"Make no mistake, this is a disruptive technology. Marketers will not like it. Webmasters will not like it. Google will not like it."
In case you missed it, Google put this feature into their own web browser product.
I get it. People are afraid of Google because they are very large and powerful. But all this scaremongering and anti-Google sentiment is, IMO, unfounded. Yes, they have had instances where their "Don't be evil" pledge has been tested. However, overall, I have not seen them do anything "evil". I have seen many scaremongers and tinfoil hatters speculate on Google's "evil" intentions. But I have not seen Google step across that black-and-white boundary into "evil" territory.
Secondly, I understand people not wanting to be tracked. It scares them. I understand that online ads and spam are bane of the web. People hate them. I hate them. That is understandable. However, ad revenue is what drives the internet economy. Without it, you would have to pay a subscription to (almost) every site you frequent. Sure, there would be free sites just like there is free software. But the majority of content producers would require a subscription fee to enjoy their content. Ads make the internet free.
Tracking makes ads more relevant to each individual user. Although you (and those like you) see tracking as evil, tracking actually helps reduce the number of ads that are completely irrelevant to you. I would much rather see ads for tech products than for women's shoes or the latest hip hop CD.
You fear these private companies having all this information about you and your online habits. But what is the threat? Are you afraid they will provide products and services that meet your individual need? I am much more concerned with governments compiling such information than private companies.
You are comparing cable TV to coal miner and automobile safety??? Contrary to American belief, cable TV is not vital to your safety. Nor is it a necessity that may warrant regulation as a utility. Cable TV is a luxury. If you don't like it or can't accept the terms, DON'T SUBSCRIBE. Turn off your TV!
Oh, so you found him guilty? I didn't realize we had a Slashdotter on the jury. Or are you of the 'guilty until proven innocent' camp?
Just because the man is EXTREMELY unusual does not make him a pedophile. Unless, of course, he is found guilty by a jury of his peers. Until then, he is just an accused pedophile.
I'm sure you'd like to argue that he must be guilty because people keep accusing him. But people also keep 'finding' things (fingers, mice, syringes) in their food. Maybe you hadn't heard, but accusing people/companies of things in order to get a settlement or some other form of financial gain is big business in the U.S.
Those with tinfoil hats will surely be thinking of the youth in Orwell's 1984
Actually it reminds me more of Joe Camel. Recruit them when they are young and easily manipulated. The twisted youth of today will be your army of tomorrow.
No brainer. I think that means you didn't really think about the problem.
Nice jab. True Slashdot style. Can't debate thoughtfully without a backhanded comment. Smooth.
The problem posed here is that the "scientific" model used to generate the data model they have published is being hidden. Basically they are saying "accept this as scientific fact even though we won't tell you how we came to this conclusion". How can their data model be peer reviewed without studying how the researchers developed the model?
And, by your explanation, all science should be kept secret as long as possible so the researchers can squeeze every dime (grant, tenure, Nobel prize, etc) out of their project. That's not science. That's commercialism. It doesn't even make sense that a researcher or research team would get funds by publishing papers that can't be peer reviewed and validated.
I understand that grants and tenures are the researchers' livelyhood. I understand why researchers will wait until they are absolutely ready to go public before they release any of their findings. But after you've published, you have to release all the details. Otherwise you're just peddling snake oil.
You mean artists expect payment for their work? <rage>Those capitalist dogs! Don't they know that art should be free?</rage> <confusion>Wait... It's mass produced and inspired by money. Can you classify it as art?</confusion>
Newsflash: The musician's in the RIAA's pocket ARE in it for the $$$.
However, there are musicians who are NOT motivated by money. They are motivated by art and a passion for what they do. And they DO put their music out on the web. And you CAN see them live without paying $30 to TicketMaster. They don't get the same exposure because they are not motivated by $$$ and are not in the RIAA's pocket. So, if you want it, you have to seek it out.
But, I have to warn you. You are not going to find any Britneys, Nellys, or boy bands. Sorry...
Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit institutions. The product of their R&D is their livelyhood. To say that all pharmaceutical research would stop if we open-sourced their drugs doesn't stand. Research would continue even if the pharmaceutical business model collapsed. Non-profit organizations would fill the void. Their funding would be much less and, thus, breakthroughs would come slower. But the research would continue because there are people who want to cure disease and help the afflicted. There are people who do science for the sake of science.
This is not a nod to open-source drugs. I believe in capitalism and the drug companies' right to profit from their work. Breakthroughs and discoveries come quicker from organizations and individuals who are aptly motivated. What motives more than money? I'm not sure I agree with government subsidy. But I'm too lazy to look up the validity or details.
Science, like government, should be transparent. The public should be able to see and evaluate every part. Any science, or government, that hides it's implementation is inherently suspect to corruption. Closed science is half a step from religion. You are expected to have faith in the researcher's methodologies, analysis, assumptions, and motives. Sorry, but good science does not rely on faith.
I'm having fun using it as a popular opinion tool. For instance, type in "george w. bush is a" and see what drops down. It would appear he is fairly well liked despite the bad press. Try "john kerry is a". Not as flattering. How about "the war in iraq is". Or "slashdot is".
I second that! Although, as an info junkie, most of the "news" in the issues I've already read online a couple weeks before on ArsTechnica, Slashdot, or any of the other tech news sites that I have pumped directly into my veins. But for a print periodical, a two week gap for tech news is pretty good. Their time to print is incredible.
Also, as pointed out previously, the regular columnists are quite an accomplished and respected conglomerate. An impressive read every month.
A subscription is very affordable at $37/month USD. An extreme discount from the $5.99/month USD coverprice.
How long do you have to stare at these things before you see something? I keep expecting a zombie/ghost face to sudden appear and make me wet my pants....again.
Am I missing something? Why are you changing your browser's default background color for webpages? Is there significant need for this? To change the default, then whine about pages that don't display properly?
Slashdot Mirror
What a rant.
"Make no mistake, this is a disruptive technology. Marketers will not like it. Webmasters will not like it. Google will not like it."
In case you missed it, Google put this feature into their own web browser product. I get it. People are afraid of Google because they are very large and powerful. But all this scaremongering and anti-Google sentiment is, IMO, unfounded. Yes, they have had instances where their "Don't be evil" pledge has been tested. However, overall, I have not seen them do anything "evil". I have seen many scaremongers and tinfoil hatters speculate on Google's "evil" intentions. But I have not seen Google step across that black-and-white boundary into "evil" territory.
Secondly, I understand people not wanting to be tracked. It scares them. I understand that online ads and spam are bane of the web. People hate them. I hate them. That is understandable. However, ad revenue is what drives the internet economy. Without it, you would have to pay a subscription to (almost) every site you frequent. Sure, there would be free sites just like there is free software. But the majority of content producers would require a subscription fee to enjoy their content. Ads make the internet free.
Tracking makes ads more relevant to each individual user. Although you (and those like you) see tracking as evil, tracking actually helps reduce the number of ads that are completely irrelevant to you. I would much rather see ads for tech products than for women's shoes or the latest hip hop CD.
You fear these private companies having all this information about you and your online habits. But what is the threat? Are you afraid they will provide products and services that meet your individual need? I am much more concerned with governments compiling such information than private companies.
You are comparing cable TV to coal miner and automobile safety???
Contrary to American belief, cable TV is not vital to your safety. Nor is it a necessity that may warrant regulation as a utility.
Cable TV is a luxury. If you don't like it or can't accept the terms, DON'T SUBSCRIBE.
Turn off your TV!
Funny... I don't see anything for Pronobozo...
Maybe Google should have added this to their arsenal of Beta programs...
Real Genius... Love that movie.
Oh, so you found him guilty? I didn't realize we had a Slashdotter on the jury. Or are you of the 'guilty until proven innocent' camp?
Just because the man is EXTREMELY unusual does not make him a pedophile. Unless, of course, he is found guilty by a jury of his peers. Until then, he is just an accused pedophile.
I'm sure you'd like to argue that he must be guilty because people keep accusing him. But people also keep 'finding' things (fingers, mice, syringes) in their food. Maybe you hadn't heard, but accusing people/companies of things in order to get a settlement or some other form of financial gain is big business in the U.S.
Those with tinfoil hats will surely be thinking of the youth in Orwell's 1984
Actually it reminds me more of Joe Camel. Recruit them when they are young and easily manipulated. The twisted youth of today will be your army of tomorrow.
No brainer. I think that means you didn't really think about the problem.
Nice jab. True Slashdot style. Can't debate thoughtfully without a backhanded comment. Smooth.
The problem posed here is that the "scientific" model used to generate the data model they have published is being hidden. Basically they are saying "accept this as scientific fact even though we won't tell you how we came to this conclusion". How can their data model be peer reviewed without studying how the researchers developed the model?
And, by your explanation, all science should be kept secret as long as possible so the researchers can squeeze every dime (grant, tenure, Nobel prize, etc) out of their project. That's not science. That's commercialism. It doesn't even make sense that a researcher or research team would get funds by publishing papers that can't be peer reviewed and validated.
I understand that grants and tenures are the researchers' livelyhood. I understand why researchers will wait until they are absolutely ready to go public before they release any of their findings. But after you've published, you have to release all the details. Otherwise you're just peddling snake oil.
You mean artists expect payment for their work?
<rage>Those capitalist dogs! Don't they know that art should be free?</rage>
<confusion>Wait... It's mass produced and inspired by money. Can you classify it as art?</confusion>
Newsflash: The musician's in the RIAA's pocket ARE in it for the $$$.
However, there are musicians who are NOT motivated by money. They are motivated by art and a passion for what they do. And they DO put their music out on the web. And you CAN see them live without paying $30 to TicketMaster. They don't get the same exposure because they are not motivated by $$$ and are not in the RIAA's pocket. So, if you want it, you have to seek it out.
But, I have to warn you. You are not going to find any Britneys, Nellys, or boy bands. Sorry...
Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit institutions. The product of their R&D is their livelyhood. To say that all pharmaceutical research would stop if we open-sourced their drugs doesn't stand. Research would continue even if the pharmaceutical business model collapsed. Non-profit organizations would fill the void. Their funding would be much less and, thus, breakthroughs would come slower. But the research would continue because there are people who want to cure disease and help the afflicted. There are people who do science for the sake of science.
This is not a nod to open-source drugs. I believe in capitalism and the drug companies' right to profit from their work. Breakthroughs and discoveries come quicker from organizations and individuals who are aptly motivated. What motives more than money? I'm not sure I agree with government subsidy. But I'm too lazy to look up the validity or details.
Science, like government, should be transparent. The public should be able to see and evaluate every part. Any science, or government, that hides it's implementation is inherently suspect to corruption.
Closed science is half a step from religion. You are expected to have faith in the researcher's methodologies, analysis, assumptions, and motives. Sorry, but good science does not rely on faith.
We consider the standard to be flawed. So instead we will continue with our flawed support of the previous standard.
I'm having fun using it as a popular opinion tool. For instance, type in "george w. bush is a" and see what drops down. It would appear he is fairly well liked despite the bad press.
Try "john kerry is a". Not as flattering.
How about "the war in iraq is".
Or "slashdot is".
...of Joe Camel.
"(or attempted exploits; ie, bugs)"
I realize you meant i.e. as in 'that is to say' or 'in other words'. But when you read it aloud, it comes out perfect: IE bugs.
I second that! Although, as an info junkie, most of the "news" in the issues I've already read online a couple weeks before on ArsTechnica, Slashdot, or any of the other tech news sites that I have pumped directly into my veins. But for a print periodical, a two week gap for tech news is pretty good. Their time to print is incredible.
Also, as pointed out previously, the regular columnists are quite an accomplished and respected conglomerate. An impressive read every month.
A subscription is very affordable at $37/month USD. An extreme discount from the $5.99/month USD coverprice.
and, no, I am not an employee of Computer Power User magazine. Just a thrilled subscriber.
IPv6, your time has come.
How long do you have to stare at these things before you see something? I keep expecting a zombie/ghost face to sudden appear and make me wet my pants. ...again.
Am I missing something? Why are you changing your browser's default background color for webpages? Is there significant need for this? To change the default, then whine about pages that don't display properly?
...any process of reserving rights to a methodology, concept, or product. All future patents issued must be licensed by me.