Slashdot Mirror


The 87 Lamest Moments In Tech, 2000-2009

harrymcc writes "The last ten years have been an amazing era for tech — and full of amazingly dumb moments. I rounded up scads of them. I suspect you'll be able to figure out which company is most frequently represented, but Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Sony, and many others are all present and accounted for, too."

68 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. The very lamest moment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't that be the "first post" ?? :)

  2. sony rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony_rootkit

    never forget, never forgive

    1. Re:sony rootkit by El+Lobo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    2. Re:sony rootkit by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's true, see here.

    3. Re:sony rootkit by Swift2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the very first edition, if you had a guest user, and you used it, you would return to the administrator account and find all the data gone. Bad. Fixed in 10.6.1. We're now in 10.6.2. But some people just can't move on.

    4. Re:sony rootkit by bytethese · · Score: 2, Funny

      I live on the planet where I actually USE an Apple product daily. My wife's Macbook Pro is running fine, my new one is about 95%. Sure I get the spinning beach ball, but I know it's because I put a third party hard disk in it and I'll deal with my own decision because everything else is PHENOMENAL! :)

    5. Re:sony rootkit by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sine when does Apple make hard disks? The hard disks in Apple laptops and Apple desktops that I have seen are made by the same people that Dell, HP, and everyone else uses (I have seen Toshiba, WD, Seagate). The only difference is the hard drive has a little apple printed on the label. The hard drive specs are the same as the non Apple labeled ones. Apple has to have some way to see where the bottle neck is that is causing the beach ball. Saying it is the hard disk is jumping the gun a bit. Unless you put in a 5400 RPM (or slower) disk or a disk with no cache on it, I'd look else where.

      I am saying this since I have changed 20+ hard drives in Apple laptops and desktops. There was no difference in performance with a non Apple drive vs an Apple branded drive. Usually the non Apple drive was bigger, had a bigger cache, and sometimes a faster RPM. Which usually made the machine more responsive.

  3. obligatory by farlukar · · Score: 3, Informative

    decade = 2001-2010

    But at least they didn't make it a 87-page article.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    1. Re:obligatory by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, how /do/ people pronounce this decade?

      The naughties.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    2. Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      technically a decade is any ten year period, doesn't matter when it starts

    3. Re:obligatory by Ren+Hoak · · Score: 3, Funny

      decade = 2001-2010

      You aren't a coder, are you? If so, I envision many off-by-one errors in your work.

    4. Re:obligatory by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The lack of a trite name for this decade has been the coolest, because people haven't been able to call something the "blank of the blank", mimndlessly.

      The next decade is even better!

    5. Re:obligatory by suso · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?

      It sure did feel like it. (reference to pre-911 life)

    6. Re:obligatory by dkh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, he has it right. Our modern, western notion of a calendar is marred by the fact that the Romans had no concept of zero until the conquest of Spain and the ensuing interaction with the moorish people who lived there. Thus, we start counting dates with 1, not zero. Therefore, the '60's is the decade beginning immediately after the end of year xx60 but a person "in their 60's" has completed 59 years of life and not 10 more.

      In our Christian era calendars you do not find a year zero. To our modern, mathematically educated minds that would have been the year before Jesus of Nazareth was 12 months old.

      Of course, our calendars, while allegedly based on the birth date of this man Jesus, are flawed by many other issues. Among these are:

      1) We don't actually have agreement about the precise year of Jesus' birth.
      2) The 25-December customary date is a fabrication. Jesus was most likely born in the spring based on accounts of what was happening at the time.
      3) Our calendar system has been changed a few times over the past two millennia.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    7. Re:obligatory by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhh... no, decade goes from x0-x9. Or do you think the year 2000 was in the 90s?

      The controversy stems from the fact that there was no year 0. The julian/gregorian calendar retroactively goes back to year 1 AD, and before that is 1 BC.

      Human lifes on the other hand start at year 0.

      So people who say the decade was from Jan 1 2001- Dec 31 2010 are technically correct although you can just say a decade is a 10 year period and arbitrarily start it whenever.

      But since /. is full of programmers that have experience with arrays, especially in C type languages - none of this should be news or that hard to grasp.

    8. Re:obligatory by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    9. Re:obligatory by ShounenSuki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course not, but that is why we don't work with ordinal numbers when talking about decades.

    10. Re:obligatory by mcd7756 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Moors invaded Spain in 711 AD. The Roman Empire ended in 476 AD. I suspect the concept of zero entered Europe in some other fashion. Perhaps until the Moors came into Spain, zero was nothing to write home about.

      --
      Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
    11. Re:obligatory by asylumx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seems like this problem would have been solved a hundred years ago...

    12. Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So I guess the first decade ran from -1 to 0, and the second decade was from 1 to 10?

      These decades go to 11.

    13. Re:obligatory by clarkcox3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, no, there was no year zero. The year before 1 AD was 1 BC. The first decade ran from 1 AD to 10 AD, the first century ran from 1 AD to 100 AD. The 20th century ran from 1901 to 2000. The "90's" and the last decade of the 20th century are two different things. "The 90's" is 1990–1999, the last decade of the 20th century is 1991–2000

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    14. Re:obligatory by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 60s ended in 1974.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    15. Re:obligatory by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't get too hung up on all that. Most of the people I know get confused when they celebrate their Xth birthday and I tell them that I hope their newly-begun X+1th year is as successful as the last. I literally went back and forth with one person for over an hour on her birthday this year, with her repeatedly insisting she had just turned X and not understanding why that makes the year she's in now X+1.

      I've all but conceded defeat on the millennium issue. I'll never, of course, admit to having been wrong, because I wasn't; I am just tired from fighting the good fight for an entire decade and feel my efforts would be better spent correcting all the misuses of 'loose' that occur each day.

    16. Re:obligatory by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      You lead a very full life there, Ari!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    17. Re:obligatory by skeeto · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know anyone who would say "July 10th, 1990" is in the 80's. (Picked that date at random.)

    18. Re:obligatory by ari_j · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, I have to do something with all the time I am refusing to think of the children!

  4. The XBox's need more coverage. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 360 for its inexcusable failure rate, then in the wake of Microsofts competitors constantly revising their models and offering updates Microsoft declares they will not create a version two or revise their hardware.

    Then - while XBox 360's were new and failing in droves, Microsoft not only decides the old model will no longer be supported with new products they recall as much existing stock of the old model as they can and do their best to make it got away. Sort of like they wanted to do with XP when Vista came out.

    Something all the game consoles need:
    Older laptop style optical drives that can be changed by release a lever. Can anyone say failure rate?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:The XBox's need more coverage. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not calling a working XBOX 360 lame. I'm calling a 54.2% failure rate and no plans to revamp the hardware lame.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:The XBox's need more coverage. by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the xbox had a failure rate of between 3% and 5% in line with industry norms (MS claim). while it's not a stellar performace it's nothing special. typically when you dig into the claims of 50% failure rates, they are either online polls or of limited sample size (in other words fucking worthless).

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:The XBox's need more coverage. by sopssa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it needs to be from a truly random sample, not taken from some troubleshooting forum for 360, where people without problems never go.

    4. Re:The XBox's need more coverage. by RogueyWon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Video gaming in general could have used more prominence in TFA. After all, it's undoubtedly a part of the tech sector. Thinking of 10 examples off the top of my head, in no particular order...

      - The Red Ring of Death: as you say, should absolutely have been in there. Cost-cutting decisions lead to major customer frustrations. The issue is then compounded by lies, obfuscation and, once the problem is acknowledged, a massively slow response.

      - The Gamecube: everything about it. A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.

      - Hot Coffee: the video game industry unintentionally playing right into the hands of the "think of the children" brigade. While there's an absolutely legitimate battle to be fought against censorship of video-games, this was a huge tactical mis-step.

      - The Sixaxis controller: rather than going for the obvious solution of competing with the Wii by having more and better games (which would hardly be difficult), Sony decided to rush some desperately inadequate motion sensing tech into the PS3's controller. When it was announced, everybody assumed it would be a nasty hack. When the PS3 was launched, everybody could see it really was a nasty hack. Fortunately, most PS3 developers now ignore it.

      - The original Xbox360 controller: just... what? I'd love to know who decided this was a good idea. Microsoft actually issued a better, second-generation controller pretty quickly. But not before they'd become a laughing stock.

      - Spore: the hype, the underwhelming game, the hideously broken DRM, the Amazon review campaign. Never has a game promised so much and delivered so little.

      - Nintendo's online strategy: yeah, still waiting on this one... maybe they have one... somewhere...

      - The PSP Go: Sony put out a revision of their middlingly-successful handheld whose only claim to fame is that it has less functionality than the original version. And then they wonder why it doesn't take off...

      - The DSi: Nintendo demonstrate that they have the ethics of a rabid pitbull by putting out the first handheld for many years to incorporate region locking.

      - The Phantom: ok, I know that some of the events surrounding Infinium Labs are touched upon briefly in TFA, but I think the Phantom should have taken pride of place in the line-up of tech-fiascos over the last decade.

    5. Re:The XBox's need more coverage. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "they surveyed 5000 people which is just 0.0178% of the total units sold, so statisticly it's a worthless sample size"

      The statistical power of a survey does not depend on population size, a sample of 5000 is more than sufficient to get a very good estimate of the real failure rate, (assuming the real failure rate is not extremely small).

      However a failure rate is meaningless without considering length of time and under what conditions. And as you imply the sample must be random, self selecting readers of a particular mag is not at all random, so even though they have a good sample size the quoted numbers are complete bullshit.

      In otherwords the only thing the survey demonstrates is that an unhappy customer is far more likely to take the survey than a satisfied customer.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:The XBox's need more coverage. by Again · · Score: 4, Insightful

      - The Gamecube: everything about it. A nasty, tacky piece of junk with no games worth looking at that was put out with the intention of being a serious contender and rightly consigned to third place.

      The Gamecube sold 22 million units and the original XBox only sold 24 million. Nintendo made money off of every single unit sold. I wouldn't call it a failure.

  5. Playstation 3 backwards compatibility and price by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If anything it's too cheap" That didn't go over too well did it now.

    1. Re:Playstation 3 backwards compatibility and price by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a little surprised that didn't make the list. It still irritates me, every time I look down at the PS2 I still have hooked up next to my PS3. Looking at the eBay listings for a $400 used 60 Gig console next to a $300 shiny new 80 Gig console just reinforces it.

  6. Nice find. by upuv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah that was good for a Laugh.

    Steve Ballmer on stage at any time is always funny. :) Developers Developers Developers..... bahahahahahahaha

    Sony root kit. I'm still finding PC's infected with this beast.

    Zune. Do they still make this thing. I actually saw one in the wild once. Man that thing is UGLY.

    The Kindle the most pointless electronic gizmo ever. It's not a laptop, phone, or book. You don't own the content. and it's UGLY. You want how much??????

    All in all a good read. Thanks.

  7. First Paragraph by datajack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.

    No. The Experts were the ones working many, many hours in the preceding years fixing and updating things so that when the clock did turn, the problems were - for the main - no longer present. A job damned well done and the people fixing it should be praised, not ridiculed.

    The people who don't know what the heck they were talking about are the media types like this guy who are quick to jump on catastrophic failures but rarely (if ever) give due praise when things are planned and done right. "Everything's fine" doesn't make good headlines for these people.

    1. Re:First Paragraph by iamapizza · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mod parent up to 6.
      #88: Also note that Google's multiple outages this year (and last?) don't get a mention.
      #89: No mention of Windows Mobile 6.5 and how MS threw away its last chance of ever competing with the droid/iphone.
      #90: TFA

      --
      Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    2. Re:First Paragraph by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You complete dick.

      I was working in a bank at that time. If we hadn't fixed our systems then come 1/1/2000 every customer in our business area would have found all their transactions failed as the system would have thought they'd expired 100 years ago!

    3. Re:First Paragraph by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Could you please point out a single example where a catastrophe was avoided due to fixing the code handing year changes?

      How would we know? It is not as if people are going to publicise the bugs that they fix. "Hey everyone, we almost nuked Poland!"

      Anyway, the worst of the hype that went around did not come from the experts. Nobody who knew what they were talking about would have said that there would be starvation in the streets. That said, there were definitely some people who tried to cash in on the paranoia. We had some consultant come in and try to sell us software to fix our systems because they were not Y2K ready. Sure enough, when the year changed the computers wrapped back to 1981. However, resetting them to the correct year worked fine.

      But just because some unscrupulous people jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean to say that there were not real bugs to fix. The main software that we wrote had a Y2K bug in it, but we fixed it back in 1997 without fanfare. Just because you never heard of it being fixed doesn't mean to say that it was a made up bug.

    4. Re:First Paragraph by smpoole7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To this (and the other replies here): he's not referring to people like you. Don't think that for a minute. I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself, and I assure you, I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.

      What I attacked -- and what he's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers. "We CAN'T fix it all in time, buy beans, bullets and head for the hills!" ... and ... "embedded systems are the great unknown, we're all going to die, so buy beans and bullets and head for the ... etc., etc." Have you forgotten the "Y2K Crisis Center" (or whatever they called it) with Sam Donaldson, on watch over the transition? All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming?

      THAT'S what he's referring to. Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers. Yes, a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.

      But personally, speaking for myself, I'll never respect Ed Yourdon again. He was the ringleader of the "too many lines of code, it CAN'T be fixed crowd," and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.

      Not you, poster. You did a GREAT job just so that "debunkers" like me COULD say, "it'll be a non-event." :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    5. Re:First Paragraph by datajack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date

      Taken individually and in isolation, it is true that the problem with many such systems is trivial. Howevr many of these trivial systems feed into or from other trivial systems and this makes the system viewed as a whole rather complex. It is extremely difficult to predict the outcome of even a simple looking system (see Conway's game of life for example) so there was no telling what would or could happen with all of these non-critical systems suddenly hitting faulty data. As close to feasibly possible to 'all of it' had to be fixed because otherwise there would be too many unknowns that could come back to bite us later.

    6. Re:First Paragraph by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What this chapter completely misses is that the emergency spending on Y2K fixes was just the tail end of a long effort of companies updating their software. Journalists were not talking about the Y2K bug in 1991, but plenty of programmers were already aware of it and already working on solutions to the problem. By the time the story got interesting -- as the year 2000 approached -- the problem had been mostly solved without any prodding from the media or pushing from the president. This whole situation was compounded by the fact that most people, including the journalists covering the story, had no understanding of how computers stored dates, and the fact that companies whose products had nothing to do with the Y2K bug were advertising their software as "Y2K compliant," and everyone wound up thinking that there was impending doom.

      For the record, the Y2K bug did actually threaten critical computer systems, many of which were mainframes installed decades earlier, but those systems were fixed long before the story ever ran on the news.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:First Paragraph by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had an uncle working for MetLife in the early 90s; had he and his team not put in many months of work back then, the Y2K bug would have left millions of insurance claims unpayable, from business insurance to health plans. On any given day, thousands upon thousands of insurance transactions are processed automatically by a computer, which would have rejected everything as invalid because the claim dates would have appeared to be before the policies were opened.

      People who think Y2K was not a big deal were either children when the problem was solved or never really understood the problem to begin with. Y2K38 is the next big date/time bug to deal with; many people here on /. will probably wind up working on fixing the problem long before it causes catastrophes, and we will be pretty old on January 1, 2038. I am also pretty sure that people like you will be saying, "There was never really a problem" for many years afterward, and someone like me will probably have to reply with a story about a relative who solved the problem before the press started running stories about the end of the world.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:First Paragraph by kaychoro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah the memories... A friend of mine shut off the circuit breaker at her parents’ house as the clock struck Midnight. Not a bug, but an excellent chance for a practical joke.

      --
      //TODO: create a signature
    9. Re:First Paragraph by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I heard of one embedded system that broke due to Y2K, but I've seen many more over the years that got confused over leap years. The year 2000 was especially good for that because that wasn't a leap year even though the common, oversimplified, every-4-year rule says it should have been.

      Actually, it was a leap year, even though the common, not-quite-as-oversimplified-but-still-too-simple every-4-year-except-for-every-100-year rule says it shouldn't have been. The really dumb systems with the every-4-year rule lucked out.

      Now we can all wait for the end of civilization in February 2100 as every single embedded system crashes....

  8. Yay, another weirdly huge list. by jault · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, if that number was smaller, I might actually click through & read the article. But 87? Really? A number that large makes me think that you just wrote down every single lame thing you could think of & didn't edit at all.

    Personally, I'd prefer a much shorter list which someone made some effort to pare down to the moments that were genuinely the lamest.

  9. Y2K by ernst_mulder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA: "When clocks struck midnight on January 1st and the dreaded Y2K bug turned out to be nothing but a mild irritant, it proved once again that the experts often don't know what the heck they're talking about."

    Well, that kinda hurts.

    I was responsible for a newspaper ordering system that definitely would have stopped processing orders in 2000. Cost quite a number of man hours. The majority of the Y2K my team had to solve weren't for the year 2000 but for passing into the year 1999 because many ordering systems had stupid (year+1) counters internally. It was a very stressful period and I very happy it went the way it did without major disasters.

    The experts that didn't (and don't) know what they are talking about are the ones thinking you can upper-limit a year counter at 1999 (or 2039).

    1. Re:Y2K by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heck, I worked at a museum that ended up spending 6 figures to wholesale replace their IBM System 36 accounting system with an AS/400. (Including having developers completely rewrite the RPG code...)

      In 2001 we had several companies that wanted to donate System 36's to be museum displays. We ended up telling them that we already had 2 of our own!

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  10. I see a lot of Apple hate... by carlhaagen · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...among the /. comments. Despite Apple's blunders in this list being few and not really noteworthy, it naturally does not discourage the "grannies of /." to leap out from under their stones with their tag-sticks.

    1. Re:I see a lot of Apple hate... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you see a lot of Apple hate among these comments then why didn't you post your message as a reply to one of them? Oh, maybe because there isn't a lot of Apple hate here. This just goes to prove what we have all been saying about you: you're paranoid!

  11. KDE 4.0 and KDevelop 4 by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    KDE was flying high with its well regarded 3.x version, and then its developers disappeared with lustery promises of how great KDE 4 would be, and emerged to ship a completely unfinished product. Things are better with KDE 4.later, but, KDE 4.0, wow, you are rough. Meanwhile KDevelop 4 still doesn't work, and has been eclipsed by, well, Eclipse.

    --
    This is my sig.
  12. Agreed by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the company I worked in at the time there were double digit year records used all over the place. If we hadn't fixed the code the whole system would have falled over come the millenium.

    All these arsehats who go on about the Y2K being a load of scare mongering paranoia are the ones who don't have a clue about just how much work went on in 1999 trying to sort the issues out!

    1. Re:Agreed by crimperman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > All these arsehats who go on about the Y2K being a load of scare mongering paranoia are the ones who don't have a clue about just how much work went on in 1999 trying to sort the issues out!

      Hear hear!

      I worked at a large manufacturers during 1999 and was tasked with the Y2K stuff. This basically included six months worth of work fixing the stuff that would have an issue followed by six months of sending replies to customers who were told they had to be concerned by the media and the industry that rose up surrounding Y2K.

      Yeah there was an awful lot of largely unappreciated work that went on to make sure Y2K didn't happen but there was also an awful lot of unnecessary hype and faff that created the hysteria that in turn created the backlash when the predicted disaster didn't happen.

      In the spirit of Apollo 13 I've always thought of Y2K as a sucessful failure. Successful in that we worked hard and avoided it. Failure in that we waited way too late to do anything about it in the first place and that we let the politicians and the media create the level of hysteria they did.

  13. #83 isn't lame, it's accurte. by pthisis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    83. And Taco Bell was never a taco company.
    In an interview with the New York Times conducted in the wake of Yahoo’s decision to outsource its search features to Microsoft, Yahoo boss Carol Bartz says that Yahoo has “never been a search company.”

    Carol Bartz is correct--Yahoo started out as a link collection, then a hierarchical directory (basically like http://www.dmoz.org/ then added a lot of portal services (including email, stock quotes, etc).

    The thing that they never had, until 2004, was a search engine; Yahoo put other company's searches on their site (including Inktomi for a while, and then Google up until 2004). Doing that with Bing is just returning to what they've done historically.

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
    1. Re:#83 isn't lame, it's accurte. by ari_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know much about TFA's author, but I definitely got the impression from reading his damn multi-page blog post (thanks for posting another one of those to the front page, kdawson) that he didn't actually know much about the technologies he was ridiculing. Yahoo was the most obvious example - anyone who started using the web when commercializing it was a novel idea will remember finding web pages not with an indexing search engine but with Yahoo's topical hierarchy of links. It was well-organized and really did a great job as the yellow pages of the internet - in fact, if I am not much mistaken, it seems to me that Yahoo linked to data sources other than HTTP in those early days. You could turn to Webcrawler for an indexed search engine, but normally you would only do that after Yahoo's categories failed you, as relevant links were much quicker to find through a hierarchy than a full-text search. It wasn't until the web exploded in size faster than Yahoo could keep up that a text search engine was really a daily necessity, and by then the geniuses at Google were on the path to doing it right.

      There are other examples in TFA of things that were not at all stupid ideas. Failures in hindsight, perhaps, but the cat-herding "even we don't know what we do" Superbowl ads were certainly more stupid at the place and time they were conceived than Steve Jobs inadvertently hitting the wrong button during a product demonstration.

  14. #88 by jolyonr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot Idle

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  15. AOL Search Logs? by a0schweitzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No mention of the publicly available AOL search logs? I thought that was fantasticly funny. Stupid, but funny.

  16. Twitter by jo42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ##. Twitter

    Nothing else need be said.

  17. Thanks to the Y2K heavy lifters! by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I for one want to celebrate the anniversary of the Y2K Bug's passing by thanking all the people who's hark work kept it from being far far worse than the few mild annoyances we experienced. The word I saw was some gas pumps that were locked up, and it could have been far worse if a whole lot of coders and analysts hadn't spent a ton of time pouring over reams of old code and fixing problems. Double thanks to all the Grampa Geeks who came out of retirement to show the kids how COBOL was done and why it's still so important even ten years later. A nod goes even to the suits at the top who looked beyond next quarter's numbers and funded the stitch in time would save nine.

  18. Meta-answer by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    #88 - the point when every news organization feels compelled to make really long lists of the top ____ of the last decade. It's like the annual "top ____ of the year" lists, only 10 times as lame.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  19. Re:Google C&Ding CyanogenMod by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Meanwhile Microsoft actually has a good reputation for turning a blind eye to people making roms for Windows Mobile.

    Turning a blind eye to piracy and other stuff you'd expect them to fight against is a standard Microsoft tactic in markets they want to take over. In their mind, as long as you're using a Microsoft product, even if you stole it, that's better than you using a competitor's product.

    Once they are the de facto standard in a given market, that's when they begin finishing off their weakened competitors and turning the thumbscrews on their users. That's why you could pass around Windows install keys for years with impunity, and then XP got activation. Once the activation-free corporate XP keys got out, they had to turn the screws some more, and now even corporate copies of Vista and, I presume, 7 require activation of a sort. People might find ways around that, but the point is Microsoft is making it more and more difficult to avoid paying them for Windows now that they've sewn up the OS market.

    Of course, I could have made this post a lot shorter by comparing them to drug dealers: "First one's free," then once you're hooked, up goes the price.

    ~Philly

  20. Mail Googles by RivenAleem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with this? I don't understand why it's on the list. I think it's great.

  21. Google's Malware Blacklist by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Marissa Mayer explains that someone accidentally added a slash mark to the list of risky sites, prompting the search engine to mistakenly believe the entire Web is hazardous.

    Wait, that was a mistake?

  22. Re:Intel making Microsoft lower specs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

    The issue was MS told hardware makers for a long time what the minimum spec for Vista. So they designed their PCs around it. The minimum was going to be more costly if they didn't use Intel's GPU. However at the last minute they changed their minds under coaxing from Intel who would have a large inventory that wasn't compatible. This infuriated hardware makers as their plans were suddenly changed. Internally some MS employees knew this a huge mistake but no one with any authority did anything about it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  23. Oblig. Dictionary reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If we're picking nits, you're both right.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decade

  24. Probably too late to make the list... by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but Verizon's decision to make Bing the only allowable search provider on Blackberrys on its network would have made 88 easy.

  25. Re:The Segway doesn't deserve being on this list by ig88b · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see why there has to be anything in between. When I lived in Hong Kong, I wasn't thinking, "boy it sure would be nice to have some small device to get me from the MTR/KCR/Bus/Ferry/Light Rail to my destination." I walked the 5 or 10 minutes after the "arteries" ended. We shouldn't be thinking about how to improve after people get off the mass transit, we should be thinking about how to improve the mass transit.