+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48
General Chat Thread, More like Microsoft with every passing minute in General; Originally Posted by localzuk You don't have to buy your windshield from the manufacturer. I'm sure autoglass would do you ...
  1. #31

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,186
    Thank Post
    875
    Thanked 2,717 Times in 2,302 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You don't have to buy your windshield from the manufacturer. I'm sure autoglass would do you one of theirs... Poor comparison.
    Simmilar glass but possibly not will all the same features (UV protection/sensors) and advancements, that is the point of my hypothetical windscreen. Besides I was also pointing out the difficulties of making a thing designed for something else work with a system or product that it was not intended to work with.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Didn't know the laws protecting people from anti-competitive company behaviour dealt with drugs and music copyrights. I'll just scrap my belief in fair trials then...
    The laws are different but the system which they operate in is the same. If the system is compromised then anything that relies on it is also suspect. This is very simmilar to a computer system.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    My viewpoint is simple - Google are a company. They are currently edging towards some dodgy ground but until a court or regulator comes around and slaps them after a proper trial, and not anecdotal evidence, I will still use their services as I see fit.
    I use some of their service to, as I see fit. It is fine using them so long as you are aware of the risks and of your own viewpoint. If people only dealt with nice moral people then the world would collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Personally, as I said, I go by what happens in court, if that's wrong in your mind so be it.
    As I said previously you are entitled to your viewpoint, I mearly conveyed my difficulty in understanding it given the mitigating factors around some of its foundations. It is just my opinion and not to be taken as a personal critisisum or inditement, just an observation from my point of view.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Cool, my first ever piece of negative rep.

    Apparently for flaming , as best I can translate the associated comment.
    Last edited by jamesb; 20th July 2009 at 04:45 PM.

  3. #33
    mossj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    1,466
    Thank Post
    157
    Thanked 189 Times in 174 Posts
    Rep Power
    52
    TBH although I can see the ethics (and now the laws)

    Why should Apple not try with all its might to lock people using it's hardware to using it's software (or vice versa). It makes them moo dolla at the end of the day. Same with Microsoft why are they not allowed to ship it with IE, again it's there product they should be allowed to include what ever they want... If people don't like what there shipping it with THEN DON'T BUY IT

    Don't like it don't buy it, is a motto I choose to use on a daily basis. I don't like itunes so guess what I didn't buy an Ipod, if people did this they would have to change there practice to carry on making there money.

    P.S I like Microsoft and find it an annoyance that I now have to download IE8 when I get win7.

    Just my two cents
    Last edited by mossj; 20th July 2009 at 05:07 PM.

  4. #34

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,879
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Cool, my first ever piece of negative rep.

    Apparently for flaming , as best I can translate the associated comment.
    It weren't me governor...

  5. #35


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    My viewpoint is simple - Google are a company. They are currently edging towards some dodgy ground but until a court or regulator comes around and slaps them after a proper trial, and not anecdotal evidence, I will still use their services as I see fit.
    They just got off scott free for deformation. outrageous!
    Google cleared in defamation suit - ZDNet.co.uk

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post

    Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company.
    I must have missed something here, I'm sure they got successfully prosecuted for being just that.


    On a side note, here are some comparisons for ms google apple company sizes



  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    I must have missed something here, I'm sure they got successfully prosecuted for being just that.
    My point was more that there's very little difference except that they've lost a court case, and google haven't yet.

    Incidentally I noticed today that Google are facing investigations by the EU as well as the US regarding their orphaned works monopoly.

    As to the fact that Microsoft's so much larger - I know they're an evil monopoly, but they admit it. My problem is that Google don't admit it, and seem to take a lot of people in.

    And for those charts, I refuse to consider them trustworthy information regarding Google.

    Look at the source.

  7. #37


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post

    Look at the source.
    yeah, google finance. I doubt if they could get reliable figures about their own company. Don't trust em, it's probably a scam to get their stock value increased.

  8. #38

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,879
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    They just got off scott free for deformation. outrageous!
    Google cleared in defamation suit - ZDNet.co.uk
    Hope that was sarcasm...


    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    My point was more that there's very little difference except that they've lost a court case, and google haven't yet.
    So one is innocent until *proven* guilty and the other has been proven guilty several times...


    Incidentally I noticed today that Google are facing investigations by the EU as well as the US regarding their orphaned works monopoly.
    As I said earlier. Investigation != guilt. I'm sure you'd be saying that if you were being investigated at work...

    As to the fact that Microsoft's so much larger - I know they're an evil monopoly, but they admit it. My problem is that Google don't admit it, and seem to take a lot of people in.
    Yes, most people have this nasty habit of wanting proper evidence before casting something as 'evil'. Terrible isn't it?

    And for those charts, I refuse to consider them trustworthy information regarding Google.
    Look at Yahoo finance or Microsoft Finance then... They'll all give you the same numbers.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    So one is innocent until *proven* guilty and the other has been proven guilty several times...
    I just don't think a lack of official judgment in the presence of evidence should prevent caution.

    As I said earlier. Investigation != guilt. I'm sure you'd be saying that if you were being investigated at work...
    Its quite clear that they're guilty in this case. They went ahead and scanned books, ignoring all copyright laws. They then settled in a way which gives them a monopoly over all orphaned works - including the right to sell them.

    That, incidentally, means that an author outside the states who has not registered his right to his work in the states does not have his copyrighted protected with regards to Google, while it is protected under US law.

    Yes, most people have this nasty habit of wanting proper evidence before casting something as 'evil'. Terrible isn't it?
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, any company with a motto of 'Don't be evil', no matter how unofficial, has to have some reason for it.

    Look at Yahoo finance or Microsoft Finance then... They'll all give you the same numbers.
    I don't trust any of them either. Me and my tinfoil hat are fine right here thanks.

  10. #40

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,879
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    I just don't think a lack of official judgment in the presence of evidence should prevent caution.
    There's caution and then there's paranoia and prejudice...

    Its quite clear that they're guilty in this case. They went ahead and scanned books, ignoring all copyright laws. They then settled in a way which gives them a monopoly over all orphaned works - including the right to sell them.

    That, incidentally, means that an author outside the states who has not registered his right to his work in the states does not have his copyrighted protected with regards to Google, while it is protected under US law.
    I doubt either of us are qualified enough in the subject of IP law to discuss it effectively - hence my reliance on the legal system.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, any company with a motto of 'Don't be evil', no matter how unofficial, has to have some reason for it.
    Or it could be due to the people who set up that company not wanting to be a bad company like they had seen Microsoft be? Eric Schmidt, for example, was very much anti-MS and argued against their abuses during their Sun trial (when he was at Sun). Assuming they're bad just because they say they're good is as sensible as saying the Red Cross is bad because they say they're doing good...

    I don't trust any of them either. Me and my tinfoil hat are fine right here thanks.
    That says it all

  11. #41

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    There's caution and then there's paranoia and prejudice...
    I don't trust big companies, I'll admit that. Plus Google has too much data-gathering, and more importantly too much influence over information for my liking. The potential damage they could do is huge.

    I doubt either of us are qualified enough in the subject of IP law to discuss it effectively - hence my reliance on the legal system.
    I try to keep up to date on it, and there's definitely something dodgy about the deal Google struck with American authors and publishers - a deal which covers international authors and publishers.

    Or it could be due to the people who set up that company not wanting to be a bad company like they had seen Microsoft be? Eric Schmidt, for example, was very much anti-MS and argued against their abuses during their Sun trial (when he was at Sun). Assuming they're bad just because they say they're good is as sensible as saying the Red Cross is bad because they say they're doing good...
    The Red Cross don't try and make a profit, different thing entirely. More importantly they've never felt it necessary to state that they're not evil.

    That says it all
    They're the height of fashion!

    I accept that I'm paranoid, but it doesn't mean they're not out to get me. I'd rather be wrong and a fool, than change my mind and be both wrong, and brainwashed.

    You mark my words, the Bilderberg group will turn out to be behind Google.

  12. #42

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,879
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    I don't trust big companies, I'll admit that. Plus Google has too much data-gathering, and more importantly too much influence over information for my liking. The potential damage they could do is huge.
    Google were a small company. But small companies have a habit of becoming big when what they're selling is popular and good. So, you should spend your life fearing all companies... Which will be very boring.

    I try to keep up to date on it, and there's definitely something dodgy about the deal Google struck with American authors and publishers - a deal which covers international authors and publishers.
    The Berne Convention covers international issues with regards to books, so regardless of what a US institution states, international authors are still protected by it.

    The Red Cross don't try and make a profit, different thing entirely. More importantly they've never felt it necessary to state that they're not evil.
    They don't say they're not evil. They started their company with the motto 'do no evil', not the same thing.

    They're the height of fashion!
    You'll be fearing the tinfoil hat companies soon then, when they become big?

  13. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Google were a small company. But small companies have a habit of becoming big when what they're selling is popular and good. So, you should spend your life fearing all companies... Which will be very boring.
    There are a few big companies I don't fear, when they're at least somewhat honest about their motives. Also when they're not trying to track every single bit of data about me.

    The Berne Convention covers international issues with regards to books, so regardless of what a US institution states, international authors are still protected by it.
    And yet Google is ignoring this.

    They don't say they're not evil. They started their company with the motto 'do no evil', not the same thing.
    I don't wake up in the morning and say 'I'll do no evil today', I just don't do it because its blatantly obvious. Someone who needs to remind themself to do no evil has something seriously wrong with their priorities.

    You'll be fearing the tinfoil hat companies soon then, when they become big?
    I only use ethically sourced tinfoil from local companies.

  14. #44

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,879
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    There are a few big companies I don't fear, when they're at least somewhat honest about their motives. Also when they're not trying to track every single bit of data about me.
    You think Google are the only search engine into harvesting data?

    And yet Google is ignoring this.
    Maybe, that's for the courts to find out.

    I don't wake up in the morning and say 'I'll do no evil today', I just don't do it because its blatantly obvious. Someone who needs to remind themself to do no evil has something seriously wrong with their priorities.
    Or, it is a valid marketing idea. The Bodyshop marketted itself as ethical, as do the Co-op. Why can't Google? Just because they're a data company doesn't mean they can't do that...

    I only use ethically sourced tinfoil from local companies.
    But most tin foil is aluminium foil, and extracting aluminium is unethical :P

  15. #45

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You think Google are the only search engine into harvesting data?
    Of course not, but that doesn't make it any better.

    Maybe, that's for the courts to find out.
    The courts are currently investigating it. The evidence is quite clear, as are the objections by various associations.

    Or, it is a valid marketing idea. The Bodyshop marketted itself as ethical, as do the Co-op. Why can't Google? Just because they're a data company doesn't mean they can't do that...
    The Co-op are what they say, they're a co-operative of members who include many of their customers. No pretense, no secrecy. The Bodyshop are equally open about their processes, these companies are willing to back up their claim to ethics. Google are secretive to conspiratorial levels.

    But most tin foil is aluminium foil, and extracting aluminium is unethical :P
    I use only ethically recycled aluminium foil, thereby contributing to world peace and happiness.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 10 Minute Mail - take a look!
    By flashsnaps in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd March 2009, 12:17 PM
  2. Passing combo box values to datagrid view
    By Shrimpersfan in forum Coding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 7th January 2009, 11:17 AM
  3. Passing data from dreamweaver to an Access file
    By StewartKnight in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26th January 2007, 11:35 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 8th November 2006, 11:32 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •