Google's fundamental selling point is a single one: laziness. "You can quit spending your resources and time on applications like webmail -- and leave the work to our busy bees at the Googleplex," Middleton wrote.
Why is outsourcing a complex system like email/calendar to a known and proven provider with one of the best data-centres in the world deemed to be 'laziness'? Isn't the whole point that it is cheaper and/or better than the ISP doing it themselves, and hence good business, and will benefit their users?
Laziness? Yeah, I much prefer software where I really have to work to get any kind of results.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to bang in a nail - hand me that fist.
On another note - no more excuses. Supporting Mac OSX on X86 and not supporting Linux is nothing short of Laziness now.
Piece of advice - as anyone who has worked in the games industry will tell you, there are many reasons why certain features don't get implemented, or platforms don't get supported, and the reason is almost never laziness.
But then, 'laziness' is the catch-all cause that armchair critics use for any situation they don't like and haven't bothered to think through the reasons for, so I can't say I'm surprised.
I had one of those when I was young. It was small (technology had moved on apace!), but it could do 1200baud downstream and 75baud upstream (yes, 75 whole baud!!!!111 zomg!)
Other than a more secure attachment method (latch? Thumbscrews?), HDMI is a decent interface
This is a good point - my flat screen TV, like many others, I'm sure, has the connectors at the bottom pointing downwards. So the HDMI connector is basically held in by the pressure of the plug against the socket - there's no latch at all. If it was decent pressure, like say for RCA/phono connectors, that wouldn't be a problem, but I only have to touch the HDMI cable slightly and the plug will fall out. Pretty annoying design.
Further, why the hell would the cable to my TV not carry a one-way stream of pixels, regardless of what's happening at the other end? This isn't lossless TCP networking. You don't want to send an ACK packet for every couple pixels you get. What are you going to do? Retransmit the pixels a couple of milliseconds later? Brilliant!
Er, maybe you should have read further after all. That's exactly the guy's point - because you don't have the luxury of being able to retransmit on error, is exactly why he's saying they should have used co-ax instead of twisted pair - did you even read the paragraph you quoted? Or any of the paragraphs before it?
When I worked at BT (UK telecommunications company), in the machine room there was a big old box the size of an office drawer chest/pedestal.
I asked what it was. I was informed that it was an old 300baud modem, and that back in the day, "if you had one of those, you were King of the Block!"
And yes, it was full duplex. Gaze upon my Manchester Encoding ye mighty, and despair!
To be fair, it was considered old and laughable even then. Mind you, I also had to back up the computer systems that ran the phone exchanges onto 8" floppy disks". Although even then, I considered 8" floppy drives to be, er...quaint, to put it mildly. 3.5" drives were the new hotness! Tsssss!
I think the cellphone provider cartel in the US just wanted some extra cash. All phones in the US work on a caller-pays basis (other than included "free" minutes and various deals), including mobiles.
Ah, right. I vaguely remember it being something to do with area codes, and mobiles not fitting into that neatly, and the fact that local calls were free, and they couldn't make it any other way, so if you called a 'local' mobile it would be free, which obviously they didn't want.
Why would they be paying more to call your cellphone? Aren't you paying for incoming calls? That's how most rate plans work.
No, outside the US, most mobile phones work on a caller-pays basis, just like landlines.
A lot of people prefer it like this - that way, whoever initiates the service usage pays for it, like most services, as opposed to you being at the mercy of whoever decides to call you a lot (tele-marketers, jerks, but I repeat myself, etc).
For example, I'm on a pay-as-you-go plan here in the UK - I certainly don't want people using up my credit if I don't want them to.
I think the US norm of callee-pays originally stemmed from the inability of the billing system/incumbent networks to cope with the other way, due to various limitations (but I could be wrong; it's been a while since I heard that, and my memory may be faulty).
My brain (and, I suspect, others') are wired to expect the variable to be first, so it doesn't conform to the pattern I'm expecting. It's like I read "if 3 equals..." and my brain thinks "3? 3 is always going to equal 3. What else would it equal?"
That's not so bad though, because it's there to work around the problem in C-type languages where you accidentally type this:
if (a = 3)
because you forgot to type == instead of =. This will assign the value. If you do that with (3 == a), you get a compiler error.
I don't like (3 >= a) because it's not like you'll type = instead of >= because you thought = was a greater-than-or-equal test. Besides, the actual solution is to turn the compiler warnings up and don't deliberately write assignments in conditional expressions.
When you get inequalities and try to put the constant first, you invariably make the expression less intuitive, thus requires more work to understand. And as we all (should) know, you write your code assuming it is going to be read by a novice (for various real-world reasons - not all of which are that it is going to be read by a novice).
it does not seem to be as standardized as many people think
Reminds me of operator precedence in programming languages - some people seem to take pride in knowing the precedence order, but I just always use brackets - always have and always will. I won't even write something like:
a = b + c * d;
I'll write:
a = b + (c * d);
To me, it makes it more obvious and I have to think less. Many people laugh at such code, but I've had to fix plenty of bugs in other people's code due to operator precedence errors, because they thought they knew what they were doing. I've been programming for many years now, and I've never had to fix a precedence bug in my own code, so I'd say the system works:-)
I do draw the line at some things, though, such as:
if (3 == a)
For some reason that construct always causes a gear-crash in my brain. Especially when people do things like:
And when, exactly, are Intel and Microsoft going to focus on something useful?
Exactly. I mean, if they put their minds to it, I bet Microsoft and Intel could come up with a personal computing platform that's used by more people than anything else in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
ObSimpsons:
"Buy him out, boys!"Laziness? Goddamn, do I hate that word.
Why is outsourcing a complex system like email/calendar to a known and proven provider with one of the best data-centres in the world deemed to be 'laziness'? Isn't the whole point that it is cheaper and/or better than the ISP doing it themselves, and hence good business, and will benefit their users?
Laziness? Yeah, I much prefer software where I really have to work to get any kind of results.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to bang in a nail - hand me that fist.
"Mr. Blair. It seems there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away."
Piece of advice - as anyone who has worked in the games industry will tell you, there are many reasons why certain features don't get implemented, or platforms don't get supported, and the reason is almost never laziness.
But then, 'laziness' is the catch-all cause that armchair critics use for any situation they don't like and haven't bothered to think through the reasons for, so I can't say I'm surprised.
From the description:
High-density polyethylene insulator for impedance control and reduction of video ghostingPriceless. How do they even get away with that?
Never mind, give it another 50 years and architects/designers will have realised that people actually watch TV.
To quote Joey Tribbiani:
You don't have a TV?! Then what's all your furniture pointed at?I had one of those when I was young. It was small (technology had moved on apace!), but it could do 1200baud downstream and 75baud upstream (yes, 75 whole baud!!!!111 zomg!)
This is a good point - my flat screen TV, like many others, I'm sure, has the connectors at the bottom pointing downwards. So the HDMI connector is basically held in by the pressure of the plug against the socket - there's no latch at all. If it was decent pressure, like say for RCA/phono connectors, that wouldn't be a problem, but I only have to touch the HDMI cable slightly and the plug will fall out. Pretty annoying design.
Er, maybe you should have read further after all. That's exactly the guy's point - because you don't have the luxury of being able to retransmit on error, is exactly why he's saying they should have used co-ax instead of twisted pair - did you even read the paragraph you quoted? Or any of the paragraphs before it?
When I worked at BT (UK telecommunications company), in the machine room there was a big old box the size of an office drawer chest/pedestal.
I asked what it was. I was informed that it was an old 300baud modem, and that back in the day, "if you had one of those, you were King of the Block!"
And yes, it was full duplex. Gaze upon my Manchester Encoding ye mighty, and despair!
To be fair, it was considered old and laughable even then. Mind you, I also had to back up the computer systems that ran the phone exchanges onto 8" floppy disks". Although even then, I considered 8" floppy drives to be, er...quaint, to put it mildly. 3.5" drives were the new hotness! Tsssss!
Why? It's not like they don't have 64-bit versions of Vista already.
Ah, the old Barium Lie technique :-)
As once used by Jennifer Lopez, iirc. The technique of the stars!
Ah, right. I vaguely remember it being something to do with area codes, and mobiles not fitting into that neatly, and the fact that local calls were free, and they couldn't make it any other way, so if you called a 'local' mobile it would be free, which obviously they didn't want.
But your reason sounds much more likely :-)
Compare and contrast:
You're a troll or ignoramus.with...
Please, people, if your first thought is "wow, how could anyone be so messed up," try to find another explanation for what you see.Hmm... :-)
No, outside the US, most mobile phones work on a caller-pays basis, just like landlines.
A lot of people prefer it like this - that way, whoever initiates the service usage pays for it, like most services, as opposed to you being at the mercy of whoever decides to call you a lot (tele-marketers, jerks, but I repeat myself, etc).
For example, I'm on a pay-as-you-go plan here in the UK - I certainly don't want people using up my credit if I don't want them to.
I think the US norm of callee-pays originally stemmed from the inability of the billing system/incumbent networks to cope with the other way, due to various limitations (but I could be wrong; it's been a while since I heard that, and my memory may be faulty).
I did like the way you railed on someone for assuming the states in USA are homogenous, and then referred to 'down South' :-)
Now I'm suspicious - nobody in the UK uses Yahoo Messenger, do they?
You'll be telling me Brits use AIM next! :-)
What is the ROFL emoticon? I'm British so I feel I ought to know it now.
My brain (and, I suspect, others') are wired to expect the variable to be first, so it doesn't conform to the pattern I'm expecting. It's like I read "if 3 equals..." and my brain thinks "3? 3 is always going to equal 3. What else would it equal?"
That's not so bad though, because it's there to work around the problem in C-type languages where you accidentally type this:
if (a = 3)
because you forgot to type == instead of =. This will assign the value. If you do that with (3 == a), you get a compiler error.
I don't like (3 >= a) because it's not like you'll type = instead of >= because you thought = was a greater-than-or-equal test. Besides, the actual solution is to turn the compiler warnings up and don't deliberately write assignments in conditional expressions.
When you get inequalities and try to put the constant first, you invariably make the expression less intuitive, thus requires more work to understand. And as we all (should) know, you write your code assuming it is going to be read by a novice (for various real-world reasons - not all of which are that it is going to be read by a novice).
Reminds me of operator precedence in programming languages - some people seem to take pride in knowing the precedence order, but I just always use brackets - always have and always will. I won't even write something like:
a = b + c * d;
I'll write:
a = b + (c * d);
To me, it makes it more obvious and I have to think less. Many people laugh at such code, but I've had to fix plenty of bugs in other people's code due to operator precedence errors, because they thought they knew what they were doing. I've been programming for many years now, and I've never had to fix a precedence bug in my own code, so I'd say the system works :-)
I do draw the line at some things, though, such as:
if (3 == a)
For some reason that construct always causes a gear-crash in my brain. Especially when people do things like:
if (3 >= a)
which is just stupid.
Nice.
I'm no expert, but I've heard tell that security is a process, not a product.
...which let's you battle over territories.
D'oh!
Oh sure. Give us a sec to drop everything and get right on that.
So, I would venture the beginnings of a features list:Is this one of those "Pick Two" lists?
Exactly. I mean, if they put their minds to it, I bet Microsoft and Intel could come up with a personal computing platform that's used by more people than anything else in the world.
Oh well. Just a pipedream, I guess.