Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dvorak Says gPhone is Doomed

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:41 PM
from the that's-doooooomed dept.
drewmoney writes "Speaking with his usual frustrated crankiness John Dvorak rants his way through an article explaining why the gPhone will never work. 'First of all, it wants to put Google search on a phone. It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask! I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right. They take forever to navigate. It's hard to read the screens ... I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort.' "
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: John Dvorak On Vista's Launch 382 comments
An anonymous reader writes "John is at it again, this time with his take on the launch of Microsoft's Vista operating system. John covers the reality from a market perspective, looking at whether the release will affect PC sales, peripherals ... or even Microsoft." From the article: "While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed, there seems to be no excitement level at all. And there does not seem to be any compelling reason for people to upgrade to Vista. In fact, the observers I chat with who follow corporate licensing do not see any large installations of Windows-based computers upgrading anytime soon. The word I keep hearing is 'stagnation.' Industry manufacturers are not too thrilled either. One CEO who supplies a critical component for all computers says he sees a normal fourth quarter then nothing special in the first quarter for the segment. Dullsville."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by cmdrpaddy (955593) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:43PM (#21297277)
    So it's a guaranteed success then?
    • Rly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday November 09 2007, @12:49PM (#21297415) Homepage Journal

      So it's a guaranteed success then?

      So John says nobody is flocking to smart-phones, ergo Google is d00med to failure. Gosh. Maybe it's because the other smartphones didn't have something Google's will. I seem to recall many phones which played music and did a variety of other tasks not going anywhere until Apple launched the iPhone.

      • Re:Rly (Score:5, Funny)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (namtabmiaka)> on Friday November 09 2007, @01:15PM (#21297915) Homepage Journal
        It's scary how much this:

        "First of all, it wants to put Google search on a phone. It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask!"

        Sounds like the parody [slashdot.org] I did of Dvorak a while back:

        "Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. [...] Starbucks is going to make cars."
      • by sterno (16320) on Friday November 09 2007, @05:00PM (#21301545) Homepage
        I think the real problem Google faces is that they aren't planning to make an actual device but merely define a platform for other device makers. The problem you run into is that you end up having to cripple yourself to make it work for the least powerful, smallest device and thus make it suck ass on a more powerful bigger device. Windows Mobile 6 proves this in spades.

        The advantage Apple has with the iPhone is that they control the entire platform. They've got custom built hardware running a custom operating system with their custom software. It is all built from the ground up to work as an integrated phone, and thus it works pretty damn well. It also does a lot to mitigate some of the major form factor issues that make most smart phones a pain to use. But mostly it's good because it's all meant to work together.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by semiotec (948062) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:01PM (#21297637)
      I don't bother to read Dvorak anymore, since I always feel dumber aftewards, so I have no idea how good are his predictions or if they are so bad they are guaranteed to be wrong (anti-prediction, in a sense).

      but his gripe about not able to read web content on phones is really just a problem of people not generating format for phone use. He should spend a few weeks or months in Japan and use their system.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sqrt(2) (786011) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:25PM (#21298127) Journal
        He gets paid to make ridiculous, outrageous and often times completely asinine claims based on speculation for the purpose of attracting viewers so ads can be sold. He does his job well. Also people are really good at remembering the hits and forgetting the misses, if he ever actually gets one right that's all you're going to hear about him, not the hundreds of things he's been wrong on.
        • by handy_vandal (606174) on Friday November 09 2007, @03:47PM (#21300463) Homepage Journal
          He gets paid to make ridiculous, outrageous and often times completely asinine claims based on speculation for the purpose of attracting viewers so ads can be sold.

          In other words, he's somewhere between Fox News and World Wrestling Entertainment.

          -kgj
        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Brickwall (985910) on Friday November 09 2007, @03:25PM (#21300131)
          Totally agree with the "crappy little screen" comment. I have a Nokia phone that supposedly has web access, but the damn thing, while letting me put all kinds of pretty colours and ring tones on it, won't let me adjust the damn font size. I'm 51, and my eyesight is getting progressively worse, but Nokia seems to think that 8 point fonts - and white outline fonts on a cream background, for crissake - are going to be perfectly legible to me. Hint: they are not, and it's a pain in the ass to have to haul out my reading glasses every time I want to make a phone call. Surfing the web with it is just not on; too slow, too hard to read, too infuriating an experience.
    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ngarrang (1023425) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:24PM (#21298093) Journal
      I am surprised, frankly, that anyone still reads Dvorak's drunken ramblings. He is like the Jerry Springer of the computer world.
    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AmaDaden (794446) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:47PM (#21298597)
      Nah, Google is the new Apple. This is just one part of his classic formula. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWDYaWAVQQ [youtube.com]. For all the Dvorak haters listen to an ep of Twit http://www.twit.tv/ [www.twit.tv] with him. He's not stupid, he is just on an endless quest for numbers. You'll start to like him if you do what I do. Just think of him like the old uncle at the family reunions that just hates everything. "Bah! The Google phone will never work! You damn kids with your Web 2.0!" "Oh uncle Dvorak..."
    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by billn (5184) on Friday November 09 2007, @02:13PM (#21299053) Homepage Journal
      Google search on a capable phone isn't going to fail. It's already a success. If Dvorak has this view on the subject, it's because he's trying to ramp up adSense traffic for his point of view, or he's still rocking a mid-80s brick phone, kicking it Zack Morris style.

      Disclaimer: I do not work for any of the companies or providers I'm about to mention. I am an end user in every respect, with regards to this discussion, however technically adept.

      I own a Treo 700wx, running Windows Mobile, on Verizon's network, with an unlimited usage EVDO data plan. However much Microsoft tends to piss me off, this is the single most useful phone I've ever owned, and that is largely because of the Google Maps application I installed on it, post purchase.

      The ability to lookup anything puts real value into the money I spend on a data plan for the phone. Combined with an I-blue Bluetooth GPS receiver (that happily goes to sleep when you're not talking to it), I can search for anything around my current location, like a bank, an ATM, a restaurant, a car repair place, and get it on a map, and save the contact information directly to my phonebook. It's one more option to get driving directions from my current location to the selected destination, without calling anyone, including a pay-per-use 411 style information service.

      Search on a smartphone works. Period. Google did it right. I don't blame them one bit for finding a way to monetize it and leverage what is already an excellent service offering. I haven't cracked a phone book in years to begin with. They pile up on my porch and get used in my fireplace.
      • by StCredZero (169093) on Friday November 09 2007, @03:26PM (#21300145)
        I've been using Google Maps on an iPhone in the exact way that Dvorak says people don't use phones! You can put in "Pizza Hut near 666 River Styx Drive, 77666" and it'll give you the several nearest options. Press on the ">" and you get more info, including the phone number and an option to dial.

        Even before the iPhone, I used Google SMS in pretty much the exact same way. (iPhone is better with the map, however!)
  • Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2007, @12:43PM (#21297291)
    Man, ever since he came out with that keyboard, he's a know it all.
    • Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)

      by tomzyk (158497) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:59PM (#21298805) Homepage Journal
      Yeah. He should take the hint and do like Bob Qwerty did and just keep a low profile for the rest of his life...
            • Re:Dvorak (Score:4, Funny)

              by SkyDude (919251) on Friday November 09 2007, @02:52PM (#21299661) Homepage

              Are you having "useability" as a yardstick? Silly you. It's all about having an electronic toy that convince

              A) Geeks that they will now outrank other geeks.

              B) Non-geeks that they are now cooler than other non-geeks.

              C) Geeks that having an ubercool toy will get them sex with a non-geek.

              I don't have any mod points today, but if I did, I'd mod this funny and interesting. Not sure how I'd do that but I'd try it.

              By the way, sex with a non-geek isn't all that exciting. Just ask my wife......

  • gPhone != Itanium (Score:5, Insightful)

    by downix (84795) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:44PM (#21297301) Homepage
    His first arguement is that the gPhone is like Itanium, with wide industry support. Well, that depends on a few things:

    1) will it arrive years late?
    2) will it perform as promised or be lackluster?
    3) will it shoot google's existing product lineup in the foot?

    I don't think these three will occur.
  • Dvorak is a retard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sag_ich_nicht (756868) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:44PM (#21297305)
    Internet navigation works perfectly fine on my Nokia N73ME, is easy and readability is good. I use it all the time for directions, because spoken instructions aren't the same as having a damn map on your screen. Before my Mobile Opera Trial run out, it was even easier.
  • iPhone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Asic Eng (193332) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:46PM (#21297347)
    I'm not a fan of Apple and won't get an iPhone for myself, but people are buying those, right? So "public has not been flocking to smartphones" - yeah if you live under a rock somewhere that may be true...
    • 1.4 million bought (Score:5, Informative)

      by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:57PM (#21297557) Homepage
      I'm not a fan of Apple and won't get an iPhone for myself, but people are buying those, right?

      At last count 1.4 million bought at $400 or $600. And that is just the US.
    • Re:iPhone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fnkmaster (89084) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:59PM (#21297603)
      His rant is completely out of date and reflects usability issues with previous generation smartphones. I Google for addresses of restaurants and other stores on my iPhone several times a week. And if I'm in an unfamiliar neighborhood, pull up directions with Google Maps. I very rarely was able to do all of that on my old Treo, since web browsing was such an atrociously clunky experience, but Apple got that part right.

      Fortunately for Google, Apple got a lot of other shit terribly wrong with the iPhone (lack of openness, lack of SDK, getting deeply in bed with carrier and offering no premium price unlocked phone, spending all of engineering's resources fighting unlockers rather than developing the features and applications people actually want for their phones). This is the only reason Google has such a big opportunity here.
  • ugh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trybywrench (584843) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:46PM (#21297351)
    The iphone's screen isn't hard to read. just because Google wants to make a phone doesn't mean it has to be the same crap we have right now. In fact, I'd say Google has the innovation potential to make a really great phone the likes we haven't seen yet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2007, @12:46PM (#21297359)
    I see that one of the tags for this story is "noob". And it occurs to me; we need a disparaging name for someone who is just no longer in the loop. noob doesn't do it because that implies that the person is just new to the game but may get there with time. Dvorak often seems like someone who was there but isn't with it anymore.
  • So Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:46PM (#21297361)
    I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort...

    I don't know, but I think there's over a million iPhone owners who might disagree with you, Mr. Dvorak. That said, I suspect there's more than just iPhone owners who would also disagree with him but that's par for the course.
  • Success?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JBMcB (73720) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:49PM (#21297403)
    Has Dvorak ever predicted that *anything* would be a success?
  • He makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheMeuge (645043) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:49PM (#21297407) Homepage
    Ever since I got my Samsung i607 (Blackjack), I've used Google search through the internet maybe 2-3 times per day minimum. With 3G, or even EDGE, it's reasonably fast... and very helpful in a lot of various circumstances.

    If Google can streamline the internet experience, as well as create a Linux-based platform where I could sync my PIM functions with Google services and Thunderbird/Evolution via the internet, with little difficulty, I'd jump on it in a second, and so would thousands of other people. Tens of thousands more would follow because they'd want the latest gadget.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:50PM (#21297421) Journal
    smack this guy in the head with a heavy blunt object and get it over with already. There is a good reason that people don't flock to smart phones in their droves. The north american cellular market is so manipulated that it really can't be called a market. When you can get a GSM smartphone that you can transfer from one carrier to the next as you see fit, it will be worth spending 300+ dollars on a PDA. So long as you can get a 0$ phone for the same contract (more or less) there is no perceived value in getting a smart phone. What a putz.

    If the gPhone fails, it will be for the same reason that any phone fails, CARRIERS in North America SUCK. I personally use the SideKick, and for several years now have yet to see anyone say that it is a waste, and not cool. Many of my friends have smart phones and use the PDA functions regularly. When carriers start marketing them to the average joe (see the new sidekick) it will begin to be more common than it already is. There will always be people that buy cheap, utilitarian devices only. See the throw away cameras in the grocery store still? Why? That is how people spend money.

    Yes, there is a reason for search other than getting directions... I can disply a MAP also. I have used it to look up exotic drink mixes when a bartender did not know the recipe (no comments on that one) as well as many other uses that don't even touch on the value of a qwerty keyboard when replying to an SMS or email.

    Sorry to Dvorak fans, but this guy is a putz.
  • by rodney dill (631059) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:51PM (#21297435) Journal
    Phoogle would be a big success.
  • by The Slashdotted (665535) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:51PM (#21297453)
    It's about paying $2 for a ring-tone I don't even get to preview. It's about not paying 411 $2.50 to tell me a number each time I need it, because it's not in my redial history. It's about $.002/minute VoIP over WiFi/WiMax. It's about not viewing sites that are not "news" or "sports" but 1/2 sentence snippets you have to pay above your data plan. Do you really care about what "interface" the rapist uses?
  • by griffjon (14945) <GriffJon AT Hotmail DOT com> on Friday November 09 2007, @12:52PM (#21297475) Homepage Journal
    ...well, do *you* have the number? I don't. Oh man, I wish we could google it and then call them! [1]

    oh, right.

    Thanks Dvorak, you missed the point.

    [1] If you haven't tried 1-800-GOOG-411 ; it's pretty awesome for getting said phone numbers, and automatically connecting you if you like. Tied in to a phone with Google Maps and GPS/e911? Beauty and ease. My only concern is how Google will monetize the cell phone space; even sponsored text ads would be seriously annoying being read to you by a machine voice, slowly, on Goog411, and would take up even more valuable screenestate on a phone.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:53PM (#21297481) Journal
    I mean, this is after all slashdot. Forget all the +5 interesting/informative/insightful mods. Just purely looking at flamebaits and trolls, I don't see any reason to read John Dvorak.

    We can do better flamebaits and trolls than John. And we have a better handle on tech issues. I am sure even the most flamebait/troll modded asinine juvenile here has better grasp of tech issues than John. Given the pagerank of /. the flames here have wider readership than his articles. So why bother reading what he is blabbering about?

  • by east coast (590680) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:53PM (#21297487)
    From the blurb: "Speaking with his usual frustrated crankiness John Dvorak rants..."

    Is "frustrated crankiness" the new corporate-speak for "stupid jackass ways"?
  • by tgd (2822) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:56PM (#21297545)
    Thats funny, I've actually stopped into Apple stores to look up movies and restaurants on an iPhone.

    Go figure.
  • Text messaging (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MojoRilla (591502) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:58PM (#21297575)
    Text messaging [wikipedia.org] costs the average user $.10 per message, and generates $50 billion in revenue for the phone companies. This is for a service that takes virtually no network or system resources to support, and should be free.

    If Google can create an open platform and include great services like GMail, the SMS scam will die. Google stands to become very successful, just from this.
  • . . . and by "finest" I mean "stupidity as usual".

    First of all, it wants to put Google search on a phone.

    Duh. What did he think Google would put on it? Microsoft's search engine?

    It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask!

    Ok smartass, what's the phone number of the restaurant? Oh, you mean you have to search [google.com] for it? Or better yet, just get directions yourself [google.com].

    I've actually used various phones with Web capability. They never work right.

    Says you. My browser (Blazer on Treo) seems to work adequately. So does the browser on my friend's Symbian phone. If you believe some iPhone user's, Safari is the second coming.

    They take forever to navigate. It's hard to read the screens

    What smartphones have you actually used, mister I write about technology so I should probably try out a wide variety before writing about it.

    ... I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort.

    Which is why of course we rarely see people with Blackberries, Treo's or any of a dozen other smartphones. The iPhone alone has made such a quick entrance into popular culture that I've already seen it on two TV shows (Mythbusters and The Colbert Report).


  • by catdevnull (531283) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:48PM (#21298617)
    Don't click the link to Dvorak's log--that is unless you WANT to make him more money for mouthing off. He gets paid to write flamebait to increase traffic the site.
    • by FrankSchwab (675585) on Friday November 09 2007, @12:46PM (#21297357) Journal
      Stop pissing all over someone else's attempt to build something, and go make something new yourself.
      Damned armchair inventors, entrepreneurs, and capitalists.
      hrumph.
      • by LaughingCoder (914424) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:12PM (#21297863)

        Damned armchair inventors, entrepreneurs, and capitalists.
        Why in the world would you lump "entrepeneurs [sic] and capitalists" with "armchair inventors"? Am I correct in assuming you view all 3 as evil or somehow undesirable? And you say this in defense of Google, who are the ultimate capitalists making untold billions on advertising? Let's be clear ... Google is not "innovating" here for the sake of "building something", they are looking for the next big advertising market and see cellphones as that opportunity. They are, in fact, behaving as entrepreneurs and capitalists.
    • by Goaway (82658) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:16PM (#21297927) Homepage

      capitulation
      That word does not mean what you think it does.
    • by SQLGuru (980662) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:17PM (#21297955)
      Are you one of the same people who laud Blizzard for how they finally made an MMO right in WOW. It wasn't anything NEW....just making something OLD better.....I believe that is what Google hopes to do....

      Layne
      • by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@nOsPam.cornell.edu> on Friday November 09 2007, @01:53PM (#21298683) Homepage
        That is what Google has done (and succeeded wildly with) in a number of areas.

        Search? - Already done, Google did it better. (Although they were closer to the frontier on this one)
        Web-based email? - Done for years (including entries by Microsoft), then Google took the concept and tweaked it and refined it, now it's the leader in the market.
        Web-based mapping? - Mapquest used to dominate, there were a few other entries into the market, now Google Maps dominates.

        Admittedly in both the web-based email and web-based mapping markets, MS has shaped up their act a LOT, partly because Google has forced them to do so. As far as mobile local search, I actually prefer Windows Live Search Mobile to Google Maps Mobile on my AT&T Tilt. WLS Mobile *rocks*.

        I suspect the same will happen with Android. They'll take the already reasonably well established concept of the smartphone (Symbian, Palm, Windows Mobile), and do what they've done in every market - simply *do it better*.

        "It wants to do this because it is obvious to the folks at Google that people need to do Web searches from their phone, so they can, uh, get directions to the restaurant? Of course, they can simply use the phone itself to call the restaurant and ask! I've actually used various phones with Web capability."
        1) How can you call the restaurant if you don't know their number? (hint: get the number from the Web, or a specialized local search such as Google Maps Mobile or Windows Live Search Mobile.)
        2) What if you miss a turn? TomTom and Garmin mapping devices are selling like hotcakes for a reason... It's a lot easier to hit a few buttons on your GPS (or click "directions" in GMM or WLSM) than it is to write down and follow the restaurant's directions.
        3) How do you determine the restaurant's existence in the first place? You've just flown into town on a business trip, you feel like pizza. Where's the nearest pizza place??? GMM or WLSM will tell you that, and I bet whatever localized search capability Google puts into Android will do it even better.
        4) Dvorak needs to define "phones with Web capability" more precisely. Was he using a $20 Motorola C168i (it has a web browser, albeit an utterly awful and nearly useless one), a Windows Mobile device (Pocket IE is OK, Opera is much better), or an iPhone? Expect the Android experience to fall closer to the iPhone end of the spectrum.

        "That was the problem with the Danger and its successor, the Hiptop handset. They were clunky."
        Clunky or not, they're apparently selling well and a big attraction to T-Mobile. They definately haven't flopped, T-Mo just released not one but *two* new Sidekick variants.

        "People have had eons to program for the Windows smartphones and nothing has come of it."
        There seem to be plenty of applications for WM that I can download and/or buy. Yeah a lot of them are crap, but many are gems. See my above comments about GMM and WLSM - both kick ass. Now if only I could have WLSM's search capability combined with TomTom's user interface (TT's POI database and POI search capability sucks, but most other aspects of TT are amazing.)
    • Bigger picture (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Friday November 09 2007, @01:36PM (#21298347)

      See this within the totality of what Google's trying to do. Right now, the American cell market is locked down by the providers, such that most phones are tied to a contract. Americans can't just buy a new phone and swap their SIM cards particularly easily. And even then, it wouldn't get much since all the providers suck anyway.

      This situation hampers Google. It's hard for them to develop for the mobile environment on another company's system because the stuff's locked down. So if they're going to do it, they pretty much have to do it themselves. Add in the spectre of broadband companies demanding ransom not to throttle Google's traffic (absent net neutrality legislation), and Google is at the mercy of other companies who are between them and their users.

      So first, Google liberates the phone, and makes it an open platform, not locked down. Then Google buys a whole lot of 700MHz spectrum and builds a network that they can use, possibly for the phone but also new efforts. Probably wireless data, possibly a means of distributing other content as well. Also consider the portable data centers Google has been designing.

      One could begin to see how Google might be on the verge of doing something very big. Google already has the content and useful applications for exploring the content. Now they need to be able to find better ways of getting that content to their users. Developing a phone, wireless capability, and backbone capacity would allow them to completely cut out the middleman.

      • Re:Bigger picture (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Grishnakh (216268) on Friday November 09 2007, @02:58PM (#21299769)
        I think Dvorak's right that the gPhone is doomed, but not for the reasons he states. You hit on it here, in that Americans can't just buy a new phone and swap SIM cardes, and that all the providers suck.

        I don't see how Google can "liberate" the phone in the American cellular market at all. Even if they make an open phone, most providers won't allow you to use it, and the networks are incompatible anyway. The only way Google can succeed is by going whole-hog at the outset, by becoming their own provider, or buying out one of the other providers. This would probably require too much capital, and is unlikely to succeed.

        Google could succeed if they simply abandoned the American market altogether with this phone plan, and just concentrated on foreign countries (i.e., the rest of the world where GSM is the standard and phones aren't locked in to providers). I think we Americans are just screwed on mobile phone technology for the next 50 years or so.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's kinda like the old philosophical 'tree falling in a forest' question...

      If Dvorak posts in a news group, does anyone really care?

      -Rick
    • by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday November 09 2007, @12:54PM (#21297495) Homepage Journal

      or does every time Dvorak speak about something, it sounds like the ramblings of an old crazy homeless man...

      Some people love attention and once they get it will rattle off whatever is on their minds. Other people (media) will actually record these ramblings and present them as news in the hopes others will read their content, then flip to the ads and give business to one of their advertisers.

      Worst of all, onece it makes it to slashdot, someone will do this:

      In Soviet Russia phone dooms YOU!

      And hopefully that's were it all ends, but you never know, it may be picked up by 60 minutes or 20/20 and go on from there.