By law they cannot copy or broadcast your content without your permission (ie. share when you give link). You know, all that copyright stuff. Boohoo for them to actually ask you to give them your permission to do that.
It's the usual clause companies have to put now a day so that some asshat won't sue them for millions of dollars even if the service providers offered the services like advertised. Dropbox probably needs this clause to show your content in a public link that you link to others. Youtube and any other user submitted service has similar clauses. The law probably needs fixing, but that isn't the companies fault - blame the asshats abusing it.
Web power users? What does that even mean? Some soccer mom on facebook probably spends many more hours online and browsers more than the actual so called power users, who are doing something productive with their computor.
And since they track usage instead of users, that means Chrome's userbase is not 20%, like is usually calculated and what most people reading the headline will think.
Soccer moms and clueless uses are perfectly targeted by Google too. Like someone below in the comments mention, not only is Chrome pushed by manufacturers etc, but Google packs it with every download from them. Picasa, Google Earth and so on.. The real power users would always untick the unwanted software and think why is Google trying to push them y while you only wanted x. Google also pushes it on YouTube, Google homepage (if you browse in with IE) and their other sites. They're using all the evil marketing tricks in the book, like using soft language "oh that's ok" or similar instead of "yes" when asking if you want to install Chrome etc..
Google pays affiliate commissions for every install of their toolbar and chrome. It's perfect bundle for those PC manufacturers who put all kind of stuff on new pc's (like Norton trials etc) and get paid for commissions. IE doesn't give them anything, so they throw in Chrome and make a little extra every PC sold. Chrome and the toolbar also pushed by affiliate marketers who try to get people to install it along their (sometimes shitty) software. So it's no wonder it spreads.
Beta means nothing with Google. Everyone should know that by now. When they announce something going beta, it's pretty much same as going live and they will either improve it over time or forget it (and in some cases completely discontinue offering the service).
I seriously wonder the slashdot group think mentality about this. Usually in these Facebook stories people talk about how they lose their privacy and privacy settings on Facebook are hard to use and most are on by default. You guess what, when I signed up for Google+ today it was ever worse. You talk about Facebook leaking your data to advertisers on Google? Well, Google+ uses that data all over their advertising network and for other tracking. They state this in the very registration page. When you sign up, your profile is by default made public to the whole world, including search engines. There is no way to change that before it has already happened. And this being Google's product, it means the data is indexed in almost real time. Google+ privacy controls are MUCH worse than Facebook's. Only thing I miss in Facebook is the idea of different "circles". They kind of have that with friend groups, but it's not as defined. Otherwise Facebook lets you change any privacy setting as much as you like. I've done so.
What the hell does Facebook's game have to do with a video chat feature in the IM function? Both will probably function about the same - it opens a video chat when you request it from the chat window or profile. In fact, Google+ seems to be promoting the video feature A LOT. I signed up for an account today and there was all over things like "Have some fun and start a group video chat session with your circles!" and various other usages to promote the video features. At least Facebooks version will most likely be a small, unnoticable button to start a video conversation instead of a text chat.
You mean like they will realize they can use Usenet for grouped discussions, IRC for real-time discussions, email for sending pictures of their holiday or latest party and install Exchange server for scheduling and calendar services? Both Facebook and Google+ are doomed!
The Xbox 360 marketplace works great. But the Windows version is really not that good. They should just forget about the Games for Windows name, pick something good and make it Steam-like with the social interactions, communications, groups, easy purchasing and fast in-game overlay (seriously, the GfW in-game overlay is really shitty).
Google is going to do everything they can for this one.
Then they would had released the thing finished, not in an early beta. Especially so if they still are thinking of adding major features to get users to move from Facebook. And they wouldn't have capacity problems to handle those even those few early users. Come on, they run Google and YouTube and several other huge sites after all.
But you know, we have seen this route before. Orkut was supposed to be this too - it didn't work out. Even started with the same kind of limited invites. Google Talk was supposed to be replace existing IM networks.. That didn't really work out. The software was extremely limited. I don't know how it is now, but why should I or anyone else care. I've seen it and noticed the existing ones are better. It's hard to change that image later on. Google Wave was supposed to be it too... failed.
Seriously, if you're going to compete against one of the biggest sites of the internet, you just don't bring your version out unfinished and missing major features. This is marketing basics. The image a person gets first will stick forever.
Google isn't really a competitor to Facebook. However, Facebook is a competitor to Google, as now people spend lots of time on Facebook and find all kinds of interesting links and stuff there, and maybe even use Facebook's search instead of Google. (yes, I know we techies don't do that, but we're a minority)
What comes to Google+, it's quite far from competitor to Facebook. It just misses so much stuff. There isn't any of those games, apps, fan pages, events.. Maybe some of them will be added to Google+, but on their basic idea of circles I don't think they will do games, apps and (fan) pages. Events and calendar, sure. But don't underestimate those apps on pages on Facebook. Normal people love them. So Facebook and Google+ will probably run side to side, serving slightly different purposes for different people. Just like Facebook and LinkedIn are doing now.
Only company from the list that I worry about is Apple. They're really been left and right everyone about patent issues. Microsoft, not so much, unless some patent troll has attacked them first. Same goes for RIM. Sony is bad in other fronts, they're not really suing for patent issues. But Apple has been handling their patent related issues really dirty, dumping thousand+ page sues, trying to enforce ban on competitor products and in their developer agreement for iPhone/iPad they require all software developers to give away their ideas to Apple when submitting their application - after which they can decide if to accept or reject the app and maybe implement it themselves. Like when Apple ripped off an wireless sync app made by a one guy.
They wont. To begin with there are probably hundreds of license issues with it, and Valve of course still wants to be able to sell the engine for commercial usage.
So you really did not read the article at all? Now it does have chat and auction houses. Besides, paying for the game and $9/month (notice the cheapest one is $9, not $15) is a lot cheaper than most hobbies.
What comes to this free trial, it might be a really nice opportunity to try multiboxing. Actually, that I will do this weekend.
You do illegal act and then try to blame others when you have to clean up your own mess? Delete all the files, re-rip what you own and the problem is solved. But stop blaming others when you have broken the law in the first place.
Ryan, described as a loner who ‘lives his life online’, faces the prospect of extradition to the U.S. where he could face 60 years behind bars for allegedly hacking into the CIA and Senate websites.
The funny thing is, soon everyone will forget about the whole thing, but he gets to spend his life in the prison. For a few "lulz".
The Sims was a great game. Not only for women but for both audiences. Now some hardcore girl gamer probably comes in saying it isn't so (don't mind it, there are guys who like to play those cooking games too), but FPS and heavy strategy games rarely interests girls. On the other hand the Flash click-click-click cooking games are quite stupid too, as well as something where you just have to dress the character. But The Sims made it a whole game, with all the relationship, drama and housekeeping stuff. And it was still fun and interesting to play, even for both genders (at least when The Sims 1 came out, I never really played Sims 2.. But Sims 3 seems to have lots of things to do again). You can't make the game too dumb, but you also can't just make it a shooter with manly stuff. I've traveled the world enough to see that all women like that clothing, taking care of and relationship stuff. But in real life you can't just tell her to go to kitchen, or clean the house and so on.. You have to trick her into that, but that frankly isn't so hard. The point being, women are like 3 year kids. They don't like it when you tell them what to do and what not to do, so you use psychology to deliver your message subtly and non-directly. Just don't make it too obvious.
So Microsoft starts using standards compliant HTML5 instead of Silverlight on their sites and you bash them for it? Seriously?
And regardless, HTML5 was nowhere to be seen when Silverlight came out. It was needed back then, if only as a competitor for Flash. Have you noticed Silverlight hasn't even had the same security concerns and exploits as Flash?
This is a good thing from Microsoft, not bad. Stop bashing them for everything they do, even if its a good thing.
There's a difference between phone and Facebook. I won't always want to call people to ask how they're doing and I won't call someone if I see something fun or interesting on the internet. I also won't do that via email, because sending useless stuff personally like that isn't just nice, neither for you or the receiver. Facebook on the other hand lets you do that without getting too personal or intimate. It's especially good for people you see sometimes but really don't have that much to talk with. I also won't be calling some old friends all the time, but from Facebook I can randomly see those things.
Seriously, what are they expecting? That their friends are there to entertain them 24/7? I don't expect MSN Messenger to entertain me all the time either, why would I expect Facebook to do so. It's a communication tool. I've found it really useful, especially since I'm living in different sides of the world every half a year and having friends, wife and a family in both. But I don't expect it to stop hunger or give world peace.
With all the high profile attacks and leaking private info of companies then attacking FBI and other law enforcement agencies I bet his looking for a lifetime sentence. Serves him right.
More than that, wasn't dropbox supposed to encrypt all the content based on password? Yeah, it was shown they had a way to roll it back before, but aren't they doing it at all now?
Slashdot Mirror
They all provide features that allow users to share content with other users.
So you think they need rights to derive new works from your data? Wat [sic]?
Like for example scale images in the gallery, or if they decide to add such, convert PDF documents to HTML pages so you can link to them more easily.
By law they cannot copy or broadcast your content without your permission (ie. share when you give link). You know, all that copyright stuff. Boohoo for them to actually ask you to give them your permission to do that.
It's the usual clause companies have to put now a day so that some asshat won't sue them for millions of dollars even if the service providers offered the services like advertised. Dropbox probably needs this clause to show your content in a public link that you link to others. Youtube and any other user submitted service has similar clauses. The law probably needs fixing, but that isn't the companies fault - blame the asshats abusing it.
Web power users? What does that even mean? Some soccer mom on facebook probably spends many more hours online and browsers more than the actual so called power users, who are doing something productive with their computor.
And since they track usage instead of users, that means Chrome's userbase is not 20%, like is usually calculated and what most people reading the headline will think.
Soccer moms and clueless uses are perfectly targeted by Google too. Like someone below in the comments mention, not only is Chrome pushed by manufacturers etc, but Google packs it with every download from them. Picasa, Google Earth and so on.. The real power users would always untick the unwanted software and think why is Google trying to push them y while you only wanted x. Google also pushes it on YouTube, Google homepage (if you browse in with IE) and their other sites. They're using all the evil marketing tricks in the book, like using soft language "oh that's ok" or similar instead of "yes" when asking if you want to install Chrome etc..
IE gets installed with every windows, and they get commission from installing windows.
What now? They pay MS to install Windows...
Google pays affiliate commissions for every install of their toolbar and chrome. It's perfect bundle for those PC manufacturers who put all kind of stuff on new pc's (like Norton trials etc) and get paid for commissions. IE doesn't give them anything, so they throw in Chrome and make a little extra every PC sold. Chrome and the toolbar also pushed by affiliate marketers who try to get people to install it along their (sometimes shitty) software. So it's no wonder it spreads.
Beta means nothing with Google. Everyone should know that by now. When they announce something going beta, it's pretty much same as going live and they will either improve it over time or forget it (and in some cases completely discontinue offering the service).
I seriously wonder the slashdot group think mentality about this. Usually in these Facebook stories people talk about how they lose their privacy and privacy settings on Facebook are hard to use and most are on by default. You guess what, when I signed up for Google+ today it was ever worse. You talk about Facebook leaking your data to advertisers on Google? Well, Google+ uses that data all over their advertising network and for other tracking. They state this in the very registration page. When you sign up, your profile is by default made public to the whole world, including search engines. There is no way to change that before it has already happened. And this being Google's product, it means the data is indexed in almost real time. Google+ privacy controls are MUCH worse than Facebook's. Only thing I miss in Facebook is the idea of different "circles". They kind of have that with friend groups, but it's not as defined. Otherwise Facebook lets you change any privacy setting as much as you like. I've done so.
What the hell does Facebook's game have to do with a video chat feature in the IM function? Both will probably function about the same - it opens a video chat when you request it from the chat window or profile. In fact, Google+ seems to be promoting the video feature A LOT. I signed up for an account today and there was all over things like "Have some fun and start a group video chat session with your circles!" and various other usages to promote the video features. At least Facebooks version will most likely be a small, unnoticable button to start a video conversation instead of a text chat.
You mean like they will realize they can use Usenet for grouped discussions, IRC for real-time discussions, email for sending pictures of their holiday or latest party and install Exchange server for scheduling and calendar services? Both Facebook and Google+ are doomed!
The Xbox 360 marketplace works great. But the Windows version is really not that good. They should just forget about the Games for Windows name, pick something good and make it Steam-like with the social interactions, communications, groups, easy purchasing and fast in-game overlay (seriously, the GfW in-game overlay is really shitty).
Google is going to do everything they can for this one.
Then they would had released the thing finished, not in an early beta. Especially so if they still are thinking of adding major features to get users to move from Facebook. And they wouldn't have capacity problems to handle those even those few early users. Come on, they run Google and YouTube and several other huge sites after all.
But you know, we have seen this route before. Orkut was supposed to be this too - it didn't work out. Even started with the same kind of limited invites. Google Talk was supposed to be replace existing IM networks.. That didn't really work out. The software was extremely limited. I don't know how it is now, but why should I or anyone else care. I've seen it and noticed the existing ones are better. It's hard to change that image later on. Google Wave was supposed to be it too... failed.
Seriously, if you're going to compete against one of the biggest sites of the internet, you just don't bring your version out unfinished and missing major features. This is marketing basics. The image a person gets first will stick forever.
Google isn't really a competitor to Facebook. However, Facebook is a competitor to Google, as now people spend lots of time on Facebook and find all kinds of interesting links and stuff there, and maybe even use Facebook's search instead of Google. (yes, I know we techies don't do that, but we're a minority)
What comes to Google+, it's quite far from competitor to Facebook. It just misses so much stuff. There isn't any of those games, apps, fan pages, events.. Maybe some of them will be added to Google+, but on their basic idea of circles I don't think they will do games, apps and (fan) pages. Events and calendar, sure. But don't underestimate those apps on pages on Facebook. Normal people love them. So Facebook and Google+ will probably run side to side, serving slightly different purposes for different people. Just like Facebook and LinkedIn are doing now.
Only company from the list that I worry about is Apple. They're really been left and right everyone about patent issues. Microsoft, not so much, unless some patent troll has attacked them first. Same goes for RIM. Sony is bad in other fronts, they're not really suing for patent issues. But Apple has been handling their patent related issues really dirty, dumping thousand+ page sues, trying to enforce ban on competitor products and in their developer agreement for iPhone/iPad they require all software developers to give away their ideas to Apple when submitting their application - after which they can decide if to accept or reject the app and maybe implement it themselves. Like when Apple ripped off an wireless sync app made by a one guy.
They wont. To begin with there are probably hundreds of license issues with it, and Valve of course still wants to be able to sell the engine for commercial usage.
So you really did not read the article at all? Now it does have chat and auction houses. Besides, paying for the game and $9/month (notice the cheapest one is $9, not $15) is a lot cheaper than most hobbies.
What comes to this free trial, it might be a really nice opportunity to try multiboxing. Actually, that I will do this weekend.
You do illegal act and then try to blame others when you have to clean up your own mess? Delete all the files, re-rip what you own and the problem is solved. But stop blaming others when you have broken the law in the first place.
Ryan, described as a loner who ‘lives his life online’, faces the prospect of extradition to the U.S. where he could face 60 years behind bars for allegedly hacking into the CIA and Senate websites.
The funny thing is, soon everyone will forget about the whole thing, but he gets to spend his life in the prison. For a few "lulz".
The Sims was a great game. Not only for women but for both audiences. Now some hardcore girl gamer probably comes in saying it isn't so (don't mind it, there are guys who like to play those cooking games too), but FPS and heavy strategy games rarely interests girls. On the other hand the Flash click-click-click cooking games are quite stupid too, as well as something where you just have to dress the character. But The Sims made it a whole game, with all the relationship, drama and housekeeping stuff. And it was still fun and interesting to play, even for both genders (at least when The Sims 1 came out, I never really played Sims 2.. But Sims 3 seems to have lots of things to do again). You can't make the game too dumb, but you also can't just make it a shooter with manly stuff. I've traveled the world enough to see that all women like that clothing, taking care of and relationship stuff. But in real life you can't just tell her to go to kitchen, or clean the house and so on.. You have to trick her into that, but that frankly isn't so hard. The point being, women are like 3 year kids. They don't like it when you tell them what to do and what not to do, so you use psychology to deliver your message subtly and non-directly. Just don't make it too obvious.
So Microsoft starts using standards compliant HTML5 instead of Silverlight on their sites and you bash them for it? Seriously?
And regardless, HTML5 was nowhere to be seen when Silverlight came out. It was needed back then, if only as a competitor for Flash. Have you noticed Silverlight hasn't even had the same security concerns and exploits as Flash?
This is a good thing from Microsoft, not bad. Stop bashing them for everything they do, even if its a good thing.
There's a difference between phone and Facebook. I won't always want to call people to ask how they're doing and I won't call someone if I see something fun or interesting on the internet. I also won't do that via email, because sending useless stuff personally like that isn't just nice, neither for you or the receiver. Facebook on the other hand lets you do that without getting too personal or intimate. It's especially good for people you see sometimes but really don't have that much to talk with. I also won't be calling some old friends all the time, but from Facebook I can randomly see those things.
Seriously, what are they expecting? That their friends are there to entertain them 24/7? I don't expect MSN Messenger to entertain me all the time either, why would I expect Facebook to do so. It's a communication tool. I've found it really useful, especially since I'm living in different sides of the world every half a year and having friends, wife and a family in both. But I don't expect it to stop hunger or give world peace.
Yeah, you try breaking in to a house and after that try to explain it with "well, they should had armored their door and made better locks".
With all the high profile attacks and leaking private info of companies then attacking FBI and other law enforcement agencies I bet his looking for a lifetime sentence. Serves him right.
More than that, wasn't dropbox supposed to encrypt all the content based on password? Yeah, it was shown they had a way to roll it back before, but aren't they doing it at all now?
Well, it's open source. You can improve it yourself.