Interlopers.net Forum - Half-Life 2 News & Tutorials

I'm going to sit Chrome out for a while, that EULA was just wrong. They changed it, but still... it's not like google to do that...

The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.

BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.

That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?

The Wanderer wrote:I'm going to sit Chrome out for a while, that EULA was just wrong. They changed it, but still... it's not like google to do that...

Of course it is.

Google is all about collecting, indexing, storing, analysing and using information about how people use the internet. What better medium to collect that information that at the source?

Though google is "moral" they do things that if other companies did I would boycott them. But for some reason I trust google.

Because Google, provides my Email! And if I didn't trust them.... Well, I don't think about that. I know SOMEONE there has access to that SQL database with all the passwords

Google is a good company. I like them. It was just a template flaw in their EULA, not a big deal to me. They have ALOT of really good services that ALOT of really good people use.

Google is Not Microsoft

I haven't installed FF3 yet and here comes a new web browser,screw it i'll just try it next year i can't be bother with 2 web browser changes at a time but i find the interface nice so chrome will have to wait.

Blink wrote:

BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.

That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?

The Eula just wasn't adjusted for a browser. Now it is.

RC-1290 wrote:

Blink wrote:

BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.

That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?

The Eula just wasn't adjusted for a browser. Now it is.

Just? JUST? If it wasnt right for a web browser what app is it appropriate for?! I dont want that in any EULA, tho it already is. I actually entertained the idea that it was just me overreacting, but ya know, it's really not becasue like it or not, deliberate or accidental, Google just tried to screw everyone who uses/ed thier browser (as well as thier other apps that supposedly still have that clause). People are right to be offended.

Also I take issue with the advertisement theory, because those lawyers are paid alot of money to get it right, "that weren't no accident." What dip shit would try and sue google over free advertisment of their web page anyway? All it would take google to do is send them an email asking permission. Even if they did try and sue, it's Google for crying out loud.

Naw, I disagree with the "Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it" line of logic. Just becuase google may not ever abuse the right to own anything you publish through the app, they still legaly can and you can't do skat, they own anyting you produce. And thats just wrong imho. /over excited rant.

ghost12332 wrote:Because Google, provides my Email! And if I didn't trust them.... Well, I don't think about that. I know SOMEONE there has access to that SQL database with all the passwords

Google is a good company. I like them. It was just a template flaw in their EULA, not a big deal to me. They have ALOT of really good services that ALOT of really good people use.

Google is Not Microsoft

Of course there is. If you knew a little about data storage, you'd know the passwords are encoded and can't be read by humans.

So many people have misinterpreted the EULA. Google doesn't own everything you write etc. using Chrome, they just have the license to it which means exactly what BaRRaKID said earlier.

First release of this kicked the shit out of Firefox and Internet Explorer IMO. Those that doubt that, plugin support is on the way

Puhnkss wrote:

RC-1290 wrote:

Blink wrote:

BaRRaKID wrote:The EULA is written by lawyers, and they have almost a template that is used in every application.
Still you guys are exaggerating, and i don't think you understand what this means. Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it, and you can't sue them for it, it's not about patent stealing or copyright infringement, they just want to be sure that retarded companies won't sue Google if their site shows up in a ad for chrome.

That makes sense, but why didn't they argue their case instead of changing it?

The Eula just wasn't adjusted for a browser. Now it is.

Just? JUST? If it wasnt right for a web browser what app is it appropriate for?! I dont want that in any EULA, tho it already is. I actually entertained the idea that it was just me overreacting, but ya know, it's really not becasue like it or not, deliberate or accidental, Google just tried to screw everyone who uses/ed thier browser (as well as thier other apps that supposedly still have that clause). People are right to be offended.

Also I take issue with the advertisement theory, because those lawyers are paid alot of money to get it right, "that weren't no accident." What dip shit would try and sue google over free advertisment of their web page anyway? All it would take google to do is send them an email asking permission. Even if they did try and sue, it's Google for crying out loud.

Naw, I disagree with the "Basically this is made so that if Google wants to show your site running on chrome for publicity or marketing they can do it" line of logic. Just becuase google may not ever abuse the right to own anything you publish through the app, they still legaly can and you can't do skat, they own anyting you produce. And thats just wrong imho. /over excited rant.

If you don't like it, then don't use chrome. Everyone with half a brain can easily understand that google has no interest in stealing anything you created, and that the EULA is just to protect them against abusing companies after an easy buck. Every product has stupid end user rules, i bet you've never even read an EULA before, because if you did you would see that they are all like this, you can start by the so praised GNU if you want.

ProZak wrote:

ghost12332 wrote:I know SOMEONE there has access to that SQL database with all the passwords

Of course there is. If you knew a little about data storage, you'd know the passwords are encoded and can't be read by humans.

In fact passwords are not even readable by nonhumans. Only the key is stored which is a product of one-way algorithm and cannot be used to retrieve the password. That's why every high-security system should have no way of reminding lost passwords; only to reset them.

Patronise much there Barrakid? I've said most of what I felt like saying on the subject, even if it seems exaggerated to some, so I bid you adieu.

Puhnkss wrote:Patronise much there Barrakid? I've said most of what I felt like saying on the subject, even if it seems exaggerated to some, so I bid you adieu.

Be gone then! Anyways though it's been pretty sweet for me, been using it for a week, and of course it's beta, so theres a few issues. But hot damn, it works great.

Has anyone else had issues with Chrome importing from Firefox 3?

Blink wrote:Has anyone else had issues with Chrome importing from Firefox 3?

nope, flawlessly here. Only didnt pick my startuppages (i have three, it only picked one)