All that shows is that the iPad sells well, and that previous windows based tablets did not
You'll be touting the merits of communism next, with that sort of logic.
I do not see anything wrong with saying " X has failed miserably so many times in the past, perhaps its time to try something new."
But at least google takes pains to ensure you can leave them at ANY time by using open protocols and standards. Can you say the same for any of those other companies?
which saps my bandwidth on the backend to report my surfing habits back to google.
The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.
Several points...
1) If you want to eliminate the "phone home", you can do so very easily under options-->under the hood. Uncheck the top 5 boxes; now your data is secure. This is what I did on a live-boot cd where CPU and bandwidth are at a premium.
2) If you do not feel you can trust that it isnt communicating, you can actually VERIFY that, either through about:net-internals, or wireshark, or netstat, or router logs. Not to mention most of the source is actually AVAILABLE....
3) Google as a whole tends to be in line with foss philosophy. They make it clear what they are after-- your data-- but otherwise they use open protocols, with open access, unlike just about anyone else. Ever try and move your data off of AOL, or Yahoo? Ever try to access hotmail over imap? Ever try and do a contacts export from AOL?
4) If it is really that big of a deal, use Chromium; you really cant complain that that requires blind trust (as it is open source). Of course, note that with any browser, when you use google, you have 90% of the same privacy issues-- most of the Chrome issues stem from auto-suggest.
5) The "wifi debacle" amounted to Google coming out with no prompting or coercion and saying, "We may have goofed and gathered some data, bear with us while we investigate." Thats a lot different than having a leak or getting caught doing something, and I think it is unfair to try to equate them with Facebook. If you're a techie, and have used google products, you KNOW what theyre after anyways, and they generally give you tools to opt out anyways.
there is a big backlash and a call for government investigations and regulations. Internal audits are just a classic tactic to try and squelch that knee-jerk reaction.
Didnt they CAUSE that backlash when they chose to disclose the issue in the first place? Are you saying they decided, "Lets cause a massive public PR disaster, and then lets attempt to appease the masses with a phony internal audit"?
In the world I live in, it is called irresponsible (and illegal) to purchase and drive a car with neither the training nor knowhow to drive one. Why is hooking up a wireless router any different-- just because our culture has decided to promote irresponsible and reckless behavior?
I dont work at a big company, but do managers always know the inner details of the settings used in the programs their employees use? Do CEOs know about compiler options used by their devs?
So you maintain that Google intentionally did some legally questionable sniffing, just so they could announce it to everyone (and delete the data)? Riiiiight....
If the story had been "google accidentally gathers SSIDs and mac addresses", I would have been alongside you saying "baloney"... mapping that stuff out is exactly the sort of thing Google is into. But sniffing data in a way that is guarenteed to cause legal issues, and THEN announcing it to the world? Google is much more savvy than that, I dont buy that it was intentional.
I like how both your comment AND TFS imply that Google got "caught" doing something. You DO realize that they openly disclosed (without coercion or prompting) this whole wireless mess, right? How is disclosing a mistake to those affected, and then working towards a resolution "failing to do the right thing"? What steps would you propose they take?
Then perhaps you should either A) buy business grade, or B) stop buying HP.
I do know with dell laserjets, the low-end (3-400) printer's toner is about double the price of the 12-1500 printer's, so after 2 refills the difference is covered.
Brother's mono laser printer is amazing-- its wireless, doesnt use crappy drivers (unlike HP), and has a great web interface. Make sure you do the "tape over the toner sensor" trick, it tries to short you on toner.
Actually, pretty much all branded ones do-- a Sempron 140 can be had for $33 (including shipping); pretty much any ink cartridge costs more than that, and a complete refill costs around $100.
Ok, heres the thing. They talk about how hard it is to get ink to be squirted at 30mph, through a tiny hole, and dry instantly, and how youre paying for that. Except I remember 12 years ago I had a canon bubblejet that pretty much did that, and the ink was NOT as expensive (IIRC) back then. Typically prices go DOWN and quality goes UP with time (ie, Harddrives used to cost several thousands for a few megs, now top end drives are several hundred).
And for all this R&D, why do newer HP printers (ink or otherwise) seem to be worse than the old HP laserjet 4200s which lasted bloody ages (still servicing a few)?
All that aside, who cares about ink lasting in 300degree temperatures in normal usage? And where is the cost per page in that report-- thats a pretty basic thing to miss....
His writings have had an unmeasurable positive impact on the world and to ignore that seems almost criminal to me.
And dictators can make the trains run on time, and do incredibly beneficial things for society. One does not however overlook all the terrible things they do because of the small amount of good.
Not calling him a "great man" does not deny that his writing was good, any more than failing to call him a "impeccable haberdasher" does. Why not simply call him a great writer, and leave it at that?
When you speak of someone being a brilliant writer, you are likely appraising the fellow on the merits of his literary skill. When you say hes "one of the coolest guys who ever lived", you are giving a general judgement on his life (and a rather high one at that), and if he failed as a father and / or husband, I would argue that those are serious enough to disqualify him.
To put it another way, pick a villain of your choice (fictitious or otherwise); however brilliant they may have been, one would not tend to call them "great men". Could it be that that title requires more than technical excellence in an area?
Encrypting and then deleting the files is pretty useless, sort of like using WPA2 and then setting up mac filtering. Whatever is the point? Not to mention you run the risk of dataloss, as the boot process could overwrite the deleted files.
So, maybe Im just being an apologist here...
But while I did verify this, and can see some disk writes in ProcMon to a tmp file (which seems to be deleted on close), is it asking too much to have a little more info before running off and declaring it to be some additional nefarious way to collect info? Any packet sniffing, or even seeing if it can be replicated in chromium or Iron? Any effort to see ANYTHING AT ALL of whats going on, or whether that data is stored anywhere except the "magnify websites to this level" database?
I mean come on, I know Google is the new "cool to hate" company, but a 1 paragraph blog entry with NO technical details whatsoever makes REALLY poor outrage material.
Or, you know, chromium, or perhaps uncheck the 5 "Please send my data to various people for various benefits" boxes in chrome (ie, dns prefetch, malware blocking, crashdump gathering, suggestion services).
Slashdot Mirror
All that shows is that the iPad sells well, and that previous windows based tablets did not
You'll be touting the merits of communism next, with that sort of logic.
I do not see anything wrong with saying " X has failed miserably so many times in the past, perhaps its time to try something new."
Chrome integrates flash, and not as a plugin. Chromium requires a seperate plugin.
I think there are other differences as well, perhaps sandbox related.
But at least google takes pains to ensure you can leave them at ANY time by using open protocols and standards. Can you say the same for any of those other companies?
which saps my bandwidth on the backend to report my surfing habits back to google.
The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.
Several points...
1) If you want to eliminate the "phone home", you can do so very easily under options-->under the hood. Uncheck the top 5 boxes; now your data is secure. This is what I did on a live-boot cd where CPU and bandwidth are at a premium.
2) If you do not feel you can trust that it isnt communicating, you can actually VERIFY that, either through about:net-internals, or wireshark, or netstat, or router logs. Not to mention most of the source is actually AVAILABLE....
3) Google as a whole tends to be in line with foss philosophy. They make it clear what they are after-- your data-- but otherwise they use open protocols, with open access, unlike just about anyone else. Ever try and move your data off of AOL, or Yahoo? Ever try to access hotmail over imap? Ever try and do a contacts export from AOL?
4) If it is really that big of a deal, use Chromium; you really cant complain that that requires blind trust (as it is open source). Of course, note that with any browser, when you use google, you have 90% of the same privacy issues-- most of the Chrome issues stem from auto-suggest.
5) The "wifi debacle" amounted to Google coming out with no prompting or coercion and saying, "We may have goofed and gathered some data, bear with us while we investigate." Thats a lot different than having a leak or getting caught doing something, and I think it is unfair to try to equate them with Facebook. If you're a techie, and have used google products, you KNOW what theyre after anyways, and they generally give you tools to opt out anyways.
No, its google, so its cool to jump on their case for everything they do, legitimate or otherwise.
there is a big backlash and a call for government investigations and regulations. Internal audits are just a classic tactic to try and squelch that knee-jerk reaction.
Didnt they CAUSE that backlash when they chose to disclose the issue in the first place? Are you saying they decided, "Lets cause a massive public PR disaster, and then lets attempt to appease the masses with a phony internal audit"?
In the world I live in, it is called irresponsible (and illegal) to purchase and drive a car with neither the training nor knowhow to drive one. Why is hooking up a wireless router any different-- just because our culture has decided to promote irresponsible and reckless behavior?
I dont work at a big company, but do managers always know the inner details of the settings used in the programs their employees use? Do CEOs know about compiler options used by their devs?
So you maintain that Google intentionally did some legally questionable sniffing, just so they could announce it to everyone (and delete the data)? Riiiiight....
If the story had been "google accidentally gathers SSIDs and mac addresses", I would have been alongside you saying "baloney"... mapping that stuff out is exactly the sort of thing Google is into. But sniffing data in a way that is guarenteed to cause legal issues, and THEN announcing it to the world? Google is much more savvy than that, I dont buy that it was intentional.
I like how both your comment AND TFS imply that Google got "caught" doing something. You DO realize that they openly disclosed (without coercion or prompting) this whole wireless mess, right? How is disclosing a mistake to those affected, and then working towards a resolution "failing to do the right thing"? What steps would you propose they take?
Then perhaps you should either A) buy business grade, or B) stop buying HP.
I do know with dell laserjets, the low-end (3-400) printer's toner is about double the price of the 12-1500 printer's, so after 2 refills the difference is covered.
Yea, but I think Gillette and Schick have the good graces not to insult our intelligence with such baloney.
Brother's mono laser printer is amazing-- its wireless, doesnt use crappy drivers (unlike HP), and has a great web interface. Make sure you do the "tape over the toner sensor" trick, it tries to short you on toner.
Some ink cartridges cost more than a low-end CPU
Actually, pretty much all branded ones do-- a Sempron 140 can be had for $33 (including shipping); pretty much any ink cartridge costs more than that, and a complete refill costs around $100.
Ok, heres the thing. They talk about how hard it is to get ink to be squirted at 30mph, through a tiny hole, and dry instantly, and how youre paying for that. Except I remember 12 years ago I had a canon bubblejet that pretty much did that, and the ink was NOT as expensive (IIRC) back then. Typically prices go DOWN and quality goes UP with time (ie, Harddrives used to cost several thousands for a few megs, now top end drives are several hundred).
And for all this R&D, why do newer HP printers (ink or otherwise) seem to be worse than the old HP laserjet 4200s which lasted bloody ages (still servicing a few)?
All that aside, who cares about ink lasting in 300degree temperatures in normal usage? And where is the cost per page in that report-- thats a pretty basic thing to miss....
Ultimately, it's a question of priority. People have to sacrifice their family life and hobbies to concentrate on their great work
Im sure a great many terrible men made a similar choice of putting "progress" ahead of "morality" and "values"; one doesnt typically celebrate them.
His writings have had an unmeasurable positive impact on the world and to ignore that seems almost criminal to me.
And dictators can make the trains run on time, and do incredibly beneficial things for society. One does not however overlook all the terrible things they do because of the small amount of good.
Not calling him a "great man" does not deny that his writing was good, any more than failing to call him a "impeccable haberdasher" does. Why not simply call him a great writer, and leave it at that?
When you speak of someone being a brilliant writer, you are likely appraising the fellow on the merits of his literary skill.
When you say hes "one of the coolest guys who ever lived", you are giving a general judgement on his life (and a rather high one at that), and if he failed as a father and / or husband, I would argue that those are serious enough to disqualify him.
To put it another way, pick a villain of your choice (fictitious or otherwise); however brilliant they may have been, one would not tend to call them "great men". Could it be that that title requires more than technical excellence in an area?
Why would this close down scroogle? And did you see the part in the summary where it says "optional"?
How exactly would you be able to prove that?
Encrypting and then deleting the files is pretty useless, sort of like using WPA2 and then setting up mac filtering. Whatever is the point? Not to mention you run the risk of dataloss, as the boot process could overwrite the deleted files.
To be fair, Vista DID have a better security model, what with ASLR and UAC. Implementation wasnt really the best, but its better than XP was.
So, maybe Im just being an apologist here...
But while I did verify this, and can see some disk writes in ProcMon to a tmp file (which seems to be deleted on close), is it asking too much to have a little more info before running off and declaring it to be some additional nefarious way to collect info? Any packet sniffing, or even seeing if it can be replicated in chromium or Iron? Any effort to see ANYTHING AT ALL of whats going on, or whether that data is stored anywhere except the "magnify websites to this level" database?
I mean come on, I know Google is the new "cool to hate" company, but a 1 paragraph blog entry with NO technical details whatsoever makes REALLY poor outrage material.
Or, you know, chromium, or perhaps uncheck the 5 "Please send my data to various people for various benefits" boxes in chrome (ie, dns prefetch, malware blocking, crashdump gathering, suggestion services).