Wikipedia's treatment may have seemed unduly harsh but that is simply because it is still the underdog fighting an uphill battle. Put it this way-- Jackie Robinson didn't have to just show up and be accepted, he had to earn his way into a white baseball league. The things he had to put up with were much more harsh than for any other player, but that was his burden. Wikipedia is still the Jackie Robinson of information sources. It's good, but it's different, so the mainstream media has yet to embrace it. Being "as reputable" as other sources is simply not good enough, Wikipedia has to be more reputable (if such a thing can be done) to gain legitimacy.
Another major difference between the Wikipedia and MIT situations is that (and I haven't done the research to back this up so it's just conjecture) the person who originally hired Jones is probably gone. It's easy to assign blame to the single person who should've checked Jones' credentials, especially if that person is no longer employed at the university and won't suffer for it. To the best of my knowledge there is no one person whose duty it was to check credentials at Wikipedia and thus it was easier for the media to blame the organization as a whole. One person didn't fail, Wikipedia failed.
So many people said the same about the 17 flavors of MS Vista (and they are right about that.)
**WARNING** You are pointing out fanboy hypocrisy which is a clear violation of Slashdot social contract!
Choice is good if presented by F/OSS (many Linux flavors) but bad when presented by MS (several Vista flavors).
Pointing out progress is required if describing Linux (more usable than it used to be) but disparaged when addressing Windows (daily BSOD jokes still occur?).
When discussing existing features, make sure that MS products are described as bloated (MS Word) while F/OSS products have features (OO.o).
When discussing innovations, make sure that MS innovations are described as rip-offs or "I would never use that useless thing" (Office ribbon interface) while F/OSS innovations are creative and "wouldn't exist if somebody didn't want them" (Beryl).
All above bullet points can be applied to fanboys of any system juxtaposed with an opposing system, this just happens to be a largely anti-MS site so I wrote them in that context.
Nop. Most of them just want good software to use, some to support. None of them want software to sell. Notice how your favorite example, IBM, has almost all of its revenue coming from hardware and services. The same applies to Sun.
Just because the actual sale isn't occuring on the software doesn't mean the software isn't part of the sales-pitch. Having good software available for the hardware platform they are pitching is very much in their interest and impacts the ultimate sale.
That's what we ended up doing. Running RIM software on a Treo wouldn't be an ideal situation, but it's nice to know options are being looked at. Once there are comprehensive reports on how solid/usable the software is it could be a nice alternative. Overall dealings with RIM have been very easy and the software just works (except for their awful DST patch) so if they could provide software that works just as well on Windows Mobile I wouldn't be opposed to checking it out.
I don't get it, if I was running a windows device with outlook already installed, why would I bother w/ blackberry's apps?
My company uses BlackBerries and we recently hired a new field operative who had his own Treo. Given the choice of installing an app on his Treo that will interface with our BES installation or having to purchase a new BlackBerry handheld unit for him we would rather just install a software package on his device. The fewer server applications & configurations we have to support, the better.
PDAs and phone functionality were blending fast before the iPhone was announced. Although it's still vaporware by definition, the iPhone's introduction is changing the competitive landscape.
I agree that the traditional definitions of PDAs and Phones are homogenizing for many consumers, but can you please explain how this process is being accelerated in any way by the iPhone? From the specs that have been announced so far, there is nothing incredibly novel or revolutionary about the iPhone from the perspective of people currently using smartphones having features that iPhone may (email) or may-not (3rd party apps) have.
The 2 key features that aren't found on currently existing phones are the Visual Voicemail feature and the Multitouch screen. As somebody who hates clearing voicemails, I very much like the Visual Voicemail idea concept but it's not exactly revolutionary. In other words, it's certainly cool but its absence doesn't obsolesce other units. Same thing goes for the Multitouch which, until I personally experience otherwise, is just a gimmick.
iPhone will let you play music (like Verizon's Chocolate), watch video (like Motorola's Q), use email/internet (like any BlackBerry/Treo), view pictures (everybody can already do this and nobody does), install custom apps (wait, iPhone can't). iPhone isn't even the first unit to wrap all those features in 1 package, I'm just listing separate models to illustrate the diversity in the marketplace. Bottom line: iPhone isn't changing any landscape, it's simply bringing Apple's style and flair to the current landscape that was established by Palm and RIM.
RIM opening BES connectivity to other hardware is certainly a good thing, but comparing the currently promised iPhone to BlackBerries/Treos/any-other-true-smartphones is simply naive.
Why not? After all 'merica is an empire, not just a country. We Americans have been imposing our norms and culture all over the world for some time now. This would not be the first or last time something like this happens.
I'd like to believe you were going for funny, but you got modded insightful. How sad.
Guess what, dude- there are no McDonalds restaurants in Iran. You know the reason why? It's because Americans don't actually force their culture on everyone else. American culture is certainly an export but it's going to people that want and accept it for what it is. In fact, Americans aren't even able to impose "American" norms and culture within their own borders. How many countries in the world have a problem with illegal immigrants demanding health care and driver's licenses? How many countries in the world can you move to and never learn the local language? Better yet, how many countries in the world don't even have an official national language?
America isn't really the empire you think it is. America is a country that currently has a black eye for being a bit to strong-armed in its international relations. Of course it tries to extend politics past its own borders for American gain but if you think it's the only country to do so you are sorely mistaken. This is how international diplomacy works. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Countries that don't like the American norms and culture DON'T HAVE IT. You must be shocked that they could maintain independence despite your assertion that "we" have imposed this culture "all over the world for some time now". If you feel personally guilty about imposing American culture and norms all over the world I can't help you, but I can say that you're in the minority on that one.
I suggest that, when you get out of college, you go see the world. Actually experience it for yourself instead of believing what somebody told you. Travel to countries that dislike America and also travel to the countries that like America (yes, they exist). You'll find that most people are the same when you meet them in person -- they have some notions about the rest of the world that are accurate, some that are innacurate, some dissatisfaction with their own politicians (elected or not), the same struggles at home to live within their means, etc. Try to remember that just because you're not watching Fox News doesn't mean somebody isn't trying to brainwash you. No country is perfect.
Your argument can also be bent in the opposite direction: If software can potentially damage hardware, the potential for damage is certainly not just limited to the OS. Must third-party applications be tested and explicitly excluded in a warranty? Hardware that can be damaged by software, whether it be in the kernel or the user space, is suspect to start with -- and the risk should not be placed on the consumer.
Testing third-party apps would be a monumental waste of resources. It would be much simpler to have it built into your agreement with the OS vendor (and the hardware/driver vendors) that the OS/drivers/hardware will not allow approved hardware to be damaged. Installing unapproved drivers or an unapproved OS would breach this integrity and therefore any promises of functionality can't be guaranteed and the warranty is broken.
Yes, it is the essence of capitalism. Most slashdotters remember the essence of capitalism when it works in their favor (getting the most for the less) but choose to decry it when it works against them (vendors offering the least for more). This sense of entitlement bothers me greatly.
Unfortunately they have a blanket policy stating that certain things must remain as installed in order not to void your warranty. Adding granularity to that policy in order to allow only certain pieces of hardware and (likely) only certain hardware vendors to be covered under the policy, etc. Each of those stipulations is going to require testing to make sure that it is solid enough to be covered by the warranty, etc. Doing this drives up support costs.
C'mon slashdot, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to install things on your own, accept that bulk etailers are geared for the computer-illiterate masses and your modifications will likely void warranties and support contracts. If you want to modify operating systems or hardware configurations without violating agreements you should purchase your box from a smaller supplier who is geared towards people like you or build it yourself. That will probably be more expensive than buying a cheap Dell, but it's the age-old axiom "you get what you pay for".
Slashdotters, for the love of god, please stop complaining that after shopping around for the cheapest deal you're not getting top-of-the-line service. This is as annoying as the people who buy all their airfares at the cheapest possible price and then complain that they don't have legroom.
What do I do about new friends? Call their parents and put them through a checklist of how they raise their children?
YES! A thousand times, YES! Even if not because of the internet access, wouldn't you want to know what kind of environment your 11-year-old daughter is being exposed to? What if it's something else like the friend's dad comes home from work and smokes a joint in the living room every day.
I don't believe firearms are inherently bad, but I would be criminally negligent to allow a child access to one. Society has laws governing this, and rightfully so. Because of the unique way that the internet pierces age and social bariers, we need ways to ensure that children are not thrust into situations before they can handle them. We need to be aware as parents, and as a society a certain amount of regulation is not a bad thing.
I agree 100% about the equivalent danger, but you are making a mistake about the laws (being) designed to protect children from those dangers. There is no law saying that manufacturers must create guns that verify the age of the user prior to pulling the trigger. There are very specific laws in place stating that the firearms must be sold through federally licensed firearms dealers, that the dealers must verify the customers' age and background, and that legal owners must keep the firearms locked up and inaccessible to children. This is a very logical way to tackle the problem- grant access only to "responsible" individuals and make sure those individuals do not grant further access irresponsibly. If they governed firearms the way they want to govern social networks, it would be the opposite- anybody can buy a gun, anybody can sell a gun, kids can possess guns, but when kids try to pull the trigger the weapon must discern their age and eligibility.
If your daughter had a friend who played with her dad's gun while she's at work I'm fairly certain you wouldn't hesitate to say "you can't play there any more". For some reason they had unfettered internet access at the friend's house and, though you've reached an agreement, you were initially hesitant to address it as sternly.
The biggest reason I can't support this law is because there will never be a way to guarantee somebody's age over the internet so the law will be ineffective by default. Even if you prevent kids from accessing adult sections, I doubt there will be a way to keep adults out of the kid section. Even if your daughter doesn't try to circumvent the rules to get to the creeps, you can bet the creeps will be trying to circumvent them for her. A much more effective way to deal with things is to provide the safest environment you can at home and do your best to make sure she doesn't put herself into dangerous situations when not at home. Up to a certain age you can have a huge impact on that environmental access, after a certain age you'll have to hope you raised her right.
You cannot prepare the world for kids, try to prepare kids for the world.
Do I tell my daughter she can't be this girl's friend?
If being this girl's friend puts your daughter in situations she is unable to handle yet, then YES you should absolutely discourage your daughter from hanging out with her. Yes, there is the chance she'll want to rebel and disobey you but that's part of being a parent. Step up and be a parent and don't expect politicians to make the problem go away for you.
More importantly, you need to teach your daughter how to walk away from situations. Today it's talking to an older boy on WoW, in a few years it's going to be getting in a friend's car who had a few too many drinks. Driving under the influence is already illegal but people do it anyway. It's much more valuable to teach her how to say "no thanks, I'll get a cab."
Years ago parents taught kids "never talk to strangers". Today they'd rather say "please government, make sure that the strangers my kids are talking to aren't dangerous."
Wow. Now her life is completely destroyed. Way to go, guys. Presuming she doesn't go to jail or a mental institution, you couldn't have found somewhere for her to work at NASA, given how big NASA is? Or waited until she was proven guilty, at the least?
I agree that they should've at least waited until she is found guilty in court, but to lambast NASA for firing an employee who exhibited this behavior is ridiculous. She went crazy and tried to kidnap a person. The responsibility for this decision is Nowak's alone so to claim that anybody else is trying to destroy her life is absurd. NASA has no obligation to unconditionally accept any dangerous behavior from its employees and reposition them if they become unfit for their original assignments.
Especially since it's your training program that caused the breakdown in the first place, most likely?
Got any proof of that?
Talk about getting tossed out an airlock. NASA could have taken the high road on this one, and it's pretty obvious they took the easiest-for-them road. Circle the wagons, protect the budget.
Protecting the budget or other employees? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Nowak drove 900 miles in a diaper to try and kidnap a woman who was dating a man that dumped her. Imagine what she'll do to the bitch who borrows her stapler too many times and sits right next to her.
The fact that you got modded "Insightful" only shows that/. is populated by too many people with little/no real world experience.
Allowing him to be involved/hired/whatever would not be a wrong decision. Allowing him to use his falsified credentials (or elevated status resulting from falsified credentials) as leverage in a discussion would be irresponsible and detrimental.
Google has never claimed that Google Docs was an office replacement--they've always said it was meant to supplement traditional productivity suites.
You must've missed the Google manager: Google Apps replaced Microsoft Office at 100,000 businesses article. Yes, the Google rep uses a political "it's a supplement, not a replacement" line, but he also says, "We have hundreds of thousands of small to medium businesses that have already...switched their entire infrastructure over to Google Apps." Whether or not they are claiming Office-replacement as a goal, they certainly are touting it as a result.
From TFA:
Fire up Internet Explorer and try this right now. Enter Lexus-Financail.com into your address bar and hit enter. (If you're on a different browser, click here to see the results you would get.)
I type "Lexus-Financail.com" into my address bar and IE automatically routes it to a Google search that suggests Lexus-Financial.com. Whenever IE doesn't find a server that you type in the address bar, it redirects to a search using your default search hooks. Mine are set to Google and it uses Google to search. If IE just showed a blank "Server not found" page it wouldn't be broken, but it could easily be argued that using your default search provider to try and find your intended server (in event of a "not found") is useful behavior.
At the end of the day, this isn't "evil" behavior. They aren't preventing people from accessing a legitimate site, they are providing relevant search results instead of a generic error screen. They may garner some ad revenue in the process but they haven't programmed the browser in a way that they are the only ones who could benefit from the behavior. And unless the user is paying their ISP per-bit at an extremely expensive rate, there's no monetary damage to the user.
by um... Lucas (13147) on Friday February 23, @06:57AM (#18122242)
Somehow, I'm having issue believing that number. 100,000? Maybe 100,000 companies have users that are using gmail accounts, but I just don't buy that 100,000 real businesses have switched over [to google apps] already, unless Jim-bob in his basement counts as a business...
Result: Modded -5, Troll
by bizarro um... Lucas (13147) on Friday February 23, @06:57AM (#18122242)
Somehow, I'm having issue believing that number. 100,000? Maybe 100,000 companies have users that are using internet explorer, but I just don't buy that 100,000 real businesses have switched over [to office] already, unless Jim-bob in his basement counts as a business...
Ah, that makes more sense now. I hit a couple of articles on Google news and none of them had mentioned iTunes. Hadn't read the NYT article though and NS hadn't linked to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Google has killed less people than Stalin. I guess news about problems with Google's setup aren't relevant at Slashdot...
Wikipedia's treatment may have seemed unduly harsh but that is simply because it is still the underdog fighting an uphill battle. Put it this way-- Jackie Robinson didn't have to just show up and be accepted, he had to earn his way into a white baseball league. The things he had to put up with were much more harsh than for any other player, but that was his burden. Wikipedia is still the Jackie Robinson of information sources. It's good, but it's different, so the mainstream media has yet to embrace it. Being "as reputable" as other sources is simply not good enough, Wikipedia has to be more reputable (if such a thing can be done) to gain legitimacy.
Another major difference between the Wikipedia and MIT situations is that (and I haven't done the research to back this up so it's just conjecture) the person who originally hired Jones is probably gone. It's easy to assign blame to the single person who should've checked Jones' credentials, especially if that person is no longer employed at the university and won't suffer for it. To the best of my knowledge there is no one person whose duty it was to check credentials at Wikipedia and thus it was easier for the media to blame the organization as a whole. One person didn't fail, Wikipedia failed.
Yeah! Instruments are for pussies, a cappella is the only real music...
**WARNING** You are pointing out fanboy hypocrisy which is a clear violation of Slashdot social contract!
All above bullet points can be applied to fanboys of any system juxtaposed with an opposing system, this just happens to be a largely anti-MS site so I wrote them in that context.
Just because the actual sale isn't occuring on the software doesn't mean the software isn't part of the sales-pitch. Having good software available for the hardware platform they are pitching is very much in their interest and impacts the ultimate sale.
That's what we ended up doing. Running RIM software on a Treo wouldn't be an ideal situation, but it's nice to know options are being looked at. Once there are comprehensive reports on how solid/usable the software is it could be a nice alternative. Overall dealings with RIM have been very easy and the software just works (except for their awful DST patch) so if they could provide software that works just as well on Windows Mobile I wouldn't be opposed to checking it out.
My company uses BlackBerries and we recently hired a new field operative who had his own Treo. Given the choice of installing an app on his Treo that will interface with our BES installation or having to purchase a new BlackBerry handheld unit for him we would rather just install a software package on his device. The fewer server applications & configurations we have to support, the better.
I agree that the traditional definitions of PDAs and Phones are homogenizing for many consumers, but can you please explain how this process is being accelerated in any way by the iPhone? From the specs that have been announced so far, there is nothing incredibly novel or revolutionary about the iPhone from the perspective of people currently using smartphones having features that iPhone may (email) or may-not (3rd party apps) have.
The 2 key features that aren't found on currently existing phones are the Visual Voicemail feature and the Multitouch screen. As somebody who hates clearing voicemails, I very much like the Visual Voicemail idea concept but it's not exactly revolutionary. In other words, it's certainly cool but its absence doesn't obsolesce other units. Same thing goes for the Multitouch which, until I personally experience otherwise, is just a gimmick.
iPhone will let you play music (like Verizon's Chocolate), watch video (like Motorola's Q), use email/internet (like any BlackBerry/Treo), view pictures (everybody can already do this and nobody does), install custom apps (wait, iPhone can't). iPhone isn't even the first unit to wrap all those features in 1 package, I'm just listing separate models to illustrate the diversity in the marketplace. Bottom line: iPhone isn't changing any landscape, it's simply bringing Apple's style and flair to the current landscape that was established by Palm and RIM.
RIM opening BES connectivity to other hardware is certainly a good thing, but comparing the currently promised iPhone to BlackBerries/Treos/any-other-true-smartphones is simply naive.
Coincidentally, Dr. King's speech was about "chocolates" as well...
I'd like to believe you were going for funny, but you got modded insightful. How sad.
Guess what, dude- there are no McDonalds restaurants in Iran. You know the reason why? It's because Americans don't actually force their culture on everyone else. American culture is certainly an export but it's going to people that want and accept it for what it is. In fact, Americans aren't even able to impose "American" norms and culture within their own borders. How many countries in the world have a problem with illegal immigrants demanding health care and driver's licenses? How many countries in the world can you move to and never learn the local language? Better yet, how many countries in the world don't even have an official national language?
America isn't really the empire you think it is. America is a country that currently has a black eye for being a bit to strong-armed in its international relations. Of course it tries to extend politics past its own borders for American gain but if you think it's the only country to do so you are sorely mistaken. This is how international diplomacy works. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Countries that don't like the American norms and culture DON'T HAVE IT. You must be shocked that they could maintain independence despite your assertion that "we" have imposed this culture "all over the world for some time now". If you feel personally guilty about imposing American culture and norms all over the world I can't help you, but I can say that you're in the minority on that one.
I suggest that, when you get out of college, you go see the world. Actually experience it for yourself instead of believing what somebody told you. Travel to countries that dislike America and also travel to the countries that like America (yes, they exist). You'll find that most people are the same when you meet them in person -- they have some notions about the rest of the world that are accurate, some that are innacurate, some dissatisfaction with their own politicians (elected or not), the same struggles at home to live within their means, etc. Try to remember that just because you're not watching Fox News doesn't mean somebody isn't trying to brainwash you. No country is perfect.
If my points hadn't expired yesterday I'd do it myself.
Testing third-party apps would be a monumental waste of resources. It would be much simpler to have it built into your agreement with the OS vendor (and the hardware/driver vendors) that the OS/drivers/hardware will not allow approved hardware to be damaged. Installing unapproved drivers or an unapproved OS would breach this integrity and therefore any promises of functionality can't be guaranteed and the warranty is broken.
Yes, it is the essence of capitalism. Most slashdotters remember the essence of capitalism when it works in their favor (getting the most for the less) but choose to decry it when it works against them (vendors offering the least for more). This sense of entitlement bothers me greatly.
Unfortunately they have a blanket policy stating that certain things must remain as installed in order not to void your warranty. Adding granularity to that policy in order to allow only certain pieces of hardware and (likely) only certain hardware vendors to be covered under the policy, etc. Each of those stipulations is going to require testing to make sure that it is solid enough to be covered by the warranty, etc. Doing this drives up support costs.
C'mon slashdot, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to install things on your own, accept that bulk etailers are geared for the computer-illiterate masses and your modifications will likely void warranties and support contracts. If you want to modify operating systems or hardware configurations without violating agreements you should purchase your box from a smaller supplier who is geared towards people like you or build it yourself. That will probably be more expensive than buying a cheap Dell, but it's the age-old axiom "you get what you pay for".
Slashdotters, for the love of god, please stop complaining that after shopping around for the cheapest deal you're not getting top-of-the-line service. This is as annoying as the people who buy all their airfares at the cheapest possible price and then complain that they don't have legroom.
YES! A thousand times, YES! Even if not because of the internet access, wouldn't you want to know what kind of environment your 11-year-old daughter is being exposed to? What if it's something else like the friend's dad comes home from work and smokes a joint in the living room every day.
I agree 100% about the equivalent danger, but you are making a mistake about the laws (being) designed to protect children from those dangers. There is no law saying that manufacturers must create guns that verify the age of the user prior to pulling the trigger. There are very specific laws in place stating that the firearms must be sold through federally licensed firearms dealers, that the dealers must verify the customers' age and background, and that legal owners must keep the firearms locked up and inaccessible to children. This is a very logical way to tackle the problem- grant access only to "responsible" individuals and make sure those individuals do not grant further access irresponsibly. If they governed firearms the way they want to govern social networks, it would be the opposite- anybody can buy a gun, anybody can sell a gun, kids can possess guns, but when kids try to pull the trigger the weapon must discern their age and eligibility.
If your daughter had a friend who played with her dad's gun while she's at work I'm fairly certain you wouldn't hesitate to say "you can't play there any more". For some reason they had unfettered internet access at the friend's house and, though you've reached an agreement, you were initially hesitant to address it as sternly.
The biggest reason I can't support this law is because there will never be a way to guarantee somebody's age over the internet so the law will be ineffective by default. Even if you prevent kids from accessing adult sections, I doubt there will be a way to keep adults out of the kid section. Even if your daughter doesn't try to circumvent the rules to get to the creeps, you can bet the creeps will be trying to circumvent them for her. A much more effective way to deal with things is to provide the safest environment you can at home and do your best to make sure she doesn't put herself into dangerous situations when not at home. Up to a certain age you can have a huge impact on that environmental access, after a certain age you'll have to hope you raised her right.
You cannot prepare the world for kids, try to prepare kids for the world.
If being this girl's friend puts your daughter in situations she is unable to handle yet, then YES you should absolutely discourage your daughter from hanging out with her. Yes, there is the chance she'll want to rebel and disobey you but that's part of being a parent. Step up and be a parent and don't expect politicians to make the problem go away for you.
More importantly, you need to teach your daughter how to walk away from situations. Today it's talking to an older boy on WoW, in a few years it's going to be getting in a friend's car who had a few too many drinks. Driving under the influence is already illegal but people do it anyway. It's much more valuable to teach her how to say "no thanks, I'll get a cab."
Years ago parents taught kids "never talk to strangers". Today they'd rather say "please government, make sure that the strangers my kids are talking to aren't dangerous."
I agree that they should've at least waited until she is found guilty in court, but to lambast NASA for firing an employee who exhibited this behavior is ridiculous. She went crazy and tried to kidnap a person. The responsibility for this decision is Nowak's alone so to claim that anybody else is trying to destroy her life is absurd. NASA has no obligation to unconditionally accept any dangerous behavior from its employees and reposition them if they become unfit for their original assignments.
Got any proof of that?
Protecting the budget or other employees? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Nowak drove 900 miles in a diaper to try and kidnap a woman who was dating a man that dumped her. Imagine what she'll do to the bitch who borrows her stapler too many times and sits right next to her.
The fact that you got modded "Insightful" only shows that /. is populated by too many people with little/no real world experience.
Better question: Would you let somebody with obvious mental instability babysit your $1.3 billion kid?
Allowing him to be involved/hired/whatever would not be a wrong decision. Allowing him to use his falsified credentials (or elevated status resulting from falsified credentials) as leverage in a discussion would be irresponsible and detrimental.
You must've missed the Google manager: Google Apps replaced Microsoft Office at 100,000 businesses article. Yes, the Google rep uses a political "it's a supplement, not a replacement" line, but he also says, "We have hundreds of thousands of small to medium businesses that have already...switched their entire infrastructure over to Google Apps." Whether or not they are claiming Office-replacement as a goal, they certainly are touting it as a result.
I type "Lexus-Financail.com" into my address bar and IE automatically routes it to a Google search that suggests Lexus-Financial.com. Whenever IE doesn't find a server that you type in the address bar, it redirects to a search using your default search hooks. Mine are set to Google and it uses Google to search. If IE just showed a blank "Server not found" page it wouldn't be broken, but it could easily be argued that using your default search provider to try and find your intended server (in event of a "not found") is useful behavior.
At the end of the day, this isn't "evil" behavior. They aren't preventing people from accessing a legitimate site, they are providing relevant search results instead of a generic error screen. They may garner some ad revenue in the process but they haven't programmed the browser in a way that they are the only ones who could benefit from the behavior. And unless the user is paying their ISP per-bit at an extremely expensive rate, there's no monetary damage to the user.
I knew I shouldn't have skipped the Barney Rubbles.
You actually remember them saying it?
Result: Modded -5, Troll
Result: Modded +5, Insightful
Ah, that makes more sense now. I hit a couple of articles on Google news and none of them had mentioned iTunes. Hadn't read the NYT article though and NS hadn't linked to it.
Thanks,