I believe it's meant to keep out spammers. If they revoke your account for uploading a spammy/malware app, you'll have to think twice before spending $25 on a new account. Also, I think it helps Google identify you as a real person.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html
"This section is included because, under copyright law, Google needs what's called a "license" to display or transmit content. So to show a blog, we ask the user to give us a license to the blog's content. (The same goes for any other service where users can create content.) But in all these cases, the license is limited to providing the service."
http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html
11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."
Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome
Yeah, all they've done is create a company with a market cap over 200 billion. They're dumb. You could have done that.
What you're forgetting is that "being advertising middlemen" required them to create a huge, scalable infrastructure that spans the globe. Then they had to figure out the distributed software architecture to make it all work.
I love when people say Google doesn't innovate or that they buy all their products. What few people realize is that Google is the Walmart of technology. They've innovated by engineering massively scalable, highly distributed systems AND they've figured how to incorporate dozens of great applications into that infrastructure.
They have essentially streamlined the "information supply chain". What have you done?
It's not: do no evil do nothing if there's a moral dilemma don't make mistakes please everyone
If you had to classify all companies into 'evil' and 'not evil' buckets, I don't think a reasonable person would ever put Google in the 'evil' bucket. They've made some mistakes and they've been forced to make some compromises, but the good they've done far outweighs the bad.
I know luck might have a lot to do with a couple 'big breaks', but the rest of time these guys had to work hard and make good decisions.
There are plenty of people that work hard and never get a break, but there are also a lot of people that ignore the breaks they get or fail at taking advantage of them.
Don't belittle someone else's accomplishments by calling it luck.
Shared hosting companies don't market or tailor their products to the masses. Most of them have terrible user interfaces that mix 10 useful features with 1000 worthless ones; just so they can claim they they provide more features for 50 cents less a month. It's a commodity business where everyone is competing via # of features / price. That isn't a formula that results in wide appeal.
Nonsense. Why does everyone in the computing industry think in absolutes? We don't have to stop using fat clients because someone makes creating thin clients easier. They still both have a place in the world. Use the best tool for the job.
Google isn't trying to reinvent anything. They are not trying to take us all back to thin clients. Why would they want to? Just because they are advancing the state of the art for webapps doesn't mean they want every application to be a webapp. They are also pushing a bunch of desktop apps. More importantly, they are pushing the integration of web and desktop apps.
Some would argue that killing anyone is wrong. Others believe that killing "innocent" people is ok as long as they kill "bad guys" in the process.
If you don't like the word subjective, how about arbitrary?
For most AJAX frameworks, I'd agree with you. However, with GWT, almost everything is AJAX, so you're never asking yourself, "how can I use AJAX here?" It's closer to writing a traditional client-server app over RPC. The AJAX is very much "under the covers", so you never think about it.
Free food is just icing on the cake at Google. If they took the food away, it would still be the number 1 place to work.
They could lower salaries and take away all of the fringe benefits and it would still be a great place to work. The people and the culture are simply awesome.
On top of that, the environment is carefully crafted so that you're at your most productive. I checked production code in on my first day! If you like the feeling of accomplishment that comes with getting things done, Google is the place for you.
You are never going to get the rest of the world to use the word 'hacker' the way you want them to. Isn't it about time you came up with a new word to mean what you want 'hacker' to mean?
No matter what you call it, political dualism is just an easy way to distract the masses with an us-vs-them argument. This works well enough to ensure that people vote along party lines instead of voting on the actual issues.
Slashdot Mirror
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html
I believe it's meant to keep out spammers. If they revoke your account for uploading a spammy/malware app, you'll have to think twice before spending $25 on a new account. Also, I think it helps Google identify you as a real person.
It's called a Developer phone for a reason; you have to know what you're doing.
If you modify the OS, compile it and put it on your phone, you can't expect Google (or any other company) to support it for free.
Stop coddling the boy. Give him some real tools to play with. An arduino, breadboard and a soldering iron should do the trick.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html "This section is included because, under copyright law, Google needs what's called a "license" to display or transmit content. So to show a blog, we ask the user to give us a license to the blog's content. (The same goes for any other service where users can create content.) But in all these cases, the license is limited to providing the service."
http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html 11. Content license from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."
Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome
Franky, given Anonymous Coward's record, I refuse to listen to anything he has to say.
Please, try backing up "given Google's record" with some actual arguments, because not everyone thinks that Google is the devil.
I'll believe it when I see it. All they've done so far is make a couple vague statements to BusinessWeek.
All this talk of Verizon "openness" is just talk. Right in time for all the publicity around the 700MHz auction.
I have no idea what their strategy is, but I can assure you being more open is not their goal.
Yeah, all they've done is create a company with a market cap over 200 billion. They're dumb. You could have done that. What you're forgetting is that "being advertising middlemen" required them to create a huge, scalable infrastructure that spans the globe. Then they had to figure out the distributed software architecture to make it all work. I love when people say Google doesn't innovate or that they buy all their products. What few people realize is that Google is the Walmart of technology. They've innovated by engineering massively scalable, highly distributed systems AND they've figured how to incorporate dozens of great applications into that infrastructure. They have essentially streamlined the "information supply chain". What have you done?
A little googling revealed that his actual title is:
Senior Voice Interface Engineer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/billb
It's:
:)
don't be evil
It's not:
do no evil
do nothing if there's a moral dilemma
don't make mistakes
please everyone
If you had to classify all companies into 'evil' and 'not evil' buckets, I don't think a reasonable person would ever put Google in the 'evil' bucket. They've made some mistakes and they've been forced to make some compromises, but the good they've done far outweighs the bad.
Yes, I'm officially a Google apologist
I know luck might have a lot to do with a couple 'big breaks', but the rest of time these guys had to work hard and make good decisions. There are plenty of people that work hard and never get a break, but there are also a lot of people that ignore the breaks they get or fail at taking advantage of them. Don't belittle someone else's accomplishments by calling it luck.
Shared hosting companies don't market or tailor their products to the masses. Most of them have terrible user interfaces that mix 10 useful features with 1000 worthless ones; just so they can claim they they provide more features for 50 cents less a month. It's a commodity business where everyone is competing via # of features / price. That isn't a formula that results in wide appeal.
Nonsense. Why does everyone in the computing industry think in absolutes? We don't have to stop using fat clients because someone makes creating thin clients easier. They still both have a place in the world. Use the best tool for the job. Google isn't trying to reinvent anything. They are not trying to take us all back to thin clients. Why would they want to? Just because they are advancing the state of the art for webapps doesn't mean they want every application to be a webapp. They are also pushing a bunch of desktop apps. More importantly, they are pushing the integration of web and desktop apps.
Uh, they're working on this.
Some would argue that killing anyone is wrong. Others believe that killing "innocent" people is ok as long as they kill "bad guys" in the process. If you don't like the word subjective, how about arbitrary?
What is right and wrong? How does anyone tell right from wrong? Seems pretty subjective to me.
For most AJAX frameworks, I'd agree with you. However, with GWT, almost everything is AJAX, so you're never asking yourself, "how can I use AJAX here?" It's closer to writing a traditional client-server app over RPC. The AJAX is very much "under the covers", so you never think about it.
Free food is just icing on the cake at Google. If they took the food away, it would still be the number 1 place to work.
They could lower salaries and take away all of the fringe benefits and it would still be a great place to work. The people and the culture are simply awesome.
On top of that, the environment is carefully crafted so that you're at your most productive. I checked production code in on my first day! If you like the feeling of accomplishment that comes with getting things done, Google is the place for you.
You are never going to get the rest of the world to use the word 'hacker' the way you want them to. Isn't it about time you came up with a new word to mean what you want 'hacker' to mean?
Many J2EE teams use eXtreme Programming. What are you confused about?
Servlets are a J2EE spec. I think by J2EE projects, you meant EJB based projects.
Sounds like a great god...very wise and understanding...definitely worth worshiping.
No matter what you call it, political dualism is just an easy way to distract the masses with an us-vs-them argument. This works well enough to ensure that people vote along party lines instead of voting on the actual issues.