>> Does he think he can pay for this by subscription revenue only?
He may be able to pay for it with subscriptions revenue only, since the distribution costs and operational expenses are greatly reduced from that of a paper-printed daily publication.
The difference is the focus. The main "killer feature" pushed by Google on their Google TV is search. Any other set-top-box focuses on content but Google focuses on search, and maybe that's not the right approach.
Sure, Google TV may do all the other fancy stuff that all the other boxes do; but to many people the Google brand is synonymous with search (quite literally), and pushing this as the main feature of a set-top-box may invoke in their minds the effort and unnatural feel of sitting at their desks and having to figure out what magical incantations will summon forth what they are looking for; when all they want to do is sit there and watch a show.
There's a difference between Android et al and Google TV, mainly that the formers were "so-so" products introduced into existing markets; while it is still not clear whether searching and browsing the web from your couch is even a good idea. My guess is that it is not. It seems like people want their TV to passively watch professionally produced movies, shows, and sports. The web is an interesting diversion, but most people just like to sit there and turn off their brains when watching TV.
Google really want this to work, for their entire business model depends on web advertising. However, it may come to pass that, just like 3-D TV and Video Conferencing, the web on TV is just an interesting solution in search of a problem; and not the "killer app" everybody expects it to be.
Only for people with a genetic pre-disposition to a low tolerance of Perl. Those of us raised on a balanced diet of Perl and 3rd generation languages, find it distasteful and even harmful to stare at JavaScript code for too long.
I have a serious question: I've never heard of the vinegar-spinach combination as a recommendation. I'm not questioning your assertion, but would you mind offering some reference? I'd like to learn more about it.
Actually, it wasn't so much an honest mistake, but negligence. According to the article, the Judge said that he reminded the jurors every day not to perform any research on their own.
As someone else mentioned above, some people just think that the rules don't apply to them.
It was brought to the attention of the court that McDonald's was operating the coffee machines outside the recommended parameters of the manufacturer. It was also brought to light they did this repeatedly, actively ignoring concerns from employees or maintenance technicians. They did so in an effort to save money by brewing larger amounts of coffee, fewer times during the day, and then raising the temperature of the device to maintain the liquid hot for longer periods. They were supposed to brew the coffee every few hours, but decided to cut-corners instead. Complaints from employees and customers went unheeded.
This is negligence, pure and simple. It is irrelevant whether this particular customer had done something stupid, or should have known better. It was only relevant that McDonald's knew they were serving a consumable product at dangerously hot temperatures, but didn't care; and that the product this time caused physical damage, just as they were warned.
Food establishments have a responsibility to serve food products that are safe to consume, as is reasonable; even fast-food joints like McDonald's.
Yes, our justice system is dumb. Any system of justice which relies on ignorance and acting to prove someone's innocence needs to be rethought. And that may be the understatement of the year.
Our system does not rely "on ignorance." If she didn't understand a term which she deemed necessary in order to make a judgement, then it is her responsibility to ask the judge for clarification or additional material. It is up to the judge to decide which material is acceptable.
I haven't had the privilege to be a juror yet, but I know this much. Don't they teach basic civics or social studies anymore? If the jurors are not instructed on the rules and their responsibilities before hand, then this is the fault of the court, and a mistrial is probably warranted anyway. It was probably an oversight, or plain old negligence; it is not "our justice system" being dumb.
No. You want a jury of your peers, people like you. The experts are questioned during the trial to instruct the jurors in all the technical details necessary to make judgement.
I call your bullshit. I don't ever recall Steve Jobs saying that the iPhone does not have the processing power to run Flash. He has said that Flash is buggy, crashes often, and does not have good performance in mobile devices. (All of which I agree with.)
Basically, his position has been that Flash is too crappy for the iPhone, irrespective of whether the iPhone can run it or not.
>> Surely the point is that Chrome OS allows Google and other devs to push the boundaries of what functionality can be contained within a web browser i.e. Chrome.
But is that a real problem? If the same functionality already exists in native applications on various platforms, is it really novel and does it matter that it can be "contained within a web browser"?
>> If they can demonstrate that hey, you can do facetube/music/pics etc quite happily within a browser then a Google user could get a very similar experience across multiple devices with the same access to their data.
Again, why is this important? If users can already do facetube/music/pics in Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, and any other sort of device, including some television sets; why then is it even relevant to demonstrate that the same things--that people already do--can be done within a browser?
You're not even suggesting a superior experience, mind you. It seems generally acknowledged that the experience of moving a native application to a web-app is either inferior, or at best similar.
In this regard Google seems like a novice easily impressed by what he can do on the web. I remember the first time I coded an image roll-over in JavaScript sometime in the 90s: I thought that being able to make animations respond dynamically to user input was the coolest thing ever. That is, ignoring, of course, that complex, interactive multimedia had existed for a while already, and could do much more than that simple image trick. But the web was so spartan then that it felt as a significant accomplishment.
The lesson then, like with the so-called "cloud computing", is not that we should move everything to the web because now we can; but that perhaps the web is so spartan in many regards for a reason, and that there are already established platforms and other means to implement rich applications in more practical ways. That the WWW is finally catching up to them is really less exciting that what the hype suggests.
So your definition of "technological progress," by which you should measure any new development, is just to make something different every time, with no apparent goal towards improved processes or the betterment of the state of the art?
That's just change for the sake of change. If so, and there is no inherent benefit (for improvement is not germane to such progress), what's the attraction? Why should we care and accept it as "the future"?
Slashdot Mirror
>> Does he think he can pay for this by subscription revenue only?
He may be able to pay for it with subscriptions revenue only, since the distribution costs and operational expenses are greatly reduced from that of a paper-printed daily publication.
-dZ.
But those are not businesses, just extensions of search and ads.
-dZ.
The difference is the focus. The main "killer feature" pushed by Google on their Google TV is search. Any other set-top-box focuses on content but Google focuses on search, and maybe that's not the right approach.
Sure, Google TV may do all the other fancy stuff that all the other boxes do; but to many people the Google brand is synonymous with search (quite literally), and pushing this as the main feature of a set-top-box may invoke in their minds the effort and unnatural feel of sitting at their desks and having to figure out what magical incantations will summon forth what they are looking for; when all they want to do is sit there and watch a show.
-dZ.
Well, most people saw the original Apple TV (if they noticed it at all) and said, "meh, another DVR; and an expensive one at that!"
On the other hand, Google is basically been laughed out of the floor by the tech media and the non-believers.
-dZ.
There's a difference between Android et al and Google TV, mainly that the formers were "so-so" products introduced into existing markets; while it is still not clear whether searching and browsing the web from your couch is even a good idea. My guess is that it is not. It seems like people want their TV to passively watch professionally produced movies, shows, and sports. The web is an interesting diversion, but most people just like to sit there and turn off their brains when watching TV.
Google really want this to work, for their entire business model depends on web advertising. However, it may come to pass that, just like 3-D TV and Video Conferencing, the web on TV is just an interesting solution in search of a problem; and not the "killer app" everybody expects it to be.
-dZ.
Too late, Google engineers already wrote that book.
-dZ.
Only for people with a genetic pre-disposition to a low tolerance of Perl. Those of us raised on a balanced diet of Perl and 3rd generation languages, find it distasteful and even harmful to stare at JavaScript code for too long.
-dZ.
I have a serious question: I've never heard of the vinegar-spinach combination as a recommendation. I'm not questioning your assertion, but would you mind offering some reference? I'd like to learn more about it.
-dZ.
No, it was kept at a higher temperature than is safe or customary.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
-dZ.
So, your wife disagreed with the decision but accepted it anyway? That is irresponsible.
-dZ.
Actually, it wasn't so much an honest mistake, but negligence. According to the article, the Judge said that he reminded the jurors every day not to perform any research on their own.
As someone else mentioned above, some people just think that the rules don't apply to them.
-dZ.
It was brought to the attention of the court that McDonald's was operating the coffee machines outside the recommended parameters of the manufacturer. It was also brought to light they did this repeatedly, actively ignoring concerns from employees or maintenance technicians. They did so in an effort to save money by brewing larger amounts of coffee, fewer times during the day, and then raising the temperature of the device to maintain the liquid hot for longer periods. They were supposed to brew the coffee every few hours, but decided to cut-corners instead. Complaints from employees and customers went unheeded.
This is negligence, pure and simple. It is irrelevant whether this particular customer had done something stupid, or should have known better. It was only relevant that McDonald's knew they were serving a consumable product at dangerously hot temperatures, but didn't care; and that the product this time caused physical damage, just as they were warned.
Food establishments have a responsibility to serve food products that are safe to consume, as is reasonable; even fast-food joints like McDonald's.
-dZ.
Yes, our justice system is dumb. Any system of justice which relies on ignorance and acting to prove someone's innocence needs to be rethought. And that may be the understatement of the year.
Our system does not rely "on ignorance." If she didn't understand a term which she deemed necessary in order to make a judgement, then it is her responsibility to ask the judge for clarification or additional material. It is up to the judge to decide which material is acceptable.
I haven't had the privilege to be a juror yet, but I know this much. Don't they teach basic civics or social studies anymore? If the jurors are not instructed on the rules and their responsibilities before hand, then this is the fault of the court, and a mistrial is probably warranted anyway. It was probably an oversight, or plain old negligence; it is not "our justice system" being dumb.
-dZ.
No. You want a jury of your peers, people like you. The experts are questioned during the trial to instruct the jurors in all the technical details necessary to make judgement.
Oh, gawd. I weep for our future.
-dZ.
I call your bullshit. I don't ever recall Steve Jobs saying that the iPhone does not have the processing power to run Flash. He has said that Flash is buggy, crashes often, and does not have good performance in mobile devices. (All of which I agree with.)
Basically, his position has been that Flash is too crappy for the iPhone, irrespective of whether the iPhone can run it or not.
-dZ.
>> Surely the point is that Chrome OS allows Google and other devs to push the boundaries of what functionality can be contained within a web browser i.e. Chrome.
But is that a real problem? If the same functionality already exists in native applications on various platforms, is it really novel and does it matter that it can be "contained within a web browser"?
>> If they can demonstrate that hey, you can do facetube/music/pics etc quite happily within a browser then a Google user could get a very similar experience across multiple devices with the same access to their data.
Again, why is this important? If users can already do facetube/music/pics in Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, and any other sort of device, including some television sets; why then is it even relevant to demonstrate that the same things--that people already do--can be done within a browser?
You're not even suggesting a superior experience, mind you. It seems generally acknowledged that the experience of moving a native application to a web-app is either inferior, or at best similar.
In this regard Google seems like a novice easily impressed by what he can do on the web. I remember the first time I coded an image roll-over in JavaScript sometime in the 90s: I thought that being able to make animations respond dynamically to user input was the coolest thing ever. That is, ignoring, of course, that complex, interactive multimedia had existed for a while already, and could do much more than that simple image trick. But the web was so spartan then that it felt as a significant accomplishment.
The lesson then, like with the so-called "cloud computing", is not that we should move everything to the web because now we can; but that perhaps the web is so spartan in many regards for a reason, and that there are already established platforms and other means to implement rich applications in more practical ways. That the WWW is finally catching up to them is really less exciting that what the hype suggests.
-dZ.
Not being able to track you from power up to shutdown in your Mac, Windows or Linux box sounds like a real problem that actually exists... for Google.
-dZ.
>> So if you're using GMail, or Google Docs, you're using "the cloud". Or at least "a cloud".
So, by that definition, we've been using "the cloud" for a while now! We had Hotmail, Geocities, and all those "cloud services" way back then.
-dZ.
I like Chromeos, but I like Honey-Nut Chromeos better. Chromeos are even better when dunked in milk!
-dZ.
Are those... light-cycles?
-dZ.
Or awesomely 80s retro CGI.
-dZ.
Contrary to what many would say, information wants to be very much left alone, and not tossed around in meaningless memes.
-dZ.
I agree. A good back-up, and an operating system that supports full restoration, would also suffice to cover for that single special case.
-dZ.
So your definition of "technological progress," by which you should measure any new development, is just to make something different every time, with no apparent goal towards improved processes or the betterment of the state of the art?
That's just change for the sake of change. If so, and there is no inherent benefit (for improvement is not germane to such progress), what's the attraction? Why should we care and accept it as "the future"?
-dZ.
Because one state's terrorist is another's disenfranchised entity fighting oppression. It depends on the point of view.
-dZ.