Thanks for pointing this out, because between the multitude of posts in this forum and the posts which I responded to on the blog, I feel like I am taking crazy pills. What is the big deal here? Seems like so many of my peers have deep seated psychological problems (not like I don't, but damn).
Misogyny is unfortunately scarily prevalent. All we can do is call people out on it. If there isn't social backlash they'll never question their worldview.
How does etherpad (acquired by google) compare to just using Google docs? Recently went through an interview with Google where we used a shared document, it was a horrible experience. I remember thinking that no sane person would code with a plain text editor and there should be a better way to do it. The ideal service to me would be something like a web based collaborative emacs.
We've tried using google docs for interviewing, and found that the code will not always sync. The remote developer would tell us "here's my code, it's ready", and we would see a blank doc for like 5 minutes.
Etherpad (and its clone instances) is awesome. Never had a problem.
The problem is that if the cryptography is broken, in regards to #3, you have no idea if a token created with the 'old method' is real or counterfeit.
In a decentralised service you would need to convert all old tokens into new tokens before the old cryptography was compromised, which requires work - you would be generating new coins, and would have an exchange rate. Or you could setup a centralised validation service for coins as the article suggests, before the cryptography was broken, to ensure people aren't creating fake money.
I am not sure what you mean by accepting a bitcoin vs voting for a bitcoin, can you clarify? "Voting" doesn't look like a method they normally use for validation...
This is very similar to the way the US Treasury handles physical currency updates. If I recall correctly, in the 1990s, Iraq still had a working money press that could print perfectly legitimate US dollars as fast as possible. PC printer technology had also advanced to the point where $20s and $100s were easily counterfeited.
The US Treasury had to go through a transition period where new money with new security features were printed and the old money was taken out of circulation. I assume BTC will have to go through a similar digital verification.
The way this would work in theory is that old BTC will be converted to new BTC on a 1 to 1 basis, but first each old BTC will need to be validated against the blockchain. You could just say that any BTC with over 1,000 confirmations is valid, since it is highly unlikely that so many confirmations could be falsified.
Another way to convert from old-BTC to new-BTC would be to use the miners to validate each conversion. For example, if a sufficient number of miners verifies that yes, indeed a certain BTC appears in the blockchain, then that one is considered valid and is inserted into the new blockchain, and removed from the old blockchain. This algorithm could actually pay a new-BTC reward for validating old-BTC to the miners that validate each transaction, thus ensuring a sufficient amount of CPU power is dedicated to this process.
It is difficult to launder huge volumes of $20's and $100's.
It is trivial to launder huge volumes of forged Bitcoins; they are as liquid and convenient as real Bitcoins of any denomination.
Similarly, while you have to read interesting long-form journalism to learn about Iraq and North Korea counterfeiting operations, the whole world would know if either country could trivially forge Nasdaq transactions.
To clarify this some more, if the hashing algorithm is sufficiently broken, then I can doctor an arbitrary transaction of bitcoins to where-ever I want. If the old bitcoins are that insecure, they will necessarily become worthless.
I see- I agree this wouldn't work if there was a _catastrophic_ break in the crypto algorithm... My post assumes that if the algorithm is broken, it would mean that questionable bitcoins could be created at a higher-than-expected rate, but that there would be time for people to backstop it by updating their clients. I would think that a less catastrophic issue (leading to only an order-of-magnitude improvement in hash solutions) is more likely, but I suppose a fully catastrophic break is also possible.
This is a good example of why (how?) language is so weird. Maybe I am just satiated, but for an inquisitive mind, to me "Why is the moon in the sky?" and "How is the moon in the sky?" parse out to be semantically equivalent. Science (astronomy) does try explain how (why?) we exist and under what circumstance the universe came into existence (if it did).
I think the whole point of that part of the article is that the only answer that could satisfice O'Reilly and viewers is that of religion, and Norvig says Chomsky has a philosophy "(some would say religious belief)" i.e. some unscientific belief that "language should be simple and understandable", which is balderdash to claim that is a religious viewpoint, in my opinion.
There are several ways one could model language, from a top down purely statistical approach that Norvig likes, something in the middle which Chomsky proposes, to a bottom up neural model of chemical interactions. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method for many different reasons.
> There are several ways one could model language, from a top down purely statistical approach that Norvig likes, something in the middle which Chomsky proposes, to a bottom up neural model of chemical interactions.
Yeah, I was just trying to take a step back (and maybe I was too OT, I agree), but at some point we should start asking ourselves more fundamental questions. Anyway, this discussion is way over my head, I'm just glad that HN users think there's an answer for everything, is like Godel or Kant have never written anything in their entire lives.
Not exactly the same, iOS is not and will never be open source. Google is only delaying the source release of honeycomb until they are happy with the product.
I really wasn't commenting on the open source nature of the OSes, but rather Google exerting control over what carriers are allowed to do with their Android builds.
The thing that irritates me is the considerable double standard for freedom and openness that is applied to Android and iOS. As it turns out people have an very relative concept of what 'free' and 'more free' is. Some types of freedom are considered good, while others are bad. Hard to tell at times which way the community will go. I come in to these kinds of stories and find people endlessly lauding Google for taking more control over the ecosystem. I know for a fact that if the story were 'Apple cracks down on X' the reaction would be practically the inverse.
You really see it as double standard? Let me try to explain the reaction you are not understanding, on a scale of closed=0 and 100=totally open people perceive that Apple is around 20 and Google is around 60. (numbers may vary but the point is ios is much less open than android)
When Apple exerts more control going to 15 people scream "OMG draconian too closed"! When Google goes from 60 to 55 people say "less open but hopefully this will solve the fragmentation problems we have".
Eventually if Andoird becomes totally closed source and no other manufacturers than Google are allowed to use it on their hardware and no user would be able to install applications outside the Android market... I bet almost everyone will be saying the same thing as they do for Apple!
This is a step in Apple's direction but the Gap between the two is still perceived as very wide.
I'm sorry but I don't see a double standard here. Developers get mad at Apple for exerting control over the App Store. Users get mad at Apple for capriciously restricting their use of great applications (like Google Voice, until recently). It's entirely App Store control that everyone declares draconian.
Almost everyone I know is very happy with Apple exclusively controlling iOS as an operating system. They are also very happy that Apple exerts lots of control over carriers in the sense of not letting them make additions or modifications to the operating system, pre-install apps, add carrier branding to the hardware, etc. This is the kind of control Google is now seeking.
To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.
> You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for.
We're criticizing Google for falsely describing their approach as "open". Apple is rightly lauded for their closed approach because it is effective in ensuring quality, looks like Google is starting to learn the same lessons. I have no problem with Google taking that approach, I'd like to see quality Android tablets. But it isn't "open".
"To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for."
Since when is Apple lauded for that around here? Apple is usually bashed for its strict control and closed platform. Yet when Google begins exerting that same kind of quality control, the comments section is full of defensiveness and justification. It's a double-standard.
Google fans in general have become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet, mocking Apple fans for blindly supporting a closed platform while unwittingly doing the same thing themselves, even as they preach about how open Android is.
Google is an advertising company. Android and other free products only exist to get people onto their proprietary content-indexing platform. That's why Verizon Android phones modified to use the Bing search engine are being obstructed by Google. The whole point of Android is for it to be a Google platform, not some benevolent revolution in openness and freedom.
Exactly. I learned how closed android is when I tried to remove my Google account form my Nexus One. It simply wouldn't let me do it. That's an interesting concept of free and open if you ask me.
The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they don't.
>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product. For people to be up in arms that they aren't releasing the source to an unfinished product is ridiculous. Seems like they are damned if they do, damned it they don't
The Motorola Xoom is already out.. so how is Honeycomb an unfinished product if it's in consumers' hands? The basic spirit of FOSS is that users and developers should be able to modify the code. The article you linked to says this:
>The lack of Honeycomb code availability is especially bad for enthusiasts who were hoping to be able to install custom firmware on their Android tablets. Without the code, it will be difficult for the modding community to produce custom builds that fix the software problems that plague the Xoom and other upcoming Android tablets. Users who were looking forward to better Honeycomb builds for the Nook Color and other budget devices are also going to have to wait.
>For now, only a privileged few hardware vendors will have access to Honeycomb while the rest are left with uncertainty about the future of the platform. Even after the matter is resolved, the fact that Google is willing to withhold source code at its whim for competitive reasons is going to continue to cast a dark shadow over the company's increasingly hollow claim that Android is an open platform.
I don't see how the above is wrong.
>The source will be released when Google is happy with the product.
Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)? Can they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software isn't finished?
> Doesn't Android use the Linux kernel which is GPL'ed (among other parts)? Can they legally withhold code for a shipping product by saying the software isn't finished?
Yes, the kernel is GPL, so they have released that source. It's the rest of the platform they are withholding, which is generally under an Apache license.
> The Motorola Xoom is already out.. so how is Honeycomb an unfinished product if it's in consumers' hands?
It's unfinished because it doesn't ship with major features that it claims to support such as LTE and Adobe Flash. Every review has said that the Xoom feels like a beta at best and it is simply not ready for the masses, and a large part of that is due to Android 3.
The anger is explained in the introduction to that article. Google presented Android as an open gift to the world in a fight against strictly controlled platforms, yet Google is now withholding source code and requiring final approval over modifications to the operating system.
That they're allegedly holding up Android phones which utilize a rival search engine, Bing, is especially troubling. Is Android supposed to be an open platform or a Google platform?
