soundslikeneon

If this line of reasoning were correct in general, then we would expect to see an astonishingly low number of people in any kind of relationship. The simple observation that people all over the world pair up quite readily suggests that this whole thing is wrong.

In fact, since the author puts the odds of a given mate being in a relationship at 50% we can conclude that either:

1) The author thinks there is a fundamental difference in the process of seeking a woman compared to the process of seeking a man;

2) The author thinks that, while his standards are completely rational, the vast majority of people simply settle for someone convenient;

or 3) the argument itself is self-contradictory.

> The article shows that the site works in IE9 and IE10.

To return to the analogy, a closed store will have stocked shelves and a cash register on sundays. The problem is that the store owner doesn't want to pay someone to work sundays making sure things are ok and stay that way. Likewise, supporting IE is not just a process of running through a site once and saying, "looks good." It requires continual testing, and this testing happens every time the site changes.

Also, Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays and they claim it is a feature. And some people are religious about browsers too.

The graphs/charts on this page do not really match up with the captions.

1) The second chart pretty clearly shows Wednesday as a higher volume day than Tuesday, and yet the caption reads "Tuesday and Thursday being the highest volume days."

2) Even worse, the caption on the third picture is completely off. The caption reads "Click Rates by Number of Links," but the text in the chart itself describes the number of clicks in terms of how many months a user has been subscribed.

What gives?

You're missing a big point though. Does Pintrest need to internalize and take ownership over all of the content on the site in order to protect themselves legally? It seems that would open them up to far greater liability. And then in the same breath they foist that liability onto their users simply for doing what they are 'supposed' to do (pin things they are interested in).

As others have said, Flickr does not have the same "we own it now" stipulation so don't suggest that this is simply the way it has to be. If Pintrest were so inclined, they could keep the indemnity boilerplate but stop taking ownership of posted content. This would move their site much closer to Fair Use territory, which would in turn help minimize the legal risk taken on by users who pin and comment on content that isn't their own. Instead, Pintrest want to make sure they don't close a potentially lucrative door and don't mind if they abuse everyone involved in making and sharing content while they explore their options.

Yeah except what you're doing with this comment is so painfully obvious. This isn't anything close to Radical Honesty. You're just saying something vaguely taboo, in a space where this is already accepted, and to absolutely no end.

Nothing is gained from your comment, and I can picture you sitting there with a stupid smile on your face thinking, "oh aren't I clever! I understood something enough to copy its form." It's pissing me off but no one here should care about that.

What people should take away is that RH doesn't just mean be a little dickish all the time. It means that when you have something important to say, something that has a direct impact on the people around you, you should not worry about spinning or softening it. Don't just tell the hot girl you were trying to look at her tits. Tell your wife about it. It matters to your wife more.

The most troubling part of this whole story is that Carrier IQ itself may be breaking Federal laws by logging keystrokes without getting consent from the user...and then the FBI uses that data in investigations. Wonderful.

I'm not sure if you meant for this particular interpretation or not, but the way you invoke "walled garden" makes it sound a lot like you are targeting iOS specifically. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Based on my own reading. Carrier IQ is installed on many Android-based phones, including those from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile networks. Apple, HTC and Samsung have all confirmed that Carrier IQ is on their phones. HOWEVER, Apple has also announced that it has stopped supporting CIQ as of iOS 5, and will completely scrub the software from later releases.

So no, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your phone exists in a closed ecosystem. The problem is that companies are incentivized to get away with as much of this kind of information collection as it possibly can. And just because I have to jailbreak my iPhone if I want to install unvetted software, doesn't mean Apple is thumbing their noses at legitimate customer complaints and concerns.

It makes perfect sense, but there's a problem with this approach. The information in the passive profiles will be nothing new to most users, who already have their friends' contact info and an idea of what they all look like. So a pre-populated social network like the one you're talking about would be much closer to a phone-directory than anything truly "social."

And I know that passive profiles are supposed to be there as a crutch for early adopters, but it doesn't seem to add much in the way of value or positive UX. If anything, having the site start as a directory might just perpetuate its use as one.

Ah, yes. The ol' stop-mucking-with-my-layout line.

I don't have any data to back this up, but I wouldn't be surprised if many/most of those writers are tech writers, bloggers and similar. Google were smart about who was let in on the ground floor. 1) People who have strong social graphs (on the internet); 2) People who will actively engage and explore new technology. Sounds like a blogger to me.

No different from breaking and entering followed by theft? Come on. The reason this is a big debate in the first place is that people seem so compelled to shoehorn new technologies and new abilities into old categories. The world we live in is full of cameras and we as a society aren't sure how we feel about that yet. But making that leap to 'theft' simply for lack of a better analogy is dangerous.

I don't think it matters that the median broadcast quality is getting better. 320x240 @ 15 fps was deemed high enough quality for the kind of reference/archive work that media monitors are doing. It's big enough that you can see what's going on and small enough to discourage watching these copies for entertainment. That number doesn't really need to change unless our eyes are collectively getting worse.