IF ONLY SHE HAD A CLUE
3499 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Mozilla would probably get almost as much money from Microsoft for Bing to be the default search engine; So Google would not be able to kill FF just by killing this deal. Also, I think Google cares a lot more about search engine market share than they care about browser market share.
Then again, the last time the deal was done, Chrome's market share was neck-and-neck with Firefox, and Internet Explorer was in front. Now Chrome has almost as much market share as the other two combined, so that might change things.
Consumer Watchdog has been accused a couple of times of being paid by Microsoft to attack Google on various fronts. They certainly seem not to like Google:
And now Moffett Airfield.
A large, country-wide infrastructure should be done by the government? I guess the problem is that all telcos are hated, so the government wanted the people to hate someone else.
…Maybe the government could cover rural areas with its own antennas, then let the telcos use it at a reduced, national roaming-like cost?
No matter how well-intentioned the various governments are, I don't think that they should have complete access to my data. Because any trust I have in them currently may be misplaced in the future decades.
And there is no reason to frame this problem as a "Us-vs-Them" question. The secret services might believe that they are efficiently fighting ISIS, and that ISIS is worth fighting against. I doubt both points. I have not seen anything to convince me that terrorism is efficiently fought against by anybody, except by people who are actually trying to find peaceful solutions in various hot places in the world. And considering how unimportant ISIS is, I don't think we should be spending a lot of time fighting them.
Going to Linux will reduce the licensing costs, depending on your vendor of choice but the downside comes in those with Windows skills and experience needing to new learn new tools and the Linux infrastructure.
I have no idea at all, but is it really easier to find people with Windows skills than people with Linux skills? I realize most of the corporate world is on Windows, but on the other hand, don't almost all CS schools have a Linux infrastructure nowadays?
Terrorism causes a number of death and injuries that is insignificant compared to, say, the flu. There are more people killed by lightning strikes than by terrorism. It simply is not worthy of attention.
And it most definitely does not justify extraordinary rights for the government to peer into our every thoughts.
It is precisely the so-called "gatekeeper" position of Google, as regulators often complain, which makes it possible for the "right to be forgotten" to be enforced. If the web search business was vibrant with competition with dozens of search engines, it would likely be near impossible to convince every single one of them that your embarrassing results should be forgotten.
Also, free tip: if you want an article censored, post an obviously inappropriate comment to it under your own name, then issue a request to have the article forgotten.
No. If you try to use this technique to censor an article about, say, Tim Cook, the article will not show anymore when searching for your own name; but it will still show up when searching for "Tim Cook".
Do try to pay attention.
Apple in this case has not acted like a premium product company.
There is absolutely nothing in luxury products that guarantees better quality or durability. You might buy a watch that is 100 times more expensive than a cheap swatch, but that does not mean it will last 100 times longer.
I can't recall any case where people sued Louis Vuitton because the quality of their bag was, actually, not worth the price. I assume the strategy of these lawyers is that Apple will settle soon in order to keep the lawsuit out of the news; I'd be really surprised if their argument that price should mean quality is upheld in court.
We're talking about Apple here, which does have a certain power in the market. Yet even them were not able to get Verizon to accept freaking iPads in their system.
And even Google, with all its "anti-competitive" power, has to bow down to the telcos. Android Lollipop now comes with a default messaging app whose default behavior is to send SMS and MMS messages, which earns the operator money, rather than a hangout message, which does not. Guess why…
Nice to have some numbers! The worldwide PC shipments for that quarter was around 75m, 5m of which were Macs. Assuming the growth numbers stay the same, there will be more Chromebooks than Macs sold around 2016. It's not negligible, but it's not that much either.
If we compared to smartphones in terms of current market share, I guess Chromebooks would be Windows phones, Windows would be Android, and Apple would be Apple. The winds seem to be blowing differently, though.
Take them down? How? Go after the hosting company? It's in China and doesn't care about your yapping. Revoke the domain name? The next day the site exists under a slightly different name. As pirate bay has shown, it's remarkable how difficult it is to get rid of a website you don't like.
Some would argue that this is a feature, rather than a bug, of the Internet.
In order to have investments, you need profits, but also competition. Take TWC and Comcast: they make profits, but are not competing against each other. They are even proclaiming it: one of the arguments they are advancing for their merger is that anyway, they are already not competing against each other, so nothing would change. No competition means no need to fight for customers means no investments. QED.
On the other hand, I don't think there is anybody who would claim that Apple and Google are not competing against each other. The fight for market share is real, constant, and there is even Microsoft trying to make a viable third horse. For them, banning a network means losing users. They are unlikely to play that game.
Oh, and about Google Fiber: considering it exists in about half a percent of the US, I doubt Google can leverage anything on that front.
The FBI can hack into whatever computer in order to prove it is yours. Either you deny the computer is yours, in which case you are not protected by the 4th Amendment, and their evidence stands, or you admit yourself it is your computer, in which case their evidence is dismissed, but you have incriminated yourself; something you should have a right not to do according to the 5th Amendment…
Finding a way to reverse the hash function would mean an earthquake in theoretical computer science. It would be a discovery on the order of cold fusion. Scientists have tried for 30 years to solve such problems, and while we don't actually have proof, there is little chance that it can be done in a reasonable amount of time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019