocracy you were talking about -- none of us earned what we've got. We don't automatically assume those who inherited lots of money are "meritous" so why should be assume that because I inherited some other unearned gifts that makes me more "meritous" than, say, someone who's not quite so good at sums?
Of course the real power to enter war is supposed to be with the People, as represented by their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately Congress is about as powerless today, as the Roman Senate was under the caesars. The Republic has fallen. The emperor has risen.
Ironically, in the UK where wars are constitutionally a "royal prerogative" and theoretically undemocratic, they are actually declared by the elected government in the Commons. It seems political double-speak works both ways.
You can close your windows and lock your doors yet your street address is still public information. This is directly analogous.
But "analogous" does not mean "ok." Actually, rather a lot of privacy-minded individuals would much prefer the electoral rolls and land registry not to be public information. Where you live is indeed very privacy-invading -- revealing your financial status (is it a rich or poor area? Does the land registry reveal the property is owned by the occupier?), likely number of children (flat versus house with a garden), etc. If your address suddenly changes from a three-bedroom house in the suburbs owned by yourself and one other person, to a small one-bedroom rented flat in the city, well how's that marital separation going then? Yup, your address information is indeed a big fat privacy leak. There's a reason why the famous mafia threat is "I know where you live."
...someone might make them wear some idiotic cape!
I have a nasty feeling it's going to be the next lay-off craze. "I turned up to work, and my password wouldn't work and someone had left this ridiculous cape on my desk...".