the desire to interview someone like a police emergency.
In some places, including in the US, I've been told to call 911 for fairly standard police issues. They only man the regular switchboard, 9-5 or something and their 24 hour phone response is hooked to 911. Probably a different budget item or reusing infrastructure or something. Probably also helps because it gives the operators something to do during slow times, and they can hang up/put on hold people with a routine matter when shit starts to go down.
How do they get out of travelling cross-country to be compelled to testify again?
The testimony was about the logs. No logs, no testimony.
Their lawyer responded, "there are no logs, kthxbye"
No, very importantly, their lawyer said "there are no logs, can we help explain/help more?" and the agent said "oh, kthxbye" You want them to walk away from the conversation first.
would be funny if they sent them literal wood logs
This is the kind of "clever" response that gets contempt charges.
When dealing with a subpena, don't be clever. Don't be witty. Don't be funny. Don't ignore it (like lavalbit did). Just comply or fight it. Cause you are allowed to fight them. You just have to do so within a certain framework.
Probably fairly similar. Or at least no worse than it would be otherwise. Most of the times your read about the feds jumping up and down on someone, it's when they decided to be "clever" or belligerent, or similar. Nothing is more likely to get a good response than a calm, respectful response.
True, Clue was amazing. In no small part because it was hilarious. And also because of it's novel (and I believe never repeated) multiple endings in multiple markets.
Dungeons and Dragons is a rules framework upon which stories are built, not a story itself. Making a "D&D" movie is like basing a film off "Hoyle's Book of Games."
You mean like a movie based on "Clue". Or "Battleship". Or "Candyland"?
It seems like a difficult system to put together. The odds are there are going to be holes. But, far more importantly, it seems these could be done when the API call is made, no need to track data taint.
Android apps ask for freaking every permission. That's the real concern. How do we stop asshats from wanting it all?
We used to have applications run locally. They used to have a lot more freedom - any and all apps could know exactly who you are and what your computer's UUID was, not only how your battery's doing.
Except web apps aren't primarily replacing other apps. They are replacing static content. It's like when they allowed people to put code in PDFs. Sure, I suppoe it was somewhat sandboxed and better than a special purpose EXE, but the alternative that is supplanted really was a static PDF with form information..
And even the, there used to be the option to run apps locally, and forbid them from communicating with the outside world.
at maybe it's a good thing it's being done in a browser.
Which is the other isse. It used to be, running an app was a conscious choice. Now every app and eevery pag eis tghe equivalent of a drive-by install.
I'm going to cross respond with my reply to someone who used this same kinda concept.. his example was an optional photo app extension.
I find your idea appealing in general, and would love to see a social network that worked like that, I'm not sure how it could work. Doesn't that mean that the pictures app developer would have their own privacy settings (and maybe "backup" pictures on a server they control)? And wouldn't app interoperabiility would probably make your privacy "the weakest in the chain"/"the weakest installed"? Also, doesn't that make it where every single feature needs to hit critical mass independently... after all, how do I see your pictures if I need to install an app to do so? What about dueling options fragmenting the market?
Links take you to learn more info about something.
Except that SN's are trying to host that data within themselves, and FB is using it's monopoly power and it's algorithims to prioritize stuff in the newsfeed hosted on FB.
Social networks already have you so profiled that they know where you want to go and take you there.
They know the intersection of where you will spend time and where they will serve ads. This is not the same.
Google's name is too tarnished with regards to privacy and will never be able to launch a social media site again.
I don't know if it was really a privacy issue. After all, FaceBook is probably the only site more devoted to mining your data than Google is.
No privacy issues. If I don't want my plus profile to have pictures, I just never download a picture app.
I find your idea appealing in general, and would love to see a social network that worked like that, I'm not sure how it could work. Doesn't that mean that the pictures app developer would have their own privacy settings (and maybe "backup" pictures on a server they control)? And wouldn't app interoperabiility would probably make your privacy "the weakest in the chain"/"the weakest installed"? Also, doesn't that make it where every single feature needs to hit critical mass independently... after all, how do I see your pictures if I need to install an app to do so? What about dueling options fragmenting the market?
I actually think a big part of the failure of Google+ was something that, in hindsight, looks so small that a lot of people forget about it: When Google+ launched, it was a limited invite-only service.
You mean like Facebook and Orkut did?
But seriously, those were due to scaling concerns. Google could have flipped a switch. I think they're problem was they went backwards... feature complete to a limited number of people, as opposed to a slow feature rollout to everyone.
One also doesn't have to use facebook. I don't even have a facebook account,
Sure you do. Even if you don't register for the site, they create shadow accounts based on the contact numbers in people's phones, based on ID'ing the same person showing up in pictures, etc. They, I think, even allow your friends to tag you in pictures using the shadow account.
Google's attempts to foist Plus on us felt a lot like how Microsoft forced Internet Explorer on us by bundling it with Windows 95 OSR2 and later versions of Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
In some places, including in the US, I've been told to call 911 for fairly standard police issues. They only man the regular switchboard, 9-5 or something and their 24 hour phone response is hooked to 911. Probably a different budget item or reusing infrastructure or something. Probably also helps because it gives the operators something to do during slow times, and they can hang up/put on hold people with a routine matter when shit starts to go down.
And Futurama did it in "Tales of Interest", 1 or 2.
Regulation was in response to a glut of taxi drivers, not a dearth of them.
The testimony was about the logs. No logs, no testimony.
No, very importantly, their lawyer said "there are no logs, can we help explain/help more?" and the agent said "oh, kthxbye" You want them to walk away from the conversation first.
Generic Universal Role Playing System
I don't see bad or robot in the name, but I could be wrong.
How does Bad Robot relate to GURPS?
This is the kind of "clever" response that gets contempt charges.
When dealing with a subpena, don't be clever. Don't be witty. Don't be funny. Don't ignore it (like lavalbit did). Just comply or fight it. Cause you are allowed to fight them. You just have to do so within a certain framework.
Probably fairly similar. Or at least no worse than it would be otherwise. Most of the times your read about the feds jumping up and down on someone, it's when they decided to be "clever" or belligerent, or similar. Nothing is more likely to get a good response than a calm, respectful response.
By Universal Pictures
True, Clue was amazing. In no small part because it was hilarious. And also because of it's novel (and I believe never repeated) multiple endings in multiple markets.
Someone with a monetary incentive to make the use of kitchens equivalent to strangling puppies. I wonder who would benefit from that...
You mean like a movie based on "Clue". Or "Battleship". Or "Candyland"?
It seems like a difficult system to put together. The odds are there are going to be holes. But, far more importantly, it seems these could be done when the API call is made, no need to track data taint.
Android apps ask for freaking every permission. That's the real concern. How do we stop asshats from wanting it all?
Except web apps aren't primarily replacing other apps. They are replacing static content. It's like when they allowed people to put code in PDFs. Sure, I suppoe it was somewhat sandboxed and better than a special purpose EXE, but the alternative that is supplanted really was a static PDF with form information..
And even the, there used to be the option to run apps locally, and forbid them from communicating with the outside world.
Which is the other isse. It used to be, running an app was a conscious choice. Now every app and eevery pag eis tghe equivalent of a drive-by install.
Can you expound. I don't understand your suggestion.
Who cares about the police using the data. Facebook itself is 100 times scarier than any police force.
I'm going to cross respond with my reply to someone who used this same kinda concept.. his example was an optional photo app extension.
I meant FB and Orkut did so out of scaling concerns, not for any other reason. Yes, it was stupid how G+ did it.
Probably should have just bought Twitter and WhatsApp and Instagram.
Except that SN's are trying to host that data within themselves, and FB is using it's monopoly power and it's algorithims to prioritize stuff in the newsfeed hosted on FB.
They know the intersection of where you will spend time and where they will serve ads. This is not the same.
Huh? It was obvious when it launched that was their direction.
I don't know if it was really a privacy issue. After all, FaceBook is probably the only site more devoted to mining your data than Google is.
No privacy issues. If I don't want my plus profile to have pictures, I just never download a picture app.
I find your idea appealing in general, and would love to see a social network that worked like that, I'm not sure how it could work. Doesn't that mean that the pictures app developer would have their own privacy settings (and maybe "backup" pictures on a server they control)? And wouldn't app interoperabiility would probably make your privacy "the weakest in the chain"/"the weakest installed"? Also, doesn't that make it where every single feature needs to hit critical mass independently... after all, how do I see your pictures if I need to install an app to do so? What about dueling options fragmenting the market?
You mean like Facebook and Orkut did?
But seriously, those were due to scaling concerns. Google could have flipped a switch. I think they're problem was they went backwards... feature complete to a limited number of people, as opposed to a slow feature rollout to everyone.
Sure you do. Even if you don't register for the site, they create shadow accounts based on the contact numbers in people's phones, based on ID'ing the same person showing up in pictures, etc. They, I think, even allow your friends to tag you in pictures using the shadow account.
Nonsense. Microsoft was successful.
Article:
Parent:
Google: Because apparently someone needs tp be spying on you.
That was the Windows 10 preview. It makes a ton of sense that tech previews are loaded with spyware.