Google is free to do what they want. And I am free not to participate in their community and share their openly expressed views with others so they can make an informed choice on whether to do the same.
Google claims to be trying to build a community around Chrome as an open project. People who might consider joining that community have a right to know that this not only isn't a community driven project but that community feedback is openly ignored in the development process.
This is information spreading and not whining. People have the right to know about something like this so they can make an informed decision about whether to
It's a usability request. There are a number of situations, such as via a terminal server, where there is a screen element at the top of the screen. It also means moving the mouse further every time you switch tabs.
This isn't evil per say. As you say, it is their design and their browser. But it is also pitched as being open and in the open source world it is a big deal (whether you are for or against) if a project is or is not community driven. A direct statement that community feedback isn't a consideration in their development process matters to many people. I for one don't want to be part of the community Google CLAIMS it wants to foster if that is the case.
Tab relocation isn't a feature that is going to slow down the browser or the fast js rendering engine that gives Chrome its edge. It's a basic usability feature.
I'm not a fan of software patents but it doesn't sound like you are much of a programmer. Good software is 99% planning and 1% actual implementation/coding.
As an extra note... admitting to too much of this is also dangerous. Those things I play with on my free time are the things I ENJOY tinkering with. The last thing you want is for an employer to think its okay to EXPECT study of work related subject matter on personal time.
If you want paper certifications for example (not something I deal with now but common in IT), you'd best pay for study and lab time in addition to paying for the test. It is not reasonable to expect your employees to study for things you require (or incentive to the point it might as well be a requirement) on their personal time.
That is a tough one though. There is a type of knowledge which is found only by study and experimentation on your own and a type of intuitive diagnostic understanding that comes from putting out live fires on the job. Many hiring types acknowledge the latter but not the former (usually because they don't have time or inclination to gain any of the former themselves).
As a consequence I usually try to avoid specifying and highlight the areas with more under fire experience. After all the knowledge from study and experimentation is bound to end up in this category eventually. Some would call it unprofessional to even include areas you learn from study and hobby on your resume since it isn't "professional" experience.
With the addendum that there is nothing wrong with a man looking at a woman as a sex object or a woman looking at a man as such. That IS the reason there are two genders after all.
When a man is looking at a woman he is looking at a sex object. The rest of the time he is just looking at another person and gender has no relevance or consideration. For men those times are 5 out of every 6 seconds a clear majority! For women the frequency (often) differs due to biology but the concept is the same.
"it may be better to tell them why they shouldn't be humping anything that moves"
The only reasons being babies and std's. Babies are generally avoidable (although it is perfectly possible to formulate a male pill and it should be done) and if this works the deadly STD's will be avoidable.
Sex in and of itself is harmless and fun and should be enjoyed by all regularly anytime we feel the urge.
"If you have sex with one person (and only one person), and they do the same for their entire life, it's nigh on impossible to get an STD."
If anyone, anywhere, had EVER done that we might have a chance of knowing. Here in the real world nobody makes it through their teens maintaining that standard let alone their twenties. Of course there are quite a few militant members of said religions who LIE about this and more who lie about once they get married.
Monogamy isn't human nature and never will be. We aren't meant to have a single partner or mate for life. No imaginary sky fairy can change that.
As if there is something wrong with "sleeping around" its sex, its fun and with birth control and without deadly STD's a perfectly harmless recreational activity that we could hopefully all enjoy in a regular and carefree way.
"Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose."
That's an odd comparison. Sex with a condom is a far cry from a natural full contact experience. Not even in the same realm of pleasure. I'd hardly call it rotten fruit.
Ideally we'd have a male version of the pill and complete STD eradication so we could all have indiscriminate sex without condoms.
"FYI the life expectancy of an AIDS patient is 65 years"
Not that much shorter than the typical lifespan of a male. Females are an entirely different animal (one that causes the stress which results in males having a shorter lifespan in the first place).
"Of course some straight couples don't necessary use the reproductive orifice, but the overall population is at a bit less of a risk of transmission."
I'd prefer to think most straight couples enjoy all the available orifices. Certainly the vast majority with the puritans being the exception and not the norm.
"On top of that, many of the characters needed to produce the works require not just one keystroke, but a shift and a keystroke to work."
If the monkey's are replicating an English language work I don't think correct spelling, case, and punctuation are strict requirements as they are not required to convey the same understanding as that conveyed in the original work. Nor would those requirements be expected or even likely from an native English speaker replicating the works intentionally by hand.
If the monkey's replicated the work in all lowercase with simple spacing in place of punctuation it would be perfectly valid to say they have replicated the works. Just because he is using software to replicate monkeys and software doesn't mean he has to achieve a copy of the standard we'd expect from a digital replication process.
How do you arrive at that figure? The number of possibilities where x is the number of characters (9) and y is the base (256 with ascii) is x^y. Even if you limit the base to the english alphabet there are 9^26 possible combinations which is 6,461,081,889,226,673,298,932,241 which is substantially larger than 5,429,503,678,976.
An RSA type system with a changing one off code. The card wouldn't function without it so intercepting the card and one of the codes would do nothing for you. BTW they already do this at some ban
"Copyright is asking for a government enforced monopoly on something. It's entirely reasonable to ask for a fee for the privilege of that monopoly."
Not if you already pay your taxes it isn't.
"And putting the burden of paying for copyrights on the people with copyrights seems, uh, a hell of a lot more fair than spreading it out to everyone."
That is the case with every government service that an individual doesn't use. I don't have kids. It seems far more reasonable to do away with public schools and make those with children pay for the costs of their education. Why not make all roads toll roads so only those who drive on a given road have to pay for its upkeep? The fact is that none of need all the public services and all of use some of them and benefit from results of others using them. If a service isn't of benefit to the public then it shouldn't be a public service and if it is of benefit to the public then it should be entirely funded via taxes.
Copyright isn't only for profit. It is also for the purpose of control. As for $25, that adds up pretty fast if you are actually producing material. A hobby song writer might write a couple dozen songs a year making it a $600 experiment to find out if they will make money on ANY of them. Patents will cost far more than that EACH for an inventor who may well produce that same two dozen or even more. If you are a tech worker and/or somewhere like California or a metropolitan area that might not seem extreme but for a large portion of society that $600 is as much as a month's pay. I promise you, the guy earning multiples of that in each check isn't working any harder and his massive salary is subsidized by the labor of that poor SOB making $600/month. Damn right he should pay his share for ALL public services used by mr 600/mo come tax time.
"they would have no power to "make you" accept the terms of their EULA if they didn't think that "using software" was a protected use under current copyright law"
Who said they think copyright law gives them the power to "make you" accept the EULA. They use technical measures to force you to agree before the software will work and if that fails they will claim that their distribution of the copy was dependent on agreement of the EULA. In other words, agreement of the EULA is part of the price of the copy and if you haven't paid for the software you have no fair use rights to it.
Actually they already have made this very argument and sometimes it is ruled that because EULAs are an industry standard practice it is reasonable to expect a consumer to know that agreeing to one is par for the course (bs imho) and sometimes that there at least must be an indication on the packaging that you will have to agree to a EULA if you buy the product (still bs, how can you agree to terms before knowing them)?
"BTW, it seems to me that the existence of EULAs show that at least some lawyers believe that copyright isn't just about distribution."
EULAs actually prove that lawyers don't think copyright is about more than distribution, otherwise they wouldn't be making you sign contracts (eula's) which give them controls copyright doesn't.
The issue I have with this is the fees. Supposedly copyright is a service that benefits the public (if not then it should be abolished an we don't need to worry about fees) and there is a system in place for collecting funds for public services and it is called income tax. While that system is far from perfect it is the thing we have to distribute the financial burden of public services in a fair way. Fees do nothing of the sort.
There should be no fees for government services or at least where there are fees they should be used to limit abuse or allow service that isn't considered part of the function of public service and it should be possible to use the service in a non-abusive manner without fees. For instance, 5-10 filings a year might be free after which the copyright office charges a fee. The office should not be dependent on these fees for funding (taxes should take care of that) but the fee prevents abuse of the service.
"Don't let your goddamned flea-infested farm animals wander around through your living area, moron"
Common sense? Millions of people allow flea-infested animals to wander around their living area. Or were you hating on farm animals in particular for some reason? Dogs, Cats, and other flea-infested mammals make for excellent disease carriers. The upside is that when thy start spreading the next plague it will only be natural selection at work.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is free to do what they want. And I am free not to participate in their community and share their openly expressed views with others so they can make an informed choice on whether to do the same.
Google claims to be trying to build a community around Chrome as an open project. People who might consider joining that community have a right to know that this not only isn't a community driven project but that community feedback is openly ignored in the development process.
This is information spreading and not whining. People have the right to know about something like this so they can make an informed decision about whether to
* Don't use it
* Fork
It's a usability request. There are a number of situations, such as via a terminal server, where there is a screen element at the top of the screen. It also means moving the mouse further every time you switch tabs.
This isn't evil per say. As you say, it is their design and their browser. But it is also pitched as being open and in the open source world it is a big deal (whether you are for or against) if a project is or is not community driven. A direct statement that community feedback isn't a consideration in their development process matters to many people. I for one don't want to be part of the community Google CLAIMS it wants to foster if that is the case.
Tab relocation isn't a feature that is going to slow down the browser or the fast js rendering engine that gives Chrome its edge. It's a basic usability feature.
I'm not a fan of software patents but it doesn't sound like you are much of a programmer. Good software is 99% planning and 1% actual implementation/coding.
Hopefully it doesn't last anywhere near that long. A collapse within the decade would be nice.
As an extra note... admitting to too much of this is also dangerous. Those things I play with on my free time are the things I ENJOY tinkering with. The last thing you want is for an employer to think its okay to EXPECT study of work related subject matter on personal time.
If you want paper certifications for example (not something I deal with now but common in IT), you'd best pay for study and lab time in addition to paying for the test. It is not reasonable to expect your employees to study for things you require (or incentive to the point it might as well be a requirement) on their personal time.
That is a tough one though. There is a type of knowledge which is found only by study and experimentation on your own and a type of intuitive diagnostic understanding that comes from putting out live fires on the job. Many hiring types acknowledge the latter but not the former (usually because they don't have time or inclination to gain any of the former themselves).
As a consequence I usually try to avoid specifying and highlight the areas with more under fire experience. After all the knowledge from study and experimentation is bound to end up in this category eventually. Some would call it unprofessional to even include areas you learn from study and hobby on your resume since it isn't "professional" experience.
Agreed, on all counts.
With the addendum that there is nothing wrong with a man looking at a woman as a sex object or a woman looking at a man as such. That IS the reason there are two genders after all.
When a man is looking at a woman he is looking at a sex object. The rest of the time he is just looking at another person and gender has no relevance or consideration. For men those times are 5 out of every 6 seconds a clear majority! For women the frequency (often) differs due to biology but the concept is the same.
"it may be better to tell them why they shouldn't be humping anything that moves"
The only reasons being babies and std's. Babies are generally avoidable (although it is perfectly possible to formulate a male pill and it should be done) and if this works the deadly STD's will be avoidable.
Sex in and of itself is harmless and fun and should be enjoyed by all regularly anytime we feel the urge.
"If you have sex with one person (and only one person), and they do the same for their entire life, it's nigh on impossible to get an STD."
If anyone, anywhere, had EVER done that we might have a chance of knowing. Here in the real world nobody makes it through their teens maintaining that standard let alone their twenties. Of course there are quite a few militant members of said religions who LIE about this and more who lie about once they get married.
Monogamy isn't human nature and never will be. We aren't meant to have a single partner or mate for life. No imaginary sky fairy can change that.
As if there is something wrong with "sleeping around" its sex, its fun and with birth control and without deadly STD's a perfectly harmless recreational activity that we could hopefully all enjoy in a regular and carefree way.
Not to mention, what sort of quality of life can one have without sex? Might as well be dead.
"Odd stuff, just because we got cure for food poisoning doesn't mean people started eating rotten food on purpose."
That's an odd comparison. Sex with a condom is a far cry from a natural full contact experience. Not even in the same realm of pleasure. I'd hardly call it rotten fruit.
Ideally we'd have a male version of the pill and complete STD eradication so we could all have indiscriminate sex without condoms.
Whats wrong with that?
"FYI the life expectancy of an AIDS patient is 65 years"
Not that much shorter than the typical lifespan of a male. Females are an entirely different animal (one that causes the stress which results in males having a shorter lifespan in the first place).
"Of course some straight couples don't necessary use the reproductive orifice, but the overall population is at a bit less of a risk of transmission."
I'd prefer to think most straight couples enjoy all the available orifices. Certainly the vast majority with the puritans being the exception and not the norm.
"On top of that, many of the characters needed to produce the works require not just one keystroke, but a shift and a keystroke to work."
If the monkey's are replicating an English language work I don't think correct spelling, case, and punctuation are strict requirements as they are not required to convey the same understanding as that conveyed in the original work. Nor would those requirements be expected or even likely from an native English speaker replicating the works intentionally by hand.
If the monkey's replicated the work in all lowercase with simple spacing in place of punctuation it would be perfectly valid to say they have replicated the works. Just because he is using software to replicate monkeys and software doesn't mean he has to achieve a copy of the standard we'd expect from a digital replication process.
How do you arrive at that figure? The number of possibilities where x is the number of characters (9) and y is the base (256 with ascii) is x^y. Even if you limit the base to the english alphabet there are 9^26 possible combinations which is 6,461,081,889,226,673,298,932,241 which is substantially larger than 5,429,503,678,976.
An RSA type system with a changing one off code. The card wouldn't function without it so intercepting the card and one of the codes would do nothing for you. BTW they already do this at some ban
"Copyright is asking for a government enforced monopoly on something. It's entirely reasonable to ask for a fee for the privilege of that monopoly."
Not if you already pay your taxes it isn't.
"And putting the burden of paying for copyrights on the people with copyrights seems, uh, a hell of a lot more fair than spreading it out to everyone."
That is the case with every government service that an individual doesn't use. I don't have kids. It seems far more reasonable to do away with public schools and make those with children pay for the costs of their education. Why not make all roads toll roads so only those who drive on a given road have to pay for its upkeep? The fact is that none of need all the public services and all of use some of them and benefit from results of others using them. If a service isn't of benefit to the public then it shouldn't be a public service and if it is of benefit to the public then it should be entirely funded via taxes.
Copyright isn't only for profit. It is also for the purpose of control. As for $25, that adds up pretty fast if you are actually producing material. A hobby song writer might write a couple dozen songs a year making it a $600 experiment to find out if they will make money on ANY of them. Patents will cost far more than that EACH for an inventor who may well produce that same two dozen or even more. If you are a tech worker and/or somewhere like California or a metropolitan area that might not seem extreme but for a large portion of society that $600 is as much as a month's pay. I promise you, the guy earning multiples of that in each check isn't working any harder and his massive salary is subsidized by the labor of that poor SOB making $600/month. Damn right he should pay his share for ALL public services used by mr 600/mo come tax time.
"they would have no power to "make you" accept the terms of their EULA if they didn't think that "using software" was a protected use under current copyright law"
Who said they think copyright law gives them the power to "make you" accept the EULA. They use technical measures to force you to agree before the software will work and if that fails they will claim that their distribution of the copy was dependent on agreement of the EULA. In other words, agreement of the EULA is part of the price of the copy and if you haven't paid for the software you have no fair use rights to it.
Actually they already have made this very argument and sometimes it is ruled that because EULAs are an industry standard practice it is reasonable to expect a consumer to know that agreeing to one is par for the course (bs imho) and sometimes that there at least must be an indication on the packaging that you will have to agree to a EULA if you buy the product (still bs, how can you agree to terms before knowing them)?
"BTW, it seems to me that the existence of EULAs show that at least some lawyers believe that copyright isn't just about distribution."
EULAs actually prove that lawyers don't think copyright is about more than distribution, otherwise they wouldn't be making you sign contracts (eula's) which give them controls copyright doesn't.
The issue I have with this is the fees. Supposedly copyright is a service that benefits the public (if not then it should be abolished an we don't need to worry about fees) and there is a system in place for collecting funds for public services and it is called income tax. While that system is far from perfect it is the thing we have to distribute the financial burden of public services in a fair way. Fees do nothing of the sort.
There should be no fees for government services or at least where there are fees they should be used to limit abuse or allow service that isn't considered part of the function of public service and it should be possible to use the service in a non-abusive manner without fees. For instance, 5-10 filings a year might be free after which the copyright office charges a fee. The office should not be dependent on these fees for funding (taxes should take care of that) but the fee prevents abuse of the service.
"Don't let your goddamned flea-infested farm animals wander around through your living area, moron"
Common sense? Millions of people allow flea-infested animals to wander around their living area. Or were you hating on farm animals in particular for some reason? Dogs, Cats, and other flea-infested mammals make for excellent disease carriers. The upside is that when thy start spreading the next plague it will only be natural selection at work.