...a college's job should be teaching fundamentals: language theory, programming theory (e.g. L-Values vs R-Values)...
Out of school too long? There are now xvalues, glvalues and prvalues... "vs" does not apply.
There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this
Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.
so really google should start making shittier products so there is a more equal playing field to choose from, is that what you're suggesting?
Please do not put words in my mouth. I suggested that Google has crossed the line to the evil side by its action in this matter, which has moral and ethical implications. I noted that the GP meant to draw attention to those. I further noted that there are also legal implications. The sticky legal issue is abuse of market power, not market power per se, provided of course that said market power is amassed through legal means.
So now evil is "If you do not like our terms then we will stop doing business with you."?
It depends on who's saying this. If you have a lot of other options you can go somewhere else. If the company saying this controls the vast majority of the market and is effectively blacklisting you, that certainly isn't good.
Correct so far.
There are still alternatives to Google's service so it's not evil for them to say this
Incorrect. In antitrust law the question is whether a company is able to exercise "market power", which does not depend on the mere existence of alternatives, but the relative market power with respect to the alternatives.
but I think the feeling behind the GP's post is concern that Google is rapidly getting to the point where they will have too much information and control over markets.
Which is governed mainly by the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts. But the GP's actual point was about evil, which is a moral and ethical issue. The legal questions are related to morality and ethics, but they are not the same. GP's point is about whether Google has unambigously crossed the line where evil begins. It seems apparent to me that, in this case, Google has done exactly that.
Groklaw... where art thou? You're going to miss the fun... let the patent killing begin. Gentlemen, start your engines.
How nice to have the 800 pound gorilla on our side
The problem with IPv6 is that it is *not* an extension of IPv4. Instead, it is a "second system syndrome" monument to itself, which entirely explains why it has so far not succeeded in spite of immense hype and effort. The dumbest feature of IPv6? 128 bit addresses instead of 64. But the list just starts there.
Why should a network interface device be some kind of black magic rather than a node in
It's because the linux kernel network maintainer isn't exactly the best designer in the world. Great at maintaining compatibility while loading on the features, good at keeping it relatively bug free, passable at micro-optimization, but sucks beyond belief at design.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
