Randomized order that they are displayed to the user I mean.
But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they’re good with numbers. It couldn’t be farthest from the truth.
We’re talking about a stupid ruling and MS likely just complying to the bare minimum requirement so I would NOT be surprised if independent testing shows IE coming up more often than other browsers. At least, it’s what I’d do. Why spend all that extra time licensing the best algorithm or coding for it and having it take my install take longer when you don’t have to (rhetorical)?
But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they’re good with numbers. It couldn’t be farthest from the truth.
A pseudo random number would be fine for the job. It's just about giving each browser equal (or near as) exposure. And pseudo random would average out fine eventually. Just seed it (the algorithm) with the time.
I agree with you. At this point, if someone can't get their act together enough to figure out "I want Firefox (or insert favorite browser here) so I am going to log on IE, download, install Firefox and set it as my default browser" they deserve whatever MSFT is giving them.
These regulators should move along already......
PS: I am not a fan on MSFT, by any stretch.
It always amazes me that people on this board assume people without a technical background should have to suffer because they don't understand how to do something the same as you do. Should a senior citizen just be stuck with the crap Microsoft serve up because they don't know any better?
I think this is an example of regulation working properly - Microsoft massively abused their position to push IE, and I like that someone is pushing back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they?re good with numbers. It couldn?t be farthest from the truth.
We?re talking about a stupid ruling and MS likely just complying to the bare minimum requirement so I would NOT be surprised if independent testing shows IE coming up more often than other browsers. At least, it?s what I?d do. Why spend all that extra time licensing the best algorithm or coding for it and having it take my install take longer when you don?t have to (rhetorical)?
You are absolutely right, in theory, there is no such thing as a computer program that can be truly random though in practice, anyone who wanted to be difficult would have a hard time demonstrating MS are being unfair, assuming they put some effort into it.
I told you guys the EU was out of touch.... They can't even get something as simple as corruption and abuse of power right!
Oh please trust me, they can. Any democratic organisation that gains a president and new powers without a vote knows how to do corruption and abuse of power. Of course, a few people did get a vote. And if they voted wrong, they even got another go for free!
You are absolutely right, in theory, there is no such thing as a computer program that can be truly random
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
"I don?t need Firefox because I only use the Internet, that?s why I use Internet Explorer."
how f..ing true
i have dozens of friends clients still on I E
some even pay twice with AOL service
The fear by millions of hitting the wrong button and losing all rheir data >> ties them to do exactly what they know . NOT one tiny extra thing
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
I live in the UK and recently installed Win 7. I saw no browser ballot screen of any kind and found I had internet explorer installed. (this was a clean install)
I used it once to download Firefox and haven't touched it since. I have zero interest in being forced to see ads for Chrome, Safari, or any other minority browser.
i don't need to pay 100 a month to shop amazon from my phone
i don't need to pay for the right to shop
i don't need to be tied down to 2 yr death contracts
countless millions never use or want to use all those confusing extra's anyway
funny how no one makes a simple powerful cell phone that never drops calls
and does only that for a cheap buy price and cheap minute price
no one yet
right now the teleco's only want to suck our money and give us little in return
for many an everything in the sun including kitchen sink swiss army knife phone is what they want or need . then buy an iphone ....
It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.
Some people still think there is no alternative to WIndows and Macs run it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
Your argument falls apart at "I want Firefox". I don't think you realize how many people still don't know there is an alternative to internet explorer.
I live in the UK and recently installed Win 7. I saw no browser ballot screen of any kind and found I had internet explorer installed. (this was a clean install).
Me too. At this rate, it won't make it into the OS until Windows 8.
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
You're right, for me (and it seems you, and no doubt most sensible people) that is more than adequate, but you can't account for morons with legal degrees.
If that is the case then why take it to court a decade after the US did when the internet and choice was less well known among consumers than it is now. To me, this is like the RIAA trying to argue as late as 2008 that copying your CD to your computer for playing or backup, and/or changing the audio format are violations and not permitted by fair use. They are both about a decade late to the party, but at least the EU actually got somewhere.
Beats me. FWIW, we'd have gotten a lot more more competition protection out of U.S. v. Microsoft had it not been for the election of 2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
The fundamental role of antitrust law is to prevent consumers from getting gouged by monopolies and collusive firms, not to legislate against ignorance and stupidity.
Antitrust laws are not intended to protect consumers, they are intended to protect competition. It can certainly be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers, but this is an indirect benefit, and not the purpose of the laws.
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
That sounds reasonable, but as Johnson states, there are plenty of morons out there. This case in and of itself so longer it was really an issue is proof enough of that. Now IE is dangerously close to dropping below 50% compared to the other open-standards browsers, we have seen IE go from having no standards mode in IE7, to a standards mode as an option in IE8, to standards mode as the default in IE8, to MS announcing IE9 will be standards compliant with support for HTML5 and CSS (though still pooh-poohing Acid3).
The people didn?t need the EU on this one. They seem to have figured it out for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
You're right, for me (and it seems you, and no doubt most sensible people) that is more than adequate, but you can't account for morons with legal degrees.
PS: A PSA for anyone traveling this holiday season: If you use a notebook running Windows on battery power you are better off using IE if you are trying to get the most juice from your system. All the other browsers are worse, with Safari on Windows being very bad.
Comments
It?s funny. This idea was mentioned long before the suit, including making it randomized.
Randomized would make most sense. Randomized order that they are displayed to the user I mean.
Randomized order that they are displayed to the user I mean.
But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they’re good with numbers. It couldn’t be farthest from the truth.We’re talking about a stupid ruling and MS likely just complying to the bare minimum requirement so I would NOT be surprised if independent testing shows IE coming up more often than other browsers. At least, it’s what I’d do. Why spend all that extra time licensing the best algorithm or coding for it and having it take my install take longer when you don’t have to (rhetorical)?
"I don’t need Firefox because I only use the Internet, that’s why I use Internet Explorer."
Ha, I love the quote I hear so many people say regarding the iPhone...
"I don't need an iPhone, I only use my phone for making calls..."
Well duh! Thats cos your old nokia 6110 (or equivalent) can't do anything else even if you wanted it to.
But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they’re good with numbers. It couldn’t be farthest from the truth.
A pseudo random number would be fine for the job. It's just about giving each browser equal (or near as) exposure. And pseudo random would average out fine eventually. Just seed it (the algorithm) with the time.
It isn't BS. Unlike in the US, in Europe the governments actually tend to be less influenced by lobbyists.
I told you guys the EU was out of touch.... They can't even get something as simple as corruption and abuse of power right!
I agree with you. At this point, if someone can't get their act together enough to figure out "I want Firefox (or insert favorite browser here) so I am going to log on IE, download, install Firefox and set it as my default browser" they deserve whatever MSFT is giving them.
These regulators should move along already......
PS: I am not a fan on MSFT, by any stretch.
It always amazes me that people on this board assume people without a technical background should have to suffer because they don't understand how to do something the same as you do. Should a senior citizen just be stuck with the crap Microsoft serve up because they don't know any better?
I think this is an example of regulation working properly - Microsoft massively abused their position to push IE, and I like that someone is pushing back.
But how will they determine the order randomly? By that I mean, what pseudorandom number generator will they use for this? People seem to have an idea that computers are naturally great at this sort of things because they?re good with numbers. It couldn?t be farthest from the truth.We?re talking about a stupid ruling and MS likely just complying to the bare minimum requirement so I would NOT be surprised if independent testing shows IE coming up more often than other browsers. At least, it?s what I?d do. Why spend all that extra time licensing the best algorithm or coding for it and having it take my install take longer when you don?t have to (rhetorical)?
You are absolutely right, in theory, there is no such thing as a computer program that can be truly random though in practice, anyone who wanted to be difficult would have a hard time demonstrating MS are being unfair, assuming they put some effort into it.
I told you guys the EU was out of touch.... They can't even get something as simple as corruption and abuse of power right!
Oh please trust me, they can. Any democratic organisation that gains a president and new powers without a vote knows how to do corruption and abuse of power. Of course, a few people did get a vote. And if they voted wrong, they even got another go for free!
You are absolutely right, in theory, there is no such thing as a computer program that can be truly random
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
int numberOfBrowsers;
\tint seconds = [[NSDate date]timeIntervalSince1970];
\trandomBrowser = seconds % numberOfBrowsers;
Perfectly adequate IMO
This law suit is total BS, cause europe always had more people using firefox or opera then the US for example. Some countries (Germany I think) Had something like 50% Firefox users, so this law suit against MS is BS. At any rate at this point microsoft is becoming an underdog in just about everything except their OS and MS Office. I would say google should be the target of the next antitrust hearings, especially since they are buying up more and more ad services and dominating the market.
"I don?t need Firefox because I only use the Internet, that?s why I use Internet Explorer."
how f..ing true
i have dozens of friends clients still on I E
some even pay twice with AOL service
The fear by millions of hitting the wrong button and losing all rheir data >> ties them to do exactly what they know . NOT one tiny extra thing
is fire fox so much better than safari ??
Ha, I love the quote I hear so many people say regarding the iPhone...
"I don't need an iPhone, I only use my phone for making calls..."
Well duh! Thats cos your old nokia 6110 (or equivalent) can't do anything else even if you wanted it to.
i only want to make calls also
i don't need to pay 100 a month to shop amazon from my phone
i don't need to pay for the right to shop
i don't need to be tied down to 2 yr death contracts
countless millions never use or want to use all those confusing extra's anyway
funny how no one makes a simple powerful cell phone that never drops calls
and does only that for a cheap buy price and cheap minute price
no one yet
right now the teleco's only want to suck our money and give us little in return
for many an everything in the sun including kitchen sink swiss army knife phone is what they want or need . then buy an iphone ....
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
int numberOfBrowsers;
\tint seconds = [[NSDate date]timeIntervalSince1970];
\trandomBrowser = seconds % numberOfBrowsers;
Perfectly adequate IMO
chaos demands random
the universe and all the hidden dark matter would revolt without it
I used it once to download Firefox and haven't touched it since. I have zero interest in being forced to see ads for Chrome, Safari, or any other minority browser.
chaos demands random
the universe and all the hidden dark matter would revolt without it
Ah but the code has random, just not 'pseudo random'. Infact this algorithm feeds off the chaos of life itself
i only want to make calls also
i don't need to pay 100 a month to shop amazon from my phone
i don't need to pay for the right to shop
i don't need to be tied down to 2 yr death contracts
countless millions never use or want to use all those confusing extra's anyway
funny how no one makes a simple powerful cell phone that never drops calls
and does only that for a cheap buy price and cheap minute price
no one yet
right now the teleco's only want to suck our money and give us little in return
for many an everything in the sun including kitchen sink swiss army knife phone is what they want or need . then buy an iphone ....
It may be suitable for the moment.. give it time the majority will realise they DO need the extra features. It happens every time with the introduction of new technology.
Prices reduce, culture changes.
People will find it very difficult to survive without a smartphone, more so day by day.
Though I'm sure there will be a minority of hippies who take a separate evolutionary path.
Your argument falls apart at "I want Firefox". I don't think you realize how many people still don't know there is an alternative to internet explorer.
I told you guys the EU was out of touch.... They can't even get something as simple as corruption and abuse of power right!
I live in the UK and recently installed Win 7. I saw no browser ballot screen of any kind and found I had internet explorer installed. (this was a clean install).
Me too. At this rate, it won't make it into the OS until Windows 8.
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
int numberOfBrowsers;
\tint seconds = [[NSDate date]timeIntervalSince1970];
\trandomBrowser = seconds % numberOfBrowsers;
Perfectly adequate IMO
You're right, for me (and it seems you, and no doubt most sensible people) that is more than adequate, but you can't account for morons with legal degrees.
If that is the case then why take it to court a decade after the US did when the internet and choice was less well known among consumers than it is now. To me, this is like the RIAA trying to argue as late as 2008 that copying your CD to your computer for playing or backup, and/or changing the audio format are violations and not permitted by fair use. They are both about a decade late to the party, but at least the EU actually got somewhere.
Beats me. FWIW, we'd have gotten a lot more more competition protection out of U.S. v. Microsoft had it not been for the election of 2000.
The fundamental role of antitrust law is to prevent consumers from getting gouged by monopolies and collusive firms, not to legislate against ignorance and stupidity.
Antitrust laws are not intended to protect consumers, they are intended to protect competition. It can certainly be argued that protecting competition benefits consumers, but this is an indirect benefit, and not the purpose of the laws.
Honestly that really wouldn't pose a problem for this application. I use random numbers all the time.It would be quite simple to create an algorithm that was suitably fair.
Infact here ya go without the use of pseudo random at all...
int numberOfBrowsers;
\tint seconds = [[NSDate date]timeIntervalSince1970];
\trandomBrowser = seconds % numberOfBrowsers;
Perfectly adequate IMO
That sounds reasonable, but as Johnson states, there are plenty of morons out there. This case in and of itself so longer it was really an issue is proof enough of that. Now IE is dangerously close to dropping below 50% compared to the other open-standards browsers, we have seen IE go from having no standards mode in IE7, to a standards mode as an option in IE8, to standards mode as the default in IE8, to MS announcing IE9 will be standards compliant with support for HTML5 and CSS (though still pooh-poohing Acid3).
The people didn?t need the EU on this one. They seem to have figured it out for themselves.
You're right, for me (and it seems you, and no doubt most sensible people) that is more than adequate, but you can't account for morons with legal degrees.
PS: A PSA for anyone traveling this holiday season: If you use a notebook running Windows on battery power you are better off using IE if you are trying to get the most juice from your system. All the other browsers are worse, with Safari on Windows being very bad.