Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately contrarian or if you're legitimately dense.

Saying they "paid for lower QOS for Google" is misleading; they would actually have paid for higher QOS for themselves, which is perfectly reasonable.

It wouldn't have been of any benefit to Yahoo to increase their QOS with Google's remaining unchanged. I'm saying that they could have partnered with companies that owned large portions of the network to slow down Google's access. If Google couldn't crawl it, it couldn't index it. If they couldn't index it, their search results wouldn't have been as good.

Google won because they were better, and they were better because they won?

Pretty much, yeah.

That's rather circular reasoning.

Perhaps but it's not wrong.

In actual fact, Google's search engine business would never have been a viable business on its own; it simply didn't make enough revenue. Google's search engine only survived because it was cross-subsidized by Google's advertising revenue.

It's extraordinarily difficult to make a profit on a "Free" service without advertising.

Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't support the argument that it was "better".

No, more people choosing Google over Yahoo, Bing and AOL means that it is/was better.

Net neutrality, in the end, is an arrangement where companies like Google can push ads on you and monetize free content and have you pay for the privilege through your ISP fees.

Except that with Net Neutrality in place, you are free to choose one of their competitors without the network penalizing you.

A few big companies have come to completely dominate the market because of that particular arrangement.

In a market where all are given the same access, a few companies dominating it are just proof that the market chose them.

Even if the completely unrealistic worst-case scenario of ISPs all replacing Google and Facebook with their own private offerings

That's a strawman. I never argues that.

They wouldn't be able to directly replace them, they would be able to give preferential treatment to the traffic of their own competitor. They can't replace them but they can make them near unusable to their customers.

LK

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

Companies like Verizon and Comcast would take over those markets. Why would that be a bad thing?

Less choice is in any of itself a bad thing. It just so happens to be a bad thing that leads to worse things.

How could Yahoo have "slowed down Google's traffic"? They were both just search engines.

By partnering with (paying) MCI, UUNET and others to shape the traffic and provide lower QOS to Google.

Hence my use of the phrase "make deals" to do it.

And based on what criteria was Google "better"?

That varied from user to user but for me, it was more relevant search results and a cleaner interface.

You're basically saying that you think Google is great and that hence the government should interfere in order to structure the market to make it advantageous for companies like Google.

No. I'm saying that Google was better than Yahoo. Because Google was better than Yahoo, they toppled them from their position as the go-to search engine and the government should interfere to keep the marketplace available for the next upstart to come along and topple Google, if they can.

LK

Comment Re: oh no (Score 1) 423

If you're lucky, you'll get here one day.

You'll be just as perplexed when someone takes offense at your use of the word "Uncle" because it's not only patriarchal but assumes the gender of the sibling of one of your equal co-parents.

LK

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 2) 423

These companies know that "net neutrality" is in their financial advantage and makes it harder for small companies to compete.

More than that, it makes it harder for access providers to leverage their position as access providers to make inroads as content providers.

If Net Neutrality truly dies, Verizon and Comcast will be able to prioritize the traffic from their own competing services to harm Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and Google.

Without using traffic shaping, QOS or similar means to disadvantage the competition, any new upstart has to actually be better than an existing service.

Google beat Yahoo because Google was better at doing something. That wouldn't have happened if Yahoo had been able to make deals to slow Google's traffic to dial-up speeds.

LK

Comment Re:A question (from someone witout a credit card) (Score 1) 135

It's not really about the kind of people that pay for the credit cards either: A CC company can make plenty of money if you pay everything in full: they only really lose if you don't pay.

In most cases, the one that pays for the miles is the merchant, in interchange rate fees. In practice, a bank can end up charging almost 2% for those, if the card is really good for the consumer. People that get rewards use their card more. You get your 1% in cash back/miles, and the rest is what the bank really makes. Cards are worse in Europe because those fees are limited, and thus the bank would lose money if they handed you the same perks American cards give. As a merchant, you build your fees into the pricing structure.

So who really loses? In practice, the person that pays cash without the rewards and doesn't get a discount.

Comment Probably yes (Score 5, Informative) 245

First, background: I have been using Java at work, at least part time, since 2005. I started getting paid to write scala since 2012. I've definitely ran large, critical applications in Scala: I am running some right now.

Scala is a far more featureful, complicated language than Java is. A lot of what it gives you is really very high quality syntactic sugar (case classes, lambdas, pattern matching), but the one thing that sets it apart is its type system.

The trick is that nothing forces you to use Scala as if you were using Haskell instead: You can use it as a more sugary Java, using the extra type system fun sparingly. Restraint is the name of the game here, and also the reason some people have Scala horror stories: A company decides that Scala sounds great, and then hire some hotshot scalaz committer to teach everyone else how it's done. Then your codebase is full of operators that look like line noise, every class extends a base that comes straight from category theory, and half the developers say 'screw this, let's rewrite it all in Go!'

There is value in the category theory, and using arcane libraries like cats or shapeless, but 99% of the time, you don't need to: Just like back in the 90s you had to stop people from overusing OO design patterns, or their code will end up looking like Spring, Scala shops have to remind people to do the same when it comes to higher kinded types, hlists and concepts out of category theory. You really don't need any of that to use Scala successfully. Just ending up in a world where you typically don't need either a mocking library or any dependency injection nonsense is more than enough to switch. (Curse you Rod Johnson!)

The one thing where I would make people spend some time studying is in basics of functional programming, the very first of which is to learn to remove side effects from code, and clearly separate code that changes state from computation. Chances are you were doing some of that already in Java if you were hoping for a good unit test suite, but it's more important in Scala

Career wise, the more is a no brainer IMO: If you write Java, you are one in a very large pool of completely generic candidates that can use Spring and Hibernate to do something super boring. In Sala, you enter a smaller pool that most of the most average Java developers will never try to enter, so, on average, the job will be more interesting, and the pay will be higher.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing succeeds like excess. -- Oscar Wilde

Working...