I wouldn't know, I never used it. Didn't you read my post?
You and your friend not knowing how to use a tool does make it closed; it just makes you ignorant. And telling outright lies based on your ignorance and forcing a discussion about html5 to be Google vs. Apple just makes you obnoxious.
Awww, there you go, turning this into a personal attack on complete strangers about whom you know nothing.
I understand, man. It must suck having all that nerd-rage build up inside and the only inconsequential cause this week on which to focus it is plain old boring DRM. I can see now why you misread my post.
Chip up, though. Maybe a story on personal privacy, or whatever you kids rave up about nowadays, will show up soon. It can only get better.
Haha! That's precious. I love it when my militant open-source-freaky friends send me links to their documents, or to some article or blog post that drives through Google. (Actually, I don't love it at all).
The worst part is that they really have no idea. They are so accustomed to being logged into the Google ecosystem, that they don't realize that it is in itself a controlled and fenced-off environment.
A friend of mine kept trying to send me a spreadsheet from Google Docs, and he really couldn't understand why I was having so much trouble getting access to it (I don't have a Google account, and I disable JavaScript by default). When he thought he sent me a CSV, he actually sent a link to an export function that required me to sign up.
LOL! Open indeed.
They complain vociferously about Apple, but at least when I share photos or web sites from my iPad, it sends the actual content. When I click on "share" from within iWorks, I get the option to send as a PDF, or CSV or something, not some internal link to an Apple web site.
And then the shitty DRM clients shall replace your Web. Congratulations! See how many third parties you can interest to join your "open Web" with their content, when nobody is there to use it.
This is what is happening in the mobile space with "native" apps. I believe the W3C's proposal is a direct response to this in the hopes of remaining relevant.
When people find it more convenient to tap their Facebook/Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/YouTube/etc. app on their iPad, than typing URLs or searching for stuff on their browsers--and actually receive the benefits of those apps directly and conveniently--why would they even consider the "open web"? Why would they care?
Neither is it intended simply to provide a conduit for the products of the media cartels.
Actually, if the primary purpose for which people want to use a platform is to consume the products of the media cartels, then the specifications of that platform should most definitely intend to provide a conduit for such products.
I see your idealistic "Open Web," and raise you a Netflix and interactive entertainment.
OK, that's all fine, and I agree with your sentiments, but all that is beside the point. The point is that, that "open foundation of the Internet" that you speak of is of no consequence to the regular user, nor for mainstream use in general. The Web has taken off during the past decade and a half not necessarily because it is "open," and not necessarily because it is a standardized platform, but because it provided convenient access to certain activities that invite and excite the masses.
Shopping, goofing off, meeting people, and yes, watching movies and entertainment in general, are all the key reasons people have adopted the Web. Face it, the dream of the "Information Super Highway," where all knowledge of mankind can be found, a world in which everyone is empowered by instant access to all information, is just that: a dream. We have engendered the world's largest shopping mall and amusement park.
It's Television 2.0. Except without most of the show, and with more annoying commercials.
Sure, there's information, loads of it, but a lot of it is apocryphal, and most of the time it's hard to tell the difference. However, access to it is secondary at best to most people.
DRM exists, and it is part of life. We can cry and whine about it all we want, and vow to overturn the status quo.
In the meantime, however, if we abolish DRM completely, nobody gets to watch Netflix or TV on their computers.
That's fine, if that is what you want. You fight for your ideal world. There is always a chance you might win. (If that happens, I'll be sure to send you a thank-you post card!)
However, I believe the W3C is fighting for its own relevance. They know that without adopting some sort of DRM, people will just switch to proprietary "native" applications and be done with the Web. In fact, this is what is happening in the mobile space already.
I believe the W3C feel that at least standardizing access to the DRM black box is better than the free-for-all, amorphous plug-in system we currently have. By defining common interfaces, it may even facilitate the creation of such CDM's in additional platforms--especially if the communications infrastructure is already built into the browser.
Personally, I abhor DRM, but I also don't care much for the Single, Unified, All-Encompassing, One True Platform that is being cobbled from HTML and JavaScript. So, I don't care either way.
In the meantime, I and plenty of others, will continue to enjoy Netflix and iTunes from my AppleTV, and all other manners of evil-sanctioned eeky-DRM'ed entertainment from my other devices. You go ahead and fight to remove them from the Web. Good luck.
I keep reading this regurgitated as fact. I also read from some who apparently know what they are talking about that parts of the population is being modeled in independent simulations, while the rest is more emergent, and that the videos you mention capture only the anomalies.
Also,I understand that EA were forced to tone down the simulations because of the back-end availability problems.
You and others make it sound as if the game does nothing but 1980s Pac-Man AI.
However, free is not sustainable for most sites and users show a distinct disinclination to pay for content.
That is not necessarily true. Users show a distinct disinclination to pay for crappy or mediocre content. Since the birth of capitalism, people have paid for stuff. Everybody buys stuff.
The problem is that some people believe that the Internet changed all that, as if it was some sort of magical entity that made content free.
The WWW started with all sorts of free content, because it was provided by enthusiasts and academics, who didn't mind giving it away for free.
And then it all went to hell in a hand-basket when some wanted to maintain the same level of traffic and engagement in the mass market while making money out of it.
Yes, that's the problem: greed. Every - Single - Site - built to make money follows the same exact formula: Make content, give it away for free, build a very large audience, and then--just when you think you've captured them irrevocably--make money out of them. Well, guess what, you've just accustomed your viewers to free content. You have turned them into "freetards" that feel entitled to it all.
Yes, it's the "Web 2.0" model: Let's build a site, start free, get lots and lots of hits, and... sell it to Facebook or Google. Ka-ching!
Oh, that's not working? How do we keep the lights on? Ads to the rescue! It's not about the content or the viewers anymore.
Making your business model depend on advertisements shifts the focus of your enterprise absolutely. As even Penny-Arcade mentioned when they changed their model, a lot of their creative and business effort goes into satisfying metrics that come from their actual customers: the advertisers. The viewers are just there to consume the advertisements and keep the coin rolling in.
Of course, you can find the honest enterprise that just got trapped by following the trends. That seems to be the case with Destructoid, whereas they built their site to depend on advertisements because, well, because "that's how everybody does it and there's no other way."
If you adopt a model that is tangentially related to your viewers, and at times actively hostile to them, is it any surprise that they will get pissed when you engage in an arms race against their standard behaviour? How dare you take umbrage at their distaste for something that is not germane to the experience of visiting your site?
On the other hand, begging to be white-listed is also distasteful. Guess what? If every "free," advertisement-supported site were to die tomorrow, the Internet will survive. People will just find something else to do. And eventually, someone may hit upon a model that is actually sustainable. It'll probably involve some sort of subscription or direct payment.
I, like most ad-blockers, would not mind at all paying for content. As a matter of fact, I do subscribe to some web sites and e-magazines. I don't pay for every single article I casually visit when I click on a link; and I just click on the link because it's there. I don't need it. I don't have to have it. And when I hit a paywall or something else that alienates me, I consider hard what's it worth to me. "Oh, it's just a link to an article in the WSJ about such-and-such, is it really that important for me to pay to read it?" Probably not.
Sometimes it is. I've ended up purchasing issues of the New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal for a single article.
So when all this sites band together and clamour "you're breaking the Internet! your adblock is killing the Internet!" I say, NO. We're just breaking the stupid, unsustainable cycle of web sites trying to make money by every other way except working for their readers.
I would imagine that the iPhone and the iPad would have shown that to Microsoft. Unfortunately, Ballmer is beyond the point of realization. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially when the dog is stuck in a rut playing the single trick it learned as a pup.
How can you and others comment on how it "worked," when it's a visual effects sequence on a fantasy film? It wasn't intended to prove any theoretical process, and I doubt that the sequence was conceived by physicists; it was intended to look futuristic and cool.
That's the point that is being missed in many of the other comments. It's not necessarily execution, and it is not necessarily programming experience or even knowledge. The key thing is, as you say, domain knowledge of the application of your ideas: understanding why it's good and novel, and how it will be used.
And that is also what is missed by a whole bunch of so-called "entrepreneurs." I've known a few people who, you know, want to live the Web 2.0 dream: come up with a fantastic idea, get some funding to design and implement it, and sell it to Google or Facebook or some other large enterprise--or even better, strike it rich and famous on its own merits!
The problem is that many of the "good" ideas they come up with are just contrived versions of "big-famous-site-but-with-X" or "I heard there's money in this industry so let's provide X for them." They completely ignore the fact that they know nothing about that particular market or industry, so how could they truly understand the needs and requirements of their target audience? They think that, since their specific idea hasn't been implemented yet, it is because nobody has had this truly awesome idea, so they must move fast.
On the other hand, had they been part of that market, like the electrician in your story, and had an itch to scratch; or had they taken the time to study a particular industry or market segment to try to address their needs in an innovative way; it wouldn't matter at all whether they know how to program or implement their idea.
But that's the point, when people talk about improving health prospects by implementing new ways of handling waste, they don't go around saying "poo" or "pee."
Why is it that in a nerdy site like Slashdot, expressly dedicated to smart people, an article is written with childish words like "pee," "turd," and "poo"?
I'm in no way offended by the language, but by the lazy, crude, and idiotic way of using it. There are so many more intelligent ways to express oneself than using school-yard slang.
The article does not clearly say how they count them. However, it does suggest that it is not a real, accurate quantification of actual live accounts--more like a statistical figure.
In the article, the figure is compared to the United Nations announcing the population on earth, so I guess it involves a lot of extrapolation based on subscription rates and usage loads.
If you read the article, it's a bit comforting that they have absolutely no idea how many real people are actively using the system, nor which one would be the specific "billionth" user.
Well, comforting if I used Facebook, which I don't, so I really don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't know, I never used it. Didn't you read my post?
Awww, there you go, turning this into a personal attack on complete strangers about whom you know nothing.
I understand, man. It must suck having all that nerd-rage build up inside and the only inconsequential cause this week on which to focus it is plain old boring DRM. I can see now why you misread my post.
Chip up, though. Maybe a story on personal privacy, or whatever you kids rave up about nowadays, will show up soon. It can only get better.
Have a nice day :)
-dZ.
He did. His point was to phrase the original post in a way that betrays its absurdity.
I understood what he said.
Haha! That's precious. I love it when my militant open-source-freaky friends send me links to their documents, or to some article or blog post that drives through Google. (Actually, I don't love it at all).
The worst part is that they really have no idea. They are so accustomed to being logged into the Google ecosystem, that they don't realize that it is in itself a controlled and fenced-off environment.
A friend of mine kept trying to send me a spreadsheet from Google Docs, and he really couldn't understand why I was having so much trouble getting access to it (I don't have a Google account, and I disable JavaScript by default). When he thought he sent me a CSV, he actually sent a link to an export function that required me to sign up.
LOL! Open indeed.
They complain vociferously about Apple, but at least when I share photos or web sites from my iPad, it sends the actual content. When I click on "share" from within iWorks, I get the option to send as a PDF, or CSV or something, not some internal link to an Apple web site.
But Google is the openness hero, right?
dZ.
And then the shitty DRM clients shall replace your Web. Congratulations! See how many third parties you can interest to join your "open Web" with their content, when nobody is there to use it.
This is what is happening in the mobile space with "native" apps. I believe the W3C's proposal is a direct response to this in the hopes of remaining relevant.
When people find it more convenient to tap their Facebook/Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/YouTube/etc. app on their iPad, than typing URLs or searching for stuff on their browsers--and actually receive the benefits of those apps directly and conveniently--why would they even consider the "open web"? Why would they care?
dZ.
Actually, if the primary purpose for which people want to use a platform is to consume the products of the media cartels, then the specifications of that platform should most definitely intend to provide a conduit for such products.
I see your idealistic "Open Web," and raise you a Netflix and interactive entertainment.
OK, that's all fine, and I agree with your sentiments, but all that is beside the point. The point is that, that "open foundation of the Internet" that you speak of is of no consequence to the regular user, nor for mainstream use in general. The Web has taken off during the past decade and a half not necessarily because it is "open," and not necessarily because it is a standardized platform, but because it provided convenient access to certain activities that invite and excite the masses.
Shopping, goofing off, meeting people, and yes, watching movies and entertainment in general, are all the key reasons people have adopted the Web. Face it, the dream of the "Information Super Highway," where all knowledge of mankind can be found, a world in which everyone is empowered by instant access to all information, is just that: a dream. We have engendered the world's largest shopping mall and amusement park.
It's Television 2.0. Except without most of the show, and with more annoying commercials.
Sure, there's information, loads of it, but a lot of it is apocryphal, and most of the time it's hard to tell the difference. However, access to it is secondary at best to most people.
DRM exists, and it is part of life. We can cry and whine about it all we want, and vow to overturn the status quo.
In the meantime, however, if we abolish DRM completely, nobody gets to watch Netflix or TV on their computers.
That's fine, if that is what you want. You fight for your ideal world. There is always a chance you might win. (If that happens, I'll be sure to send you a thank-you post card!)
However, I believe the W3C is fighting for its own relevance. They know that without adopting some sort of DRM, people will just switch to proprietary "native" applications and be done with the Web. In fact, this is what is happening in the mobile space already.
I believe the W3C feel that at least standardizing access to the DRM black box is better than the free-for-all, amorphous plug-in system we currently have. By defining common interfaces, it may even facilitate the creation of such CDM's in additional platforms--especially if the communications infrastructure is already built into the browser.
Personally, I abhor DRM, but I also don't care much for the Single, Unified, All-Encompassing, One True Platform that is being cobbled from HTML and JavaScript. So, I don't care either way.
In the meantime, I and plenty of others, will continue to enjoy Netflix and iTunes from my AppleTV, and all other manners of evil-sanctioned eeky-DRM'ed entertainment from my other devices. You go ahead and fight to remove them from the Web. Good luck.
dZ.
LOL! Is that the best you can do, a snark remark about someone's old resume?
Where's your Wikipedia page? :P
And by "public" you mean online nerd-rage, right? I haven't heard a thing about it outside a few blog posts and Slashdot.
Most reviews were written before the release and were published after, so they turned out to be positive.
-dZ.
I keep reading this regurgitated as fact. I also read from some who apparently know what they are talking about that parts of the population is being modeled in independent simulations, while the rest is more emergent, and that the videos you mention capture only the anomalies.
Also,I understand that EA were forced to tone down the simulations because of the back-end availability problems.
You and others make it sound as if the game does nothing but 1980s Pac-Man AI.
-dZ.
Thanks for providing that point of view. It does not really challenge my point, but provides an insightful way of looking at it.
Thanks,
dZ.
That is not necessarily true. Users show a distinct disinclination to pay for crappy or mediocre content. Since the birth of capitalism, people have paid for stuff. Everybody buys stuff.
The problem is that some people believe that the Internet changed all that, as if it was some sort of magical entity that made content free.
The WWW started with all sorts of free content, because it was provided by enthusiasts and academics, who didn't mind giving it away for free.
And then it all went to hell in a hand-basket when some wanted to maintain the same level of traffic and engagement in the mass market while making money out of it.
Yes, that's the problem: greed. Every - Single - Site - built to make money follows the same exact formula: Make content, give it away for free, build a very large audience, and then--just when you think you've captured them irrevocably--make money out of them. Well, guess what, you've just accustomed your viewers to free content. You have turned them into "freetards" that feel entitled to it all.
Yes, it's the "Web 2.0" model: Let's build a site, start free, get lots and lots of hits, and... sell it to Facebook or Google. Ka-ching!
Oh, that's not working? How do we keep the lights on? Ads to the rescue! It's not about the content or the viewers anymore.
Making your business model depend on advertisements shifts the focus of your enterprise absolutely. As even Penny-Arcade mentioned when they changed their model, a lot of their creative and business effort goes into satisfying metrics that come from their actual customers: the advertisers. The viewers are just there to consume the advertisements and keep the coin rolling in.
Of course, you can find the honest enterprise that just got trapped by following the trends. That seems to be the case with Destructoid, whereas they built their site to depend on advertisements because, well, because "that's how everybody does it and there's no other way."
If you adopt a model that is tangentially related to your viewers, and at times actively hostile to them, is it any surprise that they will get pissed when you engage in an arms race against their standard behaviour? How dare you take umbrage at their distaste for something that is not germane to the experience of visiting your site?
On the other hand, begging to be white-listed is also distasteful. Guess what? If every "free," advertisement-supported site were to die tomorrow, the Internet will survive. People will just find something else to do. And eventually, someone may hit upon a model that is actually sustainable. It'll probably involve some sort of subscription or direct payment.
I, like most ad-blockers, would not mind at all paying for content. As a matter of fact, I do subscribe to some web sites and e-magazines. I don't pay for every single article I casually visit when I click on a link; and I just click on the link because it's there. I don't need it. I don't have to have it. And when I hit a paywall or something else that alienates me, I consider hard what's it worth to me. "Oh, it's just a link to an article in the WSJ about such-and-such, is it really that important for me to pay to read it?" Probably not.
Sometimes it is. I've ended up purchasing issues of the New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal for a single article.
So when all this sites band together and clamour "you're breaking the Internet! your adblock is killing the Internet!" I say, NO. We're just breaking the stupid, unsustainable cycle of web sites trying to make money by every other way except working for their readers.
-dZ.
>> companies that would grind you into crackers if given enough motive
Thanks for that. I can't wait to have an opportunity to use that phrase! :)
-dZ.
Two can play this game.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg?q=beg+the+question#beg__15
Check out definition #1.
Now, to avoid any further confusion in the future, make yourself acquainted with the following word: context.
-dZ.
I would imagine that the iPhone and the iPad would have shown that to Microsoft. Unfortunately, Ballmer is beyond the point of realization. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially when the dog is stuck in a rut playing the single trick it learned as a pup.
>> Poverty makes people do the strangest things.
Yeah, like not caring so much about using the Internet, whether it's free or not.
Are we talking developing countries or junkies?
How can you and others comment on how it "worked," when it's a visual effects sequence on a fantasy film? It wasn't intended to prove any theoretical process, and I doubt that the sequence was conceived by physicists; it was intended to look futuristic and cool.
dZ.
That's the point that is being missed in many of the other comments. It's not necessarily execution, and it is not necessarily programming experience or even knowledge. The key thing is, as you say, domain knowledge of the application of your ideas: understanding why it's good and novel, and how it will be used.
And that is also what is missed by a whole bunch of so-called "entrepreneurs." I've known a few people who, you know, want to live the Web 2.0 dream: come up with a fantastic idea, get some funding to design and implement it, and sell it to Google or Facebook or some other large enterprise--or even better, strike it rich and famous on its own merits!
The problem is that many of the "good" ideas they come up with are just contrived versions of "big-famous-site-but-with-X" or "I heard there's money in this industry so let's provide X for them." They completely ignore the fact that they know nothing about that particular market or industry, so how could they truly understand the needs and requirements of their target audience? They think that, since their specific idea hasn't been implemented yet, it is because nobody has had this truly awesome idea, so they must move fast.
On the other hand, had they been part of that market, like the electrician in your story, and had an itch to scratch; or had they taken the time to study a particular industry or market segment to try to address their needs in an innovative way; it wouldn't matter at all whether they know how to program or implement their idea.
-dZ.
Spoken like a true geek.
He never suggested that it would be "damaging," just inappropriate. For a business application, I agree.
-dZ.
Is one of them called Longhorn?
But that's the point, when people talk about improving health prospects by implementing new ways of handling waste, they don't go around saying "poo" or "pee."
It is therefore, not the vernacular.
Was the submission written by a 6 year-old?
Why is it that in a nerdy site like Slashdot, expressly dedicated to smart people, an article is written with childish words like "pee," "turd," and "poo"?
I'm in no way offended by the language, but by the lazy, crude, and idiotic way of using it. There are so many more intelligent ways to express oneself than using school-yard slang.
-dZ.
No toilets, but they are actively using Facebook?
The article does not clearly say how they count them. However, it does suggest that it is not a real, accurate quantification of actual live accounts--more like a statistical figure.
In the article, the figure is compared to the United Nations announcing the population on earth, so I guess it involves a lot of extrapolation based on subscription rates and usage loads.
If you read the article, it's a bit comforting that they have absolutely no idea how many real people are actively using the system, nor which one would be the specific "billionth" user.
Well, comforting if I used Facebook, which I don't, so I really don't care.
-dZ.
I wrote a red-black tree for fun the other day. What's the problem?
LOL!
Thank you for that. It made my day!
-dZ.