On the FireFox/IE debate one of the big arguments against MS is that they do not innovate and add new features until the open source community has beat them to it.
On the Office/OpenOffice side of the debate a big argument against MS is that they innovate and add new features and the open source community says it's irrelevant because few people USE the innovative and new features.
At least that is my simplistic "monkey on the outside throwing peanuts" view of things...
As to the actual article, I will defer to the "delay until you can release something solid" approach. If the product really is in so little need of advancement in features as some of you guys say it is then this would be the best approach anyways if they want to combat the "Microsoft releases junk software" image they get painted with, wouldn't it?
I feel I can pretty confidently talk on it. Like a poster above my wife and I can have wonderful conversations but if it's on the phone then there's always something else vying for my attention, and it ends up distracting me. This same thing happens when talking to friends as well, and co-workers.
To help overcome this I have done a few things. A) Calling me on my cel phone doesn't mean I will answer, some phone numbers don't even ring on my cel, others have rings to tell me if it's someone who probably has urgent needs. This let's me filter out my mother with her latest e-mail not sending crisis. Most cel phones now will let you classify contacts and only ring for certain classes of contacts and maybe vibrate or not ring at all for others. B) The cel phone does not come into the bedroom or bathroom. C) Explain to my wife that if I'm looking at one thing then probably she won't have my attention until she gets it BEFORE asking me something. D) Disabled all notification sounds on my IM clients, and have the IM clients on a separate screen from the one I'm working on. I check them from time to time, but if someone needs me that urgently they know how to get in touch more directly than IM. E) Never carried a Crackberry, never will.
Does this make me some type of "disconnected Luddite of the instant access age"??
A liberal organization which is pretty slanted against the republicans proposes legislation to a congress which is still controlled by the conservatives they don't like.
Poultry counts because Beef is steer, cow, veal, to a certain degree Deer as well. Pork is not only pig, but also boar, which is considerably different. In the same way that pountry is chicken as well as duck and turkey.
If you write a 20 page paper and turn in for a course and get an A, then someone photocopies your paper and turns it in and also gets an A are they doing something wrong or unethical?
Translation:
If you for then someone and gets have they done something wrong or unethical?
There are a lot of ways I think that the recording and media industries are doing things the wrong way, but I am not about to stand here and argue that it's a persons right to copy something which someone else makes their livelyhood off of with the pretense of "it wants to be free".
One thing many people on the internet have yet to embrace is a simple fact. Everybody needs to survive, and in our world that means income. Period. Even the open source software we love so much has to earn itself a living somehow else it will always be a distant "when I get spare time i look at it" stepchild, or a "I'm doing this to get my name known" project which is apt to have it's best developers move onto paying gigs.
Look at the biggest names in Open Source, they all have some income generating stream somewhere. If this is how Mozilla drums up money for FF than more power to them as it's the least intrusive money making scheme i've seen in software yet. (Compare to banner ads for instance)
The problem with the photo cards is that few merchants even look at the card now a days, let alone look at the picture on it. I used to send my GF to the store to get groceries with my photo debit card all the time and she not once had an issue.
Optimal in my oppinion would be smartcards which stored enough to hold a fingerprint , then a reader which you'd just put your thumb on. SOmeone could still steal your thumb, but if they do you'll be worrying more about that than your billfold.
Will GOOG be showing this "up to $90m" as a loss of revenue on the books? Or are they going to account it away so it doesn't hit the bottom line?
It will be interesting to see how that part of it filters out as the market is starting to show more scrutiny towards Google now that it's "rampant growth honeymoon" seems to be coming to an end.
Google stood up to the US government becuas eit had nothing to lose in doing so. On the other hand capitulated to the Chinese government because not capitulating would mean it couldn't make money in China.
"Don't be evil.. (unless it keeps you from making more money)"
1) Control how people get onto the internet... check (see wi-fi story)
2) Control how people find information... check
3) Control how people get mail... check
4)...
5) PROFIT!
And our protection from them is a marketing slogan which used ot hold water until they starting applying the "*-conditions may apply" to it. How long until they make the next leap forward by using Google desktop indexing to track what types of things you want, then offer to let it take that information and combine it with your google searches to get to things you want with less mishits on the search.. Automatically put together a google auctions listing page of things it figures you want to buy on your google sidebar, and all for ONLY a small monthly fee.
So... At this point google is not so quietly accumulating all the bits and peices to compete for just about any segment of e-commerce, while at the same time having millions of geeks happily plugging away personal information to them in one means or another.
And what we have to make us feel safe is that they have a catchy marketing phrase of not being evil which they've already bypassed then played semantic justification games about later.
There are a ton of partially applying analogies people are using for this. When it comes down to it the perfect10 site has copyrighted images. Other sites are stealing them and displaying them, along with Google ads. This would mean Google is potentially making money off stolen goods. For the analogy prone, this is why pawn shops get in trouble when they sell stolen merchandise.
If I go into the local pawn shop and purchase a PDA, I fire it up and discover it belonged to someone else, a little research further shows that it was stolen from them and sold to the pawn shop. The pawn shop will get in trouble and be obliged to pass on identifying information about whoever sold it. In the case of Google they are advertising where you can go find stolen goods. There is a reason you don't see lots of ads for places selling possibly stolen goods in the newspaper. (Another favorite badly turned analogy.. "Google as a newspaper")
The real beef of the suit from what I read was that since the thumbnails are approximately the same size as the version of the photos sold to users for their cel phones then it is stealing potential revenue from the copyright holder, which is at the core of why you get a copyright.
I was raised by my grandparents in a family where they were the first generation in from the farm. My grandparents noted that whenever we'd go shopping if there was a Radio Shack within eye shot I would pester him to let me just go in there while they did whatever they needed to do. The indulged me then at the age of 8 because the Radio Shack guy was nice and didn't mind a kid who just wanted to look at the fancy TRS-80's since nobody else in that part of town could care less about a computer. They encouraged me and bought a TRS-80 color computer when they first came out for the house.
25 or so years later I'm the most financially successful person our family has produced, and one of the few who have avoided any serious jail time to boot. Yay technology:) I plan on introducing my children to the technology they'll be using as early on as they show interest in it, which with most children as as early on as you'll let them do what the grown ups are doing. I have two nephews who were proficient in windows before they were in kindergarten because they had as much fun on the computer as on the playsatation.
My real question is how they will use it. When I was being engrossed in computers I was programming in BASIC and some LOGO, I was tinkering and building thigns with the computer (including a bubble memory module for instance). The technology we have now isn't so friendly to tinkering anymore, and how many people when learning how to use a computer now are learning how to program one as opposed to how to use applications? Will my kids need a subscription to Make magazine at the age of 6?
What I am seeing is this is... Don't be evil unless you need to in order to do business, but definitely Don't be evil if it will get you publicity. I will not give them "not evil" cred for a stance of "don't be evil when it benefits us", which makes me now think that whole mantra was wishful thinking which was turned into a marketing campaign. I hope the founders can sleep at night, of course since they probably have mattresses made out of billions of dollars stuffed into bags they probably do
You talk about protecting user privacy, but what the government is asking for does not ask for any identifying information. They want the search strings, and no information about WHO made those searches.
As for probable cause and a reason to get the information, if they have suspicion that Google is being used to search for information about and subsequently facilitate illegal acts they have a grounds. They have to prove that second part though as , at least in most cases, just having information about an illegal act isn't illegal (i.e. the Anarchist Cookbook). How can they do this? Simple:
"Google, we request a list of all search strings run through your search engine which have the following keywords in them: Child sex, homemade bomb, American jihad"
If that doesn't get them a sizable list I would scream they were editing things. Which would open up for them asking for a complete list to verify context of those searches, probably WITH identifying information.
Another angle would be the DoJ pushing to have internet search engines considered a public service, if they pull that off it's a free for all with the information. (see phone companies and ISP's that have to keep RADIUS logging logs correlating dial up ID to IP)
Your music "service" is for an unlimited number of downloads for a flat fee per month. (As others are doing)
Your music doesn't "expire" if they cancel account. (That's just a crappy thing to do, might as well go the iPod route then.)
And the kicker to hook people in.. You go to Amazon to shop for a CD, for an extra $1 when you buy it you can download all the songs from it into your device right then so you can listen while the CD is being shipped. This could be with or without subscription. (Make it free if you have a subscription so that someone buying 5-10 CD's at amazon might be better off getting a months subscription which hooks them on your service!)
I can now run a KKK website with the intent to bring the topic of Racial hate crimes into the spotlight of American politics?
Who wants to run the site to bring the topic of naked women writing in kiddie pools filled with chocolate pudding into the spotlight of American politics?
i.e. - We are doing this to make money and will find a rationalization to show we're serving the greater good with it.
Google has another tool which will help them futher analyze how you and your data are noted by the public, which of course will help refine what ads are shown.
Well color me shocked!
I was also wondering when todays Google story would hit. They are becoming masters of pacing themselves so that at least one thing they do every day gets noted as "newsworthy" to keep them in the spotlight.
Apple in this case would be fighting to prevent an open standard for the sale of music and handling of music by it's products and services.
Well color me shocked...
Next thing you'll be telling me is that bears like to deficate in forests..
Or that the Pop happens to be Catholic!
Blashphemy!
But that was only in school. Starting at age 9 in 1978, TRS-80 model III. When I was 12 or so my grandfather bought me one of the first TRS-80 color computers. Upgraded to an Apple II when I was 15, didn't own a PC until I was about 21 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
On the FireFox/IE debate one of the big arguments against MS is that they do not innovate and add new features until the open source community has beat them to it.
On the Office/OpenOffice side of the debate a big argument against MS is that they innovate and add new features and the open source community says it's irrelevant because few people USE the innovative and new features.
At least that is my simplistic "monkey on the outside throwing peanuts" view of things...
As to the actual article, I will defer to the "delay until you can release something solid" approach. If the product really is in so little need of advancement in features as some of you guys say it is then this would be the best approach anyways if they want to combat the "Microsoft releases junk software" image they get painted with, wouldn't it?
The difference between "Serious" and "Highly Critical"...
(Yes, tongue is firmly in cheek here...)
Why would this qualify as serious if there isn't even a known way to exploit it yet? Or was there one in there I missed?
I feel I can pretty confidently talk on it. Like a poster above my wife and I can have wonderful conversations but if it's on the phone then there's always something else vying for my attention, and it ends up distracting me. This same thing happens when talking to friends as well, and co-workers.
To help overcome this I have done a few things.
A) Calling me on my cel phone doesn't mean I will answer, some phone numbers don't even ring on my cel, others have rings to tell me if it's someone who probably has urgent needs. This let's me filter out my mother with her latest e-mail not sending crisis. Most cel phones now will let you classify contacts and only ring for certain classes of contacts and maybe vibrate or not ring at all for others.
B) The cel phone does not come into the bedroom or bathroom.
C) Explain to my wife that if I'm looking at one thing then probably she won't have my attention until she gets it BEFORE asking me something.
D) Disabled all notification sounds on my IM clients, and have the IM clients on a separate screen from the one I'm working on. I check them from time to time, but if someone needs me that urgently they know how to get in touch more directly than IM.
E) Never carried a Crackberry, never will.
Does this make me some type of "disconnected Luddite of the instant access age"??
Cute that you should make a well spun reference to some classic literature... ...not so cute that you just use it to flame the easy "target du jour".
Worse for me, for feeding a troll.
A liberal organization which is pretty slanted against the republicans proposes legislation to a congress which is still controlled by the conservatives they don't like.
This isn't news, this is wishful thinking...
Um...
Chicken == POULTRY
Poultry counts because Beef is steer, cow, veal, to a certain degree Deer as well. Pork is not only pig, but also boar, which is considerably different. In the same way that pountry is chicken as well as duck and turkey.
You sir, lose at analogies IMHO.
They start paying you to play it. As it is , being free still costs too much for that game as I remember it.
OK, ignore the translation part as I forgot about not using certain characters which made things look like tags.. heh
Translation:
If you for then someone and gets have they done something wrong or unethical?
There are a lot of ways I think that the recording and media industries are doing things the wrong way, but I am not about to stand here and argue that it's a persons right to copy something which someone else makes their livelyhood off of with the pretense of "it wants to be free".
Look at the biggest names in Open Source, they all have some income generating stream somewhere. If this is how Mozilla drums up money for FF than more power to them as it's the least intrusive money making scheme i've seen in software yet. (Compare to banner ads for instance)
Optimal in my oppinion would be smartcards which stored enough to hold a fingerprint , then a reader which you'd just put your thumb on. SOmeone could still steal your thumb, but if they do you'll be worrying more about that than your billfold.
It will be interesting to see how that part of it filters out as the market is starting to show more scrutiny towards Google now that it's "rampant growth honeymoon" seems to be coming to an end.
Google stood up to the US government becuas eit had nothing to lose in doing so. On the other hand capitulated to the Chinese government because not capitulating would mean it couldn't make money in China.
"Don't be evil.. (unless it keeps you from making more money)"
2) Control how people find information... check
3) Control how people get mail... check
4)
5) PROFIT!
And our protection from them is a marketing slogan which used ot hold water until they starting applying the "*-conditions may apply" to it. How long until they make the next leap forward by using Google desktop indexing to track what types of things you want, then offer to let it take that information and combine it with your google searches to get to things you want with less mishits on the search.. Automatically put together a google auctions listing page of things it figures you want to buy on your google sidebar, and all for ONLY a small monthly fee.
And what we have to make us feel safe is that they have a catchy marketing phrase of not being evil which they've already bypassed then played semantic justification games about later.
What could possibly go wrong from here?
If I go into the local pawn shop and purchase a PDA, I fire it up and discover it belonged to someone else, a little research further shows that it was stolen from them and sold to the pawn shop. The pawn shop will get in trouble and be obliged to pass on identifying information about whoever sold it. In the case of Google they are advertising where you can go find stolen goods. There is a reason you don't see lots of ads for places selling possibly stolen goods in the newspaper. (Another favorite badly turned analogy.. "Google as a newspaper")
The real beef of the suit from what I read was that since the thumbnails are approximately the same size as the version of the photos sold to users for their cel phones then it is stealing potential revenue from the copyright holder, which is at the core of why you get a copyright.
25 or so years later I'm the most financially successful person our family has produced, and one of the few who have avoided any serious jail time to boot. Yay technology :) I plan on introducing my children to the technology they'll be using as early on as they show interest in it, which with most children as as early on as you'll let them do what the grown ups are doing. I have two nephews who were proficient in windows before they were in kindergarten because they had as much fun on the computer as on the playsatation.
My real question is how they will use it. When I was being engrossed in computers I was programming in BASIC and some LOGO, I was tinkering and building thigns with the computer (including a bubble memory module for instance). The technology we have now isn't so friendly to tinkering anymore, and how many people when learning how to use a computer now are learning how to program one as opposed to how to use applications? Will my kids need a subscription to Make magazine at the age of 6?
(Rambling mode.. disengage...)
You talk about protecting user privacy, but what the government is asking for does not ask for any identifying information. They want the search strings, and no information about WHO made those searches.
As for probable cause and a reason to get the information, if they have suspicion that Google is being used to search for information about and subsequently facilitate illegal acts they have a grounds. They have to prove that second part though as , at least in most cases, just having information about an illegal act isn't illegal (i.e. the Anarchist Cookbook). How can they do this? Simple:
"Google, we request a list of all search strings run through your search engine which have the following keywords in them: Child sex, homemade bomb, American jihad"
If that doesn't get them a sizable list I would scream they were editing things. Which would open up for them asking for a complete list to verify context of those searches, probably WITH identifying information.
Another angle would be the DoJ pushing to have internet search engines considered a public service, if they pull that off it's a free for all with the information. (see phone companies and ISP's that have to keep RADIUS logging logs correlating dial up ID to IP)
Then also tell Wal-Mart they can't import so many cheap goods produced there.
Our geese and ganders should be the same color.. or something like that.
Your music doesn't "expire" if they cancel account. (That's just a crappy thing to do, might as well go the iPod route then.)
And the kicker to hook people in.. You go to Amazon to shop for a CD, for an extra $1 when you buy it you can download all the songs from it into your device right then so you can listen while the CD is being shipped. This could be with or without subscription. (Make it free if you have a subscription so that someone buying 5-10 CD's at amazon might be better off getting a months subscription which hooks them on your service!)
Who wants to run the site to bring the topic of naked women writing in kiddie pools filled with chocolate pudding into the spotlight of American politics?
i.e. - We are doing this to make money and will find a rationalization to show we're serving the greater good with it.
Well color me shocked!
I was also wondering when todays Google story would hit. They are becoming masters of pacing themselves so that at least one thing they do every day gets noted as "newsworthy" to keep them in the spotlight.
In some places that is considered a public service.
Apple in this case would be fighting to prevent an open standard for the sale of music and handling of music by it's products and services. Well color me shocked... Next thing you'll be telling me is that bears like to deficate in forests.. Or that the Pop happens to be Catholic! Blashphemy!
But that was only in school. Starting at age 9 in 1978, TRS-80 model III. When I was 12 or so my grandfather bought me one of the first TRS-80 color computers. Upgraded to an Apple II when I was 15, didn't own a PC until I was about 21 or so.