Wow, you completely missed the point. Lanier is complaining about how Web 2.0 uses personal connections as an advertising platform, and that few people are actually connecting to anything in a meaningful way. He wasn't talking about copyrights or monetary compensation. Why don't you try reading the damn article?
The argument is that the Web may have been that at one point but is now a generic, template-based advertising platform, where social connections are a means to an end.
Enjoy Google OS running Google Chrome checking your Google Mail and updating your Facebook...
That's pretty paranoid of you. The point of the contest is to illustrate your knowledge of esoteric bugs as a lesson to all. You don't want to work for an employer who sees your programming awareness and experience as a negative.
Well, there is a story written by a journalist with quoted sources and pictures, but I guess I could go ahead and choose to believe the stranger from Canada who posted in the comments instead.
So you took reasonable criticism of one aspect of an idealistic movement as propaganda? I can't help but wonder if you just don't like seeing a certain political viewpoint criticized at all. Your exaggerated "Fear!" chants come off as a classic strawman attack.
Are you talking about Bush, or the Democats who controlled Congress since 2006? Is that branch of the government free from blame because they happened to be controlled by your favorite political party at the time? Just curious how this whole blame thing works.
1.) The New York Times is full of liberals. 2.) Liberals love the idea of government control. It's the solution to absolutely everything.
Now, on top of regulating internet traffic, they want governments controlling what you can search as well. Somehow, politicians are supposed to be less biased and corrupt than sysadmins.
Anyway, the so-called iSlate is probably a real product, but it might just be a larger version of the iPhone. Like every Apple release, the rumor hype will excite people to impossibly high standards, and when the actual product comes out, forums will be filled with sarcastic bitching, even though all of them will buy it anyway. Also, someone will post a link to the Apple rumor cycle.
Uh, isn't one of the points of open source that you have thousands of eyeballs auditing the code? What the hell kind of question is this to ask, really?
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Slashdot's anti-Google schtick?" What Slashdot are you reading? So one or two slightly critical articles means Slashdot is anti-Google?
Slashdot has been unrelenting Google's cheerleader for almost a decade. The reason for criticizing Google's lack of openness is to point out to people that Google is actually a closed source company that dangles free carrots in front of people to get them onto their advertising platform that will index all their emails, conversations, documents, and more. And we're supposed to trust the company because they said they're trustworthy. Do you realize how silly that sounds? Don't you think Slashdotters would mock the situation if it was any other company but Google?
I'm not sure this will go over well, but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.
Oh, give me a break. Statements like that guarantee an instant +5.
"Empower individuals"...hahaha. AdSense is about making Google money, not you. Why are people on Slashdot so distrustful of every other company but Google? It's like you automatically accept them simply because they use touchy-feely OSS buzzwords to reel you in. Their search and ad engines are closed source--they're just using open source as a tool to get you onto their closed source platforms!
Slashdot obsesses over privacy every other time, but when it comes to a Google article, everyone is suddenly eager to let a closed source company index all their emails, conversations, and more. Fanboyism is a bizarre thing.
How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot. Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well. Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:
If they were truly an open company, their actions would include open sourcing their core business--the search and ad engines. Of course their goal is to "keep the Internet open." The Internet is their advertising platform, so they want as many people on it as possible. Why do you think they have a browser, mobile phone, and more?
You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot. Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company." In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content. This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.
A tiny, three-page article, with each page only having three to four paragraphs, and the list has exactly what you'd expect it to have. You really don't have to RTFA this time.
the concept of net neutrality is to legislate specifically to PREVENT abuses like the one this politician is trying to perpetrate.
I know what the intent is supposed to be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Giving the government control of the internet would lead to censorship abuses like those in this article. An ISP is a private entity and is free to filter its own traffic however it wants.
Just think, there are people who want to hand over regulation of internet traffic to the government under the name of "net neutrality," yet here we have a government proving that it would happily censor content. Imagine what would happen once lobbyists convinced bribed politicians to regulate things like torrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism."
This is what governments do when they're allowed to regulate internet traffic. This is exactly what I was arguing can happen in discussions on "net neutrality." You don't want this kind of government control over your public medium.
The fact that your ability to speak freely is impeded by commercial mechanisms rather than direct intervention of State Force may the point you're trying to get at
Obviously, that's what I'm getting at. Freedom of speech is freedom from having the government interfere on your ability to express an opinion, not the right to have it published by a company. The right to speak freely is not impeded when a company doesn't wish to publish you.
The rest of your post is more pointlessly flowery language. Commercial interests are not a "devolution" or "circumvention" of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you completely missed the point. Lanier is complaining about how Web 2.0 uses personal connections as an advertising platform, and that few people are actually connecting to anything in a meaningful way. He wasn't talking about copyrights or monetary compensation. Why don't you try reading the damn article?
The argument is that the Web may have been that at one point but is now a generic, template-based advertising platform, where social connections are a means to an end.
Enjoy Google OS running Google Chrome checking your Google Mail and updating your Facebook...
Ah, Net Applications, the place whose surveys Slashdotters pick and choose to believe in depending on whose doing well in the survey.
Just so people know, there is skepticism over the existence of some ancient race of geniuses based on this skull.
That's pretty paranoid of you. The point of the contest is to illustrate your knowledge of esoteric bugs as a lesson to all. You don't want to work for an employer who sees your programming awareness and experience as a negative.
Well, there is a story written by a journalist with quoted sources and pictures, but I guess I could go ahead and choose to believe the stranger from Canada who posted in the comments instead.
So you took reasonable criticism of one aspect of an idealistic movement as propaganda? I can't help but wonder if you just don't like seeing a certain political viewpoint criticized at all. Your exaggerated "Fear!" chants come off as a classic strawman attack.
Are you talking about Bush, or the Democats who controlled Congress since 2006? Is that branch of the government free from blame because they happened to be controlled by your favorite political party at the time? Just curious how this whole blame thing works.
Dismantling the American way of life? Give me a break with the melodrama. The American way of life is chugging along as usual, donut in hand.
44% actually want Bush back after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.
The ads weren't really branding anything but Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld.
You need to understand that:
1.) The New York Times is full of liberals.
2.) Liberals love the idea of government control. It's the solution to absolutely everything.
Now, on top of regulating internet traffic, they want governments controlling what you can search as well. Somehow, politicians are supposed to be less biased and corrupt than sysadmins.
"Blogosphere?" Is this 2004?
Anyway, the so-called iSlate is probably a real product, but it might just be a larger version of the iPhone. Like every Apple release, the rumor hype will excite people to impossibly high standards, and when the actual product comes out, forums will be filled with sarcastic bitching, even though all of them will buy it anyway. Also, someone will post a link to the Apple rumor cycle.
I know I do, considering how bad 10-year-old Microsoft operating systems are.
Windows XP is the most-used version of Windows, if not the most-used operating system, period.
It says "iPhone 3G," one specific model of the iPhone. The other phones and their models, however, are grouped together. See the parenthesis?
Uh, isn't one of the points of open source that you have thousands of eyeballs auditing the code? What the hell kind of question is this to ask, really?
"Slashdot's anti-Google schtick?" What Slashdot are you reading? So one or two slightly critical articles means Slashdot is anti-Google?
Slashdot has been unrelenting Google's cheerleader for almost a decade. The reason for criticizing Google's lack of openness is to point out to people that Google is actually a closed source company that dangles free carrots in front of people to get them onto their advertising platform that will index all their emails, conversations, documents, and more. And we're supposed to trust the company because they said they're trustworthy. Do you realize how silly that sounds? Don't you think Slashdotters would mock the situation if it was any other company but Google?
Oh, give me a break. Statements like that guarantee an instant +5.
"Empower individuals"...hahaha. AdSense is about making Google money, not you. Why are people on Slashdot so distrustful of every other company but Google? It's like you automatically accept them simply because they use touchy-feely OSS buzzwords to reel you in. Their search and ad engines are closed source--they're just using open source as a tool to get you onto their closed source platforms!
Slashdot obsesses over privacy every other time, but when it comes to a Google article, everyone is suddenly eager to let a closed source company index all their emails, conversations, and more. Fanboyism is a bizarre thing.
If they were truly an open company, their actions would include open sourcing their core business--the search and ad engines. Of course their goal is to "keep the Internet open." The Internet is their advertising platform, so they want as many people on it as possible. Why do you think they have a browser, mobile phone, and more?
You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot. Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company." In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content. This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.
A tiny, three-page article, with each page only having three to four paragraphs, and the list has exactly what you'd expect it to have. You really don't have to RTFA this time.
Warrantless wiretapping is a pretty major abuse, don't you think?
I know what the intent is supposed to be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Giving the government control of the internet would lead to censorship abuses like those in this article. An ISP is a private entity and is free to filter its own traffic however it wants.
Just think, there are people who want to hand over regulation of internet traffic to the government under the name of "net neutrality," yet here we have a government proving that it would happily censor content. Imagine what would happen once lobbyists convinced bribed politicians to regulate things like torrent traffic in order to prevent "economic terrorism."
This is what governments do when they're allowed to regulate internet traffic. This is exactly what I was arguing can happen in discussions on "net neutrality." You don't want this kind of government control over your public medium.
Obviously, that's what I'm getting at. Freedom of speech is freedom from having the government interfere on your ability to express an opinion, not the right to have it published by a company. The right to speak freely is not impeded when a company doesn't wish to publish you.
The rest of your post is more pointlessly flowery language. Commercial interests are not a "devolution" or "circumvention" of anything.