Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 232 posts

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#181

Post by strbean »

projectramo wrote: post #31
scarface74 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? Every time without fail when I argue on HN that government involvement in tech is usually negative I get downvoted to oblivion. But then when the same government interferes and is on the "wrong" side of popular geek opinion there is an uproar.

Wait, when people disagree with you on an issue then they downvote you. However, when you are talking about the same government, when they agree with you, will upvote you? This, right here, is a broken system. People should only be able to upvote or downvote another person, but not both, whenever they are talking about the same government!

I'm surprised this isn't a part of the official HN guidelines, it would be good to adopt it from Reddiquitte:

> (Do not...) Downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons.

Downvotes should not be used as an "I disagree" button, that is what the reply button is for.

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#182

Post by sixothree »

nostromo wrote: post #140
sixothree wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it too much to expect our government to not play political games?

Is it too much to expect politicians to not play political games? Sure, that'd be great, but it's never happened before and will likely not happen for the foreseeable future.

I expect better.

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#183

Post by strbean »

scarface74 wrote: post #13
vikingcaffiene wrote: post #2

IMO there's two ways to read this: either A) this is a baldly transparent attempt to "own the libs" and punish a company that the administration sees as a threat or B) they are too incompetent to understand the technical nuances of the case and are essentially morons. Maybe both? This administration can't be thrown out on their collective asses fast enough...

Does it matter? Every time without fail when I argue on HN that government involvement in tech is usually negative I get downvoted to oblivion. But then when the same government interferes and is on the "wrong" side of popular geek opinion there is an uproar.

I'm guessing the comments you are referring to are more specific than a broad reading of "government involvement in tech"? My first thoughts were "DARPAnet, automobile safety standards, ... etc.". Reading it as "regulation of communications", I find myself leaning more towards agreeing with your sentiments.

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#184

Post by saghm »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #178
saghm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For god sakes you have Bloomberg running after half your party was just outside occupying wall street no less than 3 years ago. Independent of all the other points under discussion, I'm not sure how this is a fair a critique? It's not like there's a vote to decide who gets to run in a primary; the whole point of a primary is to vote to see who gets to run, and that isn't anywhere near being decided yet. If five mon…

It's a fair critique when he went from 4% to 19% in two weeks after spending 400 million on TV ads. I mean we all know the DNC will choose whomever they want because of their superdelegates, but don't act like democrats aren't starting to view him as their best option. You aren't the victim of division, you are the creator of it.

I'm not sure why your comment is stated in the second person; I have not voted in any primary, participated in any caucus, responded to any survey, or joined any sort of political association with regards to the 2020 election. I understand (and happen to disagree with) the point you're trying to make, but I don't understand why you're implying that myself or other commenters on Hacker News are personally responsible for who is running in the primary.

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#185

Post by _4byd »

kelnos wrote: post #138
_4byd wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Casually state talking points as fact without citation. Proceed to call the commenter stupid and malicious. Projection perhaps?

I mean, "casually state talking points as fact without citation" is exactly what the original commenter did, so I don't see why the responder should be held to a higher standard. There's a reason why we don't like political topics on HN, and this thread is proof.

Agreed. What led me to make my comment was more the name calling (“stupid” & “malicious”).

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#188

Post by scarface74 »

zepto wrote: post #180
scarface74 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the last thing I want is a “War on Guns” because it will end up just like the “War on Drugs”. It will give another excuse for the government to enforce laws much more harshly on poor and minorities. But at the same time, it’s just silly to think that a reason to own guns is in case the government wants to impose martial law. We are talking about the government with the largest military in the world - with tanks…

This assumes they throw a ‘martial law’ knife switch and instantly the armed forces turn into fascist enforcers willing to slaughter their own families rather than protect them. Clearly not realistic.

why do you take at face value that with enough propaganda that people wouldn’t all of the sudden classify their own neighbors as “them”? Isn’t that just what happened in Rwanda?

Isn’t that the definition of a civil war?

But if you are convinced that the military would turn on its own people, doesn’t that still make the whole “we need guns to protect ourself from a potential fascist government and we are going to run around in the woods and prepare” silly?

I

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#189

Post by 2J0 »

foobar_ wrote: post #176
ticmasta wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how many hands do you have :) The story could largely be reduced to: Giant Multinational sues Giant Multinational; both gain support of other Giant Multinationals while World's Most Powerful Government sides with plaintiff Giant Multinational. The EFF needs to 100,000x larger to influence this level of game.

Throw shoes at Ellison. 10000s of shoes with flyers in them about FSF ;) This is just another iteration of BSD vs UNIX. This is so silly. It's like every toy compiler has to pay a license because it looks like "C", even if you make money and other software with it. As long as they did not "literally" steal the code, I don't see any reason to bother with Oracle's defense. The same thing happens with MPAA and others, w…

Actually as a corporate person companies are restricted in a very important way: they cannot represent themselves in court, whereas a general partnership can present a partner in court. The fact that directors are employees and only some shareholders may be members actually divided the powers innate to a real person and causes it to be impossible to present a single individual capable of acting in full cognisance and responsible liability for the incorporated company. This saves the law from unimaginable pain.

Re: Trump administration backs Oracle in Google fight

#190

Post by 2J0 »

criddell wrote: post #54
scarface74 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government caused the phone monopoly and the slap on the risk had nothing to do with Microsoft's missteps when it came to the internet and later mobile. Microsoft still has the same dominance on the desktop that they had during the 90's.

The action in the 90's wasn't to break up their desktop dominance, it was to prevent them using that power to dominating the internet too.

Local Loop Last Mile CLECs Yup I remember 1994 very well like yesterday in fact.

It was the control over individual customers that mattered not any particular market. The ‘94 act would have been quite prescient to be defending open internet access when first drafted in the early eighties.

Post reply on HN