Google could easily have provided a client built upon an open api and won a lot of favor.
That depends on their revenue model, doesn't it. If their client is part of that model, then no, they could not 'easily' provide what you're suggesting. Worse, if trust is a key ingredient to their revenue (and, face it, it kinda has to be just on the grounds that it is a cloud service...) then they're not going to want to provide an opportunity to have third parties developing clients that do precisely what the 'legitimate gripers' are worried about Google doing.
This isn't a legitimate gripe, it's a standard knee-jerk criticism that is routinely modded up around here. Here's an alternative comment he could have made: "I don't trust any entity to hold my data. Is there an open standard server + client combo I can put on my co-located webserver that does basically the same job?" See the difference? I mean, seriously, boo hoo, the company that is providing the service wants it done their own way. Waaah.
Wouldn't you encrypt your files before uploading them? I would.
Personally I just wouldn't put those files anywhere on the net. I don't need a cloud backup of my tax returns, for example.
For some reason I am the only one on this site who has lotsa of data that I'd like to keep, but if it got out into the world, it wouldn't bother me a whole lot. "Oh noes, somebody found my legally purchased Chemical Brothers MP3s! PANIC!!"
Ah, thanks for the negative mod, there. Fine, I'll go into more detail: Google didn't just make a client, they're providing the storage, connection, maintenance, etc. It's also for business purposes, not a charity. Of course they want control over the client. If you're going to demand otherwise, you might as well just hold up a sign saying "I want the word Insightful to appear next to my post!"
Hey, does anybody remember when there used to be tech stories on slashdot?
I'm just glad to see a story that isn't part of the great Smartphone OS Flame War.
I wouldn't mind, but I've already read several interesting and useful commets in this thread. The most 'insightful' comment I read in the last article I paid attention to was "How does that feel, Mac users?"
Alta Vista did this back in the nineties. Virtually any result I found was exactly what I was in the mood for! Thanks to Google, now I have to type specific words in to get porn. Innovation, pbtbtbt.
Every time this topic comes up I wonder if telephone companies have ever been sued like this over kids racking up huge bills via long-distance and toll numbers.
Right, you're keeping it going, then bitching that the apologists are coming out of the woodwork. It reminds me of an email I got from a friend once, 3 pages of whining that her RSI was acting up.
Because hate is only gauged by whether they're mentioned with Foxconn?
That's what you got from my post? Really?
There is nothing hateful about this story, nor me pointing out that apologists would jump out to defend, even if they are (again, as you admitted) clearly in the wrong.. So no, haters do not breed apologists. If they did, there wouldn't be apologists in this thread, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Right, they have a chip on their shoulders. Look at the verbage the original poster used. He was obviously (and brainlessly) recycling an argument from the Foxconn stories. What would motivate him to do that? Fanboyism? Partially. Wanting to get a dig in for hypocrisy? Oh yes.
What double standard? There's plenty of hate on other companies. Google, MS, Facebook, Sony, you name it.
Yeah, they all have equal hate, that's why Microsoft has never been mentioned here as working with Foxconn, right?
Haters don't breed apologists. Fanboys do.
Heh. Yeah, people just kept coming out of the woodwork and started apologizing for no reason. Haters, sick of the apologies coming from out of nowhere, decided to combat them by finding stories that made the fanboys' company look bad.
Yeah, you really thought that one through, didn't you?
Okay, fine, I'll concede to it being a cycle. You're still not going to shut up any apologists even if they are, like in this story, clearly in the wrong. They'll try harder the next time around.
No, it wasn't. See that word used before the word 'Islamists'? Look it up. Once you understand it, you'll understand why the comment was rightfully modded down.
Slashdot Mirror
Google could easily have provided a client built upon an open api and won a lot of favor.
That depends on their revenue model, doesn't it. If their client is part of that model, then no, they could not 'easily' provide what you're suggesting. Worse, if trust is a key ingredient to their revenue (and, face it, it kinda has to be just on the grounds that it is a cloud service...) then they're not going to want to provide an opportunity to have third parties developing clients that do precisely what the 'legitimate gripers' are worried about Google doing.
This isn't a legitimate gripe, it's a standard knee-jerk criticism that is routinely modded up around here. Here's an alternative comment he could have made: "I don't trust any entity to hold my data. Is there an open standard server + client combo I can put on my co-located webserver that does basically the same job?" See the difference? I mean, seriously, boo hoo, the company that is providing the service wants it done their own way. Waaah.
Wouldn't you encrypt your files before uploading them? I would.
Personally I just wouldn't put those files anywhere on the net. I don't need a cloud backup of my tax returns, for example.
For some reason I am the only one on this site who has lotsa of data that I'd like to keep, but if it got out into the world, it wouldn't bother me a whole lot. "Oh noes, somebody found my legally purchased Chemical Brothers MP3s! PANIC!!"
Ah, thanks for the negative mod, there. Fine, I'll go into more detail: Google didn't just make a client, they're providing the storage, connection, maintenance, etc. It's also for business purposes, not a charity. Of course they want control over the client. If you're going to demand otherwise, you might as well just hold up a sign saying "I want the word Insightful to appear next to my post!"
I have a few dozen files containing PC boot-sector and MS-DOS executable viruses. Does that mean my Linux box is "infected"?
Heh. I wonder if a dude that does medicinal research who has freezers stocked with viral samples is considered infected.
Bitch bitch bitch.
It's more likely that a bug would do more than $20,000 worth if damage.
Hey, does anybody remember when there used to be tech stories on slashdot?
I'm just glad to see a story that isn't part of the great Smartphone OS Flame War.
I wouldn't mind, but I've already read several interesting and useful commets in this thread. The most 'insightful' comment I read in the last article I paid attention to was "How does that feel, Mac users?"
Heh. The best part is that Apple has historically been behind in terms of features.
Alta Vista did this back in the nineties. Virtually any result I found was exactly what I was in the mood for! Thanks to Google, now I have to type specific words in to get porn. Innovation, pbtbtbt.
So they can redo the graphics to modern standards.
I think you're giving LSL's adultness too much credit.
Every time this topic comes up I wonder if telephone companies have ever been sued like this over kids racking up huge bills via long-distance and toll numbers.
The only real solution is to get the ones that spout nonsense on both sides to shut up. And...good luck with that! :)
Agreed.
Keeping them from being unchallenged is.
Right, you're keeping it going, then bitching that the apologists are coming out of the woodwork. It reminds me of an email I got from a friend once, 3 pages of whining that her RSI was acting up.
Because hate is only gauged by whether they're mentioned with Foxconn?
That's what you got from my post? Really?
There is nothing hateful about this story, nor me pointing out that apologists would jump out to defend, even if they are (again, as you admitted) clearly in the wrong.. So no, haters do not breed apologists. If they did, there wouldn't be apologists in this thread, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Right, they have a chip on their shoulders. Look at the verbage the original poster used. He was obviously (and brainlessly) recycling an argument from the Foxconn stories. What would motivate him to do that? Fanboyism? Partially. Wanting to get a dig in for hypocrisy? Oh yes.
What double standard? There's plenty of hate on other companies. Google, MS, Facebook, Sony, you name it.
Yeah, they all have equal hate, that's why Microsoft has never been mentioned here as working with Foxconn, right?
Haters don't breed apologists. Fanboys do.
Heh. Yeah, people just kept coming out of the woodwork and started apologizing for no reason. Haters, sick of the apologies coming from out of nowhere, decided to combat them by finding stories that made the fanboys' company look bad.
Yeah, you really thought that one through, didn't you?
Okay, fine, I'll concede to it being a cycle. You're still not going to shut up any apologists even if they are, like in this story, clearly in the wrong. They'll try harder the next time around.
Haters breed apologists. Think about that next time you support a double standard.
It's 'full of starfish', ya dork.
No, it wasn't. See that word used before the word 'Islamists'? Look it up. Once you understand it, you'll understand why the comment was rightfully modded down.
Horrible map. It's got a whole bunch of squiggly lines all over it!
Oh, that's just a grammar problem. The squigglies won't show up when you print.
So that explains why Samsung put out a job posting for an aroma analyst.
It's a story about copyright law and how the entertainment business model needs to be updated to the modern age.
No, it's not a valid question. It's just a cheap way to get the word insightful next to your post.
Is this the new Slashdot meme?
In Safari, you mean? What censorship?