Its a story of a guy who sent out takedown notices on an image he created. Then some psycho, leftist, wingnut, lawyer with a brain as disabled as her child flipped the fuck out all over the internets.
Indians did not believe that they owned the land. We do. Of course you are right though. We should remove all borders from all countries and allow people to go where ever they want and all will be well.
Not only will Google allow you to not have your searches saved. Google will actually show you all of the search info they have on you and allow you to individually delete things you want gone.
Well remember. We should not put his party affiliation because after all it was just him and his son against a vast right wing conspiracy to destroy an innocent democrat.
Well, maybe you would. Of course, if you were the only "viable" company, then there would be no competition and nothing pushing you to stay "one step ahead"./quote?
History is filled the the dying remains of companies and countries that rested on their laurels. If you do not stay one step ahead you create room for a competitor. When there is room for one someone else who wants to make it big will show up. They always do.
Before Steve Jobs died he met with Larry Page and offered advice.
I think that the advice given was "Fuck off and Die. I will destroy your asses from the grave!" At least that is in line with everything we had heard him say about Google before. Steve Jobs turned into a self entitled little fucking brat. Sad really. He started out as an awesome dude. Then he got full of himself and decided he never needed a lic plate cause he was special. That he could park in handicapped spaces because "I am Steve Fucking Jobs". I do not like ego driven assholes ever really. But Steve started so high in my opinion and went and got so low that I have a special place of hatred for him.
What you think is ridiculous then is that Google and Microsoft do not spend their time and money so that some other corporation can make money off of them? The fact is that they provide a service to us all. On top of that they allow all types of access to their API for people with small projects and cool little ideas. When things get big and start making money they begin to get charged. I think that your problem with that is ridiculous.
I really have no idea what you want. You seem to believe that monopolies are inherently bad due to the fact that they can be abused. You have no suggestion for what to do about it. Just a blanket statement that because of the potential for abuse monopolies are bad.
Drugs are not bad, Guns are not bad, Money is not evil, Power is not a thing to be avoided, Love is not for all intents and purposes "a bad idea".
All can be and have been used against people in horrible ways. I would like to be able to get the drugs I think I need, buy the guns I want, make a shitload of money, have a bit of power and continue to be in love with my wife. I am not evil, but I must add that I would love to come up with an idea and implement it so well that every time someone thinks of a way to make it better I am already one step ahead. I would love to be the only viable company providing this service or product. I see nothing wrong with striving toward these goal and neither I think should you.
You are right a little bit. HTC may not straight out give you S-Off, but they really have made S-Off not hard to get. Before they let you unlock the boot loaders it was still trivial to get yourself Rooted, Unlocked and S-Off on most HTC phones.
I am not sure what you do for a living. I can say this though. I am a systems manager for a cab company in California. Running a supervisor GUI that is windows only. Digging through logs, looking up old non GUI data for police, cleaning up servers running an account every morning. (Routing about 30 people living at different addresses all to one location) Communicating with vendors and everything but that Windows only GUI I can do faster and better in Linux. The GUI took me about 10 min to set up with WINE. So I can do that as well. Running dual NICs on separate networks an have had no problem with basic installs.
Cutting deals to have your product defaulted into something is good business practice. There is such a thing as anti competitive behavior, but that is not it. But do not let me stand in the way of your blinding hate.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
What about them? Are they doing something wrong? If not....
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
What would you suggest? Dismantle the company before it can do anything wrong solely because it made the investment and succeeded? Pour taxpayer funds to start a competitive company? Again. If they are serving the customer and not doing anything illegal then I am cool with it.
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them.
Not a crime. No problem here.
Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
If they are being abusive then people can choose to stay or go. Facebook is not a need.
If not, does this then make it desirable that I have no real choice if I wish to use a social network (the whole point being to use the one that everyone else uses) despite Facebook's laughably bad-faith approach to privacy?
Yes. It is desirable. People can learn that there are alternatives. They can bite the bullet and drop out of Facebook. Those that do win back their freedom. Those that do not do not. If you move to a competitor you can get with like minded people. This is good. If your grandmother will not make the move then you can visit, call, snail mail. You know all those things we did before Facebook to maintain real relationships with those we needed to. Those others are not nearly as important as you think. You relationships will improve or die out. All based on the effort you want to put into them. As it should be. But if you want to continue to use Facebook even though you know they are selling you out and you do it with open eyes then that sir, is fully on you. A choice you make. Good or bad, your call. But to break up and or destroy a company that many people (sheeple) seem to like because you can not gather the will to leave voluntarily is not and can not be the answer. Slashdot sucks! Slashdot is the one I like them most though. Government regulation of Slashdot must be what we need. To protect the people who have to post here but can not stand the way they have to post here. See. Does not make much sense, does it?
Monopolies are not anything other than good. The only times a monopoly is bad is when... A) Government grants one. B) Monopoly uses government to create regulations to hinder competition. or C) When government fails to protect the market from abusive monopolistic practices. (Which are already illegal.)
That is pretty much it. Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better. This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a story of a guy who sent out takedown notices on an image he created.
Then some psycho, leftist, wingnut, lawyer with a brain as disabled as her child flipped the fuck out all over the internets.
Indians did not believe that they owned the land.
We do.
Of course you are right though. We should remove all borders from all countries and allow people to go where ever they want and all will be well.
Very Funny.
Not only will Google allow you to not have your searches saved. Google will actually show you all of the search info they have on you and allow you to individually delete things you want gone.
Well remember. We should not put his party affiliation because after all it was just him and his son against a vast right wing conspiracy to destroy an innocent democrat.
Well, maybe you would. Of course, if you were the only "viable" company, then there would be no competition and nothing pushing you to stay "one step ahead"./quote?
History is filled the the dying remains of companies and countries that rested on their laurels.
If you do not stay one step ahead you create room for a competitor. When there is room for one someone else who wants to make it big will show up. They always do.
I agree with him full. I've *NEVER* heard it called "threesixty".
How would you know? :)
unfortunately, turnabout play does nothing for the customer or the nation.
It does if it convinces companies that they need to lobby against the patent system instead of for it.
Truth has been spoken.
Umm...
You forgot your SarcMark. Right?
Ok then. :)
Before Steve Jobs died he met with Larry Page and offered advice.
I think that the advice given was "Fuck off and Die. I will destroy your asses from the grave!"
At least that is in line with everything we had heard him say about Google before.
Steve Jobs turned into a self entitled little fucking brat. Sad really. He started out as an awesome dude.
Then he got full of himself and decided he never needed a lic plate cause he was special. That he could park in handicapped spaces because "I am Steve Fucking Jobs".
I do not like ego driven assholes ever really. But Steve started so high in my opinion and went and got so low that I have a special place of hatred for him.
lols
What you think is ridiculous then is that Google and Microsoft do not spend their time and money so that some other corporation can make money off of them?
The fact is that they provide a service to us all. On top of that they allow all types of access to their API for people with small projects and cool little ideas.
When things get big and start making money they begin to get charged.
I think that your problem with that is ridiculous.
Ridiculously limited?
So how much free shit should you be given before it moves up to just limited.
Seems to me that they are both attempting to offer people who want to try out cool little things all the access they would ever need for free.
But if you want them to spend money on power and cooling for 1000 requests per day so that you can make money on their dime they charge for that.
I think that this is a completely fair stance for both companies to take.
I really have no idea what you want.
You seem to believe that monopolies are inherently bad due to the fact that they can be abused.
You have no suggestion for what to do about it. Just a blanket statement that because of the potential for abuse monopolies are bad.
Drugs are not bad, Guns are not bad, Money is not evil, Power is not a thing to be avoided, Love is not for all intents and purposes "a bad idea".
All can be and have been used against people in horrible ways.
I would like to be able to get the drugs I think I need, buy the guns I want, make a shitload of money, have a bit of power and continue to be in love with my wife.
I am not evil, but I must add that I would love to come up with an idea and implement it so well that every time someone thinks of a way to make it better I am already one step ahead. I would love to be the only viable company providing this service or product.
I see nothing wrong with striving toward these goal and neither I think should you.
You are right a little bit.
HTC may not straight out give you S-Off, but they really have made S-Off not hard to get.
Before they let you unlock the boot loaders it was still trivial to get yourself Rooted, Unlocked and S-Off on most HTC phones.
You actually know that teacher in NC?
While Facebook does indeed contribute the vast majority of shit to the "series of tubes" 4chans shit is oz for oz much more potent.
I am not sure what you do for a living. I can say this though. I am a systems manager for a cab company in California.
Running a supervisor GUI that is windows only. Digging through logs, looking up old non GUI data for police, cleaning up servers running an account every morning. (Routing about 30 people living at different addresses all to one location) Communicating with vendors and everything but that Windows only GUI I can do faster and better in Linux. The GUI took me about 10 min to set up with WINE. So I can do that as well. Running dual NICs on separate networks an have had no problem with basic installs.
Cutting deals to have your product defaulted into something is good business practice.
There is such a thing as anti competitive behavior, but that is not it.
But do not let me stand in the way of your blinding hate.
Well good then. Mod me down.
Fact remains that the GP here is an illiterate that was able to pass himself off to the mods as +5 insightful.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
What about them? Are they doing something wrong? If not....
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
What would you suggest? Dismantle the company before it can do anything wrong solely because it made the investment and succeeded?
Pour taxpayer funds to start a competitive company? Again. If they are serving the customer and not doing anything illegal then I am cool with it.
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them.
Not a crime. No problem here.
Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
If they are being abusive then people can choose to stay or go. Facebook is not a need.
If not, does this then make it desirable that I have no real choice if I wish to use a social network (the whole point being to use the one that everyone else uses) despite Facebook's laughably bad-faith approach to privacy?
Yes. It is desirable. People can learn that there are alternatives. They can bite the bullet and drop out of Facebook. Those that do win back their freedom. Those that do not do not. If you move to a competitor you can get with like minded people. This is good. If your grandmother will not make the move then you can visit, call, snail mail. You know all those things we did before Facebook to maintain real relationships with those we needed to.
Those others are not nearly as important as you think. You relationships will improve or die out. All based on the effort you want to put into them.
As it should be.
But if you want to continue to use Facebook even though you know they are selling you out and you do it with open eyes then that sir, is fully on you.
A choice you make. Good or bad, your call.
But to break up and or destroy a company that many people (sheeple) seem to like because you can not gather the will to leave voluntarily is not and can not be the answer.
Slashdot sucks! Slashdot is the one I like them most though.
Government regulation of Slashdot must be what we need. To protect the people who have to post here but can not stand the way they have to post here.
See. Does not make much sense, does it?
Monopolies are not anything other than good.
The only times a monopoly is bad is when...
A) Government grants one.
B) Monopoly uses government to create regulations to hinder competition.
or
C) When government fails to protect the market from abusive monopolistic practices. (Which are already illegal.)
That is pretty much it. Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better.
This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
So. If I make something really fucking cool that people all want then I suck?
Or am I evil?
Am I screwing over the market?
Being a monopoly is not a bad thing. Abusing monopoly powers is.
Fucking /. crowd gives this guy a +5 insightful for speaking the obvious and not being able to think.
Awesome.