So, their political affiliation somehow refutes the accusations? Are you saying someone of a particular political viewpoint can't investigate someone else with a different political viewpoint? Checks and balances are a good thing.
I get that Slashdotters are utterly in love with Google, but let's not get silly here. The company has been very cozy with the administration, and when the president himself is showing up at people's houses days before FTC inquiries are dismissed, it's something that should be checked into, if only out of principal.
I have to say, I really find it interesting how eager people here were for Microsoft to get investigated all the time, but when Google faces the threat of inquiry, it's suddenly a bad thing. Google is no better than Microsoft, seriously. They're both just technology companies out to make money.
Yes, it's big news if Google has ties with the administration, and no, it's not fine for an army of ex-RIAA critters to be nominated to high posts. Next question?
The interesting thing about that list is I would enlist on Google's side in every single one of them.
I think you just summed up Slashdotters' bias pretty well. On this site, Google can do absolutely no wrong. The CEO flat-out tells you that only criminals care about privacy, and you'll still leap to their side. It's incredible, especially after the bashing that Facebook gets around here.
Okay, so you believe the NLPC is biased. What does any of it have to do with the NLPC's accusations? You didn't actually refute any of them.
You don't think an investigation is warranted if the president shows up at a top Google employee's home mere days before a major FTC probe is dismissed? Other countries continue to investigate Google, and Britain recently re-opened its probe. Why does Twitter get fined by the FTC but Google just promises to do better next time and avoids any punishment?
You're seriously not a wee bit suspicious about that? If George W. Bush visited Steve Ballmer's home days before a favorable antitrust verdict, wouldn't you want that looked into?
Right wing conservative politicians are far, far more in bed with corporations than left wing politicians. Not that left wingers aren't sucking up to corporate interests, you can't be in politics in this country without giving the corporate masters at least a quickie handjob, but conservatives will do ANYTHING for their overlords.
This is just silly. Left-wing liberals are just as in bed with corporations and other special interests as right-wingers. Democrats clink wine glasses with some of the wealthiest, most corrupt organizations in the world down in Hollywood, and billionaires like George Soros funnel money into America to influence politics from abroad. Remember that Obama also recently paid a visit to Steve Jobs to discuss the economy, so it's not like Democrats are morally or ethically superior in any way when it comes to network with their "overlords."
On Slashdot, only right-wingers are evil puppetmasters. Left-wingers are enlightened, oppressed victims just trying to get the word out.
Just look at all the people who immediately rushed to Google's defense by attacking the NLPC while completely ignoring the points they raised in their letter about the timing of the FTC inquiry's dismissal, the inconsistent punishments handed out to companies other than Google, or the Google employees serving in the administration. To them, none of the accusations have any merit because of the NLPC's political leanings, even though they're refuting none of the accusations.
You cannot criticize Google on Slashdot. The posters have become fanatical about this company no matter how many privacy breaches there are or how many boneheaded statements Eric Schmidt makes. If it was any other company, people would be all over their asses. If Steve Jobs said only people who have something to hide care about privacy, it would be a months-long controversy.
It's not legal to trespass into someone's home just because the door was unlocked. The constant defense of Google's blatant disregard for privacy is pretty shocking considering how vehemently pro-privacy this website used to be a few years ago. It seems privacy today only matters to people if it protects them from RIAA lawsuits.
Puts too much control in the user's hands. Better to drive a van around town "accidentally" collecting your emails and passwords over the course of three years.
I can't help thinking elevator mirrors have more to do with making the small space not seem so claustrophobic, as well as giving people a mirror in which to groom themselves on their way to work in the morning.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Is it a placebo effect if you're pressing a button just in case it works? You don't know if it doesn't, so you just press it since it's there. That doesn't mean you believe it's working, but you'd rather be trying it in case it does instead of doing nothing at all.
Isn't Google well-known for being a liberal company? They even hosted an Obama fundraiser at Marissa Mayer's house (mere days before the FTC dropped their privacy probe...).
Uh...why? That you titled your post "yawn" and outright proclaimed that you're writing this off is almost unbelievable, especially after the vitriol other companies get around here, such as Apple when it comes to the app approval process.
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is protection of free speech from the government. Nobody's talking about the First Amendment or rights.
What people are talking about is how stupid and arbitrary Google's behavior is.
And yet people will continue to defend this company. Google has been guilty of way more stupid bullshit in the last few years than Microsoft, which has been a harmless, slow-moving relic since the antitrust trial a decade ago. I'd love to see how people would react if Steve Ballmer said that only criminals care about privacy.
At least with the "Tea-Nazis," as you call them, the government's power is restricted as a matter of policy. Actually, it's kind of the opposite of Naziism.
What surprised me most about the election is that the disillusionment and cynicism people feel toward Obama today is what I always felt from him when he was a candidate. I never understood what the big deal was; he was always an inexperienced politician who was firmly partisan, saying one thing and doing another (promising to use public campaign funding and then turning around and doing the opposite), and riding a wave of friendly media hype. So it's a little confusing to me that people rate him lowly now who rated him highly two years ago, because to me, nothing at all has changed about him. He's exactly the same now as he was then.
Western Europeans love Obama because Obama wants to Europeanize the United States. Things like climate change legislation and socialized healthcare are seen as a normalization to Europeans, and the U.S. is behind them and simply catching up. But America's history is rooted in government revolt, and people see the negatives of big government and reject it. It's just how America is and always will be. Granting the government power is seen as taking power away from the individual and burdening them with the expenses.
Uh, Quicktime is a system framework that comes with OS X. It's not really bloated at all. People complain about the Windows version, which ships with a port of required Carbon components. Hopefully, Apple will implement an internal Cocoa for Windows port for Quicktime and iTunes so that iTunes can finally move to Cocoa on OS X.
Are you kidding? A single web plug-in can cut your battery life by two hours. That's quite different from normal battery usage and is an important thing to note for a mobile computer mostly intended for web browsing.
This is a website that regularly posts Pirate Party updates and alerts its readers when Pirate Bay goes down. People are implying that it's acceptable to pirate, as long as you're not an evil corporation that's selling it for its own financial gain. We're supposed to turn the other cheek if someone downloads episodes of Stargate because it's harmless. If a corporation violates someone's copyright, however, it's a bigger deal because they're selling it for profit to fulfill their own selfish motives. But that's just as self-serving as someone watching an episode of Stargate.
Downloading an album for you to listen to is just as selfish as downloading someone's recipe and selling it for money. In both cases, you're pirating for personal gain. In fact, the person who downloaded the album from Pirate Bay is distributing the album to countless others who will also not compensate the artist, via their torrent client. It's all the same selfish desire for personal gain with nothing given to someone in return. The financial gain just happens to stir anti-corporate feelings, which makes it feel like a bigger deal.
What is exceptional is that the magazine publisher had come to the conclusion that everything on the internets was public domain. That clearly indicates that they likely have an entire business built on infringing copyrights. Using other peoples work to make a profit. This is very different than hitting thepiratebay to get a copy of Stargate Universe.
What is exceptional or different about it? Are you saying that pirating something for personal consumption is less unethical than selling it? In both cases, the original creator is not getting compensated for their work.
As for Disney extending copyright on Mickey Mouse, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that if they're still making money off of Mickey Mouse? I've never heard a convincing argument why Mickey Mouse should be taken away from them if he's still a viable property. The original copyright lengths were decided in an era before long-term mass media, and laws change to reflect changing circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
So, their political affiliation somehow refutes the accusations? Are you saying someone of a particular political viewpoint can't investigate someone else with a different political viewpoint? Checks and balances are a good thing.
I get that Slashdotters are utterly in love with Google, but let's not get silly here. The company has been very cozy with the administration, and when the president himself is showing up at people's houses days before FTC inquiries are dismissed, it's something that should be checked into, if only out of principal.
I have to say, I really find it interesting how eager people here were for Microsoft to get investigated all the time, but when Google faces the threat of inquiry, it's suddenly a bad thing. Google is no better than Microsoft, seriously. They're both just technology companies out to make money.
Yes, it's big news if Google has ties with the administration, and no, it's not fine for an army of ex-RIAA critters to be nominated to high posts. Next question?
I think you just summed up Slashdotters' bias pretty well. On this site, Google can do absolutely no wrong. The CEO flat-out tells you that only criminals care about privacy, and you'll still leap to their side. It's incredible, especially after the bashing that Facebook gets around here.
Okay, so you believe the NLPC is biased. What does any of it have to do with the NLPC's accusations? You didn't actually refute any of them.
You don't think an investigation is warranted if the president shows up at a top Google employee's home mere days before a major FTC probe is dismissed? Other countries continue to investigate Google, and Britain recently re-opened its probe. Why does Twitter get fined by the FTC but Google just promises to do better next time and avoids any punishment?
You're seriously not a wee bit suspicious about that? If George W. Bush visited Steve Ballmer's home days before a favorable antitrust verdict, wouldn't you want that looked into?
This is just silly. Left-wing liberals are just as in bed with corporations and other special interests as right-wingers. Democrats clink wine glasses with some of the wealthiest, most corrupt organizations in the world down in Hollywood, and billionaires like George Soros funnel money into America to influence politics from abroad. Remember that Obama also recently paid a visit to Steve Jobs to discuss the economy, so it's not like Democrats are morally or ethically superior in any way when it comes to network with their "overlords."
On Slashdot, only right-wingers are evil puppetmasters. Left-wingers are enlightened, oppressed victims just trying to get the word out.
Just look at all the people who immediately rushed to Google's defense by attacking the NLPC while completely ignoring the points they raised in their letter about the timing of the FTC inquiry's dismissal, the inconsistent punishments handed out to companies other than Google, or the Google employees serving in the administration. To them, none of the accusations have any merit because of the NLPC's political leanings, even though they're refuting none of the accusations.
You cannot criticize Google on Slashdot. The posters have become fanatical about this company no matter how many privacy breaches there are or how many boneheaded statements Eric Schmidt makes. If it was any other company, people would be all over their asses. If Steve Jobs said only people who have something to hide care about privacy, it would be a months-long controversy.
It's not legal to trespass into someone's home just because the door was unlocked. The constant defense of Google's blatant disregard for privacy is pretty shocking considering how vehemently pro-privacy this website used to be a few years ago. It seems privacy today only matters to people if it protects them from RIAA lawsuits.
What do you mean, singling them out? This is a technology site, so technology companies like Google are often the topic of discussion.
Puts too much control in the user's hands. Better to drive a van around town "accidentally" collecting your emails and passwords over the course of three years.
I can't help thinking elevator mirrors have more to do with making the small space not seem so claustrophobic, as well as giving people a mirror in which to groom themselves on their way to work in the morning.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Is it a placebo effect if you're pressing a button just in case it works? You don't know if it doesn't, so you just press it since it's there. That doesn't mean you believe it's working, but you'd rather be trying it in case it does instead of doing nothing at all.
The lack of overlapping Windows was due to an agreement with Apple.
Isn't Google well-known for being a liberal company? They even hosted an Obama fundraiser at Marissa Mayer's house (mere days before the FTC dropped their privacy probe...).
Uh...why? That you titled your post "yawn" and outright proclaimed that you're writing this off is almost unbelievable, especially after the vitriol other companies get around here, such as Apple when it comes to the app approval process.
Is Google fanboyism really so blind?
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is protection of free speech from the government. Nobody's talking about the First Amendment or rights.
What people are talking about is how stupid and arbitrary Google's behavior is.
And yet people will continue to defend this company. Google has been guilty of way more stupid bullshit in the last few years than Microsoft, which has been a harmless, slow-moving relic since the antitrust trial a decade ago. I'd love to see how people would react if Steve Ballmer said that only criminals care about privacy.
At least with the "Tea-Nazis," as you call them, the government's power is restricted as a matter of policy. Actually, it's kind of the opposite of Naziism.
What surprised me most about the election is that the disillusionment and cynicism people feel toward Obama today is what I always felt from him when he was a candidate. I never understood what the big deal was; he was always an inexperienced politician who was firmly partisan, saying one thing and doing another (promising to use public campaign funding and then turning around and doing the opposite), and riding a wave of friendly media hype. So it's a little confusing to me that people rate him lowly now who rated him highly two years ago, because to me, nothing at all has changed about him. He's exactly the same now as he was then.
Western Europeans love Obama because Obama wants to Europeanize the United States. Things like climate change legislation and socialized healthcare are seen as a normalization to Europeans, and the U.S. is behind them and simply catching up. But America's history is rooted in government revolt, and people see the negatives of big government and reject it. It's just how America is and always will be. Granting the government power is seen as taking power away from the individual and burdening them with the expenses.
Obama is so out of touch that nothing he says surprises me anymore.
The same amount of battery life used by the backlit screen, since that's what you're seeing through the cutout.
Uh, Quicktime is a system framework that comes with OS X. It's not really bloated at all. People complain about the Windows version, which ships with a port of required Carbon components. Hopefully, Apple will implement an internal Cocoa for Windows port for Quicktime and iTunes so that iTunes can finally move to Cocoa on OS X.
The more it's pointed out how much Flash sucks and why Apple is opposed to it, the better for everyone.
Are you kidding? A single web plug-in can cut your battery life by two hours. That's quite different from normal battery usage and is an important thing to note for a mobile computer mostly intended for web browsing.
Who would stand to benefit? People who care about open standards like HTML5, that's who.
Adobe knows Flash on the Mac sucks. One of their bloggers famously told critics to install a Flash blocker as a solution to the crashing.
This is a website that regularly posts Pirate Party updates and alerts its readers when Pirate Bay goes down. People are implying that it's acceptable to pirate, as long as you're not an evil corporation that's selling it for its own financial gain. We're supposed to turn the other cheek if someone downloads episodes of Stargate because it's harmless. If a corporation violates someone's copyright, however, it's a bigger deal because they're selling it for profit to fulfill their own selfish motives. But that's just as self-serving as someone watching an episode of Stargate.
Downloading an album for you to listen to is just as selfish as downloading someone's recipe and selling it for money. In both cases, you're pirating for personal gain. In fact, the person who downloaded the album from Pirate Bay is distributing the album to countless others who will also not compensate the artist, via their torrent client. It's all the same selfish desire for personal gain with nothing given to someone in return. The financial gain just happens to stir anti-corporate feelings, which makes it feel like a bigger deal.
What is exceptional or different about it? Are you saying that pirating something for personal consumption is less unethical than selling it? In both cases, the original creator is not getting compensated for their work.
As for Disney extending copyright on Mickey Mouse, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that if they're still making money off of Mickey Mouse? I've never heard a convincing argument why Mickey Mouse should be taken away from them if he's still a viable property. The original copyright lengths were decided in an era before long-term mass media, and laws change to reflect changing circumstances.