Naah, everybody knows that a maverick is a wild cow…
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I.e. is Google trying to make its own product better, or just trying to keep others from making their product better?
I don't want to sound too cynical, but I am not sure what Google is hoping to get out of Waze (though Waze can undoubtedly benefit a lot from Google).
The way I understood it, the reason it is not see-through is that they wanted to have a general consumer product. It seems to me that while see-through might make you feel like the Terminator, there are simply very few people who actually want to walk around with a see-through device.
Though this might indeed be due to the fact that a see-through device would have to be way bigger than the "giant goggles sticking out strapped on your head" that is Glass.
I am not convinced about the graphics arguments, though. Don't jet fighter pilots already have heads-up displays in their helmets that overlay graphics across their vision?
I actually wear a watch, and though it is cool and slightly expensive, I do use it a lot to check the time. In comparison to getting my phone out of my pocket, checking my watch is much faster.
Though paying attention to a difference of a few seconds might indicate that I am slightly obsessional-compulsive about time. I even maintain it synchronized to the second. Then again, I live in a place where trains and buses run on time.
I really wish people would only wear sunglasses to reduce glare from the sun… Unfortunately, there are far too many who wear sunglasses after dark. One guy I knew even wore two pairs of sunglasses after dark: One on his eyes, and one on his hair, to hold in place his fashionably-ruffled hairdo.
There are a few big players who are not at all interested in sharing their users with the other guys. Without even saying that all these systems add subtly different features in order to differentiate their offer from the others, which makes it difficult to interoperate. For instance, the new Hangouts thing from Google had to mostly drop XMPP support, because it could not handle half of the extra features.
Have you thought about all the opportunities of making money that got killed because of the advent of Internet? How many billions would people agree to pay for services that have become completely unnecessary because the Internet exists and has made them obsolete? Google even had the unmitigated gall to make Internet easy to use! All that money drained from the global economy!
And don't forget how the invention of the damn telephone killed the letter delivery business, and killed off so much tax revenue.
The problem is that laws need not follow the rules of logic. The US and a few other countries have so-called General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) that essentially state that it is illegal to game the system, even if you only use legal means.
This flies in the face of logic, but remember, lawmakers do not have a program to tell them that what they write does not compile…
Exactly my thoughts. I would bet that more than one was spurred to download the plans by just this announcement.
…Could it be that the police estimated that having exploding and imprecise guns in the hands of the populace would diminish the number of proper guns bought illegally?
Note that Google's hands are rather tied on this point. The only reason they have not lost their lawsuit from Viacom and been sued into oblivion is that they provide with ContentID a way for copyright owners to automatically show ads against their videos uploaded by users. They are simply not allowed to show these videos without ads.
Yeah, I was going to say the heading should be "IBM solution is the best, says IBM employee"
On subject of the message, I was under the impression that the reason most companies simply don't consider using anything else than Linux servers is that they are vastly cheaper and easier to manage. Proprietary solutions were always better, but stopped being used because the "power, security, administration licensing and management benefits" were not worth the trouble and lock-in. What percentage of IT workers can manage such a system, compared to a Linux server? How easy is it to find replacements?
This year's April fool announcing YouTube is shutting down in order to select the very best video of the web. Also, don't miss the 12-hours video announcement of the nominated videos!
This, gentlemen, is the problem that scientists and technical people have with the legal system. They are so used to argue with pure logic that it is extremely hard for them to understand that there are grey areas in the way laws are interpreted and applied.
In the real world, you unfortunately sometimes need a lengthy trial and a lot of money spent on lawyers to figure out whether something is legal. And the outcome of the trial can actually depend on how good the lawyers are! From a scientist point of view, this is pure madness — they assume that the law is so clear that any intelligent person could determine infallibly whether something is legal after thinking for a few minutes. Would it be that simple…
Indeed, I believe that very few countries tax income earned abroad. They have the same thing for citizens: US citizens living in other countries do have to report their income and pay tax above a certain level. Practically no other country does that.
It used to be that the attraction of a nice US passport was great enough that people would not care, but I am personally glad my children were not born in the US, otherwise they would have been on the hook with the IRS their whole life.
One of the reasons that Starbucks is inflating the price of its coffee in Switzerland is that the VAT there is 8% instead of being around 20% like in most countries in the EU. The reason Luxembourg has a VAT of 15% is because it is the minimum the EU allows.
This is not a small loophole; setting the VAT at the standard European level would augment the revenue of the Swiss government by almost 50%.
Suppose one keeps several friends or contacts in the phone, one of whom has a permanent restraining order to stay away from another contact in my list. Now, if one of these apps, including google and facebook, start meta analyzing these people and determines we have not listed either on our friends list, but one or both of them has a fb or g+ account but has not told the other, and both set themselves up to be diffficult for the other to be found…
Sounds like it would make a good novel!
I had always assumed that putting my iPhone in airplane mode and pressing the power button to turn off the screen was enough to make them happy. I was really surprised on my latest trip when the stewardess asked me to hand her the phone and proceeded to shut it down completely by holding the two buttons for a few seconds.
Chances that I will remember to do that in the future are approximately zero.
Not that I care much about that ordinance, but how can you fight such an ordinance on free speech ground? "It's our right to decide not to disclose information to consumers"?
What's next, claiming that health warning on tobacco products violates the privacy of cigarettes? Or would reveal the "trade secret" that cigarettes contain tobacco and tar?
Yes, but do these Bluetooth apps know precisely which device you just bonked? Or do they display "we have scanned the surroundings for bluetooth devices and found three cell phones, two laptops, a television set, a pair of headphones and a sound system, which is it you wanted to bonk again?
NFC seems to have solved this particular problem tight. So far I have never been able to use Bluetooth without a device selection screen.
You seem to severely underestimate the power of a government. Regulators can easily find any number of reasons for blocking such a deal. Appealing is difficult; complaining to the WTO would take years, and is not a viable strategy.
Personally, I think the deal would have made sense. Competing with YouTube requires a heavy infrastructure, and Yahoo certainly has the means and the required knowledge.
I would add that I have never noticed Arnaud Montebourg say anything intelligent. Every time I hear about him, it is some chauvinistic populist statement about French exceptionalism.
There is contrived legislation, à la "we need complete government control of the Internet to fight child porn. If you fight this, you are siding with pedophiles".
And then, there is really contrived legislation. Is there a contest somewhere? Perhaps this could qualify for the Ig Nobel awards.
Rather than changing the work environment so that it becomes attractive to women, we should teach women they should stop trying to interact socially, and get them to stare at the screen the whole day like the male engineers!
And please stop showering so often, I can't stand this lack of smell coming from you!
Take any random model, put any random parameters, get a provocative result, publish. Watch as people click on the link and enjoy the free publicity.
I wonder how they explain that Android went up to 34%, taking from iOS, if iOS users had exhibited this staunch loyalty. If you apply your model to past data and it predicts the present wrong, maybe you should change the model…?
If you walk in the street, anybody who sees you can blog about it. There is at the moment no expectation of privacy about it. However, it is almost certainly illegal to set up a web site tracking the movements of people in the street. Where is the limit? I will quote in full this excellent paragraph from Simon Bell:
"Tax is too complex and too intimately tied up with subjective political ideas about the size and role of the state for it to be reasonable to expect people to be guided by their conscience. That is why we have law. If the government doesn't like the outcome of current tax law, then it should change it."
In fact, I fully expect the expression "privacy code" to become part of the political vocabulary — You saw it here first!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019