"Is stating the obvious truth considered trolling now?"
The obvious truth? They claim that the site is dedicated to indexing illegal stuff as well as other files. What if the main purpose is to search for legal stuff? Hasn't Bram Cohen repeatedly expressed concerns that BT is being used for illegal stuff?
"Ads crammed in RSS feeds, even if they do say "google ads" (which i'm not sure if they do), appear to be genuine articles."
You don't know that yet.
"And if they don't appear that way, they just cause extra clutter like so much spam in my inbox."
Like ads on web pages. Your point being?
"Regular Google ads can be somewhat helpful..."Hmm, i can't find NES games for sale on this page...oh look heres an ad for a place that sells them". No one is looking in their RSS feed for commerce."
Why not? And what difference does it make? If no one clicks the ads, they will be a disaster, and Google will just stop doing RSS ads.
"It's not like I'll see 5 news stories, and then an ad related to those news stories and find it helpful."
But maybe others will!
Anyway, all of the arguments I quoted here except the first one all apply to ads on web pages too. The comment was still useless and misrepresenting the poster's real attitude. He should have said "Google is still evil" rather than "Google is now evil".
"Its the specific intent of the product they design that makes it "evil". I don't see people like you defending DoubleClick...maybe doubleclick "suggests" that popup ads be used discretely and sparingly, but that doesn't keep people from flooding your browser with them."
Did DoubleClick suggest that popups be used sparingly?
Is Google responsible for the actions of others? If someone covers his site with Google ads, does that make Google evil?
"Google's "do no evil" mission statement has always revolved around making products that do not make the users of Google advertisements mad. But this, and other recent ideas have gotten further and further away from that."
In what way? These are plain text ads, and Google suggests that people place the ads below the content because the content is what's important. That does not sound like something an "evil" company would do. And intentions do matter. If Google suggested that ads be placed before the actual content, people would be up in arms. Why should it only count if they suggest something people don't like? Why shouldn't they receive credit for suggesting something which makes the ads less intrusive?
"Furthermore, I don't understand why your responding to every negative post on this topic and defending Google..."
I'm not responfing to every negative post. Right now I'm following up on my own posts. I do this because I have time to spare, and I think some people over-react to things.
In other words, the "So much for 'Do no evil'" comment has no place in this debate, since the person who posted it thought that Google was evil in the first place. He should have written something like "See? Google continues to be evil", but instead he misrepresents his position and makes a snide comment which is dishonest and hides his true intentions.
So now Google is evil because others may do evil things?
Google is already an advertising company. If you think that makes Google evil, then you are of course allowed to have that opinion. But don't come here saying that this is somehow more evil than the other kinds of ads they are serving. They are ads. Either you think Google are evil because they are an ad company, or you don't make silly comments like "so much for 'do no evil'", giving the impression that you didn't think they used to be evil.
Note that I am not saying that you are the original poster. I'm just making a point.
What are you trying to say? If you are the original poster, did you not write the following?
"So much for 'Do no evil'"
Then you followed up with this?
"Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should or are entitled to do it."
As I pointed out, Google is an advertising company. They are simply serving ads. The "doing evil", as in placing the ads on someone's site, is done by the guy who runs the site.
"Yes, because the clients broadcast how much of the file they have."
But how does the BSA know that the file is actually warez in the first place? Maybe it's OpenOffice.org renamed to Microsoft Office? Wouldn't they have to download it to actually check that it is what they think it is? (And thereby upload to others themselves at the same time.)
Google is not the one placing the ads. They are offering people ads which they can place on their sites, and now in their newsfeeds. It is up to the site owner where the ads go.
But to bust someone, they will have to figure out if what they think is infringing material is indeed infringing material. To do so, they will have to download it. And by downloading it, they also share it with others, distributing their own work.
I don't know if a court of law would buy that line of arguments, but that's the way I see it.
While ads can be annoying, Google is at least taking steps to make it "less evil". But you do realize that Google is an advertising company, don't you? Advertising is what they are getting revenues from. They are just trying to be responsible about it.
"That interaction with the rest of the Human Race is just too much for some people."
I don't know about you, but sitting in a dark room filled with loud noises and stuffing my face with candy is not what I call "interaction with the rest of the Human Race".
"Much better to sit at home in front of a computer. No germs, no inconvenience."
In front of a computer? People have actual DVD players in their living rooms these days, you know. With TV sets and all. Snuggle up with one's girlfriend or invite a few friends over for a movie in the evening... Beats tall people blocking one's view, cell phones beeping all the time. Generally, people showing no respect for people who actually want to watch the movie.
"Seriously. This is one reason the Internet can be a Bad Thing."
After having read your post, I am inclined to agree...
"you're telling me that web designers go out of their way to send Opera bad data"
No, Mr. "I can't bother reading what people are actually writing to make sure I understand what they are saying", I am saying that sites are specifically detecting Opera and then sending it broken code. I don't know why they do it. I don't know if they go out of their way to do it. But the fact remains that they do. If you had bothered to read the link I gave you, Opera's own people have written about this many times.
If you want to quit being an ass and actually getting informed, read the blog, and look at the example, MSNBC. It clearly singles out Opera, and the only reason why the menus don't work is that it specifically detects Opera and then sends it code that isn't working. This can easily be verified by anyone. So there is no excuse for being an asshole and insinuating that I or Opera employees are lying when stating this simple fact.
"I've already addressed my issues with Opera's rendering in another post. To recap, Opera's two options are like Papa Bear's porridge (epileptic on methamphetamine) and Mama Bear's porridge (glacial) to me, little Goldilocks. Firefox and IE both seem to be "Just Right" as far as page rendering goes, not that I'm trying to say anything positive about IE."
You don't seem to know what you are talking about. There's nothing wrong with Opera's rendering compared to other browsers. Sure it has bugs, but so does Firefox. But the reason sites don't work in Opera is that they specifically detect Opera and send it broken code. Why would they do that? No idea, but the fact is that they do.
"Sitting in front of Opera I found key combinations sometimes did very different things. Why? Just to be different?"
No, to be more efficient. Keyboard browsing in Opera is far better than in other browsers.
"Opera wasn't developed in a vacuum of the days before web browsers. There was not and is not a good reason for those differences."
Actually, Opera has been around for ten years. It's always been a keyboard accessible browser, unlike the rest.
"NONE of the Opera-based blockers have the wonderful right-click and >poof simplicity of Adblock."
Of course they aren't AdBlock, but they are still easy to use. Just because they aren't exactly the same as AdBlock doesn't mean that they aren't working just fine.
"Can I also mention the default Opera bookmarks for a second?"
Ah, so you haven't tried recent versions of Opera then, and are just making uninformed statements based on lies and FUD? Opera comes with very few bookmarks by default nowadays.
"As far as other Opera "features", I think the best thing to say is that with Firefox, I don't have to take anything I don't want."
You don't with Opera either. But even with all those features (that don't get in the way if you don't want to use them), Opera is smaller, faster and more stable than Firefox. And you get lots of features without having to endure Extension Hell.
"The fact is not who converted whom from the other side, but how many IE users switched to Opera VS. FF. In that regard, I think FF won big time."
Yes, because Firefox was "new and fresh" at exactly the right time, and Mozilla took advantage of that. Notice how Thunderbird isn't quite having the same success?
"but konqueror, which is also a brand new browser doesn't quite reach"
Konqueror is not available for Windows, and it wasn't released as v1.0 exactly at the right time (when everyone was warning people against using IE for security reasons).
"Although it's hard to get statistics, it's my (wild) guess at any rate."
"Nevermind that you're apparently the kind of arrogant asshole who thinks he can determine someone's "true self" from a couple of lines of text"
Couple of lines? Your comment was filled with nonsense. And your uninformed, nonsensical drivel that I am replying to now only proves what kind of person you are. ("Facts? Who cares about facts!")
"I don't know what you've "heard somewhere else", but I'm guessing it's coming from professional web developers like myself who have just about had it with trying to support Opera's broken Javascript/DOM implementation."
Nope, it's come from newbies like yourself.
"There is no concerted effort to undermine Opera by sending it broken code -- why would there be, when you can break it simply by trying to execute simple scripts that run without a hiccup under everything from IE to Firefox to OmniWeb?"
How on earth should I know? The fact still remains that Opera is singled out and sent broken code. Simply identifying as Mozilla without including "Opera" in the useragent string makes everything suddenly work. This means that the site specifically looks for Opera, and then sends it broken code.
"is there something about small, underdog platforms that ctually breeds paranoia and delusions of widespread malignant conspiracy amongst their partisans, or do they just somehow attract the mentally unstable?"
There you go again, spewing out nonsense instead of sticking to facts. That sites specifically detect Opera and proceed to break it is a well known fact. MSNBC specifically detects Opera, and then sends it code which breaks the menus. Hotmail used to omit an important script file when it detected Opera. It specifically detected Opera on the server end and simply didn't include the script file.
There are other sites talking about these things as well.
XSLT doesn't make sense for a web browser. It should be done server-side to take load off the client, as the client might not be very powerful (mobile phones).
"Does Opera have something in the way of browsing with the keyboard that Firefox does not have?"
Spatial navigation. Hold down the Shift key and use the arrow keys to navigate around on the page. Actually, Firefox 1.1 will probably "steal" this feature, but it's still exclusive for now;)
"He also missed the Opera's "Crash every half-hour so you can be reminded of the nifty crash-recovery feature" feature, something I've seen in every version of Opera that I've tried (up to version 7)."
Oh dear, more anti-Opera FUD. On Slashdot, no less! Gee, whoddathunk!:) Opera is no less stable than Firefox. In fact, I find it to be much more stable on my system.
Crashes are obviously not typical behavior for most people.
"Opera STARTS to render a page as soon as it has any data at all"
You can change that in the prefs.
"Opera also uses a widely different set of keyboard shortcuts, while most of IE's and Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox's overlap."
But Opera's are more extensive and actually allow for full keyboard browsing. They are much better overall.
"Opera fans can then point out their goofy "mouse gestures" but after trying them, I didn't see the big deal and went back to my keyboard."
"Especially considering that, not only does Opera not have AdBlock, but it throws in a few banners of its own."
Oh please. Time to stop lying now? Opera does not throw in "a few banners". It has a single banner strip or banner ad, and that's it. Also, you can block ads with Opera:
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, all of the arguments I quoted here except the first one all apply to ads on web pages too. The comment was still useless and misrepresenting the poster's real attitude. He should have said "Google is still evil" rather than "Google is now evil".
Is Google responsible for the actions of others? If someone covers his site with Google ads, does that make Google evil?
In what way? These are plain text ads, and Google suggests that people place the ads below the content because the content is what's important. That does not sound like something an "evil" company would do. And intentions do matter. If Google suggested that ads be placed before the actual content, people would be up in arms. Why should it only count if they suggest something people don't like? Why shouldn't they receive credit for suggesting something which makes the ads less intrusive? I'm not responfing to every negative post. Right now I'm following up on my own posts. I do this because I have time to spare, and I think some people over-react to things.In other words, the "So much for 'Do no evil'" comment has no place in this debate, since the person who posted it thought that Google was evil in the first place. He should have written something like "See? Google continues to be evil", but instead he misrepresents his position and makes a snide comment which is dishonest and hides his true intentions.
Google is already an advertising company. If you think that makes Google evil, then you are of course allowed to have that opinion. But don't come here saying that this is somehow more evil than the other kinds of ads they are serving. They are ads. Either you think Google are evil because they are an ad company, or you don't make silly comments like "so much for 'do no evil'", giving the impression that you didn't think they used to be evil.
Note that I am not saying that you are the original poster. I'm just making a point.
Google is not the one placing the ads. They are offering people ads which they can place on their sites, and now in their newsfeeds. It is up to the site owner where the ads go.
I don't know if a court of law would buy that line of arguments, but that's the way I see it.
While ads can be annoying, Google is at least taking steps to make it "less evil". But you do realize that Google is an advertising company, don't you? Advertising is what they are getting revenues from. They are just trying to be responsible about it.
Actually, Google recommends placing the ads at the very bottom, below the actual content. This might not be such a bad thing after all.
Google is trying to make people place the ads sensibly, name at the bottom. Kudos to Google for that one.
But how does one insert this into one's feed?
If you want to quit being an ass and actually getting informed, read the blog, and look at the example, MSNBC. It clearly singles out Opera, and the only reason why the menus don't work is that it specifically detects Opera and then sends it code that isn't working. This can easily be verified by anyone. So there is no excuse for being an asshole and insinuating that I or Opera employees are lying when stating this simple fact.
XSLT doesn't make sense for a web browser. It should be done server-side to take load off the client, as the client might not be very powerful (mobile phones).
Crashes are obviously not typical behavior for most people.
You can change that in the prefs. But Opera's are more extensive and actually allow for full keyboard browsing. They are much better overall. So? Lots of people love them. There are lots of ways to block ads in Opera:http://nontroppo.org/wiki/OperaAdblock
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/BlockAdvertisements
Linky? You mean, like Ctrl+J in Opera?
So? They don't interfere if you don't want to use them, and Opera is still smaller, faster and more stable than Firefox. Seems like he didn't after all.http://nontroppo.org/wiki/BlockAdvertisements
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/OperaAdblock
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/BlockAdvertisements
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/OperaAdblock
You can create your own toolbars, menus, panels, etc. And there's always User JS.