Slashdot Mirror
Google Gives the US Government Access To Gmail
schliz writes "Google condemns the Chinese Government for censoring its results, and Australia for planning to do the same. Meanwhile, its lawyers and security experts have told employees to 'be intentionally vague about whether or not we've given access to end-user accounts,' according to engineer James Tarquin, hinting that Google may be sharing its data with the US government. Perhaps Australia's most hated communications minister, Steven Conroy, could be right in his criticism of Google's privacy record after all."
Duh? Is this really a surprise for anyone that Google would do so? Really?
Totally OT so mods fire when ready, but wanted to reply to your sig
OS 10.6 requires 1 gigabyte; no exceptions. But WIN7 runs well on just 1/2 GB. Apple's OS appears *twice* as bloated.
Actually 10.6 will run in 384mb. It won't install with under 1gb of ram. (and other requirements like processor speed)
The difference here is, Windows will let you install into a memory footprint that will make you want to slit your wrists with an icepick. It has nothing to do with the amount of memory either of them needs, but how much they sensibly require. It's like the Dells that were sold as "vista ready" and that were basically unusable until you upgraded them. It's hard to make a good comparison, but OS X and Vista are actually about on par for performance vs hardware host.
This is probably a foreign concept though for you, being able to install on one machine, and move the hard drive to another machine, and have it immediately work perfectly. But you can do that with OS X. One of the many, many advantages of maintaining and servicing a mac. You were making observations on things that you can and can't do between the two OS's, so I'd hope you wouldn't ignore this disparity? ;)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
>>>Actually 10.6 will run in 384mb
Really? I'd like to see 10.6 running on either 384 or 512 MB. (I searched youtube and found nothing.) Also doesn't hacking your 384 megabyte Mac to run 10.6 violate Apple's Law... I mean, license? Like using a Hackintosh PC, if you get caught, you could get in serious trouble with Apple Corporation?
I've seen Win7 running on as little as 128 megabytes (without violating any license/restrictions). It can do single-tasking, but not much else. It operates about as well as XP on 128 MB.
.
>>>being able to install on one machine, and move the hard drive to another machine
Yeah I'm aware of this hack, to get OS 10.5 to operate on an older Mac that Apple forbids you from using (i.e. below 800 megahertz). I tried to use it on my old 600 megahertz Mac but it failed for some reason (shrug). I'm also aware that doing that violates Apple's 10.5 license.
Aside -
BTW I'm not anti-Apple. I've used Apples since circa 1986 to 2009; in fact the Quadra Mac was one of my favorite computers. I'm just anti-Apple zealotry. I'm tired of hearing people tell me if I'm not using Apple, I'm an "idiot".
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"Really? I'd like to see 10.6 running on either 384 or 512 MB."
No seriously. I'd like to see this. There are a lot of videos on Youtube and Google of WIN7 running on 512, 256, or even 128 megabytes. I'd like to see OS X 10.6 running on similar "below spec" Macs. I heard a poster make the claim that it can be done, but have not yet seen the proof.
Thank you.
C=64
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall