It's not Google's job to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Google is a U.S. corporation, and could not under any circumstances "tell" the PRC to do anything. The PRC can, on the other hand, tell Google how it must behave when operating within Chinese territory.
Consequently, Google isn't telling anyone how to run their government... quite the opposite in fact. What Google is objecting to is China's government telling Google how to run Google's business. China is insisting on concessions that Google's founders (in particular, Sergey Brin) are unwilling to accept. End of story. That is their choice and, oddly enough, it's being a U.S. corporation rather than a Chinese corporation that allows them to make that decision. If the converse were true, if it were Baidu being told to bend over and take it, well, let's just say they would do exactly what their government handlers told them to do.
The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control.
I see... and the average Chinese guy has a clear understanding of U.S. motivations behind our current hands-off attitude towards Internet control.
Whatever happened to Apple being the goodguys? They had this image of being friendly and having a great product, but ever since they released the iPod its like it was the catalyst that turned them to the darkside.
Trust me on this one, it was just image. I knew Apple from back in the Apple I days, and Jobs was a dick even then, a hopped up salesman at best. Wozniak I respected... to have designed and prototyped the Apple ][, Monitor ROM and floppy disk controller at his age was remarkable. Close to genius-level work, I'd say.
For all its flaws and warts (and it has many) Microsoft has put forth more effort to support its customers over the years than Apple ever has. I agree with you, they've seemed like bigger dicks since the iPod came out, but probably having to deal with the music industry has just amplified their existing negative vibes.
It's why Microsoft got bigger than Apple. Because they were actually less evil and more open than Apple were.
Not really. It's because Microsoft chose to market an operating system that would run on computers made by any company that was "PC Compatible" and then worked out deals with those manufacturers to only offer Microsoft OSes. And those backroom deals were sleazy and illegal and Microsoft got called out for them, so don't give Microsoft a free ride on the "evil" bit. Apple, on the other hand, insisted on owning the whole enchilada, lock stock and barrel, never seeing themselves as a pure software company. Gates even told Jobs at one point that if he wanted to make a whole lot of money, just sell the OS. In any event, it comes down to two entirely different business models selling to two entirely different demographics.
Having said, that I can honestly say that I don't particularly like either corporation, but at this point in my life, I make my living working with Microsoft development tools coding Windows applications. That's because you're right: Windows is more open, in terms of the hardware it will run on.
But then, so do the Beatles (for some, purveyors of simililary overrated products) for suing Apple way back when.
I thought it was Apple Music, which held the rights to most of the Beatles music, that sued Apple Computer. Not they're any less dicks, but I don't know if the Beatles themselves were behind that.
hardware-based product activation scheme similar to what's found in Microsoft Windows
Windows Product Activation is not what is usually termed "hardware based". It may take a signature of your hardware to look for unacceptable changes to that hardware, but that's about it. A hardware-based scheme usually involves a dongle or other physical device that is required for the software to execute.
Net proficiency? You really think that all of congress is internet-savvy?
Someone else further up suggested calling professors. One, there's schedule issues, and two, congresspeople are just average Americans in terms of beliefs -- including, sadly, the share of Americans who have little respect or trust for scientists.
We expect our children to have basic computer skills, so I fail to see why we shouldn't require it of our leaders. It doesn't take any great deal of computer literacy to type "www.google.com" and enter a few relevant terms, especially on such a brainless topic. Christ, more information is at our fingertips in the Internet age than in all of recorded history, and it's easily accessible to anyone with a Internet connection.
Truth is, there's no excuse, absolutely none, for a Congressman to be so ignorant of a subject. There just isn't. Not anymore. Besides, we're not talking about some issue where there's any debate whatsoever: this is about a goddamned nutrient that we all need to live. If this imbecile can't be bothered to Google something so basic then he shouldn't be in office. Period.
In order to foster his unique style, and to one-up Twitter, the main form of communication on this social networking site are tiny posts, known as "Shats", limited to exactly one word.
Screw you, buddy. Now I have to wipe yogurt out of my keyboard.
Compromising your own ethics for revenge is a net loss. A vengeful, spiteful CISO would have about 0.00% chance of a new job that paid anything above "volunteer" wages.
Remember, CIO already jokingly stands for "Career Is Over." I don't think he needs to pile on "Career Is So Over" limiting moves by acting like a 13-year-old dumped by his first girlfriend.
True enough, but then again... he could just post anonymously.
I can't wait for this newest bubble to burst. Thin clients haven't really been embraced for office apps where 95% of the functionality can run in the browser and it will work reasonably well. How can you expect to compete with native apps on PCs where performance is cheaply had so long as you don't need to run at the highest settings...or on consoles which look almost as good? The problem for game companies is that many folks have realized that they can play year old games on cheap new hardware to great effect...after the game is reduced to 50%.
I don't see the market niche. Hardcore gamers won't touch it. Casual gamers will baulk at the $15/month by in BEFORE you get the privilege to buy/rent a game. So, who will want this unless the games are steeply discounted? $180/year could be well spent on local hardware upgrades.
Besides... they'll have to contend with Valve's Steam.
He was confused by the guy making the weird leap to Android above.
No, I was just confused. The GP got pretty testy though... probably somebody peed in his Wheaties this morning. Interesting enough, there was a Slashdot article a few weeks ago about Apple building out some heavy-duty server farms for the express purpose of competing with Google (not in the ad space, but as far as mobile services.) I haven't read any further on the subject, since I dislike anything to do with Apple and iPhones.
I need to find the guys DDoS'ing the Ubi servers so I can buy them a beer.
Assuming that it truly was a DDOS and not just incompetence on UBISoft's part. However, if it was a DOS attack, they should put up a tip jar and take Paypal donations. Given the level of ire arising over UBISoft's gaffe, they'd probably make a mint.
Animal abusers are as bad as wife beaters, same cowardly assholes.
Sure... but that's not the question. What we, as a society, have to decide is this: do we declare animals to be human beings, with all the same rights and privileges? If so, then we should be punished in exactly the same way. Otherwise, abusing an animal should not carry the same punishment.
Now, having said that, I agree: people that abuse animals are assholes. But that does not mean that a person who kicks a dog to death should be put away for murder. That is just batshit insane, yet there are people who believe that's a good idea.
I believe it is too... but the big benefit of Web apps is that they're relatively lightweight and multiplatform. If you really want to start coding Web applications that are basically native apps in power, you're going to lose that benefit to some degree. And you're right: the current crop of Web browsers isn't going to cut it.
So at least as a hedge, let's start over and build a "GUI Browser" from scratch that has desktop idioms built in
I get the impression that that's where Google wants to take Chrome.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not Google's job to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Google is a U.S. corporation, and could not under any circumstances "tell" the PRC to do anything. The PRC can, on the other hand, tell Google how it must behave when operating within Chinese territory.
... quite the opposite in fact. What Google is objecting to is China's government telling Google how to run Google's business. China is insisting on concessions that Google's founders (in particular, Sergey Brin) are unwilling to accept. End of story. That is their choice and, oddly enough, it's being a U.S. corporation rather than a Chinese corporation that allows them to make that decision. If the converse were true, if it were Baidu being told to bend over and take it, well, let's just say they would do exactly what their government handlers told them to do.
Consequently, Google isn't telling anyone how to run their government
The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control.
I see ... and the average Chinese guy has a clear understanding of U.S. motivations behind our current hands-off attitude towards Internet control.
Don't make this into more than it is.
Whatever happened to Apple being the goodguys? They had this image of being friendly and having a great product, but ever since they released the iPod its like it was the catalyst that turned them to the darkside.
Trust me on this one, it was just image. I knew Apple from back in the Apple I days, and Jobs was a dick even then, a hopped up salesman at best. Wozniak I respected ... to have designed and prototyped the Apple ][, Monitor ROM and floppy disk controller at his age was remarkable. Close to genius-level work, I'd say.
For all its flaws and warts (and it has many) Microsoft has put forth more effort to support its customers over the years than Apple ever has. I agree with you, they've seemed like bigger dicks since the iPod came out, but probably having to deal with the music industry has just amplified their existing negative vibes.
when the ruling was headlined iDon'tThinkSo.
Hey! That's a good one! iGetIt.
It's why Microsoft got bigger than Apple. Because they were actually less evil and more open than Apple were.
Not really. It's because Microsoft chose to market an operating system that would run on computers made by any company that was "PC Compatible" and then worked out deals with those manufacturers to only offer Microsoft OSes. And those backroom deals were sleazy and illegal and Microsoft got called out for them, so don't give Microsoft a free ride on the "evil" bit. Apple, on the other hand, insisted on owning the whole enchilada, lock stock and barrel, never seeing themselves as a pure software company. Gates even told Jobs at one point that if he wanted to make a whole lot of money, just sell the OS. In any event, it comes down to two entirely different business models selling to two entirely different demographics.
Having said, that I can honestly say that I don't particularly like either corporation, but at this point in my life, I make my living working with Microsoft development tools coding Windows applications. That's because you're right: Windows is more open, in terms of the hardware it will run on.
But then, so do the Beatles (for some, purveyors of simililary overrated products) for suing Apple way back when.
I thought it was Apple Music, which held the rights to most of the Beatles music, that sued Apple Computer. Not they're any less dicks, but I don't know if the Beatles themselves were behind that.
hardware-based product activation scheme similar to what's found in Microsoft Windows
Windows Product Activation is not what is usually termed "hardware based". It may take a signature of your hardware to look for unacceptable changes to that hardware, but that's about it. A hardware-based scheme usually involves a dongle or other physical device that is required for the software to execute.
Private Insurance Exchanges (designed in Enron in 1999) -- On the Internet, no one knows you're a supercomputer.
Yes. P.I.E. in the Skynet.
Your username gives an entirely new meaning to your post.
Yeah. I get that a lot.
Net proficiency? You really think that all of congress is internet-savvy?
Someone else further up suggested calling professors. One, there's schedule issues, and two, congresspeople are just average Americans in terms of beliefs -- including, sadly, the share of Americans who have little respect or trust for scientists.
We expect our children to have basic computer skills, so I fail to see why we shouldn't require it of our leaders. It doesn't take any great deal of computer literacy to type "www.google.com" and enter a few relevant terms, especially on such a brainless topic. Christ, more information is at our fingertips in the Internet age than in all of recorded history, and it's easily accessible to anyone with a Internet connection.
Truth is, there's no excuse, absolutely none, for a Congressman to be so ignorant of a subject. There just isn't. Not anymore. Besides, we're not talking about some issue where there's any debate whatsoever: this is about a goddamned nutrient that we all need to live. If this imbecile can't be bothered to Google something so basic then he shouldn't be in office. Period.
It's the first anti-social network.
Truly News for Nerds, Stuff that Antimatters.
...Spacebook?
HYPErspace? No, wait, Lucas got that already.
Whatever you call it, as ideas go, it's pure Shat.
I dunno ... maybe "Shatdot"?
In order to foster his unique style, and to one-up Twitter, the main form of communication on this social networking site are tiny posts, known as "Shats", limited to exactly one word.
Screw you, buddy. Now I have to wipe yogurt out of my keyboard.
The problem is, do you know the term for those advisors you mention
Indeed I do. They're called search engines.
Most dysfunctional legislature... ever!
I beg to differ. I live in California.
Regardless of where you live, I believe that all politicians should serve two terms: one in office ... the other in prison.
Note: Illinois already does this.
Compromising your own ethics for revenge is a net loss. A vengeful, spiteful CISO would have about 0.00% chance of a new job that paid anything above "volunteer" wages.
Remember, CIO already jokingly stands for "Career Is Over." I don't think he needs to pile on "Career Is So Over" limiting moves by acting like a 13-year-old dumped by his first girlfriend.
True enough, but then again ... he could just post anonymously.
Both online services, but different ideas
I agree. But they're still going to have to contend with Valve's Steam.
I can't wait for this newest bubble to burst. Thin clients haven't really been embraced for office apps where 95% of the functionality can run in the browser and it will work reasonably well. How can you expect to compete with native apps on PCs where performance is cheaply had so long as you don't need to run at the highest settings...or on consoles which look almost as good? The problem for game companies is that many folks have realized that they can play year old games on cheap new hardware to great effect...after the game is reduced to 50%.
I don't see the market niche. Hardcore gamers won't touch it. Casual gamers will baulk at the $15/month by in BEFORE you get the privilege to buy/rent a game. So, who will want this unless the games are steeply discounted? $180/year could be well spent on local hardware upgrades.
Besides ... they'll have to contend with Valve's Steam.
He was confused by the guy making the weird leap to Android above.
No, I was just confused. The GP got pretty testy though ... probably somebody peed in his Wheaties this morning. Interesting enough, there was a Slashdot article a few weeks ago about Apple building out some heavy-duty server farms for the express purpose of competing with Google (not in the ad space, but as far as mobile services.) I haven't read any further on the subject, since I dislike anything to do with Apple and iPhones.
While I see the benefits of this, I can't help but see that all these things can be easily manipulated into Google "owning" the services using this
Sure. But this is still better than Apple's ecosystem.
in one of the company's few unqualified successes
What does that mean? Google has had more successes in the online world than most of its competitors.
This is a preview of what will happen someday when Ubisoft goes bankrupt and you still want to play AC2.
Well, in this particular case the game has already been cracked, but your point is well-taken.
I need to find the guys DDoS'ing the Ubi servers so I can buy them a beer.
Assuming that it truly was a DDOS and not just incompetence on UBISoft's part. However, if it was a DOS attack, they should put up a tip jar and take Paypal donations. Given the level of ire arising over UBISoft's gaffe, they'd probably make a mint.
most people who purchased this game had no idea about DRM, you jerk off.
They do now. And if they make the same mistake again, then they deserve whatever grief they get, because they will have known better.
Animal abusers are as bad as wife beaters, same cowardly assholes.
Sure ... but that's not the question. What we, as a society, have to decide is this: do we declare animals to be human beings, with all the same rights and privileges? If so, then we should be punished in exactly the same way. Otherwise, abusing an animal should not carry the same punishment.
Now, having said that, I agree: people that abuse animals are assholes. But that does not mean that a person who kicks a dog to death should be put away for murder. That is just batshit insane, yet there are people who believe that's a good idea.
I believe it is possible
I believe it is too ... but the big benefit of Web apps is that they're relatively lightweight and multiplatform. If you really want to start coding Web applications that are basically native apps in power, you're going to lose that benefit to some degree. And you're right: the current crop of Web browsers isn't going to cut it.
So at least as a hedge, let's start over and build a "GUI Browser" from scratch that has desktop idioms built in
I get the impression that that's where Google wants to take Chrome.