webwanderings

What if your manager does not see eye to eye with you, and happen to like others in the team sending too many emails? Ouch!

Sometimes too many emails gets the job done. It is a matter of perspective, subjectivity, and diversity of opinions. One can't force everyone to follow a unified platform of Basecamp, Slack, etc.

How are you copy/pasting?

Edit: never mind. Got it. Brilliant.

So your business depends on me not uninstalling your app by a single click of a button, while you don't even offer anything unique?

And you have crazy valuation which is threatened by your company's culture?

Ah, the modern times!

One could have solved that problem by bringing consistency with ranking - or some other form of instituting consistency. The key is to let the person adopt whatever pseudo-name he/she wants, but have it go with a consistent and single form identity (avatar or any other form which stays consistent).

The forcing of real names has been a ridiculous idea. It solves one problem but causes many other.

> The web was originally invented and gifted to humanity to promote individual freedoms and knowledge.

Thank you. This is indeed what web was all about, until the suits showed up to make money!

All Chicago taxicab drivers are driving Uber, Lyft and anything else running on the smart phones. The people who invested and saved through government backed medallion business, are loosing.

Don't fool yourself in thinking that the stranger you're sitting in Uber with, could potentially be your co-worker. He's your former cab driver.

A professional webinar I attended (as a parent of a high schooler) had opposite view. The college admission counselors treat real work, volunteering, extracurricular, on equal footing. Finding yourself running a business as a high schooler, is obviously better.

I have Windows 7 on a 4GB maxed out IBM laptop for personal use. Don't see a reason to go anywhere, as long as I can. Although, XP was also fine.

> There is, Firefox Sync.

You didn't follow the real problem. Firefox Sync only wants you to use Firefox Sync. Your data is not liberated to be used where you want it to be used.

> Chrome wants you to only use Chrome.

This is no different than saying Microsoft only wants you to use Hotmail.

Firefox did not build Gmail, nor does it have any serious interconnected bookmarks manager. Why would I use Firefox when Gmail does not render well on it and there is no way for me to seamlessly carry bookmarks, history and everything else which is part of daily browser activity?

Sure, I use Firefox for work as well. It is fine. I don't need to worry about gmail and personal bookmarks, etc at work.

No spam, no solicitation, you know whose line (email) you're picking up, and whom you're dialing (sending).

Is there a Blockchain email system? Wouldn't that be a solid evolution forward, in terms of human communication?

It is lot more bizzare. I don't understand why he shows up on HN (for me at least) in glowing terms, when he's never sold anything substantive in terms of arguments. What's the appeal? Is he a Ann Raynd type or something? Whatever I have read from him through HN's possibly young crowd, lacks much substance.

Facebook does for that grandmother what Email could not. But that still doesn't make Facebook all a saint.

In alternate reality, children and grandchildren should be calling her often on possibly Skype or better services. They should be emailing her their pictures.

But above probably proves that by now, Facebook is not running their business for grandmother or her kids. Hence, the cancer.

If there were only 100 people on the planet, you'd only need one government. Would you call it monopoly? Internet as a whole is monolithic in nature. You are hitting the boundaries with the potential of one product delivering whatever it is supposed to deliver, in the best possible manner which satisfies everyone. If Internet could be broken down and become diverse, you'll naturally see more diversity of choices easily cohabiting.

The original topic was not on the topic of economics, rather, the monopolies any invention creates. The economics of things have existed alongside everything else in human history. The point was whether Google is a monopoly in the context of information. My contention was to identify the fact that Google only facilitates the information (like what printing press did to the information people were keeping orally, or through scribes).

If Google is the monopoly in the sense that the OP describes, then a unified Internet itself is a bigger monopoly. Break apart the monolith of the Internet itself, and you have more player contending equally in facilitating search etc.

I don't know what your definition of "perfect information good" really is, but books have been converting information into knowledge for hundreds of years. Before the printing press, scribes used to hand-duplicate. The invention of printing press effectively changed the whole scene (just as the searching on the Internet changed Internet). Irrespective of the concerns of privacy etc, Google provides the best sauce of technology which facilitates searching the information (which converts to knowledge). As far as I can see, Google isn't in the business of creating knowledge.

Thank you. That's exactly my point.

Even though lots of different publishers were born, they were using the same technology, which is the printing press.

Google's core technology is search facility. If someone does this better than them, then there will be no monopoly. The core feature of printing press stood as is for longest period of time (even Xerox did not bring anything "new" to the table). That's, until the Internet in fact, was able to put a dent on the core invention of printing press. People are now reading on their screens, where as previously, they used to read only on the paper.

You are stuck with the short-term view of monopolies and privacy issues. We wouldn't be surprised if there was a big brouhaha over privacy during the time of the invention of printing press (ask any religious scholar what they have to say about the history of churches against the advancement of technology and knowledge).

Chrome book is indeed a real killer product, not just for schools but for average home users as well.

Microsoft used to have a Briefcase icon on desktops for offline file syncing. It used to work for those who used it effectively (it was under used of course). But yes, Dropbox went further than anyone else.

Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more it will be converted to knowledge by these same schools and students. Your comparison of it to your values of buying things for yourself, is misleading.

For the life of me, and embarrassingly, I could not locate this patch (or any patches) to download manually, for offline install on 2008 server which would not get online updates (the reasons I would leave unknown).

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant to say as my comment above. I have not watched TV in a decade, but I hear these calls of TV dying all the time. The thing is, TV is not going to die because it is essentially fulfilling the core needs of human urges (that is, to hear and tell stories). The TV may take another shape and form, as it has in the form of Internet videos and video-watching. Who tells and creates stories (the production houses) is also insignificant.

However, TV has indeed evolved over the years. It has gone from fictional shows like Lost which made space for semi-fictional reality TV shows era (Lost was a precursor to Survivor), to Cinema-like experience of GoT. TV has also seen itself evolve so fast that fictional shows like House of Cards lost itself to the reality on the ground.

These are human evolution in terms of what we're telling ourselves via our stories. It matters less how we're telling stories (Netflix, Internet, CBS...doesn't matter).

In the age when humans were able to produce TV shows like Game of Thrones, you cannot kill TV. The TV has only overtaken the Cinema. It will now be a race to topple the expensive shows in the history.

No offense to technology but this is all about age old entertainment and story-telling enterprises in human history.

You're right, but it is not in IBM's business culture to give out free things like Google and the rest of others (think Apple).

This article is absolutely true on everything, except for the title. The title gives the impression that one should continue on as is on the Facebook. That's misleading to the intent of the whole article.

How do I use this? Is there a bookmarklet?

What's better - Fail2ban or change port?

Google Reader could have been the better Google+. But nobody saw the potential. 99% of the "public" discusses matters (hello social networks!) over the news and informational items. And what is/was better than RSS? Nothing else really.

Now you have walled gardens and people behind cages.

Local news is the most relevant news there is, in anyone's life, anywhere!

Our focus on national and international news takes up too much of an unnecessary time and energy. On top of that, we spend ridiculously more time reading about what far away politicians have to say, or do.

Glad to see people from technology sector investing time and money in strengthening the local communities.