Slashdot Mirror


MySpace's Melting Makes Murdoch Mad

Barence writes "Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time — provoking an angry outburst from Rupert Murdoch, the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago."

65 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Mad? Really? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad. Nice use of alliteration though. I did find this article about the difference in growth between the two sites and it has a lot more information about the situation in general, though nothing about Murdoch's reaction. I couldn't find anything more about that - like where and when he said the things they say he said, what the tone was, etc.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Mad? Really? by Hyppy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      FTA:

      Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time - provoking an angry outburst from the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago They don't seem to detail the contents of his outburst, or at least the angry part. However, these lines indicate that the journalist is reporting Rupert Murdoch as "angry", which is closely synonymous with "mad."
    2. Re:Mad? Really? by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad. Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace"

      =)

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Mad? Really? by urbanriot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No kidding, most of the emotion seems to come from the article writer, using terms like 'fumes', 'angry outburst' and 'exasperated'. Does PC Pro actually know Rupert Murdoch enough to know that he's exasperated? They seem to be creating emotion and their own context.

    4. Re:Mad? Really? by urbanriot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Rupert Murdoch wrote conveyed his anger with Facebook's success in REALLY BIG LETTERS!!!111oneoneone

    5. Re:Mad? Really? by Bombula · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Nice use of alliteration though

      Speaking of alliteration, I think one reason why MySpace is doomed to play second fiddle is because it's simply harder to say to someone that you put your pictures "on my MySpace page" than "on my Facebook page."

      Or maybe I'm just being silly, who knows.

      --
      A-Bomb
    6. Re:Mad? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      We call it "Faux" news because it is. Learn this: Fox went to court and defended its right to knowingly broadcast untruth as news because the law does not specifically say they can't. Again, in case you still don't get it: Fox defended its right to broadcast lies that they knew were lies.

      And that, among other reasons*, is why it is "faux".

      http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

      http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

      * blending opinion with news and calling it objective
          putting only one political view on the air and calling themselves "balanced"
          reporting as factual news (and almost verbatim) the "talking points" released by the GOP

    7. Re:Mad? Really? by InlawBiker · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Murdoch Mostly Mopes; Missing Money Makes Monday More Melancholy."

      Slashdot submission sure sucks.

    8. Re:Mad? Really? by siphonophore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't revel in being a defender of big media, but those who pan Fox News never seem to understand what they're criticizing. Fox's primetime lineup consists of personality-driven opinion shows. They've got a right-leaning megalomaniac, a debate show, and a liberal who have control over the content and accuracy of their respective shows. It was a novel thing on a 24/7 news channel when Murdoch started it, and I think it has a place in the discourse. If and when that discourse lacks value, the host is to blame.

      --
      Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
      -Scott Adams
    9. Re:Mad? Really? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fox news isn't doing anything different from NBC, CBS and ABC. Most notably, exploding trucks, and fake documents. And these are the cases where they got caught.

      I'd rather get my news and opinions from people who are knowingly biased, than from people who try to say that they are reporting the news unbiasedly. At least I know the slant, and it makes it easier to dismiss the BS.

      The point is, take the news you get with a grain of salt, no matter what your source is. Additionally, get your news from a variety of Points of View, as the truth usually lies (pun intended) in between.

      The only idiots I know, get all their news from single sources. They don't listen to alternative views because they can't actually use their heads to filter the news. This goes to both lefties and righties.

      I also suggest that if you're railing against "Faux News", that you also rail against the others that end up doing the same thing, manufacturing "news" and "facts".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Mad? Really? by operagost · · Score: 4, Informative

      WTVT is a local Fox affiliate, not the Fox News cable channel. Claiming they are the same is like claiming everything on MSNBC must be biased in favor of Microsoft. FAIL.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Mad? Really? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not true, while I'm not an expert on news, I did spend some time in college studying it.

      As any journalist knows having two extremists from both sides does not constitute balance. It just means that you've got extremists from both sides. No reputable news organization would employ the individuals that Fox news does. The appearance of bias, even if it isn't real, is something which damages the credibility of a network.

      Fox got in trouble because they weren't giving equal air to the other side of issues while at the same time professing to be the most fair and balanced news network on TV. Anybody who's seen the programming knows that's not the case. If it were the case there'd be a more diverse group objecting to it. Rather than just one side of the political spectrum.

      Just look at the Dan Rather incident, he wasn't even responsible for that content, and he got shit canned for it. Rather's job on the show was to read the news, whatever was given to him and do the show, shows like that never have the anchor do much beyond that and a few interviews.

      As far as myspace goes, it was obvious at the time that he over payed for the site. IIRC at the time myspace was hugely popular, but was somewhat lacking in profitability. For it to have been a decent deal, it would have had to have been making at least 40m a year with a strong brand. And as it turned out the brand just wasn't that strong. I'm sure it can still earn a decent profit, but it was a poor investment in the first place.

    12. Re:Mad? Really? by Count+Fenring · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that there's consistent support from the hosts on one side of the debate, thus making it invariably two on one.

      And that's ignoring that their NEWS shows also show rampant bias, poor to nonexistant fact-checking, and deliberate propaganda reporting, as well as just plain dirty tricks (Such as their constant "Obama/Osama" name slip-ups. I'm not saying that they can't have pundits, I'm saying that their regular newscasters, who are positioned as NEWSCASTERS, are engaging in propaganda and punditry while claiming to be delivering factual and unbiased coverage.

      As for Keith Olberman... even while delivering an opinion column, the man has an infinitely better record on vetting his sources and producing factual, correct news than Fox News ever has. That's a bad sign, that is.

    13. Re:Mad? Really? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't revel in being a defender of big media, but those who pan Fox News never seem to understand what they're criticizing.

      What does this have to do with it. They went to court and Newscorp lawyers argued that their program "which they call news" had the right to broadcast information they knew was false and the right to fire journalists with enough integrity to refuse. Whatever else that makes them, it is completely untrustworthy as a source for facts.

      If and when that discourse lacks value, the host is to blame.

      Who picks the hosts? Who fires the people who refuse to tell lies. Sorry, you can't shift the blame away from a corporation that is not trying to inform, but persuade. They just aren't news.

    14. Re:Mad? Really? by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fox news isn't doing anything different from NBC, CBS and ABC.

      Yes, but try to give those companies some names as clever as "Faux." Whenever I turn my parody-demon loose on "CBS" I draw a blank. (Yes, comedians, I'm issuing you a challenge.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    15. Re:Mad? Really? by Cairnarvon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ``Republican'' is synonymous with ``American'' now? Who are you, Joe McCarthy?

    16. Re:Mad? Really? by raddan · · Score: 4, Informative

      But wait-- you're only talking about the final appeal, which Fox New Corp won. What about the earlier trial, in which the jury found that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH" and subsequently awarded the plaintiffs (the reporters in question) $425,000. The fact that the case was overturned on appeal, by a technicality, does not change the fact that Fox News Corp's actions were unbecoming (i.e., unethical) of a real journalistic organization. The facts you are looking for can be found in the court documents, which are public record.

    17. Re:Mad? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or maybe he took some photos of himself pouting with a camera held at arms length and used some program to overlay them with sparkly letter lyrics from taking back sunday, describing how much of a self-sacrificing saint (in sepia) he is for a world that just doesn't care.

      Of course he already does this somewhat with the WSJ...

    18. Re:Mad? Really? by monxrtr · · Score: 5, Funny

      CBS. We put the BS in news. What you C, is BS. CBS. News for the BS college graduate.

      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    19. Re:Mad? Really? by billcopc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace" Yeah, Facebook gives me gas, too! *rimshot*

      (that's right, mod me funny, you know you wanna)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    20. Re:Mad? Really? by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe Rupert Murdoch wrote conveyed his anger with Facebook's success in REALLY BIG LETTERS!!!111oneoneone I would guess it is more related to the fact that Myspace is ALWAYS HAVING UNEXPECTED ERRORS. Furthermore, their videos never stream well, the pages load very slowly when compared to almost any other website, and oh, some people care that Rupert Murdoch owns it and don't want to be part of it. I know I personally considered getting rid of my myspace account for that reason alone, but I kept it due to the exposure I get (band page).

      I actually only have a myspace account, but from the very limited experience I had clicking around on FaceBook, I already know it is a much cleaner platform.

      Maybe if Murdoch put some damn effort into fixing Tom's millions of bugs he'd get people to give a crap.

    21. Re:Mad? Really? by Scudsucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And during the day, their shows always have two opposing viewpoints

      The regular networks have 2:1 biases in favor of conservative commentators, much less on Fox News. And as someone else pointed out, the hosts are invariably spouting the GOP talking points.

      left-wing guests

      Democrat != left wing.

      And neither are doormats

      There are three types of Democrats on Fox: doormats who get humiliated, those who get shouted over, and DINO's like Joe Lieberman.

      At least no moreso than, say, MSNBC (hi, Keith Olbermann!).

      False equivalency. O'Reilly has rants when stores put up signs saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Olbermann gets angry when the government lies to us and tortures people. Just a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit of a difference.

  2. Post... by mr_nazgul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe he should rant about it on his Facebook page.

    --
    Good.. Bad.. I'm the guy with the gun.
  3. Facebook won't last by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook is on it's way out too. I stopped using it when the plethora of stupid dirty looking applications starting taking over everybody's pages making facebook look more like myspace.

    Now facebook is even spammier than myspace, with hundreds of applications I can't stand, and all their invites. I have to "add" an application in order to view it. I don't want to view it. I don't want a "drink" invitation, or a "pirate" invitation. Leave me alone.

    This is why I quit Facebook

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:Facebook won't last by Psx29 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can actually opt out of the Facebook API entirely and then you won't recieve anymore invites or anything else since the applications can't "see" you.

    2. Re:Facebook won't last by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. And that's what happens. The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic, and more and more people keep joining just because their friends told them they should.

      The ratio of signal to noise gets skewed to the point where it becomes hard to use, and that combined with the general fickleness of people (especially the younger people that make up a significant portion of the userbase), means that the eyeballs go elsewhere. And at the end of the day, nothing that myspace or facebook or any social networking site does is really all that complicated. There are plenty of other websites out there that are offering ways to communicate with other people.

      I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but the churn and turn over seems to be pretty consistent. Before facebook everyone talked about myspace. Before myspace everyone talked about orkut. Before orkut everyone talked about livejournal, etc... All those sites still exist, but today facebook is the one that people are writing headlines about. A couple years down the line some new upstart will be getting all the attention. It's just the way it is, and investing in one of these sites like it's going to be the next amazon or google is pretty silly.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:Facebook won't last by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Murdoch? Is that you? If Murdoch have that kind of insight, would he own Myspace right now?
      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    4. Re:Facebook won't last by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither of them will disappear entirely. One isn't going to crush the other. What's going to happen is that the masses will get tired of both of them, and move on to something new. There will still be some plenty of diehards who refuse to switch, and most of their current users will still keep and check on their accounts every once-in-a-while. But the bulk of the daily traffic will move to some newer, lightweight site that has a couple of novel ideas/features. And that site will be the big thing until it gets too bloated and tired, and then the cycle will repeat itself again.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    5. Re:Facebook won't last by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Leave me alone.
      Not feeling social?
    6. Re:Facebook won't last by Candid88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic"

      In my experience, once the profiteering mentality starts, website costs have absolutely nothing to do with increased advertising and commercialisation.

      Unless you're running a site like youtube or a warez site etc., server & bandwidth costs are never that significant and a simple unobtrusive banner ad or 'donate' button pays for it. It's people trying to convince investors their website is soon to make billions that leads to the ad spamming and "premium service" rubbish.

    7. Re:Facebook won't last by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Funny
      and move on to something new

      I recommend "friendster" :P

    8. Re:Facebook won't last by WilyCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. "

      You just summed up almost all businesses in general, not just social networking ones.....

    9. Re:Facebook won't last by robertjw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, not always. I think Google is a good example of a company that hasn't done that. Their ads are relatively unobtrusive, and even useful. They don't do pop-ups or flashing ads or other irritating things that Myspace and Facebook are doing. Their model is quite sustainable and seems to work.

      Sites collapse under their own weight when people get greedy. If the advertising remains reasonable the provider can make money and have some longevity.

    10. Re:Facebook won't last by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh god. HOW?! I've been looking, but I can't find anything to do that.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    11. Re:Facebook won't last by deadmantyping · · Score: 5, Informative

      Go to Privacy -> Applications -> Other Applications

    12. Re:Facebook won't last by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's also Greasemonkey and a lovely little script called 'unfuck facebook'. I haven't been bothered by vampires biting me, pirates grabbing my booty, or idiotic shit on my friends' superwalls since I installed it.

  4. Maybe it's because by initdeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are tired of being linked to a page that has crappy layout, crappy embedded video or music that plays automatically, is full of lolspeak and/or textype, and is so random that it makes a schizophrenic feel confused.

    oh wait.......

    1. Re:Maybe it's because by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I have this line in my user CSS:

      A[HREF*="myspace.com"]:after { content: " [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING]"!important ; color: red }
      It puts a nice read [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING] after any link to MySpace. I stopped accidentally clicking on them after I added that.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Maybe it's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      But every day I get another invite from a hot girl who really wants to be my friend. She even gives me a link to her website where she keeps all the pictures myspace won't let her post. I never got this kind of attention before myspace

  5. aargh by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Informative

    No more pirate/vampire/werewolf invitations, please...

    Facebook started off a great site, fast, clean design, it's now incredibly slow and hard todo anything, whereas myspace actually is improving.
    Still waiting for a mybook, or facespace to integrate the messaging.

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:aargh by vistic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Merge facebook and myspace? Yes! Everyone will want to come on MyFace!

  6. Makes Murdoch Mad? by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought he was already mad. Hmmm.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  7. Duh by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 5, Funny

    How could a UI disaster that informs a user who has problems logging in that "you must be logged in to do that?" and that lacks any kind of official published API possibly win?

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  8. Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

    MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain. They can take our lives, but they'll never take our MySpace?
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  9. hey murdoch by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    friendster

    xanga

    geocities

    tripod

    etc.

    and don't worry about facebook, in a few short years, it too will be a hasbeen, replaced by whatever site is the new trend

    social networking sites are nothing but trends. they have the limelight for a few years, then they fade. think of them as the bell bottoms and ankle warmers and member's only jackets of the web. here today, master of everything, gone tomorrow, utterly forgotten

    so how do you make money off of them?

    you make money off of social networking sites by becoming extremely powerful, then seducing some tragically unhip media conglomerate to buy you for gabazillions, then you sleep all day and party all night

    so congratulations murdoch, you have a place in "new media" after all: the patsy left holding the bag

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:hey murdoch by Bedouin+X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You speak truth, but the hard reality here is the 500 million plus that Murdoch paid for MySpace was an absolute steal.

      If Facebook is valued at $15 billion, it's very safe to assume that MySpace is worth at least half that. Odds are it's closer to twice that but, even with this hyper-unrealistically conservative measure, it's clear that Murdoch made a good investment.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
  10. Who would've thought by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That investing extremely large sums of money based on the momentary whims of teenagers and early twenty-somethings wasn't such a great idea? The winds of the internet can shift in an instant, and it seems like Murdoch hasn't caught on to that yet. Of course, it won't be long before The Next Big Thing comes along, and Facebook will be in the same spot that MySpace is right now.

    --
    God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
  11. minus the google ads by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    its called craigslist

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  12. Idea by legoman666 · · Score: 5, Funny
    So I was sitting in my cube on this fine Monday afternoon, eating my lunch, when I had a brilliant idea.

    FlashFaceSpace. It will combine the wonderful-nonannoying-awesomeness that is Flash, the unobtrusiveness of Facebook applications, and the customizability of MySpace to create the ultimate social networking site of DEATH. This will blow MySpace, Facebook and every other social networking site out of the water.

    1. Re:Idea by Cygfrydd · · Score: 3, Funny

      I felt a great disturbance in the Flash, as if millions of browsers suddenly cried out in terror and suddenly dumped core. I fear something terrible has happened.

      --@yg

  13. cold fusion FTL by mabu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fact that the site was developed using Cold Fusion should have signaled the first sign of its impending demise.

  14. Should have known better by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Murdoc's corporation, owns many dozens of news papers, magazines, TV and radio stations.

    He just bought the Dow Jones Corporation, including the Wall Street Journal, for fsck's sake!

    You would think that he has enough experience and market knowledge to know to to spend half a billion dollars on something targeted at 15 year olds who wear pants made for the opposite gender.

    Kids change fads more often than they change their underwear some times. Eventually, some of those grow up, go to college, and want something a little more serious and less... dumb.

    Then they abandon myspace.

    Oh well. Better luck next time, dude!

    1. Re:Should have known better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      wait wait, why are boys wearing girls pants? is this a new trend? i've been waiting for that opportunity for years! I guess this brings getting in their pants to a new level?

  15. just maybe... by moracity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If myspace pages didn't suck so bad, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't even consider Facebook and MySpace rivals. Facebook is so far beyond MySpace, it isn't even worth discussing.

    Facebook's days are numbered, I'm sure. Something will come along to replace it in the next couple of years...unless it is able to evolve.

  16. Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts by Bedemus · · Score: 5, Funny

    MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

    You may want to find a new line of reasoning. I think that argument is more likely to turn someone against freedom than it is to win someone over to MySpace.
  17. Interesting bit of irony, that by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having that statement applied TO Rupert Murdoch, rather than BY Rupert Murdoch.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  18. it was worth the money by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the error is in how murdoch quantified what he was purchasing, the perception of what he was actually getting for his money: the error is in thinking you are buying a permanent piece of major real estate on the web. no, what you are buying is a major marketing and branding tool for a few years... which is indeed still worth $500 million

    for his $500 million, he gets a few years of ad revenue, some "showing soon" movie marketing hype, some cross-branding possibilities, steering a few kids towards a fox reality show, etc. but after a few years run, the site is worth bupkus

    as for facebook's $15 billion, all i can do is laugh. $15 billion?! insane. because facebook too will be worth the gum on my sneaker in a few years. facebook is worth what myspace is worth: $500 million

    zuckerman or zuckerberg or whatever the kids name: he should have sold facebook out. hes going to be like that friendster guy is today in a few years: the friendster guy daily kicks himself in the ass for not selling out when he could have. zuckerdude is thinking he has the next google on his hands. no, he has the next xanga. sell out kid, asap

    thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out, upping the ante and going for the diamond ring

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  19. Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

    MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. Indeed. It's about giving the technologically inept individual the power to suck total ass on the intarweb, because Geocities never made it easy enough back in the day.

  20. Should have spent more money on tech? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know how bad Facebook is, but think of every story, every complaint you've ever had about Myspace, technology-wise.

    It's worse than that.

    Simple example: Trying to pull tour dates from Myspace. Too much to expect that they'd have a working iCal feed, or that they'd put hCal on the page. Fine, we'll scrape the HTML, no problem...

    No, the real WTF moment was the month (I think, might've been more) during which none of the calendars worked.

    People joke about Twitter being unable to scale, but really, you'd think with the amount of money Myspace pulls in, they'd be able to hire one good tech person? I'm guessing that's a major reason people are going to Facebook.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  21. Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts by Candid88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be."

    I can't stand Murdoch one bit, but that is just complete & utter rubbish. Who are these "Powers that Be"? the Bavarian Illuminati?

    In reality, he's "paid well" by all the suckers like you & me who pay for over-priced Fox, Foxtel, Sky and the plethora of other cable/satellite TV companies he part-owns.

  22. MySpace is horribly buggy. FaceBook Isn't by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have both a MySpace page and a FaceBook page to promote my music. It just takes a glance to distinguish the clean, tasteful design of FaceBook from the garish, ad-ridden MySpace.

    I've had no end of trouble with MySpace. I'm not able to prevent my music from playing when you load my page, even though that's how I set it in my profile. I've always allowed downloads of my MP3s, but at some point they stopped being downloadable. I had to delete them all and re-upload them to get the downloads back.

    I have actually found MySpace pages that had been customized in such a way as to make FireFox crash just by loading the page!

    My only complaint about FaceBook is that it doesn't allow for downloading MP3s - but that's a lack of a desired feature, and not an actual bug.

    Most young people these days are trying out both. I don't think it takes much time for them all to figure out which one is better.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  23. Test run by game+kid · · Score: 3, Funny

    You have 1 new invitation (25% of 3.5 MB loaded) but you must be logged in to do that!

    (note the completely ambiguous use of MB that might mean million-byte or 2^20 depending on whether Murdoch and his code-slaves are RAIDophiles or TCP/IP fanatics)

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  24. A feature, not a bug by acb · · Score: 3, Informative

    The lack of proper calendar formats on MySpace is a deliberate feature, much like the way that notification emails from MySpace omit the actual details (i.e., the message someone sent you, whose birthday you're being reminded of), to oblige you to log in, click through an interstitial ad and view some more ads.

    If MySpace allowed you to see your data through any means other than their ugly ad-plastered web pages, they'd lose ad impressions.

  25. Dan Rather by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Just look at the Dan Rather incident, he wasn't even responsible for that content, and he got shit canned for it. Rather's job on the show was to read the news, whatever was given to him and do the show, shows like that never have the anchor do much beyond that and a few interviews."

    That's a crock, sir. Dan Rather was not an innocent bystander in the reporting of that story. He wasn't a stiff mannequin that simply read what the teleprompter told him to say. He was deeply involved in the preparation of that story, and got fired because he refused to refute it, even when evidence proved the documents were faked with a word processor. And to this day, he still defends the writers and fact checkers of that story, all evidence that they screwed up to the contrary.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Dan Rather by ahabswhale · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because even though the copies he had were forged, all the information in them was accurate.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?