I have a gmail account, and I've never seen it, even when signed in. Signed in just now and tested, and I get the normal link. Maybe it's a setting somewhere?
Not for me. My status bar shows the correct link, and when I right click and ask to copy the link, the correct link goes to my clipboard. Could it be a browser thing? What browser are you using?
Grudge? Microsoft essentially saved Apple by loaning it much needed $$$.
Not exactly a loan. Microsoft bought a bunch of Apple stock. Common wisdom at the time was that Microsoft needed to prop up some kind of paper tiger competitor to avoid further anti-trust restrictions.
But anyway that was after Jobs left and before he returned. When Apple started becoming successful again, Microsoft dropped Exchange support from their MacOS office suite and stopped developing IE. It doesn't seem like a friendly relationship. Apple still wants Microsoft Office for OSX for marketing purposes, and they want ActiveSync licenses for their iPhones. I don't see the relationship getting much closer than that.
There's a rumor that Apple is developing a version of iWork for the rumored tablet, so I'm not sure they'd even be all that interested in Microsoft making an iPhone office suite.
I think it's most likely that Apple doesn't trust Microsoft and won't partner with them except out of necessity. The relationship between the companies has been antagonistic from the start. Later, Microsoft screwed them with IE and the Mac BU over at Microsoft has been doing a crappy job for years. Their programs are all slow, crippled versions of the Windows stuff that don't follow OS conventions. Microsoft screwed their music-retailer partners and MP3 partners with the Plays-For-Sure debacle. Microsoft can't be trusted, and they've also made it clear that they intend to have their own smart phone. If Microsoft wants to take the iPhone down, they're not above tinkering with Bing to make the iPhone look worse than their own offering.
Can you provide an example? I ran a couple searches on Google, and the links provided went directly to the appropriate site.
Is it possible that the problem is with something Microsoft is doing on the subdomain you were searching? I read something were the author was referenced Microsoft doing something fishy to block/confuse Google searches to some of their sites, but it was light on details so I never figured out what he was referencing. Just wondering if the two might be related.
I don't think it makes sense, and I say this for a variety of types of reasons. First, Jobs seems like the sort of guy who holds a grudge, and he seems to not like Microsoft. That's just my read on the situation, but I wouldn't guess that he'd be eager to jump into bed with Microsoft without a strong reason.
Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone. It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google. If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google. People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine. The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much." So if Apple were to switch to something else, it really needs to be better. Not just arguably better or "some people think it's a little better," but decisively better in a way that Apple can count it as an advantage. I know Microsoft is offering payoffs for anyone who switches to Bing (not criticizing here, Google also pays for placement), but Apple tends to focus on customer experience as the most important thing, and I can't see Jobs opting for a substandard solution even if it came with a big cash bonus. Apple doesn't need the cash. And so far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that Bing is decisively superior to Google.
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses. Every partnership they have with Microsoft serves to undercut that, and announcing that Apple is actively switching to a Microsoft product because of its superiority would be dangerous to Apple's image.
I'm sure that Apple's relationship is uneasy, but I doubt it has turned to decisively to outright war that Apple would shoot itself in the foot to hurt Google. If I had to make a prediction, it would be that you'd see the introduction of Apple-branded alternatives without cutting out Google's products. Look at how they've dealt with Microsoft Office as an example (introducing iWork and supporting Exchange with Mail/iCal/Address book while still relying on MSOffice). I wouldn't doubt Apple's ability to create a search engine. I would sooner question whether they wanted to send people all over the country developing the maps for a Google Maps competitor, and whether they're actually interested in being as involved in advertising as Google is.
Well I meant actors who would not speak and would exist only for the sake of motion capture. What I mean is, you could have something like a "body actor" who does the body language through motion capture, a model who is scanned to provide the computer model for the character, and then a voice actor who does the voice. Three different people.
Like imagine you had a Pixar film where the facial expressions and body language is provided through motion capture of an actor who trains for that particular purpose, but you still keep separate voice actors. Now imagine you swap out the cartoonish characters for photorealistic representations of models. You could take a good-looking but talentless hack and give them the qualities of a better actor, and then pick a voice actor to match the look you've generated.
I don't like the idea, and I don't know if it would actually be cheaper, easier, or in any way better, but we're getting to the point of being able to do it.
depressing for the big stars who can no longer demand a jetplane or two as part of their fee...
I don't know about that. Right now, we're still talking about motion capture, which means you still need an actor. Great actors aren't just good looking, but they know how to improvise, use their bodies and voice, and bring life to the part. As advanced as Avatar was, there were still times that I was aware of it being CGI because the movements of the characters were too smooth. Even with motion capture and voice acting, there still wasn't enough... I don't know what. Imperfection.
So while this may be fine for altering someone's appearance (assuming we can get past the uncanny valley), but it won't be a straight-up replacement yet. I guess it could open the door for a new class of actor. Like right now they have voice actors, but maybe they'll have body actors or something. I guess we're already seeing that with actors like Andy Serkis, Doug Jones, and Ray Park (who hasn't done motion capture, but has had multiple parts that seem to boil down to "mute or nearly mute acrobatic fighter").
I suppose you're probably being ironic in that you know such filtering would never be possible, but it's not just because copyright isn't well defined enough or because computers can't detect copyrighted material with 100% certainty, but because human judgement is also necessary. Even in cases where the law *is* clear, life is not clear. The law is meant to approximate justice, but we have lawyers and judges and juries so that there's a "man in the loop" to address the times when the law strays too far from justice. Justice is the goal; lawfulness is not.
Besides, one of the things that the RIAA doesn't mention is that *a lot* of stuff on the Internet is under copyright, is copied by users, and yet is not violating anything. Take this post, for example. According to this site's terms, I own the copyright to this post. The fact that you're reading this means that you've downloaded this comment. You've copied it. You've copied something that I own the copyright to, but you haven't infringed. Further, you might quote this comment in your own post. In that case, you're not only copying but effectively distributing that copy. You and this website are distributing my copyrighted materials, but there is no copyright infringement.
If ISPs were to filter out *all* copyrighted material, then virtually no material would be left on the Internet. Even open source projects are still copyrighted; they're just distributed according to various open source licenses. Therefore, in order for the ISPs to begin to protect all copyright concerns, they would need to devise a system where every download of even the smallest size, once identified, would be referenced back to some kind of licensing server which could determine the terms of the license under which the content is being distributed. Even that would be extremely difficult since any piece of content may be distributed under different licenses, each license with different terms.
So in order for an ISP to prevent all copyright infringement, they would need to identify the user of a computer, the computer owner, the source for the download, and the owner of the copyright for every piece of material on the Internet. They would have to know the business relationships and deals between all 4 parties involved, and any other possible parties which may have a stake or may have licensed the material, thereby knowing whether a license was granted to anyone involved in the generation of a copy, thereby knowing whether the act of copying was legal. Having a large registry of data which identifies the copyright status of all material on the Internet and the licensing information of every party involved might give them enough information to filter, but then they'd still have to go through the process of running a query and filtering for every single transfer if they were truly interested in stopping copyright infringement. If they're only going to do it for movies and TV, then they should at least admit that they're asking the ISPs to become a copyright enforcement arm of those industries, and they are not asking the ISPs to protect copyright equitably.
And then of course, none of this addresses issues like "fair use".
I know that's the standard line and I would probably agree that, if they were to inspect every packet, then they probably should become liable for the traffic they choose to allow. However, I would not be OK with that setup. You'd quickly see the Internet turn into a for-pay broadcast network.
People need to be able to communicate privately and even anonymously. If it's possible for a society to be arranged to function without privacy and anonymity, then we don't yet have a precedent to look to.
Can you explain why it would be a mistake? If we were to assume for a second that performance on the client end would be exactly the same, then what would be the mistake in using standards instead of a proprietary stuff?
But anyway, it will provide some benefits. They're already encoding all their video in h264, but they're using Flash as the player, which is pretty inefficient. For one thing, Flash means no hardware decoding. Also, Flash itself can be a bit of a resource hog. Providing the same video stream but allowing the browser to hand it off to a better decoder will be much better.
Hardware h264 encoders exist, and I bet google would use them
They already do. Google encodes YouTube stuff in h264, and includes h264 support in Chrome. I could see something changing with the On2 purchase, but for now, h264 is a good bet.
And the fact that he's asking without providing that information shows he doesn't understand what he's getting into, at all.
Fair enough.
You mean kind of like the retarded assumption that someone without any experience or subject area knowledge can whip up a Linux based network on some large scale that performs better or as well as the properly selected commercial equivalent, for less money?
I didn't say it would scale or perform better. I'm suggesting that it might scale or perform well enough for their needs. However, depending on a person's particular needs, it may be that a custom solution will "perform" better, especially if your concept of performance isn't just raw throughput. It may be that they want customization or some particular whacky feature that can be hacked into Linux more easily than into a Cisco router.
Regardless, it's not as though every person and business always needs the absolute best-performing solution in every case. Often you just need something that performs well enough for now and the short-term future, ideally with some kind of upgrade path should upgrades be necessary.
Experts don't have to be expensive, they just need to be experts. And not using established tech without a SOLID reason IS WRONG.
What I'm trying to point out is that businesses rarely have unlimited cash or unlimited resources. Often, we have to make due with what we can afford and whatever solutions we can hack together. Somewhere down that road of hacking things together, you reach the point of being reckless and irresponsible, but where that point lies really depends on what you're doing. If your business is life-or-death, then your threshold for errors and down-time should be a lot lower. A lot of our jobs really aren't life or death, though.
Because its not profitable to do so.
No, it's not because it's not profitable, it's because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's not the greatest return on their investment. If they have a billion dollars to spend, they'll spend it where it will make them the most money. Every company does not enter every profitable market.
Whether something is profitable depends on a lot of things. Yes, it's absolutely true that, if you're a small business entering a industry that's dominated by large businesses, you'll be in danger of being run out of the industry. There's a whole other step before you get to the point of "it's so impossible to compete that it's not even worth trying."
Now maybe you're right about it, and in this particular instance, the telephone company and cable company have such a duopoly everywhere in the country that no one can hope to provide any kind of Internet service anywhere without being run out of business. Well ok then, that's a whole other problem. In that case, why even bother telling the guy to hire someone who knows what they're doing? Just tell him to get out of the business.
However, I still disagree with you about homegrown solutions. My company (I won't get into what exactly we do) according to your metaphor, we're making some of our own bolts without being in the bolt-making business. We do it because we can make better quality bolts more cheaply than existing commercial bolt-manufacturers provide.
In our case, our bolts are software created out of hacked-together open source solutions. We don't sell the software and it doesn't get distributed outside of the company, we just built and maintain it for our own purposes. We provide a service that's also provided by some VERY large and very evil companies, and we scrape by because we aren't competing with them directly. There are also commercial packages that do what our software does, but ours does it better, and by "better", I mean it better serves the particular needs of our particular clients. We've even had a large competitor try to put us out of business with an expensive commercial pack
"State of the art" isn't required, but it doesn't hurt. One move that could be smart, assuming their console sales are flagging, is to not produce a Wii 2 (where Wii:Wii 2::XBox:XBox360) but produce something more like a Wii Rev2 (more like Wii:Wii Rev2::Playstation2:Playstation2 slim).
So they could keep both backward and forward compatibility with all the games and peripherals, but just upgrade the hardware. They could provide some extra features like HD upscaling of games, DVD playback (or even Bluray), HDMI-out, and any other tweaks or upgrades they can think of.
I don't know of a game console that has done this sort of thing, where they add features but keep backward and forward compatibility with the last-generation console, but it seems like it could be a good idea.
On the other hand, I bet then everyone would start asking them to allow developers to break compatibility with the past console to take advantage of the newer hardware, so maybe they wouldn't be able to maintain their position of complete compatibility with the previous version.
I think you have a good point, but I don't necessarily agree. First, we don't know what market the submitter plans on operating in or who his clientele are. We don't know what his experience is, how much resources he has, or exactly what level of service he intends to offer. Like the guy who criticized the submitter for refusing to buy a $300k Cisco router, I think you committed a common mistake in thinking that IT is just a series of 1-size-fits-all solutions, and that if you going to use the "right" solution to each problem, you shouldn't bother.
The era of entrepreneurship and hacking things together isn't over, and it probably never will be. Our tools and hacks may become more advanced, but hopefully there will always be people trying out new techniques and business models, testing new start-up technology, and finding different ways of accomplishing the same goals. The answer isn't always to pay an expensive expert or to use established tech.
As for this:
You could get by with this in the late 90s, but when you're going to compete with cell phone companies, cable companies and standard POTS companies, you probably need to have a bit of a clue.
That's true, but neither my phone company nor my cable company provide wireless access where I live. Cell phone companies provide wireless, but it's pretty spotty and slow, and I live in NYC. There are plenty of areas in the US where no service is available except through dialup. Obviously these large companies aren't interested in competing in all markets, so if you come up with a business model and think you can make it work, then I say go for it.
There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.
It's not a huge problem, really. When most people are talking about HTML5, they're just talking about the embedded video improvements, which I believe are already implemented somehow in all the major browsers except IE. People have already come up with code that allows websites to try to stream h264 via HTML 5 if possible, if not fall back to Theora via HTML 5, and if that doesn't work fall back to Flash.
So yes, there is a format war, but Google can either choose to support one format (which might make a big difference in that war) or choose to support all of the formats. I've been hoping that they'd release some of the newer formats from On2 and perhaps allow the whole format war to get settled, but we haven't seen any sign of that yet.
For anyone who doesn't know, the format war is between Ogg Theora, which is open source and patent-free, and h264, which offers better quality (at least according to many people) and wider hardware support but is patent encumbered. Ogg Theora is based on an old format from a company called On2, but On2 has newer/better formats which are considered to be equal in quality to h264. Google recently bought On2, and there were rumors that they might be planning to open source the encoders/decoders and wave all patent licensing fees, which might settle the issue decisively.
I would assume that they don't want to put any more equipment up there than they have to. It's expensive to get stuff into space. So they might not want a separate mail server.
They probably don't want a live link, because they said they wanted to do really strict filtering to keep bandwidth low.
Actually, the "government" is scanning random people at the airport. Who do you think the TSA is? They're the ones operating the scanners in the "security checks". They are the government
My point of contrast wasn't supposed to be that "it's not the government screening people", but rather "the government isn't stopping random people at the airport and searching them." Yes, I was particularly referring to friends and family picking people up and dropping people off, since those people are not stopped and searched. It's only people who are attempting to board a plane who are required to pass through security screening.
I can't claim to have a thorough knowledge of all the legal arguments around these sorts of things, but it's not uncommon. I had to pass through a screening to get into the courthouse when I served for jury duty. I had to pass through security to go to the social security office. Both of these required some kind of search. We accept it, and I'd be very surprised if anyone (even the founding fathers themselves) believed that it was unconstitutional for the government to require security screening in order to gain access to particular places.
Actually, I also think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to argue that you shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane.
I think it's a reasonable suggestion too, which is why I brought it up. However, I'd like to point out that you keep saying "it's a reasonable suggestion" without actually claiming to be in favor of it. Do you actually believe we shouldn't have any kind of search or security checkpoint before boarding a plane?
I gather that the idea is that the OST stores the messages more efficiently than if you were trying to transfer individual messages. That's an important issue if you're operating with limited bandwidth. Also, the article implies that the messages are basically being hand-sorted into the OST file to prevent any waste in bandwidth.
Beyond that, there's the issue of what protocols are best for this purpose. The article doesn't go into detail about how the OST files are being uploaded, but the protocol may have influenced the decision. For example, how does IMAP compare with FTP or HTTP in terms of efficiency? Does IMAP allow you to resume interrupted transfers? Does IMAP allow you to compress the data before sending it?
This just sounds like someone wanted to use Microsoft Outlook no matter what and hacked together a procedure to use it even though there are way better approaches. And isn't the whole point of Outlook that it has a built in calendar and meeting request system and network folders? They're not even using those more advanced parts of it, they just need email.
Are you sure they're not using the calendar or contact management? That stuff is stored in the OST file too. It doesn't sound to me like they were just fixated on Outlook, since they could have set up Outlook to download the messages through POP or IMAP if they had wanted to.
Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.
Clearly you do, since your whole argument to this point has been "the only difference between now and these machines is embarrassment"--an argument that ignores the entirety of the problem.
Right, so obviously I don't think that the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.
You've missed the whole point in case law regarding when it's permissible to be subjected to compulsory search beyond reason.
No, you've missed the point: You keep talking about how "invasive" the searches are as being a determining factor, but how "invasive" a search is has nothing to do with whether it's thorough or effective. If someone is already being permitted to pat you down, then no one has a problem with that person also using a metal detector. None of us balk at airport security using a metal detector, even though it's more effective at finding metal than a pat-down, and metal detectors even use signals that penetrate your clothes, and no one complains about metal detectors being "strip searches". As far as I know, there's also no legal way in which metal detectors are considered more invasive than a pat down.
No, what makes people view these body scanners as "more invasive" is specifically the fact that it allows others to *see* under your clothes, i.e. to get a visual representation of what everything under your clothes looks like.
Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all.
Yes it does. You haven't actually committed any action, but the freedom of speech doesn't necessarily extend to threats. Yes, people often use the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are actually several issues where the "freedom of speech" does not allow you to simply say whatever you like. You also aren't exactly free to talk with people about planning crimes. You can also get in trouble for slander, libel, or perjury.
This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state.
Right, but the point is that they're agents of the state who are permitted to conduct searches without probable cause, and that's an example of your 4th amendment right not being absolute, but being subject to context.
The airline may refuse you passage as part of their own terms, perhaps, but the government has no right to search you...We consent to the searches, and therefore they are legal. If one person doesn't consent, the airline may be able to deny them boarding...
Right, so you're saying that the airlines can require you to get these body scans or refuse you passage, but the government can't force you to get the scan whether you want passage on the plane or not. How is this not exactly what we're talking about?
I don't think anyone had the expectation that the government would be scanning random people at the airport, but that the body scan would be part of the security checks that are conducted before you're allowed to go to your gate.
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.
Why? What's the difference?
Umm... I want to get a on plane, and I understand that in order to be allowed on a plane, I have to submit to a search. I can refuse to be searched, and then I won't be allowed on my plane. Again, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane, go ahead and argue that. I don't think you will, though.
But that's a very subjective thing, and that idea of being "stripped of your dignity" is a very personal thing.
And the law is sometimes decided by fairly subjective things, so what's your point? The law often judges based on intent and reasonable standards. How do you think "probable cause" is determined? On a case by case basis, based on reasonable judgements. Yes, yes, there are precedents that can guide people making those decisions, but every case is still an exercise of someone's judgement. Part of the reasons we have judges and juries are to make reasonable decisions instead of merely deciding everything on technicalities.
But I don't necessarily think that any one person's opinion should determine policy, nor do I think that how you feel about something is necessarily applicable to how other people might feel.
Did I say it should? Geeze, I think you should settle down, go back, and re-read my post if you really want to continue arguing. My whole point is that I don't *personally* think I would find these scans to be more invasive than a pat-down, but not only shouldn't that judgement necessarily apply, it might even be that there might even be something wrong with that judgement (hence claiming that I might have some kind of "mental defect", which wasn't intended to be taken as a legal judgement of insanity). In your rush to swoop in and save the day with your divine level of intelligence, I suspect that you didn't actually read and consider what I was saying.
It certainly is. A pat down is a search, and requiring you to empty your pockets is a search. Requiring you to take off your jacket and put it through an xray machine is a search.
Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant. Human dignity is part of the scheme of "inalienable human rights" that the bill of rights was based on.
Now you may not agree that this sort of humiliation isn't the chief issue, but it's certainly an issue. It's not a straw man. Check what the Supreme Court had to say about the recent case where a 13 year old was strip-searched on suspicion of possessing drugs. Their reasoning was not that the girl should not have been searched, but that a strip-search in particular is traumatic, degrading, and humiliating, and that it should therefore require at least a strong suspicion of serious danger.
Now if you want to argue that people should not be subjected to a search at the airport, then you should have a problem with the searches that already take place. Once you're being searched, though, you're being searched. If the objection to these body scans is not that they're humiliating and degrading, then I don't know what the objection is. That they're too effective? The objection to body cavity searches isn't that body cavity searches are too effective. The objection isn't "but I might be hiding something in there" or "but I have a special right to privacy in my body cavities that requires a special warrant." It's specifically that the process is degrading, traumatic, and invasive, and that we don't want to subject people to it without good reason.
So if you want to argue that this scanning is too humiliating and degrading, then even though I don't feel that way, I think it's a valid argument. If your argument is simply that we have a right against searches and therefore shouldn't be searched at airports, then I think you also have to argue that we shouldn't be searched at airports.
Lack of ambition, ennui, a juvenile inability to focus, as well as a difficulty being happy with much of anything. I'd attribute it in myself to a lack of hardship and challenge, and believe me it's a bastard to cope with on a day to day basis.
You can attribute it to a lack of hardship, but I suspect that it has more to do with mankind being terrific at discovering misery in everything. People with lots of hardship can also have difficulty being happy with much of anything, but it doesn't stand out as much and they seem to have an excuse. What's more, they just don't have time to worry about being unhappy, because they're dealing with their hardships.
So the trick isn't to defeat your ennui by rationalizing that you only have it because of crappy upbringing. Instead, try to be thankful that ennui is your largest problem. You could have all the same lack of ambition, ennui, inability to focus, and difficulty being happy, but be poor and miserable on top of that. Then where would you be?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a gmail account, and I've never seen it, even when signed in. Signed in just now and tested, and I get the normal link. Maybe it's a setting somewhere?
Not for me. My status bar shows the correct link, and when I right click and ask to copy the link, the correct link goes to my clipboard. Could it be a browser thing? What browser are you using?
Grudge? Microsoft essentially saved Apple by loaning it much needed $$$.
Not exactly a loan. Microsoft bought a bunch of Apple stock. Common wisdom at the time was that Microsoft needed to prop up some kind of paper tiger competitor to avoid further anti-trust restrictions.
But anyway that was after Jobs left and before he returned. When Apple started becoming successful again, Microsoft dropped Exchange support from their MacOS office suite and stopped developing IE. It doesn't seem like a friendly relationship. Apple still wants Microsoft Office for OSX for marketing purposes, and they want ActiveSync licenses for their iPhones. I don't see the relationship getting much closer than that.
Depends on how quickly you want to get up and running. Incubating a new business takes longer than buying one that's already operational.
There's a rumor that Apple is developing a version of iWork for the rumored tablet, so I'm not sure they'd even be all that interested in Microsoft making an iPhone office suite.
I think it's most likely that Apple doesn't trust Microsoft and won't partner with them except out of necessity. The relationship between the companies has been antagonistic from the start. Later, Microsoft screwed them with IE and the Mac BU over at Microsoft has been doing a crappy job for years. Their programs are all slow, crippled versions of the Windows stuff that don't follow OS conventions. Microsoft screwed their music-retailer partners and MP3 partners with the Plays-For-Sure debacle. Microsoft can't be trusted, and they've also made it clear that they intend to have their own smart phone. If Microsoft wants to take the iPhone down, they're not above tinkering with Bing to make the iPhone look worse than their own offering.
Can you provide an example? I ran a couple searches on Google, and the links provided went directly to the appropriate site.
Is it possible that the problem is with something Microsoft is doing on the subdomain you were searching? I read something were the author was referenced Microsoft doing something fishy to block/confuse Google searches to some of their sites, but it was light on details so I never figured out what he was referencing. Just wondering if the two might be related.
I don't think it makes sense, and I say this for a variety of types of reasons. First, Jobs seems like the sort of guy who holds a grudge, and he seems to not like Microsoft. That's just my read on the situation, but I wouldn't guess that he'd be eager to jump into bed with Microsoft without a strong reason.
Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone. It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google. If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google. People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine. The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much." So if Apple were to switch to something else, it really needs to be better. Not just arguably better or "some people think it's a little better," but decisively better in a way that Apple can count it as an advantage. I know Microsoft is offering payoffs for anyone who switches to Bing (not criticizing here, Google also pays for placement), but Apple tends to focus on customer experience as the most important thing, and I can't see Jobs opting for a substandard solution even if it came with a big cash bonus. Apple doesn't need the cash. And so far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that Bing is decisively superior to Google.
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses. Every partnership they have with Microsoft serves to undercut that, and announcing that Apple is actively switching to a Microsoft product because of its superiority would be dangerous to Apple's image.
I'm sure that Apple's relationship is uneasy, but I doubt it has turned to decisively to outright war that Apple would shoot itself in the foot to hurt Google. If I had to make a prediction, it would be that you'd see the introduction of Apple-branded alternatives without cutting out Google's products. Look at how they've dealt with Microsoft Office as an example (introducing iWork and supporting Exchange with Mail/iCal/Address book while still relying on MSOffice). I wouldn't doubt Apple's ability to create a search engine. I would sooner question whether they wanted to send people all over the country developing the maps for a Google Maps competitor, and whether they're actually interested in being as involved in advertising as Google is.
Well I meant actors who would not speak and would exist only for the sake of motion capture. What I mean is, you could have something like a "body actor" who does the body language through motion capture, a model who is scanned to provide the computer model for the character, and then a voice actor who does the voice. Three different people.
Like imagine you had a Pixar film where the facial expressions and body language is provided through motion capture of an actor who trains for that particular purpose, but you still keep separate voice actors. Now imagine you swap out the cartoonish characters for photorealistic representations of models. You could take a good-looking but talentless hack and give them the qualities of a better actor, and then pick a voice actor to match the look you've generated.
I don't like the idea, and I don't know if it would actually be cheaper, easier, or in any way better, but we're getting to the point of being able to do it.
depressing for the big stars who can no longer demand a jetplane or two as part of their fee...
I don't know about that. Right now, we're still talking about motion capture, which means you still need an actor. Great actors aren't just good looking, but they know how to improvise, use their bodies and voice, and bring life to the part. As advanced as Avatar was, there were still times that I was aware of it being CGI because the movements of the characters were too smooth. Even with motion capture and voice acting, there still wasn't enough... I don't know what. Imperfection.
So while this may be fine for altering someone's appearance (assuming we can get past the uncanny valley), but it won't be a straight-up replacement yet. I guess it could open the door for a new class of actor. Like right now they have voice actors, but maybe they'll have body actors or something. I guess we're already seeing that with actors like Andy Serkis, Doug Jones, and Ray Park (who hasn't done motion capture, but has had multiple parts that seem to boil down to "mute or nearly mute acrobatic fighter").
I suppose you're probably being ironic in that you know such filtering would never be possible, but it's not just because copyright isn't well defined enough or because computers can't detect copyrighted material with 100% certainty, but because human judgement is also necessary. Even in cases where the law *is* clear, life is not clear. The law is meant to approximate justice, but we have lawyers and judges and juries so that there's a "man in the loop" to address the times when the law strays too far from justice. Justice is the goal; lawfulness is not.
Besides, one of the things that the RIAA doesn't mention is that *a lot* of stuff on the Internet is under copyright, is copied by users, and yet is not violating anything. Take this post, for example. According to this site's terms, I own the copyright to this post. The fact that you're reading this means that you've downloaded this comment. You've copied it. You've copied something that I own the copyright to, but you haven't infringed. Further, you might quote this comment in your own post. In that case, you're not only copying but effectively distributing that copy. You and this website are distributing my copyrighted materials, but there is no copyright infringement.
If ISPs were to filter out *all* copyrighted material, then virtually no material would be left on the Internet. Even open source projects are still copyrighted; they're just distributed according to various open source licenses. Therefore, in order for the ISPs to begin to protect all copyright concerns, they would need to devise a system where every download of even the smallest size, once identified, would be referenced back to some kind of licensing server which could determine the terms of the license under which the content is being distributed. Even that would be extremely difficult since any piece of content may be distributed under different licenses, each license with different terms.
So in order for an ISP to prevent all copyright infringement, they would need to identify the user of a computer, the computer owner, the source for the download, and the owner of the copyright for every piece of material on the Internet. They would have to know the business relationships and deals between all 4 parties involved, and any other possible parties which may have a stake or may have licensed the material, thereby knowing whether a license was granted to anyone involved in the generation of a copy, thereby knowing whether the act of copying was legal. Having a large registry of data which identifies the copyright status of all material on the Internet and the licensing information of every party involved might give them enough information to filter, but then they'd still have to go through the process of running a query and filtering for every single transfer if they were truly interested in stopping copyright infringement. If they're only going to do it for movies and TV, then they should at least admit that they're asking the ISPs to become a copyright enforcement arm of those industries, and they are not asking the ISPs to protect copyright equitably.
And then of course, none of this addresses issues like "fair use".
I know that's the standard line and I would probably agree that, if they were to inspect every packet, then they probably should become liable for the traffic they choose to allow. However, I would not be OK with that setup. You'd quickly see the Internet turn into a for-pay broadcast network.
People need to be able to communicate privately and even anonymously. If it's possible for a society to be arranged to function without privacy and anonymity, then we don't yet have a precedent to look to.
Can you explain why it would be a mistake? If we were to assume for a second that performance on the client end would be exactly the same, then what would be the mistake in using standards instead of a proprietary stuff?
But anyway, it will provide some benefits. They're already encoding all their video in h264, but they're using Flash as the player, which is pretty inefficient. For one thing, Flash means no hardware decoding. Also, Flash itself can be a bit of a resource hog. Providing the same video stream but allowing the browser to hand it off to a better decoder will be much better.
Hardware h264 encoders exist, and I bet google would use them
They already do. Google encodes YouTube stuff in h264, and includes h264 support in Chrome. I could see something changing with the On2 purchase, but for now, h264 is a good bet.
And the fact that he's asking without providing that information shows he doesn't understand what he's getting into, at all.
Fair enough.
You mean kind of like the retarded assumption that someone without any experience or subject area knowledge can whip up a Linux based network on some large scale that performs better or as well as the properly selected commercial equivalent, for less money?
I didn't say it would scale or perform better. I'm suggesting that it might scale or perform well enough for their needs. However, depending on a person's particular needs, it may be that a custom solution will "perform" better, especially if your concept of performance isn't just raw throughput. It may be that they want customization or some particular whacky feature that can be hacked into Linux more easily than into a Cisco router.
Regardless, it's not as though every person and business always needs the absolute best-performing solution in every case. Often you just need something that performs well enough for now and the short-term future, ideally with some kind of upgrade path should upgrades be necessary.
Experts don't have to be expensive, they just need to be experts. And not using established tech without a SOLID reason IS WRONG.
What I'm trying to point out is that businesses rarely have unlimited cash or unlimited resources. Often, we have to make due with what we can afford and whatever solutions we can hack together. Somewhere down that road of hacking things together, you reach the point of being reckless and irresponsible, but where that point lies really depends on what you're doing. If your business is life-or-death, then your threshold for errors and down-time should be a lot lower. A lot of our jobs really aren't life or death, though.
Because its not profitable to do so.
No, it's not because it's not profitable, it's because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it's not the greatest return on their investment. If they have a billion dollars to spend, they'll spend it where it will make them the most money. Every company does not enter every profitable market.
Whether something is profitable depends on a lot of things. Yes, it's absolutely true that, if you're a small business entering a industry that's dominated by large businesses, you'll be in danger of being run out of the industry. There's a whole other step before you get to the point of "it's so impossible to compete that it's not even worth trying."
Now maybe you're right about it, and in this particular instance, the telephone company and cable company have such a duopoly everywhere in the country that no one can hope to provide any kind of Internet service anywhere without being run out of business. Well ok then, that's a whole other problem. In that case, why even bother telling the guy to hire someone who knows what they're doing? Just tell him to get out of the business.
However, I still disagree with you about homegrown solutions. My company (I won't get into what exactly we do) according to your metaphor, we're making some of our own bolts without being in the bolt-making business. We do it because we can make better quality bolts more cheaply than existing commercial bolt-manufacturers provide.
In our case, our bolts are software created out of hacked-together open source solutions. We don't sell the software and it doesn't get distributed outside of the company, we just built and maintain it for our own purposes. We provide a service that's also provided by some VERY large and very evil companies, and we scrape by because we aren't competing with them directly. There are also commercial packages that do what our software does, but ours does it better, and by "better", I mean it better serves the particular needs of our particular clients. We've even had a large competitor try to put us out of business with an expensive commercial pack
It also helps if you don't have much market share to begin with. It's easier to make gains when you have nowhere to go but up.
"State of the art" isn't required, but it doesn't hurt. One move that could be smart, assuming their console sales are flagging, is to not produce a Wii 2 (where Wii:Wii 2::XBox:XBox360) but produce something more like a Wii Rev2 (more like Wii:Wii Rev2::Playstation2:Playstation2 slim).
So they could keep both backward and forward compatibility with all the games and peripherals, but just upgrade the hardware. They could provide some extra features like HD upscaling of games, DVD playback (or even Bluray), HDMI-out, and any other tweaks or upgrades they can think of.
I don't know of a game console that has done this sort of thing, where they add features but keep backward and forward compatibility with the last-generation console, but it seems like it could be a good idea.
On the other hand, I bet then everyone would start asking them to allow developers to break compatibility with the past console to take advantage of the newer hardware, so maybe they wouldn't be able to maintain their position of complete compatibility with the previous version.
I think you have a good point, but I don't necessarily agree. First, we don't know what market the submitter plans on operating in or who his clientele are. We don't know what his experience is, how much resources he has, or exactly what level of service he intends to offer. Like the guy who criticized the submitter for refusing to buy a $300k Cisco router, I think you committed a common mistake in thinking that IT is just a series of 1-size-fits-all solutions, and that if you going to use the "right" solution to each problem, you shouldn't bother.
The era of entrepreneurship and hacking things together isn't over, and it probably never will be. Our tools and hacks may become more advanced, but hopefully there will always be people trying out new techniques and business models, testing new start-up technology, and finding different ways of accomplishing the same goals. The answer isn't always to pay an expensive expert or to use established tech.
As for this:
You could get by with this in the late 90s, but when you're going to compete with cell phone companies, cable companies and standard POTS companies, you probably need to have a bit of a clue.
That's true, but neither my phone company nor my cable company provide wireless access where I live. Cell phone companies provide wireless, but it's pretty spotty and slow, and I live in NYC. There are plenty of areas in the US where no service is available except through dialup. Obviously these large companies aren't interested in competing in all markets, so if you come up with a business model and think you can make it work, then I say go for it.
There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.
It's not a huge problem, really. When most people are talking about HTML5, they're just talking about the embedded video improvements, which I believe are already implemented somehow in all the major browsers except IE. People have already come up with code that allows websites to try to stream h264 via HTML 5 if possible, if not fall back to Theora via HTML 5, and if that doesn't work fall back to Flash.
So yes, there is a format war, but Google can either choose to support one format (which might make a big difference in that war) or choose to support all of the formats. I've been hoping that they'd release some of the newer formats from On2 and perhaps allow the whole format war to get settled, but we haven't seen any sign of that yet.
For anyone who doesn't know, the format war is between Ogg Theora, which is open source and patent-free, and h264, which offers better quality (at least according to many people) and wider hardware support but is patent encumbered. Ogg Theora is based on an old format from a company called On2, but On2 has newer/better formats which are considered to be equal in quality to h264. Google recently bought On2, and there were rumors that they might be planning to open source the encoders/decoders and wave all patent licensing fees, which might settle the issue decisively.
Except for a couple things:
Actually, the "government" is scanning random people at the airport. Who do you think the TSA is? They're the ones operating the scanners in the "security checks". They are the government
My point of contrast wasn't supposed to be that "it's not the government screening people", but rather "the government isn't stopping random people at the airport and searching them." Yes, I was particularly referring to friends and family picking people up and dropping people off, since those people are not stopped and searched. It's only people who are attempting to board a plane who are required to pass through security screening.
I can't claim to have a thorough knowledge of all the legal arguments around these sorts of things, but it's not uncommon. I had to pass through a screening to get into the courthouse when I served for jury duty. I had to pass through security to go to the social security office. Both of these required some kind of search. We accept it, and I'd be very surprised if anyone (even the founding fathers themselves) believed that it was unconstitutional for the government to require security screening in order to gain access to particular places.
Actually, I also think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to argue that you shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane.
I think it's a reasonable suggestion too, which is why I brought it up. However, I'd like to point out that you keep saying "it's a reasonable suggestion" without actually claiming to be in favor of it. Do you actually believe we shouldn't have any kind of search or security checkpoint before boarding a plane?
I gather that the idea is that the OST stores the messages more efficiently than if you were trying to transfer individual messages. That's an important issue if you're operating with limited bandwidth. Also, the article implies that the messages are basically being hand-sorted into the OST file to prevent any waste in bandwidth.
Beyond that, there's the issue of what protocols are best for this purpose. The article doesn't go into detail about how the OST files are being uploaded, but the protocol may have influenced the decision. For example, how does IMAP compare with FTP or HTTP in terms of efficiency? Does IMAP allow you to resume interrupted transfers? Does IMAP allow you to compress the data before sending it?
This just sounds like someone wanted to use Microsoft Outlook no matter what and hacked together a procedure to use it even though there are way better approaches. And isn't the whole point of Outlook that it has a built in calendar and meeting request system and network folders? They're not even using those more advanced parts of it, they just need email.
Are you sure they're not using the calendar or contact management? That stuff is stored in the OST file too. It doesn't sound to me like they were just fixated on Outlook, since they could have set up Outlook to download the messages through POP or IMAP if they had wanted to.
Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.
Clearly you do, since your whole argument to this point has been "the only difference between now and these machines is embarrassment"--an argument that ignores the entirety of the problem.
Right, so obviously I don't think that the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.
You've missed the whole point in case law regarding when it's permissible to be subjected to compulsory search beyond reason.
No, you've missed the point: You keep talking about how "invasive" the searches are as being a determining factor, but how "invasive" a search is has nothing to do with whether it's thorough or effective. If someone is already being permitted to pat you down, then no one has a problem with that person also using a metal detector. None of us balk at airport security using a metal detector, even though it's more effective at finding metal than a pat-down, and metal detectors even use signals that penetrate your clothes, and no one complains about metal detectors being "strip searches". As far as I know, there's also no legal way in which metal detectors are considered more invasive than a pat down.
No, what makes people view these body scanners as "more invasive" is specifically the fact that it allows others to *see* under your clothes, i.e. to get a visual representation of what everything under your clothes looks like.
Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all.
Yes it does. You haven't actually committed any action, but the freedom of speech doesn't necessarily extend to threats. Yes, people often use the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are actually several issues where the "freedom of speech" does not allow you to simply say whatever you like. You also aren't exactly free to talk with people about planning crimes. You can also get in trouble for slander, libel, or perjury.
This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state.
Right, but the point is that they're agents of the state who are permitted to conduct searches without probable cause, and that's an example of your 4th amendment right not being absolute, but being subject to context.
The airline may refuse you passage as part of their own terms, perhaps, but the government has no right to search you...We consent to the searches, and therefore they are legal. If one person doesn't consent, the airline may be able to deny them boarding...
Right, so you're saying that the airlines can require you to get these body scans or refuse you passage, but the government can't force you to get the scan whether you want passage on the plane or not. How is this not exactly what we're talking about?
I don't think anyone had the expectation that the government would be scanning random people at the airport, but that the body scan would be part of the security checks that are conducted before you're allowed to go to your gate.
If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.
Why? What's the difference?
Umm... I want to get a on plane, and I understand that in order to be allowed on a plane, I have to submit to a search. I can refuse to be searched, and then I won't be allowed on my plane. Again, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane, go ahead and argue that. I don't think you will, though.
But that's a very subjective thing, and that idea of being "stripped of your dignity" is a very personal thing.
And the law is sometimes decided by fairly subjective things, so what's your point? The law often judges based on intent and reasonable standards. How do you think "probable cause" is determined? On a case by case basis, based on reasonable judgements. Yes, yes, there are precedents that can guide people making those decisions, but every case is still an exercise of someone's judgement. Part of the reasons we have judges and juries are to make reasonable decisions instead of merely deciding everything on technicalities.
But I don't necessarily think that any one person's opinion should determine policy, nor do I think that how you feel about something is necessarily applicable to how other people might feel.
Did I say it should? Geeze, I think you should settle down, go back, and re-read my post if you really want to continue arguing. My whole point is that I don't *personally* think I would find these scans to be more invasive than a pat-down, but not only shouldn't that judgement necessarily apply, it might even be that there might even be something wrong with that judgement (hence claiming that I might have some kind of "mental defect", which wasn't intended to be taken as a legal judgement of insanity). In your rush to swoop in and save the day with your divine level of intelligence, I suspect that you didn't actually read and consider what I was saying.
No, they aren't. A pat down isn't a search.
It certainly is. A pat down is a search, and requiring you to empty your pockets is a search. Requiring you to take off your jacket and put it through an xray machine is a search.
Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant. Human dignity is part of the scheme of "inalienable human rights" that the bill of rights was based on.
Now you may not agree that this sort of humiliation isn't the chief issue, but it's certainly an issue. It's not a straw man. Check what the Supreme Court had to say about the recent case where a 13 year old was strip-searched on suspicion of possessing drugs. Their reasoning was not that the girl should not have been searched, but that a strip-search in particular is traumatic, degrading, and humiliating, and that it should therefore require at least a strong suspicion of serious danger.
Now if you want to argue that people should not be subjected to a search at the airport, then you should have a problem with the searches that already take place. Once you're being searched, though, you're being searched. If the objection to these body scans is not that they're humiliating and degrading, then I don't know what the objection is. That they're too effective? The objection to body cavity searches isn't that body cavity searches are too effective. The objection isn't "but I might be hiding something in there" or "but I have a special right to privacy in my body cavities that requires a special warrant." It's specifically that the process is degrading, traumatic, and invasive, and that we don't want to subject people to it without good reason.
So if you want to argue that this scanning is too humiliating and degrading, then even though I don't feel that way, I think it's a valid argument. If your argument is simply that we have a right against searches and therefore shouldn't be searched at airports, then I think you also have to argue that we shouldn't be searched at airports.
Lack of ambition, ennui, a juvenile inability to focus, as well as a difficulty being happy with much of anything. I'd attribute it in myself to a lack of hardship and challenge, and believe me it's a bastard to cope with on a day to day basis.
You can attribute it to a lack of hardship, but I suspect that it has more to do with mankind being terrific at discovering misery in everything. People with lots of hardship can also have difficulty being happy with much of anything, but it doesn't stand out as much and they seem to have an excuse. What's more, they just don't have time to worry about being unhappy, because they're dealing with their hardships.
So the trick isn't to defeat your ennui by rationalizing that you only have it because of crappy upbringing. Instead, try to be thankful that ennui is your largest problem. You could have all the same lack of ambition, ennui, inability to focus, and difficulty being happy, but be poor and miserable on top of that. Then where would you be?