> Also that only really works once. If spent 40 years, doing 10 4 year degrees, by this logic, I'd be a multibillionare right? Something is wrong with this theory.
I can't imagine that the authors claimed anything more than that.
How is the government incentivized in any way to do that? Politicians in the US receive substantial campaign contributions from established military suppliers who would stand to lose a lot from said laws. I don't see any rallying cries from the public about the competitiveness of supply arrangements government entities currently have.
Are you so sure about that? excuse-me's comment, right above yours in my view, talks about how the government has anti-competitive arrangements with big military contractors. How would the situation be different with healthcare?
Google having Android guarantees a large percent of mobile searches go through Google. It also means that Google has to pay Apple significantly less to be the default search provider for the iPhone. If these were the only accomplishments of Android, it would likely still be worth it for Google.
To be a pedant, I can't imagine the coiner of this phrase or really anyone who has ever thought about it uses the term in the sense that something or someone became successful because of actions taken over a proverbial overnight. The examples he mentioned are things which became popular abruptly, which seems to embody the spirit of the phrase just right.
To take the point to the extreme, absolutely nothing could be considered an overnight success if we use the term in the sense the author implies because noone is wildly successful at something they attempt for the first time if they have no apriori knowledge of how to do it from previous attempts or study.
Any business that would be running on linode could be worth potentially far more than that. What your saying here is that no one should put anything of value into a VPS, which I imagine is not something linode itself would say.
I mean, I didn't read it, but I'm sure somewhere along the way of my signing up for Google+ I agreed to their terms of service stating that they could remove whatever content they deemed unacceptable that I post or create.
As for your addition, to make all methods of communications pass through a company would either require a law, which would be unconstitutional, or would require more insidious methods. The government already has plenty of insidious methods of dealing with people.
Many of those departments are completely unnecessary. Was the US really at risk before the Department of Homeland Security came around after 9/11? Did we learn nothing in school before the Department of Education came around in 1980?
I believe this is the wrong approach. The law is mostly unenforceable, and I imagine it won't lead to a significant reduction in disposed rechargeable batteries as most people won't encounter the law on a regular basis. A better approach would be to do something similar to what is done with recycled goods; apply a tax to the product when it is first purchased and refund that tax if the product is returned at an appropriate facility.
This works and is very intuitive, but loses quite a bit of the coin flip's entropy in the process. There are more efficient algorithms, such as http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~qstout/abs/AnnProb84.html , which better use the entropy generated by the coin flip.
I don't think any of the serious complains about the letter had to do with the new name or the tone in which it was delivered. I don't think anyone would cancel their service over the name Qwikster or because the CEO is a jerk.
The real complaints dealt with the separation of the services and thus the separations of the ratings system and of queue management. This letter does not address either of those issues, and thus would fix nothing.
I think this goes without saying, but product announcements are not the only indication of successful R&D. A company can also do serious R&D and gain value from any patents acquired or products they didn't ship as a result. If anything, I think it indicates where R&D beyond a certain point goes. Companies needs R&D to advance their core products, but if you're doubling R&D spending past that you're probably researching "pie in the sky" ideas that are either far away from feasibility or not directly tied to any core products you currently ship.
I was less referring to the security issues, as I'm familiar with Google's efforts on those fronts, and more referring the lack of cross browser support. ActiveX sucked for a number of reasons, but one reason in particular was because it forced people to use IE even after IE 6 became the most inferior browser on the market by a long shot in terms of both security and performance. If NaCl becomes popular enough, either other browsers will be forced to add it or there will be similar lock-in issues. If other browsers are forced to add it, will every single one of them have the same security, performance and compliance with the standard as Google Chrome does?
I think a better comparison is with airplanes. You don't have a any real chance of being killed in an airplane, but if you were to be in a plane crash it would be horrifying and violent and you would die.
You might believe that it's morally wrong to penalize the person who did the work, but I would have to disagree with you. Both Cheating and giving others the ability to cheat undermine the credibility of an institution and harm the legitimate efforts of others.
Isn't that always the theme? The little guy starts losing market share so he has to disrupt the Status Quo in order to attract new customers. Between this, Google Voice integration and better pricing, Sprint is looking to be an appealing option going forward. Now if only their service didn't suck in my house.
It's easy to point out Google's mistakes and point to their engineering culture, but look at Microsoft as a counterexample. Microsoft has more or less the same story as Google; one or two wildly successful products supplementing the rest of the business. The other groups at Microsoft leap into new markets to try and expand the core business (Xbox 360 being a fine example). I doubt we would call Microsoft's culture an engineering culture in the same vein as Google.
The problem with C++ casting isn't that there are 4 different typecast operators. On the contrary, that allows you to more clearly state your intent to the compiler and prevent unexpected bugs. The problem with C++ casting is that they allow you to do C-style casting at all.
Another case of technical people assuming all business failures are technology related. Just like Digg failed because of NoSQL even though Reddit is frequently down due to technical issues.
Logged in to check the area I live only to find out that no places deliver to me. Given the plethora of places that do, I hope their funding goes a long way towards changing that.
When I started reading it roughly 2 years ago it was mostly fine. Nowadays I wish I could filter content from users by how often they read the articles posted, whether or not they find 4chan inspired comics to be useful or funny and whether or not they've ever felt the need to repost a "meme". Those filters would probably eliminate most of my complaints.
If you read and understand the article, you see the Sony did nothing wrong in it's implementation. The hack involves installing custom firmware with bad root certificates, which is hardly Sony's problem or fault.