Google Gets Away With What Microsoft Couldn't

FreshlyShornBalls writes "WebProNews is reporting that Google's new beta toolbar apparently sports an "AutoLink" feature which appends hyperlinks to existing content. These hyperlinks, of course, point to their services, such as maps for addresses, isdn numbers for books, etc. Sounds an awful lot like Microsoft's "Smart Tags"." Update by J : ... except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click.

Comments

It is simple

[odano]

Microsoft is Evil
Google is Not (yet!)

Re:It is simple

[HyperChicken]

What defines evil?

Re:It is simple

[ePhil_One]

What defines evil?

In the case of Twins, its usually a goatee.

Re:It is simple

[pbranes]

I think we need to stop thinking of Google and MS as good vs. evil. They are both companies out to make a profit. Google chooses to make a profit by showing us advertisements, while Microsoft chooses to make a profit by getting us to buy their software. Neither is less or more evil than the other - they both answer to consumers when the screw up something, and since consumers control the almighty dollar, they are answerable to us. The problem is that most consumers can't agree on what color blue is, much less whether a company is doing something that is too invasive or not.

Re:It is simple

[bladx]

but when a company becomes really powerful, or is in a powerful position, does the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" come into play in the business world? i like google in general, and google has excellent execution of useful ideas. but it just seems to me like google wants the trust of millions of users, for some reason...

Re:It is simple

[Thud457]

It's a simple calculus -

NAZIs -> Commies -> (terrorists ->) Chinese -> Saucer people

likewise,

IBM -> Microsoft -> Google -> ???

Re:It is simple

[pbranes]

Throughout humanity, there is a basic standard of right and wrong. We may disagree on some of the smaller points of it, but the general principles are there. Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc... Evil is something that breaks one of these basic rules. A company out for a profit is not inherently evil, however, when it starts to break these rules, then it partaking in evil actions. In general MS and Google are neither evil because neither of them are breaking these basic laws of humanity. We may not like the way they compete in business, but that doesn't make them evil.

Re:It is simple

[njko]

in the case of siamese twins, the left one it is the evil

Re:It is simple

[DGtlRift]

Until MS buys them out - why reinvent the wheel when you can just buy it and bang it into a triagle?

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Who says Microsoft can't innovate?..."

If MS does innovate, it usually means buying a company that did the innovating. My idea of innovation must be completely different than Microsofts. I see it as contributions to computer science and MS sees it as bring a product (however it was obtained) to market. And usually this spells the death of the innovating company.

Re:It is simple

[TheAntiCrust]

I think something is evil once it starts to break those rules maliciously, knowingly, and consistantly. Otherwise I think we'd all have to be considered evil.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of websites, it's usually goatse.

Re:It is simple

[athakur999]

Except in Futurama, where it's the robot without the goatee.

Re:It is simple

[MindStalker]

Though honesty is important as well. Google's motto is do no wrong, and I for one am inclind to believe them. Microsoft has burned me one to many times for me to trust them. So far I still trust Google. Just like I have a few close friends that I would give them the keys to my house if they asked, I see nothing wrong with trusting certain coperations over others.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah. I had to read it twice. I kept seeing GOATSE. Twin Goatses. Not a pretty thought

Re:It is simple

[coopaq]

I noticed that GOatee is registered.
Does that mean that Google's Oatee Beta will be ready soon?
Is this the evil OS they've been hiding?
Will Oatee be based on linux?

When can I really start hating Google?

They have all the nasty ingredients of big brother.
Sure they were cute once, but now...
Changing my web pages' contents?
Next you tell me that their search results are paid for.

Re:It is simple

[pbranes]

I think at certain times we are all evil in some ways. I know that I have lied, stolen, etc. at various times in my life, but I don't do it consistenly or often. Most people are probably about the same way. We all have a tendency to do evil actions even though we don't live our lives full of evil actions.

Re:It is simple

[Procrastin8er]

We just don't know Google well enough yet.

Re:It is simple

[tmhsiao]

I'm more evil than Saucer people??

Who would've guessed?

Re:It is simple

[baudbarf]

By the time Microsoft became evil, or, by the time Microsoft's evil became apparent, it was too late to stop them.

Giving Google absolute power is no better than giving Microsoft absolute power, the only difference is that Google does not seem corrupt enough to abuse it yet. And yet, absolute power is often cited as a CAUSE of corruption.

The reason that the U.S. Constitution limits presidential terms is because there may come a dictator who begins to tear the country apart. "We The People" have a chance to get rid of him easily after four years, but failing that, he's out for good after eight. It acts as a sort of sanity check - if the people are crazy enough to let him have a second term, they might be crazy enough to let him continue dictating for 20 years. These balances work to temper the power of people who are considered good, because people are corruptible. Corporations are people too.

Google certainly seems like a cool, nice company today, and I agree with that. But turning them into a monopoly over the search market is putting all our eggs in one basket. Letting them into our personal machines with their toolbar and desktop search tool is handing them extraordinary powers. We don't mind because we trust them because they're not evil, of course - but what if they turned evil tonight? We've allowed them to become so deeply entrenched in our lives...

Re:It is simple

[jadenyk]

You must be new here.

To tell if a company is evil is pretty easy:

• Does Bill Gates own it?
• Are they called "Microsoft"
• Can they be found on Google by entering Bastards

I'm probably missing a few there, but you get the point.

Re:It is simple

[pbranes]

A corporation isn't a person, even though we like to think of it that way. When you hand your keys over to one corporation, you are really handing it over to thousands and thousands of individual people - some of whom have good intentions, and some of whom have bad intentions. I do not trust a corporation as a collection whole.

Re:It is simple

[dynamo]

Exactly. You build a relationship with any entity you interact with, and Google has treated me very, very well. I've almost always enjoyed working with Google products, while I've almost always become angry when working with microsoft products.

Google is a good company and I trust them until they break that trust.

ONE too many times? You have to be kidding, unless after that one time you just stopped using MS products forever (which is damn near impossible, even with my magical consumer dollar power. I have to work.)

Re:It is simple

[BJZQ8]

Because Microsoft has proven time and time again that they innovate for one purpose; to destroy any and all competition, at which point they cease to innovate entirely. To do this while being a convicted monopolist is not allowed.

Re:It is simple

[rokzy]

you're right but I find an easy definition of "evil for businesses" to be:

Google is good because it makes money by making things better for people, thus attracting customers.

Microsoft is evil because it makes money by making things worse for people (or at least not as good as the alternatives), relying on lock-in to avoid losing business.

MS would rather (and does) hold others back than push itself forward. therein is the "evil".

Re:It is simple

[jericho4.0]

If we lose the dualistic model of "Good vs. Evil", it makes more sense. People aren't evil, but they might be doing 'wrong' things, that the majority of us can agree on.

Re:It is simple

[null-sRc]

... 10 seconds of thinking goatse is spelled wrong only to remember goatee is actually a word. :|

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

...NAZIs...

Damn this early? This thread is doomed...

Re:It is simple

[MindStalker]

Thankfully Googles creators kept control after IPO, yes if total control was left to the board I wouldn't trust me either. But seriously you already trust corperations like your bank with your money. If an individual within a corperation has bad intentions and harms you, you can complain or even sue if you have to, and if the corperation itself is managed by responsible people things will be taken care of. On the other hand if the management has proven that they are only interested in getting by with whatever underhanded thing they can, that is another story.

I guess I'm just rambling but yes Corperations arn't people and you do have a point, but I will continue to trust most people untill they have proven themselves otherwise, and that includes Corperations. (though of course I'm not going to give a strange corperation I don't know about much more chance to screw me than I will give the begger on the street, you have to make judgement calls sometimes too)

Re:It is simple

[bburton]

NAZIs -> Commies -> (terrorists ->) Chinese -> Saucer people likewise, IBM -> Microsoft -> Google -> ???

Profit?

Re:It is simple

[MindStalker]

Well yes I still deal with Microsoft sadly, but I watch my back, same as with any other person I have to deal with but don't trust.

Re:It is simple

[mrchaotica]

they both answer to consumers when the screw up something

Microsoft hasn't had to answer to their customers in any meaningful way in years, and you know it!

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

What defines evil?

I can't give a definitive answer, but extortion has got to be up there pretty far.

Re:It is simple

[Mr Guy]

No, the reason the Constitution limits presidential terms was to avoid another Franklin Roosevelt, and he was a fairly good president, not a dictator.

Re:It is simple

[mcc]

I think we need to stop thinking of Sears and the Mafia as good vs. evil. They are both companies out to make a profit. Sears chooses to make a profit by buying clothing items in bulk and selling them individually at a higher price, while the Mafia chooses to make a profit by not burning down people's businesses in exchange for money. Neither is less or more evil than the other - they both answer to consumers when they screw up something, and since consumers control the almighty dollar, they are answerable to us. The problem is that most consumers can't agree on what color blue is, much less whether a company such as the Mafia is doing something that is too invasive or not.

Re:It is simple

[MaGogue]

Google is becoming Goougly ..

Re:It is simple

[elecngnr]

I think this alludes to something important. The idea of giving Google and/or MS the power. Their power is in our use. If we chose to use something else, i.e. Linux or Web Crawler, that power is diminished. I would say that MS has done some things in the past (and is likely continuing to do so) to make sure that choice is limited. However, the choice is still there.

Probably most slashdotters realize all of this, but Google will continue to grow and embed themselves in the average computer users lives/computers. Rather than seeing the power they are giving up, most of them see it as a cool tool. While they are, in reality, giving up some of their choice in things, they believe they are enhancing their ability to use their computer.

Re:It is simple

[mattspammail]

I immediately thought of Eric Cartman's alternate self from the opposite world (remember Stan's homicidal fish?). He was the good Cartman, and he sported a goatee.

HOWEVER your theory holds true in that Cartman and evil Cartman (who was really the nice one) were not truly twins. They were simply opposites.

Your theory must be accurate after all. Good job.

Re:It is simple

[jwsd]

If MS does innovate, it usually means buying a company that did the innovating. My idea of innovation must be completely different than Microsofts. I see it as contributions to computer science and MS sees it as bring a product (however it was obtained) to market. And usually this spells the death of the innovating company.

It's not just Microsoft. Inventors invent. Capitalists by the invention but make money on it. This is how capitalism works. You have a problem with that?

Re:It is simple

[cabazorro]

Watch Oliver Stone "Wall Street".

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in the U.S. a corporation is a person, legally. See the wikipedia article.

Re:It is simple

[duffbeer703]

Are you really that stupid? Or do you just post drivel like this on /. for kicks?

Sears chooses to make a profit by buying clothing items in bulk and selling them individually at a higher price, while the Mafia chooses to make a profit by not burning down people's businesses in exchange for money. Neither is less or more evil than the other...

How you can equate a retailer to a organized criminal organization is beyond belief. I'd like to argue with you, but I'm afraid it would short out the two brain cells that remain in your head

Re:It is simple

[KinkifyTheNation]

Good and evil are just labels defined by an indivudual, so it really all depends on who perceives it.

Re:It is simple

[Speare]

Well, the left one is 'sinister', by definition.

Re:It is simple

[biglig2]

Well, I began to suspect something when you said that anal probing just wasn't enough for you any more, and that perhaps some sort of snazzy uniform would help.

Re:It is simple

[generic-man]

Because we all know that Google never buys companies just to get at technology, right?

Microsoft also has one of the largest corporate CS research departments in the industry, and they frequently contribute to everything from journals to W3C specification committees.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

troll? wtf? this is clearly meant to be funny...

Re:It is simple

[QMO]

Consider how MS was working with IBM in developing OS/2. The reality may be a little murky, but the appearance is that once MS had enough to go it on its own, IBM was "betrayed".

Consider the agreement that MS had with Novel that Novell would keep out of OS and MS would keep out of networking. I'm not making this up, but read it in a computer magazine, just before NT got big. (market-wise, not bloat-wise, I believe that it was always bloated)

Consider MS's development of hard drive compression technology that they built into MSDOS 6? Of course, some people consider that "information was meant to be free" and may not think that Stacker had a right to beef about the theft of their software.

MS may not be evil, but some some individuals that have substantial control over actions of the corporation make decisions that I regard as evil.

Re:It is simple

[syates21]

Without a standard of good, the terms good and evil are pretty much meaningless.

In the absence of some objective standard, really we are just talking popular ideas vs unpopular ideas.

Re:It is simple

[B3ryllium]

Same goes for EVIL SPOCK.

Re:It is simple

[TheSHAD0W]

You may wish to examine the Zero Aggression Principle.

Re:It is simple

[whovian]

"We The People" have a chance to get rid of him easily after four years, but failing that, he's out for good after eight. It acts as a sort of sanity check - if the people are crazy enough to let him have a second term, they might be crazy enough to let him continue dictating for 20 years.

Or, as the case has not yet been, her .

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing to feed your starving child is evil?

Murdering in self defense is evil? What about murdering a mass murderer?

Are you evil if you lie to protect the fact that your friend standing next to you is about to enter into a surprise birthday party?

Ah, good and evil, you false ideals created by those too afraid to face reality!

Re:It is simple

[jocknerd]

You are right, a corporation is not a person. They are just granted the same rights as one in the U.S. And because the executives of American corporations don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions like CEO's of foreign corporations, our corporations only act in the interest of the majority stockholders.

Re:It is simple

[jxs2151]

Not "what" but "who" defines evil is the important thing.

Re:It is simple

[Jim_Callahan]

Throughout humanity there is a basic standard of right and wrong.


No, there isn't. Look at your examples. Complimenting one's hosts, wether they deserve it or not, is required by a number of european cultures. throughout history, there have been people who thought it was perfectly fine to murder people (most of these people are currently in prison (in the US) or in charge of government agencies (in various semi-industrial nations)). I would come up with a similar rebuttal to stealing, but then I realized that "stealing" itself is a locally defined term that varies widely from culture to culture, and I'm not sure which one you were using.

I haven't constructed a formal proof, but my gut feeling from a few decades of human experience is that any "universal" you come up with short of biochemical ones (need food and water, break up complex carbohydrates into component sugars, etc) is going to be subject to similar counterexamples.

Of course, you can argue that only the insane deviate from some of our principles, but as the fact that they don't share our principles is what defines them as insane in the first place, that argument is ridiculously invalid.

So, yeah, unless I'm missing something important, your argument would seem to collapse at the base, leaving good and evil as a locally defined set of boolean values. So Mike is evil if he fits our section's little definition of evil, and so is Google. Since the local definition of evil includes "anything named Microsoft", that would make Microsoft evil.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

Re:It is simple

[BasilBrush]

MS can't buy Google out. There is a two tier voting structure for shareholders, which means Microsoft still can't control Google even if they buy all the public shares. And the founders certainly won't sell.

Re:It is simple

[ishtari]

Microsoft have stolen, alot. For example the graphical OS. Which they stole from apple - which in turn kinda stole it from xerox. See the movie about it! ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/ ).
Or the fact that they sell alot of non/semi working programs, in an industry where refunds for malfunctioning merchandise is almost non existing (and whom is/has been leading in that industry you may ask your self!)!

As for lieing, well every time I have to reinstall win xp it says something like "stable" or "faster then ever" and such...

And as for murder! They have killed my inner child! ^^

Re:It is simple

[Zak3056]

Though honesty is important as well. Google's motto is do no wrong, and I for one am inclind to believe them.

Yes because, after all, there's nothing "wrong" with censoring the news of a country ruled by a brutal dictatorship, is there?

Or were you talking about some other Google?

Re:It is simple

[HyperChicken]

Well then, if you were to believe FuckedGoogle, Google is evil.

Re:It is simple

[Gramaton Cleric]

YES! YOU EVIL COWARD! You are just trying to condone the EVIL you have done!

Re:It is simple

[CyberGarp]

MindStalker said: Google's motto is do no wrong.

I thought it was "Do no evil."

This makes me thing of "Animal Farm" as the constitution gets slowly changed. Let's see what can be done with this in doublespeak:

"Do no evil" equals "Do no wrong."
"Do no wrong" equals "We do no wrong."
"We do no wrong" equals "We always do right."
"We always do right." equals "We Rape, Pillage and Destroy, because everything we do is right. You got something to say about it!?"

Re:It is simple

[hazah]

Oh god that's funny... googled up "bastards" and what do I get as the first site... hehehe. Why yes, I am new.

Re:It is simple

[Just Some Guy]

ONE too many times?

My "last straw" was the whole NSAKEY thing back in the late 90s. I was already on the fence about permanently migrating off Windows, and the remote possibility that it was true was enough to make me pick sides. That was the last time I voluntarily used Windows for personal purposes.

You have to be kidding, unless after that one time you just stopped using MS products forever (which is damn near impossible, even with my magical consumer dollar power. I have to work.)

The first thing I did at my new job was shrink the XP partition on my company-issued PC and install Debian in the new space. I haven't touched a Windows machine for work purposes since that day. I still have to keep an old copy of Windows 2000 around to run Quickbooks Pro (so I can exchange files with my accountant), but that's going to be replaced by Quickbooks Pro Mac running on my wife's iMac in a month or so.

So, for all intents and purposes I use only non-MS software, and that will be completely true in the very near future. Your conclusion that you have to use Windows because "[you] have to work" is a condition of your state of affairs, and not universally true of the rest of us.

Re:It is simple

[snakecoder]

A real example
This is flexo and even though he did not steal the dimestore tiara, and bender did, he is still considered more evil.

Re:It is simple

[Curtman]

Obligatory flexo pic.

Re:It is simple

[NanoGator]

"Microsoft hasn't had to answer to their customers in any meaningful way in years, and you know it!"

Yeah, that's why Microsoft isn't spreading FUD about Linux or FireFox.

Re:It is simple

[Gramaton Cleric]

Well, if I recall right, the President can only be re-elected once in any consecutive manner. So that the President can be elected for four years, re-elected another four years for Eight total, and then take four years off and then run again for another two terms, if elected. Totalling sixteen out of twenty years the elected official can be President. Didn't this happen to Grover Cleveland?

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on being a sheep. Two companies can do the same thing, and you still choose one over the other "just because one is more evil, because, um, I said so."

You guys sound like any other brainwashed group, be it a terrorist group, an organized religion, a cult, a political party, or whatever.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Who did they buy to come up with Smartlinks, then?

Re:It is simple

[mrchaotica]

Spreading FUD is answering to their customers in a non-meaningful way -- hence the qualification in my statement.

A meaningful way of answering to their customers would be something more along the lines of what any other industry would have to do with a defective product: a recall or refund.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

congratulations on not being able to read what I wrote and being one of the millions of people who can't understand that you can differentiate based on the WAY people do something, not just what they do.

congratulations on how the first example that comes to your mind is "terrorist". Washington will be glad their brainwashing has worked on you.

Re:It is simple

[megarich]

Rhetorical question, because of Microsoft's monopolistic power, there setting the computer induster back years and holding off technology, technology that could cure cancer make smart cars less accident so people's lives can be saved, will you classify that as evil? :)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't ms wrongly borrowed code from xerox thus starting this whole thing. If that's true ms was evil from day one!!!

Re:It is simple

[STrinity]

We may disagree on some of the smaller points of it, but the general principles are there. Don't steal, don't murder,

Yes, all cultures agree murder is wrong, but that's because murder is, by definition, the unlawful killing of a person. What constitutues an unlawful killing, however, has varied greatly from culture to culture. The Romans, for example, believed a head-of-household had an absolute, unquestionable right to kill his children, which is, by the standards of just about every Western culture since, one of the most heinous forms of murder.

Re:It is simple

[tmhsiao]

Sorry, dude, you must be confusing me with some other Chinese guy--I've never given you an anal probe while dressed in a snazzy uniform.

I don't even know you...

Re:It is simple

[firstvoder]

Google is a good company and I trust them until they break that trust.

whats a good company and why would you wanna trust a company (unless you are a major shareholder)?

google takes the finest OS developers in order to pursuit their own goals. not that anyone would expect that they wont do it (after all its a company) but fact is that google considerably weakens the OS movement whenever it feels like it. personally as someone who believes in the principles of OS, that doesnt make it a good company nor do i trust it anymore than m$. they are just smarter in PR and have a better internet and community-age adjusted business strategy.

Re:It is simple

[biglig2]

There's no answer to that...

Re:It is simple

[ramsejc]

Ahem....

[Quoted from above] Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc...

Microsoft steals.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/2004 1115_1354 58.html

Microsoft Murders.
http://www.chez.com/johnt/antims/antimsu s.htm
(See in particular the lines about Norton's Utilities and the theft of Stacker...)

Microsoft lies.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/hallowe en5.php
(They've lied about linux so many times, I didn't even spend one full minute searching for an example on this one.

Re:It is simple

[Skybyte]

Don't you mean litigious bastards

Re:It is simple

[umbra_dweller]

Unless you count this guy.

Re:It is simple

[edrain]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The 22nd amendment says, No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Thus, no-one may serve more than 8 years as president as a general rule. Whether a VP (for instance) can take over and then be elected twice, I don't know.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1947, long after Gover Cleveland's death, so he certainly wouldn't have been subject to it. In any case, Grover Cleveland served two four-year non-consecutive terms - from 1885-1889 and from 1893-1897. Link.

Re:It is simple

[drsquare]

Though honesty is important as well. Google's motto is do no wrong, and I for one am inclind to believe them.

Well done, you've bought all the carefully crafted PR designed to make people think they're a company descended from heaven, and to raise an army of rabid fanboys who excuse all their failures (whilst condemning identical failures of other companies).

You might think they have this 'aura' of being non-evil, with a goal of benefiting mankind, but the best PR is the sort that makes people feel like they've come up with the opinion of the company themselves.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

MS broke all three you mentioned:
- they stole windows from xerox
- they murdered netscape, wordperfect
- they lied when they said Longhorn would be released.

Ronald

Re:It is simple

[kiddygrinder]

Almost as amusing; the ebay add in the side column:
Bastards
Discount new & used items. affil
Search for bastards now!
www.eBay.com

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, All Benders are progammed to be evil, to drink and smoke, and steal from stupid people. so therfore, bender and his evil twin, are both evil. goatee or no, but the one with the goatee was pretending to be good. which he wasn't.

Re:It is simple

[nofx_3]

So the one on the right is always named Dexter??? What if they are siamese twin girls?

-kaplanfx

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Sinistra et dextra.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

A fairly good president for winning the war, but a terrible one for making the USA a socialist republic.

Re:It is simple

[kubrick]

Whether a VP (for instance) can take over and then be elected twice, I don't know.

If their first (unelected) term is less than 2 years, yes, otherwise not. From further down on the page you linked to:

Under the amendment, no person may be elected president more than twice. Furthermore, no vice president or other person who has succeeded to the presidency, and served as president or acting president for more than two years, may be elected president more than once. Consequently, the amendment, while limiting a person to two elected four-year terms as president, theoretically does allow a person to serve up to ten years in office. If a person serving as vice president succeeds to the presidency, and serves for less than two years of the original president's term, he or she may still be elected twice and thus serve a total of ten full years in office.

Re:It is simple

[timmarhy]

but your totally wrong. microsoft is a monopoly so they DONT answer to consumers, they don't have to because we have no choice. where as google is a web service that we can either choose to use or not. if google tried anything overly horrific it's hits would dry up over night and so would their adervtising money.

Re:It is simple

[Oktober Sunset]

thats not a goatee, its just a pointy chin!

Re:It is simple

[Tyreth]

Stealing to feed your starving child is evil?

Yes, it can be. If through your negligence and laziness your child is now starving, then stealing will just be one of a long string of evils committed by you to support an immoral lifestyle.

If your child is starving because your corrupt government has been withholding the wealth of the nation, resulting in poverty, then stealing may be just as an action of civil disobedience to overthrow an unjust rule. But then you may steal off your neighbour who needs that food just as much as your child. That would be wrong.

If your child is starving, then it is evil for those with greater wealth to refuse to aid that child when you ask.

Murdering in self defense is evil? What about murdering a mass murderer?

In the Bible, at the least, murdering and killing are two separate things. Taking a life out of greed is an example of murder. Taking a life in self defence or in a just war is killing. The Bible specifically prohibits murdering. Take, for example, the punishment for a murderer: death. If there was no difference then it would be hypocritical. I'm not making this up in case you are wondering - the Hebrew has two separate words for murder and kill. Even in English we have this distinction. So your statements phrased correctly are:
Killing in self defense is evil?
and: What about killing a mass murderer?

Are you evil if you lie to protect the fact that your friend standing next to you is about to enter into a surprise birthday party?

The Biblical commandment is, specifically:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (Exodus 20:16)

- which covers, more specifically, lying for your own benefit, out of greed, or other selfish/sinful motivations. It does not prohibit, for example, lying to Nazi SS soldiers about the three Jews hidden in your roof.

Ah, good and evil, you false ideals created by those too afraid to face reality!

From what source springs your definitions of good and evil?

Re:It is simple

[baudbarf]

Right - but the problem is when they become entrenched. Could we consumers all simply pull our support away from Microsoft and make them fall hard like a giant whose kneecaps were just broken?

Some would say "yes," but the practical answer is "no." If it was indeed practical, it would have happened already. Microsoft has embedded themselves in "us" and getting rid of them is a slow, hard, painful process.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

goatse.ca, it's better.

Re:It is simple

[thoth]

The reason that the U.S. Constitution limits presidential terms

That's not a great example - the 22nd Amendment didn't come about until the 1950's. Basically for nearly 200 years no limits worked fine.

Re:It is simple

[toopc]

Microsoft have stolen, alot. For example the graphical OS. Which they stole from apple - which in turn kinda stole it from xerox. See the movie about it! ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/ ).

I bet you believe the Millenium Falcon can actually do the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs too. I mean, it was in a movie, so it must be true - right?

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Your all idiots with a penchant to hate MS for anything. Hypocrites.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

They answer to their corporate customers constantly. They're the ones that put up more coherent requests/demands. The rest of the customer base, can't, as one other poster said, agree on anything. It's a bit like government...

Re:It is simple

[ishtari]

Sure it is dramatized, but I do think it is close enough to the truth since I have 1) seen a similar documentary in school 2) There are a book about it http://www.fireinthevalley.com/ 3) There asses haven't been sued to ass-heaven by microsfot. Have they not like made a thousans movies about vietnamn and WWII as well? Or maybe you don't belive in that either! ;)

Re:It is simple

[hostyle]

So are minorities always wrong?

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil is not "doing bad things". No-one describes lying or stealing as "evil". And when businesses do "evil" things they are not breaking any of those basic rules.

Think again.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

While there is some relativity in morals, there isn't as much as you would like.

Microsoft are evil not because they sell products but because they engage in evil acts which help them sell products - buyouts, abuse of position, etc. etc.

A Microsoft could exist with all the same products and not be evil, but Bill Gates would have to not be running it.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, Microsoft's has released their new marketing motto: 'Do Nothing Bad'. A spokesman for Microsoft said, "We expect all posters on slashdot to now welcome us as their benevolent overlords, seeing as we're not evil anymore, just like Google".

Re:It is simple

[mp3phish]

Does Steve Jobbs own it?

Are they called "Apple"

Can they be found on google by entering miserable failure

Re:It is simple

[David's Boy Toy]

I'd say that paying SCO to file a frivolous lawsuit to make Linux look bad counts as evil.

Re:It is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way "better"?

Easy Tiger!

[hedgehog2097]

Easy tiger - for this to work, you have to click a button on each and every page you want to temporarily create these links on. It took 3 minutes to confirm that. Is the art of journalism dead?

This is an opt-in feature designed to help people who want it. Google aren't ramming this down people's throats.

There is also the option to change the default mapping app - you can switch between Mapquest and Yahoo maps in addition to Google's offering. A nice touch - google didn't have to do that. It's just a shame this only works for US addresses right now.

Of course, this is all academic. It runs on IE, and the average /. reader won't touch that with a bargepole.

I of course detonated the PC I used to test the toolbar in a controlled explosion a few minutes ago.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[arkanes]

Anyone who can't see the difference between an optional feature in an opt-in addon and a default feature installed on 90% of the worlds PCs need a good smacking.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[no parity]

This is an opt-in feature designed to help people who want it. Google aren't ramming this down people's throats.

The obvious reply: Would you say the same if it was Microsoft?

Re:Easy Tiger!

[xanie]

Good research on this, please mod this guy up (I would but no mod points!)

I think the article is flamebait and is just trying to incite people to hate Google, when, as of yet, they have not done anything wrong.

/Wearing a Google shirt
//Uses a Google Search Appliance at work
///mmmm Google

Re:Easy Tiger!

[sriram_2001]

Guess what - Microsoft's SmartTags were far less evil. The website owner had complete control over the SmartTags. Here. Google offers no such control. So let's say you are on MapQuest.com - the Google toobar would still give you a link to their own Google maps. Sorry folks - just another example of cognitive dissonance

Re:Easy Tiger!

[ADRA]

I don't think I've ever heard outrage about an optional opt-in 'feature' so far. If you're so averse to a company and their dubious products, don't DL/buy it. If you're forced to through your company, I pity thou.

Wait, there was an opt-in feature. When XP was installed, it told you to install a new passport account. You don't really need to setup MS passport , but most people seeing it thought it was, or were to indifferent to ignore it.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[|<amikaze]

You don't really need to setup MS passport , but most people seeing it thought it was, or were to indifferent to ignore it.

It really helped how it popped up every 20 minutes, "HEY! You could be the proud owner of a FREE passport account!!!" in those little speech bubbles. Makes it hard to ignore, especially when you know that if you go through the process that damn bubble will go away.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

If it was a seperate download, not included or facilitated in XP or IE, and allowed you to switch to other information providers, then while I can't speak for everyone I would say the same in that case.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[White Roses]

Microsoft doesn't appear to be able (or remember how) to do anything that doesn't involve ramming something down someone's throat, so, really, the question is moot. With Microsoft, it's not a matter of opt-in, or opt-out. You can't easily (some would say ever) opt-out of IE on your Windows computer. Can you opt-out of ActiveX controls? Until the EU's case, you couldn't really opt-out of Media Player. By opt-out, I mean, I can get rid of it and still have a working, functional Windows system. Google doesn't have that kind of power. Frankly, neither should MS.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[dAzED1]

MS smart tags wasn't an opt-in feature, and you couldn't make it point to non-MS services.

If MS had implimented it in the same exact way, then...yeah, I would say the same if it was MS.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Agent_9191]

Plus you could easily write a firefox plugin to do something similar (and use other soucres besides Google's). It's like saying the adblock plugin is doing something illegal because you can OPTIONALLY choose to have it display a tab by the media file you want to block. It's inserting the extra tag, oh no, better start pointing fingers and yelling about illegal activities. And besides, who's forcing you to the Google tool bar anyways?

Re:Easy Tiger!

[JakusMinimus]

Guess what - Microsoft's SmartTags were far less evil.
Bullshit.

The website owner had complete control over the SmartTags.

And this is why your opening statement is bullshit. Google's solution empowers the user/consumer whereas Microsoft's empowered Microsoft and any it could co-opt into using Smart Tags.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[dAzED1]

It does indeed offer the control. The link doesn't appear until you click the button to make it appear. In the case of maps, you can have it use yahoo maps or mapquest. It doesn't at all restrict you to google's maps.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[bcmm]

A controlled explosion?
You were running IE under Wine then?

Re:Easy Tiger!

[blamanj]

Try and do a little research before you post. The smart links can be configured to point to mapquest, yahoo maps, or google maps, user's choice.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[1u3hr]

Is the art of journalism dead?

The writer isn't a journalist: "Steve Rubel is a PR strategist with nearly 15 years of public relations, marketing, journalism and communications experience." It looks like he just copied it from a blog withot checking it out. He can't spell either ("Gary eludes to it").

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anonymous Coward]

But Wine Is Not an Emulator!

I know no one contested it, but it's always gotta be said.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[1u3hr]

The website owner had complete control over the SmartTags.

Right. Every page on the web would need to have the "opt out" tag put in it.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[SCVirus]

Ever heard of microsofts shitty 'msn toolbar' you are not forced to download it, I'm not even sure what it does (if anything), but i've never heard anyone complain about it, BECAUSE YOU ARE N0T FORCED TO USE IT. Microsoft's attempt at spyware protection, i'm sure it sucks but its not rammed down our throat.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[kryocore]

the average /. reader won't touch that with a bargepole

I think a lot of /. readers work for companies that have, unfortunately, chosed IE as their standard browser. I'll touch anything with a bargepole, almost. I'll just be sure I'm not risking anything before I do it.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[leonardluen]

Frankly, neither should MS.

why not? it is their product, if they want to piss off the consumer with their annoying product then they darn well should be able to do it!

annoying your customer is a good way to drive them to a competitor. if you want microsoft to die, let it continue in its practices, eventually everyone will use something else, such as Linux, or maybe more practical at this time would be MacOSX, because it even gets a lot of the popular games ported to it.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[generic-man]

The same is true with Google and its cache. You have to put an opt-out tag if you want Google not to cache your web pages, for fear of losing editorial control or subscription revenue.

Microsoft's opt-out == evil. How dare they.
Google's opt-out == good. Why would you ever want to deny Google the opportunity to provide such a valuable service?

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anti_Climax]

I found an way to get rid of the stupid pop-ups offering passport or XP tours. You click in them and when it launched the "Utility" or whatever the hell it was you clicked cancel.

I felt the same way about those pop-ups but when I saw cancel in the passport/tour window I figured it was worth a shot. No more pop-ups.

I know it doesn't change the fact that having those pop up in the first place wasn't shit, but have we come to expect any less from MS?

Re:Easy Tiger!

[AsimovBesterClarke]

> Is the art of journalism dead?

I'll leave the fine points the semantics of art vs. craft to someone else. Given how anything which passes for 'news' is little more than a PR piece, then, Yes, it is not only dead, but it has passed beyond the rotting corpse of a time-lapsed special effect to little more than ashes in the wind.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The obvious reply: Would you say the same if it was Microsoft?

The obvious counter-reply[sic][1]: Wouldn't it be if it was from Microsoft?

[1] neither are a reply, but a question.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Marthisdil]

I don't think I've ever heard outrage about an optional opt-in 'feature' so far

Oh no! Microsoft includes a utility to format a new hard drive that you include in your computer....It's linked to everything in the OS....It harms all the other "format utility" competition.

For most fanatics (on either side), there's ALWAYS something to rant about. The thing is - if you use Windows, and don't like IE, don't use it - use something else. If some of it's programming is used under the hood for file browsing, whatever - use a different file browser. Don't like Media Player? Don't use it - use iTunes, whatever. Damn, it's not difficult - they could bundle an app that does something for everything, and if you didn't like it, you can use something else...

Yet people still get all worked up over it.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[duffbeer703]

Remember - this is Slashdot. You might as well try to say that Windows is easier to use that GNOME 2.8...

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? The website owner isn't the issue.

I was going rant about what an idiot you are, but you aren't nearly as bad off as who-ever-the-fuck tagged this as "Insightful."

Re:Easy Tiger!

[antv]

Yes, I would've said the same if it was Microsoft.

AutoLink feature requires you to click a button (screenshot here) in order to change the web page (i.e. it's like a bookmarklet).

Let me reiterate: it won't modify the page you're viewing, unless you actually click a button on that page. This means that user is 100% aware of page being modified.

Now compare this with MS SmartLinks, which modifies every page you visit by default.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[the_rev_matt]

Is the art of journalism dead?

You are aware that this is slashdot, right? The editors don't even read the submissions, let alone follow the links.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Fortun L'Escrot]

check this out tho: there isnt a geek in the world that could not find something good to say about a MS product. but while that, those same geeks will almost always attest to the poor rapport they have using MS products. its really about the consistency of the strategy MS uses to build trust. Google's is much better. which of the two corporations is winning at building trust? that's the most important aspect to consider here.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Trifthen]

Nope. It's called a robots.txt file, honored by good web-crawlers (such as Google's) for decades. Works for everyone - even Google.

Microsft wanted a special meta tag to opt out, made only for their service. The reason this was evil, was because every business could take the concept; suddenly you'd have to opt out of each individual site-modifying product ever created. It was also supposed to be built into IE, meaning it would have been enabled by default on 90% of the world's browsers.

Now, I don't know about you, but a google toolbar is something I download myself. This toolbar also doesn't autolink a site until the user clicks a button. This means the user *knows* the links are not sponsored by the site they're visiting, but are external - created by the Google toolbar. This is similar to running a site through a translator, or a dialect filter - it's a user-initiated action for their own entertainment.

Notice the difference of approaches. In one case, 90% of the web suddenly thinks your site advocates maalox. In the other, odd terms are highlighted if the user wants to know what the hell you mean by "wikipedia."

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can reply with a question, dipshit.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[generic-man]

What if I want Google to index my site (so that users can find my content) but not cache my site?

By putting something on the web, I do not grant a license for people to copy it at will. The web is not like Usenet: it is not designed for everyone to mirror everyone else's content. The definition of Fair Use in most countries (including the U.S.) doesn't extend to a complete copy of an original work. Google News, even in its advertising-less form, was the subject of lawsuits filed in Germany and Hong Kong.

Google has "meta tags to opt out, made only for their service." So does Microsoft. It doesn't make one more devious than the other. As many people read Google's EULA as read Microsoft's.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Drathos]

Or even worse. Microsoft Movie Maker (comes with XP). Not only can you not choose to not install it, but you can't uninstall it. Even by force!

I've tried removing the Movie Maker directory on the XP box I have at work (it's a work computer, I won't be making movies on it (not that I'd use MS Movie Maker if I was going to)) and a minute or two later, IT'S BACK! 0.o

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Plac3bo]

I don't know where you live, but in the country that Microsoft resides (United States of America), monopolies are frowned upon.

In fact, it is a felony stated in: U.S. Code: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2

Yet people still get all worked up over it.

Now do you understand why people get all worked up over it?

Re:Easy Tiger!

[cduffy]

just another example of cognitive dissonance

More like an example of different priorities.

Most of us don't care about the content owner having control; rather, we care about the end user (1) having control, and (2) having accurate information [ie. knowing if a link is provided by the content owner or by some other tool]. Google's implementation meets both those criteria.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[kaustik]

I found an way to get rid of the stupid pop-ups offering passport or XP tours. You click in them and when it launched the "Utility" or whatever the hell it was you clicked cancel.

Give the boy a prize...

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, Tiger!
Easy, Tiger!
Easy, Tiger!

Comma, you shitfuck!

Re:Easy Tiger!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm proud to be enrolled into the security newsletter from Microsoft. See? I opt-in to that list, not rammed into my throat when I signed up for Hotmail.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[1u3hr]

What if I want Google to index my site (so that users can find my content) but not cache my site?

Google does cache -- and so does a whole bunch of servers when anyone request a page. A cache is kept for a limited time; your ISP may cache pages for a few hours or days, Google for up to a month, till the next time it crawls the page.

Fair Use in most countries (including the U.S.) doesn't extend to a complete copy of an original work.

If that was strictly applied, no one could ever see your website unless they were looking at it on your computer.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[bcmm]

Not everyone uses x86, you insensitive clod!


There are projects to use the Wine API clone with an x86 architecture emulator to run windows binaries in Linux on other hardware platforms. Which really should be called "Wie"...

Re:Easy Tiger!

[generic-man]

I know how caches work. I also know that Google's cache never expires unless you specifically opt out of it.

If someone downloads my work to read it, that's fine. What Google has done goes far beyond that. They have downloaded copies of millions of pages solely so that they can retransmit them without the author's permission. Offering a way to opt out is not requesting permission. You wouldn't like it very much if I sent you junk e-mail and called you on the phone* until you opted out.

* The Do Not Call list is a way to opt out, albeit an extraordinarily popular way.

Re:Easy Tiger!

[1u3hr]

I know how caches work. I also know that Google's cache never expires unless you specifically opt out of it.

Yes it does. If you remove your page, eventually it will disappear from the search results, and the cache as well. But the cache is renewed on every crawl, so there will be one as long as your page exists, and a brief time after, if that was what you meant.

If someone downloads my work to read it, that's fine. What Google has done goes far beyond that. They have downloaded copies of millions of pages solely so that they can retransmit them without the author's permission.

That's not how I see it. No different to me than reading from a caching proxy server at my ISP. What's your objection to them doing this anyway? How are you hurt? Note that Google's cache doesn't include images, so if you have advertising banners, they're still pulled (if they're online) from the original address and you get any clicks.

Offering a way to opt out is not requesting permission.

By putting your pages on the web you implicitly allow servers to copy and retransmit them.

Anyway, as I suppose you're aware,

2. I don't want Google to keep a cached version of my page.:
If you do not want your content to be accessible through Google's cache, you can use the NOARCHIVE meta-tag. Place this in the <HEAD> section of your documents:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

The idea being that any archive robot should honour this (though the NSA will probably not).

Well...

[the_skywise]

They haven't gotten away with it...YET!

Re:Well...

[superpulpsicle]

Who cares. M$ got away with selling beta products for a decade.

but....

[zxnos]

...we like google so its o.k.... //

Books don't have ISDN numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ISBN not ISDN

Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers

[johnpaul191]

that's what you think!

Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers

[temojen]

You could try plugging an ISDN into a book, but I've never been able to find the socket.

Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers

[DarkMantle]

Obviously the author doesn't read, or else he would know that

Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers

[lpangelrob2]

We make up units all the time in /., so I don't see why books wouldn't have ISDN numbers.

If your typical ISDN bandwidth is 128 Kbps, and I can read about... 8 words per second... and given that each word averages about 5 letters, and each letter is a byte... that gives us a relative bandwidth of 8 x 5 x 8 = 320 bits per second... or something like .0025 ISDN numbers.

I don't really feel like calculating that in libraries of congress per fortnight, though. But I can tell you that number would also be really freaking small.

Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers

[cbiffle]

Wrong again! When discussing Microsoft on Slashdot, the correct acronym is 'ICBM.'

Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers

[Duhavid]

Yes, they do. I call my books all the time. Gets expensive, but it lets tham know I still care, even though I have not read them in a long time.

Not a monolopy ...

[gstoddart]

Microsoft has an almost total monolopy on PCs. If Microsoft does this, it's anti-competitive. They have been convicted as monolopists.

If Googles optional toolbar points at their services, that is hardly an abuse of a monolopy. Heck, I don't even have a google tool bar, I don't want one.

But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.

Until or unless Google becomes a big monolopy who can force everyone to use their crap, the fact that Google does something that would be illegal for Microsoft to do is irrelevant.

Why is this so tough?

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

monolopy?

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[DaFrogBoy]

a.k.a. If you've innovated too much, you must stop. Let someone else innovate.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the zillionth time, there is no such thing as a "convicted monopolist". Or "monolopist", for that matter.

Spouting "convicted monopolist" is like stamping "Ignoramus" on anything else you have to say.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[doorbender]

Hear hear!!

where were all these ppl yelling monopoly when "certain company" was building thiers??

if google was any where near what MS does my idiot boss wouldn't have the option of using yahoo. He types URLs into the search field instead of the address bar.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[cowboy76Spain]

It would be an abuse of monopoly if Microsoft did something as "the only tool that will work on Windows is ours" or even "we will allow more tools but ours will be always, by default, available".

If neither of these are true, then it is just a new branch of its bussiness that does not support on its monopoly, and therefore completaly legal and ethical.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's confused "monopoly" and "jackelope".

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[omahajim]

Yeah, you know, one of those classic board games.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or "monolopy", or even "monolopist".

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[johnashby]

I just have to joke and say:

Do not pass Og, Do not collect two hundred Ollards!

:)

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Kenja]

"But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine."

You'r "forced" to have a windows machine at work? So did Bill Gates and his storm troopers kick down your door one day, shanghai you and chain you to a desk in some tech support hell?

Or are you "forced" in the same way that dairy worker is "forced" to work with dairy products or a carpenter is "forced" to work with wood?

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[DrEldarion]

It seems quite unfair to bar Microsoft from adding new features to their software just because everyone uses their software.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[clontzman]

They have been convicted as monolopists.

No they haven't. It's not illegal to be a monopoly (and it'd be hard to argue that they're a monopoly with Apple and Linux in the picture).

But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.

OMG, get Upton Sinclair on the line. In other news, I hear there are some people who don't get to choose what brand of telephone they use at work. Somehow, they manage.

Courage.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> You'r "forced" to have a windows machine at work? So did Bill Gates and his storm troopers kick down your door one day, shanghai you and chain you to a desk in some tech support hell?

Don't be such an ass. If a company requires a Windows desktop PC, and you can't install anything else on it, then YES, you're forced to use a Windows machine. What's so hard to understand that (unless you're a Microsoft apologist)?

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[goofyspouse]

I am effin in tears at the repeated use of "monolopy" in this post. Transposing the L and the P once is understandable, but doing it throughout the whole post is just plain hilarious.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Kenja]

"If a company requires a Windows desktop PC, and you can't install anything else on it, then YES, you're forced to use a Windows machine. What's so hard to understand that (unless you're a Microsoft apologist)?"

So there are no other jobs? If using a Windows system is such a hardship that you catagorize it as being "forced" in the same way your "forced" to put on clothing or get out of bed in the morning then I would recomend a change of jobs. I've had jobs where I was "forced" to use Solaris, Macs, and yes even Linux.

It has been said that you are the master of your own destiny. So make a change or suck it up.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[DGtlRift]

> or a carpenter is "forced" to work with wood?

No it's more like the carpenter is forced to work with balsa wood and tools made by Cheap-O-Tin-Tools because they own 90% of the market.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[LnxAddct]

The best part is not only is the toolbar optional but to turn the linking feature on you have to press a button each time you'd like it to autolink stuff. (i.e. once per web page/per view) so the feature isn't even pushed on you even if you decided to grab the toolbar. Furthermore, Google made it extremely easy to switch the mapping service to two of their comptetitors, MapQuest and Yahoo! Maps. Microsoft would never ever do a thing like that. This is why Google is Good, and Microsoft is evil forevermore :)
Regards,
Steve

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[winkydink]

Have you looked at the IT job market lately? While it's better than it was in 2000-2001, it's hardly what one could call robust. In the real world, most of us have to put some of our lesser held ideals aside to provide basics, like food, clothing and shelter.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[gstoddart]

I am effin in tears at the repeated use of "monolopy" in this post. Transposing the L and the P once is understandable, but doing it throughout the whole post is just plain hilarious.

m'I sydlexic you nisensitive cold!!!

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[dAzED1]

methinks you put a weee bit too much S&M connotations into the word "forced."

Is he saying that he doesn't like his job? He's saying is that part of his job's requirement is that he uses windows. Not all that insane - its part of my job requirement. If I want to work here, then I too am *forced* to use windows. Its a condition that he'd rather not have, as part of a larger thing (employment) that he wants.

I want to have a comfortable, clean, house that I can live in. As part of that, I am forced to either clean it myself, or have someone else clean it. The fact that I am *forced* to either clean it or have someone else clean it doesn't at all mean I should burn down my house and go live in a cardboard box...it just means that not everything someone wants is 100% roses.

Since he is forced to use windows, as part of his job, and since a vast swath of folk are in the same boat, his concern still stands: its a captive audience that shouldn't have the smart tags *forced* on to them.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[dAzED1]

if they wanted to add it as a feature, that would be fine. Allow someone to opt-in to it, stop giving them pop-up bubbles every 30 seconds telling them about it until they finally do it just to make the bubbles stop, and allow someone to use whatever map provider they want. mapquest, yahoo maps, google maps...don't restrict them to MS's offerings.

THEN it is a feature.

Otherwise, its a hijack, and an exploitation of their market position.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Donny Smith]

>But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.

Then you've got a problem with your boss (or your company sucks).
It's got nothing to do with Micorsoft (unless you work there).

>Until or unless Google becomes a big monolopy who can force everyone to use their crap, the fact that Google does something that would be illegal for Microsoft to do is irrelevant.

No, that's wrong. It smells like shit, it looks like shit - it IS shit.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[mrchaotica]

Except "we will allow more tools but ours will be always, by default, available" was true for Smart Tags.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.

Don't you mean that you *choose* to work at a place that uses only windows machines? You could choose to go on welfare or choose to take a construction job or choose to find a place that uses Linux or Macs.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[crimoid]

Sorry, "to provide basics, like food, clothing and shelter." you can work at Burger King or beg on a street corner.

If you REALLY care that much about your ideals you can EASILY provide yourself the basics without holding anything aside.

You are choosing to work in an industry that sometimes forces you to buck your ideals.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he could choose not to consider his operating system as a good-or-evil proposition.

Windows does a lot of things more easily and supports a lot more hardware devices than Linux does, and a Windows PC costs less than a Mac*.

Nice troll though.

* Especially when you lock the user accounts down so as to prevent installation of spyware.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft was convicted of illegally abusing their monopolistic position. You can be a monopoly, but you have to hold on to that position through fair and legal means (MS didn't).

Also, you don't have to own 100.00% of the market to be have a monopoly.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Politburo]

Furthermore, Google made it extremely easy to switch the mapping service to two of their comptetitors, MapQuest and Yahoo! Maps. Microsoft would never ever do a thing like that.

That's because Microsoft knows how to act like a publicly owned company.

As nice as it is, it's completely bonkers to include the option of using your competitors. IMO, this is a sign from Google that they do not trust Google Maps yet.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Pfhorrest]

What I find more frightening is that it took me a second to realize you had written that wrongly at all.

(I am in some ways lysdexic but it usually doesn't seem to affect my writing ability at all).

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[stonedonkey]

"They have been convicted as monolopists."

Look, I'm no fan of MS, but guess what? A monopoly is not illegal. Yes, you read that correctly. What is illegal is to abuse your monopoly.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You go try that and come back and tell us all how well it worked.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Lovesquid]

I thought that was the whole freaking point of having a strong market position -- to utilize it to make even more money. Likewise, if your subsequent activities cause you to lose your market position and/or money as a result, then it's your own fault.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Pionar]

You can't be convicted of being a monopoly. Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. It's how you use your monopolistic status. AT&T abused its status, Microsoft abused its status, and Standard Oil abused its status. Intel was a monopoly of PC processors for a while. IBM was a monopoly in many industries for a while, too. But the difference was neither abused that position, at least enough to warrant attention. They didn't bully suppliers or customers.

Wal-Mart isn't technically a monopoly yet, so those rules don't apply to them.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Lovesquid]

Riiight. So I'm going to quit my job, and then lose my house, car, food from my kids' mouths, etc., just because they make me use Windows and IE at work as part of some retarded IT management policy.

You keep your principles and starve if MS pisses you off that much (I hope it works out for you). I'll keep my job, which apart from its asinine "forced" software standarization policies, isn't so bad, really.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[scribblej]

What's so hard to understand that (unless you're a Microsoft apologist)?
--
Obviously, no one is forcing you to work at a company that has piss-poor technology standards.

So I still don't get it. How are you forced to use Windows? The dairy farmer analogy the guy made is apt. If your job is to work with cows all day,y ou can't exactly claim you're forced to do it. You decided to become a dairy farmer. And Mc Donald's is always hiring.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[babyrat]

becuase the original comment was comparing monopolist practices - google vs microsoft.

so it is a perfectly valid comment to indicate that in that instance Microsoft is NOT forcing him to use windows - his company is. different story completely.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[dAzED1]

maintaining market position (or achieving it...) should be based on the product you have...not on forcing it upon someone. If you produce a quality product (Exchange, for example) then that should be reason for market gain. Oddly enough, there are alternatives to Exchange, and always have been, but no one other than MS can get it "right" for corporate America. They/we want the features Exchange has. Damn I'd love an OSS alternative...or even a commercial one that was anywhere near as good.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Ibanez]

WTH! I point this out in an Apple article and I get modded a Troll!? :D

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[megarich]

It's not tough, its sensasationalism(sp?) at its best and as much as I like slashdot, they allow it because it sells or in this case gets heart felt responses. Tis the reason why I try to steer clear from all tv/press media.

reporter "how do you feel about so and so"

person "he's ok"

headline for that will read "this guy says he hates so and so, he cant stand his guts and he wants him and his family dead

tis a truly sad world we live in

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

sometimes ppl don't have a choice and have to do that anyway.
let's all feel glad for Kenja and crimoid who excel at asking "do you want fries with that?" instead of creating new software, and can run whatever system the want...
except MS or OSX, cuz they're too expensive.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[nazzdeq]

That's funny because they don't have a monopoly on my 3 macs or my 2 linux boxes, not my Sun Blade either. The fact is they don't have a monopoly and never did. People are just idiots and could have bought a different computer at any time. Mac? Atari? Amiga? Linux? BeOS? You're only forced to have a Windows machine because your company is too stupid or doesn't want to switch to Macs or Linux boxes. There is no monopoly.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a real word... look

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you, sir, have a monopoly on non-monopolistic computers!

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[mqduck]

Dyslexic /typing/... that's something I haven't seen before.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled "monolopy" incorrectly.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[cduffy]

That's because Microsoft knows how to act like a publicly owned company ...whereas Google knows how to gain the public's trust. That latter bit is a useful thing to have -- even for a publicly owned company.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[cduffy]

IBM was a monopoly in many industries for a while, too. But the difference was neither abused that position, at least enough to warrant attention.

Not true.

Re:Not a monolopy ...

[Pionar]

I stand corrected.

IF google takes over your browser

[doorbender]

takes over your browser integrates it with the OS and forces you to see the links. then they are getting away with something MS didn't .... quite

beloved slashdot sponsors, here's your drama

[macsox]

yes, it has an optional feature that does this. and that optional feature has different levels of link creation.

and for pete's sake, slashdot, if you're going to get paranoid and argumentative, at least do it on the day the story broke so it has some currency.

Re:beloved slashdot sponsors, here's your drama

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for stickin' it to the slashdot dumbasses.

Yet, I called my fellow uber-geeks dumbasses.
Reason?
They constantly air boring, old news- and get it wrong. /. has become my 'entertainment' news- and I go to Gnews for the real scoop.
Sad, it is.

Perhaps they'd start reading comments and see what their problem is- but probabaly not.

Helllooo

[the_skywise]

GMail? Froogle?

Ooh... wait... I don't think I like where this insinuation is going...

Re:Helllooo

[Altus]

selling?

Re:Helllooo

[DGtlRift]

> GMail? Froogle?

Sell implies that you paid for it.

Re:Helllooo

[Divide By Zero]

The difference is this: MS products cost money, Google products do not. (I don't consider my browser rendering ads I don't read as "payment" - if you do, this isn't a very compelling argument.) You get what you pay for.

Had I paid $100 for Google95 and it crashed as much as Windows95, then it's a fair comparison. Or if GoogleOffice, on which I dropped $250, kept changing their document formats every version such that the default file format in GoogleOffice 5 is unreadable to a user of GoogleOffice 3, I'm right on board with you.

My perception of quality is exactly that: a perception, and value (quality/price) is directly dependent on that perception. A purchased product blows up in my face, I scowl and wonder why I spent my money on a product that doesn't work. A free product designated "Release" blows up in my face, I frown and say, "Well, that's a crappy product" and use a competitor. A free product designated "Beta" blows up in my face, and I shrug and hope they fix the bug soon. It's hard for me to get worked up over a free product not working because its value to me, unless it dorks up my OS or something, can never go below 0/0 (pretend this equals 1, math nerds) - I got exactly what I paid for it: nothing.

Re:Helllooo

[Anonymous Coward]

You buying your gmail address on ebay doesn't mean that google was selling the service.

Re:Helllooo

[jericho4.0]

If you define 'Beta' as 'unfinished software with lots of bugs we need our users to find', gmail and froogle are not beta products.

Google news, OTHO, will be beta forever, because as soon as Google starts showing ads on the page, they lose fair use.

Re:Helllooo

[generic-man]

I define "beta" as anything with the word "BETA" right next to the name. It's amazing that you claim that GMail and Froogle might not be beta products when they put the word right next to the name.

Google News doesn't have to be beta. Google Images isn't beta, doesn't have any ads, and works about as poorly as Google News does. "Beta" does not imply "ad-free for now," since at least two of Google's services (Groups 2, GMail) are still in beta and generate ad revenue nonethelesss.

Re:Helllooo

[Anonymous Coward]

can never go below 0/0 (pretend this equals 1, math nerds)

I can't pretend that equals 1; I can only pretend that it gets very, very close to one.

maybe

[dance2die]

maybe, google toolbars are not "SMART" enough to be considered to be evil?(yet)?

Re:maybe

[gstoddart]

maybe, google toolbars are not "SMART" enough to be considered to be evil?(yet)?

Or too smart to get caught? ;-)

The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[Serveert]

Microsoft controls the OS so they could integrate smart tags for their benefit and control and the user has no choice.

vs Google toolbar which you can optionally download. Don't like it, don't download it.

Simple.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[boohiss]

Don't like Windows? Don't use it.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[SaDan]

That's kinda what I was thinking.

Some people complain that they're forced to use Windows at work, but is that really Microsoft's fault? Who decided to use MS for the OS platform at the office?

Now, if you use Windows at home, that's your fault.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[Serveert]

That's another difference, thanks for bringing that up. A judge has already declared Microsoft a monopoly. You can read the findings of fact here. You can do a find for "Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market".

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[mce]

Who decided to use MS for the OS platform at the office?

Microsoft and Bill .

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[Donny Smith]

> Microsoft controls the OS so they could integrate smart tags for their benefit and control and the user has no choice.

WTF are you blathering about? I'm writing this on Windows XP and have no fucking idea what smart tags are you talking about?

>vs Google toolbar which you can optionally download. Don't like it, don't download it.

And how exactly is that different from my "don't like Microsoft's smart tags, don't use MS IE"?

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[boohiss]

What a judge says, and what common sense says are very often two very different things. Don't like Microsoft? No one is forcing you to use it. Have to use it at work? Quit. Use it at home? Go buy a Mac instead. Or you could stop whining...but I suppose that's never an option.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm writing this on Windows XP and have no fucking idea what smart tags are you talking about?

That is because of the public outcry after the smart tags anouncement. As for the rest of your post, we can tell your IQ is low. Try and tell the judge who declared M$ a monopoly that users had the freedom to choose their OS.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you hate anti-trust legislation and annoying judges and wish Rockefeller still controlled oil.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[Serveert]

Let's see, listen to a slashdot user or a judge. Tough one. At any rate, with that tone, it's no use discussing this with you, enjoy your day.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[SaDan]

That's interesting, because where I work, Microsoft and Bill didn't have any say in what we run on our servers and desktops.

Re:The difference being microsoft controls the OS

[mce]

It all depends who you are and who your employer is.

Why not uk version

[freeshoes]

Why doesn't google make it work in the UK for addresses and phone numbers.

Re:Why not uk version

[GIL_Dude]

The UK must be too small? Everyone already knows where everything is? /sarcasm Sorry - I don't know - maybe that is in phase 2?

Re:Why not uk version

[DGtlRift]

My guess is that it has more to do with Europa laws and where EU citizen information is stored.

In Soviet Seattle

[Anonymous Coward]

M$ Smart Tags You!!!

There are a few minor differences

[Miara]

AutoLink will add tags to web pages that take you to other places in services that were accessible to everyone. SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows. Not that I like this idea either, but it's not exactly the same evil.

Re:There are a few minor differences

[Osty]

SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows.

This was modded informative? Man, I want some of that moderator crack. First off, I assume you're referring to Microsft's Smart Tags (no idea what "SmartLink" is). Second, it wasn't at all intended to replace existing links. It was in addition to any links on the pages (think similar to VibrantMedia's intellitext crap, but way less intrusive, and still under your control). Third, of course it would only work if you happen to be running Windows. The Google thing only works if you happen to be running Windows, IE, and the Google toolbar. So what? Fourth, Smart Tags were and are configurable. You could remove tags you didn't want, and install new ones you did. Perhaps there would've been security issues with the tags installing by themselves, but I never saw that (I used the IE 6 beta back in the day), and now it would only be speculation. You could write your own smart tags and distribute them completely independent of Microsoft, and most of the smart tags I've seen were useful, not advertisements (ie, a name gets tagged so you can look it up in your Outlook contact list, an address gets tagged so you can look it up on mappoint, etc).

People reacted poorly to Microsoft's Smart Tags because they were from Microsoft, not because they were inherently evil. That's also why people are not up in arms about Google doing it (they "Do no Evil," right?). At least in Microsoft's case the API to build your own smart tags was available (I don't know about Google's, since I don't run the Google toolbar and I've not looked into this deeper).

Re:There are a few minor differences

[Anonymous Coward]

Smarttags were intended to take you from inside a windows office app to a duly appointed MS website for "more information." Type an address into word get an automatic link to MS map, type a stock symbol into excel get a MS Finance page, etc. Smarttags would only take you were MS sent you, and it all happened automagically.
The Google Autolinks are a feature added by a third party that defaults to Google resourses but these can be freely changed. It only happens while in IE and to webpages not word documents or excel spreadsheets. I as a user also have to tell it to make the links.

APPLES =/ ORANGES
Autolinks =/ Smartags

Re:There are a few minor differences

[nine-times]

SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows.

I think you hit on the key thing here: Microsoft was integrating this technology into the OS in a way that was going to ship in the OS, and it would end up being always on and not removable. From the way it was being implemented, its purpose was not really to make it easier to find what the user is looking for, but a way for Microsoft to insert advertisements into your everyday tasks (since, IIRC, the links were going to link to Microsoft "partners" who were paying Microsoft for the privilege). While Google seems to be trying to provide something people want (since people have to choose to use it, either they want it or this thing will be a bust), and Microsoft was talking about implementing something we, today, would consider adware *into the operating system* at a low level, it seems quite a bit different.

/I know, not saying anything anyone else hasn't said. -5 Redundant

Google isn't a convicted monopolist

[FreeUser]

Google gets away with what Microsoft couldn't

Oh Good Lord what rock have you been under for the last 15 years.

Microsoft is a monopolist convicted of using that monopoly in unlawfully anti-competative ways to run competitors out of business. They've violated in spirit and letter numerous consent decrees, agreements with government, and even court orders, and gotten away with it because their cycle of business is orders of magnitude faster than the wheels of justice.

As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft must play by a different set of rules than everyone else, like, say, Google, which has never been convicted of anything in the US (and quite IMHO bugus trademark violations in France).

You might as well say "Joe's Computers get away with what Microsoft Couldn't." Damn straight. Joe's Computers, like Google, haven't been shown to even be a monopoly, much less convicted of abusing such a position if they had it. Microsoft has, on all counts.

Re:Google isn't a convicted monopolist

[Momoru]

While what you say is true, the same thing could have been said about Microsoft in 1982...we hope to see these things coming BEFORE they happen now. Google is acting like Microsoft in the sense that they are buying every vertical and horizontal and then integrating them to show ads. They may not be evil now, but that doesn't mean they don't have the potential to be. They have already raised some eyebrows with the desktop search and gmail as far as privacy issues. Like others have said, the toolbar is optional, but Google already is scaring me by going so far away from its core search functionality, which I would argue could still use some work itself.

Re:Google isn't a convicted monopolist

[ffub]

Microsoft is not a monopoly, and has never been convicted of being such. It is, however, not a firm in perfect competition, as they can affect market prices by increasing production or reducing it. Also, as software is not a single price market, Microsoft can engage in price discrimination, i.e. charging, to a reasonable degree, what they like. It is for these reasons they have been convicted of anti-competitive behaviour.

Important destinctions.

Re:Google isn't a convicted monopolist

[gregorio]

As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft must play by a different set of rules than everyone else, like, say, Google, which has never been convicted of anything in the US (and quite IMHO bugus trademark violations in France).

What about IBM? It's a "convicted monopolist" too. Why aren't you people complaining about their actions?

The anti-trust law doesn't work like that. The government has not filed MS under a different company category, where they "can't do bad stuff". You have to break a specific law and then lose the final trial to be "convicted" of anything you have done. There is no such thing as this "eternal convict status" that you people apply to Microsoft.

When a company is convicted of anything, they can pay a fine or they can have some of their actions regulated (like EU did in the Media Player case) to fix the damages the company caused. Again, it is not an eternal condemnation. It's a court decision related to a specific issue of either the past or the present, to protect society in the future (and also to fix damages caused in the past). But it's still related (as in "you did it so you must pay for it") to the past or present time.

So it's not up to you to scream "convicted monopolist! convicted monopolist" every time they do something you don't like. They have to actually break a law or a regulation to be punished for their actions.

When they stop selling Windows copies in EU without Media Player removed, you can surely scream "convicted monopolist", but not when they have done something that is not forbidden by the law or by a court order.

Re:Google isn't a convicted monopolist

[Duhavid]

RE: IBM. What actions would you have someone complain about? There is competition ( now ) in the space that IBM inhabits. There wasnt for a long time, earlier in its history, and they went thru an anti-trust suit, came out the other side, and, AFAICT, changed how they do business ( IIRC, it was a consent decree, and also IIRC, they have basically abided by it. )

RE: Microsoft. They have a defacto monopoly in desktop PC operating systems. Once you have a monopoly, the rules change. You are correct that there is no "eternal convict status" ( well, there shouldnt be, I woudl agree with you that if Microsoft changed tonight, and were the best corporate citizen ever, there would still be some who would complain... ( I would not be in that group ) ), but the monopoly hasnt gone away, so the rules they are supposed to abide by havent changed. ( Things like effectively forcing the OEMs to only sell Microsoft operating systems if they want the discount, forcing OEMs to not bundle in Netscape instead of IE. Things like pushing IE into the fundamentals of the operating system ( a security issue and a generally bad idea ) so that any attempts to unbundle IE would give them the ability to holler "we wont be able to innovate!". ). That monopoly status puts them in a different category. The things they have done *are* supposed to be forbidden to them, but it appears to be difficult to keep the legal case on course.

I dunno. I didnt start out not liking Microsoft. I started out a bit of a fan of theirs. Watching them act on the public stage for the last 14 years or so, I have changed my mind about them. When they clean up their act, I'll stop complaining about how they act.

Re:Google isn't a convicted monopolist

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean I don't have to buy all my computers and software from Joe's Computers? Damn you Joe, you've been lying to me for years!

Rather, they WOULD have gotten away with it...

[BlueThunderArmy]

...if it weren't for that pesky Slashdot!

Re:Rather, they WOULD have gotten away with it...

[njfuzzy]

I believe you mean, "If it weren't for those meddling kids and their website!"

Re:Rather, they WOULD have gotten away with it...

[BlueThunderArmy]

scoobie doobie dooooooooooooooooooo!

Re:Rather, they WOULD have gotten away with it...

[Anonymous Coward]

ahrooby roooby rooooooo!!!

ISDN?

[wvn]

isdn numbers for books I thought it was called ISBN...

That's deceptively complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

See the truth is "Of course not."

But I don't want to look like a hypocrite, or give up my dogma, so I've got to complicate everything by lying, and calling you a "M$FT fanboy, who's too stupid to know any better." Now stop trolling me with relevant questions.

Re:That's deceptively complicated.

[mrwonton]

I'd like to think that that's wrong. We all know the vast majority of users don't touch the default settings, so if Microsoft implemented this, but didn't turn it on by default, I can't see why anyone would freak out... but then again this is Slashdot.

ISDN?

[Cytlid]

such as maps for addresses, isdn numbers for books, etc.

Wow, books have ISDN numbers now? What ever happened to ISBN numbers?

ISDN?

[Servo]

Please proof read submissions before they get posted. It is called an ISBN number. ISDN is a telco circuit.

OMG!!! No!

[eno2001]

What Google has done is completely different because it didn't come from Microsoft. Microsoft has been operating a sweatshop of coding gnomes. They pay them only in fractions of a farthing per month! Whereas Google employs a crack team of trained code sphinxes who test their search technology daily with vexing questions. Google pays their sphinxes well and because of that the sphinxes coded this new technology that is quite superior to Microsoft's magic links technology. So don't fear the sphinxes for they are your friends. Microsoft abuses gnomes. They are evil.

Yes. Laugh... it's absurdist! ;P

Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[BillsPetMonkey]

I did wonder how long the "Microsoft Inc Bad, Google Inc Good" pastiche could last.

Just because its founders are young and "wacky" doesn't mean they can't make very corporate decisions in polo shirts instead of pinstripe shirts. The platitude about "thinking outside the box" already sounds trite coming from Google. The decision to fire a blogger for speaking up is proof that Google has a PR department just like any other corporate minded drone army.

Bill Gates was once young and just as idealistic as Sergey and Brin. Bill Gates once said that he was planning to give away most if not all of his fortune to charity - I bet he wasn't labelled "evil" back then ...

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[William_Lee]

"Bill Gates once said that he was planning to give away most if not all of his fortune to charity - I bet he wasn't labelled "evil" back then ..."

Just to chime in, I hate M$ as much as the next red blooded /.er, but Bill Gates has given away more than most people in the history of philanthropy. He's already donated about a third of his net worth to charity. Cut the guy some slack on this front. I don't know how anyone could criticize this guy from a philanthropy perspective.

From http://www.beliefnet.com/story/34/story_3450_1.htm l

regarding his contributions:

"I don't mean the actual figure, which is itself an unimaginable $22 billion. Rather, I refer to the percentage of his wealth he has donated. Still in his early 40s, Gates has now distributed about one third of everything he has to charity."

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[sriram_2001]

He *is* giving away most of his fortune to charity. You might have a problem with how he makes his money- but no one can question the way in which he spends his personal fortune. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have contributed billions and billions to causes around the world. And some of those things are far greater causes than the ability to 'share' software

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

On one hand, we have Microsoft-brand "Smart Tags". These showed up whenever Microsoft wanted them to, and pointed to whatever Microsoft wanted them to. I still get E-Mails from people in Outlook with random things underlined because of the "Smart Tag" feature that they had enabled on their machine that just gives me an empty dropdown box if I click them on my machine.

On the other hand we have Google-brand "Smart Tags". You choose to see them (in an entirely separate act from choosing to install the google taskbar!) You even choose where they go (addresses can go to the beta google maps, or to mapquest).

Which would you choose to be outraged over?

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

Sergey and Brin

Sergey and Page. Or Sergey and Larry. Or Brin and Larry. Or Brin and Page.

But Sergey and Brin is just one person.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[BurritoWarrior]

The decision to fire a blogger for speaking up [infoworld.com] is proof that Google has a PR department just like any other corporate minded drone army.

The guy had been at Google for like a month (if that) and was telling the world all the things he found cruddy about Google.

Guess what, if you stood on the streetcorner and did that, your employer would fire you too.

Get a grip, the guy was a morn and got what he deserved. If he had worked for me, I would have fired him too.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[drc500free]

the guy was a morn and got what he deserved
It's spelled 'Moran'.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

> Guess what, if you stood on the streetcorner and did that, your employer would fire you too.

Hardly. Makes me doubt you've ever hired anyone. What he did do was post confidential HR info about compensation packages. Big no-no.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

I did wonder how long the "Microsoft Inc Bad, Google Inc Good" pastiche could last.

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Actually, I have no idea what you're even confusing it with.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[16K Ram Pack]

That's even funnier.

It's actually Moron

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably thought it was a synonym for farce.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Melinda is...

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

> I bet he wasn't labelled "evil" back then ...

No, it took the release buggy crap, charge for fix/upgrade cycle for that to happen. For me, that was around 1989.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[hab136]

re: moron vs. moran

He's referring to a photo, frequently seen on Fark, of some guy holding a sign saying "Get a brain, morans!" and another saying "Go USA". It's also why he put it in quotes.

See here

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

"I bet he wasn't labeled "evil" back then."

Funny that you remember what he said those years ago but do not know of the Gates' Foundation and their good work. It's possible Bill hasn't donated the majority of his fortune to charity, but it certainly will not be the case after he dies.

As much as I dislike using MS products, let's give Bill and Melinda applause and appreciation for their philanthropy.

(Sick of people bending Bill over the couch just because he's got you using his software--you suckers!)

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[KarmaMB84]

If I wanted to get modded into the next life I might even say Bill Gates is a modern Robin Hood using his bloated software prices to rob from the rich (corporations and governments) and give to the poor!

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Dirtside]

If Gates hadn't abused the software market, Microsoft's monopoly position, numerous other companies, consumers, and the world in general, he wouldn't have had all that money to give away.

Given that he does have it, I'm glad he's giving so much of it to charity (although questions have been raised as to how equitably that charity money is being handled, but that's another story), but that doesn't in the least excuse his actions in acquiring that wealth.

If you steal $1,000 and then, when confronted about it, say (truthfully) that you gave it all to charity, you don't get off scot-free. You've still committed theft.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandparent is correct in their use of the word - The definition being used is in your link:

2: a work of art that imitates the style of some previous work

You asshat.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

He's already donated about a third of his net worth to charity.

That money will either go to the US Gov-t in taxes, and then taxes on his estate (so his kids don't get it), or, he can make it look good by donating it to charity.

Now, let's consider this: what IS 1/3 of BG's wealth? What is $22b? Well, casually calculating... if you were to buy a new lambourghini (~$250K) each and every day, and throw it out (not sell! throw out!) at the end of the day, how long could you go doing that? A quick calculation says that if you do this for 50 years, you will spend $2b. That's right, two billion dollars. Do you know what that means? That means if $22b is 1/3 of his wealth, he just doesn't HAVE anything to DO with his damn wealth!

Sure, those other millionaires donate a bit here and there, but none of them are the richest people in the world, with more cash flow than some small countries.

Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses

[topper24hours]

Word... Many mobsters (John Gotti for instance) made a huge habit of donating heavily to charities. Didn't make them less criminal. I might add that whenever I hear Bill did something good I briefly think "yay, maybe he's turning over a new leaf" the I hear shit like 2 days ago when he freakin' threatened the Swiss president to take an assload of jobs from his country if he didn't write the "proper" bill for him. What an asshole!

Re:ISDN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I noticed that too, you beat me by a few minutes to the post!

isdn numbers?????

[Anonymous Coward]

or isbn? :o)))

Re:isdn numbers?????

[ALpaca2500]

glad i wasnt the fist one who nodiced this! sad to see it took 4 pages of comments for someone to point it out...

How long before this feature is haxxored?

[Anonymous Coward]

Auto complete pointing to google services, eh?

Why I do I have the uneasy feeling that there will even be a goatse.google.com with a bunch of google ad banners?

Re:You forgot...

[pbranes]

Now reverse that and you have the view of americans as opposed to the view you gave which is the one europeans hold ;-)

Google and Microsoft not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I don't have to install Google's toolbar to boot my system. Many of us have to use Microsoft (application availability being one major limiting factor).

2. There are plenty of competitors from which I can obtain a toolbar. I am not forced into choosing Google's. For the most part I have no choice but to use Microsoft.

The upshot is that there are actions that would be acceptable from a typical company that would not be acceptable from a monopoly.

Why do they have to be exactly the same?

[Dephex Twin]

A major issue of creating "smart links" (even though these aren't exactly the same as smart links) is one of trust. Can we trust Google that they aren't going to take advantage of us with a feature like this? Well, just look at their track record, where they consistently go above and beyond what consumers expect and set a new standard in user-friendliness.

Why should Google treating its users with respect and consistently creating a quality product be worth nothing? This article sounds like it is using the logic of an eight year old.

Microsoft is the company known for being a big bully who uses its position of power to cram things down its users throats. It is the opposite of Google. This is why the reaction is different, and perfectly valid as well.

I am also much less inclined to trust Microsoft's search engine, Microsoft's maps, etc. than anything Google puts out there.

hah!

[CaptainPinko]

when microsoft divests itself of operating systems then we'll talk, until then it's two seperate cases.

Here is a quick example and counter-argument: Mr. Mizter: Why can't I marry a blonde? Mr. Foo married one. I should be able to marry one too...
Mr. Bar:...but you've already married a brunette whereas Mr.Foo hasn't. If you'd like to seperate from your brunette then you can feel free to have yourself a try at marry a blonde.

Google is not getting away with anything.

We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[sriram_2001]

I find it surprising that most /.ers, while criticizing the MPAA and the RIAA for placing restrictions on the way their content is used, balk when website content is manipulated on the browser end.

Microsoft's Smarttags could have had great benefits and brought about semantic-web like features if only people weren't paranoid. After all, the website owner had full control over how and where smart tags were displayed on his page.

Now, 3 years later, Google does a stripped down version of the same to make themselves more money (MS' smart tag gave the website owner options - Google does not), and we all scream asking for the equivalent of DRM on web pages.

We who don't want to pay for the music and movies, who don't want to pay for software, who believe in the 'creative commons', throw a collective fit when a user agent wants to do something cool with the HTML already downloaded to the computer already.

It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!

Stop cribbing and let someone innovate.

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[JimDabell]

I find it surprising that most /.ers, while criticizing the MPAA and the RIAA for placing restrictions on the way their content is used, balk when website content is manipulated on the browser end.

There is a world of difference between what Google are doing and what Microsoft did. Microsoft's "Smart Tags" were switched on automatically. As far as the average user was concerned, the website was linking those terms. This new feature of Google's is initiated by the user - so no such implication is made.

Website authors don't like the idea of having their websites altered to make it look like they are endorsing something. This isn't a case of stopping people from doing what they want with the content - if it were, Google wouldn't be "getting away with it", would they?

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[sriram_2001]

With Smart Tags, website owners could control the way the tags were being generated. No such control in Google

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[yagu]

..., It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!, ...

I just can't let that one skate...

A large chunk of useful energy, time, innovation has been lost in the last 10 years, attributable largely (IMO) to Microsoft. Consider that Microsoft didn't jump into the browser wars to innovate, but instead to choke off Netscape's air supply, and gain dominance in the browser market... This they did with typical Microsoft elan.

A speed bump for browser innovation to be sure, since Microsoft's crippling blow to the rest of the marketplace guaranteed, -- with their dominance, -- no further innovation would be necessary.... why would Microsoft continue to innovate?, They didn't have to!

It is only the tenacity and grit and determination of the decimated browser marketplace that kept Netscape, et. al., alive. And from those dedicated other parties we got: tabbed browsing..., blocked popups, and more.

Had the last ten years not been handicapped so severely by Microsoft's swift and nearly fatal blow to browser competition, there would have been ZERO innovation. (Interestingly, now that there is gathering momentum with Firefox, Microsoft has seen fit to create the IE Team-Redux. For further browser innovation? What do YOU think?).

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[mrchaotica]

The difference is that the Google thing gives control to the user, while the Microsoft thing gave control to Microsoft (and website owners who agree to their control). They are not equivalent.

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[MonkeyT]

(MS' smart tag gave the website owner options - Google does not)

Now that's a laugh. MS's system required every page to include specific code in order to disable their tag insertion. Yes, if you invested the time and money to re-write every single HTML document you've ever produced, MS would let you avoid having their advertisements inserted. Most widespread content-managmement systems wouldn't have allowed this capability for months or years.

If a user wants to use a gadget to create links to the content you've already presented to them, more power to them. But editing the page before the user sees is intolerable and, yes, evil.

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[JimDabell]

Exactly. If this were about web authors wanting to control what users can do with their content, we'd see people getting angrier at Google than they did at Microsoft.

But it's not about trying to control users, it's about not letting a third party alter content without users realising.

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[sriram_2001]

Well..except that they weren't ads. They invoked other programs - and you could develop your own SmartTags if you wanted to. In fact, that was the whole point - that developers would write their own smart tags

Re:We have seen the enemy ..and it is us

[The Cisco Kid]

Users dont want software that allows website owners (or OS monopolists) to control how this function works (and consumer advocates wouldnt want such software forced on end-users without [in most cases] their knowledge or consent).

Users want software that allows *them* to control how (or wether) this function works.

trustworthiness

[supernova87a]

It's just like people -- when you build a relationship of usefulness and trust with someone, they'll look upon your new ideas with less skepticism and maybe more tolerance for a commercial venture, and won't feel like you're blatantly exploiting them!

Re:trustworthiness

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Einstein, the M$ smart tags were controlled by the web site operator. How is that a M$ trust problem?

Re:Of course...

[cosinezero]

Yeah, because there's other search engines out there, right? Google has about the same market share on search that MS has on OS's.

Re:OMG!!! No!

[eno2001]

Whilst I appreciate being modded up as informative for the parent post, I find it scary that someone may have actually taken my post regarding sphinxes and gnomes to heart. After all, there is a major flaw in the previous post. I left out the most important detail that Bill Gates was an escapee from the Roswell UFO crash in the 40s. Hence his power to subjugate gnomes and corral giant trolls (Ballmer). :P Sorry for the oversight.

Not a monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe it's because Microsoft indulging in those extra features would be abusing its monopoly, which Google doesn't have? So Google's features don't strangle the market, but rather better serve it through actual competition?

Ok, how about this...

[apoplectic]

If Google implements this feature in their own GBrowser (assuming this ever comes to fruition), wouldn't Google be pulling as much of a Microsoft as Microsoft did with smart tags? Regardless of monopolistic history?

Re:Ok, how about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

not quite, since you would choose to install GBrowser and could uninstall it if you'd like.

Re:Ok, how about this...

[mrchaotica]

No, because the "monopolistic history" is the entire point.

Re:Ok, how about this...

[AvantLegion]

Depends. Will GBrowser root itself in the core of the OS and be unremovable?

Re:You forgot...

[TimTheFoolMan]

Evil is Microsoft?
Good is Google?

Article text...

[ari_j]

I'm not going to paste it. But I am going to point something out - people (myself often included) complain about the quality of writing and editing here on Slashdot, but evidently this site isn't alone. From the article:

For example, say your browsing a web page with numerous addresses on it. AutoLink will turn each of those addresses into direct links to the Google Maps database.

That's a part of the article quoting someone else, though, so here is something written directly by the actual article author (who has "nearly 15 years of ... journalism and communications experience" and should know better):

In addition to addresses, it will also add links for ISBNs, package tracking numbers, and vehicle identification numbers. This all has Greg Linden a bit spooked. I agree. How come nobody is crying foul here? Remember all the heat Microsoft took over its planned Smart Tags feature a few years ago? Gary eludes to it, but I think that there should be more discussion here.

Why don't journalists and communications people have to learn the language they're communicating in before being given jobs or keeping jobs for 15 years? Imagine if you walked into a job interview for a position writing Java code and couldn't answer what the difference is between while and if ... you would not walk out with a job offer. The writing professions should be held to no less a standard, but we're letting them get away with it. Why?

N.B. for the people who haven't spotted what's wrong, either because English is a second language or because they are fellow victims of the educational system that produced this article's author.. "Your" is the second-person possessive, whereas "you're" is the correct spelling of the homophone that means "you are," the intended meaning here. I am willing to let contractions slide in journalism, but at least spell them correctly. The "each"/"links" problem is a parallelism thing - the meaning inherent in the way it is worded is that each address will be turned into more than one link, whereas the intended meaning was probably that "AutoLink will turn each of those addresses into a direct link to the Google Maps database." Finally, "to elude" has a meaning similar to "to evade." The word intended here is "allude," meaning "to make an indirect reference." Both come from the same Latin root, ludere, but the difference between prefixing with e and with ad is quite significant.

Re:Article text...

[bradkittenbrink]

That's a part of the article quoting someone else

That's no excuse though, when quoting grammatically incorrect text, you're supposed to insert a [sic] marker to indicate that the error was in the orignal.

Re:Article text...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your just a fucking pendant....

Re:Article text...

[ari_j]

I wish you had posted non-anonymously so I could tell if you're being funny or trying to be smart. I sincerely hope for the former.

The worst post ever

[Anonymous Coward]

This is hands down the worst post ever. Who accepted this crap? Why post this story. Whoever submitted it really has his head up his ass.

Scared

[Bwana]

Google scares me. Taking over the world one service at a time.

Re:Scared

[kertong]

at least they're doing it with quality products, not underhanded business tactics. :)

Re:You forgot...

[TimTheFoolMan]

or

Not is Google?

Ob, Response

[SeanDuggan]

In Soviet Russia, perhaps...

Yeah right...

[stinkbomb]

...isdn numbers for books...

No wonder nobody reads anymore; who wants to drag out some dusty old isdn modem just to read??

Re:OMG!!! No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just proves how great the /. moderation system is. Hey everyone Microsoft and Bill Gates really really really really suck. Now where is my 4?

Re:OMG!!! No!

[sriram_2001]

Hmm..+5 informative?

Mod this man all the way up

[geoffrobinson]

Monopolies aren't allowed to do things non-monopolies can.

BIG DIFFERENCE that you miss

[drseuss9311]

Those products (gmail, froogle) are free.
I think that is becuase they are in beta, or because they will always be free.

BIG DIFFERENCE ... maybe i'm wrong here... but...

Re:OMG!!! No!

[Skye16]

Maybe should've quit while you were ahead ;x

Re:ISDN?

[jacen_sunstrider]

THey used them all up, so they went onto ISCN, but nobody liked that name, so they jumped directly to ISDN.

BIG Difference

[rkischuk]

Microsoft's smart-tags co-opted text in a page to link to what were, in essence, advertisements. Google is pointing to services that are funded by advertisements - big difference. And the fact that Google isn't leveraging monopoly power to force it on people - they're using an optional program, and an optional feature in that program.

Some of the difference is qualitative. In a smart tag envioronment, it felt like we were going to be advertised to - like text saying "broadband" might be linked to MSN broadband. In this case, it feels like Google is trying to be legitimately helpful in a way that also happens to generate cash for them. If I see directions on a page, having the option of asking Google to magically link that address into Google maps is a good thing.

The business model is different. Google makes money because they help you. You have lots of choices, and still choose Google, and all of us can use something else the moment they piss us off. Microsoft was shoehorning smart tags in because people don't know they have a choice in web browsers. Users would either be annoyed or oblivous to smart tags, but would put up with it for a (perceived) lack of options. Google needs users, users "need" Microsoft - that's the differing dynamic.

Re:BIG Difference

[igrigorik]

I think that in reality, we dont have as many choices as you may think. What are you going to turn to? Yahoo (yeah right), MSN Search? The remaining ad filled, over-verbose, inaccurate engines? But that's not the point. The 'pretty' image of Google will inevitably change as they grow. What evolved as a free service, became a growing corporation (and it will continue to expand). The more power they yeild over the market, the more radical the opposition will become, simply because of their share. To me, the parallel between Microsoft and Google is simple, both employ the best guys they can find (lets not get into rhetoric discussions of how Microsoft 'sux' and Google 'wins') and are dominant forces in their regions. Furthermore, Google is evolving along the exact same lines as Microsoft, it's becoming a hegemon that trumps all competition in comparison. Microsoft has it's own record of 'abusing' this power. BUT, both sides have a good argument in this case. You could easily make the case for the fact that since Google is a dominant engine, the more services they put out, the more they integrate an average user into their model. Eventually this process will lead to same endpoint as Microsoft, they will impede development of smaller companies (dont they already?). Expect more discussions like this one in the future, mark my words.

Re:BIG Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed 100%

there is a difference between something forced down your throat (smart tags in windows and everything microsoft)... yes, i say forced, because the vast majority of computer users have microsoft and windows literally 'forced' upon them.... and an easily turned off OPTIONAL feature for a purely optional browser plugin (google's toolbar and new feature).

microsoft's main goal was to drive users to their web properties and make cash, through advertisements and product sales... (which is why on new builds and os loads, i do custom installs of office2003 and deselect smart tags).. it appears to me, that google's intent is purely to increase usership by providing more useful features.. automatically link an address to a map, a upc code to a database, etc. granted, driving ppl to google for a map will generate a little ad revenue.. but google's toolbar already does that if you opt to replace your existing search pages with google's (something that i would guess most toolbar users do)..

as long as google doesn't link to commercial products and services (such as linking to fordvehicles.com on a page discussing "new cars"), i think it's ok.. the amazon links for isbn numbers might be stretching it a bit, isn't there a public database out there of books that they could link to instead?

you know, there's a lot of web sites that do just that.. those annoying double-underlined keywords in web content that link to paid ads? (experts-exchange.com is one such site that comes to mind, keyword ads there provided by intellitxt.com).. those links i dont like. they are FORCED on you if you want to read that particular content and they are ADS, not INFORMATION.

again, as long as google keeps these types of autolinks restricted to INFORMATION and not blatent ads; and keeps it an OPTIONAL feature, it should be allowed... especially considering that google has always been up-front about what the toolbar does and how to turn features off.

personally, on my non xpsp2 windows systems, i use the google toolbar without the 'advanced' features mainly for the popup blocker. i dont even use the search box that much as i am in the habit of going to google's home page to conduct searches. i doubt i will install the new toolbar or use the new features down the road. if i want to look something up, i know where to find it.

No conviction

[davegust]

As a convicted monopolist...

Microsoft was not "convicted" of anything. The company was the defendant in a civil action, not a crimial case. You sound like a fool using that ridiculous term.

Re:No conviction

[einhverfr]

You might be technically right. However, I don't see where the distinction actually changes anything. Lawsuits going forward certainly have referred to this suit as evidence of Microsoft's predatory nature. Also note that in this civil action, similar penalties could have been imposed as in a criminal case. So it may have made a difference during the case, I don;t see how it changes anything now.

IANAL though.

Re:No conviction

[FreeUser]

You might be technically right. However, I don't see where the distinction actually changes anything. Lawsuits going forward certainly have referred to this suit as evidence of Microsoft's predatory nature. Also note that in this civil action, similar penalties could have been imposed as in a criminal case.

He's not even right "technically." There are civil as well as convictions, as 5 minutes with google will show. A vast amount of legal literature on civil law supports this use of terminology, as does the more common dictionary:

n. Law (knvkt)

1. A person found or declared guilty of an offense or crime.

What Microsoft did was a violation of the law. The court convicted them of said violation, i.e. offense. The method of redress involves civil law, but that does not change the fact that a court has convicted Microsoft of abusing its monopoly position, both in terms of common English parlence, and in terms of (at least) layperson's legal language. Perhaps a lawyer might parse it somewhat differently, but if Groklaw is any guide, it doesn't appear so.

What we have here are Microsoft apologists desperately trying to bluster and intimidate the rest of us into changing our correct usage of the language through ad homonim attacks and disparagements in an effort to redefine the very terminology and control the language used in any discussion of their beloved monopolist.

They would have us believe that our use of the term "convicted monopolist" with respect to Microsoft is incorrect, when in fact it is perfectly correct, both in laypersons' terms and in casual legal terms (at the very least).

Re:No conviction

[davegust]

A vast amount of legal literature on civil law supports this use of terminology

What Microsoft did was a violation of the law

Not according to the judgement.

AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

Re:No conviction

[Duhavid]

The judgement is not an admission of guilt, no.

That does not mean that Microsoft did not violate the law.

I think you know as well as I do that the fact that both parties decided to go down this route means that there is evidence that points to a violation of the law, and that proving that violation would be difficult.

If they did not violate the law, though, why is there a final judgement, and not a dismissal of the case? Why are there prohibitions on how Microsoft can act in the future?

As an aside, do you *really* believe that Microsoft has not broken any laws in it's behaviour? I'm just curious.

Further on the original topic, there was a finding of fact, IIRC, from judge Jackson, that Microsoft had a monopoly, and that indeed, they had illegally used said monopoly to reinforce that monopoly, and to gain footholds in other business areas.

He shot his mouth off in public, which made for a minor change in that another judge was appointed to review his work due to the assumption that he might have had a preexisting bias against Microsoft. Legally, I think that was prudent. The new judge did not reverse the finding, IIRC, but did not think judge Jackson's remedy was appropriate, and changed that part.

Re:No conviction

[einhverfr]

That is funny :-) thanks for the laugh.

Of course the judgement is not an admission by any party regarding an admission of fact or law. But the fact is:

Microsoft was convicted and had part of the conviction overturned on appeal.

The portions of the final judgement and findings of fact issued by Judge Jackson and *not* overturned on appeal are likely to consitute said conviction. The settlement is likely to simply be an agreement that Microsoft cannot easily win but the USDOJ decided it wasn't in anyone's interest to continue the suit much longer.

Re:No conviction

[davegust]

If they did not violate the law, though, why is there a final judgement, and not a dismissal of the case? Why are there prohibitions on how Microsoft can act in the future?

As an aside, do you *really* believe that Microsoft has not broken any laws in it's behaviour? I'm just curious.

I never claimed Microsoft did not violate the law. I claim no one at Microsoft was convicted of violating anti-trust laws - the officers weren't even tried. No criminal charges were filed -- unlike other well known corporate scandals (Enron).

In criminal cases, you are found guily. In civil cases, one is found liable. You can't become a convicted criminal by losing a civil case. These are well defined terms. This is why I feel the term convicted monopolist is a false legal term in the context of the DOJ civil case.

Re:No conviction

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like when /.ers refuse to acknowledge copyright infringement as theft.

Re:No conviction

[Duhavid]

My apologies, I thought you wer arguing something you werent.

Re:OMG!!! No!

[Anonymous Coward]

This post scored points for "Informative"? WTF?

Bargepole

[BobPaul]

It runs on IE, and the average /. reader won't touch that with a bargepole

For those slashdot users who would touch IE if they had a barge pole:

General Purpose 6-12 ft extension pole
Avery Push Pole (for water use)

Re:Bargepole

[adpowers]

Or, in keeping with the theme of Google everything, extension poles.

I like the idea

[DudeBroccoli]

Sounds pretty convenient. I'd like a firefox extension that does that. Of course, I'd want it configurable so I could choose what gets hyperlinked, and where the links go.

linkification

[jd142]

This just seems like an extension (pardon the word) of the linkification extension for Firefox. linkification makes non-linked urls and email addresses clickable. And I like the extension.

The google tool just seems to be a bit more intelligent (and maybe pushy, but we'll see) about the sorts of things it makes into links.

There's also a vast difference between MS linking back to its products and google linking a ups tracking number to the ups site. The latter does something that's actually useful. The former tries to make you use all MS all the time. That's a big difference.

Others have already pointed out the MS "It's now a feature you can't turn off" and Google "Here's the tool if you want to download it" attitudes.

Why not mongolian version

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't google make it work in Mongolia for addresses and phone numbers.

Suddenly so clear

[pjt33]

So that's why my twin sister wants me to shave mine off: she thinks she'll then be able to take control of my secret underground lair...

Re:Suddenly so clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever have hot, sticky sex with her?

The One The Courts Determined They've Abused

[FreeUser]

First of all, there's no such thing as "convicted monopolist". That's an idiotic term in itself, since it's not illegal to be a monopoly.

Microsoft has been shown to be a monopolist, and judged so in the court's findings of fact.

Microsoft has been convicted of using their monopoly illegally to run competitors out of business.

Ergo, Microsoft is a "convicted monopolist."

Your weak attempt at pedantry misguided, the term parses perfectly fine in English, and is in common usage because it communicates exactly what is intended, in a tight and effeciant manner. I.e. instead of "Microsoft is a monopolis thas been convicted of abusing said monopoly to ruin the businesses of its competitors" we can and do say "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist." All of it is true, all of it parses correctly, and best of all, all of it makes the blood of Microsoft apologists like you boil.

Re:The One The Courts Determined They've Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much you got absolutely OWNED in this post, you really shouldn't be speak so high and mighty like you know what you're talking about.

Update

[SafteyMan]

Well looks like the update cleared up an important point: You can't bash google on /. without a mod defending it.

Re:OMG!!! No!

[eno2001]

Shhh! Don't harsh my buzz man. ;P This is a Kodak moment if there ever was one and I just took a screenshot to prove it to my friends.

Convicted monopolist

[einhverfr]

First of all, there's no such thing as "convicted monopolist". That's an idiotic term in itself, since it's not illegal to be a monopoly. Show me the law that says being a monopoly is illegal.

The parent poster did not say "convicted monopoly." Otherwise Boeing would have been in trouble for years with this aspect of the law.

The parent poster said "convicted monopolist." IANAL, but I believe that this is defined in section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 of this act specifies penalties of restraint on trade.

Basically, the way the courts have interpreted this (unfortunately, Congress decided to give the Courts essentially legislative power in this area by passing a law with the intention of letting the courts work it out) is that monopoly power is something which must be restricted. Therefore, you can't legally use your monopoly power itself to either protect or extend your monopoly. Those who are found to have done so in the courts are often referred to as "convicted monopolists."

Re:Convicted monopolist

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basically, the way the courts have interpreted this (unfortunately, Congress decided to give the Courts essentially legislative power in this area by passing a law with the intention of letting the courts work it out) is that monopoly power is something which must be restricted."

Nice to have laws that you don't even know you've broken until you've been convicted in court.

Re:Convicted monopolist

[einhverfr]

While I feel that this delegation by Congress was unfortunate, I think it is also important to consider it agaisnt the big backdrop of huge abuses of monopoly power. Again, IANAL, etc.

For example, consider the case of AT&T. AT&T maintained close ties with several large banks who would coordinate with AT&T with regard to their takeovers of competitors. This would be done by AT&T asking the banks for favors, so that the banks would call loans early. This would cause the telecom to go bankrupt and AT&T would then buy them for pennies. While I think this came after the passage of the Sherman act, it is a classic example of what the Sherman Act was intended to penalize.

So the Sherman Act was largely created to address the issue of unfair competition but this is a complex and often muddy issue, so rather than deal with the matter by carefully crafting long and baroque regulations of business ethics, they passed a very simple act. It basically says:

1) One is not allowed to restrain trade and
2) It is more heavily penalized if one uses monopoly power to do this.

Now, this seems like a simple mandate to a court, but consider that every contract to some extent restrains trade. The courts have takes a very interesting approach to this problem by defining restraint of trade in balance to the benefits to the market of the contract. I.e. restraint of trade is generally referred to in the context of the damage caused to the free market.

BTW, one of the issues that weighed in Microsoft's favor on appeal was that the court did not feel that the DOJ successfully argued the existance of a web browser market. If the market doesn't exist, it cannot be damaged, so the complaint elements regarding competition with Netscape and destroying the web browser market were largely thrown out.

One of the major issues that this raises is that monopolies, while not per se illegal, are held to a higher legal standard of ethics than non-monopolies. Microsoft is a monopoly legally because although they have competition, they largely define the market and can dictate terms to their distribution channels with no market recourse. This can be called "market power" and although IANAL, I wonder how easily the same argument could be made against large retailers like Walmart which can largely demand terms from their suppliers. I suspect that it would but that Walmart's activities so far may not be bad enough to make an antitrust suit easy or likely at the moment.

I.e. there are some very simple rules:

1) If you have market power, you may not use your market power to drive out competitors.

2) You cannot use market power to extend your monopoly into other markets.

Beyond that it can get a little muddy.

Re:Convicted monopolist

[thebatlab]

But they weren't convicted. The judgement (thanks to a link from someone above) says that nobody admitted to anything. They just agreed to some terms and that was that.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.ht m

Re:Convicted monopolist

[einhverfr]

True as far as the settlement goes.

However, research the appeal that lead to the remand. The appellate court *upheld* some of the antitrust convictions. The settlement does *not* erase these as part of the legitimate legal record.

Monopoly owners get different treatment.

[javaxman]

It's very simple, and nobody should be shocked by the double standard.

I will treat _any_ company that is not a monopoly differently than a monopoly.

When the monopolist does it, it's abuse, because it might be difficult to find alternatives, or to remove it. Anyone else? If I don't like their product/service, it's easy to dump it. But when so many lame-ass websites write IE-specific content because it's the main browser in use, and it's the main browser because it comes with the 'standard' operating system, and it's the 'standard' operating system because of anti-competitive licensing strategies ( among other unfriendly business strategies ), it's somehow reasonable that I don't want Microsoft to foist their content on me when I didn't ask for it.

Having said that, I don't use Google's toolbar, either, and somehow I don't think I would. I'm pretty sure I have bookmarks and tools that do all of the things it does. That or I just don't understand what makes it 'cool'...

Re:OMG!!! No!

[Anonymous Coward]

What google did is different for other reason, mainly that it's an opt-in feature in a third party browser addon, not a on-by-default hidden feature in a browser that only got where it is through abuse of a monopoly.

security through obscurity

[Doc Ruby]

Goateed siamese twin sisters should never leave the secret underground lair.

How is this not wrong?

[WidescreenFreak]

Okay. So, take a web site with lots of advertising. Let's say .. Slashdot. They depend on that advertising to generate revenue to keep that web site afloat.

Now, here comes Google with links to its own services that are funded by ... you guessed it ... Google advertisers. So, now Google is potentially usurping Slashdot's advertising by encouraging people who are using Slashdot's web site to purchase services or merchandice that are in turn paying Google for advertising.

So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. In fact, with respect to marketing they are indeed reducing the potential for Slashdot to make money on its own web site using its own advertisers. And they also are not going to give Slashdot the option of opting out of the practice.

Given all of that, I think that I'd prefer Smart Tags, thank you.

Re:How is this not wrong?

[athakur999]

Perhaps Google could lookup whether the website is registered with their AdSense program. If so, then the website gets paid for each click. If the site is not registered, then no automatic links.

Re:How is this not wrong?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege.

Similarly, the Yellow pages provide information on services and goods mentioned on Slashdot. A Slashdot user may read about a new CPU, then look in the yellow pages for a computer store. So, in effect the yellow pages are making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for the yellow pages while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. Those bastards!

This is a tool the user has to specifically download, then enable for a page. There are even provisions that allow you to set other map providers, etc. as the resource. Google went out of their way to play nice on this one. The alternative is that no one should be allowed to parse the text of a web site and run programs on that text, without reimbursing the owner of the site. Right now I run a number of services on text in every application, including Slashdot in my browser. One of them looks up words in Google. Are you saying this is improper? I mean I might read Slashdot, highlight "AMD 64," right click and select lookup in Google, and then buy one, all without compensating Slashdot. This new Google toolbar feature is the same thing, except streamlined. I probably won't use it, but Slashdot has no right to tell me what programs I can or can't run on their text. They offer it for public consumption and I look at ads while reading it. Their is no reason to pay them twice.

Re:How is this not wrong?

[WidescreenFreak]

Nice try, but that's not entirely appropriate. WHen you look in the phone book, you are generally looking for something that you want right now, which Internet purchasing cannot provide.

Additionally, advertisers paid for advertising in that particular book and the phone book company get the money for advertising in their book.

This, however, is nothing more than paying Google for advertising and Google putting the advertising in someone else's phone book without that other's permission just because they have a larger audience. If purchases are going to be made through a link that appears to be from Slashdot via the text and information on Slashdot, then Slashdot should get a portion of proceeds that are received through said advertising. This Google method does not do that.

Just because you don't see a difference doesn't mean that there's not one.

Re:How is this not wrong?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This, however, is nothing more than paying Google for advertising and Google putting the advertising in someone else's phone book

No this is Google providing software that allows me to add ads to a web page. Publishers have no right to control how you read their content, nor do they have any right to be paid if I use any tools I want to look at ads for things mentioned on their pages, whether it is the Yellow pages, or Google toolbar. If I cache a Slashdot page, then add hypertext links to it before I read it, does Slashdot deserve to be paid? What if I write a script to add the links do they deserve to be paid? If I download a script?

This is just a tool to post-process text. Nothing more, nothing less. You should focus less on making advertisers happy about how much crap they can stuff in front of your eyes, and more about having a functional tool.

WHAT?

[khrtt]

goatse?

Who cares?

[mcc]

Because the fact is, it isn't Microsoft, and when Microsoft did do the same thing previously, it wasn't an opt-in feature, and Microsoft was ramming it down people's throats.

Personally I find actual events that are actually happening or have happened to be much more interesting than the hypothetical reactions of hypothetical slashdotters to hypothetical situations.

Re:Who cares?

[Daedala]

I am not hypothetical!

Oh, wait, I'm female, and I'm on slashdot. I take that back. I am hypothetical.

Bizarro world?

[Scrameustache]

if Microsoft implemented this, but didn't turn it on by default, I can't see why anyone would freak out...

Goodbye! You make a good point!

Microsoft implementing something that would redirect everyone to sites they own, not set to "on" by default? I'm guessing that this hypothetical option would also be easy to find, and easy to turn off with a simple, clearly explained "on/off" choice, devoid of alarming warning messages when turned off?

Hello.

Re:Bizarro world?

[mrwonton]

Yes I agree, the likelihood of this actually happening is next to nill, but I'm trying to compare apples to apples here. If Microsoft added this feature in a sane and logical manner (give me a break, this is hypothetical) then I don't think there'd be any problems, or shouts of "Anti-Trust!" What I was trying to say is that claiming "Microsoft couldn't get away with this" isn't exactly right, because as you've made amusingly obvious, they'd take a far different approach.

earned trust....

[jp_fielding]

buys you things that deception and malintent does not.

It depends on how you ask

[ChocoboKnight]

Maybe if you ask nicely the user what does s/he wants, it will no seem evil

HERESY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you speak the truth on /. Everyone knows that all people here want is absurdist humor disguised as +5 Informative!

Well yeah, except that the document creator..

[Anonymous Coward]

could include their own list of smart tags in an XML format to take you wherever they wanted to take you.

So in a large company environment Word and Excel Documents could have links that took users to their own intranet site, or their own internal libraries and programs.

Re:You forgot...

[Storlek]

Not is Else Everyone!

I really don't get why some people get so bent out of shape about what country they live in.

Read the F****** articles!

[hellfire]

Read them both! Don't just read Web Pro news, but read the article the author at Web Pro News linked to. These are not the same thing! Damn, first slashdot doesn't RTFA, now it's a disease spreading to other sites!

Look, Window's Smart Tags were not for internet explorer, they were for the entire operating system. Yes they extended to Word and other applications as well. It was a feature described to be in windows XP. And considering MS considers I.E. part of the operating system, and MS has a monopoly on the OS...

Smart Tags are a cool idea, but what really is evil about MS's version is the potential forced tie ins. Would this functionality have directed the user to specific MSN sites or sites people chose to partner on the functionality? Could you right click on a word and select MSN search in order to make it easier for someone? Yes, but by using this OS muscle to create a new OS which basically forces you to search MSN in this manner and makes it less convenience to search, say, Google, then you are using your monopoly power unfairly and it's, yes, Evil(tm).

You don't have to install Google toolbar, and you can configure it to go to other sites other than googles. Google quite possibly has a websearching monopoly, but then don't have a toolbar monopoly nor do they force you to install it on your machine.

I'm not a google apologist nor do I think Google will always be a Good (tm) company. However, I hate how Slashdotters continue to fail to see the relevance of Monopolistic power in the "Evil" equation.

That said, I hope this feature can be completely diactivated. I wouldn't even mind if this controversy did force them to remove it. NBC did this a long time ago with their NBCi initiative back at the start of the WW explosion. It sucked, and frankly, I don't find it all that convenient, even for beginning users. However that's just my opinion.

Re:OMG!!! No!

[ggvaidya]

Woah ... taking the mods for a ride - twice! "Excellent", as Mr. Burns would say ...

Re:OMG!!! No!

[rsidd]

Earlier today, I got "interesting" for this post. Well, I guess it's true and someone didn't know it, so....

Re:You forgot...

[FireAndGlass]

Yeah, because Apple is just stupid

Neglecting logic are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

J's comment that Microsoft's Smart Tags were "on by default" seems to neglect the fact that the user still needed to click on them to activate the services associated with them, an action identical to Google's services but which he prescribes to them as somehow offering a greater range of choice. Why should I even try anymore. People are so resolved that Microsoft is evil that they neglect the finer points of what the company HAS DONE to IMPROVE the PERSONAL computer, and anybody who claims otherwise is a bonehead, just like J.

You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gave the control to the website operator. You could include your own xml formatted list of smart tags, and they would go to things you wanted them to go to, there was also an option to disable smart tags entirely, all in the hands of the website operator.

in other news......

[frovingslosh]

Mother Teresa gets away with things that Adolf Hitler couldn't, film at 11.

wait a minute

[dogfull]

google's toolbar came preinstalled with the laptop computer my mother bought just a week ago. Now given it has this modern smart-tag kind of thing.

Doesn't that make for the same situation we would have had if MS had done it? If so, why would MS's smarttags be evil, and google's service not?

Odd people....

Re:wait a minute

[Todd Knarr]

Because MS's smarttags were part of the OS (see MS's own statements), couldn't be removed and if you wanted Windows you had no choice about getting them. On your laptop, you can easily remove the Google toolbar without affecting anything since it's not part of the OS, and you can get a laptop with Windows from another vendor if this vendor's preinstalled software is that much of a problem.

Linux will not kill Microsoft,

[LokiSteve]

Google will. Probably harnessing *nix.

Google is getting people used to storing files externally, and earning a ton of trust from being one of the best search engines around. They have a huge user base and have some truly amazing market penetration. Google has become a verb. We have this innate trust for Google. They run BSD. They aren't Microsoft. They must be good.

My money is on a Google dumb terminal within the next 3 years.

//slightly off topic, but just had a big discussion about it yesterday.

who controls rendering?

[omahaNerd]

I control it. What web servers let me download is a suggestion of what to display. I am free to take it and manipulate it however I see fit. Just because a website wants to feed something up does not mean that as a user I have to take it. Google's approach gives me one way to manipulate it. If I like how it works, I'll use it, otherwise I don't have to. Sounds like an interesting tool. There's nothing wrong with something that gives more power to the user. As long as the user maintains control of how the manipulation occurs, there's nothing scary about it.

Nice try, but wrong agaiin

[FreeUser]

ahem.

Nice try, troll.

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

all in the hands of the website operator

The website operator is not the user. The person browsing is. If I want to run programs on text in my browser to get more information about certain words, well that's damn useful. I do it all the time with Google lookup, translation, dictionary, thesaurus, etc. services. I can turn them on or off. I can change them, or switch to a different lookup service. Me, the user.

The MS version was built into the OS, and made links designated by either the website, or MS. Why should someone else decide how I parse text I am looking at on my machine? I mean obviously I know what map service, what dictionary, and what online stores I like to purchase from. They don't. Google has done this right by giving me the power, not the website operator, and not OS vendor. I hope they build this as a system service for OS X. I would install it and even might use it occasionally.

Disagree, it's time to get more serious

[SuperKendall]

Yes both companies are out to make a profit, but Microsoft has shown itself not responsible enough to do so in a healthy fashion. To the degree they have made profits "the wrong way" I think that indeed you can categorize Microsoft as a whole as "evil", even if parts may not be.

So, what then? I say people need to step up the world-wide "shunning" of Microsoft at every level possible.

Use OpenOffice at work even if the company provides free word. Block all MSN searchbots from sites you control (what, like you're really going to loose traffic from the three people that use MSN as the sole search engine?). Move away from Windows whenever possible, to Linux or OS X or BSD - doesn't matter.

In short practice civil disobeence where you can to the corperate governance of Microsoft. Only after a very long period of true hardship do I feel the company will be able to redeem itself, otherwise it will continue to do what it does and the industry will contnue to suffer from the low-grade Microsoft fever which retards the advancemnet of computers as a whole.

Re:Disagree, it's time to get more serious

[ifwm]

"healthy fashion"

What is a "healthy fashion"? Your answer will be different from mine. What is "the wrong way"? As an MS stockholder, I find their methods to be quite acceptable, since I have made quite a profit from them.

I have no intention of boycotting ANY of thier products, and in fact, because of you, I'll step up my purchase of an MS wireless mouse.

Thanks for the motivation.

At least MS tried

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't read each post so maybe I am just repeating. Anyone could have developed a SmartTag plug in. Can anyone replace or add to Google's? IMHO the concept is cool and useful. I could link to my favourite map service and not just the one the content writer MAY have chosen. But imagine having 5 different links to map services when you right click.

hahah

[cultavix]

thats because google's services are actually good...

I'll remove my glasses when you remove the blinder

[SuperKendall]

The example you gave was particularily poor, because the person in question released sensitive information that could have brought the FTC down on them!

Loose lips sink ships, they were totally right to let go of that guy.

They may yet show some other evil tendancies but so far I've not seen it. The exertion of power in not inherantly evil, and they have used what powers they have to help people. Consider how many make a bit of money from AdSense.

Am I the only one who noticed?

[lytlebill]

That Steve Rubel (the guy who contributed the linked story to webpronews) has his name in the tagline linked to a Gmail address (steverubel@gmail.com) all the while he is blasting Google?

this is toilet paper for my popo

[nashy-nunu]

Yes your read it right. I think all this is paper to clean myself. It is so dumb and lame. The argument doesn't make sense. Google doesn't come installed on the internet. People have a choice to install the toolbar is doesn't come install when you install a brower, etc, etc, etc. It doesn't make sense. This article just gave a headache thanks a lot

No Way

[SuperKendall]

Had the last ten years not been handicapped so severely by Microsoft's swift and nearly fatal blow to browser competition, there would have been ZERO innovation. (Interestingly, now that there is gathering momentum with Firefox, Microsoft has seen fit to create the IE Team-Redux. For further browser innovation? What do YOU think?).

How can you say that? Had the market really had at least two browsers with equal share the whole time, we would have a level of standards adherance unimaginable today - like real working (and much broader) CSS support. Yes they would still be some proprietary things on both sides but the overall common base of features would have been much larger.

Sure it's true that you can fire a person up by knocking them down. But you cannot say that such fire comes soley from being destroyed, it's perfectly possible for people to have passion for a subject that is not fueled by hatred.

Have you seen Lydia?

[Thud457]

I'm pretty sure they could clean up with a webcam and a Amazon wishlist!

There is a big difference

[Anita Coney]

Between a third party such as Google offering an option and Microsoft mandating it as part of the OS.

A corporation isn't a person

[ArcticCelt]

And if in any case someone want to believe that a corporation have a personality I will then suggest to watch this movie : "The Corporation".

"...One central theme of the documentary is an attempt to assess the "personality" of the corporate "person" by using diagnostic criteria like the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia Psychology Professor and FBI consultant, compares the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath..."

By the way I am not a communist hippy but a proud owner of two company's and think that honesty and business can go together.

Depending who take responsibility for the actions of the corporation some companies act better than others, the problem with public companies is that nobody wants to take responsibility for their negatives actions. Stockholders want no responsibility but profit and CEO's claim they have to obey to stockholders.

Re:A corporation isn't a person

[cduffy]

a proud owner of two company's
CEO's claim
Depending who take responsibility for the actions of the corporation some companies act better than others, the problem with public companies is that nobody wants to take responsibility for their negatives actions.

How about good grammar and business?

Re:A corporation isn't a person

[ArcticCelt]

How about good grammar and business?

How about speaking two more languages than the only one your inconsequential mind can handle and English being my third one?

Re:A corporation isn't a person

[cduffy]

The ad-hominem really isn't appropriate, in addititon to being false -- yo hablo espanol.

This is not subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty hamhanded, really

Parent
Child

Re:Damned bridges

[Jim_Callahan]

Right, cause your employer's actions are Microsoft's fault. Damn you, Microsoft, for creating a decent product that became the standard for most computing!

It's like those damned suspension bridges. I use column bridge outside my front door, damn those suspension bridge makers for evilliy limiting me to a suspension bridge to cross the bay!(/sarcasm)

Analogy asshat alert

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were a carpenter, I'd most likely be very picky about my tools.

A sales person works with customers.
A graphical artist works with images.

In fact, for each and every person in this world that doesn't do Windows development, yet still uses computers, the relevance of your analogy to the gp's point fails a second inspection.

FYI google runs Linux.

[dougnaka]

FYI google runs Linux.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.goog le.com
Notice no BSD, a couple Linux, mostly unknown. But I think it's common geek knowledge that Google runs Linux.

Re:FYI google runs Linux.

[thebatlab]

And there couldn't be any other machines at google. Nope. None. The only ones we can see are the ones on Netcraft. Yep.

You shouldn't

[SuperKendall]

What is a "healthy fashion"? Your answer will be different from mine. What is "the wrong way"? As an MS stockholder, I find their methods to be quite acceptable, since I have made quite a profit from them.

As an investor in the technology sector, you shouldn't be so quick to support them - small gains short term for one company in whcih you hold stock instead of larger gains for everyone long term. The ironic thing is that if Microsoft had nurtured the industry instead of clear-cutting competitors your Microsoft stock would be worth a lot more.

Good luck with that stock, it looks like a real Winner alright! Of course you didn't say if you were shorting or not, perhaps you'll do well after all.

Enjoy your Microsoft mouse, they are OK but I'll continue to use my superior Logitech model. On my Apple Mac, a company I tend to think supports others in the industry - odd how values to to be reflected in stock price over the long haul.

Healthy is pretty easy to define, it's that which maximises growth in the long term for an industry the company is in. Microsoft has repeatedly fouled its own nest, and retarded profits they could have had.

Re:You shouldn't

[ifwm]

Well, considering I bought it many years ago, I've done pretty well.

But fools like you will line up to tell me how I'm wasting my money, all the while being laughed at because I've quintupled it. Ever hear of buy and hold?

Oh, and I own AAPL too. Bought it at 27, so I'm sitting pretty again.

And asserting that your mouse is better doesn't make it better. If you read reviews, you'd realize they come in even in the rankings. I would call you a liar for cliaming it was superior, but it's not a lie, so much as an intentional exaggeration. If, however, you were MS or Bill Gates, it would certainly be lying.

One last thing, your definiton of "healthy" could very easily lead to a company going out of business, especially if that's what "maximises(sic) growth in the long term for an industry the company is in." Business usually frown on being put out of business.

Please take a class or two on business, before you try to comment again.

Until then, I'll waste no more time on you.

Oh, and stop being such an anti-MS troll. It's embarrassing for you, really. You might be surrounded by fellow anti-MS zealots here at slashdot, but you should try some FACTS every once in a while. It might feel good to have people mod you insightful for that garbage, but being modded insightful by the morons here is more of an indictment that a compliment.

Re:You shouldn't

[malfunct]

Because of the nature of the software market (average cost is more than marginal costs at all production quantities) the best state overall for the market is a natural monopoloy. Competition is wasted resources that would be a greater good for the society as a whole spent in a different market. The only slightly good thing about competition is when it pushes the products to be better in each version but even then its not as beneficial as if that effort was spent in a completely different market. So I suppose from a purely economic view and making an assumption it would seem that MS wiping out all competition is the most healthy outcome from a perfectly economic view of the world.

isdn?

[manJerk]

a book with an isdn number? dont you mean isBn? -ManJerk

Yeah, uh huh

[NanoGator]

"except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click."

Betcha this rationalization came after it was decided Google could get away with what Microsoft couldn't.

Re:Yeah, uh huh

[The Cisco Kid]

The point is that Google isnt 'getting away' with anything. Google doesnt have a monopoly that they are able to abuse like MS does. (Wether they would abuse one if they had it, would be an entirely seperate question, but my personal belief is that they wouldnt)

Google is offering a service, which individuals, can *choose* to use, or not - users that arent aware of the toolbar, wont download it, and wont have pages modified.

Microsoft was abusing their monopoly power and forcing the behaviour on all of its users that werent knowledgable enough to choose to turn it off (assuming that was even possible). Users that werent aware of the function, would have pages modified by default, and most likely not even be aware of it.

You reap what you sow

[wheelbarrow]

Google has positive karma to spend on this and Microsoft did not when it tried it before. Google is being given a pass on this because there is not a widespread feeling out there that Google makes it's business by exploiting monopoly and screwing people. Microsoft does suffer from that perception.

The moral standards by which a company conducts itself do matter. Microsoft is trying to catch up with activities like charitable donations. You see lots of giving by the Bill Gates foundation. However, they have a large debt of ill will to pay down.

Let people control their own software

[grungefade]

How hard is it to not launch a program? I see that as not opt-ing in. And what is so wrong with a company changing their product how they want to? Personally i think microsoft can put anything they please into their own OS. Just stop using windows if you expect not to get microsoft software. and i see the only solution to getting out of forever microsoft is to use open source where the battlefied is fair game. And until then stop complaining of microsoft forcing you to use everything.

There's no such thing as basic laws of humanity

[al912912]

I usually don't like to get into this things, but this time I will.

Throughout humanity, there is a basic standard of right and wrong.We may disagree on some of the smaller points of it, but the general principles are there. Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc. Evil is something that breaks one of these basic rules.

You talk about it as if it's universal and has been understood by all cultures, maybe even thinking of it as part of human nature. What about adultery (not all cultures banned it, and I hope your wife wanting to have sex with me is not a small point for you)? What about white lies? What about death sentence, is the American governmeent evil? What about war? What about not mixing with black people, is every white person from before the 20th century evil?

In general MS and Google are neither evil because neither of them are breaking these basic laws of humanity.

So, if we don't break a couple of rules then we are good, just like the ten commandments, How convinient!, but I hope in my hearth the human beings are much more complex than that. Now, there's also your interpretation of every one of those rules (which cause most of the christian religious separation BTW).

"Don't murder", murder what, only human beings? If so, don't murder any human being? What if I assist on the process but I didn't pull the plug? What if I decided to kill my baby instead of your wife (who is now pregnant, hehe =) )?, that's certainly murder. Am I expected to keep my mother alive for 5 years even if she has no life, cannot speak or move, and, after I have no money left, take a second mortage, sell my cars, and stop my kids from going to school to keep my mother quasi-alive another year (because if I don't, then I'm an evil person)?

"Don't steal". Is a revolution, where you take some land away from another country, stealing? Is an unwanted popup taking space which wasn't authorized stealing?

Human begins are much more complex and what you talk about are social rules (not laws of humanity!) that would help people live well in a certain type of society where those rules apply. You can change those rules and we'll have another society where human beings are still alive, eventhough it's better or worse.

Re:ISDN?

[dakirw]

So that's why reading takes so long. I just needed to upgrade from ISDN to T3!

NO. He WASN'T.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Bill Gates was once young and just as idealistic as Sergey and Brin.

Don't you know any history? Check Bill's early writings on software as an industry. There's nothing idealistic about that...it's just hard business sense.

note: It's not Sergey and Brin; it's 1 person.

google is your friend.

[pureone]

how many of you have had this said to you or even said it to someone your self? google can get away with things because of the way people see google and the way google presents its self. google is just like any other company that wants to suck up as much money as it can. its just that google is much smarter at doing it. for instance the way it dealt with gmail. you cant sign up to gmail to get a account you have to be invited. this causes more chitchat about the service and is infact free advertising. google is much smarter then microsoft.google does not require money from people that use gmail or the search engine or any other feature, it gets money from adverts. so we dont feel as if were being ripped off like with microsoft.

I apologize for not bowing to your mighty skills

[SuperKendall]

Please take a class or two on business, before you try to comment again.

What an annoying and childish response. The rest of your argumnet was fine, did you have to stoop to that? Please stick to arguing the topic at hand at avoid things like this that add no value to an otherwise interesting discussion.

Yes I know all about buy and hold. Are you still holding MSFT? That looks to be a damn poor choice.

Great that you bought AAPL, so did I. But the fact remains that everyone would have done better if MSFT were not killing of competition instead of, as I said, clearcutting. The rising tide floats all boats, and that means a better world for the investor of the boats as well.

It's not a troll at all. It's honestly how I feel about the subject. It's not like I do not use Microsoft products, I use them every day. Sometimes it's the only practical thing to do (like calendaring). But what I am not is blind to the effect that support I give, even when NOT NEEDED, has on the industry as a whole. That is an area I feel many people (including yourself) need to work on. I will not stoop to your level and call you a fanboy, but I would say it would be more healthy to think hard about weither or not you really need to use Microsoft in as many areas of your life as you do.

As for my definaition of "helthy" leading a company going out of business - not really. Companies that truly foster industries tend to do very well. Companies that do not tend to have trouble over the long time - again we point back to MSFT. Yes I don't like them. Nor do a lot of other people. So how can it possibly help a company when enough people dislike them that they start to consider seeemingly irrational means to avoid them? Rationally I am better off using Word if it's just provided for me and I don't have to pay for it. But I like to foster innovation and so I use Open Office, even though I don't have to - and there are a LOT of other people like me. How can you as an investor say it's a good idea to invest in any company where a significant part of the user base actually loathes and denigrates them constantly? After all, in business the key part is customer satisfaction. If that's not there than the whole company is just a hollow shell waiting to implode when something finally comes along that offers a real choice.

Re:OMG!!! No!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Don't laugh...it's not funny. :-(

and....

[deviator]

....google's services don't consistently suck across the board.

Re:and....

[webgodjj]

I agree the services don't suck.. however, the implementation does. It is really hard to find the good servcies on Google. Why? Some are hidden.. some are called beta (though their idea of beta is pure batty). I think they should restructure their site. The site was good when all it did was offer searching. A simple interface and logo is all you need.

However, Google has grown beyond this. A simple nav bar (text even) would help greatly. Drop the word Beta on anything that has been around more than a couple of years.

Don't get me wrong.. I LOVE GOOGLE, however, I would like to see them clean up their act a bit.

Re:and....

[deviator]

I think they have _much_ larger plans -
and dropping "beta" from these services implies that they'll have to support them (despite the fact that they're free), which is probably something they're not interested in at the moment... because of some unknown variable X where X = "big secret giant earth-shattering plan"

Re:and....

[The Cisco Kid]

1. Go to www.google.com.
2. Click on "more "
3. Explain how doing that constitutes 'hard to find'

Re:OMG!!! No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity this AC for he was born without a humor muscle. (Or is that born with a humorous love muscle? Bah... I always forget which.) ;P

slashdot cracks me up.

[geekoid]

man, somebody is awfull defensive of google.

so, if MS offered there plugin, but had it off by default slashdot would have been singing praises?

And by Slashdot, I mean the people in charge.

More google evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been coming out with "what evil thing can we do next and get away with it ebcuase we say we do no evil" now for about 6 months.

How long before /. FINALLY wakes up?!?!?

Hijack!

[Cidtek]

If google add links to keywords on my web site redirecting traffic then that is a hijack pure and simple.

Typical /. reponse...

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOS'S SIDE are we supposed to be on here? C'mon whats the google-bashing, look at all the great thing's they've given us! All Microsoft have given us is a bunch of bugs and headaches!
***
Always read the subject.

Books have ISDN numbers?

[the unbeliever]

Funny, I've never found a terminal adapter on any book I've ever purchased. =P

OBMontyPython quote

[schon]

"Perhaps he was dictating?" :o)

It's simply wrong

[Mulletproof]

"Though honesty is important as well. Google's motto is do no wrong, and I for one am inclind to believe them."

The definition of "Wrong" of course being open to interpretation... And their rapid assimilation of third party web services into itself tends to give me poause before taking Google's statment at face value.

WebPros are peeved...

[Torville]

Read the comments attached to the article... man, those Search Ranking consultants are upset!

Can you believe this? First they tweak their algo every 5 minutes so we can't get any consistent results, and now this atrocity with the new Google toolbar. In this WPW members opinion Google has gone to far!

Da noive o' dem guys! First, they make it hard for us to make money off of their hard work, and now... they're... trying to make money... off our... (At this point, the built in irony surge protector , in fear of its very existance, makes a forceable exit from the speaker's cranium)

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[CPUGuy]

First off, the smart tags were just a beta, and not a final product, you really have no idea how it would have ended up, and it seemed to be going in a good direction.

Secondly, the website creator made the website, they website creator made the custom tags on the website. It is up to the creator of the website to decide what content goes on it, not you.
Plus, smart tags could be easily disabled from the browser (by the user).

Confusion Reigns Supreme

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a distinct difficulty here with the concept of ethics and the concept of morals . They are not one and the same thing yet both have been bandied around here as if they are. I will not explain as I am sick of going over and over 1st year philosophical concepts. But some of you would do well to do a bit of reading. And just a quick note on the ZAP - anyone who uses a Websters definition has no grasp of language.

Interesting comparison of (relative) evils

[Rob Y.]

A prior post noted that Google and Microsoft are both corporations interested, ultimately, in making money. Somehow, that made them equivalent.

Interesting to note, however, that Google, in its supposed attempt to leverage whatever it's leveraging here is forced by Microsoft's monopoly to target it at the IE browser. Not because they want to, undoubtedly, but because their 'brother in evil' has created such a distorted marketplace.

It'd be hard to imagine Google gaining enough market power that they could force their competitors to embrace their products in such a way. No, Google has to compete by being the best, and so far, they've done it. Whereas Microsoft still has the potential (and the war chest) to 'suck the air' out of Google's main cash-making business and restore mediocrity to its 'rightful place'.

The Differend is Pushing a Button?

[Anonymous Coward]

Today I recieved an AOL package as my sole piece of mail. Talk about depressing. I waited on the curb for the postal truck, wearing my beady bug-eyed clip-on sunglass lenses, certain of an important package.

1. You can not push a button to get AOL out of a machine. They need to put warning labels on AOL boxes (instantly ruins windows install).

2. I wish I could "push a button" for no solicitation mail. OH AND BY THE WAY, I live by a paper plant and have to wash the fallout off of my car.

3. Pushing a button is a significant differend.

PS
Burn! Microsoft! BURN!

absolute power....

[frank0618]

a saying about how power corrupts comes to mind....

Reason:

[kiddygrinder]

Google's Motto: Do no evil.
Microsoft's Motto: Don't get caught

YY Twins

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of the Ying Yang twins, it is a pepper shaker.

Is it simple?

[ElBorba]

Funny, you do one "Evil" think in your life, like tossing a bag full of puppies in the chipper, and no matter how many free AOL CDs you provide to people you're still labeled as "Un-Good". I guess that means we must be, by our very nature, evil? Go figure.

Not sphinxes...

[kula.shinoda]

Pidgeons!

Bill's Pet Monkey?

[dustmite]

OMW, your nick is perfect!

Just how many people are Microsoft paying to post on /. these days anyway? (Most of which are outright lying and seemingly attempting to "rewrite history") Redefining MS-bashing as an ideological bandwagon rather than something logical based on the facts of MS's unethical past. 'Hey guys, it's no longer "cool" to bash Microsoft' .. WTF?

Re:Bill's Pet Monkey?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a naiive and juvenile twit, just like the teenager who blames his parents for everything. I bet you're using MS Windows XP Home, but you use Firefox because you think that's rebellion.

WTF? Yeah WTF indeed. I bet you've been finding yourself saying that a lot because you don't really understand much of anything. Ideological bandwagon? Rewriting histroy? There's no rewriting here - it's a fact you dolt. Go follow the granparents link, asshat.

Go back to picking your nose and jacking off to fitness videos.

Re:Bill's Pet Monkey?

[dustmite]

Uh - real mature reply there, wow, I think that just goes to show the level of maturity of the Microsoft apologists on slashdot.

FYI you are wrong on, well, every single sentence in your post!

I see a lot of people on this thread "rewriting history" by outright lying, e.g. claiming that Microsoft was never found guilty of any antitrust violations such as product tying in the antitrust trial and so on, that they've never done anything unethical, that they're not a monopoly etc. Repeating lies over and over and over until everyone believes it and it becomes "uncool" to state the contradictory truth is rewriting history. Just take a look around this thread.

Good luck with your life, must be tough being unable to think for yourself, and just blindly believing all the paid-for media hype that Bill Gates is really just this real nice guy who never harmed anyone, when the facts are just a big of google research away and you're too lazy to do even that little bit.

Re:Bill's Pet Monkey?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that it? You're going to deny that Bill Gates gave away a third of his fortune to charity just because it doesn't suit your world view of the person behind Microsoft? Your "does not compute" circuit is overheating, isn't it? Charity = good, Microsoft = bad, charity = good, Micros ..... Aaaaaaaaaaagh.

Antitrust offender? Undoubtedly. Welcome to corporate America. Take a look around, clown - enjoy your stay.

The facts are a bit of "google research" away?

"Google research". Do you mean that entering a word in a google input box now passes for research? Maybe it does. IN BANJO AND PIG-HUMPING COUNTRY.

Stop gawping at Paris Hilton and put your pants back on. Your mum's calling you for dinner.

Re:Woah

[Jim_Callahan]

Your phone book throws itself at you every time you're reading the newspaper and come to a word that exists somewhere in the yellow pages? That must be painful.

Re:It is simple: Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You CANNOT assume any "basic standard of right and wrong". Right and wrong cannot exist on their own; they MUST have context. Your "general principles" simply do not exist, and if I asked you to prove them you would not be able to.

Oversimplification is a common error - maybe the most common error that ever was - but yours is a doozy. You simply cannot divide everything into Right and Wrong or Good and Evil, as if with a knife, just because you think that's how it should be. Life is NEVER that easy, and unfortunately your choice of postulate makes your comment complete bullshit, nothing but wishful-thinking fluff. It's a shame you got modded up so high.

Seriously.

[dtrapp]

I've been following the search engine industry, and Internet marketing in general for over 4 years and a lot has changed, but there is always one dominant company that tries to test its boundaries (or get greedy) and this time it's Google. If you read about what they're trying to do with AutoLink, it seems to try to serve an actual purpose, where SmartTags was simply going to be helpful/lucrative, but honestly we all know Google doesn't develop platforms without a thought towards revenue. If anyone here has followed the Internet marketing industry at all lately you'll know that other companies outside of Microsoft (notably adware) have attempted at making a feature like this work, but ultimately it's something that ends up either being biased towards promotions or advertisers, or invasive...often both. I believe Google will BETA this until they see the backlash, and thanks to the news outlets picking all of this up and people like us responding, maybe they'll reconsider this.

Re:Seriously.

[The Cisco Kid]

Google does not have a monopoly. Google does not have the leverage to force consumer-PC-OEM's to preinstall its software or addons on PC's. Pretty much everyone that uses Google has actively *chosen* to do so, and is probably aware of their other choices. This is *NOT* the case with MS.

MS bundling a function like this, that is on by default with the browser that comes bundled with the OS that MS's contracts with OEM's pretty much absolutely require that they install, that is on by default, is an entirely different animal than Google *offering* to *allow* people to *choose* to add its software to their system, if they *want* to use it.

Re:Woah

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your phone book throws itself at you every time you're reading the newspaper and come to a word that exists somewhere in the yellow pages?

In order to use this google service, you have to download their toolbar, install it, then specifically enable it for the page. It may be more convenient once it is set up and running, but it's not like you don't have to go out of your way to use it.

/. can't bend over fast enuf

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how fast the /. editors react to even the merest possibility of upset from Google. This editor's note from J almost reads as if it comes directly from Google's PR firm.

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It is up to the creator of the website to decide what content goes on it, not you.

You must be a marketer's wet dream. It's my computer, my OS, my browser, and my add-ons. Why the hell do I want all my shit collaborating to feed me ads decided by the designer of the web site? I mean if I'm going to add on more ads and links afterwards, at least I'm going to choose the ads. If I post process text on a web site, it's going to be for my benefit, not so the web site author can push more ads. If you want more ads from web site providers, sign up for their spam mailings.

Re: SmartLinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and, they are a part of Office10 and higher, etc. *THAT* is the evil part of Microsoft's plan.
SmartTags were and, to some point, still are, a highly touted "automation feature" to make using Office in an Internet environment a richer, fuller experience.

A firefox plug in could do it...

[tcdk]

... how about a small firefox plug-in that will allow you to right click on any word (or selected piece of text) and select to have a search done on it? Wouldn't that give some of the same functinality?

good and evil

[rofthorax]

There is good and evil in all of us, its just a
matter of how tempted one is to do evil.. If you can
keep people from being tempted, they will tend to do good..

Re:Complete waste of time and bytes

[ArcticCelt]

Bla bla bla bulshit bulshit [big word paying quadruple at scrabble] blah blah blah more bulshit.

Si hablas tan bien español porque no escribes tu respuesta en español? Quizás solo sabes decir "yo hablo español", ou peut être que tu est simplement un petit enculé qui utilise babelfish? De toute façon moi aussi je peux prétendre parler d'autres langues en plus du français espagnol et anglais mais juste dire trois mot en celle ci ne prouverais pas vraiment que je la "maîtrise". Voici un exemple mon hostie de petit comique.

Ich spreche Deutsches
Parlo italiano
Eu falo o português

Mais demande-moi de tenir une conversation en une de ces langues et je ne peut pas placer un mot devant l'autre Me gustaría verte intentar de argumentar en una lengua que no es la tuya jilipoyas.
You where the first to make a personal attack so don't complain about an "Ad hominem" (without the "-") asshole.

GMail

[DXL]

Google also got away with GMail, don't think MS would.

LOL WHAT

[Anonymous Coward]

Common, I was being ifnrormative! Why dont U go suck a tiger...............

Re:LOL WHAT

[JakusMinimus]

from http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict3&Database=w eb1913:

Empower \Em*pow"er\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Empowered; p. pr. &
vb. n. Empowering.]
1. To give authority to; to delegate power to; to commission;
to authorize (having commonly a legal force); as, the
Supreme Court is empowered to try and decide cases, civil
or criminal; the attorney is empowered to sign an
acquittance, and discharge the debtor.

a dipshit says what?

LOL WHAT

[Anonymous Coward]

Empowers... Such a cromulent word. Ever heard of a dictionary, dipshit??

Re:Complete waste of time and bytes

[cduffy]

I honestly tried to write a reply in Spanish, but found that, without resorting to reference material, I can no longer pretend to be remotely fluent. Consequently, I give up.

If you'd pointed out only that English was your 3rd language in your initial reply, I'd have been fine with that and apologized for my initial behaviour -- it's the ad hominem that caused this to escalate as it did. Nonetheless, having had a taste of my own medicine (attempting to write a well-formed reply in my second language, which I haven't used in over six years) -- I'm sorry, I admit defeat, I apologize; but next time you're in a similar situation, please point out that English is your 3rd language before you start attacking the person who's criticizing.

People who abuse their first language have far less excuse, and my hope is that making it clear to them that this behaviour is socially unacceptable will help in some way to curb the practice.

We are Customers

[kallistiblue]

We are customers.
We the most important visitors to your business.
We are not dependent on businesses.
Businesses are dependent on us.
We are not interruptions to Business work.
We are the purpose of it.
We are not outsiders to your business.
We are the Core of your Business.
Business does not do us a favor by serving us.
Business should be greatful for the opportunity serve us.
We do not exist to serve your Business,
Your business exists to serve us.
Let Us Move Forward TOGETHER.

Monopoly

[glacote02]

Repeat after me: "Microsoft is a monopoly". Every time Microsoft makes a choice, it makes this choice for 95% of users worldwide. Thus Microsoft choices must be regulated to prevent it from abusing its monopoly power. It's as simple as that.

Re:Complete waste of time and bytes

[ArcticCelt]

It's rare that people in discussion boards are willing to propose a truce instead of continuing an escalation of attacks and I salute your initiative; It takes much more courage to call a ceasefire than to continue the flaming. To be honest I pretty much detest flaming and offer you my own apologises for the strong words I used in my answers.

I am also willing to admit that I understand your point of view about people abusing their first language and find your intentions reasonable but the Internet and Slashdot is a global community and a large percentage of the users use English as their second or third language so I guess maybe many of the bad grammar is done by people that simply try to do there best and not by lazy writers. (0n anoth3r h4nd I th1nk that th3 l1t3 wr1t1ng on3s d3s3rve to d13)

When I first started to participate in online communities in English, I was writing under each of my comments things like "please excuse the quality of my grammar, English is not my first language" but I then decided to stop doing that because it seams to be kind of repetitive and annoying and did not bring anything else to the discussion.

I basically learned and developed my English writing skills on the Internet so sadly, I am the reflect of the people that populate it... Nevertheless I try to use grammar and spelling checkers and I my goal is to continue to improve my mastering of THE undisputable global language.

Anyway, cheers

No wait, you can't get out of my la-bore-a-tory

[tepples]

What if they are siamese twin girls?

Then one of them is named Dee Dee.

Re:No wait, you can't get out of my la-bore-a-tory

[nofx_3]

ok, ok, for a second I was like "wtf is wrong with this person" then I realized, in dexters labratory lives the smartest boy you've ever know, but DEE DEE blows his experiments to smitherines. Or something to that effect.

-kaplanfx

In this economy

[tepples]

So there are no other jobs?

When you get one job offer and forty-nine "Sorry, we went with another candidate" letters, what do you do?

Pay scales

[tepples]

And Mc Donald's is always hiring.

Who can support a wife and kids and pay down a mortgage and a car loan on McDonald's wages?

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[CPUGuy]

They aren't ads, although they do point to certain services (note, that's not all they could have been used for), but they were not ads.

Second, it's the web developers publication, if they want to put it on THEIR website, then it is THEIR option to do it, and then if you don't like it, you could have turned off the smart tags.

And as it was still in beta stage, who knows whether or not it would have been turned off by default, the fact of the matter is it was probably turned on by default simply because Microsoft wanted to make sure it was tested by everybody, and got feedback from as many testers as possible.

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Second, it's the web developers publication, if they want to put it on THEIR website, then it is THEIR option to do it, and then if you don't like it, you could have turned off the smart tags.

If a web site designer wants to make links on their pages to random ads or services, they can. If I want to ad links to ads and services to all the web pages I look at, then no one has any right to tell me not to. If Google wants to provide a program to let me do it, no one has any right to tell them not to. Publishers have no right not to have an end user alter their pages. Nor any right to stop Google from selling tools. I suppose you think all pen manufacturer's should pay all book publishers? After all I often write notes in the margins, sometimes I even note potential purchases, all without paying the book seller again.

Re:I apologize for not bowing to your mighty skill

[ifwm]

So, in other words I was correct, and you know very little about business.

As far as my response being annoying, deal with it. Until you improve your understanding of business, and the stock market in general, you'll get more of it. Or maybe you could take a class like I suggested.

Buy and hold means exactly that. I bought for retirement, which in my case is 30 years away. What you think is a foolish choice is a 5x gain in capital. You thinking such a gain is foolish on my part impugns any credibility you may claim regarding business.

MS is a business, not satan. Puritanical crusades like yours ("boycott MS products!! It's the right thing to do!!") are ridiculous.

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[CPUGuy]

Did you actually read my comment before typing, or are you just foaming at the mouth

Re:You're wrong. Microsoft's smart tags...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Did you actually read my comment before typing, or are you just foaming at the mouth

I certainly did. I just think you are full of crap. On my machine, software that lets me parse web pages and make associations is a feature. Software that lets publishers shove more ads into their pages using my CPU time, memory, and bandwidth is malware. Get a clue.