Posts by Q We 11 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jun 2008
i have actually witnessed the new touch-based in-flight entertainment system boot just a few days back while flying from JFK. the boot itself was quiet, i.e. no penguin logo and boot messages like on older systems, but at one point the distinctive "X" shaped cursor appeared, letting me know that there's an x server underneath.
...is "one large well-written application"?
oh yeah, right. the real world of javascript is a wild, wild west of code horribly written and mashed together, copy-pasted over and over again from the same stupid "here's how to make letters jump"-style tutorials.
> The low level device drivers which used to be in the OS are now integrated into the hypervisor, and it becomes a group effort by the vendors to integrate that support there instead of the OS. Instead, the hypervisor vendor creates "virtual" device drivers that expose common services to the virtualised OS, such as networking, display and I/O.
Look, Android's kernel is Linux and all of it, including special Google patches, is open source. Vendors can already collaborate in this way: they only have to write Linux drivers for their devices and share. The API is there, just do it, dammit. Except they don't, for one reason or another - many reasons in fact.
I'm not talking about running WP7, and frankly, who cares about it? If the question is about android OEM collaboration, they already have the common platform for it, except they choose not to. Which is sad, but that's how it is.
But yeah, virtualisation is all the rage now, it'll solve *everything*, including cancer and AIDS. Just call it a "hypervisor", stick it in there and happy vendors will magically start collaborating and it'll all be ponies and rainbows.
> thanks for the iPhone idea, Steve.
quick fact check: Google acquires Android in 2005, iPhone debutes in 2007 - a clear case of plagiarism by Google.
and wallpaper is such a brilliant idea, who could've thought of it! google stole it - oh, the horror! compared to that, piggybacking on competitor's results and ranking is positively innocent.
...rrright... um.... yeah.
Oh, please - it's all automated keyword extraction. Message is parsed, keywords are extracted and matched against ads in the database, a couple are selected and shown and that's it. Extracted keywords may be stored alongside the email for future reuse, though most emails get opened only once, so usefulness of that is questionable. There's nothing special or sinister about that, it's all automated.
The point is, if you trust Google with storing emails themselves, it is plain silly to complain that they run some automated processing on it.
Some sort of IT reeducation bootcamp is in order for this poor confused author.
FTP, the File Transfer Protocol as specified in RFC959 is used to publish articles to Blogger by some small percentage of users, is ancient, firewall unfriendly and is hard to maintain.
it has nothing to do with file recently deployed transfer feature of the talk widget.
So, as I said - off to the camp, Kelly.
"Anybody who knows Eric Schmidt's e-mail password can go to http://mail.google.com/a/google.com to browse messages." Actually, no.
GAFYD admins can implement an additional SAML-based authentication scheme and thus enforce any additional rules they wish, which can include access from specific ip addresses (like being on corporate network or VPN). This is what Google itself does. So no, you could not read Eric Schmidt's email even if you knew the password.
prathlev> Introducing latency (e.g. with a Packeteer) can be acheived completely without using any CoS/ToS bits, and I would call that prioritising.
that wouldn't save anything to you, the isp, and is just pure evil. to pull that off and still deliver packets, you'd need to hold them in some sort of tarpit. this means more ram on routers, more expenses. you can do that, but only if you really want to make someone's life miserable, and are ready to pay extra for it. this doesn't make any economic sense.
prathlev> What if Google persuades a provider to provision a physically separate network connection for their traffic from their current location and closer to the end users?
separate compared to what? do you mthink isps are standing in lines, holding optical fiber in hand asking to peer with google? you are wrong. most of the time it is google who is paying for peering. again - this is exactly what isps do: sell connectivity.
look, if you are an ISP and i come to you and say "i want to buy a couple racks and a pipe from you", would that be unfair towards somebody else? if yes, then what, exactly, do you want me to do about it?
actually, i want all who thinks building CDNs is somehow against net neutrality to tell me how exactly is one supposed to improve bandwidth and latency of one's services? forced to buy the service from akamai or some other CDN? is that what you see as "fair" and "neutral"?
My crapometer just smashed its pin. unbelieveable. how building a CDN is now against net neutrality? Google buys that Internet service from ISPs. Not preferential treatment, just ordinary service - get it? So, good for ISPs. Users of that (and possibly other regional ISPs) have less network hops to go to get content - good for users.
There is NO other way to improve service (latency) for other remote locations - it's limited by speed of light, among other things. had Google served all its content from US the latency in Europe would be much worse (at lest 100 ms worse, to be precise).
There are NO special QoS arrangements for Google traffic.
> google didn't invent google maps, it just pulled a microsoft
> Google bought out "KeyHole" which as I recall had a product
Keyhole's product became Google Earth, i.e. desktop app. They did not have a web version at the time.
IIRC maps were developed either in-house, or by just 2 people in Australia (can't recall if guys already worked at Google or were hired to develop maps).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
