Schmidt is telling us that Google is being served PATRIOT Act notices without breaking the law and telling us that they're being served.
Uh, no, he didn't say Google was being "served PATRIOT Act notices." He simply said that, if information was requested under the Patriot Act, Google would be subject to the law.
Netscape is the reason you started seeing URLs in TV commercials. They were one of the catalysts for the explosive growth of the web. They definitely shifted part of humanity.
Did you somehow miss the entire Street View data-collection controversy that caused worldwide investigations of your company? Google's motives influence their products in other ways, such as the encouragement of free apps on Android that just so happen to rely on Google ads, or the adoption of WebM in Chrome in place of the already-standard H.264, even though Chrome retains support for MP3/AAC and ships the Flash plug-in.
Google gives away free services to get people's personal information indexed in their advertising platform, not to be open or friendly. They're not trying to make the internet a better place because you're some benevolent charity. They're trying to make it an easier place for Google to get people's data. They even place links to their services at the top of their search results pages when certain hardcoded queries are entered--change one letter or add a space, and the Google link disappears from the #1 spot. Remember that Google cites unbiased search results in response to monopoly scrutiny.
They profess openness in order to attract the free software community, yet its search and advertising engine is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. And again, Chrome is shipping the Flash plug-in and supports MP3/AAC. Waving the openness flag is a cynical attempt to try to make people think Google is somehow not self-serving.
I'm sure there are Microsoft employees who love Windows, love Internet Explorer, love Bing, love Windows Phone, and love.NET, and they don't understand why people don't see how Microsoft is just trying to make the computing world a better place. As an insider receiving a paycheck, you're biased, and your views are colored. In every Google article, anonymous Google defenders suddenly show up, and I'm glad to see that some of them are finally acknowledging that they work for the company.
You can't watch anything on your Google TVs because content providers aren't interested, your Android phones are messaging total strangers, and your cash raises come from Lars Rasmussen's previous salary.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that Google employees are anonymously trolling Slashdot, though.
Not to mention the fact that Chrome supports MP3 and AAC in the audio tag. If they're dropping H.264 support to support openness, why are still supporting MP3 and AAC?
My favorite part is how searching for something that happens to appear in a Stackoverflow question returns dozens of sites that copy and paste the Stackoverflow content surrounded by ads.
Just one annoying blogger trying for ad impressions.
Since Slashdotters have more than once tried to dismiss this guy as some troll or just some blogger, perhaps you should do a little research. Florian Muller is the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents campaign, fighting the EU's directive on the patentability of computer-related inventions, which they eventually rejected. He's received several awards for his intellectual property activism and is considered one of the most influential in the field.
But yeah, because this is a potentially negative Google submission, people around here are going to attack the messenger and try to dismiss him outright, because they're biased toward pro-Linux companies like Google. This site's comment section is becoming a real trash heap.
It's "trollish" because this is Slashdot. On Slashdot, Google is automatically given the benefit of the doubt because they use Linux. Seriously, that's why.
Okay, I guess I'll trust the anonymous coward on Slashdot who singled out a single getter instead of the award-winning intellectual property lawyer and his article full of evidence.
Rather than refute his arguments, you call him a troll and cite the anonymity of the submitter (as if anonymous submitters don't submit pro-Google stories), which got you an instant +5 Insightful.
Can you actually refute his arguments rather than calling him names?
Somehow, nearly every time there's a study denigrating a popular entity on Slashdot, posters find irrelevant distractions to attack without countering the actual points of the article.
Along with the "Peter (not so) Bright" submission, today is a red-letter day for stupid bullshit.
At least Slashdot made up for it with timely technical news and a sense of community. Digg and Reddit really took the wind out of this place. Now it's an outdated source for lame anti-copyright and pro-Google posts.
Goddamn, Slashdot sucks lately. It's really never been this bad. The news submissions are behind other sites by days, the layout is ugly and confusing, and the submissions are becoming more and more openly biased.
What's the submitter afraid of, that people might read the article objectively and agree with it? Fuck the submitter for trying to sway people before they even had a chance to read it. It makes a lot of good points, especially about Google shipping the Flash plug-in and supporting the MP3 and AAC codecs for the HTML5 audio tag, all of which it would have to drop support for if it's really doing this for the sake of openness.
Government is the ultimate anti-consumer monopoly. There is zero competition for the government, and there is no incentive for it to improve because citizens are already required by law to pay for its services through taxes.
Google is making a very weird move. It's definitely not about being "open," because they're shipping Flash with Chrome, which encourages dependency on a third-party, proprietary plug-in.
Chrome is a niche player in the browser market, and Opera even more so, so I'm not sure what they think they're going to accomplish here or how it will help anything. H.264 is pretty much already the standard, particularly in hardware decoders. Even Apple never dropped support for MP3s in iTunes and iPods, because it's an ubiquitous format, and H.264 has already crossed that threshold of usage.
AOL was designed to be the internet for computer illiterate people, and the web grew simple enough that AOL became obsolete. On top of that, Time Warner laid off thousands of employees after the merger and did nothing to make AOL worth having over direct Internet access through a local ISP. Not to mention the fact that there was a dot-com bust. A whole book was written about the consequences of AOL's merger with Time Warner and the internal politics that arose that weakened AOL.
Tying AOL's death to a lack of open access rules is totally ridiculous. You even threw in "net neutrality" for some reason. That wasn't why AOL died at all.
You seem to have missed the point. This submission is comparing a single smartphone to an entire operating system platform on multiple phones. Nielsen compared platform to platform. I don't see how you can compare "sometime in Nov" and "end of Nov" and decide that this report is newer or more accurate, especially when the premise is flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no, he didn't say Google was being "served PATRIOT Act notices." He simply said that, if information was requested under the Patriot Act, Google would be subject to the law.
Netscape is the reason you started seeing URLs in TV commercials. They were one of the catalysts for the explosive growth of the web. They definitely shifted part of humanity.
Did you somehow miss the entire Street View data-collection controversy that caused worldwide investigations of your company? Google's motives influence their products in other ways, such as the encouragement of free apps on Android that just so happen to rely on Google ads, or the adoption of WebM in Chrome in place of the already-standard H.264, even though Chrome retains support for MP3/AAC and ships the Flash plug-in.
Google gives away free services to get people's personal information indexed in their advertising platform, not to be open or friendly. They're not trying to make the internet a better place because you're some benevolent charity. They're trying to make it an easier place for Google to get people's data. They even place links to their services at the top of their search results pages when certain hardcoded queries are entered--change one letter or add a space, and the Google link disappears from the #1 spot. Remember that Google cites unbiased search results in response to monopoly scrutiny.
They profess openness in order to attract the free software community, yet its search and advertising engine is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. And again, Chrome is shipping the Flash plug-in and supports MP3/AAC. Waving the openness flag is a cynical attempt to try to make people think Google is somehow not self-serving.
I'm sure there are Microsoft employees who love Windows, love Internet Explorer, love Bing, love Windows Phone, and love .NET, and they don't understand why people don't see how Microsoft is just trying to make the computing world a better place. As an insider receiving a paycheck, you're biased, and your views are colored. In every Google article, anonymous Google defenders suddenly show up, and I'm glad to see that some of them are finally acknowledging that they work for the company.
Because you're an advertising company that's collecting and indexing the world's personal information, anonymous Google employee.
You can't watch anything on your Google TVs because content providers aren't interested, your Android phones are messaging total strangers, and your cash raises come from Lars Rasmussen's previous salary.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that Google employees are anonymously trolling Slashdot, though.
Not to mention the fact that Chrome supports MP3 and AAC in the audio tag. If they're dropping H.264 support to support openness, why are still supporting MP3 and AAC?
My favorite part is how searching for something that happens to appear in a Stackoverflow question returns dozens of sites that copy and paste the Stackoverflow content surrounded by ads.
"Our tests say we're better than what our customers are saying!"
Since Slashdotters have more than once tried to dismiss this guy as some troll or just some blogger, perhaps you should do a little research. Florian Muller is the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents campaign, fighting the EU's directive on the patentability of computer-related inventions, which they eventually rejected. He's received several awards for his intellectual property activism and is considered one of the most influential in the field.
But yeah, because this is a potentially negative Google submission, people around here are going to attack the messenger and try to dismiss him outright, because they're biased toward pro-Linux companies like Google. This site's comment section is becoming a real trash heap.
It's "trollish" because this is Slashdot. On Slashdot, Google is automatically given the benefit of the doubt because they use Linux. Seriously, that's why.
Okay, I guess I'll trust the anonymous coward on Slashdot who singled out a single getter instead of the award-winning intellectual property lawyer and his article full of evidence.
Just because you disagree with something or have counterarguments that you believe refute its claims doesn't make it a troll.
Like many Slashdotters, you're just calling it a troll because it's a negative Google story, and around here, Google is God.
Rather than refute his arguments, you call him a troll and cite the anonymity of the submitter (as if anonymous submitters don't submit pro-Google stories), which got you an instant +5 Insightful.
Can you actually refute his arguments rather than calling him names?
Somehow, nearly every time there's a study denigrating a popular entity on Slashdot, posters find irrelevant distractions to attack without countering the actual points of the article.
Along with the "Peter (not so) Bright" submission, today is a red-letter day for stupid bullshit.
At least Slashdot made up for it with timely technical news and a sense of community. Digg and Reddit really took the wind out of this place. Now it's an outdated source for lame anti-copyright and pro-Google posts.
Goddamn, Slashdot sucks lately. It's really never been this bad. The news submissions are behind other sites by days, the layout is ugly and confusing, and the submissions are becoming more and more openly biased.
What's the submitter afraid of, that people might read the article objectively and agree with it? Fuck the submitter for trying to sway people before they even had a chance to read it. It makes a lot of good points, especially about Google shipping the Flash plug-in and supporting the MP3 and AAC codecs for the HTML5 audio tag, all of which it would have to drop support for if it's really doing this for the sake of openness.
Government is the ultimate anti-consumer monopoly. There is zero competition for the government, and there is no incentive for it to improve because citizens are already required by law to pay for its services through taxes.
Krugman is a troll who writes columns to make liberals feel better about thinking a certain way. Don't trust so much in op-ed authors.
Those are library problems, not language problems.
Google is making a very weird move. It's definitely not about being "open," because they're shipping Flash with Chrome, which encourages dependency on a third-party, proprietary plug-in.
Chrome is a niche player in the browser market, and Opera even more so, so I'm not sure what they think they're going to accomplish here or how it will help anything. H.264 is pretty much already the standard, particularly in hardware decoders. Even Apple never dropped support for MP3s in iTunes and iPods, because it's an ubiquitous format, and H.264 has already crossed that threshold of usage.
AOL was designed to be the internet for computer illiterate people, and the web grew simple enough that AOL became obsolete. On top of that, Time Warner laid off thousands of employees after the merger and did nothing to make AOL worth having over direct Internet access through a local ISP. Not to mention the fact that there was a dot-com bust. A whole book was written about the consequences of AOL's merger with Time Warner and the internal politics that arose that weakened AOL.
Tying AOL's death to a lack of open access rules is totally ridiculous. You even threw in "net neutrality" for some reason. That wasn't why AOL died at all.
Slashdot was never a "social networking site."
In an earlier post, you compared grandmas to Linux users, and now you're comparing Facebook to Usenet. Could you be any more out of touch?
Email is still too complicated to set up, and it's full of spam.
You seem to have missed the point. This submission is comparing a single smartphone to an entire operating system platform on multiple phones. Nielsen compared platform to platform. I don't see how you can compare "sometime in Nov" and "end of Nov" and decide that this report is newer or more accurate, especially when the premise is flawed.