who wants linux in living rooms? it'll only get there anytime soon through massive dumbing down.
it's also a bonus for security/reliabilty to have servers and clients running different systems and only communicating via explicitly sanctioned methods.
'linux in living rooms' would be nice as a side-effect of it becoming the best OS ever, but as an actively-pursued agenda for its own sake is just stupid (imo).
jeez, complaining about unprofessional summaries is fine, but to suggest thhey go and copy the style of news sources!? then we'd end up with the exact same BS, just formatted differently.
if you want to encourage people to write better summaries you should point them towards abstracts found in peer-reviewed academic journals.
>I mean would you sign somthing you didn't understand?
completely different - contracts have law behind them. EULA's don't convincingly have the law behind them. in fact, the only court case I know of was a company arguing they were meaningless since "no one reads them anyway", because one of their customers used it against them (search/. for the story if you like)
click the first link, 3rd paragraph, 1st line: "...U.S. zip code...". it's not like it's some obscure detail. THIS is the main part of the new service - the part about getting reviews can be done by clicking on IMDB engine instead of Google engine (in firefox), and the part about not knowing the title could be done using "movie Tom Hanks lost" instead of the amazing new "movie:Tom Hanks lost".
btw, just because someone criticises something doesn't make them a "troll".
which is fine since they have to start somewhere, but why not mention this or put it in the USA category so most of the world doesn't need to waste its time with another of Google's (so far) unfulfilled promises?
pick a reason: 1. this isn't "speech", it's blackmail 2. this isn't "speech", it's advertising 3. it's not about forcing him to stop, it's about not letting him force us to listen 4. free speech doesn't cover costs e.g. you can't steal other people's paper to print your opinions on
I think *YOU* are eroding the First Amendment by making it sound like anything you say is "speech" and should be covered, which is blatantly false and could lead some people to think the whole thing should be thrown out.
don't worry he probably just reads too much New Scientist. they go miles out of their way to intentionally misunderstand simple things "with hilarious consequences" (see 'Feedback')
are you kidding? what about the Indiana Jones franchise he's busy destroying for 2006 (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/)? he's only got 1 year to kill that off, not the 6 or so for Star Wars.
>There's no indication that any animals were harmed in the process
'cept for "inserting probes into brains" ?
I'd prefer this kind of thing was done on humans and with non-invasive probes, but this is probably better (it had better be to jusify the use of animals like this).
>Likewise in your own post you say that "things can't keep going the way they are".
I wanted someone to pick up on that:-)
so am I talking bollocks? yes a little... but it pisses me off when people are too ready to accept ignorance and inefficiency when it comes to computers when in fact they are capable of being the MOST efficient part of a business since they are (theoretically) completely controllable (unlike employees, customers).
basically *I* want people to use firefox, consider non-MS products etc. because it will make the internet a better place for *me*. but I came up with an argument making it sound like it would be necessary for *them* since I don't expect pleasing me would be a high priority:-)
I liked them when they were One2One. the service was (in my experience) decent and the adverts were interesting (as far as adverts go). then they because T mobile. what the fuck is T mobile? I get the mobile part, but T?
and when I'd want to top up my credit I'd have to listen to a 5 mins of crap about how they had changed for the better, before being told I had to now wait 30 mins for my top up to take affect instead of the almost-instant old way. yay for progress.
that was several years ago. I left them and never looked back.
you keep using that word ("can't"). I don't think it means what you think it means.
of course you could switch browsers etc. what you mean is that it is more work than you are willing to do.
just a nitpick on an otherwise interesting story.
but I think it's an important nitpick because things can't keep going the way they are. with all the spam, spyware, viruses etc. there is going to come a point when businesses can't afford to have stupid employees running crap software.
there ARE alternatives available for EVERYONE. adapting will be harder for some than others, but when the options become adapt or die, those using words like "can't" will find themselves on the wrong side of the evolutionary process.
you're right but I find an easy definition of "evil for businesses" to be:
Google is good because it makes money by making things better for people, thus attracting customers.
Microsoft is evil because it makes money by making things worse for people (or at least not as good as the alternatives), relying on lock-in to avoid losing business.
MS would rather (and does) hold others back than push itself forward. therein is the "evil".
humans cause global warming. this is as much fact as cigarettes cause cancer.
we're at the stage when the public knows about cigarettes and the conspiracy to cover up the data. but for global warming, we're still in the "don't listen to those commie environmentalists, everyone else drives SUVs, don't YOU want to be cool too?" stage.
the only problem is by the time global warming is a big problem we'll ALL be fucked.
in those days, how long did it take news to travel from one side of the empire to the other? how about today?
in those days, how many people's loyalty was just a matter of thinking they were a good empire to invest in and could always pull out their entire investment within seconds? how many believed in the empire's principles, not just its bottom line? how about today?
in those days, how much of life was based on the empire? how many deaths would be caused by the empire's collapse? how about today?
yes, the system you describe is inconvenient, but what about the Mac OS X method?
-can have admin prviledges on your regular account but require admin password enter for important actions -option to lock system settings via a padlock icon (to require password next time)
Slashdot Mirror
well my first edit said "they are now HIV positive", but I replaced it with "STDs" as it seemed less unfunny.
not everyone can pull off HIV jokes like Trey Parker et al. (Team America: "everyone has AIDS")
that drunk woman turned out to be a man. now your friends are scarred for life, as well as having several STDs.
that computer crash saved your life![/soap opera cheese]
$5 is nothing, probably doesn't even cover cost of applying for it. so why bother?
advertising scam about "financially backing" their software as opposed to OSS?
tax scam?
stock scam?
come on, it's got to be some sort of scam.
no, it isn't "sort of oxymoronic". but you *are*
moronic in terms of your understanding of communism.
yes, and the US has been doing it since, well, forever.
some treaty or law in your way? just take unilateral action!
yes but Google followed the zeroth law of good business, which media people almost always fail at:
0. sell people what they want; don't sue them into wanting what you have
so what?
who wants linux in living rooms? it'll only get there anytime soon through massive dumbing down.
it's also a bonus for security/reliabilty to have servers and clients running different systems and only communicating via explicitly sanctioned methods.
'linux in living rooms' would be nice as a side-effect of it becoming the best OS ever, but as an actively-pursued agenda for its own sake is just stupid (imo).
jeez, complaining about unprofessional summaries is fine, but to suggest thhey go and copy the style of news sources!? then we'd end up with the exact same BS, just formatted differently.
if you want to encourage people to write better summaries you should point them towards abstracts found in peer-reviewed academic journals.
>I mean would you sign somthing you didn't understand?
/. for the story if you like)
completely different - contracts have law behind them. EULA's don't convincingly have the law behind them. in fact, the only court case I know of was a company arguing they were meaningless since "no one reads them anyway", because one of their customers used it against them (search
click the first link, 3rd paragraph, 1st line: "...U.S. zip code...". it's not like it's some obscure detail. THIS is the main part of the new service - the part about getting reviews can be done by clicking on IMDB engine instead of Google engine (in firefox), and the part about not knowing the title could be done using "movie Tom Hanks lost" instead of the amazing new "movie:Tom Hanks lost".
btw, just because someone criticises something doesn't make them a "troll".
Yet Another USA-Only Google Service.
which is fine since they have to start somewhere, but why not mention this or put it in the USA category so most of the world doesn't need to waste its time with another of Google's (so far) unfulfilled promises?
pick a reason:
1. this isn't "speech", it's blackmail
2. this isn't "speech", it's advertising
3. it's not about forcing him to stop, it's about not letting him force us to listen
4. free speech doesn't cover costs e.g. you can't steal other people's paper to print your opinions on
I think *YOU* are eroding the First Amendment by making it sound like anything you say is "speech" and should be covered, which is blatantly false and could lead some people to think the whole thing should be thrown out.
...and get's the shit kicked out of him regularly.
there is no excuse for this at all.
this is intentionally degrading other people's lives for you own greed. it is the (or my) definition of evil.
don't worry he probably just reads too much New Scientist. they go miles out of their way to intentionally misunderstand simple things "with hilarious consequences" (see 'Feedback')
are you kidding? what about the Indiana Jones franchise he's busy destroying for 2006 (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/)? he's only got 1 year to kill that off, not the 6 or so for Star Wars.
something like Lisa Simpson's jazz band dream?
"why would they come to our concert just to boo us?"
>There's no indication that any animals were harmed in the process
'cept for "inserting probes into brains" ?
I'd prefer this kind of thing was done on humans and with non-invasive probes, but this is probably better (it had better be to jusify the use of animals like this).
>Likewise in your own post you say that "things can't keep going the way they are".
:-)
:-)
I wanted someone to pick up on that
so am I talking bollocks? yes a little... but it pisses me off when people are too ready to accept ignorance and inefficiency when it comes to computers when in fact they are capable of being the MOST efficient part of a business since they are (theoretically) completely controllable (unlike employees, customers).
basically *I* want people to use firefox, consider non-MS products etc. because it will make the internet a better place for *me*. but I came up with an argument making it sound like it would be necessary for *them* since I don't expect pleasing me would be a high priority
I liked them when they were One2One. the service was (in my experience) decent and the adverts were interesting (as far as adverts go). then they because T mobile. what the fuck is T mobile? I get the mobile part, but T?
and when I'd want to top up my credit I'd have to listen to a 5 mins of crap about how they had changed for the better, before being told I had to now wait 30 mins for my top up to take affect instead of the almost-instant old way. yay for progress.
that was several years ago. I left them and never looked back.
you keep using that word ("can't"). I don't think it means what you think it means.
of course you could switch browsers etc. what you mean is that it is more work than you are willing to do.
just a nitpick on an otherwise interesting story.
but I think it's an important nitpick because things can't keep going the way they are. with all the spam, spyware, viruses etc. there is going to come a point when businesses can't afford to have stupid employees running crap software.
there ARE alternatives available for EVERYONE. adapting will be harder for some than others, but when the options become adapt or die, those using words like "can't" will find themselves on the wrong side of the evolutionary process.
you're right but I find an easy definition of "evil for businesses" to be:
Google is good because it makes money by making things better for people, thus attracting customers.
Microsoft is evil because it makes money by making things worse for people (or at least not as good as the alternatives), relying on lock-in to avoid losing business.
MS would rather (and does) hold others back than push itself forward. therein is the "evil".
humans cause global warming. this is as much fact as cigarettes cause cancer.
we're at the stage when the public knows about cigarettes and the conspiracy to cover up the data. but for global warming, we're still in the "don't listen to those commie environmentalists, everyone else drives SUVs, don't YOU want to be cool too?" stage.
the only problem is by the time global warming is a big problem we'll ALL be fucked.
anyone else notice that under "products and services", SCO lists its court cases?
very funny and depressing at the same time.
in those days, how long did it take news to travel from one side of the empire to the other? how about today?
in those days, how many people's loyalty was just a matter of thinking they were a good empire to invest in and could always pull out their entire investment within seconds? how many believed in the empire's principles, not just its bottom line? how about today?
in those days, how much of life was based on the empire? how many deaths would be caused by the empire's collapse? how about today?
yes, the system you describe is inconvenient, but what about the Mac OS X method?
-can have admin prviledges on your regular account but require admin password enter for important actions
-option to lock system settings via a padlock icon (to require password next time)
the best of both worlds.