I've said it before--Apple-haters have taken over the site. The relentlessly biased articles (check out the recent story about how Android "outsold" the iPhone in the last six months, even though iPhone 4 sales weren't included in the figures) are no coincidence. There's an agenda at play, maybe even driven by Google astrotufers. Hey, I'm just saying, it's no surprise to me that the hateful posts and submissions began when Android came out.
Didn't seem to hurt Gmail's adoption when it was invite-only.
Re:Solution in need of a (perceived) problem
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
Wave didn't solve that problem.
Re:imaged a waved Real Estate contract
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
Wave doesn't change anything in that situation. You'd still have to fax and mail things because they require signatures, and people want to take contracts home and look them over. Real estate contracts are changed using amendments, which also need to be signed. Faxing something takes as long as it takes you to enter a number and watch the papers scan through the fax machine, so it's not some huge problem needing to be solved by Google.
So, we've seen several explanations for its failure in the last two days:
1.) It was invitation-only for too long. 2.) There was little promotion (you've got to be kidding me). 3.) It was too far ahead of its time, and people are used to what they have now.
Couldn't it just be that it sucked and was an unusable concept to begin with? It was an engineering pet project.
Fans of Google keep trying to cite a lack of marketing for this thing's failure, despite the fact it was one of the most hyped Google products in years. Tech sites recounted the history of email to preface its introduction, as if it was a given that it was as historic as the introduction of email itself. There was no lack of promotion. Couldn't it just be that the product failed because it sucked and that people don't want every bit of social media mashed into one timeline?
The GPL is a copyright license, so really, it's a test of copyright law. In fact, one way to look at it is that the case has strengthened or at least affirmed copyright law.
They're different situations dealing with the same thing--copyright law. The point is that Slashdot is constantly anti-copyright except in a GPL article, where it suddenly becomes pro-copyright. After all, the GPL is a copyright license, and without copyright law, it has no legal power. Pro-piracy/anti-copyright advocates around here often forget that.
This court victory exists thanks to copyright law.
Tech sites like Slashdot continue to believe the lie that Google is a friendly open source company. In reality, its search and advertising platforms are as closed and proprietary as Windows, and they just offer free products like Gmail and Chrome to get you onto their closed platforms for indexing purposes. On top of that, they don't give two shits about privacy, and their CEO flat-out said anyone concerned about it has something to hide.
But, because Google used cheap Linux PCs when it was starting out and offered a free email service, Slashdot will always be blindly in love with it. I'm always curious when the tide is going to start turning. I thought scanning and arching people's WiFi data "accidentally" would be the last straw, but I underestimated fanboyism.
Every drooling tech blog proclaimed Wave to be a historic achievement of mankind, reciting the history of email at the beginning of every article to drive home the point that Wave is as historic as the introduction of email itself. I questioned its viability back then and was modded down on Slashdot. Yet here we are witnessing its cancellation despite enormous levels of hype from Google-friendly outlets. With Wave's cancellation and the bundled crapware from carriers on Android phones, Google continues its metamorphosis into the Microsoft of the internet age.
Fear not! For TechDirt has declared that it doesn't violate the 5th amendment! Don't you see the Slashdot headline so conveniently worded by the anonymous submitter? It tells you, "No, Net Neutrality Doesn't Violate the 5th Amendment." So there. That means it's automatically been concluded for you, and you don't have to think about it. Whew!
It's not illegal or wrong to be a monopoly. In fact, the government itself is a monopoly. The government also price-fixes, colludes, and much worse, but the problem is that you can call a company out and stop doing business with it, but it's a lot harder to change your government.
That's a basic infrastructure role, which, along with basic national security, is the role the government should be providing. They should absolutely not be regulating our internet traffic. That anyone would suggest it--especially on Slashdot, a site that used to be pretty libertarian in its ideals--is just crazy to me. By the way, the government-owned streets in my state are in worse condition than the smoothly paved drive-through at my local Taco Bell.
1.) How would government regulation of internet traffic be more "neutral?" Governments are even more corrupt than corporations. Lobby groups like the RIAA would love to be able to influence to politicians who might force ISPs to "regulate" torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism." 2.) Why are corporations not allowed to run their networks how they want? The corporations own them, and you're just paying a fee to use them to access the internet. How about we let sysadmins run their networks, not politicians?
The summary beings with "Despite all the hype of Apple's latest phone," but the figures don't include the sales of the iPhone 4. In fact, the sales are from the period of time during the iPhone 4 prototype leak, which means potential 3GS customers were probably waiting for the next model before purchasing.
It turns out that the iPhone 4 saw the biggest single-month market share gain on record. That's over twice that of the Android. Will you see that article on Slashdot's front page? Of course not, because (in my opinion) Android astroturfers are using the site to drum up anti-Apple buzz among techies.
I'm confused, this article summary isn't biased or uninformed like the last one (summary begins with "Despite all the hype about Apple's latest phone" even though the figures in the article don't include sales of the latest iPhone).
Where is the required quota of Apple hate so I can know how to respond to this?
That's what's stupid about the summary. It starts off with "Despite all the hype about Apple's latest iPhone," yet the figures don't include the sales of the latest iPhone.
These days, with Google and Apple becoming competitors, I'm really curious how many astroturfers there are on Google-friendly Slashdot, trying to fuel a general hatred toward Apple through biased comments and story submissions. I've seen a sharp increase in ridiculous Apple hatred from a site that was generally Apple-friendly for years, and it just makes me wonder. This story is yet another example.
I'm sure people in the comments will conveniently ignore those facts, especially the one about not including iPhone 4 sales. Many analysts say the iPhone 4 leak hampered 3GS sales because customers were waiting for the new model. Also, it's bizarre to be comparing an OS to one device. It's more accurate to compare Android to iOS, which would then include the iPad.
OS X is based on the open source Darwin operating system utilizing BSD components.
By the way, experts say iPhone sales were down because of the iPhone 4 leak. Customers were holding off on purchasing a 3G until the 4 came out. Plus, this isn't including iPad sales which also run iOS. This story is comparing an OS to one device.
But then again, it's a Google product, which means it automatically gets the Slashdot stamp of approval...
Not only is it centralized using a big government database (which I'm sure will never get hacked), Obamacare is a government requirement that you purchase healthcare of a specific size. Obama declared on national television that it was not a tax, but then when states filed lawsuits, his administration defended it as a tax. Mind-boggling.
There has been much deceptive manipulation to pass legislation that was supposed to be debated in the open "on C-SPAN." I don't think Obama's healthcare will ever see the light of day in its intended form. Even if the GOP-controlled House isn't able to repeal it, the program will be killed by simply not allocating it any funds in a future budget--which would be a step up from the current Congress not passing any budget at all this year. Most people have to budget their money so they don't overextend themselves, but apparently the government believes it does not.
If there's any reason to punish incumbents this year, it's to show politicians that they should not be allowed to very publicly make promises and then break them repeatedly. We're in a media-saturated world now where your words aren't forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
I've said it before--Apple-haters have taken over the site. The relentlessly biased articles (check out the recent story about how Android "outsold" the iPhone in the last six months, even though iPhone 4 sales weren't included in the figures) are no coincidence. There's an agenda at play, maybe even driven by Google astrotufers. Hey, I'm just saying, it's no surprise to me that the hateful posts and submissions began when Android came out.
Dear typical knee-jerk Apple-hater:
http://venomousporridge.com/post/909651311/whereto-patent-followup
P.S. I thought intellectual property couldn't be "stolen," according to every copyright discussion on Slashdot.
In other words, Apple-hating ideologues who already didn't like the company.
Didn't seem to hurt Gmail's adoption when it was invite-only.
Wave didn't solve that problem.
Wave doesn't change anything in that situation. You'd still have to fax and mail things because they require signatures, and people want to take contracts home and look them over. Real estate contracts are changed using amendments, which also need to be signed. Faxing something takes as long as it takes you to enter a number and watch the papers scan through the fax machine, so it's not some huge problem needing to be solved by Google.
So, we've seen several explanations for its failure in the last two days:
1.) It was invitation-only for too long.
2.) There was little promotion (you've got to be kidding me).
3.) It was too far ahead of its time, and people are used to what they have now.
Couldn't it just be that it sucked and was an unusable concept to begin with? It was an engineering pet project.
Did you miss the news yesterday that Google has shitcanned it? It got Kinned.
Fans of Google keep trying to cite a lack of marketing for this thing's failure, despite the fact it was one of the most hyped Google products in years. Tech sites recounted the history of email to preface its introduction, as if it was a given that it was as historic as the introduction of email itself. There was no lack of promotion. Couldn't it just be that the product failed because it sucked and that people don't want every bit of social media mashed into one timeline?
The GPL is a copyright license, so really, it's a test of copyright law. In fact, one way to look at it is that the case has strengthened or at least affirmed copyright law.
They're different situations dealing with the same thing--copyright law. The point is that Slashdot is constantly anti-copyright except in a GPL article, where it suddenly becomes pro-copyright. After all, the GPL is a copyright license, and without copyright law, it has no legal power. Pro-piracy/anti-copyright advocates around here often forget that.
This court victory exists thanks to copyright law.
Because Google is turning into Microsoft, where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
Tech sites like Slashdot continue to believe the lie that Google is a friendly open source company. In reality, its search and advertising platforms are as closed and proprietary as Windows, and they just offer free products like Gmail and Chrome to get you onto their closed platforms for indexing purposes. On top of that, they don't give two shits about privacy, and their CEO flat-out said anyone concerned about it has something to hide.
But, because Google used cheap Linux PCs when it was starting out and offered a free email service, Slashdot will always be blindly in love with it. I'm always curious when the tide is going to start turning. I thought scanning and arching people's WiFi data "accidentally" would be the last straw, but I underestimated fanboyism.
Google Wave just got Kinned!
Every drooling tech blog proclaimed Wave to be a historic achievement of mankind, reciting the history of email at the beginning of every article to drive home the point that Wave is as historic as the introduction of email itself. I questioned its viability back then and was modded down on Slashdot. Yet here we are witnessing its cancellation despite enormous levels of hype from Google-friendly outlets. With Wave's cancellation and the bundled crapware from carriers on Android phones, Google continues its metamorphosis into the Microsoft of the internet age.
Why are there so many Anonymous Cowards defending net neutrality in these comments? Even the submitter is anonymous.
Anyway, you're wrong. Local ISPs are under the jurisdiction of state governments.
Government's role is to provide basic infrastructure. Not regulate some company's private network traffic.
Fear not! For TechDirt has declared that it doesn't violate the 5th amendment! Don't you see the Slashdot headline so conveniently worded by the anonymous submitter? It tells you, "No, Net Neutrality Doesn't Violate the 5th Amendment." So there. That means it's automatically been concluded for you, and you don't have to think about it. Whew!
Thanks, anonymous submitter.
It's not illegal or wrong to be a monopoly. In fact, the government itself is a monopoly. The government also price-fixes, colludes, and much worse, but the problem is that you can call a company out and stop doing business with it, but it's a lot harder to change your government.
That's a basic infrastructure role, which, along with basic national security, is the role the government should be providing. They should absolutely not be regulating our internet traffic. That anyone would suggest it--especially on Slashdot, a site that used to be pretty libertarian in its ideals--is just crazy to me. By the way, the government-owned streets in my state are in worse condition than the smoothly paved drive-through at my local Taco Bell.
1.) How would government regulation of internet traffic be more "neutral?" Governments are even more corrupt than corporations. Lobby groups like the RIAA would love to be able to influence to politicians who might force ISPs to "regulate" torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism."
2.) Why are corporations not allowed to run their networks how they want? The corporations own them, and you're just paying a fee to use them to access the internet. How about we let sysadmins run their networks, not politicians?
Please stop expanding the government! Enough!
The summary beings with "Despite all the hype of Apple's latest phone," but the figures don't include the sales of the iPhone 4. In fact, the sales are from the period of time during the iPhone 4 prototype leak, which means potential 3GS customers were probably waiting for the next model before purchasing.
It turns out that the iPhone 4 saw the biggest single-month market share gain on record. That's over twice that of the Android. Will you see that article on Slashdot's front page? Of course not, because (in my opinion) Android astroturfers are using the site to drum up anti-Apple buzz among techies.
I'm confused, this article summary isn't biased or uninformed like the last one (summary begins with "Despite all the hype about Apple's latest phone" even though the figures in the article don't include sales of the latest iPhone).
Where is the required quota of Apple hate so I can know how to respond to this?
That's what's stupid about the summary. It starts off with "Despite all the hype about Apple's latest iPhone," yet the figures don't include the sales of the latest iPhone.
These days, with Google and Apple becoming competitors, I'm really curious how many astroturfers there are on Google-friendly Slashdot, trying to fuel a general hatred toward Apple through biased comments and story submissions. I've seen a sharp increase in ridiculous Apple hatred from a site that was generally Apple-friendly for years, and it just makes me wonder. This story is yet another example.
I'm sure people in the comments will conveniently ignore those facts, especially the one about not including iPhone 4 sales. Many analysts say the iPhone 4 leak hampered 3GS sales because customers were waiting for the new model. Also, it's bizarre to be comparing an OS to one device. It's more accurate to compare Android to iOS, which would then include the iPad.
iPhone 4 + iPad = more than Android, sorry.
OS X is based on the open source Darwin operating system utilizing BSD components.
By the way, experts say iPhone sales were down because of the iPhone 4 leak. Customers were holding off on purchasing a 3G until the 4 came out. Plus, this isn't including iPad sales which also run iOS. This story is comparing an OS to one device.
But then again, it's a Google product, which means it automatically gets the Slashdot stamp of approval...
Not only is it centralized using a big government database (which I'm sure will never get hacked), Obamacare is a government requirement that you purchase healthcare of a specific size. Obama declared on national television that it was not a tax, but then when states filed lawsuits, his administration defended it as a tax. Mind-boggling.
There has been much deceptive manipulation to pass legislation that was supposed to be debated in the open "on C-SPAN." I don't think Obama's healthcare will ever see the light of day in its intended form. Even if the GOP-controlled House isn't able to repeal it, the program will be killed by simply not allocating it any funds in a future budget--which would be a step up from the current Congress not passing any budget at all this year. Most people have to budget their money so they don't overextend themselves, but apparently the government believes it does not.
If there's any reason to punish incumbents this year, it's to show politicians that they should not be allowed to very publicly make promises and then break them repeatedly. We're in a media-saturated world now where your words aren't forgotten.