That sound you just heard was the crashing of chairs coming from the direction of Redmond, WA:)
Please. The article is kind of misleading. When they say Google "beat" Microsoft and Yahoo, they mean money, not merit. Google is paying Dell in the deal. I don't know how much (an assload from what I hear from people who do know), but way more than Microsoft and Yahoo were willing to pay.
Yes, the EULA is just making spyware legal, that's why spyware distributors disclose it in the EULA. That way, if the company gets sued, they can just say, "we told him we were doing that, he agreed to it, we've done nothing illegal" and they are likely to win.
Yes, the really unscrupulous could just put it in the code without disclosing it in the EULA, but most companies want to hang around for a while to make money and don't want to take the risk of committing crimes. Much smarter to disclose it and count on people not reading the disclosure.
1) The UI problem. As many have noticed, MSN Search is a near copy of Google's interface: even the "Settings" look identical. At best, making Google "switchers" comfortable will aid in driving traffic, but at worst it's an admission that "Google has done it right, and it can't be done better."
Exactly! Just like OpenOffice is a virtual clone of Microsoft Office. Because the Open Source community is saying "Microsoft has done it right, and it can't be done better.":)
Not that I did anything illegal or even really immoral -- just poked around for the most part and read lots of boring email.
I don't know about illegal, but I have to disagree on the immoral part. Logging in as someone else without their consent and poking around and reading email, no matter how boring the email or how strong the absence of malice, is definitely immoral in my opinion.
I can understand a junior highschooler feeling that was OK, but I would hope by adulthood they'd see that as wrong.
resulting in smaller memory footprint, less overhead and generally faster and "lighter" code - shorter load times, shorter page rendering times etc.
In theory. I have yet to see it in practice.
In my experience Firefox does not use much less memory that Mozilla. And and if you need both web browsing and email, Firefox + Thunderbird uses way more memory that Mozilla alone.
Uh, you do know that Canada's tax rates are higher and you'll be taking home even less than in the U.S., right? (Precisely because the government does stuff like pay for you health insurance, ironically.)
Since you're depending on [options] for stuff like food and housing
You're depending on options for food and housing? Even I was not dumb enough to do that.:) My salary pays for food and housing. I consider my options a bonus.
They're probably terrified that Google Gmail will become a universal sign-in system to compete with MSN Passport
If you believe that Google really has a "don't be evil" philosophy (which I don't but a lot of people here seem to) then this is not something to worry about. Attempting to become a universal sign-in system would be pretty evil, IMO.
The best thing in the release is not a feature, but a bug fix. The "back button takes you to the top of the previous page instead of where you were" bug [217120] appears to have been fixed.
I normally don't install beta Mozillas, much less alphas, but that bug was driving me freakin' nuts!
Sure, they are undeniably the best search engine around.
In people's minds, perhaps. In objective relevance tests (where people don't know which results came from which engine) the big search engines are pretty similar.
The problem with google is that they absolutely dominate their market, searching with ad revenue.
I guess, assuming you think 40% "absolutely dominates" 60% (see search market shares)
The reason there's this much interest in Google stock is simple: love. Even you, who claims not to understand why people are interested, believes they are the best search engine and that they dominate the market. Very few corporations have as much good-will towards them from pretty much everybody.
GOOG may go up if the love continues, or it may go down if people realize that technology- and business-wise it's really not that unique.
Well, you're assuming that the people who have the shares are going to sell them back to them, which is unlikely since they can probably get a lot more for them on the open market.
Also, even if Google managed to buy them all back it would not change the fact that they broke the law. Do you think if you ran a red light, got caught, and claimed not to have noticed the light was red, you could avoid the consequences by just backing up to the intersection again?:)
Google can only hope that the SEC or whoever does not press the issue or (more likely) that the penalty is relatively minor for them.
Anyone who thinks any website out there has no bias is seriously naive. Or as Homer would put it, "Living in a world of make believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats."
It may not be obvious and it may not be intentional, but as long as it was created by humans a bias is there.
Was it public knowledge that Google would be announcing its IPO price today? If not, that would mean it had to have been launched (or helped) by a Google insider.
In any case, your conspiracy theory would seem more plossible if the same thing hadn't happened to a lot of the other search engines too. Most likely just some retard spammer trying to collect more email addresses by searching the web.
I think you are confusing two loves of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy. It is Gwen who was thrown off a bridge and Spider-Man tries to save her. He is unable to, though, and afterwards is tormeted by the thought that he may have been the one to kill her with his rescue attempt.
I haven't read any of the comics, but I think I read that in the Spider-Man history of the DVD extras of the first movie.
Not to be seem like a troll, but this seems to me like an incredibly naive comment.
No matter how much you love Google, surely you must realize that it is not a single individual. It is a company, made up of thousands of different individuals, each of them with their own values and ethics and free will.
Sure, stealing code doesn't sound like something Google the company would sanction, but it sounds like something one individual may do and not tell anyone.
[Groklaw] just happens to contain the 5th most relavent source of info on SCO as perceived by other webmasters regardless of whether the content if pro, anti, or just a neutral view.
That's not it either. Groklaw is the 5th most relevant source of info on "SCO" as perceived by Google. Unless you actually work there you probably don't know how or why Google thinks it should be number 5.
I'm surprised this is in the Journal. One would expect them of all people to know that business is about getting as much money from people as they are willing to pay, not how much you deserve.
It's great that you use yahoo mail only for your "crap" emails and have your real email on your own domain. But believe it or not, there's people out there, *billions of them*, who are NOT you. Doesn't that just, like, blow your mind, man!
Seriously though, while you personally may not care if Yahoo, Hotmail, etc. disappear, there are millions of other users who rely on them (and would rely on google mail). And that sort of *is* the point.
Slashdot Mirror
That sound you just heard was the crashing of chairs coming from the direction of Redmond, WA :)
Please. The article is kind of misleading. When they say Google "beat" Microsoft and Yahoo, they mean money, not merit. Google is paying Dell in the deal. I don't know how much (an assload from what I hear from people who do know), but way more than Microsoft and Yahoo were willing to pay.
Yes, the EULA is just making spyware legal, that's why spyware distributors disclose it in the EULA. That way, if the company gets sued, they can just say, "we told him we were doing that, he agreed to it, we've done nothing illegal" and they are likely to win.
Yes, the really unscrupulous could just put it in the code without disclosing it in the EULA, but most companies want to hang around for a while to make money and don't want to take the risk of committing crimes. Much smarter to disclose it and count on people not reading the disclosure.
1) The UI problem. As many have noticed, MSN Search is a near copy of Google's interface: even the "Settings" look identical. At best, making Google "switchers" comfortable will aid in driving traffic, but at worst it's an admission that "Google has done it right, and it can't be done better."
:)
Exactly! Just like OpenOffice is a virtual clone of Microsoft Office. Because the Open Source community is saying "Microsoft has done it right, and it can't be done better."
I don't know about illegal, but I have to disagree on the immoral part. Logging in as someone else without their consent and poking around and reading email, no matter how boring the email or how strong the absence of malice, is definitely immoral in my opinion.
I can understand a junior highschooler feeling that was OK, but I would hope by adulthood they'd see that as wrong.
You also dont have to leave the current page to use firefox's search 'engine'
That's great for those who are using Firefox, but the reality is that ~90% of people aren't.
resulting in smaller memory footprint, less overhead and generally faster and "lighter" code - shorter load times, shorter page rendering times etc.
In theory. I have yet to see it in practice.
In my experience Firefox does not use much less memory that Mozilla. And and if you need both web browsing and email, Firefox + Thunderbird uses way more memory that Mozilla alone.
Uh, you do know that Canada's tax rates are higher and you'll be taking home even less than in the U.S., right? (Precisely because the government does stuff like pay for you health insurance, ironically.)
Since you're depending on [options] for stuff like food and housing
:) My salary pays for food and housing. I consider my options a bonus.
You're depending on options for food and housing? Even I was not dumb enough to do that.
Ha, ha, ha! Spare capacity. Good one!
So how many people did drop Hotmail for Gmail? I haven't seen any numbers anywhere. But it sounds like you have and I'm really curious.
If you believe that Google really has a "don't be evil" philosophy (which I don't but a lot of people here seem to) then this is not something to worry about. Attempting to become a universal sign-in system would be pretty evil, IMO.
The best thing in the release is not a feature, but a bug fix. The "back button takes you to the top of the previous page instead of where you were" bug [217120] appears to have been fixed.
I normally don't install beta Mozillas, much less alphas, but that bug was driving me freakin' nuts!
Sure, they are undeniably the best search engine around.
In people's minds, perhaps. In objective relevance tests (where people don't know which results came from which engine) the big search engines are pretty similar.
The problem with google is that they absolutely dominate their market, searching with ad revenue.
I guess, assuming you think 40% "absolutely dominates" 60% (see search market shares)
The reason there's this much interest in Google stock is simple: love. Even you, who claims not to understand why people are interested, believes they are the best search engine and that they dominate the market. Very few corporations have as much good-will towards them from pretty much everybody.
GOOG may go up if the love continues, or it may go down if people realize that technology- and business-wise it's really not that unique.
Well, you're assuming that the people who have the shares are going to sell them back to them, which is unlikely since they can probably get a lot more for them on the open market.
:)
Also, even if Google managed to buy them all back it would not change the fact that they broke the law. Do you think if you ran a red light, got caught, and claimed not to have noticed the light was red, you could avoid the consequences by just backing up to the intersection again?
Google can only hope that the SEC or whoever does not press the issue or (more likely) that the penalty is relatively minor for them.
Anyone who thinks any website out there has no bias is seriously naive. Or as Homer would put it, "Living in a world of make believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats."
It may not be obvious and it may not be intentional, but as long as it was created by humans a bias is there.
Why is that? Yahoo reports news, financial and otherwise. This is news. Therefore, there's nothing ironic about them reporting it.
Was it public knowledge that Google would be announcing its IPO price today? If not, that would mean it had to have been launched (or helped) by a Google insider. In any case, your conspiracy theory would seem more plossible if the same thing hadn't happened to a lot of the other search engines too. Most likely just some retard spammer trying to collect more email addresses by searching the web.
Oh my god oh my god oh my god!! It's Alanis Morissette!!! Are you looking for material for another song about ironic stuff that's not really ironic?
Now if they had moved to MySQL...
:)
Good god, that's a scary thought! Remember, this is a stock exchange. I would think data integrity is more important than speed.
I think you are confusing two loves of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy. It is Gwen who was thrown off a bridge and Spider-Man tries to save her. He is unable to, though, and afterwards is tormeted by the thought that he may have been the one to kill her with his rescue attempt.
I haven't read any of the comics, but I think I read that in the Spider-Man history of the DVD extras of the first movie.
Not to be seem like a troll, but this seems to me like an incredibly naive comment.
No matter how much you love Google, surely you must realize that it is not a single individual. It is a company, made up of thousands of different individuals, each of them with their own values and ethics and free will.
Sure, stealing code doesn't sound like something Google the company would sanction, but it sounds like something one individual may do and not tell anyone.
That's not it either. Groklaw is the 5th most relevant source of info on "SCO" as perceived by Google. Unless you actually work there you probably don't know how or why Google thinks it should be number 5.
I'm surprised this is in the Journal. One would expect them of all people to know that business is about getting as much money from people as they are willing to pay, not how much you deserve.
It's great that you use yahoo mail only for your "crap" emails and have your real email on your own domain. But believe it or not, there's people out there, *billions of them*, who are NOT you. Doesn't that just, like, blow your mind, man! Seriously though, while you personally may not care if Yahoo, Hotmail, etc. disappear, there are millions of other users who rely on them (and would rely on google mail). And that sort of *is* the point.