You call it "closing everything off" because you want to keep nerd playgrounds like the PC around indefinitely. He would call it making simple products that mere mortals want to use. The public has spoken, and appliance computing is here to stay.
It's also a bit of an odd opinion to have considering how much Apple has contributed to open source, from WebKit to Clang. The company doesn't make shady moves to be #1 in a market or maintain monopolies. They're more interested in being the perceived "best" in a market and appealing to customers in that way. In other words, comparing them to Microsoft is pretty baseless.
What does that comic have to do with Apple? If you don't like Apple's policies, use something else. What does Facebook privacy violations even have to do with interoperable office formats? And are you really citing web comics in a debate?
Let's be blunt. Only nerds on tech sites worry about "closeness." They're a tiny niche that wants to keep their nerd playgrounds around. The vast majority simply wants good products that work.
It's all in pursuit of another revenue stream. New York City is full of this kind of nickel-and-diming. Check out this parking ticket scam on truck drivers.
An investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island and the FDA/OCI Rhode Island Task Force revealed that as early as 2003, Google was on notice that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the United States through Google’s AdWords advertising program. Although Google took steps to block pharmacies in countries other than Canada from advertising in the U.S. through AdWords, they continued to allow Canadian pharmacy advertisers to target consumers in the United States . Google was aware that U.S. consumers were making online purchases of prescription drugs from these Canadian online pharmacies, and that many of the pharmacies distributed prescription drugs, including controlled prescription drugs, based on an online consultation rather than a valid prescription from a treating medical practitioner. Google was also on notice that many pharmacies accepting an online consultation rather than a prescription charged a premium for doing so because individuals seeking to obtain prescription drugs without a valid prescription were willing to pay higher prices for the drugs. Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites.
Unfortunately, your post will be ignored while pla's will remain at +5 Insightful, because moderators apparently love "big pharma" conspiracy theories.
Could you respond to the fact that you are completely wrong that the rogue pharmacies Google was accepting ads from were legal pharmacies? It's shocking that your post is still +5 Insightful when you're absolutely incorrect.
I guess all you have to do is reference conspiracy theories to get instant positive moderation. That gives me an idea. Hey, everyone, there's a giant conspiracy on Slashdot to mod up incorrect posts.
If a company is profiting from selling ads, it's responsible for making sure it's not advertising activities that break federal laws. Google claimed it was requiring all advertising pharmacies to be verified through PharmacyChecker, but rogue pharmacies continued to appear in ads. The feds even asked PharmacyChecker what was going on, and they said they didn't know because Google was the one showing the ads.
The linked articles explain how Google was negligent. They had claimed to require all drug advertisers to be verified through PharmacyChecker.com, but ads from unlicensed, unverified pharmacies continued to appear in Google ads. The vast majority of rogue pharmacies, about 85% according to one of the articles, are selling counterfeit brand drugs and controlled drugs without prescriptions. Google was well aware of what the problem was, and they even claimed to have addressed it.
It's correct in terms of Google's business model. They make the majority of their money from online advertising. Their use of online technology is simply the means.
This isn't a new story, so I didn't include all the details behind the investigation. That information is contained in the linked articles.
Also keep in mind that, though it didn't happen in this case, editors often make changes to a submission, and then commenters blame the submitter for inaccurate or incomplete information.
Health care and pharmaceutical companies spent $1 billion on Internet ads in the United States last year, up 14 percent from the year before, according to eMarketer.
The very article you are referencing says that Google claimed to only accept ads from pharmacies verified with PharmacyChecker but that ads from unverified pharmacies continued to appear. As for your question, use common sense. You obviously can't advertise, say, illegal gambling sites or local heroin dealers. If you're running an online advertising platform, you should know what to avoid and how to verify that your advertisers are legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Also keep in mind that Steve Jobs has been on medical leave since January anyway, so nothing is actually changing.
Yes, because being "hacker-friendly" is what the mainstream public wants from Apple products.
How archaic. I download my media.
Maybe because not only was he a hugely influential person in the computer age, he is also suffering from health issues?
You call it "closing everything off" because you want to keep nerd playgrounds like the PC around indefinitely. He would call it making simple products that mere mortals want to use. The public has spoken, and appliance computing is here to stay.
It's also a bit of an odd opinion to have considering how much Apple has contributed to open source, from WebKit to Clang. The company doesn't make shady moves to be #1 in a market or maintain monopolies. They're more interested in being the perceived "best" in a market and appealing to customers in that way. In other words, comparing them to Microsoft is pretty baseless.
What does that comic have to do with Apple? If you don't like Apple's policies, use something else. What does Facebook privacy violations even have to do with interoperable office formats? And are you really citing web comics in a debate?
So what you're saying is that millions of people are wrong and should bow to your taste. Sounds like a dictatorship.
I see. You're just more enlightened than the majority?
Let's be blunt. Only nerds on tech sites worry about "closeness." They're a tiny niche that wants to keep their nerd playgrounds around. The vast majority simply wants good products that work.
It's all in pursuit of another revenue stream. New York City is full of this kind of nickel-and-diming. Check out this parking ticket scam on truck drivers.
Why are so many of you anti-AMA kooks posting anonymously? Do you really think selling counterfeit drugs without a prescription is just peachy?
"These drugs are actually not what they're advertised to be and may or may not be safe."
"Well, shit, that's good enough for me!"
You're delusional. From the DOJ:
I can make up percentages too. I deduce that your post is 62% ignorance, 30% paranoid, and 8% just plain dumb.
Unfortunately, your post will be ignored while pla's will remain at +5 Insightful, because moderators apparently love "big pharma" conspiracy theories.
Could you respond to the fact that you are completely wrong that the rogue pharmacies Google was accepting ads from were legal pharmacies? It's shocking that your post is still +5 Insightful when you're absolutely incorrect.
I guess all you have to do is reference conspiracy theories to get instant positive moderation. That gives me an idea. Hey, everyone, there's a giant conspiracy on Slashdot to mod up incorrect posts.
What are you talking about? What does the RIAA have to do with this?
eMarketer is the largest internet market research group in the world. They're not part of the drug industry or anything.
If a company is profiting from selling ads, it's responsible for making sure it's not advertising activities that break federal laws. Google claimed it was requiring all advertising pharmacies to be verified through PharmacyChecker, but rogue pharmacies continued to appear in ads. The feds even asked PharmacyChecker what was going on, and they said they didn't know because Google was the one showing the ads.
The linked articles explain how Google was negligent. They had claimed to require all drug advertisers to be verified through PharmacyChecker.com, but ads from unlicensed, unverified pharmacies continued to appear in Google ads. The vast majority of rogue pharmacies, about 85% according to one of the articles, are selling counterfeit brand drugs and controlled drugs without prescriptions. Google was well aware of what the problem was, and they even claimed to have addressed it.
It's correct in terms of Google's business model. They make the majority of their money from online advertising. Their use of online technology is simply the means.
This isn't a new story, so I didn't include all the details behind the investigation. That information is contained in the linked articles.
Also keep in mind that, though it didn't happen in this case, editors often make changes to a submission, and then commenters blame the submitter for inaccurate or incomplete information.
The data comes from eMarketer and is cited in this New York Times article:
Google sold them advertising space. They didn't accidentally index their ads.
Because advertising and therefore profiting from an illegal activity is being complicit in the activity.
The very article you are referencing says that Google claimed to only accept ads from pharmacies verified with PharmacyChecker but that ads from unverified pharmacies continued to appear. As for your question, use common sense. You obviously can't advertise, say, illegal gambling sites or local heroin dealers. If you're running an online advertising platform, you should know what to avoid and how to verify that your advertisers are legitimate.