Because crazyjj and a whole slew of "other" posters consistenly get the first post of every story and slam Google with, at best, dubious arguments. This story has nothing to do with Google and his claim isn't true.

Some sources say the death toll will reach 4,000. Others predict somewhere in the 20,000-60,000 range. Greenpeace predicts up to 200,000. One Russian publication said 1,000,000, but their methodology has been thoroughly panned. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop some anti-nuclear idealogues from citing it, despite being five times greater than the already dubious Greenpeace estimate.

Thankfully, we have companies like Microsoft and Apple -- true bastions of ethical business practice. It would be a shame if we lost their litiguous, anti-competitive behavior.

You don't pay to use the API, you pay to access their data on their servers. You must know this.

From the article you link to:

You're using Google's service, so you have to play by their rules. They have no obligation to give you their data in the exact way you want.

Again, it's incredible stupid to compare this to Oracle's actions -- there's no basis whatsoever for you to make this connection. You seem to be arguing that because Google won't let you get your way they shouldn't be able to defend themselves when sued. That, or something equally childish and inane.

We all know you're OverlyCriticalGuy / FooTech / CmdrPony / etc...

Google not allowing bots to access their site is in no way comparable to Oracle's claims. It's absurd on several levels.

Also, you must be one hell of a typist. You posted your reply one minute after the story was posted.

Let's be fair. Building a brand new stadium != expanding a stadium. In 2012, the Metrodome isn't up to the standards of NFL stadiums. The money will be spent demolishing the worst stadium in the NFL and building a new, vastly different one.

Does owning a chunk of GM mean that the "the [US] owns all means of production"?

This is getting old...

New user account, lengthy reply posted with the same timestamp as the story, marketingish language, ugh. Yup -- same shill, new account.

But to your point -- pondering the future of computers does not make one a hacker. Sci-fi writers are not hackers because they have some interesting ideas.

And does it matter that Bill Gates wrote about about automation in 1995? I remember seeing several "house of tomorrow" cartoons from the 1960s detailing the same thing. Several movies from the 1980s showed automation (usually used by a bachelor attempting to impress a lady with dim lights and slow jazz). To laud Gates as a visionairy for an idea that has existed since shortly after the advent of computers is quite silly.

Ultimately, nobody really cares about Gates' hacker credentials. Was DONKEY.BAS his grand opus or was he capable of more? It doesn't really matter -- he got rich off of his business acumen and his family's connections, not because of his programming skills. And it certainly has no relevance to the questions of whether or not this new OS is actually useful and whether or not it will become common.

But, hey, you resisted the urge to bash Google.

Hrm...

1) Long comment with same timestamp as story
2) New user id
3) "Tech" in username
4) Dig at Google ("Google is desperately trying to do with Google+ and failing")
5) Dubious, at best, praise for Microsoft ("always thinking about long term strategy instead of quick gains", "Microsoft's and Windows' strong brand name")

Ugh...shilling is laaaaame.

Maybe Google is "thinking long-term" with Google+? Shouldn't you be praising that instead of divining it a failure so quickly? It is, after all, much younger than Bing. Perhaps all of Google's non-profit-generating divisions are "supportive" divisions? Google has had many services that didn't pan out, but Microsoft has many, many more. Your thesis that "Microsoft thinks long-term and Google doesn't" is a real stretch.

And for all their efforts, what has Microsoft's supposed steadfast commitment to the long-term given them? The XBox has turned out to be profitable (I believe), but most of their revenue still comes from Windows and Office, just as it has been since long before Google was born.

It's an OS upgrade. That's the sort of thing that gets posted on Slashdot.

Who are "they"? And, more importantly, what is this "effect of solar effects other than direct radiation" you're appealing to? Why would it have spiked in recent years?

And, as I asked before [insert reading comprehension joke here], are you seriously proposing that greenhouse effects are not at play? Do you consider it a real possibility that this undefined "effect of solar effects" could be what causes the Earth to be warmer than its orbital position would indicate?

Seriously?

At it's coldest, it's still warmer than can be explained by its orbital position and heat from the core. Are you actually denying that there is a greenhouse mechanism affecting the planets surface temperature?

Liberals believe in global warming because they hate civilization? This is more ridiculous than anything Lovelock has ever said.

Come on. Let's be serious.

Black people, in case you haven't noticed, are a minority. Issues that are especially important to a minority won't draw viewers on most channels. BET fills that void.