That might have something to do with the fact that tenure selection is (almost) entirely based on publications, research, and grants and not on teaching.
Both work on Linux, although Amazon requires the Flash plugin (new Chrome-only Pepper API one will not work) with the HAL (there's a HAL package on Ubuntu: http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/flash-player-11-problems-playing.html)
The Adobe DRM for Amazon may come into a future Pepper API plugin but it is not currently implemented, which is why you need the old plugin Flash plugin + HAL.
Hulu works with both, as far as I can tell. It's been a while since I've watched stuff on there, though.
Protip: 99.999% of car drivers either do not know how to change their oil or are not willing to learn how and simply have no reason to care.
That's why we all take our cars to the original dealer.
In the BSD case, it can be used everywhere, but there's no obligated to release source for what it gets added to.
Unless statically linking (which is more complicated), the LGPL and BSD licenses both allow this. The LGPL doesn't allow for proprietary mutation of the original library.
The data is unencrypted. Unlike the situation with iPhones, however, the data remains on the phone, and to access it one needs access to the operating system itself, known as "root access." On the iPhone, the location data was copied from the phone to a PC every time it was synced with iTunes. It was copying the data to the PC that creates a potential security problem.
Another difference is how big the location data files, called caches, are. On the Android phones they are limited in size to 50 unique cell sites and 200 WiFi access points. Apple's version was much larger
According to Appleâ(TM)s letter, geodata is being tracked and transmitted to Apple only if a customer toggles the Location Services option in the settings menu to âoeOn.â If itâ(TM)s off, no location-based information will be collected.
If the Location Services setting is flipped on, the iPhone, 3G iPad and, to a more limited extent, the iPod Touch and the Wi-Fi iPad, are transmitting geodata to Apple under different circumstances.
Apple is collecting information about nearby cell towers and Wi-Fi access points whenever you request current location information. Sometimes it will also do this automatically when youâ(TM)re using a location-based service, such as a GPS app.
As for GPS information, Apple is collecting GPS location data only when a customer uses an application requiring GPS capabilities.
Apple claims the collected geodata is stored on the iOS device, then anonymized with a random identification number generated every 24 hours by the iOS device, and finally transmitted over an encrypted Wi-Fi network every 12 hours (or later if thereâ(TM)s no Wi-Fi available) to Apple. That means Apple and its partners canâ(TM)t use this collected geodata to personally identify a user.
At Apple, the data gets stored in a database âoeaccessible only by Apple,â the letter says.
âoeWhen a customer requests current location information, the device encrypts and transmits Cell Tower and Wi-Fi Access Point Information and the deviceâ(TM)s GPS coordinates (if available) over a secure Wi-Fi Internet connection to Apple,â Apple wrote in the letter.
I mean, don't you have to connect to PSN to get the updates that kill OtherOS? If so, I see only win.:)
I mean, that's the icing on the cake. The decision they've forced for us OtherOS users is between staying away from GameOS and PSN or staying away from PSN andgetting another SPU and access to the GPU. I don't see the downside, frankly.
Microsoft does disclose that Suggested Sites collects information about sites you visit. From the privacy policy: When Suggested Sites is turned on, the addresses of websites you visit are sent to Microsoft, together with standard computer information. To help protect your privacy, the information is encrypted when sent to Microsoft. Information associated with the web address, such as search terms or data you entered in forms might be included. For example, if you visited the Microsoft.com search website at http://search.microsoft.com/ and entered "Seattle" as the search term, the full address http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?q=Seattle&qsc0=0&FORM=QBMH1&mkt=en-US will be sent. I've bolded the key parts. What you're searching on gets sent to Microsoft. Even though the example provided involves a search on Microsoft.com, the policy doesn't prevent any search -- including those at Google -- from being sent back.
It's worth reading the IE privacy policy to see what all they reserve the right to do with what you do in IE. I don't see the limitations regarding which components specifically will spy on you; some mention it specifically and then there's a broad statement about recording what you do and sending it to Redmond.
IMHO, that's the real story here. That, and the fact that people apparently still need reminding that MSFT is an advertiser just like GOOG, just less successful at it to date.
MSFT sells clicks too (don't forget that the primary reason MSFT is trying to kill GOOG is to seize its advertising revenue. MSFT is a major player in the advertising space.
You're right; it's perhaps in the privacy policy (arguably, this is part of the EULA, but it's also a separate document):
Microsoft does disclose that Suggested Sites collects information about sites you visit. From the privacy policy:
When Suggested Sites is turned on, the addresses of websites you visit are sent to Microsoft, together with standard computer information.
To help protect your privacy, the information is encrypted when sent to Microsoft. Information associated with the web address, such as search terms or data you entered in forms might be included.
For example, if you visited the Microsoft.com search website at http://search.microsoft.com/ and entered âoeSeattleâ as the search term, the full address http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?q=Seattle&qsc0=0&FORM=QBMH1&mkt=en-US will be sent.
Iâ(TM)ve bolded the key parts. What youâ(TM)re searching on gets sent to Microsoft. Even though the example provided involves a search on Microsoft.com, the policy doesnâ(TM)t prevent any search â" including those at Google â" from being sent back.
> quite arguably libelous claiming or inferring that a competitor is stealing your product.
Perhaps, but the
> If they actually believe this to be true, why not launch an actual lawsuit.
Umm, this is true of so many things. And also completely irrelevant to "Microsoft is spying on (some set of) IE users."
> Otherwise, I'd just call it competition
Currently, the argument you're trying to present, "Microsoft copying Google's search results is just competition" is orthogonal to the discussion I'm having, "Microsoft is spying on (some set of) IE users."
I don't follow your argument. You have to be either a person (e.g. the click farms) or a script (pretty clear) simulating being an interested person clicking on an ad with the aim of causing the website owner to get paid by the advertising company in order for it to be click fraud.
it's not just IE, though it's the one currently involved. You need to read what your software vendor reserves the right to do, particularly in the realm of installing code without your knowledge or (further) consent and spying.
It'll still be interesting to see the anti-Google Microsofties keep up the refrain of Google spies on you, so use Microsoft instead.
They do spy on (sorry, gather 'click stream' data from) IE users (through IE itself, or one of its add-ons). Read those EULAs veeery carefully, folks!
Somehow this extremely relevant part of the story keeps getting skipped over whenever it's being told.
The 'click fraud' accusation is hilarious and quite arguably libelous as fraud (and click fraud) is a real criminal act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud "Click fraud is a type of Internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad's link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud.
Use of a computer to commit this type of Internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example, as covered by Penal code 502 in California, USA." (also claimed to be a felony at http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/click-fraud.html with claims of arrests.)
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Of particular note is the commentary on item 3.
That might have something to do with the fact that tenure selection is (almost) entirely based on publications, research, and grants and not on teaching.
Both work on Linux, although Amazon requires the Flash plugin (new Chrome-only Pepper API one will not work) with the HAL (there's a HAL package on Ubuntu: http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/flash-player-11-problems-playing.html) The Adobe DRM for Amazon may come into a future Pepper API plugin but it is not currently implemented, which is why you need the old plugin Flash plugin + HAL. Hulu works with both, as far as I can tell. It's been a while since I've watched stuff on there, though.
Protip: 99.999% of car drivers either do not know how to change their oil or are not willing to learn how and simply have no reason to care. That's why we all take our cars to the original dealer.
Unless statically linking (which is more complicated), the LGPL and BSD licenses both allow this. The LGPL doesn't allow for proprietary mutation of the original library.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end.ars
Yes, it is: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/iphone-location/
Also, according to a 13-page letter sent to Congress by Apple, they also upload your location history to Apple every 12 hours: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/
Errrm, +1. Now, to get Moz to use hw acceleration for webm and to get a webm-enabled crystalhd card for my linu netbook!
FSF also has a contract regarding what they can and cannot do. http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/assign.changes.manual
Mod parent up! (Yes, they really do)
Seconded. I *used* to be a Netflix customer, and left after the silence just became awkward. Fortunately, Amazon wants my business instead.
Or subscribe to Amazon's service. Vote with your dollars, folks.
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/news/1140155/Massachusetts-CIO-defends-move-to-OpenDocument http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/massachusetts-open-source-fight-becomes-partisan/506 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/top-national-advocate-for-the-disabled-sets-terms-for-endorsement-of-opendocument-format/2163 (among many others)
Not all: http://zareason.com/shop/ZaReason-s-Open-Hardware-Warranty.html
I mean, don't you have to connect to PSN to get the updates that kill OtherOS? If so, I see only win. :)
I mean, that's the icing on the cake. The decision they've forced for us OtherOS users is between staying away from GameOS and PSN or staying away from PSN and getting another SPU and access to the GPU. I don't see the downside, frankly.
But they did. Instead of using a program to do the clicking, they used humans.
It's worth reading the IE privacy policy to see what all they reserve the right to do with what you do in IE. I don't see the limitations regarding which components specifically will spy on you; some mention it specifically and then there's a broad statement about recording what you do and sending it to Redmond.
IMHO, that's the real story here. That, and the fact that people apparently still need reminding that MSFT is an advertiser just like GOOG, just less successful at it to date.
MSFT sells clicks too (don't forget that the primary reason MSFT is trying to kill GOOG is to seize its advertising revenue. MSFT is a major player in the advertising space.
yes, and data from the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps is *only* used against terrorists.
You're right; it's perhaps in the privacy policy (arguably, this is part of the EULA, but it's also a separate document):
(source: TOFA: http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914) It's worth reading the rest of the privacy policy; apparently other bits of IE can and will send your information to Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/privacy.aspx
> quite arguably libelous claiming or inferring that a competitor is stealing your product. Perhaps, but the > If they actually believe this to be true, why not launch an actual lawsuit. Umm, this is true of so many things. And also completely irrelevant to "Microsoft is spying on (some set of) IE users." > Otherwise, I'd just call it competition Currently, the argument you're trying to present, "Microsoft copying Google's search results is just competition" is orthogonal to the discussion I'm having, "Microsoft is spying on (some set of) IE users."
I don't follow your argument. You have to be either a person (e.g. the click farms) or a script (pretty clear) simulating being an interested person clicking on an ad with the aim of causing the website owner to get paid by the advertising company in order for it to be click fraud.
it's not just IE, though it's the one currently involved. You need to read what your software vendor reserves the right to do, particularly in the realm of installing code without your knowledge or (further) consent and spying. It'll still be interesting to see the anti-Google Microsofties keep up the refrain of Google spies on you, so use Microsoft instead.
They do spy on (sorry, gather 'click stream' data from) IE users (through IE itself, or one of its add-ons). Read those EULAs veeery carefully, folks!
Somehow this extremely relevant part of the story keeps getting skipped over whenever it's being told.
The 'click fraud' accusation is hilarious and quite arguably libelous as fraud (and click fraud) is a real criminal act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud
"Click fraud is a type of Internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad's link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud.
Use of a computer to commit this type of Internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example, as covered by Penal code 502 in California, USA."
(also claimed to be a felony at http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/click-fraud.html with claims of arrests.)