You just have to manage expectations correctly. The iPad, for instance, doesn't have this problem because Apple set the right expectations.
If this is marketed as a regular computer, it won't succeed. If this is marketed as a way to get you online as quickly as possible with no fuss or fluff, then they'll be golden.
In the UK, I think what fucked me off most recently about it is that street view drove past the SAS HQ on a public road and photographed that too, yet a couple of MPs complained saying it put the SAS HQ's security at risk. Google accepted this and removed the images- I mean, wtf? So it's only a security risk for one of the most heavily defended army bases in the UK full of the best trained troops in the world, but it's not a security risk for say some unarmed old pensioner whose house has been filmed as a prime burglary target? Even if the approach was consistent it would be something, yet even that's not the case.
The problem with unsecure PDFs is that they're vulnerable to drive-by attacks. If your browser has a security flaw, that can be used to open an infected PDF. A rogue website can redirect to an infected PDF and most browsers are set to auto-open them.
I'd wager that most people infected by PDFs never downloaded anything manually.
For 98% of people, Reader is unnecessary and just opens up a ton of security holes.
Easy replacement: 1) Install Google Chrome 2) Install this extension which opens up all PDFs in Google Docs. 3) Enjoy your new, safe browsing and PDF-viewing environment.
The next step is obviously to convert a Dance Dance Revolution mat so the player is constantly jumping around. That way, even if you lose money, you're at least also losing weight.
That's not entirely the case. The contacts aren't exposed until someone enables Buzz on the splash screen and creates a Google profile. The problem came with how, initially, it wasn't clear that your contacts would be shared once you did this. This has since been made more clear (see article).
I pay $55/mo for my smartphone data plan + voice on T-Mobile. I do have the most basic voice plan available, but it's definitely there for well cheaper than $80/mo.
Google created open source mobile phone software. Electronics manufacturers use this software on the phones that they build, then sell those phones to mobile companies. Google doesn't really have a say in who gets what phones.
Restrict freedom? You do know that Google has committed themselves to be open, and even have a "data liberation" initiative to ensure that you can take your data away at any time you want?
Registered webmasters (registration is free) of infected sites do not need to specially enable the feature -- they will find links to it on the Webmaster Tools dashboard.
Of course, just maybe they know that if they did, customers would be more reluctant to buy their software since most people don't like DRM.
That's actually not likely. Almost all of their customers are businesses who need to use AutoCAD because it's the standard and there is no equivalent. They're probably not very concerned about DRM. (In fact, some releases of AutoCAD have come with dongles.)
It's pretty much the same case with Photoshop. Or Office. Those who need to use it professionally will always do so.
What's happening is this: Apple sells lots of iPhones, game companies realize that with two weeks of effort, they can cash in on those phones, people who have too much money and not enough sense buy those crappy games, nothing really changes.
Shitty cell phone games have been around for ten years. Just because they're now shitty cell phone games with touchscreen interfaces and slightly better graphics doesn't mean that they'll make even the slightest dent in actual console sales.
[quote]My one single question regarding Google's arrangement is, whether they have an "exclusive" deal, or not. Can Gutenberg still scan and distribute a public domain book that Google has scanned? If so - there is NO PROBLEM with Google's arrangement. If so, the I can see a problem.[/quote]
Yes. There is nothing stopping people from:
1) Scanning public domain books and distributing them. 2) Creating similar deals with the Authors' Guild and scanning the exact same books Google does and distributing them. 3) Pushing for better copyright reform which would make all this moot. (which Google fully supports, according to their latest blog post)
They're doing it because it's good for nearly everyone in the world. Users get access to huge, huge amounts of information. Authors benefit from the extra income when they claim their works.
It's hard to argue against that unless you have a business interest in keeping it from happening. (Microsoft, Amazon, etc.)
While Chrome isn't a bad browser and certainly isn't anywhere as offensive as Norton, I really don't see any reason that a vendor would make it the default unless they were being paid to.
I don't think it's out of the question.
Internet Explorer has shown itself to be very insecure over the years. Chrome, at least so far, has a great security record, and auto-updates itself so that dumb users won't skip vital patches. (even power-users very, very commonly postpone important security patches)
Less users getting malware directly leads to less support costs for Sony.
I'm sorry, but what right do you have to fuck with someone else's data like that?
This company is not in the wrong, they're just doing something that you don't like. They're putting a condition on the playing of this game - if you don't like that condition, you're more than free to not play it. You can't dictate your terms to them just because you feel like you have some right to have whatever you want.
It's one thing if they're tracking you without you knowing about it. If every human was assigned a unique number that the government used to track your every action, I would have no problem messing with that data. However, to go into someone else's system and screw with data when the only thing tying you to it is the fact that you want to play a certain game, that's wrong.
How would you like to admin a system that someone was messing with just because they didn't like how you did business? Do you feel all forms of "vigilante justice" are justified?
Slashdot Mirror
You just have to manage expectations correctly. The iPad, for instance, doesn't have this problem because Apple set the right expectations.
If this is marketed as a regular computer, it won't succeed. If this is marketed as a way to get you online as quickly as possible with no fuss or fluff, then they'll be golden.
If you're due to retire today and you still have your money in stocks, you deserve to lose it.
In the UK, I think what fucked me off most recently about it is that street view drove past the SAS HQ on a public road and photographed that too, yet a couple of MPs complained saying it put the SAS HQ's security at risk. Google accepted this and removed the images- I mean, wtf? So it's only a security risk for one of the most heavily defended army bases in the UK full of the best trained troops in the world, but it's not a security risk for say some unarmed old pensioner whose house has been filmed as a prime burglary target? Even if the approach was consistent it would be something, yet even that's not the case.
Anyone can do this. http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/earth/thread?tid=745c4f19a6c45bf0&hl=en
(though it's extreme bullshit that a publicly-owned-and-funded building wouldn't be available for public photography)
The problem with unsecure PDFs is that they're vulnerable to drive-by attacks. If your browser has a security flaw, that can be used to open an infected PDF. A rogue website can redirect to an infected PDF and most browsers are set to auto-open them.
I'd wager that most people infected by PDFs never downloaded anything manually.
For 98% of people, Reader is unnecessary and just opens up a ton of security holes.
Easy replacement:
1) Install Google Chrome
2) Install this extension which opens up all PDFs in Google Docs.
3) Enjoy your new, safe browsing and PDF-viewing environment.
Easy - set up a marketplace and take a cut of all transactions. It's exactly what Google and Apple have done with app marketplaces.
The next step is obviously to convert a Dance Dance Revolution mat so the player is constantly jumping around. That way, even if you lose money, you're at least also losing weight.
That's not entirely the case. The contacts aren't exposed until someone enables Buzz on the splash screen and creates a Google profile. The problem came with how, initially, it wasn't clear that your contacts would be shared once you did this. This has since been made more clear (see article).
You do know that XP does the exact same thing with WGA, right?
I pay $55/mo for my smartphone data plan + voice on T-Mobile. I do have the most basic voice plan available, but it's definitely there for well cheaper than $80/mo.
It doesn't really work that way.
Google created open source mobile phone software. Electronics manufacturers use this software on the phones that they build, then sell those phones to mobile companies. Google doesn't really have a say in who gets what phones.
Restrict freedom? You do know that Google has committed themselves to be open, and even have a "data liberation" initiative to ensure that you can take your data away at any time you want?
http://www.dataliberation.org/
They're not exactly your typical corporation.
Registered webmasters (registration is free) of infected sites do not need to specially enable the feature -- they will find links to it on the Webmaster Tools dashboard.
Google does not charge for Webmaster Tools.
This will surely show them the error of their ways.
I imagine they're getting far more publicity from this than their $10k would have given them in traditional advertising avenues.
Of course, just maybe they know that if they did, customers would be more reluctant to buy their software since most people don't like DRM.
That's actually not likely. Almost all of their customers are businesses who need to use AutoCAD because it's the standard and there is no equivalent. They're probably not very concerned about DRM. (In fact, some releases of AutoCAD have come with dongles.)
It's pretty much the same case with Photoshop. Or Office. Those who need to use it professionally will always do so.
Would you want to let that happen with your own capital?
54% of people in Washington DC are of African descent. 40% are of European descent. 9% Hispanic descent. 3% Asian descent.
We seem to be doing just fine.
Mindshare? Really?
What's happening is this: Apple sells lots of iPhones, game companies realize that with two weeks of effort, they can cash in on those phones, people who have too much money and not enough sense buy those crappy games, nothing really changes.
Shitty cell phone games have been around for ten years. Just because they're now shitty cell phone games with touchscreen interfaces and slightly better graphics doesn't mean that they'll make even the slightest dent in actual console sales.
Try living here and saying that.
Signed, almost all of America.
Oh, you mean like all these things?
Hell the federal government can't account for the money it's spending
Really? They seem to have a handle on it to me.
[quote]My one single question regarding Google's arrangement is, whether they have an "exclusive" deal, or not. Can Gutenberg still scan and distribute a public domain book that Google has scanned? If so - there is NO PROBLEM with Google's arrangement. If so, the I can see a problem.[/quote]
Yes. There is nothing stopping people from:
1) Scanning public domain books and distributing them.
2) Creating similar deals with the Authors' Guild and scanning the exact same books Google does and distributing them.
3) Pushing for better copyright reform which would make all this moot. (which Google fully supports, according to their latest blog post)
They're doing it because it's good for nearly everyone in the world. Users get access to huge, huge amounts of information. Authors benefit from the extra income when they claim their works.
It's hard to argue against that unless you have a business interest in keeping it from happening. (Microsoft, Amazon, etc.)
While Chrome isn't a bad browser and certainly isn't anywhere as offensive as Norton, I really don't see any reason that a vendor would make it the default unless they were being paid to.
I don't think it's out of the question.
Internet Explorer has shown itself to be very insecure over the years. Chrome, at least so far, has a great security record, and auto-updates itself so that dumb users won't skip vital patches. (even power-users very, very commonly postpone important security patches)
Less users getting malware directly leads to less support costs for Sony.
I'm sorry, but what right do you have to fuck with someone else's data like that?
This company is not in the wrong, they're just doing something that you don't like. They're putting a condition on the playing of this game - if you don't like that condition, you're more than free to not play it. You can't dictate your terms to them just because you feel like you have some right to have whatever you want.
It's one thing if they're tracking you without you knowing about it. If every human was assigned a unique number that the government used to track your every action, I would have no problem messing with that data. However, to go into someone else's system and screw with data when the only thing tying you to it is the fact that you want to play a certain game, that's wrong.
How would you like to admin a system that someone was messing with just because they didn't like how you did business? Do you feel all forms of "vigilante justice" are justified?
GPS, the internet, memory foam, and all other sorts of fun stuff.
A ton of stuff we use nowadays was created by or uses components created by NASA and DARPA.