Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.
Did i get it all?
I don't think factually anyone can say he is a loser by any objective measure. I suspect it might make you feel better to see him as one though.
I find his loyalty refreshing and principled. He could quite easily get a much hotter GF.
Furthermore I have huge respect for the force behind Facebook. Visionaries always have many real losers (as in those that continually fail to make any meaningful success or impact on the world) who are insecure about themselves and project that on.
This highlights the issue of building a business around open API's.
Techie's naively celebrate openness and API's and a lets "build together" attitude, but when a corporate entity ultimately controls the whole ecosystem, your neat business idea is vulnerable to failure as it's built on a stack of cards.
API's are techie solutions. The real world continues to use commercial contracts to enforce partners to behave. The Web 2.0 movement would be wise to address the thinking around this going forward.
Getting sidetracked by bells and whistles now is counterproductive. Tesla should be concentrating on making a car that's capable of serving at least 80% of the needs a standard sedan meets (short trips, daily commutes, cruise control, capable of seating 5, etc) while costing at best a small premium over gasoline-powered competitors. Encouraging the development of apps that will draw power and reduce the range or carrying capacity of the vehicle is silly.
Your argument assumes that adding bells and whistles can not be done in parallel to making an awesome electric vehicle. Why is it one or the other?
The second assumption I think is false is that the Tesla "ipad" will draw more than just a neglible amount (comparatively) of electric energy to operate. I don't think 1 app or 20 apps is going to make the slightest difference to the the amount of miles it can drive.
Sony isn't Halliburton. They sell entertainment gear... and they don't even dominate the market. I was going to buy a playstation 3 as a blu-ray player (since I don't own one currently), and then they pulled this lawsuit bullshit. Now I won't be purchasing one at all. My last TV was a Sony, my new one is a Mitsubishi, again because of the lawsuit bullshit. Halliburton can get away with it because their fingers are in everything, and their primary source of income is being involved in a good that America, and most of mankind can't live without: oil. Sony sells entertainment devices, and I have plenty of other options to choose from. Being multinational doesn't automatically make you immune to market forces...
Do not confuse personal idealism with a market force. A few hundred or even a few thousand angry nerds will not even be a blip on the profit radar.
We are talking about intellectual property and hacking, not exactly massive human rights abuses which a large percentage of activists in the population can get behind.
You are doing it because it feels good to you. It will have no effect. That is the objective truth.
If someone wants to whack you or physically mess with you, they gonna do it with our without the internet.
Security through obscurity is not the way forward (even in a personal sense).
Best not to conduct your affairs as to cause adversaries to arise (ie by becoming a criminal or dealing with shady people), if that is unavoidable (IE you are a public figure), then you need to accept there will always be whackos out there and have real security systems in place to provide a wall of defense against such undesirables.
Bandwidth capacity isn't free, but bandwidth usage nominally is. The problem with ISPs is that they are trying to solve the problem that they created by overselling capacity by putting arbitrary restrictions on usage. If they didn't oversell capacity, they wouldn't have this problem. (Yes, I know people charge for bandwidth usage all over the place. The fact remains, it costs you the same amount of money to provide the gigabit link between your two computers no-matter what you do with that link. If you don't use it, it costs the same as if you saturate it 24/7... with the exception that yes, you MIGHT potentially wear out your equipment SLIGHTLY faster if you use it 24/7 - and you MIGHT be drawing a bit more power from a used router as compared to an unused router... but again - nominal costs for usage compared to capacity.)
Completely false. If ISP's didn't oversell they wouldn't be able to be priced competitively. Period.
For a 20:1 contention it means you share the line's capacity and hence costs, with 20 other people. If you want 1:1 (the scenario you described above) then expect to pay 20 times the cost.
Why is anything (any established article) being deleted from Wikipedia? Is the world suddenly running out of bits? Is Jimmy Wales really so hard up for storage that individual text pages will make a difference? It's not as if they have to print and bind books with it like a traditional encyclopaedia.
At the very least, it should be pretty simple to measure notability by access statistics. But that begs the question that if nobody is accessing it, it isn't even costing you in bandwidth to hang onto it, so you might as well not delete it even then.
100%. They could really make it into a feature. For example have a prominent widget at the top of the page that shows it's "Notability Rank" . Yes it would be gamed by spammers. Yes you would need an antispam system too that can handle DDOS style attacks that fake an increase in notability. However, while it may be a challenge, it is still a solvable solution.
Deleting stuff just doesn't make sense. Worse still, while there seems to be consensus across the net on this point, it's just flagrantly ignored, by what appears to be an increasingly insular group in power.
They want the Striesand effect. If it becomes widely distributed and known that people who hack PS3's get sued into oblivion the lesson is clear: mess with Sony and you lose your house. This is especially true for the people who had the talent and interest to do it the first time and it's probably going to slow down future hacks. The population of skilled hardware/software/firmware/microcontroller hackers capable of jailbreaking PS3's out there is probably large, but not infinite and they're reducing the pool.
Sony is planning for the PS4,5,6,...
Well, if that's really their thinking, then they are going about it completely the wrong way. All that action is like to do, is to induce the opposite behaviour in the hackers, causing those anti-rebellious types to want to hack it even more. Even if it's just for the thrill of pissing off Sony some more.
Fewer features in each major release should mean more time spent fixing bugs. Would hope so, anyway. Firefox 4 beta 10 uses 100% of my CPU almost constantly (on Mac OS X 10.6) and I have no idea what new "feature" is responsible for this.
I had the same problem. I'm really trying to love Firefox on OSX but they making it really hard. I switched back to Chrome 9.
Definitely a big improvement. But maybe it would be nice to see Slashdot innovate in terms of the GUI? It seems strange that a tech site plays catchup and is always a few years behind the curve.
I'd be keeping quite about support from the idealistic FSF cos its sort of a kiss of death. I mean lets not forget the roaring success their other golden boy,.ogg!
Ok I'll come clean I havent RTFA, but it strikes me weird that a 15 year old is going to grasp all sides commercial and technological nuances of a very complex issue.
Yeah the keyword feature though works for *any* site. You don't have to set it up as a search engine.
For example goto www.urbandictionary.com in Firefox. You can right click on the input box ad say "Add keyword for this search". Any input box on the web works. That is the beauty of it.
Then all I need to do is type "ud [and my search term]" and it searches urbandictionary.
Not sure why Chrome took this feature away. It was available in Chromium at one point in the past.
2) The removal of "Quick search/keyword" functionality of bookmarks that Firefox has. For example I like to type "imdb [moviename]" or "ud [urban dictionary term]" in the URL bar, and the browser then looks stuff up for me without having to navigate a landing page.
Although very crudely worded, "Anonymous Coward" is right. H.264 is created to make money. By Google removing support for H.264, it pushes for an actual open standard.
This is simply false. (Lifted from a post I just made about this in the Ars forums) MPEG-LA licenses the H.264 standards under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminitory) terms -- they're not playing favorites to give some companies strategic advantage over others. Moreover, if you think about the fact that there are 1000 patents in the H.264 license pool, and no individual company owns more than a few, you quickly realize that nobody who actually implements H.264 is making more money from it than they pay for it. The idea that anyone is supporting H.264 because they want to get rich off of license fees is ludicrous.
H.264 is a real standard, developed and governed by a multi-party process, recognized by international standards organizations, and extensively documented. WebM is some C code that Google bought and dumped on the public. Other stakeholders had no input into the "specification". There is no formal multi-party governance process; the format is de facto controlled by Google, because they employ the developers. In practice, WebM is defined by Google's code, not by standards documents.
Oh, and WebM is also technically inferior.
And as if that weren't enough, it's extremely unclear, given what happened to Microsoft with VC-1, that WebM has actually managed to avoid patent liability. Keep in mind, Google hasn't indemnified anyone, and their strategic interests are served here even if a patent licensing pool does eventually need to be set up for WebM. So they have essentially nothing to lose by pretending its unencumbered, even if it's not.
Great post. Notice how there is no comeback.Could not have said it better myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.
Did i get it all?
I don't think factually anyone can say he is a loser by any objective measure. I suspect it might make you feel better to see him as one though.
I find his loyalty refreshing and principled. He could quite easily get a much hotter GF.
Furthermore I have huge respect for the force behind Facebook. Visionaries always have many real losers (as in those that continually fail to make any meaningful success or impact on the world) who are insecure about themselves and project that on.
You probably won't read up on it more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Not obvious.
Because it may reduce heat / sound energy emanating from your shoe by 1Watt.
Individual security isn't rocket science either.
Says the rocket scientist. For my mom it is a complete mystery.
This highlights the issue of building a business around open API's.
Techie's naively celebrate openness and API's and a lets "build together" attitude, but when a corporate entity ultimately controls the whole ecosystem, your neat business idea is vulnerable to failure as it's built on a stack of cards.
API's are techie solutions. The real world continues to use commercial contracts to enforce partners to behave. The Web 2.0 movement would be wise to address the thinking around this going forward.
Agreed. They have no economic moat. Buffet would not touch them.
Is a particle itself not three dimensional? (regardless if its moving along a 1d line)
Who are the top physicists? I'm serious, how does one measure this? Is there a list?
Getting sidetracked by bells and whistles now is counterproductive. Tesla should be concentrating on making a car that's capable of serving at least 80% of the needs a standard sedan meets (short trips, daily commutes, cruise control, capable of seating 5, etc) while costing at best a small premium over gasoline-powered competitors. Encouraging the development of apps that will draw power and reduce the range or carrying capacity of the vehicle is silly.
Your argument assumes that adding bells and whistles can not be done in parallel to making an awesome electric vehicle. Why is it one or the other?
The second assumption I think is false is that the Tesla "ipad" will draw more than just a neglible amount (comparatively) of electric energy to operate. I don't think 1 app or 20 apps is going to make the slightest difference to the the amount of miles it can drive.
Sony isn't Halliburton. They sell entertainment gear... and they don't even dominate the market. I was going to buy a playstation 3 as a blu-ray player (since I don't own one currently), and then they pulled this lawsuit bullshit. Now I won't be purchasing one at all. My last TV was a Sony, my new one is a Mitsubishi, again because of the lawsuit bullshit. Halliburton can get away with it because their fingers are in everything, and their primary source of income is being involved in a good that America, and most of mankind can't live without: oil. Sony sells entertainment devices, and I have plenty of other options to choose from. Being multinational doesn't automatically make you immune to market forces...
Do not confuse personal idealism with a market force. A few hundred or even a few thousand angry nerds will not even be a blip on the profit radar.
We are talking about intellectual property and hacking, not exactly massive human rights abuses which a large percentage of activists in the population can get behind.
You are doing it because it feels good to you. It will have no effect. That is the objective truth.
If someone wants to whack you or physically mess with you, they gonna do it with our without the internet.
Security through obscurity is not the way forward (even in a personal sense).
Best not to conduct your affairs as to cause adversaries to arise (ie by becoming a criminal or dealing with shady people), if that is unavoidable (IE you are a public figure), then you need to accept there will always be whackos out there and have real security systems in place to provide a wall of defense against such undesirables.
Bandwidth capacity isn't free, but bandwidth usage nominally is. The problem with ISPs is that they are trying to solve the problem that they created by overselling capacity by putting arbitrary restrictions on usage. If they didn't oversell capacity, they wouldn't have this problem. (Yes, I know people charge for bandwidth usage all over the place. The fact remains, it costs you the same amount of money to provide the gigabit link between your two computers no-matter what you do with that link. If you don't use it, it costs the same as if you saturate it 24/7... with the exception that yes, you MIGHT potentially wear out your equipment SLIGHTLY faster if you use it 24/7 - and you MIGHT be drawing a bit more power from a used router as compared to an unused router... but again - nominal costs for usage compared to capacity.)
Completely false. If ISP's didn't oversell they wouldn't be able to be priced competitively. Period.
Have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio
For a 20:1 contention it means you share the line's capacity and hence costs, with 20 other people. If you want 1:1 (the scenario you described above) then expect to pay 20 times the cost.
Why is anything (any established article) being deleted from Wikipedia? Is the world suddenly running out of bits? Is Jimmy Wales really so hard up for storage that individual text pages will make a difference? It's not as if they have to print and bind books with it like a traditional encyclopaedia.
At the very least, it should be pretty simple to measure notability by access statistics. But that begs the question that if nobody is accessing it, it isn't even costing you in bandwidth to hang onto it, so you might as well not delete it even then.
100%. They could really make it into a feature. For example have a prominent widget at the top of the page that shows it's "Notability Rank" . Yes it would be gamed by spammers. Yes you would need an antispam system too that can handle DDOS style attacks that fake an increase in notability. However, while it may be a challenge, it is still a solvable solution.
Deleting stuff just doesn't make sense. Worse still, while there seems to be consensus across the net on this point, it's just flagrantly ignored, by what appears to be an increasingly insular group in power.
They want the Striesand effect. If it becomes widely distributed and known that people who hack PS3's get sued into oblivion the lesson is clear: mess with Sony and you lose your house. This is especially true for the people who had the talent and interest to do it the first time and it's probably going to slow down future hacks. The population of skilled hardware/software/firmware/microcontroller hackers capable of jailbreaking PS3's out there is probably large, but not infinite and they're reducing the pool.
Sony is planning for the PS4,5,6,...
Well, if that's really their thinking, then they are going about it completely the wrong way. All that action is like to do, is to induce the opposite behaviour in the hackers, causing those anti-rebellious types to want to hack it even more. Even if it's just for the thrill of pissing off Sony some more.
Fewer features in each major release should mean more time spent fixing bugs. Would hope so, anyway. Firefox 4 beta 10 uses 100% of my CPU almost constantly (on Mac OS X 10.6) and I have no idea what new "feature" is responsible for this.
I had the same problem. I'm really trying to love Firefox on OSX but they making it really hard. I switched back to Chrome 9.
Definitely a big improvement. But maybe it would be nice to see Slashdot innovate in terms of the GUI? It seems strange that a tech site plays catchup and is always a few years behind the curve.
I'd be keeping quite about support from the idealistic FSF cos its sort of a kiss of death. I mean lets not forget the roaring success their other golden boy, .ogg!
Easy there tiger. I used the word "wierd". As in .. "wow this is an anomalous data point"
Purposefully refrained from making a judgement call or inference. Because if he does nail all sides then its very impressive indeed!
I don't think I know enough to able to make that evaulation as to whether he does grasp it or not.
Yeah I'd totally hit some of that hot piece of ass Apple is flaunting in Main road.
Oh wait I got confused. They are utilising an upgraded processor in their upcoming iPhone refresh.
Oops that comment was meant for the Apple A8 processor story. Doh!
Yeah I'd totally hit some of that hot piece of ass Apple is flaunting in Main road.
Oh wait I got confused. They are utilising an upgraded processor in their upcoming iPhone refresh.
Ok I'll come clean I havent RTFA, but it strikes me weird that a 15 year old is going to grasp all sides commercial and technological nuances of a very complex issue.
Anyone else feel the same way?
That won't work because the game would carry the encrypted/obfuscated hex string PLUS the code to execute the decryption/obfuscation of the string.
Hence it becomes the similar scenario as PC software DRM schemes. And we all know how secure that is :D
Yeah the keyword feature though works for *any* site. You don't have to set it up as a search engine.
For example goto www.urbandictionary.com in Firefox. You can right click on the input box ad say "Add keyword for this search". Any input box on the web works. That is the beauty of it.
Then all I need to do is type "ud [and my search term]" and it searches urbandictionary.
Not sure why Chrome took this feature away. It was available in Chromium at one point in the past.
I switched back to Firefox today from Chrome.
The two dealbreakers for me on Chrome where:
1) Inability to fix resolution scaling. Chrome is broken as a browser on my MediaTV with large DPI settings.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=679
2) The removal of "Quick search/keyword" functionality of bookmarks that Firefox has. For example I like to type "imdb [moviename]" or "ud [urban dictionary term]" in the URL bar, and the browser then looks stuff up for me without having to navigate a landing page.
This is simply false. (Lifted from a post I just made about this in the Ars forums) MPEG-LA licenses the H.264 standards under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminitory) terms -- they're not playing favorites to give some companies strategic advantage over others. Moreover, if you think about the fact that there are 1000 patents in the H.264 license pool, and no individual company owns more than a few, you quickly realize that nobody who actually implements H.264 is making more money from it than they pay for it. The idea that anyone is supporting H.264 because they want to get rich off of license fees is ludicrous.
H.264 is a real standard, developed and governed by a multi-party process, recognized by international standards organizations, and extensively documented. WebM is some C code that Google bought and dumped on the public. Other stakeholders had no input into the "specification". There is no formal multi-party governance process; the format is de facto controlled by Google, because they employ the developers. In practice, WebM is defined by Google's code, not by standards documents.
Oh, and WebM is also technically inferior.
And as if that weren't enough, it's extremely unclear, given what happened to Microsoft with VC-1, that WebM has actually managed to avoid patent liability. Keep in mind, Google hasn't indemnified anyone, and their strategic interests are served here even if a patent licensing pool does eventually need to be set up for WebM. So they have essentially nothing to lose by pretending its unencumbered, even if it's not.
Great post. Notice how there is no comeback.Could not have said it better myself.