While this may appear to be a good thing, what it amounts to is these companies further wasting resources in an effort to stop the resources that are already being wasted due to a flawed patent system.
Funny I thought this was about combatting bad patents, not stopping resources from being wasted.
The problem is those terrible ads help pay for shows like Stargate: Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica. Will these shows be able to get made without television ads? Who knows. Although I do have my doubts on the ability to have them shown on television. Unless they do so for free (or close enough) as a form of advertisement.
From what I could tell Picasa was already successful in its niche though. And while Google buying it did result in a short (but large) burst in downloading, AFAIK Google hasn't really done anything with it, and its popularity hasn't increased since the initial buyout.
I too am not noticing the increase. Now I've got my e-mail everywhere (and I do mean everywhere) without any hiding. And yet I haven't noticed any spam increase. In fact, I barely notice my spam as it is. That's mainly because of Gmail's spam filter though:) With it, you don't need to worry about spam.
Although it would be nice to get something more proactive done about it.
In addition, they have an excellent ability to fill niches in the market that are not being filled adequately (e.g. Picasa, Maps, News)
Just to nitpick. Google bought Picasa so they didn't fill that niche, they just bought their way into it. Much like many other successful software companies do.
This is a function of having a molten core, if there is moving metal, there is a magnetic field
Couldn't that weak field be the residual of one dissapearing or the beginnings of one forming around Mars as a result of a Geomagnetic reversal? Is there definite proof that Mars doesn't have a molten core? Or are we assuming because it has no field?
The point you missed is that while you can hold the country together with censorship, doing so has negative consequences on other forces that might place the same role. Chief among these forces is a pragmatic recognition of enlightened self interest.
The point you missed is that I wasn't being serious in either post:P
You are now defining "evil" by your own standards.
Not really, although I do freely admit that I make an assumption on Google's definition of evil. I assume their definition of evil isn't "against the law." Now do you think their definition of evil is "against the law"? If so, then that's fine, although the rest of your entire post is irrelevant (because it defends doing evil things when forced to by the law). Or do you believe that Google does have a definition of evil that is something else? If so, aren't they "doing evil" when the law forces them to do something? After all, if they didn't think it evil, they would have done it without the law forcing them.
Surely if they wanted to defend free speech they would do so regardless of what the law requires of them. Y'know, like a few people did a couple of hundred years ago so they could "do no evil" (although admiteddly their viewpoints on what was and wasn't evil was a little screwy).
It's about as ridiculous as hating someone for the OS they choose to run...
Not really. One is hating someone for supporting a company maintain it's monopoly that it gained through illegal business practices. The other is hating a baby for the colour of their skin.
No they're not. All they're saying is "we aren't going to do it because some random person tells us to do it. We want the government to tell us to do it." How is that standing up against anything within your post (which is about censorship by the government, not voluntary censorship).
How do you want to objectively define "evil" if not by the law?
How I define it isn't important. What is important is what those who made the motto "official" (is it?) and set their other policies by it feel is and isn't evil. Now if they think following the law at all times is "doing no evil" that's fine. At least they're not hypocritical (hardly a revolutionary ideal though for a business, although yes many do manage to break the law) and are consistent within their own morals. However I'd personally find such people's morals reprehensible as it would mean that they would have no problem turning Jews into the Nazis that ran Germany in the 1940s, but hey. At least they would be acting moral by their own morals.
IMO if "do no evil" is to be more then a clevert piece of marketting it does need to mean more then "do nothing illegal" and does need the owners of Google to enforce it regardless of the law.
You cannot, on the one hand, take Google to task for caving to the demands for censorship by the Chinese, and on the other, for their failing to cave in to pressure to remove blogs.
I don't see anyone at Slashdot (except possibly AcidAUS) taking Google to task for failing to cave in to pressure to remove blogs. Now sure, those doing the pressuring are. But who knows what they believe when it comes to Chinese censorship and Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds a lot like the human body.
Funny I thought this was about combatting bad patents, not stopping resources from being wasted.
Now, now. No need to be nasty to yourself.
The problem is those terrible ads help pay for shows like Stargate: Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica. Will these shows be able to get made without television ads? Who knows. Although I do have my doubts on the ability to have them shown on television. Unless they do so for free (or close enough) as a form of advertisement.
From what I could tell Picasa was already successful in its niche though. And while Google buying it did result in a short (but large) burst in downloading, AFAIK Google hasn't really done anything with it, and its popularity hasn't increased since the initial buyout.
1 every few days would also make it through my spam filters, but now the spam filters are able to catch them.
I too am not noticing the increase. Now I've got my e-mail everywhere (and I do mean everywhere) without any hiding. And yet I haven't noticed any spam increase. In fact, I barely notice my spam as it is. That's mainly because of Gmail's spam filter though :) With it, you don't need to worry about spam.
Although it would be nice to get something more proactive done about it.
Just to nitpick. Google bought Picasa so they didn't fill that niche, they just bought their way into it. Much like many other successful software companies do.
Will downloading while uploading be a bad thing?
Riiiiight. And tell me Mr. Widget, when did you stop beating your wife?
Very selective replying. Nice.
Only if you read hey!'s post. I know, very cryptic.
Surely if they wanted to defend free speech they would do so regardless of what the law requires of them. Y'know, like a few people did a couple of hundred years ago so they could "do no evil" (although admiteddly their viewpoints on what was and wasn't evil was a little screwy).
I find it disgusting that you've been modded Insightful. Bravo.
IMO if "do no evil" is to be more then a clevert piece of marketting it does need to mean more then "do nothing illegal" and does need the owners of Google to enforce it regardless of the law.