I most of the anti-Google people here are shills, are there have been a few of what I would consider legitimate complaints. Compared to any of their competition, Google is miles ahead in the area of good behaviour. They also have a vested interest in an open internet, where Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, etc do not. Their interests align very closely with mine that way, so they will get my business ahead of the others. I will also do what I can to ensure that people who are against an open internet are stopped, or at least outed for what they are. I do fear the day that things go bad a Google. I think they're one of the few large corporations still interested in an open internet.
The problem is that right now, they are driving up the real cost of Android phones, making money from it, and spreading FUD. It should be quite clear after the B&N screw-up that what they're doing is extortion.
Exactly.. also, the isolating headphones allow you to block out all outside sound at much lower music levels, so hearing damage is not as much of an issue. They;re great on buses, etc, as well where you can block out the rather loud ambient noise. When I was commuting on a bus and watching recorded TV shows, I noticed that I needed to have the volume extremely loud to be able to hear things without using isolating headphones. I don't think it would take long before measurable damage was done.
I will occasionally leave my headphones on with no music, just to not be interrupted (not that it stops everyone). For music, I find that music that I know well lets me concentrate well, where good music that I don't know well distracts. Pop music doesn't generally fit into either of these categories, so I'm not sure of its effect.
You can walk away, which is the equivalent. It's already happened, the damage has been done. Here in Canada, (and I've seen several in the US as well) there have been quite a few cases of openly gay high school students committing suicide after being verbally bullied for many years. It's not that easy to turn it off in real life, or on-line without cutting yourself off from society at large. Most of the "nerds" that I know put up with pretty much the same thing in school. I'm quite surprised that people here on SlashDot are having a hard time grasping the concept.
You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person. Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that. Just because the bullying doesn't involve assault does not make it less damaging.
I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.
Eliminating software patents completely then re-instating any provisions that are still required after some thought would more quickly get to a working solution. Taking a small step towards a goal that you are very far from is not much on an improvement, and I think most people (who are not lawyers) know that the goal is much closer to "no software patents" than it is to "you can patent the idea for any software".
Software patents cover ideas, not specific implementations. You can come up with a more efficient implementation if you want, but it the US, I believe it infringes on the patent. That is precisely *why* they are bad. Copyright can be used to cover a specific implementation, and should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh ... I really should re-read my posts. My apologies for the missing words, etc.
I most of the anti-Google people here are shills, are there have been a few of what I would consider legitimate complaints. Compared to any of their competition, Google is miles ahead in the area of good behaviour. They also have a vested interest in an open internet, where Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, etc do not. Their interests align very closely with mine that way, so they will get my business ahead of the others. I will also do what I can to ensure that people who are against an open internet are stopped, or at least outed for what they are. I do fear the day that things go bad a Google. I think they're one of the few large corporations still interested in an open internet.
The problem is that right now, they are driving up the real cost of Android phones, making money from it, and spreading FUD. It should be quite clear after the B&N screw-up that what they're doing is extortion.
I'd like to see redHat, Suse, Canonical, etc do the same thing over the UEFI controls coming up. That really needs to be taken out of their hands.
Exactly .. also, the isolating headphones allow you to block out all outside sound at much lower music levels, so hearing damage is not as much of an issue. They;re great on buses, etc, as well where you can block out the rather loud ambient noise. When I was commuting on a bus and watching recorded TV shows, I noticed that I needed to have the volume extremely loud to be able to hear things without using isolating headphones. I don't think it would take long before measurable damage was done.
I will occasionally leave my headphones on with no music, just to not be interrupted (not that it stops everyone). For music, I find that music that I know well lets me concentrate well, where good music that I don't know well distracts. Pop music doesn't generally fit into either of these categories, so I'm not sure of its effect.
That's not even remotely close to communism.
... or pro violent-education movements. Some people just learn differently.
alternately, "If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people".
You can walk away, which is the equivalent. It's already happened, the damage has been done. Here in Canada, (and I've seen several in the US as well) there have been quite a few cases of openly gay high school students committing suicide after being verbally bullied for many years. It's not that easy to turn it off in real life, or on-line without cutting yourself off from society at large. Most of the "nerds" that I know put up with pretty much the same thing in school. I'm quite surprised that people here on SlashDot are having a hard time grasping the concept.
You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person. Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that. Just because the bullying doesn't involve assault does not make it less damaging.
I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.
I think Microsoft has found that this is cheaper than developing good products.
Android no, Chrome, maybe.
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, but I am *never* eating marshmallows at your place.
I think the law needs to be altered to change that from "assholes" to "criminals" at the judges discretion.
Eliminating software patents completely then re-instating any provisions that are still required after some thought would more quickly get to a working solution. Taking a small step towards a goal that you are very far from is not much on an improvement, and I think most people (who are not lawyers) know that the goal is much closer to "no software patents" than it is to "you can patent the idea for any software".
Interesting, but probably not a valid statistical sample size, unless you're very, very large. Also, I may have my units mixed up.
Tech should adapt to you rather than the other way around.
The opposite is actually working pretty well for Apple these days. You just have to market it correctly.
Apple has done the same in the US. Let's face it, our countries are run by these corporations. Politicians are merely corrupt figureheads.
Don't you get it? The new product will be the technological equivalent of Soylent Green ... a "Soylent brushed metal and glass".
I can understand his point of view. Jewish, Muslim, or Vegan, there's something serious wrong about not liking bacon.
Don't forget telling others why they should vote the same way.
Software patents cover ideas, not specific implementations. You can come up with a more efficient implementation if you want, but it the US, I believe it infringes on the patent. That is precisely *why* they are bad. Copyright can be used to cover a specific implementation, and should be.
In Apple's case, it's actually give me your freedom and your money.