I agree that there needs to be a balance against the anoymous people who fear reprisal to people who just want to cause damage.
But in this case, I don't think it is the case. Putting "SKANK" on a picture of a model is no different than putting "SOCIALIST" on Obama's picture. I believe both should be covered by the 1st amendment. Google should have gone to bat for the blogger.
I didn't see the guys blog so I can't say, but unless the blog contained more than just pictures with editorial descriptions, this ruling should be reversed.
What most people mistake is that when a company buys another company, it's because they have gobs of money that's burning a hole in your pocket. This may be the fact of some companies (specifically google) but for most companies, they buy other companies because they believe long-run, they will survive.
As I've been learning in my MBA class, companies often go into tremendous debt to buy other companies and it's usually because they need a new revenue stream. This is no different than an average person: as you get older, the more money you want to make because of various expenses.
Again, Google is the exception to the rule. They just have loads of money they can piss away. They probably could buy the United States if they wanted.
While I agree that Word has outlived its usefulness, it probably isn't going to die anytime soon. Mostly because MS has invest too much money into it and has convinced every university and government on the planet that they MUST use Word or else someone won't be able to read it.
I like how the author convinced his entire company to move to MediaWiki as their document management system. It's pretty ingenious, if you ask me.
I friend of mine pointed out that Google is just like microsoft in terms of reach and brand awareness, but with a much better PR team.
Google has made strides in announcing their stances on various tech-related policies (privacy, net neutrallity, etc.) and that's why people love them. Most, if not all, of their consumer products were made because they saw the frustration with current solutions. They not only improve upon them, but then offer it for free (ad supported, of course).
Google's ads are very unintrusive. And more often than not, point you in the right direction.
I don't see Google and MS destroying each other.
I see Google BUYING MS before this happens.
Besides the fact that this is another form of revenue for comcast, et al, what does this hurt?
I use Verizon FiOS which has the same system in place but I've never seen it when I use firefox. You can set up FF to search google FIRST before forwarding you to comcast's DNS failure page.
I agree that DSN should only be a service, not a full-blown application. But everyone is trying to make more money.
As an aside the hell does comcast, verizon, etc need to make more money?! We pay them for service. We shouldn't be subjected to ads on top of that.
Adblocker for the win!
I'm guessing that Panasonic, like most hardware manufacturers, make little to no money on the camera but make a handsome profit on the batteries and other accessories.
Panasonic is doing what every other cash-strapped company is doing: creating a fixed revenue stream.
But in this case, they are doing nothing except hurting themselves. They just talked me out of buying their product.
Right now, hulu works on any browser that has flash. What does the desktop app give you that the web site doesn't?
It seems like this is a step BACKWARD, not forward. I'd be more impressed if it was on XBOX live like Netflix is right now.
I think it's a mixture of "they don't care" and "I didn't know".
I don't use any sort of firewall/anti-virus on my home computer because I know what I'm doing. I don't download anything malicious since I always know who sent me anything. I don't go to sketchy websites and my router locks everything from the outside out.
I don't recommend this unless you're an expert and you don't want to waste resources on virus scanning every file. Most people, if they keep up with updates and run virus scan regularly, most of these things aren't problems.
I think this is kind of like swine flu: trying to create a massive panic when really the odds of it happening is small.
I'm confused by this as well. Although, who ever thought of this is probably hoping to get rich.
By my reading, the genes were discovered, not created. Not sure how you can patent a discovery though. It sets a bad precedent.
I agree with this. Unless you have taken steps to password protect or otherwise secure your stuff, you really shouldn't complain that someone is violating your privacy.
Facebook is a great website. But if you put pictures of you doing keg stands and protesting at some event, employers might find themselves asking, "Could we do better?"
If that content never makes it up there to begin with, then you have nothing to worry about.
If you put it on the web, consider it public.
I'm not going to repeat the many comments criticizing this but I've actually expected this as the next development for some time.
Mainly from the standpoint from my iPhone. I can't actually feel where the "5" key is on the phone, where as most other phones, you can feel the bump.
It would be easier to dial so I wouldn't have to look down at the screen.
Hulu had streaming live feeds of the debates. I'd think they'd have some sort of streaming feed come election day.
Also, I know CNN has streaming feeds of some of their programs.
How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws? Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field...I guess in a way.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that there needs to be a balance against the anoymous people who fear reprisal to people who just want to cause damage.
But in this case, I don't think it is the case. Putting "SKANK" on a picture of a model is no different than putting "SOCIALIST" on Obama's picture. I believe both should be covered by the 1st amendment. Google should have gone to bat for the blogger.
I didn't see the guys blog so I can't say, but unless the blog contained more than just pictures with editorial descriptions, this ruling should be reversed.
What most people mistake is that when a company buys another company, it's because they have gobs of money that's burning a hole in your pocket. This may be the fact of some companies (specifically google) but for most companies, they buy other companies because they believe long-run, they will survive. As I've been learning in my MBA class, companies often go into tremendous debt to buy other companies and it's usually because they need a new revenue stream. This is no different than an average person: as you get older, the more money you want to make because of various expenses. Again, Google is the exception to the rule. They just have loads of money they can piss away. They probably could buy the United States if they wanted.
While I agree that Word has outlived its usefulness, it probably isn't going to die anytime soon. Mostly because MS has invest too much money into it and has convinced every university and government on the planet that they MUST use Word or else someone won't be able to read it. I like how the author convinced his entire company to move to MediaWiki as their document management system. It's pretty ingenious, if you ask me.
I friend of mine pointed out that Google is just like microsoft in terms of reach and brand awareness, but with a much better PR team. Google has made strides in announcing their stances on various tech-related policies (privacy, net neutrallity, etc.) and that's why people love them. Most, if not all, of their consumer products were made because they saw the frustration with current solutions. They not only improve upon them, but then offer it for free (ad supported, of course). Google's ads are very unintrusive. And more often than not, point you in the right direction. I don't see Google and MS destroying each other. I see Google BUYING MS before this happens.
Besides the fact that this is another form of revenue for comcast, et al, what does this hurt? I use Verizon FiOS which has the same system in place but I've never seen it when I use firefox. You can set up FF to search google FIRST before forwarding you to comcast's DNS failure page. I agree that DSN should only be a service, not a full-blown application. But everyone is trying to make more money. As an aside the hell does comcast, verizon, etc need to make more money?! We pay them for service. We shouldn't be subjected to ads on top of that. Adblocker for the win!
I'm guessing that Panasonic, like most hardware manufacturers, make little to no money on the camera but make a handsome profit on the batteries and other accessories. Panasonic is doing what every other cash-strapped company is doing: creating a fixed revenue stream. But in this case, they are doing nothing except hurting themselves. They just talked me out of buying their product.
Right now, hulu works on any browser that has flash. What does the desktop app give you that the web site doesn't? It seems like this is a step BACKWARD, not forward. I'd be more impressed if it was on XBOX live like Netflix is right now.
I think it's a mixture of "they don't care" and "I didn't know". I don't use any sort of firewall/anti-virus on my home computer because I know what I'm doing. I don't download anything malicious since I always know who sent me anything. I don't go to sketchy websites and my router locks everything from the outside out. I don't recommend this unless you're an expert and you don't want to waste resources on virus scanning every file. Most people, if they keep up with updates and run virus scan regularly, most of these things aren't problems. I think this is kind of like swine flu: trying to create a massive panic when really the odds of it happening is small.
I'm confused by this as well. Although, who ever thought of this is probably hoping to get rich. By my reading, the genes were discovered, not created. Not sure how you can patent a discovery though. It sets a bad precedent.
I agree with this. Unless you have taken steps to password protect or otherwise secure your stuff, you really shouldn't complain that someone is violating your privacy. Facebook is a great website. But if you put pictures of you doing keg stands and protesting at some event, employers might find themselves asking, "Could we do better?" If that content never makes it up there to begin with, then you have nothing to worry about. If you put it on the web, consider it public.
I'm not going to repeat the many comments criticizing this but I've actually expected this as the next development for some time. Mainly from the standpoint from my iPhone. I can't actually feel where the "5" key is on the phone, where as most other phones, you can feel the bump. It would be easier to dial so I wouldn't have to look down at the screen.
I understand the rationale on this but the hold time needs to be much longer...like 12 hours for it to be effective.
Or it should be combined with the beer goggles add-on.
Either way, this won't stop my ex-girlfriend from drunk-calling me...
Hulu had streaming live feeds of the debates. I'd think they'd have some sort of streaming feed come election day. Also, I know CNN has streaming feeds of some of their programs.
The Chinese have found a way to make chicken taste like an orange! Now you're telling me they can't hack into a US computer? Come on!
This seems obvious to me. I bet if you ran the same survey here in the states, it'd be 85% don't like censorship.
How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws? Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field...I guess in a way.
What I hate is when you are smarter and more knowledgeable about the service than they are.
This has always been the case for me when I call comcast.
I hate cable. I need fiber...