Personally, I'm still choosing neither. Why? Because I can't afford them and I don't spend enough time using a desktop machine to justify it if I could. I put money into my laptops, because that's where I live and work. For my desktop, I want a big case that I can dig around and play in. And for the most part it's all cheap stuff.
I agree whole heartedly. My main computer is the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on and for a server I have a tower PC with Linux.
But they're simply not. There is no such thing as a "convicted" monopoly. The two words go together like "gray turbulance" or "blind paperclip".
Microsoft was found by a court to be a monopoly, then MS was convicted of using it's monopoly position in an uncompetitive manner. So yes, it is a convicted monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't illegal itself it's how the monopoly is used as to whether something is illegal.
Google works just fine, it's Google Apps. Gmail works with a user-agent. Calender and Docs don't work at all, last I checked.
Other than for searching I don't use Google and this was the first tyme I heard there's a problem with Konqueror and Google. While I don't use online apps other than for email, I want my apps to run locally, it puzzles me Google doesn't work with Konqueror. It's not like Microsoft wanting people to use it's own browser and email program, and Google supports Linux.
And yes, a lot of websites do use user-agent browser detection. I consider it to be a bad practice. Detect capability, not specific browsers
I hadn't thought much about detecting capabilities instead of user agents, but you're right it's better that way.
I don't know if things have changed lots all of a sudden but for Konqueror to work with the normal Gmail interface, you had to force the loading of that interface or spoof the User Agent, and then the chat utility on the left would expand into more than a quarter of the inbox list display. It was not perfect.
Konqueror may have trouble with Gmail, I don't know as I don't use Gmail. But using Google for searches I didn't have any problems with Konqueror.
You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.
As far as your solutions to the problems (frogs? Are you joking), none of them are nearly close to answering energy needs
Other than that it take energy to make DDT what does energy have to do with mosquito control? Oh yea, mosquitoes can breed in the stagnant water behind dams. Oh, and they can also breed in water pools below dams. Guess that only goes to show how much I know, imagine how humans can increase the mosquito population.
Monopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.
Ok, the merits. Is Google a monopoly. No, there are a lot of search engines. There are also a number of other ad agencies. Microsoft is one itself. Viacom, which used to be a DoubleClick customer, recently signed an ad deal with MS for $500 million. Yahoo! sales ads, as do other search engines.
What should determine a monopoly is the ability of a company to either be the sole source in a given market, or to unduly control price in said market.
What you're talking about is a monopoly in reality, which is different than a monopoly legally. Legally Microsoft is a convicted monopoly.
Because the people that control the data control everything.
But neither Google nor anyone else controls all, or even 10%, of the data on the web. The millions if not 100s of millions of website designers, masters, and owners control the data. China has come the closest to controlling data on the net. But the Chinese are finding ways to circumvent the Great Firewall of China.
I have ZoneAlarm
If only Zone Labs would release ZoneAlarm for Linux and the Mac, or I could find a firewall like it for either OS. When I used Windows I had ZoneAlarm, the pay version, however I switched to Linux and OS X.
Are you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?
And people are easily use another search engine. Though I use Google more than any other SE there are 5 others I also use. As for Google ads, do you know you can block them? You can also block Google Analytics. I block DoubleCLick ads myself, when my browser looks for a DoulbeClick server, it won't even find it. Many of them at least.
I wasn't referring to Libertarians in general, I was referring to Ron Paul
Ok, sorry for making the mistake you meant Libertarians.
who obviously didn't get the Libertarian memo on not restricting rights.
Abortion is one issue I disagree with Ron Paul on, but on most of the others I agree. That I know of no candidate for president comes as close as he does on the issues. All of the other candidates, Democrats and Republicans, want big government. Generally Democrats and Republicans only disagree on what part of government will be big. Democrats want big governmental social programs whereas Republicans want big military and law enforcement programs, as well as wanting to tell people how to live, what they do in private. Like Ron Paul, I want small government. For now I'll support Ron Paul, but depending on who they choose I may support the Libertarian candidate.
The U.S. government's idea that it can get any information from any U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company in jail, and can keep that secret, means that, using Google's information, your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
Only Firefox with NoScript can prevent this. Since Google has been paying $50,000,000 each year to the Mozilla Foundation, the developers of Firefox, and since Google makes money through advertising, it seems likely that Firefox will eventually not allow add-ons like NoScript and Ad-Block.
WRONG! Big tyme. If I want to block Google Analytics, or whatever, all I have to do is to add the address I want to block to my Hosts File. Hosts files work with Linux, OS X, and Windows. I know, I've used one on all of these. And I don't see most ads.
NoScript makes your browsing much more secure, in addition to giving you the option to stop spying. It's amazing how many web sites run Javascript scripts linking the web sites we visit to other servers at other companies.
Thanks for the NoScript addon. I like being able to block scripts from some websites while allowing other websites to use them. On my Windows PC I had a firewall that allowed me to do this, but I know of no firewalls for Linux or Macs that does the same.
I was never saying this. But should we wait until they are? Do the same mistake as with Microsoft? It's a much dirtier and harder job to disrupt a monopoly than trying to stop one from happening. As has been proven with the Microsoft OEM history, for example. It's not because Microsoft is doing a mighty intelligent work at upholding that monopoly. They don't even have to. The customers are doing it for them. Just like the ad market will once Google grows big enough there. Google will be able to give the advertisers the best deals thanks to their economy in the market and that's that.
However there's nothing, not even Google, who can stop a better competitor from taking on Google. Google got big because they indexed more of the web than many other search engines and gave better or more appropriate results when someone searched for something. A competitor can come along and outgoogle Google by indexing more and returning even better results. I switched from Alta Vista and Yahoo! to Google because it worked for me. Now I use 3 SEs other than Google. Though Ask.com bought it I still type Teoma into the address bar. I also use Mooter a lot. And for some specific searches I use About.com. Well, I still use Alta Vista too.
I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate [wikipedia.org] their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?
However MS is a convicted monopolist and has been found guilty of using it's market dominance in a noncompetitive way. With the exception maybe of China Google hasn't been accused of anything criminal. Google even refused to turn over records to the government when they went fishing for what users searched for. People should keep a watch on Google, as they should for many businesses, but Google hasn't been accused of being anything other than a monopoly. And there's 2 problems with this, one there's no law against being a monopoly only for using the monopoly in a noncompetitive manner. And two many would disagree there is a monopoly in online advertising. Heck, I find it ironic that Micorsoft has the balls to call Google a monopoly when Viacom signed a $500 million advertising deal with Microsoft.
What I am saying is, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with offering a service (as a standalone service, no warranty issues involved) where you replace a disk for a fee + cost of parts, but keep the old part.
I think there is something wrong with it unless the customer is made aware of it before the service is rendered.
There is a problem if you consider it reasonable for the customer to expect to get his disk back absent obvious information to the contrary (which I do), it is then the company's responsibility to make sure the customer is aware of this non-obvious clause.
It was the writer's own fault he didn't read the agreement if he got it before the service was done. But fault lies with Apple if they didn't explain prior to the work and didn't provide the agreement that they would keep the old drive.
Dominant browsers, then. It does not work well with Konqueror, and Google is, in fact, using User-Agent-based browser detection.
Two things, first though I haven't used it recently I never had a problem with Google in Konqueror. And I have a Google page open in a tab in Firefox on my Mac. Second, don't a lot of websites use user agent browser detection? That was a basic thing to do in html and javascript. It's one thing to do it so a page can display correctly and doing like MS used to to tell the user they should change their browser.
I'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.
AH, but I bet MS didn't say Viacom picked MS over Google for it's online ad campaign. That doesn't sound like Google has a monopoly.
So why did he highlight the warranty section of his agreement? I assume he read it to highlight it, and it's quite clear that it applies to repairs done under warranty
Ah, the first sentence says "warranty" but the second says "If repairing parts out of warranty or extended service contract", so it obviously applies to out of warranty work as well. The log doesn't say anything about a warranty, "warranty" does not appear anywhere in TFA itself, but it does say he bought the new hdd.
Parts of his story smell fishy, but I've read elsewhere that it is Apple's policy to keep drives replaced out of warranty for a number of good (mostly for Apple) reasons. The best recommendation I found was to tell them it contains medical data, and they'd be violating HIPAA regulations.
I wouldn't say it sounds fishy but I would say he should have kept a backup, and he knew that. Thanks for suggesting the HIPAA, I'll have to try to remember that. If anything like this happens to me, correction, if my hdd goes bad and they say they will replace it I'll make an appointment for them to do it later then at home stick it in the oven on low or something to wipe out the contents. If the hdd doesn't work, but if it does I'll try to scrub the hdd as well as I can. Now for backups, I've got one 500GB external hdd but I haven't made a backup yet. I also want to get a second external drive to store somewhere offsite.
That's why I said "European socialist like me". You may think there is a world of difference between the two, but the only difference I see is disagreement on military spending. Both would like to eliminate any semblance of a functional social safety net and both are extremist Christians who want to restrict peoples rights based on their own narrow-minded view of the world.
I don't know where you get the idea that Libertarians, or libertarians, want to restrict rights. Libertarians stand firmly for rights. So long as people don't harm others they should be able to do whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm still choosing neither. Why? Because I can't afford them and I don't spend enough time using a desktop machine to justify it if I could. I put money into my laptops, because that's where I live and work. For my desktop, I want a big case that I can dig around and play in. And for the most part it's all cheap stuff.
I agree whole heartedly. My main computer is the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on and for a server I have a tower PC with Linux.
FalconBut they're simply not. There is no such thing as a "convicted" monopoly. The two words go together like "gray turbulance" or "blind paperclip".
Microsoft was found by a court to be a monopoly, then MS was convicted of using it's monopoly position in an uncompetitive manner. So yes, it is a convicted monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't illegal itself it's how the monopoly is used as to whether something is illegal.
FalconGoogle works just fine, it's Google Apps. Gmail works with a user-agent. Calender and Docs don't work at all, last I checked.
Other than for searching I don't use Google and this was the first tyme I heard there's a problem with Konqueror and Google. While I don't use online apps other than for email, I want my apps to run locally, it puzzles me Google doesn't work with Konqueror. It's not like Microsoft wanting people to use it's own browser and email program, and Google supports Linux.
And yes, a lot of websites do use user-agent browser detection. I consider it to be a bad practice. Detect capability, not specific browsers
I hadn't thought much about detecting capabilities instead of user agents, but you're right it's better that way.
FalconI don't know if things have changed lots all of a sudden but for Konqueror to work with the normal Gmail interface, you had to force the loading of that interface or spoof the User Agent, and then the chat utility on the left would expand into more than a quarter of the inbox list display. It was not perfect.
Konqueror may have trouble with Gmail, I don't know as I don't use Gmail. But using Google for searches I didn't have any problems with Konqueror.
FalconYep, it looks like I fat-fingered it. Sorry!
No prob. I make mistakes, way too many.
FalconHas anyone here used ask.com? I quit using google for searches a few months ago, and haven't looked back.
While I use Google more than any other search engine, there are 5 others I use as well including Teoma, now owned by Ask.com
FalconYou're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.
This already exists. OnStar does it. They even have ads on tv telling everyone drivers can get turn by turn driving directions.
FalconBecause Microsoft also sells ads they are worried Google will eat their lunch.
FalconAs far as your solutions to the problems (frogs? Are you joking), none of them are nearly close to answering energy needs
Other than that it take energy to make DDT what does energy have to do with mosquito control? Oh yea, mosquitoes can breed in the stagnant water behind dams. Oh, and they can also breed in water pools below dams. Guess that only goes to show how much I know, imagine how humans can increase the mosquito population.
FalconMonopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.
Ok, the merits. Is Google a monopoly. No, there are a lot of search engines. There are also a number of other ad agencies. Microsoft is one itself. Viacom, which used to be a DoubleClick customer, recently signed an ad deal with MS for $500 million. Yahoo! sales ads, as do other search engines.
FalconWhat should determine a monopoly is the ability of a company to either be the sole source in a given market, or to unduly control price in said market.
What you're talking about is a monopoly in reality, which is different than a monopoly legally. Legally Microsoft is a convicted monopoly.
FalconBecause the people that control the data control everything.
But neither Google nor anyone else controls all, or even 10%, of the data on the web. The millions if not 100s of millions of website designers, masters, and owners control the data. China has come the closest to controlling data on the net. But the Chinese are finding ways to circumvent the Great Firewall of China.
I have ZoneAlarm
If only Zone Labs would release ZoneAlarm for Linux and the Mac, or I could find a firewall like it for either OS. When I used Windows I had ZoneAlarm, the pay version, however I switched to Linux and OS X.
FalconAre you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?
And people are easily use another search engine. Though I use Google more than any other SE there are 5 others I also use. As for Google ads, do you know you can block them? You can also block Google Analytics. I block DoubleCLick ads myself, when my browser looks for a DoulbeClick server, it won't even find it. Many of them at least.
FalconNo prob, I've made more than my share of mistakes.
FalconI wasn't referring to Libertarians in general, I was referring to Ron Paul
Ok, sorry for making the mistake you meant Libertarians.
who obviously didn't get the Libertarian memo on not restricting rights.
Abortion is one issue I disagree with Ron Paul on, but on most of the others I agree. That I know of no candidate for president comes as close as he does on the issues. All of the other candidates, Democrats and Republicans, want big government. Generally Democrats and Republicans only disagree on what part of government will be big. Democrats want big governmental social programs whereas Republicans want big military and law enforcement programs, as well as wanting to tell people how to live, what they do in private. Like Ron Paul, I want small government. For now I'll support Ron Paul, but depending on who they choose I may support the Libertarian candidate.
FalconGoogle has sufficient market share in the Web browser market to constitute monopoly influence as (again) multiple courts have ruled.
Google or Microsoft? MS has the browser but Google doesn't.
FalconWindows doesn't run on Alpha anymore 'cause the development costs outweigh the projected income
Is the Alpha still being developed? I heard Compaq/HP sold it to Intel but that a company in South Korea made then for a while.
FalconThe U.S. government's idea that it can get any information from any U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company in jail, and can keep that secret, means that, using Google's information, your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
However when the US federal government went on a fishing expedition to see what people searched for Google refused. "Bush Administration Demands Search Data; Google Says No; AOL, MSN & Yahoo Said Yes". As for privacy: Google Anonymizing Search Records To Protect Privacy.
your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
Only Firefox with NoScript can prevent this. Since Google has been paying $50,000,000 each year to the Mozilla Foundation, the developers of Firefox, and since Google makes money through advertising, it seems likely that Firefox will eventually not allow add-ons like NoScript and Ad-Block.
WRONG! Big tyme. If I want to block Google Analytics, or whatever, all I have to do is to add the address I want to block to my Hosts File. Hosts files work with Linux, OS X, and Windows. I know, I've used one on all of these. And I don't see most ads.
NoScript makes your browsing much more secure, in addition to giving you the option to stop spying. It's amazing how many web sites run Javascript scripts linking the web sites we visit to other servers at other companies.
Thanks for the NoScript addon. I like being able to block scripts from some websites while allowing other websites to use them. On my Windows PC I had a firewall that allowed me to do this, but I know of no firewalls for Linux or Macs that does the same.
FalconI was never saying this. But should we wait until they are? Do the same mistake as with Microsoft? It's a much dirtier and harder job to disrupt a monopoly than trying to stop one from happening. As has been proven with the Microsoft OEM history, for example. It's not because Microsoft is doing a mighty intelligent work at upholding that monopoly. They don't even have to. The customers are doing it for them. Just like the ad market will once Google grows big enough there. Google will be able to give the advertisers the best deals thanks to their economy in the market and that's that.
However there's nothing, not even Google, who can stop a better competitor from taking on Google. Google got big because they indexed more of the web than many other search engines and gave better or more appropriate results when someone searched for something. A competitor can come along and outgoogle Google by indexing more and returning even better results. I switched from Alta Vista and Yahoo! to Google because it worked for me. Now I use 3 SEs other than Google. Though Ask.com bought it I still type Teoma into the address bar. I also use Mooter a lot. And for some specific searches I use About.com. Well, I still use Alta Vista too.
FalconI know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate [wikipedia.org] their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?
However MS is a convicted monopolist and has been found guilty of using it's market dominance in a noncompetitive way. With the exception maybe of China Google hasn't been accused of anything criminal. Google even refused to turn over records to the government when they went fishing for what users searched for. People should keep a watch on Google, as they should for many businesses, but Google hasn't been accused of being anything other than a monopoly. And there's 2 problems with this, one there's no law against being a monopoly only for using the monopoly in a noncompetitive manner. And two many would disagree there is a monopoly in online advertising. Heck, I find it ironic that Micorsoft has the balls to call Google a monopoly when Viacom signed a $500 million advertising deal with Microsoft.
FalconWhat I am saying is, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with offering a service (as a standalone service, no warranty issues involved) where you replace a disk for a fee + cost of parts, but keep the old part.
I think there is something wrong with it unless the customer is made aware of it before the service is rendered.
There is a problem if you consider it reasonable for the customer to expect to get his disk back absent obvious information to the contrary (which I do), it is then the company's responsibility to make sure the customer is aware of this non-obvious clause.
It was the writer's own fault he didn't read the agreement if he got it before the service was done. But fault lies with Apple if they didn't explain prior to the work and didn't provide the agreement that they would keep the old drive.
FalconDominant browsers, then. It does not work well with Konqueror, and Google is, in fact, using User-Agent-based browser detection.
Two things, first though I haven't used it recently I never had a problem with Google in Konqueror. And I have a Google page open in a tab in Firefox on my Mac. Second, don't a lot of websites use user agent browser detection? That was a basic thing to do in html and javascript. It's one thing to do it so a page can display correctly and doing like MS used to to tell the user they should change their browser.
FalconI'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.
AH, but I bet MS didn't say Viacom picked MS over Google for it's online ad campaign. That doesn't sound like Google has a monopoly.
FalconSo why did he highlight the warranty section of his agreement? I assume he read it to highlight it, and it's quite clear that it applies to repairs done under warranty
Ah, the first sentence says "warranty" but the second says "If repairing parts out of warranty or extended service contract", so it obviously applies to out of warranty work as well. The log doesn't say anything about a warranty, "warranty" does not appear anywhere in TFA itself, but it does say he bought the new hdd.
Parts of his story smell fishy, but I've read elsewhere that it is Apple's policy to keep drives replaced out of warranty for a number of good (mostly for Apple) reasons. The best recommendation I found was to tell them it contains medical data, and they'd be violating HIPAA regulations.
I wouldn't say it sounds fishy but I would say he should have kept a backup, and he knew that. Thanks for suggesting the HIPAA, I'll have to try to remember that. If anything like this happens to me, correction, if my hdd goes bad and they say they will replace it I'll make an appointment for them to do it later then at home stick it in the oven on low or something to wipe out the contents. If the hdd doesn't work, but if it does I'll try to scrub the hdd as well as I can. Now for backups, I've got one 500GB external hdd but I haven't made a backup yet. I also want to get a second external drive to store somewhere offsite.
FalconThat's why I said "European socialist like me". You may think there is a world of difference between the two, but the only difference I see is disagreement on military spending. Both would like to eliminate any semblance of a functional social safety net and both are extremist Christians who want to restrict peoples rights based on their own narrow-minded view of the world.
I don't know where you get the idea that Libertarians, or libertarians, want to restrict rights. Libertarians stand firmly for rights. So long as people don't harm others they should be able to do whatever they want.
Falcon