Wouldn't the quanity of workers still be a solid statistic. If I produced a special energy plant that could somehow magically power the entire country, and only took 2 people to operate it, and one of them died after 10 years, then the statistic would show as 50% of workers, which would be higher then any other method of power opperation in history, yet as a result of having it, it would have cut down the total number of deaths in the power industry from well over 30 a year, to 1 every 10 years.
I don't believe microsoft has ever not used that tactic, even on the outright bombs of OS's like ME and vista. It helps show a giant boost in PC and OS sales for all the people that completely refused to buy a PC for the 2 years that you couldn't get a PC with a decent OS.
Along with their children. Odds are someone in the industry will eventually find a way to get the license or manipulate a few laws to allow it to be gotten, to slip it into a compilation pack of some kind as a trick to reset the timer on the copyright.
One thing we do have to keep in mind, the web cleverbot is not the same cleverbot that was tested, The web version of it checks 3 different ways to find an appropriate response, the competing cleverbot searches 42. Not to say it is even a good AI, but it is fully possible that the competing cleverbot is far more believable then the web one.
This sounds like the best complaint against flash ever. Flash 1. caused pages to contain far more worthless noise makers, longer loading times, and stop focusing so much on including content etc... 2. Brought the kind of people who like big flashing noises and lights screaming on every page, 3. cleared the way for intrusive obnoxious advertising, 4. opened up a whole new mess of security vulnerabilities. The internet wouldn't have been more boring without flash, they just would have been more focused on actually providing content in pages instead of blinking jumping crap and animated buttons. As far as those that were drawn to the internet by flashing blinking screaming things, do you really want to talk to those people, I'm known for unfriending at the first stupid chain foward etc...
Well the patent in question pointed out was more or less just a picture of a rounded rectangular device with a touchscreen, no details on technical implimentations. Evidence itself was more or less just pictures of the layout and shape of the ipad next to the samsung galaxy, with the galaxy's images resized and resolution changed to match the ipad
Better question, why are high end companies sending top secrete confidential data over normal unencrypted e-mail. Even your bottom of the line MMORPG sends a note to it's users saying a GM will never ask for or send your password via e-mail, but our fortune 500 companies can't match that level of security? Typical e-mail passes unencrypted past so many hands it isn't funny, the typical e-mail from home to work, passes unencrypted across a wifi network, that may or may not be compromised if it was even bothered to be secured, to your ISP where low wage monkeys may or may not have access, accross the cloud where it will pass through unknown number of nodes, to the entery mailservers at said company, that may or may not be managed by medium wage contractors that know they only have the job for a few months at best anyway, finally to the person who it is intended to go to. Yeah I see no reason to think twice before sending my SSN CC# and confidential data through an e-mail.
Google has enough money to make an attempt that has less then a 1% chance of success. In order to fight the patent system, google would have to more or less out-bribe every other major tech company combined, and even then the politicians would be Leary to go that route as they would likely see bribes from regular bribers as a long term investment, and google moving in as a possibly only 1 time act. For all we know google is putting a large amount of effort into shadowy behind doors deals, we can't determine those from any side accurately, no matter what actually making a change will take years and the fact is investing in a patent portfolio is required to be able to produce something now. Google can either Invest in a patent portfolio, or drop out of the mobile phone market altogether for at minimum 5 years.
I would like you to list 1 time google sued another company for patent violations, or aided another company in something that isn't a counter suit. So far my searches come back to 1, a patent troll for geolocation that made no product but was trying to sue 397 companies for patent infringement, which still falls into the countersuit category.
Calling these patent infringements on either side "stealing" is flat out silly. Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC, google+HTC (order kinda varies here, too much research to figure out what ridiculous patent was filed and infringed upon first) stole from apple, apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back. Right now in the mobile phone industry, EVERY possible conceivable invention, and several inconceivable ones are covered by multiple patents owned by multiple different companies. The only way to defend in the industry is to respond back, oh I'm infringing on 4 of your patents, oh yeah well your infringing on 4 of mine also, we both break even with just a few billion down the drain in lawyer fees, any company must either do that, or just say oh my bad I'll stop selling phones. Just flat out dropping out isn't an option, they are in it way to deep, so all that can be done is to assist the companies making their phones by preventing them from getting steamrolled.
From the sounds of it this is insanely small percentage chance on top of insanely small percentage chance (IE the germs surviving the UV bath, and then surviving the land on the planet and somehow addapting to the completely unique environment. I mean there's only 2 real things I can think of, 1. these bacteria live, adapt and somehow live long enough to evolve and recreate a whole new existance of aliens in a few million years, or 2. it could be a problem if mankind cures all diseases in the year 2500, lives a disease free life for 400 years then runs out of space on earth, terraforms mars, and we all have the common cold from the year 2000 which is fatal after a few generations of dumbed down immune systems.
what situations do you honestly expect them to be filtered by default? ISP's would know it would be suicide to do so to residential customers (well at least without assitance from the 2 other ISPs in the area to cut off simultaniously). There is no shortage of large well known adult sites that are not blocked under any normal situations (OK we do have to cut out tyranical dictatorships, and a handful of retarted governments like AUS). Face it if you are somewhere that can get to well known adult sites (youporn redtube etc...), then you can get to the.xxx domain. Someone earlier was mentioning google blocking them. Same rule, it will be blocked in safesearch for images, and it won't automatically show up in google instant unless you hit enter, but it will pretty much work the same way, most of the large adult websites, are already very well known. The only place I can see this being an issue is in company filters, which I can't honestly sympathise with, view whatever you want on your time in your house on your computer, companies have all the right they want to filter what happens on their own networks that they are paying for. The handful of people who can do their job well, and do other things between are not worth the virus cleanups and idiots who will flat out stop doing their jobs.
Haven't spent alot of time in 2 and 3. but I can say with absolute certainty 1 has a huge flaw to it. if 2 people open the same document at the same time. Person A changes a part at the top, person b changes a part at the bottom. Whoever saves 2nd will overwrite the work of the first and undo their changes, or depending on how you set it up, 2 different versions of the file will be created and you will have to merge them later adding unnecessary confusion or mess, while if it were done in google docs, the 2 people would see eachother working in real time know what changes are being made by who while they have the spreadsheet or document open, There is a difference between saving to the cloud and editing in the cloud, editing in the cloud means all parties can watch the changes in real time, and thus work can be done simultaniously, saving to the cloud means all parties can see the changes when they are submitted, which leads to problems if multiple people submit at the same time. Office 365 has the advantage of exchange integration, I will give it that as it's greatest advantage for an established company that already has it's network set up, for a new startup though I would give an edge to google apps. Secondly though wasn't this discussion intended to be about cloud vs local, When did this turn into cloud vs cloud? The main complaint that started this discussion was the idea of working on something in the cloud vs working it on a locally installed program.
Indeed I would have to say much of the way googles apps tend to work, are more reliable then desktop apps. Both tend to autosave and allow recovery in the event of a power outage or something mid-work (or a misclick as you mentioned). But lets say that power outage was catestrophic, say it burnt out the power supply, or god forbid the hard drive. With the google apps you can log back in, recover from the autosave, print out or keep working whatever you were working on, while the local copy you need to either get the new power supply, put the HD in another system, and if a catestrophic HD crash, well you are looking at major time+money on data recovery then. I will be the first to admit, google has a ways to go on things like complicated excel spreadsheets etc... but honestly I still have to say in disaster recovery and likelyness of losing your stuff, google has an edge.
Most of them because either the concepts behind them were too flawed to be worth carrying anything over from (bob, clippy). Other failures were half way decent ideas rushed out the door with so many problems bugs and annoyances they just hurt everyone who used them, Windows ME/Vista. Some ideas will keep losing spectacular amounts of money while barely gaining enough traction to even be considered profitable, but start to gain a hint of traction due to microsoft continuing to pour 5x more money then they make onto them. (Bing, Xbox, zune, most likely WP7 will fall into this category)
Well you could start by thousands of tin foil hats who are most likely looking at and scrutinizing every line of the code. Though wouldn't it be safe to assume there are backup copies off of the server? Isn't it possible they just either did an md5sum comparison or loaded the backups over the online versions to be safe.
Well the difference here is many of these projects produced some functionality that can be merged into other google products. Just because the projects themselves didn't take off on their own, does not mean they were go-nowhere projects.
For google I believe they have a cookie specifically for opt out http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ , I agree it would be nice for an opt in but for the real world, at least an opt out option is nice.
Not really, with the like button the way it is, lets say 2 people went to the page, a skate boarder and a teacher, skateboarder likes the page, teacher glances over it. With that information facebook knows that the teacher looked at the page, but wasn't inclined enough to like it, but if they noticed 75 teachers looking at it without liking it, they'd know something interests teachers in that page enough to look at it, The skate boarder likes it. For the skate boarder side the information is the same, but the information of who is looking at it, but not liking it, is still valuble data.
If it were say a system that mattered for the name, say the app was called Star-Trek the next generation gadget. or whatever I could see it, the actual series name would be harmful for them to have used by others, but the name of one small item in the show, lets say it were microsoft, and they did release a tri-corder as a stand alone device based on windows CE, it gave inaccurate information and blue screened every 2 seconds. Would that effect how likely you will be to watch the next star trek movie or show? How about if a new sci-fi movie had a tri-corder in it, would you mistake it for a movie endorsed by the writers of star-trek because you saw a tricorder in the commercial? Something that is large and key to the identification of the show, the names of the main characters the starship enterprise even the main races, etc... but seriously a small background device that was never a selling point or a primary focus of the series, that is ridiculous.
Here's the question then, if it isn't much work when you have the fundimentals of coding to pick up python, ruby, go etc... why not just learn them? That again sounds more like inflexibility for the person, more then age. If the next line of skills can be picked up on demand, why not pick them up as your job or possible future jobs demand them, rather then playing the discrimination card. If they are saying you need 2 years experience working in python you have a valid point, but if they are saying you need to know python, then you should learn it.
You are acting as if the price point of the product is based on the cost to produce rather then the price they will sell at. I would bet that the ipad costs apple less then $100 to make each one. If they were forced to make them in america, it would probably raise the cost to $300 or so to make them, and thus they would only be making $200 per unit instead of $400. Most of the money is going to the executives bonus's and the share prices. They would not raise the price of the unit, because even with apples marketing they cannot convince enough people to buy a 14,000 toy.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the quanity of workers still be a solid statistic. If I produced a special energy plant that could somehow magically power the entire country, and only took 2 people to operate it, and one of them died after 10 years, then the statistic would show as 50% of workers, which would be higher then any other method of power opperation in history, yet as a result of having it, it would have cut down the total number of deaths in the power industry from well over 30 a year, to 1 every 10 years.
Deaths per terawatt hour and deaths per year, the list is in deaths per terawatt hour, which would not necessarally line up with deaths per year.
I don't believe microsoft has ever not used that tactic, even on the outright bombs of OS's like ME and vista. It helps show a giant boost in PC and OS sales for all the people that completely refused to buy a PC for the 2 years that you couldn't get a PC with a decent OS.
Along with their children. Odds are someone in the industry will eventually find a way to get the license or manipulate a few laws to allow it to be gotten, to slip it into a compilation pack of some kind as a trick to reset the timer on the copyright.
One thing we do have to keep in mind, the web cleverbot is not the same cleverbot that was tested, The web version of it checks 3 different ways to find an appropriate response, the competing cleverbot searches 42. Not to say it is even a good AI, but it is fully possible that the competing cleverbot is far more believable then the web one.
This sounds like the best complaint against flash ever. Flash 1. caused pages to contain far more worthless noise makers, longer loading times, and stop focusing so much on including content etc... 2. Brought the kind of people who like big flashing noises and lights screaming on every page, 3. cleared the way for intrusive obnoxious advertising, 4. opened up a whole new mess of security vulnerabilities. The internet wouldn't have been more boring without flash, they just would have been more focused on actually providing content in pages instead of blinking jumping crap and animated buttons. As far as those that were drawn to the internet by flashing blinking screaming things, do you really want to talk to those people, I'm known for unfriending at the first stupid chain foward etc...
Well the patent in question pointed out was more or less just a picture of a rounded rectangular device with a touchscreen, no details on technical implimentations. Evidence itself was more or less just pictures of the layout and shape of the ipad next to the samsung galaxy, with the galaxy's images resized and resolution changed to match the ipad
Better question, why are high end companies sending top secrete confidential data over normal unencrypted e-mail. Even your bottom of the line MMORPG sends a note to it's users saying a GM will never ask for or send your password via e-mail, but our fortune 500 companies can't match that level of security? Typical e-mail passes unencrypted past so many hands it isn't funny, the typical e-mail from home to work, passes unencrypted across a wifi network, that may or may not be compromised if it was even bothered to be secured, to your ISP where low wage monkeys may or may not have access, accross the cloud where it will pass through unknown number of nodes, to the entery mailservers at said company, that may or may not be managed by medium wage contractors that know they only have the job for a few months at best anyway, finally to the person who it is intended to go to. Yeah I see no reason to think twice before sending my SSN CC# and confidential data through an e-mail.
Google has enough money to make an attempt that has less then a 1% chance of success. In order to fight the patent system, google would have to more or less out-bribe every other major tech company combined, and even then the politicians would be Leary to go that route as they would likely see bribes from regular bribers as a long term investment, and google moving in as a possibly only 1 time act. For all we know google is putting a large amount of effort into shadowy behind doors deals, we can't determine those from any side accurately, no matter what actually making a change will take years and the fact is investing in a patent portfolio is required to be able to produce something now. Google can either Invest in a patent portfolio, or drop out of the mobile phone market altogether for at minimum 5 years.
I would like you to list 1 time google sued another company for patent violations, or aided another company in something that isn't a counter suit. So far my searches come back to 1, a patent troll for geolocation that made no product but was trying to sue 397 companies for patent infringement, which still falls into the countersuit category.
Calling these patent infringements on either side "stealing" is flat out silly. Though if you want to call it that, then apple stole from google and HTC, google+HTC (order kinda varies here, too much research to figure out what ridiculous patent was filed and infringed upon first) stole from apple, apple started shooting first then google gave HTC a gun to start firing back. Right now in the mobile phone industry, EVERY possible conceivable invention, and several inconceivable ones are covered by multiple patents owned by multiple different companies. The only way to defend in the industry is to respond back, oh I'm infringing on 4 of your patents, oh yeah well your infringing on 4 of mine also, we both break even with just a few billion down the drain in lawyer fees, any company must either do that, or just say oh my bad I'll stop selling phones. Just flat out dropping out isn't an option, they are in it way to deep, so all that can be done is to assist the companies making their phones by preventing them from getting steamrolled.
From the sounds of it this is insanely small percentage chance on top of insanely small percentage chance (IE the germs surviving the UV bath, and then surviving the land on the planet and somehow addapting to the completely unique environment. I mean there's only 2 real things I can think of, 1. these bacteria live, adapt and somehow live long enough to evolve and recreate a whole new existance of aliens in a few million years, or 2. it could be a problem if mankind cures all diseases in the year 2500, lives a disease free life for 400 years then runs out of space on earth, terraforms mars, and we all have the common cold from the year 2000 which is fatal after a few generations of dumbed down immune systems.
what situations do you honestly expect them to be filtered by default? ISP's would know it would be suicide to do so to residential customers (well at least without assitance from the 2 other ISPs in the area to cut off simultaniously). There is no shortage of large well known adult sites that are not blocked under any normal situations (OK we do have to cut out tyranical dictatorships, and a handful of retarted governments like AUS). Face it if you are somewhere that can get to well known adult sites (youporn redtube etc...), then you can get to the .xxx domain. Someone earlier was mentioning google blocking them. Same rule, it will be blocked in safesearch for images, and it won't automatically show up in google instant unless you hit enter, but it will pretty much work the same way, most of the large adult websites, are already very well known. The only place I can see this being an issue is in company filters, which I can't honestly sympathise with, view whatever you want on your time in your house on your computer, companies have all the right they want to filter what happens on their own networks that they are paying for. The handful of people who can do their job well, and do other things between are not worth the virus cleanups and idiots who will flat out stop doing their jobs.
Haven't spent alot of time in 2 and 3. but I can say with absolute certainty 1 has a huge flaw to it. if 2 people open the same document at the same time. Person A changes a part at the top, person b changes a part at the bottom. Whoever saves 2nd will overwrite the work of the first and undo their changes, or depending on how you set it up, 2 different versions of the file will be created and you will have to merge them later adding unnecessary confusion or mess, while if it were done in google docs, the 2 people would see eachother working in real time know what changes are being made by who while they have the spreadsheet or document open, There is a difference between saving to the cloud and editing in the cloud, editing in the cloud means all parties can watch the changes in real time, and thus work can be done simultaniously, saving to the cloud means all parties can see the changes when they are submitted, which leads to problems if multiple people submit at the same time. Office 365 has the advantage of exchange integration, I will give it that as it's greatest advantage for an established company that already has it's network set up, for a new startup though I would give an edge to google apps. Secondly though wasn't this discussion intended to be about cloud vs local, When did this turn into cloud vs cloud? The main complaint that started this discussion was the idea of working on something in the cloud vs working it on a locally installed program.
Indeed I would have to say much of the way googles apps tend to work, are more reliable then desktop apps. Both tend to autosave and allow recovery in the event of a power outage or something mid-work (or a misclick as you mentioned). But lets say that power outage was catestrophic, say it burnt out the power supply, or god forbid the hard drive. With the google apps you can log back in, recover from the autosave, print out or keep working whatever you were working on, while the local copy you need to either get the new power supply, put the HD in another system, and if a catestrophic HD crash, well you are looking at major time+money on data recovery then. I will be the first to admit, google has a ways to go on things like complicated excel spreadsheets etc... but honestly I still have to say in disaster recovery and likelyness of losing your stuff, google has an edge.
Well lets list all of the companies google has sued for patent infringement in the past. Pretty much all I've ever seen google sue is patent trolls.
Most of them because either the concepts behind them were too flawed to be worth carrying anything over from (bob, clippy). Other failures were half way decent ideas rushed out the door with so many problems bugs and annoyances they just hurt everyone who used them, Windows ME/Vista. Some ideas will keep losing spectacular amounts of money while barely gaining enough traction to even be considered profitable, but start to gain a hint of traction due to microsoft continuing to pour 5x more money then they make onto them. (Bing, Xbox, zune, most likely WP7 will fall into this category)
Well you could start by thousands of tin foil hats who are most likely looking at and scrutinizing every line of the code. Though wouldn't it be safe to assume there are backup copies off of the server? Isn't it possible they just either did an md5sum comparison or loaded the backups over the online versions to be safe.
Well the difference here is many of these projects produced some functionality that can be merged into other google products. Just because the projects themselves didn't take off on their own, does not mean they were go-nowhere projects.
For google I believe they have a cookie specifically for opt out http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ , I agree it would be nice for an opt in but for the real world, at least an opt out option is nice.
Not really, with the like button the way it is, lets say 2 people went to the page, a skate boarder and a teacher, skateboarder likes the page, teacher glances over it. With that information facebook knows that the teacher looked at the page, but wasn't inclined enough to like it, but if they noticed 75 teachers looking at it without liking it, they'd know something interests teachers in that page enough to look at it, The skate boarder likes it. For the skate boarder side the information is the same, but the information of who is looking at it, but not liking it, is still valuble data.
You can add people to as many circles as you want, I do believe that is the definition of overlapping/intercepting.
If it were say a system that mattered for the name, say the app was called Star-Trek the next generation gadget. or whatever I could see it, the actual series name would be harmful for them to have used by others, but the name of one small item in the show, lets say it were microsoft, and they did release a tri-corder as a stand alone device based on windows CE, it gave inaccurate information and blue screened every 2 seconds. Would that effect how likely you will be to watch the next star trek movie or show? How about if a new sci-fi movie had a tri-corder in it, would you mistake it for a movie endorsed by the writers of star-trek because you saw a tricorder in the commercial? Something that is large and key to the identification of the show, the names of the main characters the starship enterprise even the main races, etc... but seriously a small background device that was never a selling point or a primary focus of the series, that is ridiculous.
Here's the question then, if it isn't much work when you have the fundimentals of coding to pick up python, ruby, go etc... why not just learn them? That again sounds more like inflexibility for the person, more then age. If the next line of skills can be picked up on demand, why not pick them up as your job or possible future jobs demand them, rather then playing the discrimination card. If they are saying you need 2 years experience working in python you have a valid point, but if they are saying you need to know python, then you should learn it.
You are acting as if the price point of the product is based on the cost to produce rather then the price they will sell at. I would bet that the ipad costs apple less then $100 to make each one. If they were forced to make them in america, it would probably raise the cost to $300 or so to make them, and thus they would only be making $200 per unit instead of $400. Most of the money is going to the executives bonus's and the share prices. They would not raise the price of the unit, because even with apples marketing they cannot convince enough people to buy a 14,000 toy.