Once again, Apple's app store remains the only place to actually make any money and get a fair deal. The Android fanboys are already making smart remarks to defend their platform, but it doesn't change the fact that this is yet another mark on the face of Android development, on top of so many things.
Mod me "funny" all you want. The press compares all Android devices to a single phone instead of to all iOS devices. With iPods and iPads counted, iOS far surpasses Android in marketshare.
Why on earth would you do this if you are comparing phone OS share?
My point was that people compare the entire Android platform of devices to just the iPhone instead of the entire iOS platform of devices, which includes iPads and iPods. With all iOS devices counted, iOS surpasses Android by a large margin.
Moderators can mod me as "Funny" if they want to, but it's not going to change the numbers.
Google wants your data. They are a gigantic advertising company. There's no way they'd let you use anonymous pseudonyms. It's not about order and control; it's about getting more personal information on you that they can sell to advertisers. For many users, Facebook is becoming the web. They don't use Gmail; they message through Facebook. They don't visit YouTube; they watch videos posted to Facebook. That's dangerous to an online advertising company dependent on page views , and so Google+ is their attempt to reclaim users and root them back onto their platform.
Anonymity was once one of the fundamental tenets of the internet, something considered so core to it that it was almost treated as part of the definition. That has been whittled away over time, to the point where people have become used to revealing almost everything about themselves, and now the internet is no longer treated as a means of free expression, escape, and privacy.
These values used to be something Slashdot cared about, but as Google rose in power, Slashdot's values changed. All you have to do as a company is announce that you use Linux and that you use open source, and geek communities will avoid questioning you about your privacy violations, your exploitation of buzzwords like "openness," or your motives for data collection. In fact, those communities will rise to your defense, even in the face of antitrust probes. You can even "accidentally" archive neighborhood wifi data for four years without repercussion.
Google isn't the benevolent little search engine company with the minimalist website. That disappeared many years ago and was replaced with another hypocritical corporation guilty of multiple broken promises, from heir removal of H.264 support from Chrome in the name of openness in spite of their inclusion of Flash, MP3, and AAC playback to their refusal to provide the source to Android Honeycomb to their lukewarm adoption of standardized advertising opt-out technology in Chrome (advertising is their business, after all).
Hopefully, Google+ fades away like Buzz and Wave before it.
the whole god damn media industry is pushing for stricter copyright and patents laws and they've got all the politicians in their pockets.
You realize that Google has close ties to the Obama administration, right? Schmidt is a technology adviser for Obama, and Andrew McLaughlin is the U.S. deputy chief technology officer. Marissa Mayer even held a fundraiser at her mansion, where Obama made a personal appearance (less than a week before the FTC dismissed its inquiry into the Street View debacle). I wouldn't be concerned that Google has no politicians in their pockets.
It's allowed Microsoft and Apple to accumulate large patent portfolios intended to stop free competition.
Please give examples where Microsoft and Apple have been stopping "free competition" through patent portfolios. The reason for having them is primarily defensive; e.g., it was Nokia who sued Apple first, not the other way around.
I realize this is Slashdot, and patents have become the new hip cause, following Linux-on-the-desktop, copyright reform, and various other online movements that didn't actually accomplish anything in the last decade.
Okay, let's run brain scans on Linux zealots and see who's more religious about their technology. Calling Apple a "cult" is really fucking stupid (as is the fact that you got modded up, using the Underrated modifier, of course, which has been seeing huge abuse lately). They scanned one guy's brain and found that the parts of the brain used for being devoted to something lit up. So?
Google took the Linux kernel and showed what grown ups can do with an open source operating system by absolutely dominating the cellphone OS market.
iOS is the #1 mobile operating system, not Android (and by a large margin). Android only comes out ahead when you compare all Android smartphones to the single iPhone, but if you compare phone to phone, Apple is also now the #1 phone vendor as well as the highest grossing.
In other words, you had already decided before reading the article that it was wrong. TFA says it imitates a legitimate installation screen to trick users.
This thing tricks users into installing it by mimicking a legitimate installation screen, records conversations, and contains configuration information for a remote server which suggests uploading of those conversations, and you think it's "scaremongering" to label it a trojan? Give me a break.
A piece of software tricks the user into installing it, secretly records phone conversations, and sends them to a remote server, and you're wondering why it's considered a trojan? A trojan is any piece of malicious software that tricks the user into installing it through social engineering.
"There'll be a listing fee and a sales fee for auctions, and while they're not talking dollar numbers just yet, Blizzard assures gamers that they're not looking to pinch pennies."
This is the same company that sells a World of Warcraft mount for a whopping $25, more than the entire monthly subscription fee.
You don't understand--this is Google. Everywhere else, that doesn't mean a whole lot, but on tech news sites like Slashdot, Google is flawless because they use Linux and talk about "openness" a lot. That's all you have to do to get a free pass in the techie crowd.
It's surprising to you that a gigantic advertising company with antitrust investigations happening all over the world and a history of privacy violations didn't treat personal data with respect? Come on. This isn't a surprise at all.
This is simply no big deal, the source to the files IS available. There really ISN'T a GPL violation. Its just not in a specific set of packages, which there is no requirement for it to be so.
RMS already said any distributors of Emacs are in violation of the GPL.
RMS already said it's in violation of the GPL. However, to humor you, the "by request" clause is for physical media. Downloadable binaries require downloadable source.
Interestingly, this incident has proven how few of Slashdot's readers actually know the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, Apple's app store remains the only place to actually make any money and get a fair deal. The Android fanboys are already making smart remarks to defend their platform, but it doesn't change the fact that this is yet another mark on the face of Android development, on top of so many things.
Mod me "funny" all you want. The press compares all Android devices to a single phone instead of to all iOS devices. With iPods and iPads counted, iOS far surpasses Android in marketshare.
My point was that people compare the entire Android platform of devices to just the iPhone instead of the entire iOS platform of devices, which includes iPads and iPods. With all iOS devices counted, iOS surpasses Android by a large margin.
Moderators can mod me as "Funny" if they want to, but it's not going to change the numbers.
Google needs to harvest your personal data to make money.
Google wants your data. They are a gigantic advertising company. There's no way they'd let you use anonymous pseudonyms. It's not about order and control; it's about getting more personal information on you that they can sell to advertisers. For many users, Facebook is becoming the web. They don't use Gmail; they message through Facebook. They don't visit YouTube; they watch videos posted to Facebook. That's dangerous to an online advertising company dependent on page views , and so Google+ is their attempt to reclaim users and root them back onto their platform.
Anonymity was once one of the fundamental tenets of the internet, something considered so core to it that it was almost treated as part of the definition. That has been whittled away over time, to the point where people have become used to revealing almost everything about themselves, and now the internet is no longer treated as a means of free expression, escape, and privacy.
These values used to be something Slashdot cared about, but as Google rose in power, Slashdot's values changed. All you have to do as a company is announce that you use Linux and that you use open source, and geek communities will avoid questioning you about your privacy violations, your exploitation of buzzwords like "openness," or your motives for data collection. In fact, those communities will rise to your defense, even in the face of antitrust probes. You can even "accidentally" archive neighborhood wifi data for four years without repercussion.
Google isn't the benevolent little search engine company with the minimalist website. That disappeared many years ago and was replaced with another hypocritical corporation guilty of multiple broken promises, from heir removal of H.264 support from Chrome in the name of openness in spite of their inclusion of Flash, MP3, and AAC playback to their refusal to provide the source to Android Honeycomb to their lukewarm adoption of standardized advertising opt-out technology in Chrome (advertising is their business, after all).
Hopefully, Google+ fades away like Buzz and Wave before it.
Please list examples of these bribes.
You realize that Google has close ties to the Obama administration, right? Schmidt is a technology adviser for Obama, and Andrew McLaughlin is the U.S. deputy chief technology officer. Marissa Mayer even held a fundraiser at her mansion, where Obama made a personal appearance (less than a week before the FTC dismissed its inquiry into the Street View debacle). I wouldn't be concerned that Google has no politicians in their pockets.
Please give examples where Microsoft and Apple have been stopping "free competition" through patent portfolios. The reason for having them is primarily defensive; e.g., it was Nokia who sued Apple first, not the other way around.
I realize this is Slashdot, and patents have become the new hip cause, following Linux-on-the-desktop, copyright reform, and various other online movements that didn't actually accomplish anything in the last decade.
So?
If it's no big deal, why did Google want it redacted, and why did the judge say it would be a blow to their case?
If it's not incriminating, why did Google try to have it redacted? I guess all the Slashdot lawyers are going to tell us.
Okay, let's run brain scans on Linux zealots and see who's more religious about their technology. Calling Apple a "cult" is really fucking stupid (as is the fact that you got modded up, using the Underrated modifier, of course, which has been seeing huge abuse lately). They scanned one guy's brain and found that the parts of the brain used for being devoted to something lit up. So?
iOS is the #1 mobile operating system, not Android (and by a large margin). Android only comes out ahead when you compare all Android smartphones to the single iPhone, but if you compare phone to phone, Apple is also now the #1 phone vendor as well as the highest grossing.
In other words, you had already decided before reading the article that it was wrong. TFA says it imitates a legitimate installation screen to trick users.
And another Android fanboy completely ignores the part in the article about mimicking a legitimate installation screen.
This thing tricks users into installing it by mimicking a legitimate installation screen, records conversations, and contains configuration information for a remote server which suggests uploading of those conversations, and you think it's "scaremongering" to label it a trojan? Give me a break.
A piece of software tricks the user into installing it, secretly records phone conversations, and sends them to a remote server, and you're wondering why it's considered a trojan? A trojan is any piece of malicious software that tricks the user into installing it through social engineering.
"There'll be a listing fee and a sales fee for auctions, and while they're not talking dollar numbers just yet, Blizzard assures gamers that they're not looking to pinch pennies."
This is the same company that sells a World of Warcraft mount for a whopping $25, more than the entire monthly subscription fee.
Prepare to get modbombed for criticizing Google. Meanwhile, the people voting you down won't address the fact that Google provides no indemnification.
You don't understand--this is Google. Everywhere else, that doesn't mean a whole lot, but on tech news sites like Slashdot, Google is flawless because they use Linux and talk about "openness" a lot. That's all you have to do to get a free pass in the techie crowd.
It's surprising to you that a gigantic advertising company with antitrust investigations happening all over the world and a history of privacy violations didn't treat personal data with respect? Come on. This isn't a surprise at all.
RMS already said any distributors of Emacs are in violation of the GPL.
RMS already said it's in violation of the GPL. However, to humor you, the "by request" clause is for physical media. Downloadable binaries require downloadable source.
Interestingly, this incident has proven how few of Slashdot's readers actually know the GPL.
For the millionth time, the "by request" clause is in reference to physical media. Downloadable binaries must provide downloadable source.
People, RMS himself already said it's in violation. Case closed.
RMS already said in his email that anyone distributing this in violation of the GPL.