Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

172 comments

Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105562)

How dickish.

Re:Wow (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105838)

How dickish.

Indeed it is. And Facebook is not the worst offender by far. Ever notice that when a critical Microsoft story comes up, we are bombarded by comments from certain people? dave420, x**xy**yo(or whatever), bing tsher, westlake, d'aldredge, and many more names that escape me now. Of course, when a pro-Google story pops up, the usual suspects are right there to jeer them down. It is tiresome. Then the sock puppet accounts come to mod up the shills and mod down any dissenters.

Remember the Kin? Hordes of astroturfers came to tell us all that if we didn't see how a dumb-smartphone aimed at tweens with a plan of 80 dollars a month would succeed, we just didn't get it? Then the things sell less than 10000 units. Apparently nobody else got it either. Or the Zune HD? Took 10 seconds for the calculator app to start and then you were subjected to advertising to boot. But the shills kept screeching that it was just going to kill the iPod touch and they couldn't wait to sell "their" ipod to go get that piece of shit. And the shills keep telling us how good Vista was and how well 7 runs on netbooks even though it is slower than congealed shit. Of course, now the refrain is the iPad is just a "consumption" device and just wait for Windows 8. Yeah like $WINDOWS_CURRENT_VERSION's shortcomings will all be addressed when $WINDOWS_NEXT_VERSION comes out. Same refrain.

Just know shills, that shit may have worked on OS/2 vs NT when you all flooded usenet but, the competitors are much stronger now and people apparently think a little more critically.

If anyone really wants to see how the masters orchestrate this farce, start here [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wow (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106248)

I can't remember seeing anyone having anything positive to say about the Kin at any time. Are you sure you're not paid by Facebook to post anti-Microsoft comments to Slashdot to get us riled up against our traditional enemy so that we forget about the topic at hand for a while? Come to think about it, why isn't a comment about (the practically non-existent) pro-MS astroturfing, veering into criticism of their products, modded off topic? Moderators on the pay as well?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106392)

That's the fun thing about conspiracy theories: you can recurse as many times as you want!

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107770)

That's exactly what someone who wants to divert the focus from Facebook would say!

Re:Wow (-1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106554)

Great. Not one of those supported your(?) claim that "hordes of astroturfers came to tell us all that if we didn't see how a dumb-smartphone aimed at tweens with a plan of 80 dollars a month would succeed, we just didn't get it". Someone claiming "phones like this" are going to appeal to some group isn't really into advertising, unlike yourself.

Re:Wow (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106848)

Not the OP but here is what you said:

I can't remember seeing anyone having anything positive to say about the Kin at any time.

I think the AC's post is spot on as a very specific response to your criticism by linking to several posts in the original Slashdot story that did have positive things to say about the Kin.

Re:Wow (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106904)

As I read the thread, the post with links answered your comment, "I can't remember seeing anyone having anything positive to say about the Kin at any time."

Unsurprisingly, it didn't answer the question you hadn't asked. It also didn't answer your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack against the poster and the moderators.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107278)

Actually, it does not. Did he see those people ? Most probably not. I saw no one either having anything to say at all about the kin, but that might be because I`m a basement dweller ;)

Re:Wow (0)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107356)

And my comment was in direct response to that specific claim. Unlike the now +5, interesting comment I responded to, it was an actual response and not simply an excuse to bark out an unrelated monologue. At any rate, only one of the cited comments had anything positive to say about the Kin (the alleged sister of one of the commenters). The rest just claimed they could understand that kind of phone might appeal to someone.

My "ad hominem" was, of course, sarcastic: accusing the AC (and his supporters) for doing exactly what he accused others of, using his own comment as evidence. Ironically, his comment was better evidence than what he could dig up to support it. Unsubstantiated? Shush, not nearly to the same degree.

Re:Wow (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107500)

Great. Not one of those supported your(?) claim that "hordes of astroturfers came to tell us all that if we didn't see how a dumb-smartphone aimed at tweens with a plan of 80 dollars a month would succeed, we just didn't get it". Someone claiming "phones like this" are going to appeal to some group isn't really into advertising, unlike yourself.

No, it's marketing hype aimed at investors and stock holders. It was certainly not written by a "real" slashdotter. It was an attempted to make people believe this thing would sell and the type of drivel that marketing execs actually believe because they are optimistic to a fault by their very nature.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106844)

I'm clearly missing something here. Every single one of those posts merely suggests that the phones will appeal to someone. That looks nothing like what you were ranting on about.

Clearly, your anti-Microsoft sentiment is showing in spades. You feel the need to exaggerate your claims and the need to post AC drives the point home. You can't even stand behind your own message.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107462)

Wow again!

It's blatantly obvious that "...phones like this are going to have appeal to people who are looking one tier below a smart phone" is written by a marketing department lackey and not the type of person who would actually buy this phone.

"OMG!!! i hav to hav this to sent pony texts to my bff!!!"

That ^^^^ is the type of message an actual user of the Kin would send.

Re:Wow (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106906)

Facebook isn't scared of Microsoft. There would be no reason to hire a shill to bash Microsoft.
Microsoft bashers are created by Microsoft software.
Ever wonder how Microsoft can consistently produce such shit?

It is an evil plan where by their shitty software creates Microsoft haters. The haters are so frustrated from pulling out their hair
while screaming at MS Office 2010 to open that fucking file that was made in MS Office 2003 that the get on the internet and
scream incoherently about the evils of Microsoft.

They are so angry and flustered that they sound like crazy idiots and people listening to it throw out the crazy opinion. Then they group together anyone who points out the obvious flaws with the crazies. Thereby shutting out bad opinions of Microsoft.

It is genius I tell you. Quieting the din of the few pointing out how shitty your software is by making it so shitty no one can believe it.

Re:Wow (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107226)

Microsoft owns a chunk of Facebook, so I doubt it.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106258)

Wow, someone who complains about shills and then goes on to an anti-Microsoft shill-like rant. Which company is paying YOU, shill?

Re:Wow (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106642)

Exactly. What I want to know is how do these "sock puppet" accounts get mod points to spend. It took me awhile to get mod points. My karma's good enough now that when I get a couple of positive mods on my comment, I'll get 15 points for 3 days. But a sock puppet account tells me that these are dormant accounts until they get to spend these apparently unexpired mod points. It sounds to me that someone is shilling here.

He does have a point, but he's making the point while shilling himself. I read a very backhanded slam against Microsoft and pro Macintosh vibe in the GPs comment. While I'm no shill for either party, I know I will never own an Apple product (something about a certain Jobs keeping total control over the entire hardware and software system bothers me), and I will avoid Microsoft as much as possible - right tool for the right job and all (Linux for where it's needed and/or desired, Windows for games - and, yes, I was successful at using Wine, but there is still the graphics card driver limitation in Linux for both ATI and nVidia.)

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107564)

Pro Macintosh? Hardly. That the iPod completely DESTROYED the zune in the marketplace is a matter of fact. That the Kin was the biggest failure since the Nokia N-Gage is a matter of fact. Pointing out those facts is hardly "pro macintosh".

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106778)

Which company is paying YOU, shill?

So the truth is now an anti-$YOUR_FAVORITE_COMPANY rant? Personally, I think it is completely appropriate to bring MS up in this discussion as there is proof that they do this. The Halloween Documents. Read them. They speak very specifically about how they send in their shills to discussion forums (like Slashdot) to dog the competition and talk up Microsoft products.

A while back during the Xbox RROD fiasco, one of their paid forum shills got fired for something then signed into the forum the next day and admitted he was a paid astroturfer. [techrights.org] I mean, really, man. How the hell are you supposed to have a good non-biased discussion on the merits of a technology when you have companies paying people to make sure that doesn't happen. It's sickening. I happen to like Slashdot. I also like fair competition. Using millions of dollars to "steer the discussion" is fucking bullshit. It's vandalism.

So the question is, who is paying you?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107266)

(I'm the parent post)

So the question is, who is paying you?

I didn't espouse a viewpoint about MS or any company. The software company I work for pays me.

how well 7 runs on netbooks even though it is slower than congealed shit

So the truth is now an anti-$YOUR_FAVORITE_COMPANY rant?

Calling something "shit" sounds more like an opinion rather than "truth". Reading your (what has to be termed a) rant definitely betrays your anti-MS bias. So I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your original post.

Re:Wow (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106860)

and how well 7 runs on netbooks even though it is slower than congealed shit.

For the record I have a Lenovo S10-T atom based netbook/tablet convertible running Windows 7 and the speed is fine as far as I can see. On the other hand the tablet functionality is pure crap.

Re:Wow (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107020)

What is the difference between a shill and a fanboi? I know its hard for you (and frankly for me) to believe that anyone would be a MS fanboi, but they ARe out there.

It boils down to human nature. Many people attach themselves to idea because they are either too lazy or unable to seperate those ideas from their identity and think critically. I make my money off of MS products (well MS and citrix, same thing). I am able to seperate myself from the tech that provides my paycheck. Im neither pro or anti MS. Just as I am neither or pro/anti-Linux or pro/anti-Google or ....well Apple just annoys me.

The point is just because someone has an irrational attachment to a brand/game/tech, whatever. does not make them a shill.

Now, if they are taking MONEY for it...

PS- if you(the reader, not the parent) think that every major company out there does not do this (Oracle, Google, IBM, HP, Intel, MS, Apple, FB, et al), then you need to be more critical in your thinking. FB just got caught.

Re:Wow (5, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107316)

What is the difference between a shill and a fanboi?

A shill is paid whether he likes the product or not, generally follows some sort of script and is usually an account manned by more than one person. It's really a coordinated attack on the truth. A fanboy genuinely likes the product and, though extreme, is actually representative of the true fan base. It's the difference between grass-roots and astroturf to use the terminology generally associated with the phenomenon.

Real fanboys don't bother me because it's all in good fun but shills are pure poison and the practical differences are significant as what happened on usenet during the OS/2 NT wars. Say a product comes out and there are 10,000 people roaming around on the internet that actually care about it and post to message boards with a 50/50 distribution of for/against. Then a "relationship management" firm gets in the game with multiple shill accounts on the most important sites, i.e., Engadget, Slashdot, Zdnet, etc. It's not that hard to turn the conversation on its head with a coordinated campaign on a few target sites with the right kind of money in a specific time frame. Those 5000 people out of our hypothetical 10,000 can easily be drowned out by a room full of Indians shilling full time for the company du jour. This happens all of the time and has been going on for a while [catb.org] .

Re:Wow (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107298)

Whilst I don't disagree with you about the problem, you seem to naively believe that only Microsoft partake in this.

It was only a few weeks ago we had two stories about Samsung in as many days that turned out complete and utter bullshit, just at the same time Samsung's phones and tablet was stealing a fair bit of the limelight from Apple at last. We regularly get feel stories about how Apple gave a free iPad to a guy whose wife told him to take it back, or how an iPhone survived a fall out a plane, or saved little Timmy who fell down a well or whatever without there ever seeming to be any evidence these things really did actually happen in most cases, and where there is evidence it seems weak.

Make no mistake, this is likely almost industry standard practice to spread FUD about the competition and try and get feel good stories about your own products out there. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple are quite blatant offenders to name a few but I have no doubt it stretches far beyond just those three as even they become victim of such stories sometimes, sometimes simply because it's warranted, other times perhaps not so, and it's quite possible there's some funding behind those stories too.

I'd say something about just ignoring FUD and making your own mind up with various products out there, but that message is probably already in the minds of those capable of thinking for themselves anyway whilst it'll still be lost on the fanboys and likely your average Joe in the street who read in the Daily Mail about how Blackberrys kill your puppy or whatever.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107796)

Indeed it is. And Facebook is not the worst offender by far. Ever notice that when a critical Microsoft story comes up, we are bombarded by comments from certain people? dave420, x**xy**yo(or whatever), bing tsher, westlake, d'aldredge, and many more names that escape me now. Of course, when a pro-Google story pops up, the usual suspects are right there to jeer them down. It is tiresome. Then the sock puppet accounts come to mod up the shills and mod down any dissenters.

Slashdot, news for nerds. I wonder whether any of Google's 26,000 staff or Microsoft's 88,000 staff might be nerds who read Slashdot...

Re:Wow (2)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107814)

To be fair, Windows 7 doesn't run too badly on a netbook with 1Gb RAM and a decent drive (i.e. not one of the slow SSDs that came with a lot of models a year or two ago), at least if you are using it mainly for web browsing and a little bit of other stuff. No worse than XP anyway (unlike Vista).

Though Ubuntu (and no doubt any other distro, but that is the one I have significant personal experience of on netbooks) does work better, both the latest release (which a friend of mine uses in dual-boot with W7 on her netbook) and the last LTS release (which I run, with a couple of updates (FF4 being the main one) from PPAs, in a similar manner though I very very rarely touch the W7 setup). It starts and logs in noticeably faster and feels nippier in general operation. Ubuntu+OO.o is certainly faster than either W7+OO.o or W7+MSOffice on these little machines in my subjective opinion (I've not done any scientific tests, so add salt to taste). And that is with Windows be on the faster end of the drive. But I'd not go nearly as far as describing Windows7 as slower than congealed shit.

Re:Wow (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106456)

Those in glass houses...

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107274)

Well, yeah, but we all know how bad Google is with privacy! They're absolutely terrible in that regard! Didn't you read about it on Faceb...

Oooooooooooh.

Ummm, what the eff? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105566)

Is it just me or is the end of the summary not really intelligible?

Re:Ummm, what the eff? (4, Informative)

The13thSin (1092867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105784)

Yes, and it should link to the original source of the story, not this crappy write-up on some unknown blog.

Original: [link] [thedailybeast.com]

Poorly written [Re:Ummm, what the eff?] (3, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105890)

The summary is hard to read because the article itself is written in very poor English, making it hard to read. When there are two grammatical errors within in the first two words of the blog post, it's not a good sign.

The Daily Beast article is much better written. (It links back to the USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2011-05-06-google_n.htm [usatoday.com] , which lays out the campaign, although doesn't name Facebook)

Summary is wrong (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105590)

Facebook didn't hire them to publish stories against Google. That would be libel. They merely hired them to help educate the public about Google's anti-privacy practices that may violate the Consumer Protection Act. That's all. It's just part of Facebook's ongoing efforts to help educate us all and make us better consumers.

And who better to educate us on privacy than Facebook, after all--a company well-known for its respect for user privacy?

Re:Summary is wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105696)

I don't think it's an incorrect summary? Hiring a PR company to publish stories about some of Google's practices that may (or may) not violate laws could cleary cause people to have a more negative view of Google and can be fairly described as 'publishing stories against Google', right?

Re:Summary is wrong (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105702)

Facebook didn't hire them to publish stories against Google. That would be libel.

Not if the stories are true.

Re:Summary is wrong (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105816)

I'm pretty sure Google would contend in a court of law that they are not. So that would at least mean the possibility of a lawsuit. If Facebook were to concede malice right off the bat, Google would already be halfway there. But nothing malicious about a mere educational campaign, right?

Re:Summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105822)

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:sarcasm&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

Re:Summary is wrong (3, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106076)

Not if the stories are true.

They don't have to be true to avoid being libel.

They just have to avoid sufficient provable malice or negligence rising to the level of malice for a claim of libel to succeed.

Re:Summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106430)

That's only true in the UK (AFAIK). In the US, it is impossible for anything to be slander or libel if it is true.

Re:Summary is wrong (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107386)

You answered the wrong question. The point you make is not relevant to the post you respond too.

In the UK, saying something TRUE can be libel. In the US, saying something TRUE can not be libel.

In both cases, you can say something untrue, but it still does not fall under libel.

Re:Summary is wrong (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107654)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK something which you can prove to be true cannot be libel. However, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the statement they made was true, rather than the onus being on the plaintiff to prove that it was false.

Re:Summary is wrong (1)

SolemnDwarf (863575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105974)

This is a pretty common practice amongst companies. Especially if there's another company eating into your market share. A company I used to work for did the same thing to try to combat Wal-Mart.

Not the nicest or most honorable thing to do; but then again, this is business. You don't get extra points for being the nice guy (most of the time).

Re:Summary is wrong (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106074)

"You don't get extra points for being the nice guy (most of the time)."

Google is trying to be the exception in that regard and thats why i hope they will succeed. Wouldnt it be nice if a business could survive without being a total prick like Microsoft? If Google comes out ontop despite being bullied by the likes of Microsoft and Facebook perhaps other companies become inspired to run a business without raping their customers at every chance.

I would like that but i guess some people really like being taken by Ballmer from behind chanting Developers! Developers! Developers! while emptying their wallets.

Re:Summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106798)

So selling products to customers is bad?

But selling ads to users is good?

Got it. I'm still confused, but I got it.

Re:Summary is *not* wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106304)

Facebook didn't hire them to publish stories against Google. That would be libel.

No, that is not libel. Not unless the stories are verifiably untrue.

Pot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105592)

Don't call the kettle black, it sounds so much more believable when someone else does! GJ FB

Re:Pot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105626)

You winz! Off to read another topic. Good bye.

Why? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105604)

To distract the public from their own misdoings? Where do their business models collide?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105628)

To distract the public from their own misdoings? Where do their business models collide?

First sentence answers the second. Their business models collide in the "selling user's private information" market.

Re:Why? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105754)

Their business models collide in the "selling user's private information" market.

That's only part of the business model. Facebook garners information via a social network, Google does it via search engine, email, videos, et al, but not social networking. And another thing, for all these tech companies being with in a few miles of each other (Oracle, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.) I dont see nearly enough real-world pranks going on at rivals' campuses.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105832)

And another thing, for all these tech companies being with in a few miles of each other (Oracle, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.) I dont see nearly enough real-world pranks going on at rivals' campuses.

Somehow I don't see Oracle as a prank-pulling company. I imagine any attempt at humour results in a 40 minute presentation from management on how productivity dipped 0.3% for ten minutes due to unsanctioned employee interactivity.

Re:Why? (3)

statusbar (314703) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106194)

Oracle's pranks are always at their customer's expense.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105668)

I guess Buzz and Google's other efforts really did scare them.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106140)

You know what? I think Buzz works very well and i like it, much because of the people using it. Instead of a crazed cacophony of updates i couldn't care less about i can read interesting stuff from people i know wont degenerate into pre-pubertal shouting.

Re:Why? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106090)

On Facebook your having web 2.0 fun with real people you know. Only old people search with text strings and get watched by the NSA.

EverythingNew.net might want to consider... (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105632)

...hiring a native speaker to edit their English language edition. Anyone who has successfully completed third grade could help them.

Re:EverythingNew.net might want to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105712)

+1

Re:EverythingNew.net might want to consider... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105964)

Slashdot editors failed 3rd grade? That's unpossible.

Re:EverythingNew.net might want to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106548)

Seems like plain old blogspam. Honestly eds could have cut out that page altogether and linked directly to the article the blog references.

Re:EverythingNew.net might want to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107182)

If you're referring to the summary, it's a bit convoluted, but it's certainly valid English. Give it a try on the Stanford parser [stanford.edu] , for instance, and see for yourself.

Wrong Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105640)

The link in TFA, goes to a website's (poor) summary of the original article, on another website. Couldn't the effort have at least been made to link to the original article in TFA? I mean, it was the matter of pressing "source" at the bottom...

Another case of "they did it first!!!!1111" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105672)

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Takes one to know one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105686)

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me!

the egg or the chicken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105706)

Did Google pay someone to publish that one?

if there is already a market for professional liar (0, Troll)

kubitus (927806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105768)

then God will not save America, as they professionally sin against:

9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

Re:if there is already a market for professional l (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106478)

The last 7 of the 10 commandments are generally enforced by law books in most countries by thousands of laws. The first 3 are the ones that bear direct reference to a religion.

Quoting the last 2 should not have resulted in an attack on religion. They are basic commandments to stay out of the legal system. Violation of most of them even outside the church system is not a good idea.

Re:if there is already a market for professional l (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106786)

"The last 7 of the 10 commandments are generally enforced by law books in most countries by thousands of laws."

Which countries have laws against coveting?

Re:if there is already a market for professional l (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107436)

They called bestiality laws,

what is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36105788)

Zionists vs. fascists? I dunno what's going on.

Which is why education is important (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105798)

This is why the dumbing-down of our educational system is so tragic.

The fact is that we have access to more information than any people in history, but if one is unable to think CRITICALLY about the data, it's almost worse than useless.

Why, do you suppose, Fox News is telling us about Obama's latest gaffe?
Why, do you suppose, a failed presidential candidate makes a movie telling us how the world is going to hell?

Certainly, the basic information could be true or false; more likely it's a careful presentation of the factual or a blend of fact and supposition in order to encourage a specific response in the reader.

Without a good education we're unable to participate as useful citizens, and are merely a remotely-controlled 'demographic' that marches according to what the media tells us to. Sadly, this programming has always been with us and always will. The educational system used to program us to be good, unquestioningly patriotic citizens, but at least squeezed in some knowledge in the meanwhile. Now it programs our kids into reflexive iconoclasts, that they are 'good' regardless of what they do, and that their self-esteem is far more important than any silly facts, particularly if those facts came from dead white men.

Re:Which is why education is important (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106180)

Has the education system EVER been about being able to think critically about the data? Prior to "higher education", it seems to go out of the way to discourage it.

Re:Which is why education is important (3, Interesting)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106774)

There is the Albert Einstein quote: "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."

Re:Which is why education is important (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107296)

Has the education system EVER been about being able to think critically about the data? Prior to "higher education", it seems to go out of the way to discourage it.

I think you missed the line where he said "Sadly, this programming has always been with us and always will."

Re:Which is why education is important (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106286)

The fact is that we have access to more information than any people in history, but if one is unable to think CRITICALLY about the data, it's almost worse than useless.

Having ACCESS to the data, and having the data itself in front of you are two completely different things. Do you think that I'm going to spend my day looking for hard facts about Google or any other company I don't really care about. I have things to do!!

This is all about the media industry and its _actual_ role as a hired out propaganda apparatus. Wealthy interests pay newspapers, radio and TV station to publish the stories those interests wish to see published. That's how the media operates and that's how it will _always_ operate.

All that claptrap about "the free press" and "guardians of democracy" is a pile of cow dung, as anyone who lived through the last 10 years can easily tell. Read your history books and you will see that it has always been thus. The media consists almost entirely of hired shills, whose job it is to influence your opinion in exchange for money. This story is simply and admission by one of their clients.

Todays Fun Fact: Most PR employees are in fact former journalists(or journalism majors).

Re:Which is why education is important (3, Insightful)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107110)

Perfect example of this is the spanish-American War which was fermented (but not initiated) almost by newspapers in New York. Pulitzer and Hearst should be curses.

Re:Which is why education is important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107522)

So the New York Times is a type of yeast? Don't you mean fomented?

Wouldn't it be just as effective.... (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105824)

...if Mark just created a Google is anti-privacy page on Facebook and paid people to 'like' it.

Re:Wouldn't it be just as effective.... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106884)

That would be about as effective as the "If Facebook doesn't stop fucking with us, we will stop using it!" pages that were created on Facebook.

privacy piracy (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105910)

“The American people must be made aware of the now immediate intrusions into their deeply personal lives Google is cataloging and broadcasting every minute of every day-without their permission.”

Never mind the immediate intrusions that facebook allows by making everything public by default, until you navigate to each individual item's options and raise the security settings to ensure not everyone can see it. But that was 'with your permission' I guess?

But we at facebook who brag about 'the end of privacy as we know it' want to be the ones to pretend to warn you about your privacy.

Put this on pause (3, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36105952)

The reporter "confirming" the story is Mr. Dan "Linux stole from SCO!" Lyons. A stopped clock twice a day and all that, but I wouldn't trust Lyons to report that water is wet and the sky is blue. I'd wait for confirmation from reputable sources before getting on opinion on this.

Re:Put this on pause (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106326)

My stopped clock is only correct once a day. I use a 24 hour clock you insensitive clod!

Re:Put this on pause (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107900)

To be fair Mr. Lyons admitted he was wrong and he was fooled by SCO. [slashdot.org] . It appears that Mr. Lyons simply didn't investigate SCO's claims thoroughly before espousing his opinion. Maybe from now on, he will be more skeptical.

Corporate Mottos 2011 (5, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106020)

Google - Don't be evil.
Microsoft - Be incompetent.
Intel - Be oligopolistic.
Dell - Be beige.
Acer - Be shoddy.
HP - Be recurrent.
Cisco - Be expensive.
Sony - Be invasive.
Twitter - Terse.
Apple - Be exclusive.
Facebook - Be evil.

Re:Corporate Mottos 2011 (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106384)

Amazon - Be cloudy.
Slashdot - Be a dupe.
Yahoo - Be mediocre.
Slashdot - Be a dupe.
Wikipedia - Be {citation needed}.
Ebay - Be A+++++.
Youtube - Be dat vid suked ur gay u faget.
Craigslist - Be a prostitute.
RIM - Be outdated.
Verizon - Be abusive.
T-Mobile - Wear a sun dress.
AT&T - Be... [carrier lost]

Re:Corporate Mottos 2011 (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107076)

Dell - Be beige

Perhaps this is referring to something else? Their cases have been black since the late 1990's.

Re:Corporate Mottos 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36107476)

Not much change there vs 2001, except for the newcomers. Also, the Google quote is incomplete:

Google - Don't be evil. Evil is what Sergey Brin says is evil.

There, fixed it for you. That's the entire quote; sort of puts it into a different context, no?

The class act that is Zuckerberg ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106046)

... continues to impress.

Facebook did not have to do that (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106116)

Google does a pretty good job of making an ass of themselves all on their own, that whole "do no evil" thing Google used to swear by, it is a load of crap, Google is just as evil as Apple or Microsoft or Oracle (their only in it for the money and would stomp on their own mothers to get it.

Re:Facebook did not have to do that (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106368)

Google does a pretty good job of making an ass of themselves all on their own, that whole "do no evil" thing Google used to swear by, it is a load of crap,

That is a load of crap, because it's "don't be evil [wikipedia.org] ", troll.

Re:Facebook did not have to do that (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107126)

Sure, and the United States and most other "Western" countries are just as evil as, say, North Korea, Qaddafi, and (name any current dictator) willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens at any whim.

uncle sam uses pr firms to hide neogodism murder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36106146)

so that's good? like really physically smearing everybody & everything in real time, all the time. that's public relations, as we know it.

"I know you are, but what am I?" (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106190)

As a way of deflecting criticism, it is the first bit of rhetoric we all learn in our lives.

And it apparently works in kindergarten, national politics, and corporate PR warfare.

Fake? (1)

sridharo (1433649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106280)

Now, wait a minute, where's darling Steve ?
I think its a smear campaign by a po'd Steve Jobs to entangle Google & Facebook and take some press off iphone location data fiasco.
If only it was real...

Pot Calling the Kettle Black? (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106282)

I don't trust either pan to hold my data. I might get burned.

Re:Pot Calling the Kettle Black? (3, Informative)

ajs (35943) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107746)

So, why don't you trust Google to hold your data, out of curiosity. I'm biased for various reasons, but I think it's a fair question to ask. I trust my bank to hold my data, even though I'm pretty sure they abuse it (after calling to ask about a refinance of my mortgage, for example, I got 5 cold-calls about mortgages in 2 days). I trust my ISP with my private data even though I'm pretty sure they have a direct tap for warrantless wiretapping. I trust all sorts of entities with my data who I know to be lying bastards, but I've never known Google to be such.

Everyone I know who works for them honestly believes that they try to do the right thing as often as they can. My friends who work for Yahoo! don't say that. My friends who work for Amazon don't quite say that, though they think it's better than most. My friends who work for many large corporations laugh a little or just get real quiet if you ask them that...

So the evidence that I have at my disposal says that:

1) Google's S1 filing [udel.edu] is fairly honest (go read it... it's fascinating)

2) Google is, at worst, an altruistic company that may well change over time.

3) Given the choices that you do make to share personal data (with banks, ISPs, etc.) Google looks pretty good.

Original Daily Beast article (3, Informative)

SiChemist (575005) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106422)

Here's a link to the original article if anyone wants to read about it without the inventive grammar and composition of the awful linked blog post:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-12/facebook-busted-in-clumsy-smear-attempt-on-google/ [thedailybeast.com]

Google doesn't need to do the same back, 'cause... (2)

QilessQi (2044624) | more than 3 years ago | (#36106796)

...Facebook is its own negative-PR department.

Poor Article (1)

ShadowFoxx (2015582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107080)

This was such a poorly written article I don't know where to begin. The sources are not properly quoted. The grammar and spelling is worse than my own ( which is amazing)... I don't think I can trust the journalistic integrity of the source article due to it's own neglegence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...