Right, because Slashdot hasn't been vehemently pro-Google nearly all the time for the last ten years. I'm curious if you wave your finger at story submissions that are biased against Microsoft or Apple, because there sure are a hell of a lot of those that get posted.
I think the community can handle some needed Google criticism to keep things fair.
You can interpret it any positive way you want, but the point is that someone at Google finally admitted the true purpose of Google+. To many people, this isn't a big deal, but the Slashdot community has spent years portraying Google as a selfless open source company that does no evil. Since many here have stated their dislike of Facebook's privacy problems and cited that as a reason for using Google+, it's relevant to hear from Eric Schmidt himself that Google+ is data bait for a global megacorp's advertising platform.
The reason this is news, at least for Slashdot, is that so many people here have spent years building Google up as a benevolent engineering company trying to make the world a better place and supplant competitors like Microsoft with open source products. The tide is finally turning, and people waking up to the fact that Google is an advertising megacorp that goes back on its word all the time in its own self-interest. For example, Google won't implement the Do Not Track feature in Chrome because Google makes its money tracking you and selling ads.
Why not? I still don't understand why anyone always trusted an advertising megacorp whose business depends on grabbing your personal data. With that in mind, why wouldn't you expect that Google was "out to get you?"
In fact, Microsoft's core business is in operating systems and business software, not context-sensitive advertising, so they are less likely to care about your personal data to the degree that Google would.
How many times does someone parrot the "oh, they're evil now"?
because they call it an identity service? really?
Yeah, it's not due to their history of privacy violations, antitrust investigations around the world, and cynical exploitation of tech-friendly phrases like "openness" to get activist techies onto their data-indexing platform even as they ship closed technology like Flash and withhold Android source.
Do you even know what fascism is? Google isn't a government. "Fascism" is a loaded term thrown around so much that it's becoming meaningless, along with "Nazi" and other cliches.
In capitalism and fascism, the powerful betrays the consumers/subjects. And exploits them.
As opposed to communism and socialism, where the powerful government betrays the citizens and exploits them--expect that unlike capitalism, citizens don't have a choice in putting them out of business by not using them anymore?
George Carlin liked to use a lot of populist, fist-raising monologues later in his career. He was asked once who exactly were the "owners" he was referring to, and he never replied.
You are wrong. Privacy gives you freedom. It allows you a greater presence online without fear of retaliation, embarrassment, fraud, and more. Anonymity is the absolute version of privacy, where even your superficial identity is private.
Having said that, I'm not quite sure why Google is being such a dick about this real name policy. It's really quite possible that they already know exactly who you are so they have all the info they need, so why give yourself such a bad buzz (pun intended) about this anal-retentive real names policy.
Google's core business is in selling context-sensitive advertising space, so they have to guarantee that their indexed information is legitimate in order to justify their advertising rates to clients.
Google's search monopoly is the gatekeeper of the web. Worse yet, it's not even an open source engine, so web traffic is regulated by a closed source product from an advertising megacorp. It's taken years, but people finally seem to be waking up to this realization.
I can't believe anyone fell for "Don't Be Evil" either, but because Google was always public about the fact that they use Linux and open source, they got a pass from tech communities like Slashdot.
You can punish capitalists; the U.S. does it all the time. Hell, Google just paid the feds $500 million. Communism creates a gigantic, centralized government that's above the law, has no incentive to improve because it doesn't have to compete for money (its income is taken at gunpoint--just try not paying your taxes or showing up to court and see what happens), and is extremely difficult to overthrow if needed.
They made the choice when they committed the crime that put them in prison. As for the labor itself, prisoners wait in volunteer lists for a chance to perform those jobs. You have a really screwed up political worldview.
What the hell are you talking? What evidence is getting stronger that proves that? Hell, you wrote your post on a computer that was the product of capitalism.
Nah. A Unix user would just use automation. That's what advanced technology is for.
No, a Unix user would be there to manually configure every step themselves so that they could talk about how open and free the process was. When people point out that they only did Tux's foot, they'd respond with, "It's open source, you finish it!"
The improvements in the iPhone have enabled me to do more each year
Wow, what a "fanboi," buying things that make him more productive. You're totally right, anonymous coward who trolls every Apple article. Thanks for setting us straight.
Where Apple goes, the industry follows. This drives the Linux fanboys who still visit Slashdot nuts. Most rational posters left for Reddit and Hacker News years ago, so most of what you have left are the crazy trolls and fanboys who hate everything that competes with open source. Just look at the flood of robotic anonymous trolling in these comments.
Read between the lines. Jobs has authorized an official biography, codified management guidelines at the company for when he's gone, submitted his resignation, and has been photographed looking extremely thin. He has previously had cancer as well as as liver transplant. What do you think is likely to happen in the next six to twelve months?
Your entire post is basically that you don't like seeing Apache criticized on message boards. So what? You even end with a pointless remark about programmers you assume don't know C, as if that has anything to do with anything. Apache brought criticism onto themselves. The bug is more than four-and-a-half years old.
Someone else here made an excellent observation that many, and perhaps most, of those who embrace the idea of anthropogenic global warming also happen to be people whose cure for the global warming involves solutions that align with their political views. It's strange that there seems to be no recognition of the link between anti-industry, centralized-economic politics and belief in manmade global warming.
An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies). In fact, you'll find this same formula in almost every belief system, from religions to political parties. Everyone thinks they're fighting selfish humans to return the world to some perfect state, if only governments would institute their policies.
Already, there are several defensive posts from people trying to nip this article in the bud because their beliefs are under threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because Slashdot hasn't been vehemently pro-Google nearly all the time for the last ten years. I'm curious if you wave your finger at story submissions that are biased against Microsoft or Apple, because there sure are a hell of a lot of those that get posted.
I think the community can handle some needed Google criticism to keep things fair.
You can interpret it any positive way you want, but the point is that someone at Google finally admitted the true purpose of Google+. To many people, this isn't a big deal, but the Slashdot community has spent years portraying Google as a selfless open source company that does no evil. Since many here have stated their dislike of Facebook's privacy problems and cited that as a reason for using Google+, it's relevant to hear from Eric Schmidt himself that Google+ is data bait for a global megacorp's advertising platform.
The reason this is news, at least for Slashdot, is that so many people here have spent years building Google up as a benevolent engineering company trying to make the world a better place and supplant competitors like Microsoft with open source products. The tide is finally turning, and people waking up to the fact that Google is an advertising megacorp that goes back on its word all the time in its own self-interest. For example, Google won't implement the Do Not Track feature in Chrome because Google makes its money tracking you and selling ads.
Why not? I still don't understand why anyone always trusted an advertising megacorp whose business depends on grabbing your personal data. With that in mind, why wouldn't you expect that Google was "out to get you?"
In fact, Microsoft's core business is in operating systems and business software, not context-sensitive advertising, so they are less likely to care about your personal data to the degree that Google would.
Yeah, it's not due to their history of privacy violations, antitrust investigations around the world, and cynical exploitation of tech-friendly phrases like "openness" to get activist techies onto their data-indexing platform even as they ship closed technology like Flash and withhold Android source.
Do you even know what fascism is? Google isn't a government. "Fascism" is a loaded term thrown around so much that it's becoming meaningless, along with "Nazi" and other cliches.
As opposed to communism and socialism, where the powerful government betrays the citizens and exploits them--expect that unlike capitalism, citizens don't have a choice in putting them out of business by not using them anymore?
George Carlin liked to use a lot of populist, fist-raising monologues later in his career. He was asked once who exactly were the "owners" he was referring to, and he never replied.
You are wrong. Privacy gives you freedom. It allows you a greater presence online without fear of retaliation, embarrassment, fraud, and more. Anonymity is the absolute version of privacy, where even your superficial identity is private.
Google's core business is in selling context-sensitive advertising space, so they have to guarantee that their indexed information is legitimate in order to justify their advertising rates to clients.
Google's search monopoly is the gatekeeper of the web. Worse yet, it's not even an open source engine, so web traffic is regulated by a closed source product from an advertising megacorp. It's taken years, but people finally seem to be waking up to this realization.
I thought you couldn't steal something that wasn't physically tangible? That's what Slashdot tells me in every piracy post.
I can't believe anyone fell for "Don't Be Evil" either, but because Google was always public about the fact that they use Linux and open source, they got a pass from tech communities like Slashdot.
You can punish capitalists; the U.S. does it all the time. Hell, Google just paid the feds $500 million. Communism creates a gigantic, centralized government that's above the law, has no incentive to improve because it doesn't have to compete for money (its income is taken at gunpoint--just try not paying your taxes or showing up to court and see what happens), and is extremely difficult to overthrow if needed.
They made the choice when they committed the crime that put them in prison. As for the labor itself, prisoners wait in volunteer lists for a chance to perform those jobs. You have a really screwed up political worldview.
Prison labor is not comparable to the gulags, and you cite absolutely no evidence that prisoner fatality rates are "pretty competitive."
What the hell are you talking? What evidence is getting stronger that proves that? Hell, you wrote your post on a computer that was the product of capitalism.
Microsoft doesn't even make Flight Simulator anymore.
No, a Unix user would be there to manually configure every step themselves so that they could talk about how open and free the process was. When people point out that they only did Tux's foot, they'd respond with, "It's open source, you finish it!"
Wow, what a "fanboi," buying things that make him more productive. You're totally right, anonymous coward who trolls every Apple article. Thanks for setting us straight.
Where Apple goes, the industry follows. This drives the Linux fanboys who still visit Slashdot nuts. Most rational posters left for Reddit and Hacker News years ago, so most of what you have left are the crazy trolls and fanboys who hate everything that competes with open source. Just look at the flood of robotic anonymous trolling in these comments.
Read between the lines. Jobs has authorized an official biography, codified management guidelines at the company for when he's gone, submitted his resignation, and has been photographed looking extremely thin. He has previously had cancer as well as as liver transplant. What do you think is likely to happen in the next six to twelve months?
Your entire post is basically that you don't like seeing Apache criticized on message boards. So what? You even end with a pointless remark about programmers you assume don't know C, as if that has anything to do with anything. Apache brought criticism onto themselves. The bug is more than four-and-a-half years old.
Which is the opposite of the conclusion, but okay, whatever goes along with Slashdot's groupthink, I guess.
I love how you constructed a "most likely" hypothetical scenario with no direct evidence and then used it to call someone names.
Someone else here made an excellent observation that many, and perhaps most, of those who embrace the idea of anthropogenic global warming also happen to be people whose cure for the global warming involves solutions that align with their political views. It's strange that there seems to be no recognition of the link between anti-industry, centralized-economic politics and belief in manmade global warming.
An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies). In fact, you'll find this same formula in almost every belief system, from religions to political parties. Everyone thinks they're fighting selfish humans to return the world to some perfect state, if only governments would institute their policies.
Already, there are several defensive posts from people trying to nip this article in the bud because their beliefs are under threat.
Sounds you're pinning your hopes. So much for scientific objectivity.