* Posts by blackbelt_jones

8 posts • joined 16 Feb 2009

'F-CK YOU GOOGLE+' ukelele missy scoops BIG WAD of $$ - for Google

blackbelt_jones

Re: Think of it from the other side

I'm not unsympathetic if you want to talk about the virtures of google +, but when you talk about how someone you never met needs to use it, and "expand her limited view of social media", THAT goes over like a lead balloon.

Look, I'm glad you like Google Plus. If someone tried to force you to NOT use Google Plus, I would be against that.

Do you think that Google is forcing people to use G+ to pump up their numbers? I mostly search for "Fuck Google plus" and +1 everything that comes up. Guess what? I'm one of your 300 million users.

blackbelt_jones

This is only the beginning of the ways that GOOGLE keeps shoving its PhalLUS in my face. Recently discovered that I couldn't upload without a + account.

That was when I really lost it. Has anyone else had that problem?

blackbelt_jones

Re: I welcome this.

I'm already not using Facebook, but I may join just to fuck with google.

blackbelt_jones

Re: Google+ rocks

That was very interesting, and not at all creepy.

blackbelt_jones

I didn't sign the petition because I like the comments. But I'm probably going to end up leaving over the forced account.

blackbelt_jones

Who's the bigger whiner?

>>How is this different from supermarkets who for years have required you to present a "club card" or be charged a higher price for your purchases?

I think it's pretty significantly different. I don't really have to explain that, do I?

>>YouTube belongs to Google. It is an expensive service to provide. There will be advertising to recoup said costs and maybe make a profit. It is Google's privilege to require a sign-in if they wish on their property.

For four years, I've been providing them content for free. My biggest channel has gotten between a third and a half million views. I always left the box checked that let them put ads on my videos. I'm all for them getting paid, and I've been pulling my weight, I'm presuming that the previous arrangement was profitable.

The thing is, they're acting like this is about trolling, and it's not. They're lying to us. If they wanted to stop trolling, They could have let us block trolls. That would have been simple, and effective. Don't we have the technology? Instead, they cooked up a warped, convoluted, ineffective scheme to force google plus. It's going to continue. Watch as a google plus login becomes the answer to every problem for every google service, no matter how logic is tortured in the process.

>>You idiots act like the Internet was your god-given right or something.

No, I act like complaining is my god-given right. Why is that a problem for you?

>> I refuse to have a FaceBook account and I don't post to sites that require me to have a FaceBook account to sign in. If you don't like using a Google account, refrain from using any service which requires you to have one.

And if your most essential site suddenly required a facebook login, you wouldn't spend a little time raging? I don't have a facebook account either, by the way.

It's not just you tube. This is going to turn my whole internet life upside down. They've changed the terms of a mutually profitable arrangement unilaterally, while misrepresenting the reasons.

Google has done the word a lot of good, and they deserve to make a lot of money. I think it's great that they made money from Emma's video. But, yes, I am rethinking all my google accounts, and that is painful. I'm going to have to archive seven years of email.

Dear Obama: Please consider open-source a waste of your time

blackbelt_jones
Linux

You know, it occurs to me

(Quote:} "open source has poor suport

open source is free( so is a scientologist palmphlet and cancer)

open source is championed by technicaly deluded.

open source has a piss poor backoffice.

open source is not for the mainstream. ( post any stupid comment and i will stab you with a large sword of reality and stats, ).

Because it is "open source" does not mean the software is freindly or the people that make the majority of the project nice people.

Take linux for it to make inroads in the desktop market it has to have fundamentaly more support in backend software and server flavours..until then as my 14 yr son would say STFU NUB." (End of quote)

None of these generalizations and half-truths explain why licensing should not be considered. Really, is it not being considered already? Is our government entering into legally binding contracts without reading them? How can this be controversial?

(Quote:) "As an aside, why do the "programmers should absolutely never be paid" crowd think that is how they can stick it to Microsoft? (End of Quote:)

You don't really believe anyone thinks that programmers should absolutely never be paid, do you? I've read that IBM spent a billion dollars on Linux Development. I'm guessing some of that money (i.e., pretty much all of it) went to programmers. Richard Stallman, the author of the GPL takes great pains to explain how programmers can make money with free software. You may think his business model sucks, but he believes programmers should be paid. You either don't understand the position you're arguing against or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.

And why should I care about sticking it to Microsoft? Some may disagree, but I think Microsoft makes software that works pretty good, and they deserve a chance to make a buck in a free and fair market. I don't believe in Microsoft monopoly, but I don't belive in a Linux monopoly, either.

blackbelt_jones
Linux

Shouldn't have wasted my time.

Once again, I fall for the cheapest trick in the IT journalist's book. Mention open source in an article with a provacative title, and they will come from allover to click on your page and post something in your comments section. They won't be able to stop themselves, even if they're on to you-- and , so, here I am. Damn you.

The proposal is "reasonable" but "toothless"... in other words, it's a small step that's not going to fundamentally change anything right away. So what's the problem? Why not take a little time to broaden government's view of software options? Why are we talking about this so heatedly If it's not going to matter?

The OS wars are eventually going to stop being big news. Linux isn't going away, and neither is Windows, and I have to ask myself how many more years before tech journalists will be forced to resort to such outlandish extremes as having relevant information or something interesting to say in order to generate interest. Based on what I'm reading here, I think that's really going to suck for you.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019