That was my initial response, that once marked private, it should remain so, but it appears in this case, that someone the poster trusted and granted access to the photos might have then handed them over to the network (note: I can't find this in TFA, but it appears to read that way). It doesn't appear that they hacked the info, but rather it was given to them by someone who did have access to the private photos (easily done in the privacy settings for each individual post to restrict it as private except for a few individuals or groups):
The ACMAâ(TM)s CyberSmart web site advises that âoeeven if your profile is private, you canâ(TM)t control what your friends do with the information you post".
In this case, the intent of the original poster can't be questioned (obviously), but the poster seems to have trusted that info with someone else who willingly gave it to a third party.
You raise a good point. I think a good approach to this is to address the misconceptions about 'bloat'. What features would they remove that they consider bloat? They just see a large binary and assume it's 'bloated' when the consumer is the one demanding the additional functionality. Think about that a bit. What features would you remove from Firefox (or any other browser) that you consider irrelevant. Granted there are some features in all browsers I could do without, but not many. They originally started as a simply idea. Display static web pages. They have morphed into dynamic, almost OS like feature sets, and consumer demand just keeps pushing that envelope further and further.
My idea of bloat is when you have feature creep that tends to make the code less optimized and larger than necessary. It is unavoidable to some extent as you add features between major releases, but a major release is the perfect time to address such issues and I can't imagine of of these major browser vendors not doing just that. To my mind, heavily used features are not bloat.
If the majority of users want said feature, it is not bloat.
In my opinion, he made his intent pretty clear. His intent was to bully, which most is not allowed in most TOS agreements to begin with. Yes it is speech, but still bullying.
See, this is a good example of something that is not what I would consider flamebait. You stated your facts and your belief that the iPod UI was derivative. You didn't attack the people who buy iProducts, nor did you resort to irrelevant claims that don't add to the discussion.
It's not difficult to get a post that's not flamebait, but it can be difficult at times to keep emotion out of a post. Often when I agree or disagree strongly with a post, I'll use the Underrated mod (and yes sometimes the Overrated mod) to effect a change to the post. I reserve flamebait or trolling for personal attacks or someone who is obviously being obtuse.
No, it just means you don't need to resort to personal attacks and stick to facts if you don't want to be branded as flamebait. In the example above, the person could have stated that "in their opinion, Apple is the worst company ever because of personal experience with X, Y, and Z." and left zealot comment off, still gotten their point across, and not been modded flamebait.
It doesn't prevent meaningful discussion, but rather promotes it without inflammatory language and rhetoric.
Then they shouldn't market it as a general tablet. Don't blame people for measuring it against the same yardstick that they market the device to in their ads.
Movies, apps, games, music, reading and more, plus Amazon's revolutionary, cloud-accelerated web browser 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books Thousands of popular apps and games, including Netflix, Hulu Plus, Pandora, and more Ultra-fast web browsing - Amazon Silk Free cloud storage for all your Amazon content Vibrant color touchscreen with extra-wide viewing angle - same as an iPad Fast, powerful dual-core processor Favorite children's books, graphic novels, and magazines in rich color
The link for it is right not he main Amazon page, and the ad above is pretty clearly being marketed as a tablet.
Be careful what you wish for. These are FRAND patents that are in question. Motorola successfully argued that they did not have to license a FRAND patent to Apple unless Apple paid damages above and beyond the cost of the standard FRAND license rate issued to everyone else for 'past' infringement, and the additional damages are left vague under German law, meaning any ridiculous amount could pop out of the courts.
Given that Google is the new 'OS' kid in town, you should probably read up on FRAND patents and why they are supposed to be offered at a standard rate to everyone.
Patent wars are business as usual but when they start mucking around with FRAND patents in this way, it should make anyone in the tech business pay attention.
The calendar has a Go To Date functioning the menus under the View menu (Shift + Command + T). It goes directly to the month, or day in question without having to switch through various months.
On the address book, if you double clip the bookmark ribbon (placeholder) graphics, you can see both contacts and groups in the left pane (Command + 3), although selecting one or the other will show you that specific view in the right side (Command +1, Command + 2, & Command + 3 toggle these views respectively).
I actually prefer my groups to be partitioned from my general contacts, but as with all things, everyone has their own opinion as to what is functional and what is fluff.
Not to nitpick, but isn't that exactly what Google is doing?
Frame other people's content with their own ads? You chose whether to do that. What Sambreel does is simply taking somebody else's work and than putting advertising for their own benefit...
Actually they removed it in iOS 5 (it no longer exists in a usable form in iOS 5 although bits of code remain it is non-functional), so no, they won't be enabling it. They also released a statement indicating exactly what they used it for, and that it was opt in (anonymized collection of usage data...what apps you run, crash data, etc, but not identifying information and no key logging).
Apple has already released what they used to use it for (it was removed in iOS5 except for a few stray bits that no longer function which are to be removed in future updates). It was used to collect anonymous usage data, but only if the user opted to turn on the Diagnostic usage. It was set up that way on purpose.
It was obvious the intent of the parents post was a check of passengers, not airplane equipment since the general gist of the discussion is what a passenger could do with a damaged battery to an airplane.
In general, passengers do not have access to fuel lines, or fuel pumps/tanks.
Except for the fact that the typical duration of the flu is 5 days. These troops would have gotten it and either died before they got home, or gotten over it. They don't remain infectious for weeks or months beyond that and travel home from overseas in 1918 was most certainly not done in a day. It also still doesn't change the basic premise that the virus can only travel as quickly as those that are infectious and 1918 and 2011 are nothing alike in that regard.
Flammable objects are not part of a pre-flight checklist. If that were the case, you wouldn't be allowed to carry on your hair, your clothes, your luggage, or any other non-metal items. Even ammunition is allowed for checked baggage on some flights.
Explosives are not allowed for obvious reasons, but a batteries energy potential isn't that great, and is easily put out.
You would probably see a little smoke, possibly get a pop with some plastic shrapnel that travels 6-10 inches from the device, and a rather embarrassed terrorist who has no clue that a phone battery isn't any danger to a plane.
I think the point was irresponsible scientists, not a general hate of science in general. Especially that they are publishing this work without concern for the potential risk that some nutcase could take this research and wipe out half the planet. If they had paid for this, and kept it under wraps until an antidote/vaccine was prodded then fine, but to put the recipe for it in the public domain is irresponsible.
Yes but you must also take into account the globalization of the population in general. In 1918, we didn't have a jet set crowd, and a virus was limited to physical transmission based on how far an infected person could travel. In today's environment, it could easily spread worldwide in a day into heavily populated zones that are multitudes more dense (per capita) than anything that existed in 1918. Couple that with the fact that it could easily overwhelm the medical infrastructure in high population zones if it spreads fast enough. Just assuming that advances in medical science negate a virus is a false assumption as everything else is not equal in this scenario. Transmission rates and transmission range have changed drastically since the early 1900's.
Actually in this case, it's not the brand but the type of cable. VGA/SVGA is an analog connector and tends to require better cabling the longer the cable is or signal degradation will rear it's ugly head.
Even these still rely on the RIM backbone for messaging services. We have implemented BES servers but are still affected by RIM outages. These relay messages from your corporate email system, to RIM's network center, then to your wireless provider, and then to your phone.
Of course they sell information. It may be anonymous but it is still your information. Claiming otherwise is not truthful.
You should probably post all of the context of that info as you seem to have cherry picked the ones that put things in the best light.
To date, the only Google site that feeds into the marketing profile is YouTube. Google has long emphasised that it won't use your search history to create targeted ads and that they use different cookies so the marketing cookie can't be matched with your Google user profile cookie -- despite the temptation of untold advertising riches for the taking by combining and mining such a rich vein of data.
So will Google+, with its likely very rich data about users' interests, feed into that marketing profile -- now or in the future?
The answer: "Google+ is not part of the Google Display Network" a spokesman said. But that's not to say it won't ever feed that network. YouTube used to live outside that wall as well.
"We currently do not offer advertising in Google+, but will continue to look for new ways for businesses to engage users in the project," the spokesman said.
Which is a short way of saying, "Yes, we will have ads, but first we need to get some users."
Both companies have already wandered into a gray zone by automatically opting users into a systems that uses their "Likes" and "+1 on other websites, so that when you visit a site like CNN.com, you can see which of your friends like that site. Those votes can also show up on ads from companies that your friends have given a social vote too. (You turn this off here for Google, and here for Facebook)
All arguments aside, Google's primary business is information. They make money from selling it. Trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my initial response, that once marked private, it should remain so, but it appears in this case, that someone the poster trusted and granted access to the photos might have then handed them over to the network (note: I can't find this in TFA, but it appears to read that way). It doesn't appear that they hacked the info, but rather it was given to them by someone who did have access to the private photos (easily done in the privacy settings for each individual post to restrict it as private except for a few individuals or groups):
In this case, the intent of the original poster can't be questioned (obviously), but the poster seems to have trusted that info with someone else who willingly gave it to a third party.
You raise a good point. I think a good approach to this is to address the misconceptions about 'bloat'. What features would they remove that they consider bloat? They just see a large binary and assume it's 'bloated' when the consumer is the one demanding the additional functionality. Think about that a bit. What features would you remove from Firefox (or any other browser) that you consider irrelevant. Granted there are some features in all browsers I could do without, but not many. They originally started as a simply idea. Display static web pages. They have morphed into dynamic, almost OS like feature sets, and consumer demand just keeps pushing that envelope further and further.
My idea of bloat is when you have feature creep that tends to make the code less optimized and larger than necessary. It is unavoidable to some extent as you add features between major releases, but a major release is the perfect time to address such issues and I can't imagine of of these major browser vendors not doing just that. To my mind, heavily used features are not bloat.
If the majority of users want said feature, it is not bloat.
In my opinion, he made his intent pretty clear. His intent was to bully, which most is not allowed in most TOS agreements to begin with. Yes it is speech, but still bullying.
See, this is a good example of something that is not what I would consider flamebait. You stated your facts and your belief that the iPod UI was derivative. You didn't attack the people who buy iProducts, nor did you resort to irrelevant claims that don't add to the discussion.
It's not difficult to get a post that's not flamebait, but it can be difficult at times to keep emotion out of a post. Often when I agree or disagree strongly with a post, I'll use the Underrated mod (and yes sometimes the Overrated mod) to effect a change to the post. I reserve flamebait or trolling for personal attacks or someone who is obviously being obtuse.
No, it just means you don't need to resort to personal attacks and stick to facts if you don't want to be branded as flamebait. In the example above, the person could have stated that "in their opinion, Apple is the worst company ever because of personal experience with X, Y, and Z." and left zealot comment off, still gotten their point across, and not been modded flamebait.
It doesn't prevent meaningful discussion, but rather promotes it without inflammatory language and rhetoric.
Then they shouldn't market it as a general tablet. Don't blame people for measuring it against the same yardstick that they market the device to in their ads.
The link for it is right not he main Amazon page, and the ad above is pretty clearly being marketed as a tablet.
http://www.amazon.com/
You mean much like Google was caught giving patents to handset vendors so they could in turn sue Apple with said patents?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14832762
Be careful what you wish for. These are FRAND patents that are in question. Motorola successfully argued that they did not have to license a FRAND patent to Apple unless Apple paid damages above and beyond the cost of the standard FRAND license rate issued to everyone else for 'past' infringement, and the additional damages are left vague under German law, meaning any ridiculous amount could pop out of the courts.
Given that Google is the new 'OS' kid in town, you should probably read up on FRAND patents and why they are supposed to be offered at a standard rate to everyone.
Patent wars are business as usual but when they start mucking around with FRAND patents in this way, it should make anyone in the tech business pay attention.
This is what happens when you post prior to your first cup of coffee. Oi...I can't believe I butchered not one, but two sentences and never noticed.
The calendar has a Go To Date functioning the menus under the View menu (Shift + Command + T). It goes directly to the month, or day in question without having to switch through various months.
On the address book, if you double clip the bookmark ribbon (placeholder) graphics, you can see both contacts and groups in the left pane (Command + 3), although selecting one or the other will show you that specific view in the right side (Command +1, Command + 2, & Command + 3 toggle these views respectively).
I actually prefer my groups to be partitioned from my general contacts, but as with all things, everyone has their own opinion as to what is functional and what is fluff.
Not to nitpick, but isn't that exactly what Google is doing?
Ghostery works well for that sort of thing.
It should achieve the effect you are looking for in preemptively blocking the content before it hits your browser.
Supports most major browsers too.
Actually they removed it in iOS 5 (it no longer exists in a usable form in iOS 5 although bits of code remain it is non-functional), so no, they won't be enabling it. They also released a statement indicating exactly what they used it for, and that it was opt in (anonymized collection of usage data...what apps you run, crash data, etc, but not identifying information and no key logging).
Apple has already released what they used to use it for (it was removed in iOS5 except for a few stray bits that no longer function which are to be removed in future updates). It was used to collect anonymous usage data, but only if the user opted to turn on the Diagnostic usage. It was set up that way on purpose.
It was obvious the intent of the parents post was a check of passengers, not airplane equipment since the general gist of the discussion is what a passenger could do with a damaged battery to an airplane.
In general, passengers do not have access to fuel lines, or fuel pumps/tanks.
Except for the fact that the typical duration of the flu is 5 days. These troops would have gotten it and either died before they got home, or gotten over it. They don't remain infectious for weeks or months beyond that and travel home from overseas in 1918 was most certainly not done in a day. It also still doesn't change the basic premise that the virus can only travel as quickly as those that are infectious and 1918 and 2011 are nothing alike in that regard.
Flammable objects are not part of a pre-flight checklist. If that were the case, you wouldn't be allowed to carry on your hair, your clothes, your luggage, or any other non-metal items. Even ammunition is allowed for checked baggage on some flights.
Explosives are not allowed for obvious reasons, but a batteries energy potential isn't that great, and is easily put out.
You would probably see a little smoke, possibly get a pop with some plastic shrapnel that travels 6-10 inches from the device, and a rather embarrassed terrorist who has no clue that a phone battery isn't any danger to a plane.
Seriously...wtf?
I think the point was irresponsible scientists, not a general hate of science in general. Especially that they are publishing this work without concern for the potential risk that some nutcase could take this research and wipe out half the planet. If they had paid for this, and kept it under wraps until an antidote/vaccine was prodded then fine, but to put the recipe for it in the public domain is irresponsible.
Well at least in the case of Zombie Plague we'll stay fresh longer...
Yes but you must also take into account the globalization of the population in general. In 1918, we didn't have a jet set crowd, and a virus was limited to physical transmission based on how far an infected person could travel. In today's environment, it could easily spread worldwide in a day into heavily populated zones that are multitudes more dense (per capita) than anything that existed in 1918. Couple that with the fact that it could easily overwhelm the medical infrastructure in high population zones if it spreads fast enough. Just assuming that advances in medical science negate a virus is a false assumption as everything else is not equal in this scenario. Transmission rates and transmission range have changed drastically since the early 1900's.
The voice of Jobs from the heavens: "Your welcome!"
Actually in this case, it's not the brand but the type of cable. VGA/SVGA is an analog connector and tends to require better cabling the longer the cable is or signal degradation will rear it's ugly head.
Even these still rely on the RIM backbone for messaging services. We have implemented BES servers but are still affected by RIM outages. These relay messages from your corporate email system, to RIM's network center, then to your wireless provider, and then to your phone.
Of course they sell information. It may be anonymous but it is still your information. Claiming otherwise is not truthful.
You should probably post all of the context of that info as you seem to have cherry picked the ones that put things in the best light.
All arguments aside, Google's primary business is information. They make money from selling it. Trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.