Yes, but those "holes" are usually evident when you try to force an environment to do something that falls way outside of what it was designed for. HTTP is a connectionless, stateless protocol, by design. It makes a lot of sense for document retrieval. Forms make sense, even email front ends make sense. Instant messengers, word processors, spreadsheets, etc. make no sense in the context of document retrieval or exchange. We are going down a fundamentally misguided path when we try to force those applications onto the web. That was my point.
Last time I tried my hand at that, with browser compatibility being a concern, it wound up being a disaster and we were forced to move to a toolkit. Luckily, the problems started early on, from the very first stages of a prototype, so we didn't lose that much time. Since then, I've moved as far away from web development as I can.
As I recall, the point of making the browser was document retrieval; the name "browser" should give you a clue on that one. Let's see...the model of it was...right, hypertext documents that were linked together, thus forming a "web" of interconnected documents -- the "World Wide Web." Where does "application runtime" fit in with that?
HTTP is connectionless, but many applications don't make sense in a connectionless setting
Client side privileges are difficult to control, and relying solely on the server for security is not always possible
HTML/XML requests use more bandwidth than binary protocols, which strains slow connections (yes, some people still use dialup, especially mobile users, and here in America many mobile users still rely on 9.6kbps cell phone connections). *ML requests also include a lot of useless tags that describe the "document," even though it is really an RPC request.
XMLHTTPRequest is not standardized across all browsers, and multiple copies of some sections of code must be sent, wasting even more bandwidth.
Anyone who wishes to amend this list is welcome to. I'm *ML requests sure there are even more reasons, that I am just not thinking of at the moment.
Javascript works well when you have a program that writes half of the Javascript code for you. Try to write an AJAX application on your own, and see how far you get.
Java applets have an unfortunate reputation for taking a while to load, which is really the only reason they never took off.
Wait, nobody has come up with a language better than Javascript? That's funny, because when I think of useful scripting languages, I tend to think of...AWK, PERL, Python, etc. There is nothing stopping someone from integrating one of those languages into a web browser, nor anything stopping a standard "Web Python" from being created, with a specific standard library for web apps (on the client side, that is).
Well, to be fair, Google also has GMail, Google Groups, and a web office suite. However, in my other post, I asked a similar question: how could a case be built against Google? It feels like Google is not in keeping with the spirit of antitrust laws, but it doesn't seem to be practical to really make a case.
Yes, but it would be hard to prove that Google was engaging in anticompetitive behavior. They don't set their prices lower than their competition, their advertising agreements are, as far as I know, pretty similar to their competitors', and they aren't dominant in the markets where they have added proprietary extensions to open standards. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is running afoul of the intention of our antitrust laws, I just wonder how one could really build a case against them. This isn't like Microsoft, where people weren't making a choice because of bundling; in fact, Google is not the default search engine on the majority of out-of-the-box PCs (inclusive of Apple), MSN is.
Anyone with a good understanding of the law and this particular situation, how would one make a good case against Google?
This may not be tinfoil level, but it is certainly in conspiracy land. Microsoft, a powerful corporation, covertly paying seemingly unrelated industries to rally against net neutrality? How conspiratorial (yes, I know that the word is not being used properly).
1. The number of sickos who use SLR cameras is very low; why would a sicko use something that conspicuous? Sickos like cell phone cameras and small point-and-shoots, because those can easily be concealed.
2. The fact that you don't care about the rights people have as Americans indicates that you need to take a moment to review conditions in countries that do not grant those same rights to their citizens.
3. If that woman is so concerned about her cleavage showing up on a fetish website, then why is she walking down the street with her cleavage exposed? This isn't a case of someone sneaking into her home and photographing her, she is out in public with her cleavage exposed and calling anyone who photographs it a pervert. The guy was on the 10th floor of a building? Not much better than the vantage point of a man who is a foot taller than that woman, even with a 300mm lens.
4. If an artist does not have the right to photograph ordinary people in a public place, what does the artist have the right to photograph? Is it no longer permissible for an artist to photograph a busy city street, because of the difficulty in getting everyone's permission? Is it only art if it is done in a private room with models? There would be a lot less photographic art in this world if we all followed your reasoning.
So the only people who use cameras are pedophiles, terrorists, and of course, drug dealers and users? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News reported that tonight.
I see a reason to hate it. It takes the UK that much closer to imposing higher fines on ordinary, not-profit-seeking citizens who download movies and music. It also opens up yet another channel of abuse, where a person's actions can be construed as profit-seeking even if they really weren't, to levy a higher fine against them.
A person who photographs trees in a park, with children on the swings in the background, would have an easy time saying that it is an artistic photograph, especially if they get the placement of the tree(s) and children right. People need to stop assuming that a person (male) who photographs women and children is definitely a sicko of some kind, or artists are going to start having major problems. Actually, artists already run into problems; I've heard of a film photographer who had his lab raided by the FBI a few years ago, because someone accused him of a child pornography operation.
Yes well that is what is unclear. For example, is there an expectation of privacy if you put a bunch of 12ft tall bushes around your property, so people can't see into your yard, but someone standing on a nearby hill can still see? This is a fairly common situation in my neighborhood; plenty of people put wooden fences around their property, but a two block walk up a hill afford a good view of their yard.
What if you are an artist, and you are trying to get a photograph of someone who is completely unaware that they are in a picture? People often behave differently when they know there is a camera pointed at them, and some artists might want to capture their "natural" behavior. It might seem creepy at first glance, but really there isn't anything specifically wrong with it.
The law is clear, in a public place, you are free to photograph anything you want, even other people without their permission. While most police officers are aware of that law, security guards usually are not, and so it is likely that they will give you a hard time about photographing the public facade of a building. Also keep in mind that the law is not clear on photographs where the subject of the picture is on private property but the photographer was standing on public ground.
FiOS is not available in every region, NetFlix is in the video rental market (which is a different market from TV services), satellite is no longer a serious competitor to cable, and file sharing is not legally clear. Time Warner's only competition in many places is other cable providers, and in some places that's not even true.
As a matter of fact, you are completely wrong about property rights. One cannot do anything they want with their property, they must act within the confines of the law. For example, in my locality, I cannot erect any structure taller than 30 feet on my land.
From what I've seen of the comments on this article, people are confused about the nature of Time Warner's services. Time Warner does not give a simple DVR, in fact, the machine they give you is not technically a DVR at all, from what I can tell. Time Warner provides a thin client network, with customer "on demand" requests processed on their systems. As far as I can tell, if the cable box has any on board storage, it only stores the ID of a program and the position where the user left off. I could be wrong, but I couldn't locate any sort of hard drive in that cable box, and I doubt that it could have enough flash storage for the number of shows people "record."
As for competition...until very recently, the only legitimate competition Time Warner had was satellite, and it was clean that cable was winning that battle, at least in urban areas. Since Time Warner is basically the only cable provider in most of New York City, and since they only provide ONE set top box, this lawsuit may have some credence. I personally doubt it, since the cable box is really just an access mechanism to Time Warner's services, and there is nothing stopping someone from picking up a DVR and connecting it to that cable box (much like one would do with a VCR). Or maybe there is yet another angle to this lawsuit.
Apple wouldn't be forced to give an IP away, it would be forced to allow Psystar to buy copies of OS X, install those copies on a computer, and then sell the computer. Apple would not be required to release proprietary source code, nor would Psystar be allowed to make unlimited copies of a single OS X disk.
Yes, but identity theft is exactly that: theft. There is no precedent on EULAs yet, especially not on whether or not a company may prohibit another company or entity from installing the software on a different hardware platform. Given Apple's immense size, I'd say that they are wandering a bit close to an antitrust violation by trying to enforce such a prohibition, and if Psystar loses this lawsuit, that is an issue they might bring up on appeal (should they appeal it, and if they have the money to do so).
"One cohesive computing experience out there" is a bit of a stretch since...wait...oh yeah, OLPC, EeePC, and a dozen other companies are doing the same thing. I think you are suffering from "Fanboism," have your local doctor give you a prescription for "Reality."
Apple is not led by a visionary. It is led by a good businessman. A good businessman, who, like Microsoft, wishes to lock competitors out of the market. Considering that Apple's market cap. now exceeds Google, I have to wonder if it is just borderline psychosis behind Mr. Jobs attempt to shut down Psystar -- it just screams "antitrust violation." Maybe Jobs now believes his own marketing gimmick, and thinks there is a legitimate difference between Apple and the rest of the computer industry.
You're kidding, right? Bonjour is just Apple's implementation of zeroconf, which is in no way innovative and doesn't raise the bar one bit (I've been using zeroconf for a long time, to help wen dealing with people who don't have a technical background). Darwin? You mean the system that is a somewhat tweaked BSD? Objective-C, the somewhat tweaked version of C with some smalltalk features? Javascript, which came from Netscape? Where is Apple raising the bar in any of this? Next you'll tell me that Apple invented the mouse? The list of things people falsely attribute to Apple is what goes on and on.
As for their hardware, all I've seen Apple do is dress up their systems to be more visually appealing. Great for marketing, but how is it raising any sort of bar? It looks nice, that's all. I suppose that it raises the aesthetic bar somewhat, but from a technical perspective, it isn't that exciting.
What makes Apple successful is a brilliant marketing campaign, and the slow but steady buildup of a user base that is so devoted to Apple that it makes Scientology look tame. Their music players are popular, their portable video players are popular, and they've convinced everyone that the personal computer industry is divided into Apple and "everyone else." I'll give them credit for their marketing prowess, and I never denied that their marketing department was brilliant. They do not, however, represent an innovative technology company that is "raising the bar," and if you think they are, then you are living on yet another planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but those "holes" are usually evident when you try to force an environment to do something that falls way outside of what it was designed for. HTTP is a connectionless, stateless protocol, by design. It makes a lot of sense for document retrieval. Forms make sense, even email front ends make sense. Instant messengers, word processors, spreadsheets, etc. make no sense in the context of document retrieval or exchange. We are going down a fundamentally misguided path when we try to force those applications onto the web. That was my point.
Last time I tried my hand at that, with browser compatibility being a concern, it wound up being a disaster and we were forced to move to a toolkit. Luckily, the problems started early on, from the very first stages of a prototype, so we didn't lose that much time. Since then, I've moved as far away from web development as I can.
As I recall, the point of making the browser was document retrieval; the name "browser" should give you a clue on that one. Let's see...the model of it was...right, hypertext documents that were linked together, thus forming a "web" of interconnected documents -- the "World Wide Web." Where does "application runtime" fit in with that?
Anyone who wishes to amend this list is welcome to. I'm *ML requests sure there are even more reasons, that I am just not thinking of at the moment.
Javascript works well when you have a program that writes half of the Javascript code for you. Try to write an AJAX application on your own, and see how far you get.
Java applets have an unfortunate reputation for taking a while to load, which is really the only reason they never took off.
Wait, nobody has come up with a language better than Javascript? That's funny, because when I think of useful scripting languages, I tend to think of...AWK, PERL, Python, etc. There is nothing stopping someone from integrating one of those languages into a web browser, nor anything stopping a standard "Web Python" from being created, with a specific standard library for web apps (on the client side, that is).
Or a keystroke logger. That also helps get around things like cryptography.
It is like a cold war spy story between two lovers!
Well, to be fair, Google also has GMail, Google Groups, and a web office suite. However, in my other post, I asked a similar question: how could a case be built against Google? It feels like Google is not in keeping with the spirit of antitrust laws, but it doesn't seem to be practical to really make a case.
Yes, but it would be hard to prove that Google was engaging in anticompetitive behavior. They don't set their prices lower than their competition, their advertising agreements are, as far as I know, pretty similar to their competitors', and they aren't dominant in the markets where they have added proprietary extensions to open standards. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is running afoul of the intention of our antitrust laws, I just wonder how one could really build a case against them. This isn't like Microsoft, where people weren't making a choice because of bundling; in fact, Google is not the default search engine on the majority of out-of-the-box PCs (inclusive of Apple), MSN is.
Anyone with a good understanding of the law and this particular situation, how would one make a good case against Google?
This may not be tinfoil level, but it is certainly in conspiracy land. Microsoft, a powerful corporation, covertly paying seemingly unrelated industries to rally against net neutrality? How conspiratorial (yes, I know that the word is not being used properly).
1. The number of sickos who use SLR cameras is very low; why would a sicko use something that conspicuous? Sickos like cell phone cameras and small point-and-shoots, because those can easily be concealed.
2. The fact that you don't care about the rights people have as Americans indicates that you need to take a moment to review conditions in countries that do not grant those same rights to their citizens.
3. If that woman is so concerned about her cleavage showing up on a fetish website, then why is she walking down the street with her cleavage exposed? This isn't a case of someone sneaking into her home and photographing her, she is out in public with her cleavage exposed and calling anyone who photographs it a pervert. The guy was on the 10th floor of a building? Not much better than the vantage point of a man who is a foot taller than that woman, even with a 300mm lens.
4. If an artist does not have the right to photograph ordinary people in a public place, what does the artist have the right to photograph? Is it no longer permissible for an artist to photograph a busy city street, because of the difficulty in getting everyone's permission? Is it only art if it is done in a private room with models? There would be a lot less photographic art in this world if we all followed your reasoning.
So the only people who use cameras are pedophiles, terrorists, and of course, drug dealers and users? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News reported that tonight.
I see a reason to hate it. It takes the UK that much closer to imposing higher fines on ordinary, not-profit-seeking citizens who download movies and music. It also opens up yet another channel of abuse, where a person's actions can be construed as profit-seeking even if they really weren't, to levy a higher fine against them.
A person who photographs trees in a park, with children on the swings in the background, would have an easy time saying that it is an artistic photograph, especially if they get the placement of the tree(s) and children right. People need to stop assuming that a person (male) who photographs women and children is definitely a sicko of some kind, or artists are going to start having major problems. Actually, artists already run into problems; I've heard of a film photographer who had his lab raided by the FBI a few years ago, because someone accused him of a child pornography operation.
Yes well that is what is unclear. For example, is there an expectation of privacy if you put a bunch of 12ft tall bushes around your property, so people can't see into your yard, but someone standing on a nearby hill can still see? This is a fairly common situation in my neighborhood; plenty of people put wooden fences around their property, but a two block walk up a hill afford a good view of their yard.
What if you are an artist, and you are trying to get a photograph of someone who is completely unaware that they are in a picture? People often behave differently when they know there is a camera pointed at them, and some artists might want to capture their "natural" behavior. It might seem creepy at first glance, but really there isn't anything specifically wrong with it.
The law is clear, in a public place, you are free to photograph anything you want, even other people without their permission. While most police officers are aware of that law, security guards usually are not, and so it is likely that they will give you a hard time about photographing the public facade of a building. Also keep in mind that the law is not clear on photographs where the subject of the picture is on private property but the photographer was standing on public ground.
FiOS is not available in every region, NetFlix is in the video rental market (which is a different market from TV services), satellite is no longer a serious competitor to cable, and file sharing is not legally clear. Time Warner's only competition in many places is other cable providers, and in some places that's not even true.
As a matter of fact, you are completely wrong about property rights. One cannot do anything they want with their property, they must act within the confines of the law. For example, in my locality, I cannot erect any structure taller than 30 feet on my land.
From what I've seen of the comments on this article, people are confused about the nature of Time Warner's services. Time Warner does not give a simple DVR, in fact, the machine they give you is not technically a DVR at all, from what I can tell. Time Warner provides a thin client network, with customer "on demand" requests processed on their systems. As far as I can tell, if the cable box has any on board storage, it only stores the ID of a program and the position where the user left off. I could be wrong, but I couldn't locate any sort of hard drive in that cable box, and I doubt that it could have enough flash storage for the number of shows people "record."
As for competition...until very recently, the only legitimate competition Time Warner had was satellite, and it was clean that cable was winning that battle, at least in urban areas. Since Time Warner is basically the only cable provider in most of New York City, and since they only provide ONE set top box, this lawsuit may have some credence. I personally doubt it, since the cable box is really just an access mechanism to Time Warner's services, and there is nothing stopping someone from picking up a DVR and connecting it to that cable box (much like one would do with a VCR). Or maybe there is yet another angle to this lawsuit.
Even for slashdot, this seems irrelevant.
Apple wouldn't be forced to give an IP away, it would be forced to allow Psystar to buy copies of OS X, install those copies on a computer, and then sell the computer. Apple would not be required to release proprietary source code, nor would Psystar be allowed to make unlimited copies of a single OS X disk.
Yes, but identity theft is exactly that: theft. There is no precedent on EULAs yet, especially not on whether or not a company may prohibit another company or entity from installing the software on a different hardware platform. Given Apple's immense size, I'd say that they are wandering a bit close to an antitrust violation by trying to enforce such a prohibition, and if Psystar loses this lawsuit, that is an issue they might bring up on appeal (should they appeal it, and if they have the money to do so).
"One cohesive computing experience out there" is a bit of a stretch since...wait...oh yeah, OLPC, EeePC, and a dozen other companies are doing the same thing. I think you are suffering from "Fanboism," have your local doctor give you a prescription for "Reality."
Apple is not led by a visionary. It is led by a good businessman. A good businessman, who, like Microsoft, wishes to lock competitors out of the market. Considering that Apple's market cap. now exceeds Google, I have to wonder if it is just borderline psychosis behind Mr. Jobs attempt to shut down Psystar -- it just screams "antitrust violation." Maybe Jobs now believes his own marketing gimmick, and thinks there is a legitimate difference between Apple and the rest of the computer industry.
You're kidding, right? Bonjour is just Apple's implementation of zeroconf, which is in no way innovative and doesn't raise the bar one bit (I've been using zeroconf for a long time, to help wen dealing with people who don't have a technical background). Darwin? You mean the system that is a somewhat tweaked BSD? Objective-C, the somewhat tweaked version of C with some smalltalk features? Javascript, which came from Netscape? Where is Apple raising the bar in any of this? Next you'll tell me that Apple invented the mouse? The list of things people falsely attribute to Apple is what goes on and on.
As for their hardware, all I've seen Apple do is dress up their systems to be more visually appealing. Great for marketing, but how is it raising any sort of bar? It looks nice, that's all. I suppose that it raises the aesthetic bar somewhat, but from a technical perspective, it isn't that exciting.
What makes Apple successful is a brilliant marketing campaign, and the slow but steady buildup of a user base that is so devoted to Apple that it makes Scientology look tame. Their music players are popular, their portable video players are popular, and they've convinced everyone that the personal computer industry is divided into Apple and "everyone else." I'll give them credit for their marketing prowess, and I never denied that their marketing department was brilliant. They do not, however, represent an innovative technology company that is "raising the bar," and if you think they are, then you are living on yet another planet.