Well, Google's official suggestion of how to avoid their cross-service information sharing is to have multiple accounts (one for search, one for gmail, etc.). So it sound like they're fine with it.
Creating an account on a new website means going through a singup form
You know what's even better? Not requiring creating an account at all.
All before knowing if what you're signing up for is really worth it.
I would never create an account at a site unless I had a very compelling reason to do so. Certainly not sight-unseen. It doesn't matter if "creating an account" consists of linking to a social network account or doing it the old-fashioned way.
The only information we get through from the services is email and avatar so I can't see the opportunities for targetted advertising (at least from our end). What do you mean?
Your end isn't the problem. It's the social site's end that's the problem. If I want to use your site even despite requiring an account somewhere, why in the world would I want to bring a third party into it and allow them to know every time I log into your site? That's just between you and me.
Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID.
Not everybody. This infinitely increases the barrier of entry for people like me, who do not have FB or Twitter and is unwilling to use my google ID for anything at all outside of making my phone work.
In this case, there's no loss. The Gawker family of sites are abysmal anyway.
And the new features being added to Firefox of course are no reason to keep updating it.
For me, no, the new features are not compelling (and I wish many of them would cease to exist).
This is one of my main issues with the rapid-release stuff, that it's impossible to get bug fixes without getting unwanted new features.
Technology always moves forward. Should we pause all advancements to ensure that everything stays compatible?
No, but on the other hand, advancements come with a cost. Depending on the user's needs, it can be that the cost isn't worth it to them. In the case of FF, the cost is nowhere near worth it for me. I cannot even imagine a new browser feature that would be so compelling that I'm willing to sacrifice compatibility for it, although that's probably due to my own lack of imagination.
And why is it that this library (not sure what to call it) is the one with the problems? If firefox updates are breaking it, then something must be broken with the library itself.
As I commented above, for me this isn't about blame. This is about the usefulness of the tool, and FF is becoming less useful (for me) over time. Whether this is the fault of FF or not is irrelevant. If FF can't do what I need, for any reason, then it can't do what I need.
Because FF is the only one that has developed the compatibility problem.
From my point of view, it's not a question of "blame". It's a question of "does this tool meet my needs"? And for FF, the answer is increasingly "no" due in no small part to these kinds of issues. Is that the fault of FF? It doesn't matter. If FF doesn't work, it doesn't work, regardless of the reasons.
Google is not a 100% virtuous company by a longshot, but it's not evil overall. Google is honest with you about what it gathers and what it does with it. Google does not pull sneaky strong-arm tactics to try to trick you into giving it money.
But let's face it, any company that gets to be a certain size has dirty hands. That doesn't mean all hands are equally dirty. Apple & Microsoft have a long history of bad behavior, predating Google.
From the choices on the market right now? A Blackberry, maybe. If not that, then I wouldn't get a smartphone at all. Smartphones are luxuries. For what I actually need, a feature phone is actually plenty fine.
Long run, I would hope that the smartphone market doesn't descend into a defacto monopoly and there would be some yet-to-be-seen alternative.
For certain, I won't be giving Apple or Microsoft a single thin dime.
Between Apple and Microsoft, it's becoming impossible to own a smartphone without paying money to some truly awful corporation. I hope my current one won't have to be my last.
It would actually be better if they would create a secured server in which only vetted apps are in it.
I suspect that this isn't so easy to do, based on the fact that nobody is doing this in a really effective way yet. Google does as good a job of it as anybody else.
As usual, we don't like the band after they go mainstream.
No, that's not it. It's that we're being asked to trust third parties with the bulk of our personal data. Running your own server is better because you only have to trust yourself (and it can be just as -- if not more -- easy-to-use as any commercial offering). It has nothing to do with popularity.
Then don't use cloud-based services. That's the route I take -- I just don't use them. I do use an Android phone and apparently will be using the cloud for apps, but that's all.
If you want cloud services, then use encryption -- but understand, if you're truly concerned, that encryption will not guarantee that your stuff stays private. All public key encryption is breakable without difficulty to someone who has access to a large sampling of your encrypted data and lots of CPU cycles to throw at the problem. Such as cloud providers do.
That said, I think it is still reasonable to assume that those vehemently objecting to this standardisation process are a small minority of the Internet-using public, while those who consume DRM'd content are a substantial majority.
That's likely true, but is meaningless. The number of people objecting to any part of any standards proposal are always a small minority of the total population. That has no bearing on whether or not their objections are worth considering.
Given that we're debating whether something is significant enough to justify standardisation and the effort for browser makers to support the new standard, I think the number of people using it (or, if you prefer, to proportion of the user base using it) is the most important consideration.
I disagree completely on this point. The number of people using it is sometimes, but not always, an important consideration -- but never the most important one. Technical & design considerations must always come first.
So you think a standards committee should favour the views of a relatively small minority who philosophically oppose any DRM, as opposed to the relatively large majority who consume DRM'd content all the time without objecting? You have an interesting idea of what standards are for.;-)
Wait a sec. Those two groups, opponents to DRM and those who consume DRM'd content, are not opposites. Probably the vast majority of DRM opponents consume at least some DRM'd content. Your question is based on the false proposition that those two groups are opposed to each other.
It will just cost more for everyone to get it, because the millions of customers who are happy to accept protected content and ultimately paying for everything will have to subsidise the development of many non-standard DRM platforms instead of only one standardised approach.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I, for one, think that the millions of customers who are fine with DRM should be the ones to subsidize its development. Not the standards committee, not the browser manufacturers, etc.
I suggest not polluting HTML5 with this stuff. If DRM is really that necessary, then they can make a plugin or standalone app to do it. It shouldn't be a part of the standard.
If open source browsers don't want to work within that environment
This isn't really about open source at all. This is about what is appropriate and correct to have in a public standard.
I hope they don't, because I'm very happy with the current movie offerings. I just saw In Time and it was great movie. I doubt something like that could be made with amateurs. I was happy to pay for it, because it gave me good value and I know making good entertainment costs a lot of money.
Your point isn't relevant to this. The issue of DRM is independent of the issue of piracy. It is entirely possible to do away with all DRM and have the major studios still make bucketloads of money producing their overpriced schlock.
My goal isn't to change the company's behavior. That's impossible. My goal is to escape, as far as possible, being a part of it. If companies ignore me because I try to dodge their data collection, then hooray! I was successful.
It's not the targeted marketing that I find detestable, it's the data mining that is detestable. It is detestable that any company can learn such intimate details about people without their conscious, informed consent. This is a grave privacy invasion, and it can only stop being an invasion if the companies are invited in a meaningful way.
That targeted marketing is economically efficient doesn't make it a good thing, by the way. There are lots of objectionable things that are very economically efficient. I also disagree with the notion that targeted marketing is incredibly helpful to consumers. For that to be true, then advertising in general would have to be informative and honest. But it's not -- with very few exceptions, advertising is misleading and manipulative. Whether or not its targeted doesn't affect that one way or the other.
It's a fine point, to be sure, but I feel compelled to make it: I don't mind targeted ads any more or less than nontargeted ones. I ignore them all equally. It's the data mining I object to.
Absolutely detestable. And common. This type of thing is precisely why I take great pains to avoid being tracked, online and off. Pay cash, don't use affinity cards, block all online ads, javascript, etc., and avoid doing business with companies that use these types of methods.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Google's official suggestion of how to avoid their cross-service information sharing is to have multiple accounts (one for search, one for gmail, etc.). So it sound like they're fine with it.
Creating an account on a new website means going through a singup form
You know what's even better? Not requiring creating an account at all.
All before knowing if what you're signing up for is really worth it.
I would never create an account at a site unless I had a very compelling reason to do so. Certainly not sight-unseen. It doesn't matter if "creating an account" consists of linking to a social network account or doing it the old-fashioned way.
The only information we get through from the services is email and avatar so I can't see the opportunities for targetted advertising (at least from our end). What do you mean?
Your end isn't the problem. It's the social site's end that's the problem. If I want to use your site even despite requiring an account somewhere, why in the world would I want to bring a third party into it and allow them to know every time I log into your site? That's just between you and me.
Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID.
Not everybody. This infinitely increases the barrier of entry for people like me, who do not have FB or Twitter and is unwilling to use my google ID for anything at all outside of making my phone work.
In this case, there's no loss. The Gawker family of sites are abysmal anyway.
And the new features being added to Firefox of course are no reason to keep updating it.
For me, no, the new features are not compelling (and I wish many of them would cease to exist).
This is one of my main issues with the rapid-release stuff, that it's impossible to get bug fixes without getting unwanted new features.
Technology always moves forward. Should we pause all advancements to ensure that everything stays compatible?
No, but on the other hand, advancements come with a cost. Depending on the user's needs, it can be that the cost isn't worth it to them. In the case of FF, the cost is nowhere near worth it for me. I cannot even imagine a new browser feature that would be so compelling that I'm willing to sacrifice compatibility for it, although that's probably due to my own lack of imagination.
And why is it that this library (not sure what to call it) is the one with the problems? If firefox updates are breaking it, then something must be broken with the library itself.
As I commented above, for me this isn't about blame. This is about the usefulness of the tool, and FF is becoming less useful (for me) over time. Whether this is the fault of FF or not is irrelevant. If FF can't do what I need, for any reason, then it can't do what I need.
I choose compatibility. Vulnerability can be addressed in other ways.
Yes. I hate this rapid-release fad. The downsides far outweigh the upsides for me.
Because FF is the only one that has developed the compatibility problem.
From my point of view, it's not a question of "blame". It's a question of "does this tool meet my needs"? And for FF, the answer is increasingly "no" due in no small part to these kinds of issues. Is that the fault of FF? It doesn't matter. If FF doesn't work, it doesn't work, regardless of the reasons.
Google is not a 100% virtuous company by a longshot, but it's not evil overall. Google is honest with you about what it gathers and what it does with it. Google does not pull sneaky strong-arm tactics to try to trick you into giving it money.
But let's face it, any company that gets to be a certain size has dirty hands. That doesn't mean all hands are equally dirty. Apple & Microsoft have a long history of bad behavior, predating Google.
From the choices on the market right now? A Blackberry, maybe. If not that, then I wouldn't get a smartphone at all. Smartphones are luxuries. For what I actually need, a feature phone is actually plenty fine.
Long run, I would hope that the smartphone market doesn't descend into a defacto monopoly and there would be some yet-to-be-seen alternative.
For certain, I won't be giving Apple or Microsoft a single thin dime.
Between Apple and Microsoft, it's becoming impossible to own a smartphone without paying money to some truly awful corporation. I hope my current one won't have to be my last.
It would actually be better if they would create a secured server in which only vetted apps are in it.
I suspect that this isn't so easy to do, based on the fact that nobody is doing this in a really effective way yet. Google does as good a job of it as anybody else.
I have read it. That it's one of the best privacy policies around doesn't mean it's a good privacy policy. Personally, I chafe at it.
As usual, we don't like the band after they go mainstream.
No, that's not it. It's that we're being asked to trust third parties with the bulk of our personal data. Running your own server is better because you only have to trust yourself (and it can be just as -- if not more -- easy-to-use as any commercial offering). It has nothing to do with popularity.
Then don't use cloud-based services. That's the route I take -- I just don't use them. I do use an Android phone and apparently will be using the cloud for apps, but that's all.
If you want cloud services, then use encryption -- but understand, if you're truly concerned, that encryption will not guarantee that your stuff stays private. All public key encryption is breakable without difficulty to someone who has access to a large sampling of your encrypted data and lots of CPU cycles to throw at the problem. Such as cloud providers do.
Yes, but the perfectly normal desktop keeps getting obscured by that damned Metro interface. Why can't Microsoft let us turn Metro off completely?
Yeah, that's new to me too. Learn something new every day! Not really very useful to me, but still, good to know.
That said, I think it is still reasonable to assume that those vehemently objecting to this standardisation process are a small minority of the Internet-using public, while those who consume DRM'd content are a substantial majority.
That's likely true, but is meaningless. The number of people objecting to any part of any standards proposal are always a small minority of the total population. That has no bearing on whether or not their objections are worth considering.
Given that we're debating whether something is significant enough to justify standardisation and the effort for browser makers to support the new standard, I think the number of people using it (or, if you prefer, to proportion of the user base using it) is the most important consideration.
I disagree completely on this point. The number of people using it is sometimes, but not always, an important consideration -- but never the most important one. Technical & design considerations must always come first.
So you think a standards committee should favour the views of a relatively small minority who philosophically oppose any DRM, as opposed to the relatively large majority who consume DRM'd content all the time without objecting? You have an interesting idea of what standards are for. ;-)
Wait a sec. Those two groups, opponents to DRM and those who consume DRM'd content, are not opposites. Probably the vast majority of DRM opponents consume at least some DRM'd content. Your question is based on the false proposition that those two groups are opposed to each other.
It will just cost more for everyone to get it, because the millions of customers who are happy to accept protected content and ultimately paying for everything will have to subsidise the development of many non-standard DRM platforms instead of only one standardised approach.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I, for one, think that the millions of customers who are fine with DRM should be the ones to subsidize its development. Not the standards committee, not the browser manufacturers, etc.
So what do you suggest?
I suggest not polluting HTML5 with this stuff. If DRM is really that necessary, then they can make a plugin or standalone app to do it. It shouldn't be a part of the standard.
If open source browsers don't want to work within that environment
This isn't really about open source at all. This is about what is appropriate and correct to have in a public standard.
I hope they don't, because I'm very happy with the current movie offerings. I just saw In Time and it was great movie. I doubt something like that could be made with amateurs. I was happy to pay for it, because it gave me good value and I know making good entertainment costs a lot of money.
Your point isn't relevant to this. The issue of DRM is independent of the issue of piracy. It is entirely possible to do away with all DRM and have the major studios still make bucketloads of money producing their overpriced schlock.
My goal isn't to change the company's behavior. That's impossible. My goal is to escape, as far as possible, being a part of it. If companies ignore me because I try to dodge their data collection, then hooray! I was successful.
It's not the targeted marketing that I find detestable, it's the data mining that is detestable. It is detestable that any company can learn such intimate details about people without their conscious, informed consent. This is a grave privacy invasion, and it can only stop being an invasion if the companies are invited in a meaningful way.
That targeted marketing is economically efficient doesn't make it a good thing, by the way. There are lots of objectionable things that are very economically efficient. I also disagree with the notion that targeted marketing is incredibly helpful to consumers. For that to be true, then advertising in general would have to be informative and honest. But it's not -- with very few exceptions, advertising is misleading and manipulative. Whether or not its targeted doesn't affect that one way or the other.
It's a fine point, to be sure, but I feel compelled to make it: I don't mind targeted ads any more or less than nontargeted ones. I ignore them all equally. It's the data mining I object to.
Absolutely detestable. And common. This type of thing is precisely why I take great pains to avoid being tracked, online and off. Pay cash, don't use affinity cards, block all online ads, javascript, etc., and avoid doing business with companies that use these types of methods.