Please stop talking like a rebellious 13-year-old. It makes your position appear juvenile and immature. You're using emotionally loaded language to target corporate scapegoats in order to remove your own guilty feelings. Removing the artists from the debate and replacing them with greedy corporate stereotypes makes you feel less bad about not paying content creators for their work. I realize Slashdot has become a piracy advocacy site in the last few years, but come on. "Mafiaa?" It's embarrassing to see that.
Seriously, since when is linking to data crime!
You won't find child porn on Google either. There's plenty of data they avoid.
Why are you hoping they're successful? What's wrong with a copyright holder going after the people infringing on its copyright? In fact, Slashdotters suggested that copyright holders to do this very thing 10 years ago during the Napster lawsuit.
I'm pretty sure any company would have turned towards that in the end. I think the problem will be proving it. Since google know pretty much how their ranking algorithm works - I'm pretty sure they can design a site which always turns up top - without needing to 'cheat'.
This has already been covered on Slashdot. Google hard-codes its own services to appear as the top search result for specific search queries. Marissa Mayers even admitted they were doing it for Google Finance, and the article demonstrates that it's occurring for other services too.
I'm noticing a growing divide between Slashdot and the world outside Slashdot when it comes to coverage of Google, which is creating an inaccurate worldview for Slashdot readers who only get their tech news from commentators here. For example, the Google Street View data collection was a huge controversy that is being investigated around the world, but on Slashdot, it was treated as a benign "accident" that was the fault of the people running the WiFi networks. In the last article, people defended Google's hard-coded search results and totally ignored that Google claimed their search results were algorithmically objective when questioned by antitrust investigators. And of course, Eric Schmidt's infamous statement that only criminals care about privacy seems to have been forgotten or ignored.
There's obviously a massive bias toward Google that has developed over the years which is clouding legitimate criticism of this now-massive company. Behavior that would have caused an uproar if it was another company like Microsoft is dismissed because it's Google. I think it's due to a combination of three things:
Google initially got a lot of positive press on Slashdot for using cheap Linux machines for its search engine. This endeared the company to Linux users.
Google offers free services like email to get users onto their search and advertising platforms. People like free stuff.
Google portrays itself as an open source company to appeal to the OSS community. They've successfully gotten people to forget that the Google search engine is as closed and proprietary as Windows.
The most amusing factor is that if roles were changed, popular opinion around here would be almost completely different. If this was Microsoft and Bing, nobody would be defending any of this. People would cite this EU probe as another example of Microsoft being "evil" (one of the most ridiculous terms to enter the lexicon of technical communities). Because it's Google, fans rush to the defense of the company and ignore facts and history.
You must have missed that that article is 100% bullshit.
The article clearly demonstrates that Google has hard-coded its services to appear in the #1 spot for certain search terms. It even cites a quote from a Google employee admitting that this occurs for Google Finance. The article also raises the issue of Google dismissing antitrust scrutiny by claiming its algorithms are unbiased.
You offer zero refutations to any this. The article isn't "100% bullshit" whatsoever.
Put it th other way, why should the article be trusted?
The article gives an objective methodology to determine that Google does indeed hardcode search result links to its own services. Nobody seems to be disputing that here.
Then the article raises the issue that Google dismisses antitrust scrutiny by claiming its algorithms are unbiased, yet that is obviously not true if it is automatically placing its links above other links. Again, nobody here has countered this.
In reality, people here are such huge fans of Google that they refuse to look at the company in a critical light.
How are they performing that function by shoving their links into the #1 spot above other links that are known to be more popular? Yahoo Finance is known to be much more popular than Google Finance, so why does Google Finance get a hard-coded spot at the top?
Your defense that they're "removing spam" is bizarre, but what's even more bizarre is that you're criticizing the idea of a government scrutinizing them in the name of fairness and competition. Has everyone forgotten that this site was cheering on the antitrust trial against Microsoft for including a web browser? But it's okay for Google to hardcode its own services to get maximum traffic over competitors? If this was Microsoft instead of Google, and Bing was the #1 search engine, I bet your opinion would be totally different.
The total lack of objectivity around here is reaching levels of absurdity that I never imagined.
It's easy to do when you're Google and can hard-code your services to appear as the #1 links for specific search terms, above links that are known to be more popular.
The problem is that Google dismisses antitrust scrutiny by claiming its algorithms are unbiased. If this was Microsoft, the tone of these Slashdot comments would be almost completely opposite, but because its Google, you'll see a lot of mealy-mouthed defense of their behavior.
Because it's not a repost. There wasn't a EU probe last time. However, I realize that many people are so in love with Google that they want to keep living in a bubble where all critical Google news is ignored.
How does lowering the barrier to entry for AAA development on the Wii increase the flow of shovelware? You can just as easily create shovelware for the Xbox 360. Just look at much of the crap on Live.
The story also ignores portable consoles. Nintendo is releasing the 3DS next year as the successor to the highly successful DS. So Nintendo, at least, isn't sitting still doing nothing. They've been running two simultaneous console cycles since the NES and Gameboy.
The article says SAP made "hundreds of thousands of illegal downloads and several thousand copies of Oracle's software to avoid paying licensing fees and steal customers."
What's desperate about it? Apple had a stellar year in sales. They just don't want to advertise a competitor on their app store. This is no different from, say, a console manufacturer regulating the content of its software, or any other business not wanting to give free advertisement. I don't get why this is a big deal, but it doesn't surprise me that there are ideologues obsessed with "openness" who think it's the biggest issue in the world. Outside the bubble of tech blogs, nobody cares about this very much, if at all.
In all seriousness, this is vindication for Apple's integrated model. It's been pointed out for a while now that the Android experience is under control of the carriers, which is why they like Android so much. With iOS, you can get your updates directly from Apple the moment you connect your device to iTunes.
This could be just the beginning of the same kind of security headaches that Microsoft endured for years with Windows. The hassle isn't just responding to vulnerabilities; it's also getting those updates installed on people's devices in the first place. From the article:
Google has developed a fix for this flaw and has stated they will fix it in a maintenance release for the upcoming Gingerbread (2.3) release. That's great, but means even the most modern of devices will be exposed to attack for a month or more and older Android phones may be vulnerable in perpetuity. Apple and RIM do not face these types of issues because they have a limited selection of hardware shipping and provide OS updates only for devices they manufacture.
You're a fanboy. We know this because you obviously didn't even read the article, where your points are refuted. Instead, you didn't like that Android was being criticized, so you immediately posted an anonymous comment to dismiss the story as linkbait.
I suspect you're one of the many anonymous posters who suddenly shows up in every article critical of Google or Google products.
You'll learn to ignore the Apple-haters. They form a contingent of Slashdot posters who carry a psychological need for Apple to fail. It makes them feel independent and too-cool-for-the-room to bash something that's popular. They're way too awesome and independent to like an Apple product. You see, awesome, independent people spend their time on forums making one-button mouse jokes.
This story is part of the yearly vindication cycle for Apple. Every year, the haters claim that Apple is failing in some way. This year, people shit on them over the phoney iPhone 4 antenna controversy, and they shit on them for blocking Flash in the app store. Yet here we are at the end of another year with Apple being amazingly successful. It is the way of things on Slashdot.
Well, yeah. It's news that, in the middle of a recession, one of the major tech companies is experiencing amazing success and behaving like a startup. Are people not supposed to report on Apple's success because you expect it?
You're pretty typical of the sarcastic, bitter Apple-haters who can't stand it when people are excited and passionate about something. I bet you also reference Steve Jobs by name in your anti-Apple rants as if he can hear you, complete with a mention of "RDF" or "white plastic." You're the guy at parties who stands in the corner of the room with your arms crossed while others dance and have a good time.
Slashdot Mirror
He ruled in their favor.
Google is an advertising company. Why should they care about attracting people who aren't interesting in paying for anything?
Please stop talking like a rebellious 13-year-old. It makes your position appear juvenile and immature. You're using emotionally loaded language to target corporate scapegoats in order to remove your own guilty feelings. Removing the artists from the debate and replacing them with greedy corporate stereotypes makes you feel less bad about not paying content creators for their work. I realize Slashdot has become a piracy advocacy site in the last few years, but come on. "Mafiaa?" It's embarrassing to see that.
You won't find child porn on Google either. There's plenty of data they avoid.
Well, of course it will.
By the way, double-spacing every sentence is annoying to read.
Don't you think?
Why are you hoping they're successful? What's wrong with a copyright holder going after the people infringing on its copyright? In fact, Slashdotters suggested that copyright holders to do this very thing 10 years ago during the Napster lawsuit.
If he's innocent, what's he afraid of?
This has already been covered on Slashdot. Google hard-codes its own services to appear as the top search result for specific search queries. Marissa Mayers even admitted they were doing it for Google Finance, and the article demonstrates that it's occurring for other services too.
I'm noticing a growing divide between Slashdot and the world outside Slashdot when it comes to coverage of Google, which is creating an inaccurate worldview for Slashdot readers who only get their tech news from commentators here. For example, the Google Street View data collection was a huge controversy that is being investigated around the world, but on Slashdot, it was treated as a benign "accident" that was the fault of the people running the WiFi networks. In the last article, people defended Google's hard-coded search results and totally ignored that Google claimed their search results were algorithmically objective when questioned by antitrust investigators. And of course, Eric Schmidt's infamous statement that only criminals care about privacy seems to have been forgotten or ignored.
There's obviously a massive bias toward Google that has developed over the years which is clouding legitimate criticism of this now-massive company. Behavior that would have caused an uproar if it was another company like Microsoft is dismissed because it's Google. I think it's due to a combination of three things:
The most amusing factor is that if roles were changed, popular opinion around here would be almost completely different. If this was Microsoft and Bing, nobody would be defending any of this. People would cite this EU probe as another example of Microsoft being "evil" (one of the most ridiculous terms to enter the lexicon of technical communities). Because it's Google, fans rush to the defense of the company and ignore facts and history.
The article clearly demonstrates that Google has hard-coded its services to appear in the #1 spot for certain search terms. It even cites a quote from a Google employee admitting that this occurs for Google Finance. The article also raises the issue of Google dismissing antitrust scrutiny by claiming its algorithms are unbiased.
You offer zero refutations to any this. The article isn't "100% bullshit" whatsoever.
The article gives an objective methodology to determine that Google does indeed hardcode search result links to its own services. Nobody seems to be disputing that here.
Then the article raises the issue that Google dismisses antitrust scrutiny by claiming its algorithms are unbiased, yet that is obviously not true if it is automatically placing its links above other links. Again, nobody here has countered this.
In reality, people here are such huge fans of Google that they refuse to look at the company in a critical light.
How are they performing that function by shoving their links into the #1 spot above other links that are known to be more popular? Yahoo Finance is known to be much more popular than Google Finance, so why does Google Finance get a hard-coded spot at the top?
Your defense that they're "removing spam" is bizarre, but what's even more bizarre is that you're criticizing the idea of a government scrutinizing them in the name of fairness and competition. Has everyone forgotten that this site was cheering on the antitrust trial against Microsoft for including a web browser? But it's okay for Google to hardcode its own services to get maximum traffic over competitors? If this was Microsoft instead of Google, and Bing was the #1 search engine, I bet your opinion would be totally different.
The total lack of objectivity around here is reaching levels of absurdity that I never imagined.
It's easy to do when you're Google and can hard-code your services to appear as the #1 links for specific search terms, above links that are known to be more popular.
The problem is that Google dismisses antitrust scrutiny by claiming its algorithms are unbiased. If this was Microsoft, the tone of these Slashdot comments would be almost completely opposite, but because its Google, you'll see a lot of mealy-mouthed defense of their behavior.
Because it's not a repost. There wasn't a EU probe last time. However, I realize that many people are so in love with Google that they want to keep living in a bubble where all critical Google news is ignored.
"Which position do your biased emotions tell you to take?"
How does lowering the barrier to entry for AAA development on the Wii increase the flow of shovelware? You can just as easily create shovelware for the Xbox 360. Just look at much of the crap on Live.
The story also ignores portable consoles. Nintendo is releasing the 3DS next year as the successor to the highly successful DS. So Nintendo, at least, isn't sitting still doing nothing. They've been running two simultaneous console cycles since the NES and Gameboy.
You got trolled by a five year old meme.
The article says SAP made "hundreds of thousands of illegal downloads and several thousand copies of Oracle's software to avoid paying licensing fees and steal customers."
What's desperate about it? Apple had a stellar year in sales. They just don't want to advertise a competitor on their app store. This is no different from, say, a console manufacturer regulating the content of its software, or any other business not wanting to give free advertisement. I don't get why this is a big deal, but it doesn't surprise me that there are ideologues obsessed with "openness" who think it's the biggest issue in the world. Outside the bubble of tech blogs, nobody cares about this very much, if at all.
In all seriousness, this is vindication for Apple's integrated model. It's been pointed out for a while now that the Android experience is under control of the carriers, which is why they like Android so much. With iOS, you can get your updates directly from Apple the moment you connect your device to iTunes.
This could be just the beginning of the same kind of security headaches that Microsoft endured for years with Windows. The hassle isn't just responding to vulnerabilities; it's also getting those updates installed on people's devices in the first place. From the article:
Whether or not you think it's unusual, it's still news.
You're a fanboy. We know this because you obviously didn't even read the article, where your points are refuted. Instead, you didn't like that Android was being criticized, so you immediately posted an anonymous comment to dismiss the story as linkbait.
I suspect you're one of the many anonymous posters who suddenly shows up in every article critical of Google or Google products.
This is one of the dumbest attitudes I've ever read. It can't be real.
You'll learn to ignore the Apple-haters. They form a contingent of Slashdot posters who carry a psychological need for Apple to fail. It makes them feel independent and too-cool-for-the-room to bash something that's popular. They're way too awesome and independent to like an Apple product. You see, awesome, independent people spend their time on forums making one-button mouse jokes.
This story is part of the yearly vindication cycle for Apple. Every year, the haters claim that Apple is failing in some way. This year, people shit on them over the phoney iPhone 4 antenna controversy, and they shit on them for blocking Flash in the app store. Yet here we are at the end of another year with Apple being amazingly successful. It is the way of things on Slashdot.
Well, yeah. It's news that, in the middle of a recession, one of the major tech companies is experiencing amazing success and behaving like a startup. Are people not supposed to report on Apple's success because you expect it?
You're pretty typical of the sarcastic, bitter Apple-haters who can't stand it when people are excited and passionate about something. I bet you also reference Steve Jobs by name in your anti-Apple rants as if he can hear you, complete with a mention of "RDF" or "white plastic." You're the guy at parties who stands in the corner of the room with your arms crossed while others dance and have a good time.