Profits take a back seat to making a better product.
Rubbish, they're a profit led company like every other publically listed company. Their only concern is make money and turn a profit, Full stop. Stop believing the Googleplex hype.
Booo.... you used the 'leverage' word, go stand in the corner:-)
Other than that absolutely, the application you use as an example would be well placed to use the frequent non full page refresh. Right tool for the right job, I just wish we didn't need yet another buzzword to give existing technologies... but then again I guess that's a whole different debate.
I'd agree.
I'm reminded of the Boy who cried wolf here. Over the coming years MS will HAVE to accommodate greater openess in the products it writes and develops, we're seeing this already. Each small step it tries to make is invariably met with a torrent of 'yahboosucks' from the./ brigade. Take heed, those who fail to see and act upon such changes invaribaly end up a casualty of it. Constant derision of a company that is obviosuly trying to change just becomes borish, whilst there's a way to go yet I always think that by encouraging them to change we'll eventually get what WE want.
Absolutely, central London is an unmitigated sh1tehole, I'm so glad I don't have to work there anymore. However I now work in the Docklands and whilst when I first moved here (7 years ago) it was far quieter in the past 4 years all the banks have moved in and the pin stripe brigade has muscled into to all the bars and what few pubs we have. Most of the coporate suits, merchant bankers and coked up city wide boys make going out for a quiet relaxing beer after work a nightmare.
we have to consider that people who visit a site like BBC would be more inclined to use FF. Conversely, people more inclined to use IE (and support it against FF) could not be visiting BBC in the firstplace.
How do you draw that conclusion? I know you said that this was simply your opinion but it seems utterly baseless. And that you seem to think that somehow there are 'sides' in which browser you choose to 'support' use is simply pathetic and childish.
We've been sold a lie, simple as that. The capitalist machine teases you with the dream of less work and more money, but this is never going to happen. Longer hours, less holiday, worse working conditions and all to ensure that the 'share holders' make their dividends. The only winners in capitalism are the bourgeoise, and that's a hard club to get into.
Is that Mr Marx shouting 'I told you so' at the Back there?
Re:What other pre-web services are out there?
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but most of those phone calls weren't racked up by the legit users now were they:-)
You're right, it IS sad. Knowing people who work and Google and people who work at Yahoo, I'd say I'm with Yahoo everytime. Google remind me too much of the Moonies.
I am not talking about the elimination of commercial use of the Web. I am talking about eliminating a very specific and rarely-used mechanism (time-limited public distribution) to allow another mechanism that I feel is much more important (mirroring to keep references alive and data from being lost).
But I think what's being discussed here is that it's not YOUR data to lose. it's not YOUR infromation to re-present, by allowing you to look at the information you've usually been granted a very limited license for personal use that does not extend to you then distributing said data to other parties. That's copyright infringement. If the copyright holder has not given express permission for you to use that data in which ever way then you've no right making that data publically available.
Google????? Oh come on, wake up, they've been censoring content on behalf of the Chinese Govt WAY before MS have. Google are the new MS, when will people wkae up and smell the Googleoffee
Presumably that's American law you're quoting there. Last time I checked your laws don't hold sway over the majority of the planet... however muchyour government tries to bully other nations and governments into doing so!
And the media owners are also within their rights to block any attempt to gain access to THEIR content should you choose to do so.
Jeez... is this debate really still going. Wouldn't it be easier to, I don't know, sort out world peace first?
Slashdot Mirror
Profits take a back seat to making a better product. Rubbish, they're a profit led company like every other publically listed company. Their only concern is make money and turn a profit, Full stop. Stop believing the Googleplex hype.
Booo.... you used the 'leverage' word, go stand in the corner :-)
Other than that absolutely, the application you use as an example would be well placed to use the frequent non full page refresh. Right tool for the right job, I just wish we didn't need yet another buzzword to give existing technologies... but then again I guess that's a whole different debate.
I'd agree. I'm reminded of the Boy who cried wolf here. Over the coming years MS will HAVE to accommodate greater openess in the products it writes and develops, we're seeing this already. Each small step it tries to make is invariably met with a torrent of 'yahboosucks' from the ./ brigade. Take heed, those who fail to see and act upon such changes invaribaly end up a casualty of it. Constant derision of a company that is obviosuly trying to change just becomes borish, whilst there's a way to go yet I always think that by encouraging them to change we'll eventually get what WE want.
Absolutely, central London is an unmitigated sh1tehole, I'm so glad I don't have to work there anymore. However I now work in the Docklands and whilst when I first moved here (7 years ago) it was far quieter in the past 4 years all the banks have moved in and the pin stripe brigade has muscled into to all the bars and what few pubs we have. Most of the coporate suits, merchant bankers and coked up city wide boys make going out for a quiet relaxing beer after work a nightmare.
we have to consider that people who visit a site like BBC would be more inclined to use FF. Conversely, people more inclined to use IE (and support it against FF) could not be visiting BBC in the firstplace. How do you draw that conclusion? I know you said that this was simply your opinion but it seems utterly baseless. And that you seem to think that somehow there are 'sides' in which browser you choose to 'support' use is simply pathetic and childish.
We've been sold a lie, simple as that. The capitalist machine teases you with the dream of less work and more money, but this is never going to happen. Longer hours, less holiday, worse working conditions and all to ensure that the 'share holders' make their dividends. The only winners in capitalism are the bourgeoise, and that's a hard club to get into. Is that Mr Marx shouting 'I told you so' at the Back there?
Yeah, but most of those phone calls weren't racked up by the legit users now were they :-)
You're right, it IS sad. Knowing people who work and Google and people who work at Yahoo, I'd say I'm with Yahoo everytime. Google remind me too much of the Moonies.
That depends what criteria you are using to asses 'best'.
Phwooarr!! Never new plate tectonics could be so inspiring.
In the States you could probably patent it!
But I think what's being discussed here is that it's not YOUR data to lose. it's not YOUR infromation to re-present, by allowing you to look at the information you've usually been granted a very limited license for personal use that does not extend to you then distributing said data to other parties. That's copyright infringement. If the copyright holder has not given express permission for you to use that data in which ever way then you've no right making that data publically available.
Google?????
9 124444,00.htm
Oh come on, wake up, they've been censoring content on behalf of the Chinese Govt WAY before MS have. Google are the new MS, when will people wkae up and smell the Googleoffee
http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,3
In America.
Presumably that's American law you're quoting there. Last time I checked your laws don't hold sway over the majority of the planet... however muchyour government tries to bully other nations and governments into doing so!
Which in turn is like going into a newsagent and reading the newspapers without paying for them.
And the media owners are also within their rights to block any attempt to gain access to THEIR content should you choose to do so. Jeez... is this debate really still going. Wouldn't it be easier to, I don't know, sort out world peace first?
Or even have to pay for the bandwidth taken up by overly long sig files... I think not! Ponyegg