I disagree. With the developments of where browsers seem to be going, that is to be a platform for an OS like experience, there will be plenty of reasons to create platform specific versions of application. There are always reasons to not spend money on development for a browser that represents miniscule percentages of usage. Businesses make money not for altruistic reasons like developing for something that is non-existent in the grand scheme of things. For instance, are you going to accommodate Opera?
between competing vendors? Maybe standards that have been used for a decade have stabilized compatibility issues between vendors, but this is always a struggle and there will always be exception handling to provide a common experience across all platforms. I am not sure where the idea comes from that because it is standardized, it will be implemented equally and the same. Have you paid attention to the last decade of web development where standards have always existed.
Unless a vendor has a mission statement that says that it will only implement a standards compliant product, then there is going to be competition to innovate new features. Hopefully corporations learned the lesson of tying their web apps to a specific platform and proprietary implementations, but I am sure considering the current trend to make browsers into OS like platforms, there will be apps that only work on certain platforms.
Who knows what is going to happen in the next decade so this question is a little foolish?
preferences? this would be a user abstraction layer with initial comments tagged as something specific that can be recombined by the user to build a unique axis, borrowing from a previous post, that will upmod and downmod. So, comments never have a score until a profile is applied to the tag filter and the comment becomes a bucket for all tags/mods. This will enable profile building(inherent or explicit) for each user this is used to pull out the comments that suit their perspective best.
A specific implementation of this would be to use social networking concepts to build a friend tier. A user can see comments through the lens of their collective friend network.
It could be thought of as the article/comment genome project - sort of like Pandora. News articles could be sent using this same mechanism with the lens determining articles of interest.
Is playing Rock Band like playing Madden? No! Whereas Madden runs football plays used in real football and approximates coaching, there is nothing about Rock Band that is like playing actual music except maybe the bouncing around. If Rock Band forced you to finger real chords then I could see a similarity. There is no actual education that can be delivered other than training your muscle memory to push buttons in a pattern whereas Madden teaches you football.
This post is spot on. All the rest of the comments on here, including the submitter, is banter. I doubt the submitter understands his professor's jest with the scientific method...and you can see why a professor would jest based on the comments. What wouldn't be more entertaining than watching people attempt to prove that science discovers reality and develops absolute universal knowledge?
It is interesting how Socrates is not brought up in this argument..at least that I have read yet. But you are spot on in your reference whether people realize it or not. Hume is the man. What philosophy brings to science, beyond the scientific method, is recognition of how hubris plays itself out in science and we should approach the artifacts of science with humility.
Well, I would say Wikileaks has been getting some great advertising for their brand and they have been steadfast about protecting its business interests in developing leaks by not revealing sources. Assange was mentioning how they are developing a system to maintain anonymity for leakers. This could be a dropped package in the mail =), but what it says to me is that they understand their business and are investing in protecting and cultivating information.
I think an interesting question is why did the Guardian need to gamble on this issue anyway. Seems stupid to me as they are an organization that delivers information and builds audiences. However, I did not grow up with the Guardian and I do not know its culture so this may be their MO.
That is if this is the only scoop. Wikileaks is an organization and it will not go to prison like the actual leaker. There is a longer relationship to be cultivated as opposed to a one-time use leaker. Wikileaks as a business has invested in producing leaks and has the opportunity to produce other major leaks about governments and organizations around the world. I am sure there is no shortage of dirty laundry and Wikileaks has the cred to deliver information in a powerful manner.
Oh where, oh where, oh where is Shangri-la? Give me a break.
They have breast pads for leaking.
I listened to Julian the other night on Democracy Now, but he did not sound like God. But then again, I do not believe in fairy tales. He sounded like a man that developed a product that he knows how to sell.
Wouldn't it be better to threaten the guardian with not revealing any more info ever to the Guardian if they published something not sanctioned in the relationship? That has a lot more punch then, "I will try to persuade a judge to side with me in an argument and you will rue the day." Let the Guardian decide how important it is to get the scoop from Wikileaks. I bet they don't publish so they can keep their relationship and get the early scoop. The business decision will be whether the Guardian can make enough revenue on the ill-gotten info to justify breaking the relationship.
Your an idiot. People on trial are in general population at a jail. If you are convicted, you don't necessarily go to prison - at least in Colorado. If your sentence is under one year, then you go to jail. Of course, since you are being so general, I know that is what you meant.
What is the cable television reference you are making? As far as I know, content distributor make agreements with content creators to advertise on top of the content ads and I am sure they pay the content owner for this right. So, who is getting away with what? DVRs have not done anything with unwanted content. Your stream in the DVR is as it was provided. The fact you fast forward is a different issue. But the DVR is doing nothing to alter the content delivered.
Yes it does. If I publish HTML, Javascript, and CSS, then I expect that to reach the viewer untouched. Formatting matters when rendering HTML plain and simple so modifying may screw up the experience. This costs money and has value associated with it so to remove is to create a loss in value. The copy is not just the text in the page that is consumed by eyeballs, but it is the creative work that placed the tags on the page to render the way it does. So, which data are you removing in order to optimize? I am not seeing anything other than compression that is appropriate.
Exactly. A better example than re-ordering your words, for which you probably agreed to in the small print when you signed up for the service, is if 7-Eleven optimized the magazines it carried. This is a 3rd party(7-eleven), for which the end-user created a relationship, that distributes a 3rd parties content(Playboy for instance) for which 7-Eleven has no relationship. I would think Playboy would be a little upset.
Do you have the right to agree to alter copyrighted content as a distributor? I do not think so. Would you expect 7-Eleven to optimize its magazines? Pretty absurd. Is an ISP that optimizes doing anything different to a content providers content? I believe in television land, networks require permission to overlay annoying ads on top of programming and I am pretty sure they license for this right.
Another problem is that this could lead to formatting problems in web pages. Unfortunately, formatting HTML still matters. Companies pay lots of money to author copy and harden that copy so that it provides a certain experience in a browser for the end-user. Having an optimizer could screw this up. So, why invite a lawsuit for messing with copyright law?
The question is why would Cotendo do this? Why not let the market take care of it? If you are a content creator and the delivery of your content sucks, I am willing to bet that you will lose customers to a competitor that delivers similar content in a more compelling manner.
The question is even if there was a plan, had the term 4G been trademarked previously? If not, then wouldn't Sprint own the term irrespective of what the crystal ball foretells.
If Sprint coined the term before the ITU, is there maybe a trademark issue here? Can Sprint claim to have the trademark and force the ITU to rename what it considers 4G? I think that is probably the best solution and then Sprint can keep the term and not be in hot water with a class action over false advertising.
In any case, I don't think marketing cares. A class action for being wrong may still leave their strategy to deceive profitable and with more customers.
Hmmm, so at one time, I was taught that law is to protect the minority from the majority. So, it seems you think it is right to gang up on the few in order to make things as you see them as a choice between freedom and wealth. Go bully your way to right. That makes so much sense and really makes people want to work hard in order to succeed. Is it right to take what people have earned? I am sure you may be considered wealthy to many of the poor throughout the world. If I extrapolate your argument to another context, you feel that the US should be taxed heavily by the world because of its hard earned success. You are an idiot. No wonder people hate the US, they were educated in the same school of do nothing and take from others as you.
What are you talking about with the First Amendment? It says nothing of the sort. And nothing in the 1st Amendment says all voices are equal. But no one has created the correlation between speech and voting. There is an assumption in this thread that the message creates automotons out of people and they can't think when it comes time to vote. Please share evidence of this correlation, otherwise voting and speech really are not correlated. It is not like there is an independent and dependent variable in a function that will always guarantee the same set of values such that plugging in more speech equals guaranteed vote.
So, if you want to waste your breath, poor or rich, at the public square, do it. It does not impact critical thinking. And it is not a requirement to think critically before getting to the voting booth. You can use any criteria you like to vote.
Which rich man wants to buy an election? Nice fallacy. Who says that in order to have free speech, you have to identify yourself? There are many on slashdot that use anonymous coward to voice their opinion. Your argument sucks. The rich man has no more votes than the poor man. So what if he can waste his money on trumpeting his message in the public square. Have you reached another fallacy, generalization, and concluded that people should not hear the message of the rich man because they, like Odysseus, will crash onto an island of sirens to perish?
Here is another stupid fallacy, all billionaires support politics the same. Do you not think that there are rich people on both sides of an issue? You are an idiot.
Is that really the definition of laws? I disagree. Laws are an outcome of activities in a legislature. It really has nothing to do with societal good. However, the debate over governance and laws revolve, in some cases, around the individual's good versus societal good. Which is more important? Matter of fact, you gave a nice definition of socialism and this is in contrast to libertarianism or Liberals.Socialist and Liberal ideals are opposite which is why listening to pop politics is confusing.
Auto-suggest and autocorrect exists electronically in many forms. Is it necessary to explicitly have a patent depending on the context it is used? That is ridiculous. I would think the novel concept is auto-suggest/correct and putting it in the context of SMS is just implementation details. Is there an auto-correct/censorship patent on smoke signals? If not, I think I better rush out and get it because that would be a novel concept.
Slashdot Mirror
And you have cut out a tremendous amount of your potential audience. That is some smart business-sense.
I disagree. With the developments of where browsers seem to be going, that is to be a platform for an OS like experience, there will be plenty of reasons to create platform specific versions of application. There are always reasons to not spend money on development for a browser that represents miniscule percentages of usage. Businesses make money not for altruistic reasons like developing for something that is non-existent in the grand scheme of things. For instance, are you going to accommodate Opera?
haha...not first
between competing vendors? Maybe standards that have been used for a decade have stabilized compatibility issues between vendors, but this is always a struggle and there will always be exception handling to provide a common experience across all platforms. I am not sure where the idea comes from that because it is standardized, it will be implemented equally and the same. Have you paid attention to the last decade of web development where standards have always existed. Unless a vendor has a mission statement that says that it will only implement a standards compliant product, then there is going to be competition to innovate new features. Hopefully corporations learned the lesson of tying their web apps to a specific platform and proprietary implementations, but I am sure considering the current trend to make browsers into OS like platforms, there will be apps that only work on certain platforms. Who knows what is going to happen in the next decade so this question is a little foolish?
preferences? this would be a user abstraction layer with initial comments tagged as something specific that can be recombined by the user to build a unique axis, borrowing from a previous post, that will upmod and downmod. So, comments never have a score until a profile is applied to the tag filter and the comment becomes a bucket for all tags/mods. This will enable profile building(inherent or explicit) for each user this is used to pull out the comments that suit their perspective best. A specific implementation of this would be to use social networking concepts to build a friend tier. A user can see comments through the lens of their collective friend network. It could be thought of as the article/comment genome project - sort of like Pandora. News articles could be sent using this same mechanism with the lens determining articles of interest.
Nuff said!
Is playing Rock Band like playing Madden? No! Whereas Madden runs football plays used in real football and approximates coaching, there is nothing about Rock Band that is like playing actual music except maybe the bouncing around. If Rock Band forced you to finger real chords then I could see a similarity. There is no actual education that can be delivered other than training your muscle memory to push buttons in a pattern whereas Madden teaches you football.
This post is spot on. All the rest of the comments on here, including the submitter, is banter. I doubt the submitter understands his professor's jest with the scientific method...and you can see why a professor would jest based on the comments. What wouldn't be more entertaining than watching people attempt to prove that science discovers reality and develops absolute universal knowledge?
It is interesting how Socrates is not brought up in this argument..at least that I have read yet. But you are spot on in your reference whether people realize it or not. Hume is the man. What philosophy brings to science, beyond the scientific method, is recognition of how hubris plays itself out in science and we should approach the artifacts of science with humility.
Well, I would say Wikileaks has been getting some great advertising for their brand and they have been steadfast about protecting its business interests in developing leaks by not revealing sources. Assange was mentioning how they are developing a system to maintain anonymity for leakers. This could be a dropped package in the mail =), but what it says to me is that they understand their business and are investing in protecting and cultivating information.
I think an interesting question is why did the Guardian need to gamble on this issue anyway. Seems stupid to me as they are an organization that delivers information and builds audiences. However, I did not grow up with the Guardian and I do not know its culture so this may be their MO.
That is if this is the only scoop. Wikileaks is an organization and it will not go to prison like the actual leaker. There is a longer relationship to be cultivated as opposed to a one-time use leaker. Wikileaks as a business has invested in producing leaks and has the opportunity to produce other major leaks about governments and organizations around the world. I am sure there is no shortage of dirty laundry and Wikileaks has the cred to deliver information in a powerful manner.
Oh where, oh where, oh where is Shangri-la? Give me a break. They have breast pads for leaking. I listened to Julian the other night on Democracy Now, but he did not sound like God. But then again, I do not believe in fairy tales. He sounded like a man that developed a product that he knows how to sell.
Wouldn't it be better to threaten the guardian with not revealing any more info ever to the Guardian if they published something not sanctioned in the relationship? That has a lot more punch then, "I will try to persuade a judge to side with me in an argument and you will rue the day." Let the Guardian decide how important it is to get the scoop from Wikileaks. I bet they don't publish so they can keep their relationship and get the early scoop. The business decision will be whether the Guardian can make enough revenue on the ill-gotten info to justify breaking the relationship.
Your an idiot. People on trial are in general population at a jail. If you are convicted, you don't necessarily go to prison - at least in Colorado. If your sentence is under one year, then you go to jail. Of course, since you are being so general, I know that is what you meant.
What is the cable television reference you are making? As far as I know, content distributor make agreements with content creators to advertise on top of the content ads and I am sure they pay the content owner for this right. So, who is getting away with what? DVRs have not done anything with unwanted content. Your stream in the DVR is as it was provided. The fact you fast forward is a different issue. But the DVR is doing nothing to alter the content delivered.
Yes it does. If I publish HTML, Javascript, and CSS, then I expect that to reach the viewer untouched. Formatting matters when rendering HTML plain and simple so modifying may screw up the experience. This costs money and has value associated with it so to remove is to create a loss in value. The copy is not just the text in the page that is consumed by eyeballs, but it is the creative work that placed the tags on the page to render the way it does. So, which data are you removing in order to optimize? I am not seeing anything other than compression that is appropriate.
Exactly. A better example than re-ordering your words, for which you probably agreed to in the small print when you signed up for the service, is if 7-Eleven optimized the magazines it carried. This is a 3rd party(7-eleven), for which the end-user created a relationship, that distributes a 3rd parties content(Playboy for instance) for which 7-Eleven has no relationship. I would think Playboy would be a little upset.
Do you have the right to agree to alter copyrighted content as a distributor? I do not think so. Would you expect 7-Eleven to optimize its magazines? Pretty absurd. Is an ISP that optimizes doing anything different to a content providers content? I believe in television land, networks require permission to overlay annoying ads on top of programming and I am pretty sure they license for this right.
Another problem is that this could lead to formatting problems in web pages. Unfortunately, formatting HTML still matters. Companies pay lots of money to author copy and harden that copy so that it provides a certain experience in a browser for the end-user. Having an optimizer could screw this up. So, why invite a lawsuit for messing with copyright law?
The question is why would Cotendo do this? Why not let the market take care of it? If you are a content creator and the delivery of your content sucks, I am willing to bet that you will lose customers to a competitor that delivers similar content in a more compelling manner.
The question is even if there was a plan, had the term 4G been trademarked previously? If not, then wouldn't Sprint own the term irrespective of what the crystal ball foretells.
If Sprint coined the term before the ITU, is there maybe a trademark issue here? Can Sprint claim to have the trademark and force the ITU to rename what it considers 4G? I think that is probably the best solution and then Sprint can keep the term and not be in hot water with a class action over false advertising. In any case, I don't think marketing cares. A class action for being wrong may still leave their strategy to deceive profitable and with more customers.
Hmmm, so at one time, I was taught that law is to protect the minority from the majority. So, it seems you think it is right to gang up on the few in order to make things as you see them as a choice between freedom and wealth. Go bully your way to right. That makes so much sense and really makes people want to work hard in order to succeed. Is it right to take what people have earned? I am sure you may be considered wealthy to many of the poor throughout the world. If I extrapolate your argument to another context, you feel that the US should be taxed heavily by the world because of its hard earned success. You are an idiot. No wonder people hate the US, they were educated in the same school of do nothing and take from others as you.
What are you talking about with the First Amendment? It says nothing of the sort. And nothing in the 1st Amendment says all voices are equal. But no one has created the correlation between speech and voting. There is an assumption in this thread that the message creates automotons out of people and they can't think when it comes time to vote. Please share evidence of this correlation, otherwise voting and speech really are not correlated. It is not like there is an independent and dependent variable in a function that will always guarantee the same set of values such that plugging in more speech equals guaranteed vote. So, if you want to waste your breath, poor or rich, at the public square, do it. It does not impact critical thinking. And it is not a requirement to think critically before getting to the voting booth. You can use any criteria you like to vote.
Which rich man wants to buy an election? Nice fallacy. Who says that in order to have free speech, you have to identify yourself? There are many on slashdot that use anonymous coward to voice their opinion. Your argument sucks. The rich man has no more votes than the poor man. So what if he can waste his money on trumpeting his message in the public square. Have you reached another fallacy, generalization, and concluded that people should not hear the message of the rich man because they, like Odysseus, will crash onto an island of sirens to perish? Here is another stupid fallacy, all billionaires support politics the same. Do you not think that there are rich people on both sides of an issue? You are an idiot.
Is that really the definition of laws? I disagree. Laws are an outcome of activities in a legislature. It really has nothing to do with societal good. However, the debate over governance and laws revolve, in some cases, around the individual's good versus societal good. Which is more important? Matter of fact, you gave a nice definition of socialism and this is in contrast to libertarianism or Liberals.Socialist and Liberal ideals are opposite which is why listening to pop politics is confusing.
it works as written!
Auto-suggest and autocorrect exists electronically in many forms. Is it necessary to explicitly have a patent depending on the context it is used? That is ridiculous. I would think the novel concept is auto-suggest/correct and putting it in the context of SMS is just implementation details. Is there an auto-correct/censorship patent on smoke signals? If not, I think I better rush out and get it because that would be a novel concept.