Microsoft committed illegal acts. Microsoft entered into partnerships with people with, seemingly, the SOLE purpose of turning around and sabatoging them. Microsoft plays dirty, they play underhanded, and they show every indication of being willing to continue to do so.
My problem with Microsoft would be a problem regardless of their size, their size simply makes the problem itself bigger.
Google hasn't done any of the above. Period.
Really, that's as simple as you need it to be. All your Art Bell styled theroies of how Google MIGHT act some day have no bearing on any of this.
And while not everyone agrees wtih 100% of what Google does, the majority of the time when Google does something that someone disagrees with, it's a case of two people having different ideas what is OK rather than Google callously pulling shit because they thought they could get away with it. And the majority of the time, Google goes out of their way to work with the folk who disagree with them, rather than say "Tough shit, sue me."
Google has made the case that a corporation can walk the line between profit and ethic responsibility. That is why people can heckle Microsoft while still beam at Google. It has nothing to do with blindness or bias.
Sturdy or not, objects hitting you while going a couple of thousand miles per hour (relative to your own speed) tend to leave a lasting (if not final) impression.
Yes it does hurt the store for you to charge less than a certain amount (and I currently have no idea what that threshhold amount is for each card). However, they are still working with the fact that credit purchases make their life so much more simple that the cost of those small purchases could easily be rolled into the savings they get from not being a 100% cash or (worse) cash & check store.
So, your definition of underhanded/illegal is "Stuff I don't like about them, and because I've chosen not to trust them, stuff makes me worried."
You've identified three things you think are problems. The first being their censoring of search results in China. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that every search engine does for this for their China based site or Google's approach is far more honest about than any other engines. The rest silently hide the fact that your results have been trimmed. As far as you can tell from them, there really isn't anything out there about the censored subject. Google actually TELLS you that your results have been trimmed.
Your other issues is their 'invasion' of your privacy. Which, to you, is an issue because you don't trust them with your information. But you don't seem to pay any attention to the fact that every single issue you've pointed out is actually under your control. Don't like Google's cookies? DON'T LET THEM STORE COOKIES. Think Google's toolbar is spyware? Ignore the fact that it isn't and that the only part that could remotely be called that is not only disabled by default but shoves warning messages in your face when you go to turn it on, simply DON'T INSTALL THE TOOLBAR. Extensive server logs got you worried? Ignore the fact that they are anonomyized, just DON'T USE THEIR SERVICES.
And your third thing, which is complete bull, is that Google has a "monopoly on the internet and communication". WTF. No really, WTF. The fact that you have to follow that with a disclaimer that you aren't a paranoid schizo pretty much sums the entire thing up.
I get it now, you don't like them and feel like attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm cool with that. I think you are a nut, but I'm cool with it.
PS. If you want to scare someone with the boogieman of "tehys knows your SCEECRETS!" you might want to pick someone who doesn't have a post history of envisioning a world where there are no secrets. Secrets only have power over you when you let them.
why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?
please note: its not 2002. google is not a darling upstart anymore. it has done, and is doing, and will do, plenty of shady things. luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft for
i can't believe this tripe i am responding to is currently marked +5 insightful
from people who pride themselves on being immune to prejudice and propaganda, comes a mental turd sandwich of both
all aping the trendy status quo: "google gooood! microsoft baaaad!"
mindless sheep
And what shady deals has Google done so far? I pray, do tell.
Here are the things that I remember Microsoft for, off the top of my head:
Illegally forcing the sale of MS-Dos with Windows, to kill off the other companies selling DOS.
Stealing the code for a disk compression software suite and releasing it with Windows 95 in an attempt to kill off the companies that were selling utility suites.
Publishing an API for Windows, which was subtly broken, allowing them to write programs that ran better than their competition through the pure virtue of using a hidden internal API rather than the published one.
Getting sued for that first bullet point, coping up to it, settling rather than going to court, with part of the settlement being them agreeing to never tie their products together again, and then turning around and doing the exact same thing with IE (and getting caught again).
"Buying" an ISO for their "Open" document format.
"Vista Ready"
"Play For Sure"
And here, I decide to stop. Not because there aren't many more perfectly good examples of Microsoft behaving badly, but because I think I've provided sufficent examples for you to base your own "Google exploits" list on.
So go ahead, let me know what horribly underhanded/illegal things have Google done to 'claw' their way to the start, my friend.
Or can it be the appolist actually you, and not I?
And 50% of the folk out there would install Chrome long enough to switch their gmail to forward to a new address, and start work finding another free webmail site.
And 100% of the corps using Google Apps for Domains would tie up the support lines to rip Google's techs a new one.
And the next day we'd be crowning Bobco, a division of Algamated Inc., the new King of the Internet.
of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.
The only way I see Google dropping funding for Firefox is when Firefox starts fumbling to the point where they are no longer relevant.
What would the purpose be? Just because Google has their own browser now, it has no where near the marketshare of even FireFox. And you know that any severing in ties between Mozilla and Google will result in a backlash, regardless of the reasons for the break.
When the landscape is down to just FireFox and Chrome as the 'relevant' browsers, then I'd worry. But right now? Google isn't as short sighted as Microsoft, they don't pull that sort of petty shit.
Unfortunately, you still don't account for the fact that for a 'noob' one point is still going to be a lot to lose.
In the perfect world, once the 'power gap' is great enough, the system should revert to a 'no lose' situation for the 'noob'. If the bigger player wants to risk their points, that's up to them. Maybe they want to help teach newcomers. In that case, no points should be exchanged at all.
Chess is a completely different ecosystem than video games. In Chess, your ranking follows you around, in video games, you can always wipe and start a new account. In Chess, it's fairly simple to pound out a huge number of "noob farm" games. In Chess, even a rookie player is going to eat far more time than your normal video game round, much less the abbreivated "LOL, Zerg Rush... kekekek" rounds.
Yes you should know better especially since often a series can be cancelled in the sense that the network won't be ordering further episodes, rather than in the sense that they are yanking the show from the lineup that day.
For instance, Firefly was canceled after episode 11, but went on to make three more to finish the contract. If you buy the DVD's you can listen to the commentary for episode 12 where they talk about how some of the shots reflect that.
Now, as previously noted, if the contract-portion of that agreement isn't adequately addressed in advance, you may potentially have recourse under contract law, etc., but that's not necessarily carte blanche to break the DRM.
And I don't believe that anyone actually arguing with you has indicated any sort of carte blanche. What they, as well as I, have indicated is that fair use trumps the arguement.
Additionally, go ahead and attempt to craft a legal and enforcable contract which says "I'll only sell you X if you use it soley with my other product Y." If you are lucky, the Feds will only smack you around a little bit.
The GPL is an additive license. You don't loose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it.
The DRM license an eBook is published under is subtractive, you don't gain anything from the license that your money hasn't already purchased. The sole point of the license is to force you to give up rights 'in favor' of the rights holder position.
Apples and Oranges my friend.
When you come up with a DRM backed license that at leasst actually gives, in exchange for what it's taking, something of value, then you might have an arguement. Till then, when I purchase a book, I expect to be able to use it. And since the law explicitly allows circumvention of DRM for the purposes of interoptability, I'd say so does the law.
Ever look up how much 30 second spot during the Superbowl costs? The determining factor in ad revenue isn't "how many ads" it's "how valuable is the slot". Ad companies are willing to pay far more for the traditional Nielsen rated block of time on broadcast/cable TV then they are for an 'unproven' block of time on Hulu/"Teh Internets".
If the ratio were one to one, then Hulu wouldn't have any issues and the networks would be pushing it on everyone. After all, traditional TV also has the problem of FCC regulation, the requirement for local stations to carry your programming, etc. and etc.
In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics allege that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system. In a consent decree issued on July 15, 1994, Microsoft agreed to a deal under which, among other things, the company would not make the sale of its operating systems conditional on the purchase of any other Microsoft product. A Microsoft purchase of Intuit was also scuttled in 1994 due to antitrust concerns that Microsoft would be purchasing a major competitor.
After bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into its Windows operating system in the late 1990s (without requiring a separate purchase) and acquiring a dominant share in the web browser market, the antitrust case United States v. Microsoft was brought against the company. In a series of rulings by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the company was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market.
Incorrect. Microsoft can't uninstall the RENDERING engine because they've done their damnest to hook it into everything in the system while obscuring how it's done to ensure no one can come along and rip it out and replace it.
My suggestion was, given they weren't suppose to do that and even got spanked for doing it, maybe they should stop trying to pull this crap and simply publish the API's that their rendering engine implements. And by publish, I don't mean the typical Microsoft BS of dumping out a specification that even they can't implement, but an actual honest to goodness "this does that, that does this" document.
If they did that, then regardless of the 'advisability' of the integration in the first place, you'd at least have the opportunity to replace the rendering engine with your own.
My, how wonderfully condescending and rude of you. I'm sure, if I wasn't already a Linux supporter, I'd just jump right out and try it after reading that particularly rancid piece of your mind.
Hint: I didn't say shit about anyone forcing me to use Windows. I said Microsoft was forcing me to use their products in Windows. Two entirely different things, and surprisingly, your self-righteous suggestion doesn't address the one I actually commented on.
I'd say, "Try again" but then I read your comment history and decided once was enough for me.
It's not necessary, but since they've already gone through the work of illegally tying their other products into Windows, what would be nice is if they actually stopped trying to force their own engines on everyone and let the user decide which to use.
Yes, they renamed the 'uninstall' process to 'kill switch' and repeated the same old tired BS about how this one really does turn it off. Really. Trust us.
Be nice if instead, they actually wrote a real API for these items so you could just drop in your replacement DLLs for the programs you actually wanted to drive the show and let people do things like 'integrate' Gecko into the shell.
I don't think "Hulu" is incompetent, I think they have to answer to their owners, who have apparently rethought (or just now realized it wasn't) what they want it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
True, I thought about repeating the subject line but then realized that someone would report me to the department of redundancy department.
Microsoft committed illegal acts. Microsoft entered into partnerships with people with, seemingly, the SOLE purpose of turning around and sabatoging them. Microsoft plays dirty, they play underhanded, and they show every indication of being willing to continue to do so.
My problem with Microsoft would be a problem regardless of their size, their size simply makes the problem itself bigger.
Google hasn't done any of the above. Period.
Really, that's as simple as you need it to be. All your Art Bell styled theroies of how Google MIGHT act some day have no bearing on any of this.
And while not everyone agrees wtih 100% of what Google does, the majority of the time when Google does something that someone disagrees with, it's a case of two people having different ideas what is OK rather than Google callously pulling shit because they thought they could get away with it. And the majority of the time, Google goes out of their way to work with the folk who disagree with them, rather than say "Tough shit, sue me."
Google has made the case that a corporation can walk the line between profit and ethic responsibility. That is why people can heckle Microsoft while still beam at Google. It has nothing to do with blindness or bias.
Sturdy or not, objects hitting you while going a couple of thousand miles per hour (relative to your own speed) tend to leave a lasting (if not final) impression.
Throw? Son, they were suppose to tee off. FORE!
Hence the "feeling less than kind" caveat.
Yes it does hurt the store for you to charge less than a certain amount (and I currently have no idea what that threshhold amount is for each card). However, they are still working with the fact that credit purchases make their life so much more simple that the cost of those small purchases could easily be rolled into the savings they get from not being a 100% cash or (worse) cash & check store.
So, your definition of underhanded/illegal is "Stuff I don't like about them, and because I've chosen not to trust them, stuff makes me worried."
You've identified three things you think are problems. The first being their censoring of search results in China. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that every search engine does for this for their China based site or Google's approach is far more honest about than any other engines. The rest silently hide the fact that your results have been trimmed. As far as you can tell from them, there really isn't anything out there about the censored subject. Google actually TELLS you that your results have been trimmed.
Your other issues is their 'invasion' of your privacy. Which, to you, is an issue because you don't trust them with your information. But you don't seem to pay any attention to the fact that every single issue you've pointed out is actually under your control. Don't like Google's cookies? DON'T LET THEM STORE COOKIES. Think Google's toolbar is spyware? Ignore the fact that it isn't and that the only part that could remotely be called that is not only disabled by default but shoves warning messages in your face when you go to turn it on, simply DON'T INSTALL THE TOOLBAR. Extensive server logs got you worried? Ignore the fact that they are anonomyized, just DON'T USE THEIR SERVICES.
And your third thing, which is complete bull, is that Google has a "monopoly on the internet and communication". WTF. No really, WTF. The fact that you have to follow that with a disclaimer that you aren't a paranoid schizo pretty much sums the entire thing up.
I get it now, you don't like them and feel like attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm cool with that. I think you are a nut, but I'm cool with it.
PS. If you want to scare someone with the boogieman of "tehys knows your SCEECRETS!" you might want to pick someone who doesn't have a post history of envisioning a world where there are no secrets. Secrets only have power over you when you let them.
And what shady deals has Google done so far? I pray, do tell.
Here are the things that I remember Microsoft for, off the top of my head:
And here, I decide to stop. Not because there aren't many more perfectly good examples of Microsoft behaving badly, but because I think I've provided sufficent examples for you to base your own "Google exploits" list on.
So go ahead, let me know what horribly underhanded/illegal things have Google done to 'claw' their way to the start, my friend.
Or can it be the appolist actually you, and not I?
And 50% of the folk out there would install Chrome long enough to switch their gmail to forward to a new address, and start work finding another free webmail site.
And 100% of the corps using Google Apps for Domains would tie up the support lines to rip Google's techs a new one.
And the next day we'd be crowning Bobco, a division of Algamated Inc., the new King of the Internet.
of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.
The only way I see Google dropping funding for Firefox is when Firefox starts fumbling to the point where they are no longer relevant.
What would the purpose be? Just because Google has their own browser now, it has no where near the marketshare of even FireFox. And you know that any severing in ties between Mozilla and Google will result in a backlash, regardless of the reasons for the break.
When the landscape is down to just FireFox and Chrome as the 'relevant' browsers, then I'd worry. But right now? Google isn't as short sighted as Microsoft, they don't pull that sort of petty shit.
Since we are veering off topic anyway, that particular practice (requiring a minimium charge) is banned by almost all the major credit card companies.
If a store pulls it on you, and you aren't in a kind mood, file a complaint with the credit card company.
Unfortunately, you still don't account for the fact that for a 'noob' one point is still going to be a lot to lose.
In the perfect world, once the 'power gap' is great enough, the system should revert to a 'no lose' situation for the 'noob'. If the bigger player wants to risk their points, that's up to them. Maybe they want to help teach newcomers. In that case, no points should be exchanged at all.
Chess is a completely different ecosystem than video games. In Chess, your ranking follows you around, in video games, you can always wipe and start a new account. In Chess, it's fairly simple to pound out a huge number of "noob farm" games. In Chess, even a rookie player is going to eat far more time than your normal video game round, much less the abbreivated "LOL, Zerg Rush... kekekek" rounds.
Is it sad that even after all these years and having actually been forced to upgrade to Vista, I still think of this UAC when people talk about it?
Yes you should know better especially since often a series can be cancelled in the sense that the network won't be ordering further episodes, rather than in the sense that they are yanking the show from the lineup that day.
For instance, Firefly was canceled after episode 11, but went on to make three more to finish the contract. If you buy the DVD's you can listen to the commentary for episode 12 where they talk about how some of the shots reflect that.
Pssst! Technically, they are still at war.
Though I understand your point, even if I don't wholey agree with it.
I don't know. You tell me what's with people who are loose with the defintion of lose.
And I don't believe that anyone actually arguing with you has indicated any sort of carte blanche. What they, as well as I, have indicated is that fair use trumps the arguement.
Additionally, go ahead and attempt to craft a legal and enforcable contract which says "I'll only sell you X if you use it soley with my other product Y." If you are lucky, the Feds will only smack you around a little bit.
The GPL is an additive license. You don't loose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it.
The DRM license an eBook is published under is subtractive, you don't gain anything from the license that your money hasn't already purchased. The sole point of the license is to force you to give up rights 'in favor' of the rights holder position.
Apples and Oranges my friend.
When you come up with a DRM backed license that at leasst actually gives, in exchange for what it's taking, something of value, then you might have an arguement. Till then, when I purchase a book, I expect to be able to use it. And since the law explicitly allows circumvention of DRM for the purposes of interoptability, I'd say so does the law.
Ever look up how much 30 second spot during the Superbowl costs? The determining factor in ad revenue isn't "how many ads" it's "how valuable is the slot". Ad companies are willing to pay far more for the traditional Nielsen rated block of time on broadcast/cable TV then they are for an 'unproven' block of time on Hulu/"Teh Internets".
If the ratio were one to one, then Hulu wouldn't have any issues and the networks would be pushing it on everyone. After all, traditional TV also has the problem of FCC regulation, the requirement for local stations to carry your programming, etc. and etc.
The one regarding settlements and consent decrees.
Incorrect. Microsoft can't uninstall the RENDERING engine because they've done their damnest to hook it into everything in the system while obscuring how it's done to ensure no one can come along and rip it out and replace it.
My suggestion was, given they weren't suppose to do that and even got spanked for doing it, maybe they should stop trying to pull this crap and simply publish the API's that their rendering engine implements. And by publish, I don't mean the typical Microsoft BS of dumping out a specification that even they can't implement, but an actual honest to goodness "this does that, that does this" document.
If they did that, then regardless of the 'advisability' of the integration in the first place, you'd at least have the opportunity to replace the rendering engine with your own.
My, how wonderfully condescending and rude of you. I'm sure, if I wasn't already a Linux supporter, I'd just jump right out and try it after reading that particularly rancid piece of your mind.
Hint: I didn't say shit about anyone forcing me to use Windows. I said Microsoft was forcing me to use their products in Windows. Two entirely different things, and surprisingly, your self-righteous suggestion doesn't address the one I actually commented on.
I'd say, "Try again" but then I read your comment history and decided once was enough for me.
It's not necessary, but since they've already gone through the work of illegally tying their other products into Windows, what would be nice is if they actually stopped trying to force their own engines on everyone and let the user decide which to use.
Yes, they renamed the 'uninstall' process to 'kill switch' and repeated the same old tired BS about how this one really does turn it off. Really. Trust us.
Be nice if instead, they actually wrote a real API for these items so you could just drop in your replacement DLLs for the programs you actually wanted to drive the show and let people do things like 'integrate' Gecko into the shell.
I think my commment, here, sums up what I think the situation to be.
I don't think "Hulu" is incompetent, I think they have to answer to their owners, who have apparently rethought (or just now realized it wasn't) what they want it to be.