It's easy , isn't it, to attribute negative intent to language when you claim the right to alter the language.
If someone wants to know the intent of Google's language, then ask Google, and watch what they do.
To me, the language establishes a claim to the right, but not any obligation, to filter "Content." The OP doesn't tell us how Google defines "Content,", which is likely found elsewhere in the EULA. The distinction between search results and content created by Google or others who use them as a host is important.
I don't see this as anything more than Google reiterating a right to filter content (however they have defined it) as the underpinning of the filtering services offered to their customers now and in the future. That's necessary to provide protection from litigious weenies who would sue them for offering the optional filters.
It's also worth remembering that Google doesn't have an obligation to crawl and index every server on the planet. If your site isn't visited by their bot, tough. That's filtering, too.
Also, Google asserts no obligation to filter anything, presumably to provide a basis for rejecting such demands.
Bottom line: We all have a right to see everything on the net, completely unfiltered. But, neither Google nor any other entity are obligated to provide that view.
... at least people who went to public schools down there.
If the goverment of Texas is going to indulge in such fatuous nonsense, at least the rest of us can avoid paying the price. Let Texans who are taught to be ignorant find jobs in Texas.
Perhaps you ought to lose some of those illusions.
When an amateur group, Danish or otherwise, develops a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead across the Pacific, as opposed to carrying a mouse across a pasture, you can believe it will attract all kinds of attention.
Also, the Danes aren't poised to invade northern Germany, aren't out of touch with reality, don't issue regular threats against their neighbors, don't have a multi-million strong military, don't kidnap their neighbors' citizens, don't starve their citizens, etc., etc.
OpenDNS does tell you about their proxy and their handling of BX responses. It's on their website. I knew all that before I started using them.
I have no more concerns about OpenDNS "monitoring" (not exactly the word I'd use) than I do about my grocery tracking my purchases. I feel no loss of privacy when my data is aggregated with that of many others, or when software keys on my buying habits to flaunt a product.
If I use my ISP's nameservers,I get slower responses plus error pages from the ISP with ads on them.
The notion that OpenDNS is evil because they run ads is juvenile. So is the notion that they're evil because they keep logs and records. Name me a Unix system or any provider of any kind of Internet services that doesn't keep logs and records.
The phone company knows who you call. What are you doing about that great evil?
It seems you want me to be indifferent about the possibility that endless anonymous admins might get curious about my net behavior, but I'm supposed to be paranoid about OpenDNS?
I don't see a scam here. You might not like their approach, but that's different.
OpnenDNS tells you they run a proxy. They tell you how to disable it.
Sending a raw error code to 99 percent of Internet users is bad service. Better to catch the code and deliver a plain language message.
As for the ads: Would you feel better if OpenDNS billed your credit card on a regular basis? Ads are everywhere. Get used to it. Just ignore them, like the rest of us do.
Short of running their own DNS, what's a better approach? (BTW, I've run my own DNS. Not dong that again. Life's too short to think running servers is fun.)
My intent with that comment was not to be labeled as flamebait, but to suggest that, if Windows is routinely criticized for its shortcomings, then touting a competitor as being indistinguishable is really damning with faint praise.
Amateur radio folks have been building their own hardware for decades. They've been bouncing signals off the Moon and meteor trails for almost half a century.
ISS is less that 300 miles away when it is overhead.
These magazines carry almost no advertising, which is where the money is. Maybe that's because their sales people aren't pushing hard enough. But, I suspect it is really due to poor and declining circulation numbers combined with the widespread assumption that everyone who reads science fiction is an adolescent acne-ridden geek with no money.
Doesn't bother me, If Google has reason to think a site is potentially harmful, I'd rather they tell me. Nothing nanny-ish about that. I'm happy someone told me not to drink out of the toilet or down a couple dozen Tylenol with a whisky chaser.
Google is just providing infomation. I'm still the one deciding how I behave.
Yesterday, I telephoned one of my banks to cancel a dormant account. They're mailing me a check. All they wanted to know was the account number, my birthday, and my current address.
If I'm your friend, know when you were born, and you ask me to grab your mail while you're out of town, I can open that bank's statement and grab your cash.
As I implied, requiring homework to be prepared on a PC places an unwarranted burden on families who cannot afford PC's.
If schools require routine assignments to be prepared on PC's, they should make the PC's available free of charge to the students. That appears not to be the case here because the school charges a fee to use PC's after hours.
Having been one, I'll take up the teachers' banner with no hesitation. Schools, however, need to provide any tool they make mandatory. And that means the taxpayers need to start paying for better schools and stop this nonsense of making teachers spend out of pocket for school supplies or turning kids into door-to-door fundraisers.
Mandating use of Word or any other commercial product for homework seems to me a form of economic discrimination. Lots of families still can't afford a PC, much less Office.
Putting a "beta" label on a product doesn't, by itself, relieve you of legal liability. That language goes in the terms of use that no one ever reads. In the end, your liability is whatever the courts say it is when you are sued.
The bias of tech is that all problems can be solved. When the poblems involve people, and some of those people don't like the proposed solution, it's easy, and simplistic, to start nattering about the "complete idiocy that intelligent, tech-savvy readers often have to deal with....". (Arrogant, too.)
This makes me dream of the day when there is real competition in the wireless industry...
Keep dreaming. We won't see wireless competition because people don't really want it. What they want are cheap phones and phones that work anywhere. They get the latter as a result of market domination by a few corportions, and are willing to accept the hit on the former.
People like their toys and tools to be standardized. Look at the personal computer market. For everyone around here who rants about the evils of Microsoft, there are a dozen others who don't care because the dominance of Windows and one particular kind of hardware platform plays to their advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy , isn't it, to attribute negative intent to language when you claim the right to alter the language.
If someone wants to know the intent of Google's language, then ask Google, and watch what they do.
To me, the language establishes a claim to the right, but not any obligation, to filter "Content." The OP doesn't tell us how Google defines "Content,", which is likely found elsewhere in the EULA. The distinction between search results and content created by Google or others who use them as a host is important.
I don't see this as anything more than Google reiterating a right to filter content (however they have defined it) as the underpinning of the filtering services offered to their customers now and in the future. That's necessary to provide protection from litigious weenies who would sue them for offering the optional filters.
It's also worth remembering that Google doesn't have an obligation to crawl and index every server on the planet. If your site isn't visited by their bot, tough. That's filtering, too.
Also, Google asserts no obligation to filter anything, presumably to provide a basis for rejecting such demands.
Bottom line: We all have a right to see everything on the net, completely unfiltered. But, neither Google nor any other entity are obligated to provide that view.
... at least people who went to public schools down there.
If the goverment of Texas is going to indulge in such fatuous nonsense, at least the rest of us can avoid paying the price. Let Texans who are taught to be ignorant find jobs in Texas.
Perhaps you ought to lose some of those illusions.
When an amateur group, Danish or otherwise, develops a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead across the Pacific, as opposed to carrying a mouse across a pasture, you can believe it will attract all kinds of attention.
Also, the Danes aren't poised to invade northern Germany, aren't out of touch with reality, don't issue regular threats against their neighbors, don't have a multi-million strong military, don't kidnap their neighbors' citizens, don't starve their citizens, etc., etc.
It's a resolution, not a bill. For those of you who don't know the difference, repeat high school civics.
Of course, the people voting for it are as dumb as frogs, but that's another story.
Can I offload files from Kindle and store them locally, thereby freeing up storage for new Kindle books?
I know Amazon keeps a copy of everything you buy, but....
OpenDNS does tell you about their proxy and their handling of BX responses. It's on their website. I knew all that before I started using them.
I have no more concerns about OpenDNS "monitoring" (not exactly the word I'd use) than I do about my grocery tracking my purchases. I feel no loss of privacy when my data is aggregated with that of many others, or when software keys on my buying habits to flaunt a product.
So, you are equating all ads with spam?
If I use my ISP's nameservers,I get slower responses plus error pages from the ISP with ads on them.
The notion that OpenDNS is evil because they run ads is juvenile. So is the notion that they're evil because they keep logs and records. Name me a Unix system or any provider of any kind of Internet services that doesn't keep logs and records.
The phone company knows who you call. What are you doing about that great evil?
It seems you want me to be indifferent about the possibility that endless anonymous admins might get curious about my net behavior, but I'm supposed to be paranoid about OpenDNS?
I don't see a scam here. You might not like their approach, but that's different.
OpnenDNS tells you they run a proxy. They tell you how to disable it.
Sending a raw error code to 99 percent of Internet users is bad service. Better to catch the code and deliver a plain language message.
As for the ads: Would you feel better if OpenDNS billed your credit card on a regular basis? Ads are everywhere. Get used to it. Just ignore them, like the rest of us do.
Short of running their own DNS, what's a better approach? (BTW, I've run my own DNS. Not dong that again. Life's too short to think running servers is fun.)
Is there any evidence that major ISP's or DNS providers are not also selling customer behavior data?
I'm a Time-Warner customer. When I use their nameservers, I see a Time-Warner error page when I try to access a nonexistent domain.
The DNS protocol may require an "NXDOMAIN" repsonse on a bogus domain, but making that visible to the typical Internet user is pointless.
i know the difference. Most people don't.
Seems you somehow missed the point of ZDNet's little excursion.
My intent with that comment was not to be labeled as flamebait, but to suggest that, if Windows is routinely criticized for its shortcomings, then touting a competitor as being indistinguishable is really damning with faint praise.
If you can't distinguish KDE from Windows, and vice versa, that's reason enough to avoid both.
I'm happy for them, but I'm not impressed.
Amateur radio folks have been building their own hardware for decades. They've been bouncing signals off the Moon and meteor trails for almost half a century.
ISS is less that 300 miles away when it is overhead.
These magazines carry almost no advertising, which is where the money is. Maybe that's because their sales people aren't pushing hard enough. But, I suspect it is really due to poor and declining circulation numbers combined with the widespread assumption that everyone who reads science fiction is an adolescent acne-ridden geek with no money.
Doesn't bother me, If Google has reason to think a site is potentially harmful, I'd rather they tell me. Nothing nanny-ish about that. I'm happy someone told me not to drink out of the toilet or down a couple dozen Tylenol with a whisky chaser.
Google is just providing infomation. I'm still the one deciding how I behave.
Noscript requires a level of knowledge about attacks, protocols, etc., that precludes it from being adopted outside the geek community.
A tool intended for widespread use needs to have two buttons: Safe and Unsafe.
Yesterday, I telephoned one of my banks to cancel a dormant account. They're mailing me a check. All they wanted to know was the account number, my birthday, and my current address.
If I'm your friend, know when you were born, and you ask me to grab your mail while you're out of town, I can open that bank's statement and grab your cash.
...Duh!
Ubuntu is designed to be installed and used by normal humans.
Debian is designed to be installed and used by robots from Rigel II.
Ummm, lots of us un-black folks find the Confederate flag to be repulsive, too. All of us should.
...we tried to secede...
Tried?
As I implied, requiring homework to be prepared on a PC places an unwarranted burden on families who cannot afford PC's.
If schools require routine assignments to be prepared on PC's, they should make the PC's available free of charge to the students. That appears not to be the case here because the school charges a fee to use PC's after hours.
Having been one, I'll take up the teachers' banner with no hesitation. Schools, however, need to provide any tool they make mandatory. And that means the taxpayers need to start paying for better schools and stop this nonsense of making teachers spend out of pocket for school supplies or turning kids into door-to-door fundraisers.
Mandating use of Word or any other commercial product for homework seems to me a form of economic discrimination. Lots of families still can't afford a PC, much less Office.
Putting a "beta" label on a product doesn't, by itself, relieve you of legal liability. That language goes in the terms of use that no one ever reads. In the end, your liability is whatever the courts say it is when you are sued.
... even techies.
The bias of tech is that all problems can be solved. When the poblems involve people, and some of those people don't like the proposed solution, it's easy, and simplistic, to start nattering about the "complete idiocy that intelligent, tech-savvy readers often have to deal with....". (Arrogant, too.)
This makes me dream of the day when there is real competition in the wireless industry...
Keep dreaming. We won't see wireless competition because people don't really want it. What they want are cheap phones and phones that work anywhere. They get the latter as a result of market domination by a few corportions, and are willing to accept the hit on the former.
People like their toys and tools to be standardized. Look at the personal computer market. For everyone around here who rants about the evils of Microsoft, there are a dozen others who don't care because the dominance of Windows and one particular kind of hardware platform plays to their advantage.
The world is just one village.