"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."
The result is a proposed standard that does not do its one job: protect the four freedoms that define Open Source (and Free Software in general).
"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."
"If computers of the kind I have advocated become the computers of the future, then computing may someday be organized as a public utility just as the telephone system is a public utility... The computer utility could become the basis of a new and important industry."
— John McCarthy (speaking at the MIT Centennial in 1961).
It's been pointed out that McCarthy used the term "utility" rather than "cloud", but many of us would argue they are one and the same. Indeed Wikipedia defines it as:
"Cloud computing is the delivery of computing as a service rather than a product, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices as a utility (like the electricity grid) over a network (typically the Internet)."
In any case, can anyone think of anyone more deserving of the honour of the title "father of cloud computing" than McCarthy? I certainly can't.
Facebook lists provide (barely) adequate functionality for users with large and/or complex social networks to constrain sharing but, like Circles, they're a PITA to set up. Fiven most people don't need them it's no surprise they're buried in the UI, particularly given they constrain rather than encourage sharing.
To 'constrain sharing' is exactly the point. Maybe you don't want your co-workers, in-laws or not so close friends to see personal photos or posts? Myself, I participate in more than one professional and social group of people. Things I share or say to one group are irrelevant, confusing or just noise to people in the other group and vice versa. So, constraining sharing sounds fine.
Perhaps Facebook just understand that for a social network to be successful you need to encourage sharing at all costs; Google+'s Circles actively constrain sharing, increase complexity and raise the barrier to entry.
Perhaps Facebook just understand that for a social network to be successful you need to encourage sharing at all costs
Unfortunately it also discourages meaningful sharing. My G+ "stream" is already home to discussions and photos the likes of which would never have popped up in my facebook feed.
In addition to space constrained applications such as SMS (and artificially space constrained applications like Twitter) shortlinks are also required anywhere humans are required to remember and/or enter them - that is, when they are printed, recited over radio or displayed on televisions. This is a very important use case that people often ignore.
"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."
The result is a proposed standard that does not do its one job: protect the four freedoms that define Open Source (and Free Software in general).
reply