The Chinese didn't "let" the Hong Kong people govern themselves, it was written into the agreement between the UK and China that ceded HK to the latter.
I'd be more inclined to trust him if ads didn't already occupy more than half of what I see when I turn on my 360. I'd also be less inclined to call him rude names if one of said ads wasn't a short loop video pushing some crap on Discovery Channel that I'm never going to watch.
I'd like to think you have that backwards: fighting over silly things like skin colour and sky fairies is just a cover for fighting over even sillier things like land, fresh water and oil.
"To play devil's advocate, if someone tells you they don't agree to having their calls tapped then you shouldn't be giving them your Verizon number."
Nobody has to tell anyone they don't want their emails tapped. It is the reasonable expectation.
In your example you said that you'd given permission for your calls to be tapped and I followed through on that.
I can agree to have Verizon listen in to all my calls, but if someone calls me they didn't agree to have their call tapped.
"As I see it, this situation is no different from recording calls and passing them to a third party without the second party's permission"
Exactly. It is a violation of Federal wire-tapping laws (in case you didn't know that you just said that.)
That was never at issue. What I'm trying to get across is there's an argument to made for the finger of blame to point at the user rather than Google. Again, I'm not talking about communications being monitored secretly. The account holder has potentially agreed to have their emails read by a third party and I feel that said person has a duty to inform anyone they give their email address to.
Look, let's suppose you have a phone with a recording facility that can't be disabled; you knew it was there before you bought it. It's your responsibility to tell people about this before you give them your number. If they don't like it then they don't call you. You don't sue the phone manufacturer because their product did what they said it would.
As I've said before, Google might still be fined or whatever, but I think it will be because the EULA is unfairly biased toward them and not because they've been secretly reading people's emails. To my knowledge, they've never made a secret of what they do with my messages.
To play devil's advocate, if someone tells you they don't agree to having their calls tapped then you shouldn't be giving them your Verizon number. If you do then wouldn't you be the one who is at fault rather than Verizon, who've simply done what you asked them to do?
As I see it, this situation is no different from recording calls and passing them to a third party without the second party's permission; we're not dealing with a third party that surreptitiously intercepts our communication.
How do you know the person on the other end is using gmail?
You don't. What I said was that the person on the other end, as you put it, might be seen as the one responsible as they have ostensibly agreed to have Google read their messages and hence some of yours.
If an analogy would help, suppose you ask your friend to send you the date and time of a private party they're throwing. You don't complain about the editor if your friend decides to notify you with a classified ad in the local newspaper. To reiterate my point: if someone gives you an email address I think it's their responsibility to ensure that it's secure. The best you can do in these situations is to exercise caution, refuse to use it and provide your own alternative that you know to be free from prying eyes.
So I guess the question for everyone is should Google (and others) be allowed to scan communications if they state clearly in their EULA what they are doing and why?
Debatable, depending on whether or not such a clause falls foul of laws on unfair contract terms.
Does the answer change when the communications include a parties that didn't accept the EULA?
Initially I would say yes, but on the other hand giving out your gmail address knowing that your mail will be scanned would shift the onus onto you in my opinion. In other words, if you want private contact between you and another party you shouldn't be using a service like gmail. Hell, I haven't read the gmail EULA and even I know that they effectively read my email; it's pretty much Google's business model.
Military drones may be built to be stealthy, but I don't see why publicly-owned ones (or ones owned by members of the public) wouldn't want to avoid aircraft. With that said, how many drones fly as high as regular aircraft? Certainly, there's a conceivable risk of them colliding during landing or takeoff but a seemingly simple solution to that would be to just ban them from being used near airports.
Don't aircraft already carry some kind of transponder that drones could be programmed to avoid if the signal gets above a pre-set threshold?
Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. - Death
To paraphrase, there is no justice but what we make for ourselves.
I used symlinks (or whatever the Windows name is) before Steam introduced multiple libraries so I could have some games installed on the SSD and others on an HDD. There's a great shell extension here that lets you create them. Since then I've reformatted and so I no longer need them for Steam, but they do come in handy for splitting my home folder across drives. The tool I've linked to also does junctions but I've never had to use those.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll be dragging him off to the Hague now, will they?
The Chinese didn't "let" the Hong Kong people govern themselves, it was written into the agreement between the UK and China that ceded HK to the latter.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
I don't remember having any trouble with £ before.
This is pretty much why we told Sky to go fuck themselves.
I'd be more inclined to trust him if ads didn't already occupy more than half of what I see when I turn on my 360. I'd also be less inclined to call him rude names if one of said ads wasn't a short loop video pushing some crap on Discovery Channel that I'm never going to watch.
I'd like to think you have that backwards: fighting over silly things like skin colour and sky fairies is just a cover for fighting over even sillier things like land, fresh water and oil.
An interesting reply. Have you ever considered a career in politics? :P
Nobody has to tell anyone they don't want their emails tapped. It is the reasonable expectation.
In your example you said that you'd given permission for your calls to be tapped and I followed through on that.
I can agree to have Verizon listen in to all my calls, but if someone calls me they didn't agree to have their call tapped.
Exactly. It is a violation of Federal wire-tapping laws (in case you didn't know that you just said that.)
That was never at issue. What I'm trying to get across is there's an argument to made for the finger of blame to point at the user rather than Google. Again, I'm not talking about communications being monitored secretly. The account holder has potentially agreed to have their emails read by a third party and I feel that said person has a duty to inform anyone they give their email address to.
Look, let's suppose you have a phone with a recording facility that can't be disabled; you knew it was there before you bought it. It's your responsibility to tell people about this before you give them your number. If they don't like it then they don't call you. You don't sue the phone manufacturer because their product did what they said it would.
As I've said before, Google might still be fined or whatever, but I think it will be because the EULA is unfairly biased toward them and not because they've been secretly reading people's emails. To my knowledge, they've never made a secret of what they do with my messages.
To play devil's advocate, if someone tells you they don't agree to having their calls tapped then you shouldn't be giving them your Verizon number. If you do then wouldn't you be the one who is at fault rather than Verizon, who've simply done what you asked them to do?
As I see it, this situation is no different from recording calls and passing them to a third party without the second party's permission; we're not dealing with a third party that surreptitiously intercepts our communication.
How do you know the person on the other end is using gmail?
You don't. What I said was that the person on the other end, as you put it, might be seen as the one responsible as they have ostensibly agreed to have Google read their messages and hence some of yours.
If an analogy would help, suppose you ask your friend to send you the date and time of a private party they're throwing. You don't complain about the editor if your friend decides to notify you with a classified ad in the local newspaper. To reiterate my point: if someone gives you an email address I think it's their responsibility to ensure that it's secure. The best you can do in these situations is to exercise caution, refuse to use it and provide your own alternative that you know to be free from prying eyes.
So I guess the question for everyone is should Google (and others) be allowed to scan communications if they state clearly in their EULA what they are doing and why?
Debatable, depending on whether or not such a clause falls foul of laws on unfair contract terms.
Does the answer change when the communications include a parties that didn't accept the EULA?
Initially I would say yes, but on the other hand giving out your gmail address knowing that your mail will be scanned would shift the onus onto you in my opinion. In other words, if you want private contact between you and another party you shouldn't be using a service like gmail. Hell, I haven't read the gmail EULA and even I know that they effectively read my email; it's pretty much Google's business model.
In Britain, the pints are 20.08% better.
I didn't think anything, I was asking a question; that's what the squiggly thing at the end of the sentence signifies.
Military drones may be built to be stealthy, but I don't see why publicly-owned ones (or ones owned by members of the public) wouldn't want to avoid aircraft. With that said, how many drones fly as high as regular aircraft? Certainly, there's a conceivable risk of them colliding during landing or takeoff but a seemingly simple solution to that would be to just ban them from being used near airports.
Don't aircraft already carry some kind of transponder that drones could be programmed to avoid if the signal gets above a pre-set threshold?
Silly sod. 'ant thee realised that accents din't carry well on t'Internet?
Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. - Death
To paraphrase, there is no justice but what we make for ourselves.
Seriously, has no one here heard of Physical Address Extension?
Yes. Let us never speak of it again.
Have you not been paying attention to Russia lately? Gay sex recently became illegal again.
No, it didn't. Talking about it, however, is a different story.
Have you not been paying attention?
I used symlinks (or whatever the Windows name is) before Steam introduced multiple libraries so I could have some games installed on the SSD and others on an HDD. There's a great shell extension here that lets you create them. Since then I've reformatted and so I no longer need them for Steam, but they do come in handy for splitting my home folder across drives. The tool I've linked to also does junctions but I've never had to use those.
Painting the Forth Bridge.
If someone could figure out how to embed cameras in a display panel, that would be the best solution.
Been there, patented that.
You searched for "rotten tomato" not "RT" - there's a difference. How the hell should I have known that's what it signified?
ahem.
Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy.
I must have missed that one. For the life of me, I can't imagine any episode where Kirk didn't shoot, punch or screw at least one of the guest stars.
Don't liquid assets flow away by themselves? Maybe one of the slush funds has congealed in the outlet.