Toady

5 ms·

1.
by Toady 15y ago
I hope entrepreneurs don't start confusing accountability with narcissism because of Steve Jobs. You don't have to be a rude, difficult, bully to get things right. Not only would Steve tell people that their work sucked, but when they final
2.
by Toady 15y ago
Steve Jobs wasn't the designer of the iPhone. Other people made it while he cracked the whip. For some reason, a lot of the press is giving him credit for everything at Apple in spite of his infamous reputation for taking credit for other p
3.
by Toady 15y ago
You may dislike the verbosity, but it's hardly "completely unnecessary." A typical Objective-C program is inherently self-documenting. It's nice knowing what a group of arguments is used for without having to look up the method prototype.
4.
by Toady 15y ago
Well, the beard, and other quirks, sort of symbolize how socially off and out-of-touch with normal people Stallman and others like him actually are. It doesn't automatically refute arguments he makes, but it does paint a picture.
5.
by Toady 15y ago
Equating the iPhone to a "jail" is goofy political hyperbole. Normal people don't even view software in that context. It's just a piece of hardware and software they choose to use or not use. Stallman represents the strain of computer nerds
6.
by Toady 15y ago
The mobile world is still in its infancy, regardless of how many years ago Microsoft was working on it. No offense, but you come off as far too emotional to take seriously in a discussion. You start with some valid points about management,
7.
by Toady 15y ago
You're being down voted because you missed the point. Google's lawyer was claiming that Microsoft was banding together with rivals to damage them, but Microsoft has revealed that they actually offered to team up with Google, and Google refu
8.
by Toady 15y ago
It's like when Google calls Android "open" but then withholds the source from non-privileged partners.
9.
by Toady 15y ago
Complaining about huge bids that are more than what these bogus patents are worth is pretty hypocritical if you yourself bid over $3 billion for them. I think Google is whining because they didn't win, and they know communities like this ar
10.
by Toady 15y ago
God, I can't wait for this era of wannabe yuppies to end, yuppies reading about launching startups and talking about startups and thinking about everything in terms of startups. It's got to be the most boring tech news of all time, and I ha
11.
by Toady 15y ago
Google owns YouTube. YouTube isn't "embracing" it; Google is adding the feature to YouTube.
12.
by Toady 15y ago
If that's all you get out of it, then you're intentionally ignoring the years of talk about "openness" from Google and its criticism of competitors who don't adopt open standards.
13.
by Toady 15y ago
Maybe because Google constantly markets itself on its use of open standards.
14.
by Toady 15y ago
Yes, we know. That's the point. They shouldn't have because there was no reason to.
15.
by Toady 15y ago
Oh, okay, so that makes it okay for the site to be Chrome-only despite Google's constant proselytizing over "openness."
16.
by Toady 15y ago
You only think it's "useless" because it bashes Google, obviously a company you like. You ask what Google's incentive is to build the site if they can't make people download Chrome to use it, which is a bizarre question that seems to admit
17.
by Toady 15y ago
What? Tibbon's post doesn't disprove anything. It just asks if Wave or Buzz achieved that many users so quickly, and the answer is yes--Buzz had millions of users after two days according to Google: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/mi
18.
by Toady 15y ago
But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast? Yes, in two days, Buzz had millions of users according to Google: http://tinyurl.com/3gsve3q I think Google+ is way overhyped. It's currently riding a novelty factor among early adopters o
19.
by Toady 15y ago
You're asking me how it's bad that Google is using a strong-arm tactic to punish content-owners who sued it? Surely, I don't need to answer that question, especially with Google's monopoly troubles in Europe. Google should let things be, re
20.
by Toady 15y ago
That's incorrect. You can read the ruling for yourself: http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20app... The decision was pertaining to the use of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from copyrighted articles in the Google N
21.
by Toady 15y ago
The lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs and other article excerpts, specifically in the Google News aggregator, not plain links in the general search engine.
22.
by Toady 15y ago
The lawsuit was pertaining to Google News, not the general search engine. Google removed the links as punishment for challenging them in court, to show the content-owners that Google controls their revenue streams.
23.
by Toady 15y ago
They sued because Google News was using lead paragraphs from their articles. Google is most definitely block them, because the court's decision didn't pertain to the general search engine. In effect, Google is punishing these content-owners
24.
by Toady 15y ago
The lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs in the Google News aggregator, not the general search engine. Google is intentionally misinterpreting the verdict of the lawsuit in order to punish those who might challenge the company. Remem
25.
by Toady 15y ago
Again, the lawsuit was over Google News' display of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from articles. It didn't pertain to the general search engine.
26.
by Toady 15y ago
The newspapers went to court asking for broad relief (unlisting from google results) They went to court over Google News copying excerpts from their articles, such as the lead paragraphs, and displaying them in the Google News aggregator.