I think "trolls" are absolutely necessary and wouldn't support banning any of them. I see I got downvoted (probably by someone who identifies themselves with the current propaganda cycle) but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in thinking that companies supposedly offering salvation from the trolls are really doing it to open the doors for much broader censorship. It's a typical playbook, invent a fictitious enemy and then offer censorship tools to be accepted by general public. Once that happens, the criteria slowly and quietly converts into something much more sinister. Communists have been doing it for decades.
Striving to maximize revenue is great. However, I don't see this particular issue as black and white as you present it. This will certainly make some websites less profitable, but I doubt that it would bring an end to the free web. In fact, aren't there are other ways to do retargeting?
Given Google's relationship with Mozilla, if this move would negatively impact Google, i would be very surprised to see it happen.
You are correct, it won't affect the omnipresent Google because virtually everyone has visited their domain at some point. This will target alternatives to Google, leaving us with one company to do effective advertising.
How is this in the interests of the end user is beyond me, really.
Not being given looks by people passing by is exactly the reaction headscarves, burqas and other similar garments are supposed to produce. They represent chastity and modesty, and showing off your bodily features definitely doesn't fall into those categories. The concept of sending a message to people by fashion is very simple actually, and I personally think that reacting to such a message does not represent ignorance. Take the scarf off and let your face and hair be visible - people will look at you. Cover yourself in wraps - people will turn their looks away, and that is exactly the intended effect. It might seem strange to a white girl in a western society, but that doesn't change the fact.
As far as terrorism reference goes, that's a perfect example of generalization, another thing the whole humanity exercises daily simply because that is the way our reasoning works. Unfortunate it might be, but people generalize everywhere and about everything, and especially so when they are frightened.
No, not really. Someone was prepared to fly a war plane wherever the hell most people figured they should in order to sleep safe and sound in California.
The honour of the professional soldier in a modern western democracy is that they don't pick and choose the wars they fight in, they trust the judgement of the rest of us to figure that out. A mercenary picks the people he shoots at.
This is why it is so incredibly important to not only choose the wars we fight in - and the governments that start them - very carefully, but to ensure that our servicemen and women are respected appropriately.
There may come a time when a particular war is essential for our survival. We better have the people and skills to win it.
I find this mysticism around the US military to be puzzling. I mean really, "The honour of the professional soldier in a modern western democracy is that they don't pick and choose the wars they fight in"? As opposed to every other soldier ever? And when it's a volunteer military and you sign up after a war is declared, that's choosing to fight that war.
I'm not American, so I have no idea about whatever "mysticism" you are talking about.
All soldiers should be honoured for the fact that they volunteer for very dangerous activities, usually will little understanding of when and where those activities will be.
Your point regarding post-war sign ups is valid, but like I said, if you want to fight wars you can just join blackwater et al. If you want to serve your country you can join the nation's armed forces. There is an element in public service in the soldier that should be commended.
I think that's a little dismissive. What I read in the post was not so much a justification for the war effort as putting trials and tribulations in relative perspective. War could just as easily have been replaced by any other situation that is literally life threatening.
We Sleep Peaceably In Our Beds At Night Only Because
Rough Men Stand Ready To Do Violence On Our Behalf
so it's really odd to find that a Vietnam War story follows. Of course this is orthogonal to the main point of the article (cf. the title), but it's still odd.
I would downvote it, not only for the historical egocentrism of claiming that somehow those fighting the Vietnam War were protecting united-statesian lives (as if the conflict ever was anything other than wrestling for political influence), but because it's inflammatory. What does the GP propose, that every single person of every country should go and fight a stupid war on another country? Or else what, be shameful of not being on the glorious warrior caste?
There are several memes in the United States psyche that are quite puzzling for the rest of us (non USans), military fetichism being one of the weirdest.
That said, turning the experience of making sure bombers can safely carpet bomb Vietnam into a coming-of-age story yielding uplifting thoughts about entrepreneurship steps into bizarre territory. Like an Ayn Randesque version of Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.
So if you want to search for something on TV, which GoogleTV is supposed to enable you to do, how would you do that using Apple's three-button remote? I have an idea about a prayer and Steve Jobs, but wouldn't elaborate on it.
I think the blog post doesn't have a point at all, since it compares apples to pears.
Actually the article is missing a larger point. Most users probably don't want to be searching on their TV. Maybe a larger cognitive disconnect of Google's Device is that their answer to the problem isn't the right one. At some point Google really needed to try to figure out whether search was the feature that people really needed. I'd say content discovery is still a huge gaping hole as more IP Delivered video gets pushed to the main TV screen in your house. I don't think that text search is how people are going to find it. But hey when your main tool is a hammer every problem starts looking like nails right?
Apple's focus is on delivering video. period. They don't need the complexity of an GoogleTV because they're delivering the main thing that people want on their TV. They end up with a $100 box which is very usable and probably delivers the key features that people need.
BTW Vizio has a more elegant solution for a keyboard with a clamshell remote
Except that Search _is_ the answer to what we need on a TV right now. Whenever I fire mine up right now, I either want to go to a specific channel, find if a particular program is playing right now, browse a category of programs, or access my existing digital library. Existing remotes, including Apple's minimalistic design, are worthless for doing this. It might look sleek and thin, but it's probably the worst user experience for getting to what I want right now. I don't want to have to press arrow keys a hundred times over through menu after menu after menu to get to the show that I want to watch.
GoogleTV's remotes let me do that. A few button presses and I'm instantly where I want to be. While Apple's product design strategy is elegance over any and all costs, with Google I can get shit done. And that's all I care about at the end of the day, not how pretty my remote looks when I'm using it.
Its funny you say the answer is "Search" but of the 4 things you want to do when you fire up your tv, none of them are "Do a text based search for content".
1. Go to specific channel
2. Find if a program is playing right now
3. Browse a category of programs
4. Access an existing digital library.
Existing remotes actually do many of these pretty well. A keyboard based search only really helps with 2 and 4 and even then might actually be an ancillary experience unless you are looking for something specific. Text search only helps when you are looking for specific content it helps you find content you know exists. But I really don't think thats the main problem for people watching TV.
I think most people do what I do when I get home, sit down and try to find something interesting and new to watch. I think the problem is that most people have a hard time finding that cool new show or video. Now similar to the web, when I want to try to find something interesting I don't go to Google. I go to reddit or HN or fark or digg or some other source of curated content.
No, existing remotes do this horribly. Modern Cable subscriptions come with 300+ channels. I don't want to have to hold down an arrow key for minutes looking for something. I don't want to have to memorize what damn channel is AMC HD.
GoogleTV lets me type-in three letters: AMC. I get the channel. I get YouTube videos for snippets from their latest shows. I can type in House and immediately see if it's playing on any of the two dozen channels it's syndicated on, grab some episodes from my network, watch videos online of it, and read the Wikipedia page.
Try using a computer without being able to type actual words. You're only allowed to use the on-screen keyboard provided by your OS and the arrow keys to move around and confirm keys to press. I'll check back in when you're pulling your hair out trying to do anything in 5 minutes. The common computer experiences are merging with your TV. Apple's remote doesn't do anything to solve it. It's simple for the sake of being simple, and it's worthless as a modern computing remote because of it.
I've already conceded that if you know what you're looking for (A&E, House) a keyboard helps. I just don't think that's the primary issue which people have with their TV. 99% of the time I don't need Google on TV - I want reddit and I never use my keyboard on Reddit.
But you use a mouse on Reddit to select which story from a list to read, comment to expand, upvote etc which the Google remote has, and the Apple remote doesn't.
I agree, and that is my point actually, the remotes were just an example. But the remotes reflect how they approached the whole problem. Google went with the assumption search was necessary, and had to find a way to fit it in. Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out.
This is kind of ridiculous. I do want to be searching on my TV. That's why I have a computer hooked up to it with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Just because Apple designed a product that fits your needs doesn't mean that it fits everyone's.
Statements like "Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out" are offensively condescending and give Apple too much credit. Building any product requires making assumptions. So far Apple has happened to be right with many of theirs, and for that they deserve a ton of credit. But the fact of the matter is that the Apple TV obviously doesn't meet very many people's needs, otherwise it would have sold better.
I think Google deserves some credit for trying a different approach, based on different assumptions. Proclaiming it DOA because the remotes look complicated is more than a little short-sighted.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." This can go the other way too you know, and might turn out to be just as ridiculous: "No hulu.com. Clunky remote. Lame."
I think you're missing the point. The comparison of the remotes isn't intended to point out the "better design" of the Apple version. The comparison is of the overall approach to user experience. It's obvious that Apple doesn't think people want to search when sitting in front of their TV's, whereas Google almost can't approach a problem that it doesn't think centers around search.
This is not to say that there haven't been rudimentary search capabilities in the Apple TV. It's just not a focus.
I don't have an AppleTV, but I do have a Mac Mini that runs iTunes and FrontRow. It has a small remote that is excellent for controlling the volume, fast forwarding, rewinding, and so on.
If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time.
Disclosure: I do not hack my Unix filesytem for the sheer joy of nerding out. My opinions about usability probably do not map to anyone who reads HN regularly.
If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time.
This seems like a good direction for Apple to take. Instead of putting a full keyboard on every remote, just allow additional peripherals to be added via USB or Bluetooth. Unfortunately they certainly hasn't made this easy: http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm
I guess I can see why Apple would keep this entirely within their own ecosystem for economic reasons, but this feels like it really limits the utility of their devices. Wouldn't they do as well to have a simple way of connecting standard devices AND provide what they feel is the best experience via custom apps?
You'd do it by grabbing your iPad off of the coffee table, searching for something, and clicking 'send to TV.'
So much easier and simpler than trying to make everything do everything. Leave the keyboard to a device that's better used with one, and make the two work together nicely.
I still think that little 'Oh, and I can push stuff to my tv with my iPhone' feature they skimmed over at the Ping event will end up huge.
But wait, that's exactly what you can do with an Android device or an iOS device and a GoogleTV already. See the section "Your phone = remote control" here: http://www.google.com/tv/features.html.
Of course there is. What is it that makes you think the latter is so vastly superior to the former though? I like the fact that I can choose an input device that meets my needs, one of which happens to be my phone. What's wrong with choice?
I love using vim. It's super awesome. But most people don't want to use vim. I'm in the minority of users. That doesn't mean that vim is wrong, or that Notepad++ is 'better.' It just means I'm in a minority.
In this case, the latter is vastly superior (for me) because a TV isn't something I want to screw around with. I want to do two things with my TV: Start playing the game that's currently in my XBox, or flip through my Netflix queue and click play. I've never used 99% of the options on my XBox dashboard, because I don't care about any of that stuff. I just want something super simple.
the mac people seem to be saying the solution to this problem is to buy an iphone or ipad. that is a really, really lousy answer. despite the fact that to use one of those devices would be really cool, it means I have to buy a totally separate device for the device I just bought. At least the remote comes with the TV! Even if it sucks its fully functional.
How do you actually search from that remote? Can you?
That visio remote looks pretty cool as far as solving the qwerty interface obstacle.
I don't know why they don't just implement a simple Apple remote with an annoying on screen keyboard but really kickass voice recognition...
This has simply not been true for me. I participated in DV lottery for quite a few years, and later on had multiple visits to US Embassy and never have had any kind of problems with getting my visas approved whatsoever.
I think your friend might be having some other issues, not the DV lottery.
Zoltan was operating in central Serbia (not even in its southern part Kosovo).
NATO bombers (USA bombers in this instance, really) were attacking Serbia, and Zoltan was a soldier operating in his own country, defending it against enemy aggression. How can you raise morality questions against that?
And as I already said, the truth about Kosovo is far from what your media told you. Kosovo is now brought down to two functions only:
1. American army base (Bondsteel)
2. Haven for drug lords, and traffickers of people and weapons. Now they've got their own state in the heart of Europe, thanks to USA lobbying practice which is where all of it originated from.
During and after the bombing of Serbia, there was a lot of publicity in certain conservative newspapers in America (particularly the Washington Times) about how the mass graves and such had turned out to be a myth, and about Serbia's historical reasons for wanting to hold sovereignty over Kosovo. The main rationale for this coverage was probably that it was a Democratic war, so a Republican newspaper had to oppose. Still, it exposed a lot of good points that weren't widely publicized elsewhere. (There were also the following arguments: that it's not the job of the US to protect Kosovo anyway, that Clinton was trying to distract people from his own problems, and that Clinton was doing a very bad job of prosecuting the war even if it were justified.)
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Serbia was in the right or in the wrong in Kosovo. It's just a bullshit argument to pretend Zoltan was doing something entirely separate from supporting the continued Serbian domination of Kosovo and its people. Either Serbia was in the right (in which case Zoltan would have been perfectly justified no matter what) or Serbia was in the wrong (in which case--since the bombing was an attempt to pressure Serbia to leave Kosovo--protecting Kosovo from bombing turned out to be indirectly supporting the domination of Kosovo.)
Macedonians have never been at war with Serbia. We have traditionally been allies, mostly because we share the same orthodox religion. I will assume you have limited knowledge of what really happened in Balkans in the end of 20th century, so I can only recommend reading some independent sources.
I also recommend actually being in a war and then reading about it in the media. You would be surprised how biased CNN, Fox and BBC were during the NATO campaign in Kosovo (well, maybe not so much surprised by CNN and Fox). I personally was greatly disappointed by the BBC - I viewed them as one of the rare media telling mostly truth, but it turned out the BBC way of supporting official British politics was turning the blind eye to all bad things that were being done by Muslims in Kosovo.
And also, in near future you will get to see what kind of regime NATO was defending in Kosovo.
As far as F-117 is concerned, funny thing is how in Serbia we were watching Discovery channel's praising "documentaries" about that aircraft, telling (years after 1999) how it has never been shot down by the enemy. Well go to Belgrade and you can see it displayed, you don't even need a visa for Serbia.
Western media is a great war machine, much greater than some "invisible aircraft". And you miked, are either a part of that machine, or a foolish follower of their praise.
And also, in near future you will get to see what kind of regime NATO was defending in Kosovo.
Why wait for the future... six months ago there was an affair regarding BND (German CIA) and Kosovo and this is what the German daily newspaper "Die Welt" writes about it. BTW, "Die Welt" is probably the most conservative newspaper in Germany and its reporting is actually quite pro-Kosovo-oriented. The subtitle "An act of revenge?" is most interesting for this discussion:
