fkdjs

Anecdotal and unscientific in terms of not comparing apples to apples.

You would need to show your friends the posts they missed at best, or at least show a competing service, over the same set of messages, which isn't possible.

The fact that people aren't upset doesn't mean that the user experience is the same. Perhaps it's a bit shitier now, but they just don't know it, like a frog slowly boiling.

re: comparing to google, google can tweak algorithms, then users use bing _to search over the same data set_. That is competition, and Google must constantly be on top of things, so users who are happy with google, tend to know way more than users who are supposedly happy with facebook.

What this means is Facebook could very well be slowly boiling their users in order to get more cash, or you may be right and users really don't mind. If there were real competition to facebook, we would find out. Unfortunately, facebook doesn't want you to export your data so you can find out.

Note that facebook could have handled this by letting users filter, exactly how G+ does it where you put your friends together in circles then you say, "I want this circle, now I want this circle"... FB is controlling that filter because they want to monetize it. They could have allowed you to control the filter, by allowing you to put people into groups then you could, say, show all posts by users in certain groups. But then facebook loses control, or as they might say, "we know best wink wink". Facebook wants to be the gatekeeper for what you receive, and they stand to make a tidy sum off of that. They could have allowed users to filter based on group.. G+ does this. But Google makes their money differently. Facebook has chosen the monetization path. Shareholders want to see revenue. Facebook will say, "Hey, we need to fight spam." Fine, but in G+, I fight spam by filtering on circles. Why can't facebook do that? Less money.

choose the conan1 disk, click cold start, when it says flip disk, choose conan2 disk, hit space, and you're in.

I fired up conan, figured out the key mappings, then my stored neurons kicked in, found the hidden life then immediately got to the third level without dying. God help anyone trying to figure this game out for the first time. I want to use basic, but my keyboard mapping is fubar'ed, I figured out ctrl maps to " but I haven't figured out which key generates "," which is needed for a program I wanna write.

I haven't logged into facebook for a long time but this seems to be what's happening.

x) Disallow users from merely being a fan of the page, instead replacing that with "like"

x) Now make it so businesses can post to their page and the post shows up in the newsfeed for those who like the page. Previously only friend updates were shown. So liking a page has the side effect of getting spam by the company.

x) Facebook has now successfully facilitated spam, which is necessary for

x) Their new spam-prevention algorithm, leading to the end goal:

x) Now that Facebook has facilitated spam and we accept limited posts, the antispam filter can be circumvented by paying Facebook.

Voila, Facebook is now the post office, and spammers pay the post office to bulk spam you. Imagine if you went to local businesses and said, "Hi, I like you guys", that resulted in spam to your snailmail mailbox. You said, "Cut that out, that's wrong." So they fixed the problem they created, but now that the businesses are hooked, they can charge them for the ability to send out spam.

Facebook could easily make it so users are in charge of their filter, but this is counter to how Facebook wants to make money, so the UI is horrid for this and no one does this in practice. Imagine a UI where users rank friends of order of importance, with an easy UI, and the most important friends of mine are the ones who I am more likely to see. O wait, I have just described g+. Facebook will never have such an intuitive interface("close friend" is horrid), where you the burden of filtering is put on the user. Facebook wants to control that filter.

Eventually it will get to the point where you don't even need to like a page, you will get spam from the highest bidder, decided by auction. One of the main purposes of 'like' was to get users accepting communication from companies, once that was done, then they went in to monetize the link, before that it was just friend to friend chit chat, which doesn't pay the bills.

Microsoft realized these privacy rule changes allow for things like google now, so after criticizing google they realized their stupidity, then copied google, which is their current business plan as of late. I'm betting they're working on their own google now clone. So here we have another example of Microsoft missing the boat. Yet Microsoft tries to get the government to investigate google for anticopetition. Google is where they are due to being smarter than their competitors, and this is one of many examples.

The reason for no uproar is Microsoft is better at PR. When google introduced the privacy changes, Microsoft went into PR overdrive mode. You have to hand it to microsoft, when it comes to PR, they are innovative.

Except that is not how antitrust works in the US. Competitors may be harmed if it is for the benefit of consumers. And it may not always be evident that the consumer benefits right away.

I would say he doesn't know how to play the game. How you play the game is you never break the rules while you make sure people know you're not the bitch. As the person above you said, he should have made vague threats. This is negotiation 101. Government wants leverage, former employee wants leverage. They have what he wants ($), he has what they want (information).

In the US at least, you must prove that the consumer was harmed in order to have a successful antitrust complaint, and that's going to be pretty hard with google. With microsoft, it was a pretty clear pattern, ie rebates to OEMs to thwart competition. And more recently, disallowing users to change their default browser. Instead, with google, you can bid/get ranked high and you're still able to compete. You can install chrome and change the default search engine easily, etc etc. Google has been pretty careful about avoiding mistakes Microsoft made. And at the end of the day, if you don't like google, you type in "bing.com" and lo and behold, you're using another search engine. You could not (at the time at least)just install a competing OS within seconds.

True, Tim Cook is smart. He also makes sure Google quickly submits this by... suing every android partner of note.

Hey, wait a minute.

Like notifications?

And you talk as if iOS didn't copy from android(notifications). That's right, Apple stole Google's innovation. I believe you ignoring this elephant in the room is a logical fallacy.

And iOS has robbed Android blind (notifications).

Anyone can come out tomorrow and write their own search engine. Like Bing. Hell, Bing has even been caught red handed copying. Yet still Google makes money. Anyone remember Google suing Microsoft over that? Nope.

Maybe Apple needs to find a better business model whereby they can thrive and out-innovate before their competitors do so? That's what Google has to do, is Apple the special kid needing special treatment? What if Google started getting mad and suing every search engine competitor for infringing on their instant search patents, and other search patents? And without google, you'd be searching and hoping like you did in the 90's. Imagine that, a company that innovated, innovates, and doesn't try to sue their competition silly!!

If I hear one more primadonna talk about how Apple is getting ripped off, I'm going to explode. Please, get over yourself.

If anyone should be punished it's the judges. When lawyers tried to use copyright arguments where they should have used patents, Alsup was all over that. Where Apple should have used copyright claims if they wanted to talk about similarities w/ icons, etc., Koh should have been on that. Koh's leadership of the courtroom was weak, she let too much slide. Alsup made sure everything was by the book with no emotions. Koh's courtroom was an emotional soap opera, which Apple thrived in since legally their case was weak. Emotionally, they had the jurors. Yes Samsung copied, but copying by itself isn't illegal. Koh compared to Alsup, showed that she really isn't fit to lead such a high profile case, or any case for that matter.

Direct link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac0E6deG4AU#t=2m50

Minority Report had the concept, but with two hands. Something new would be the notifications stolen from android. But in any case, it's a patent and companies are required to protect their innovation!

"Pinch to zoom" is an innovation?

Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans.

I agree, companies have a responsibility to defend their innovations.

A shameless knock off copies _everything_. A shameless rolex copies everything from a rolex. Rolex doesn't copy anything from their knockoffs. There has to be one way copying to classify a product as a knockoff. Instead, Apple has copied many features from android, so it's not a case of samsung / android being knockoff products. If anything, consumers have benefited from copying! Everyone complained about iOS notifications, then they copied android notifications. And consumers benefited. The fact that we are even having this discussion is nauseating. It's painfully obvious what the outcome should be in terms of what's best for consumers. A rich ecosystem which combines copying with innovation.

Looks like there can be multiple things that are important to a phone's operation.

It's the centerpiece for interacting with apps. It's key. In fact, I'm betting it contributed to people confusing android with ios, it's that similar and pervasive. Before they were ripped off the biggest complaint about the iphone was it didn't have android-style notifications. There were many different knockoff apps since people disliked ios notifications so much and apple ended up hiring the lead dev from one of them(mobile notifier) So Apple greatly benefited from ripping off android as this allowed them to close an obvious gap.

Uh, Apple has copied android. iOS'es most fundamental feature, notifications, was ripped off from android.

And Apple made a conscious decision to steal android notifications.

It goes both ways and Apple can no longer claim to be the only princess on the block who everyone copies.

If you compare the two, then you must compare apples with apples. That is, you must compare relational DBs where every column is indexed since with column-oriented DBs, you can search by arbitrary columns without having to worry about which column is indexed. You can say that in practice you don't need this, so you reduce functionality but you're no longer comparing apples to apples. Besides, it's nice to search by any column, just because relational DBs limit you doesn't mean it's not useful. map-reduce databases are something entirely different, although you can do map-reduce via joins if need be.

You denormalize because, among other things, you don't have complex joins. With column-oriented DBs that can perform joins, denormalization is not necessary. NoSql is something entirely different.

Which is a false dichotomy, if you use the right storage mechanism for your column-oriented DB, the comparable relational DB storage will actually be larger since it has to index every column to provide the equivalent of what you can do with column-oriented storage. Also, another myth he brings up is that you can't have complex joins with column-oriented DBs. It's completely possible.

"Woops you want to query that column? Better wait 12 hours while we add an index to petabytes of data! Oh shoot, and that column too? Another 12 hours, and you have to use both columns in the where to use the index. "

If you are storing xml files for your column-oriented DB then you should be shot. I imagine protocol buffers or something like that might be smarter. IMO.

Your other stuff is way off base as well, but I'm lazy.

And the bubble deflation barely touched the silicon valley, thanks to employees in the valley engaged in bidding wars on homes. Yes it deflated a little, but that's peanuts compared to other parts of California where people literally lost their entire net worth. Combine Facebook employees, Apple employees and investors from China and you have another bubble.

...and it tanks again. Many facebook employees purchased houses using facebook stock. That is, they didn't have enough income to qualify for a loan, but they showed their facebook stock + current market price(pre-ipo), and got approved that way. So one bubble(FB), inflated another bubble(housing), and it's all deflating before our eyes. The fact that facebook employees are tanking/will tank this stock further should tell you something. I believe the employees start selling en masse in October, so this is just the warmup. I'm betting we'll see $12.

I would say this site is too nice to mysql. For stored procedures, mysql had those later whereas postgresql got those right early on. Mysql stored procedures suck donkey balls compared to postgres. Postgres in general just feels better designed, from the beginning.

re: replication, slony is horrible yet they focus on that. The slony author says you can daisy chain things, but that's a setup nightmare. Also, slony's n^2 communication gives you consistency guarantees, something I'm pretty sure mysql can't do, but most people don't need that. I much prefer bucardo. It's simple, easier to configure, fewer guarantees, but replicates much faster. I just wouldn't run a bank on that. However, how many people design bank software.

> hiybbpraqag

That just gets farmed out to google ;)