use PBKDF2 (plus a SHA-family hash function.) use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2.
how do you know that this isn't due to the (small, even if we're being charitable) size of the community rather than a G+ design choice? if it's the former rather than the latter, your days of liking G+ are numbered.
the 1200% number came from "Reportedly, Google+ saw a surge in traffic of over 1200% due to the additional publicity, but the increased user base was only temporary, as was projected in an earlier insights post." and the 60% drop came from "But, soon after, traffic fell by over 60% as it returned to its normal, underwhelming state."
but the graph right below that shows Google+ going back (in Chitika's "traffic index", whatever that is) to just about where it was before it was made public. as a result, I don't think those two numbers can be composed, and the "heh, guess 480% doesn't count for anything" smugness I've seen from a couple different places is based on everyone else's misconception of what the numbers mean.
The data in question is suspect as no hard data is shown nor are they saying on how many users the report is based on or how they were able to measure traffic at all. Chitikta is a Google competitor of sorts their business is ads and they do have a strong partnerships with Facebook.
As a Forbes employee, it bothers me that it appears that Forbes is the source of the misleading statistic rather than the outlet that published the analysis of its incoherence.
We have a lot of really smart non-staff contributors (like Tim here, or my personal favorite Timothy Lee) and they never get enough credit for the independent thinking and analysis
Tim's analysis in Forbes _is_ the source of the misleading "480%" statistic -- and the Forbes headline trumpeted the equally-misleading 60% statistic. So, while I think that Forbes' blogs are frequently quite insightful, this wasn't one of your better moments.
They probably don't get any credit because the signal-to-noise ratio is so low. I'm sure you've got a few decent contributors, but my impression of your online opinion section is that it's little more than a soapbox for any idiot to the right of Paul Krugman. No barrier to entry at all, and certainly no requirement for intellectual honesty and rigor.
it's not as clear-cut as that -- it's mostly a combination of a traditional "you should work on these things and get better at having X, Y, and Z desirable qualities" conversations with your boss and Microsoft's love of creating systems with jargon that is inscrutable to the outside.
(disclaimer: I'm a Microsoft employee with about 3 years served.)
it's not "nostalgia" in the sense of old/classic things, or at least that's what I get from his thesis. it's nostalgia in the sense of doing things because, gosh darn it, that's the way we've always done them.
his argument is that the Apple of "the crazy ones, the rebels, the troublemakers" would ignore what's profitable and what the rest of the industry does, and make wide-open systems, humanely -- because Steve would've seen what doesn't work about the current model, thrown it out, and done it his own way.
The Beatles and historical figures are (arguably) timeless classics which don't grow worse with age; walled gardens and overseas manufacturing are (arguably) relics of an era where Apple was struggling to gain a foothold in the industry, and that's what the author claims passes for nostalgia.
on the topic of disabling autorun, there was a patch earlier this year to disable autorun on non-shiny media by default in XP and Vista (it's already turned off in 7.)
"Microsoft thanks the following companies for working with us and for providing details of limited, targeted attacks against customers of Internet Explorer 6:
Google Inc. and MANDIANT;
Adobe;
McAfee;
French government CSIRT (CERTA)"
the service is ideas. if patents are, indeed, on non-obvious concepts, they can provide the spark for new inventions, and -- if you sign a licensing agreement with the patent troll -- you are paying them for the right to build, market, and sell something they invented.
the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.
Ideas don't have a dollar value. I'm guessing that not one company who signs a licensing agreement with the patent troll does so because they want access to a library of ideas. They do it because they're working to build a real product, and the patent troll comes along and says "sign this and pay us or we'll make your life miserable and it will cost more"
or, if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public, and then another company either independently invented it or just read their description and built one.
say IV had the patent for a burr coffee grinder. even if they never build a non-prototype grinder, they went to the trouble of conceptualizing, prototyping, and writing down their idea for an invention so someone else could build it. that invention has merit, even if Intellectual Ventures doesn't build one.
the question is whether (ignoring particular types of inventions like computer software, which is legitimately tricky to reason about) all of the inventions are legitimately novel inventions which go through an inventive process of discovery (for lack of a better phrase), or whether they are rote improvements on concepts which are already state-of-the-art, or shots in the dark hoping to land some profitable patent litigation later. and nobody but Intellectual Ventures knows what their intention is.
>if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public
they went for all this trouble only for such a noble cause?
>they went to the trouble of conceptualizing, prototyping, and writing down their idea for an invention so someone else could build it.
no, obviously they went to the trouble for the licensing fees. but they did, as a side effect to the licensing fees, agree to make their invention freely-practicable -- as opposed to the default, where it would be protected by trade secret laws in perpetuity -- after their monopoly period ended.
b) the entire purpose of the patent system is that ideas can be entered into a register and time-limited monopolies granted by the government in exchange for their public release at the end of the monopoly period.
the only weird part about non-practicing entities -- and I say this from the perspective of a Microsoft employee with no patent cubes yet to his name, who works in the same room as people with 15 -- is that they are effectively outsourcing the entire process of reducing their inventions to practice.
>is that they are effectively outsourcing the entire process of reducing their inventions to practice.
no. I have a few myself. The best purpose of these sh!tty "invention patents" is to protect yourself from somebody patenting that stuff and coming after you later. The worst - it to poison/booby-trap "Monopoly"-style the mental space of ideas so whenever somebody accidentally stumbles across or have no other way than to pass through they would be forced to pay. The trade secret laws wouldn't prohibit me from coming independently on my own with the same or similar idea and executing upon it :
"Intellectual Ventures was founded in 2000 by Nathan Myhrvold and Edward Jung of Microsoft as a private partnership. It lists Peter Detkin of Intel, and Gregory Gorder of Perkins Coie, a Seattle-based law firm as co-founders. They reportedly have raised over $5 billion from many large companies including Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google, SAP, Nvidia and eBay, plus investment firms such as Charles River Ventures. Reported statistics indicate over 30,000 purchased patents and applications[3] and over 2000 internally-developed inventions. Licenses to patents are obtained through investment and royalties.[4]"
You're as sound in your logic as saying that because IV was founded by the author of Modernist Cuisine, it's obvious that the molecular gastronomy movement is responsible for Google's patent troubles.
Microsoft may well be completely uninvolved, but while the molecular gastronomy movement lacks any motive for involvement, the same cannot be said for Microsoft.
among other things, Intellectual Ventures filed an amici curiae brief in Microsoft v. I4I, another piece of patent litigation. on behalf of the respondents.
Intellectual Ventures has no loyalty to anything but its own inventions.
edit: incidentally, the outcome of Microsoft v. i4i (and the parent lawsuit, i4i v. Microsoft) was an out-of-court settlement where Microsoft paid i4i $300 million, at the hazard of an injunction against selling Office in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I4i
use PBKDF2 (plus a SHA-family hash function.) use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2. use PBKDF2.