Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Here's What's New (Score 1) 374

by The13thSin (#37320312) Attached to: Google's Real Name Policy, Why You Are the Product

Android because the rallying cry for cross-armed, anti-social cynics standing in the corner of the party watching the iPhone users socialize.

Wow wow... hold on fellow. You now are doing exactly what you object to in others, making an unrealistic caricature of groups of users. You do realize there are more Android phones sold every day then there iPhone's right? I don't know in which groups you hang of course, but with my friends, the "in" crowd is definitely not the iPhone user. But all of this is completely irrelevant because we should judge the products, not their users.

Finally, people have begun to wake up to the fact that Google is not what they perceived it to be. [various examples]

I'm sure there are some delusional Fandroids out there that think Google is God, but I'm pretty sure there are just as many delusional iFans and a significant portion of delusional Open Source / MS supporters (sorry I couldn't come up with anything clever to name those fans).

But please remember that's just the vocal minority on internet fora, most of the market just thinks: "Hey, this company has done pretty well. I'm not so sure about their privacy stuff that I sometimes read about, but their products are pretty nice.". There's no "Evil Google (TM)" or "Holy Google (TM)" for most people, and that's a good thing.

However, for so many years, mentioning any of this on tech sites like Slashdot, Reddit, Hacker News, and so on would get you voted down relentlessly by obsessive fans who could not accept any criticism of their hero. Google's purpose in appealing to those crowds--and I wouldn't be surprised if Google employees secretly post here and at other sites to help in this--is to win the support of techie communities, who will then defend them and give them a pass for things that companies like Microsoft could never get away with. It's free advertising.

Well now, this is getting up to the level of tinfoil hats mixed with an extremely selective world view. I'm sure there are Google employees on this and other sites, just as there are Microsoft employees here (probably even more), Apple employees here (probably less) and you know Slashdot has enough Open Source evangelists, even if it's a little less than it used to be. Besides, what is exactly the problem with Google (or any other company) trying to please the crowds? I'm a privacy advocate, so it stings me to say, that as far as delivering (decent) quality services to end-users for little-to-nothing (and unfortunately that's what people want - privacy be damned), I can't really think of any other company than Google that has done so well in the past years.

An unfortunate truth is that not all business models flourish through open-source. And not only open-source projects give the best end product, especially when it comes to user experience (which now is more important than ever). What Google has done better than any other (evil or not) is introduce and actively develop a legion of services and solutions (some better than others) that are free / freemium to use. Google's core business - Search - will never be opened because it would destroy their business. That Google isn't really quick on opening newest Android builds (whether for security or monetary concerns) is definitely unfortunate, and I'm sure there are many points to be made against other missteps, but the simple truth is that they are no more evil than MS or Apple or [fill in large corp]. I'm sure I don't have to list to you any of their missteps to prove that point. (Though to be fair Apple's recent patent trolling is really starting to bother me, especially because they violate so many of these so-called patents themselves, but that's a different story for another day.)

People get hung up on Google's openness, either in a too positive or too negative way. Judging by your signature, I'd say you are in the latter department. Chill, relax. The world is not coming to an end because of these companies. Your and my government (and the people that vote for them) are way ahead of them.

Comment: Re:Cant compete, but sue. (Score 1) 412

by The13thSin (#37039060) Attached to: Sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab Blocked in the EU

Well, for starters Samsung is a Korean company.

I think GP meant Apple... the US company.

At this point, I have no idea who sued who first ... but Samsung made the components for Apple, and Apple is asserting that in the process, Samsung ripped off their technologies so they could make their own product. (A little googling managed to turn up this [ibtimes.com] timeline -- apparently Apple sued first.)

Well that's the point isn't it? All these companies (Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, etc) own such a ridiculous amount of patents, according to the MAD principle they've stayed off each other's backs for years... until recently when Apple (& Microsoft) started suing everyone. If every patent they were granted was in fact valid, they could completely block each other from ever bringing out new products and completely destroy each other.

Sadly, with patents being such a big factor in what products you can make without getting sued (for instance, Android phone makers paying Microsoft) ... I don't see how you can have anything but product competition being defined by lawyers and the courts.

Indeed, it seems this system is starting to show everyone why it doesn't work.

Unless you toss the notion of patents altogether, do you have a proposal of how companies will make products with out constantly suing one another? Because quite frankly, as it stands, the patent system pretty much guarantees that your lawyers are more important than your engineers.

Well the cold-war stand-off that seemed to happen (most of the time) in the past decade or two seemed to work "somewhat", a company like HTC was able to rise to power only at the merits of others not suing them over patents until they got a couple themselves (though not enough apparently in some cases).

Patents exist so that you can avoid having to out-compete, you either get in injunction, or make them pay you an obscene licensing fee per unit that makes it impossible to compete effectively.

With other words: Patents (in their current form) are anti-competitive and anti-innovative... and it seems that deep misunderstanding by many judges worldwide of the technical sector and how it works, doesn't help much either.

And to comment on the form factor: There were rounded square tablets before the iPad, there were rounded square phones before the iPhone (LG Prada?)... maybe the Galaxy S 1 is a bit more like the iPhone than the iPhone is like the Prada... but it's all definitely a blurred line. I've heard non-techie's say the Galaxy S is like the iPhone, but only in the sense a McDonald's burger is like a Burger King burger... never were they unable to tell which is which.

Comment: Re:Funny That (Score 3, Interesting) 300

by The13thSin (#36481974) Attached to: ICANN To Allow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.brandname Top-Level Domains

It goes beyond that... it's also about recognition.

When I see "blablabla.com" I'm pretty sure that's a website. When toplevel domains are fully customizable and some companies will presumably start using http://microsoft/ or http://apple/ ... recognition will be gone, which is very annoying and slightly confusing. Most annoying for me personally (and many others I gather) will be I can no longer use the top bar for both searching and entering a webaddress. If I enter one word right now, it searches for it and if I enter a word+".com" (or similar) it goes to the web page. How will it be able to know once we go "keyword"-ing our TLDs? (Without either having a current list of ALL TLD's (which can become a huge list) or looking it up online (which introduces lag, especially on mobiles)?

But it was bound to happen I guess... ICANN wasn't going to ignore this huge amount of money that they can make from this just because it might make sense.

Comment: Re:If it compromises a bundled runtime... (Score 2) 244

by The13thSin (#36108136) Attached to: Google Engineers Deny Hack Exploited Chrome

From TFA:

"The Flash sandbox blog post went to pains to call it an initial step," said Evans [from Google]. "It protects some stuff, more to come. Flash sandbox [does not equal] Chrome sandbox."

The blog Evans referred to was published in December 2010, where Schuh and another Google developer, Carlos Pizano said, "While we've laid a tremendous amount of groundwork in this initial sandbox, there's still more work to be done."

So yeah, but no, Google never claimed the flash plugin was inside the Chrome sandbox, it's still a work in progress apparently. Of course that doesn't negate the fact that flash is bundled with Chrome and therefor all Chrome users are vulnerable. Still, most users would've installed Flash anyway, this way Google has at least some control over the security issues (though obviously not enough).

Flash is not going away for awhile, especially as long as people keep using outdated browsers en masse and HTML5's implementation isn't (at least somewhat) unified crossbrowser... so with other words it's going take a looooooooong time before Flash is a distant memory. Your best bet is that Google finds a way to *really* sandbox Flash in, so this can't happen anymore. We'll see if they're able to.

The Internet

+ - Debate swirls over IPv4 resale rules->

Submitted by netbuzz
netbuzz (955038) writes "A bankruptcy court recently approved Nortel’s sale of almost 670,000 IPv4 addresses to Microsoft for $7.5 million. Despite this precedent, there remains great disagreement in Internet policy circles about how future sales of IPv4 addresses – particularly the largest blocks issued during the Internet’s early years – will proceed. Says a broker of the Nortel/Microsoft deal: ``It means that the pejorative term ‘black market’ is a thing of the past, and the creation of an open, legitimate secondary market for the sale of number blocks, under a legal framework, is now undisputed.’’ Yet the details are very much still being disputed."
Link to Original Source
IOS

+ - New York Times R&D wants to preserve iOS data ->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "In an alternate take on the iOS "location tracking" controversy, The New York Times R&D Lab has started openpaths.cc, an initiative which promotes individuals' access to their own data. Via an upload application, participants securely store their iOS data and are given tools for mapping and conversion to common formats for their own use. Ultimately, the goal is to connect datasets to research projects in public health, epidemiology or urban planning on an opt-in basis."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:There should be... (Score 1) 143

by The13thSin (#36087294) Attached to: Confusion Surrounds UK Cookie Guidelines

Exactly.

Look, I'm a big advocate for more privacy and believe we are currently giving away way too much private information and are tracked way too much, but this is something that should be addressed in browsers, not websites. Hell, make legislation that makes it mandatory to have a dedicated cookie-information page with a new tag that links to it if you must (so the browser can link to it, for instance with the infamous yellow bar), but the practical effect of legislation like this is that business is moving elsewhere (outside the EU).

Any website that gives the end user a scary "I'm tracking you!" pop up will most definitely be less popular than its US/Asian/etc sibling that doesn't. More importantly, it's not what the end user wants (in most cases) as it deducts from the user experience. If you want to tackle this legitimate concern, do so from within the browser, so there is no advantage to anyone (and also solves the issue with how to warn for 3rd party cookies, plus saves a million man hours to make current websites compliant). I really don't understand why the (sometimes somewhat IT competent) EU decided to implement this in the way they did, as it will only hurt their business.

Almost makes me wish the EU had someone in charge that calls the internet a "series of tubes"... Almost.

Microsoft

+ - Microsoft on a $7 Billion to buy Skype->

Submitted by kanad
kanad (541484) writes "Wall Street Journal is reporting that Microsoft is closing a deal to acquire Skype as early as today for $7 Billion. This would be one of the largest acquisition by Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to compete with Google and Facebook on internet space and this will give them the opportunity. Skype could be integrated with windows phone 7 or strengthen the Lync site of products."
Link to Original Source

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Working...