Such a shame... your comment started so well but just had to end with a gratuitous insult.
Mobile phone networks know your physical location, near enough, with any mobile phone you might use. Apple doesn't. The iPhone doesn't "track you and your physical location at all times". Only when the application being run requests it, and the user is notified that such a thing is happening, and asked for permission.
True about the cell phone tracking. However, there are some legal restraints about what can be done with that information. Apple and app developers are only restrained by the license agreement. Perhaps I should have been clearer -- I was going by the license agreement, which states:
We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising.
Maybe you'll be told when you're tracked, maybe it can be disabled, but maybe not. You've given Apple (and whoever they designate) blanket permission to track you without notification, and they don't have to let you disable it.
If you choose to trust that they don't, and will never, misuse this permission, that's fine. But it's hardly tin-foil-hat to simply assume that they include such language for a reason and will adhere to it.
The UID identifies the iPhone within XCode. It enables things like authentication without passwords for (trivial) applications. For example if I have an app with profiles, and that app is only usable on the iPhone, there is no need for a password or login, I can just use the UID.
Big whoop.
It may not be a big deal to you, but it sure is to me. Particularly given how atrocious the terms of their license are when it comes to privacy. They can, and do, track you and your physical location at all times, and can do anything they like with that information.
In my view, it's bad enough that they are so cavalier about personally identifiable information int he first place. It's even worse that such information is readily available to random app developers.
Not ironically, Morissette's explanation jibes completely with how I interpreted the song from the first time I heard it. It seems so obvious to me that I remain amazed at the number of people who missed the joke so completely that they think she made a mistake even after it's explained to them.
I suppose so! The only time I felt afraid on a bus was one time when the brakes failed, and there's only very rarely traffic accidents involving buses.
Line-tracking, however, is susceptible to errors that are very easy to come across on city streets. Like dirt over the lines or on the lens.
Yes. At least, from what I understand through the translated text, the bus could run both on a rail (for maximum energy efficiency) and also like a bus, using video tracking technology to follow white lines on the pavement. Although, I think I'd prefer a human driver instead.
also is the act of downloading copyrighted IP's illegal if you own a legal copy of the IP?
Well, as I understand it (and IANAL), simply downloading is not illegal. Uploading is (and if you're downloading from a torrent, you're uploading as well.)
What I know for fact is that if you're sharing IP in either direction, whether or not you legally own a copy of the IP is irrelevant to the legality of the sharing.
My understanding is that a single copy for archival purposes is allowed.
There is no strict number of copies allowed. However, it's also not true to say that any time you copy a DVD for any purpose it's a copyright violation. There are many circumstances under which it's not, and backups have generally been held to be one of them. Having a large number of backup copies might be taken as evidence that your purpose was something other than backing the DVD up, though.
Also, the backups and the original must be treated as an indivisible unit. I.e., if you lend/sell/give the original (or any backup), then all other copies must go along as well.
Good lord, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thank you.
You tube itself (the videos) are generally fine, but the comment section is one of the more famous and major of the internet cesspools. I would never characterize it as "kid-friendly".
Most people have an idea of what they like, but not the specifics of what they want. So, in fact, if advertising is targeted well, most people it targets would appreciate the information (even if they object to the way it's delivered).
True enough, when I need or want something then I have an idea of what it is. Then I go out and do a little research. 15 minutes with Google makes this easy.
What I don't want is for advertisers to seek me out. I don't care how well-targeted the ads are -- in fact, the better targeted they are the more objectionable I find them. I will seek out the products I want and need. I don't want them to seek me out, ever. Advertising is the primary reason I don't watch television or listen to the radio, and is the reason I use ad-blockers.
I can already hear the retort, though: "how will I know about new things I didn't know I want/need?" The answer is: friends.
I hate advertising with a passion. I don't hate the concept of advertising -- it could be done in a way I wouldn't find objectionable. Actually be informative, truthful, and complete, for example, rather than selling an image or distorting the value and qualities of the product. Even then, though, I would still loathe targeted advertising. Companies are not my friends, and I don't want them behaving as if they are. This includes any level of "knowing" me.
My big problem with the show was finding stations that broadcast it. I don't know if it was ever listed, but even his web site didn't list the stations that carried it! How the heck are you supposed to find a program to listen to if you can't find a list of stations that carry it?!
That was my problem with the show since I first heard it as a young sprout back in the early 80s in Portland, OR. Even then, it would move suddenly and without warning to a random other radio station every so often. I would then spend a stupid amount of time scanning the radio dial during the time when it was on the air, until I would finally find it's new hiding spot.
Eventually, I got a life and lost it for good. The show was incredible for me, I missed it ever since. My collection of Dr. Demento records (yes, as in vinyl) was thin gruel. I am so sad that it is passing.
Even sadder when I think what could have been, if only they made the transition to the internet. I suppose is wasn't as obvious how to do that then as it is now, but it is tragic anyway.
Read carefully: the iPad/iPhone is NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER.
By definition only. Their GP computerness is their only real selling point. Technically, they are indeed general purpose computers.
However, even granting that it's not, my response is... so what? Calling them "appliances" doesn't make developing for Apple's device any more palatable.
It's a bit of a nonissue for me, really. Apple's platform is not attractive to develop for, so once I finish a project I've already committed to, I won't do it anymore.
The thing that makes it emotional for me is that these devices could have been truly great. They come so close, it hurts. I mourn for the lost opportunity.
I'm taking Jobs up on his advice, and have finally decided on the smart phone for me -- a Nexus One. I'd been leaning that way anyhow, but this sealed the deal.
Not that I want to use it for porn (I don't -- my desktop machine is far more conveniently placed for fapping), but that I don't want someone else to tell me what I can or cannot have available on my device. Particularly not someone or some company who decides to be the Morals Police.
I know, and it's a reasonable stopgap solution, I suppose. But wouldn't it be much better if these things were not ridiculously overpriced in the first place? That's the real long-term solution, not charity.
No argument there, but a cup of coffee doesn't require $3700 up front. I'm just saying that there are quite a lot of people who can't come up with that kind of money, regardless of the long-term economics. Most people, at least in the US, would find that a substantial hardship.
It doesn't matter how good the deal is over the long term if you can't come up with the buy-in at all.
$3700 doesn't sound so bad for something that improves your quality of life so much.
$3700 may as well be a billion for a huge number of people, particularly nowadays. The amount it improves your life isn't relevant if there's simply no chance you can afford it.
Bad move? Really? What are people going to do about it if Google chooses to be evil? Stop using Google? Seriously? Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least?
Actually, yes, I have been doing without Google for a couple of years now. I started weaning off when Google started censoring their Chinese search engine in the first place.
Admittedly, I do wish Google wouldn't be evil, because they have nice tools, but between the censorship, spying, and throwing their weight around like the monopolist they are striving to be, I have no hope that they'll be any different than any other huge corporation.
If Google's search engine and Gmail... came with a paid subscription, then I wouldn't use them...
But I might (I don't use them right now.)
Sorry, but I consider this to be a good deal... Google can mine my data all day long, I don't care.
I never said it wasn't a good deal -- whether or not the price is acceptable is a purely personal calculation. My point is that it's not accurate to call Google's service "free."
I think we need to consider browsing a webpage on a domain as similar as being on someone's private property. How is this different from a company monitoring that this page gets more click-throughs than that page? Monitoring what is being selected allows them to see what the really interesting parts of the story are.
When I go to a page and download it to my computer to be viewed, which is what a web browser does, I have visited the "private property" and understand that the web site has a record of what I've done -- which is to download their page.
However, once I have the page I am no longer on their property -- I am on my own private property now, and they no longer have any right to record my activities. To use the shopping center analogy, what Tynt is doing is like putting a tiny camera on a piece of merchandise and then reporting what I'm doing with it when I get it home. Although in the case of Tynt, it's even worse because they are using my own computer (my own private property) to engage in the snooping. That's highly objectionable to me, but not necessarily immoral per se.
The immoral part is when this is done without my knowledge, as it is with Tynt. If I could know that such a system was being used then I could choose whether or not that was something I was OK with. Keeping it secret means I am deprived of that choice. Even shopping centers have signs disclosing that they are watching you.
Someone spying on me is harm, even if it doesn't directly cost me money or stop me from engaging in activity. Harm comes in a lot of flavors.
Would you argue that it is harmless for entities to observe your every move even if they do not prevent you from engaging in legal behavior? I believe it is not harmless, that such surveillance does great harm to the social fabric, as well as simply being immoral.
I don't understand what the big deal is. I'm stealing someone's content to quote verbatim in an email, or something like that, they have the right to know they're being quoted. Maybe not the "right", but they should have the ability.
No, they shouldn't. First of all, it is perfectly possible, and extremely common, to quote someone's content verbatim and still remain within both the letter and the spirit of the law. It's called "fair use." (Even if you are engaging in copyright violation, yuo are NOT "stealing" anything, either legally or ethically. You are breaking the law, but a different law.)
The content creator has no natural right to track all uses of that content. If I quote a paragraph in an email as part of a larger discussion, the original author has no right, and should not expect, to be notified about it. Period. If a mechanism is installed that notifies the creator without the participants being aware of it, that is spying and that is evil.
(I know that tynt doesn't spy on email, I'm just running with the commenter's example.)
Slashdot Mirror
Such a shame... your comment started so well but just had to end with a gratuitous insult.
True about the cell phone tracking. However, there are some legal restraints about what can be done with that information. Apple and app developers are only restrained by the license agreement. Perhaps I should have been clearer -- I was going by the license agreement, which states:
Maybe you'll be told when you're tracked, maybe it can be disabled, but maybe not. You've given Apple (and whoever they designate) blanket permission to track you without notification, and they don't have to let you disable it.
If you choose to trust that they don't, and will never, misuse this permission, that's fine. But it's hardly tin-foil-hat to simply assume that they include such language for a reason and will adhere to it.
The UID identifies the iPhone within XCode. It enables things like authentication without passwords for (trivial) applications. For example if I have an app with profiles, and that app is only usable on the iPhone, there is no need for a password or login, I can just use the UID.
Big whoop.
It may not be a big deal to you, but it sure is to me. Particularly given how atrocious the terms of their license are when it comes to privacy. They can, and do, track you and your physical location at all times, and can do anything they like with that information.
In my view, it's bad enough that they are so cavalier about personally identifiable information int he first place. It's even worse that such information is readily available to random app developers.
This is a showstopper.
Not ironically, Morissette's explanation jibes completely with how I interpreted the song from the first time I heard it. It seems so obvious to me that I remain amazed at the number of people who missed the joke so completely that they think she made a mistake even after it's explained to them.
I suppose so! The only time I felt afraid on a bus was one time when the brakes failed, and there's only very rarely traffic accidents involving buses.
Line-tracking, however, is susceptible to errors that are very easy to come across on city streets. Like dirt over the lines or on the lens.
"Is this on a rail or not?"
Yes. At least, from what I understand through the translated text, the bus could run both on a rail (for maximum energy efficiency) and also like a bus, using video tracking technology to follow white lines on the pavement. Although, I think I'd prefer a human driver instead.
also is the act of downloading copyrighted IP's illegal if you own a legal copy of the IP?
Well, as I understand it (and IANAL), simply downloading is not illegal. Uploading is (and if you're downloading from a torrent, you're uploading as well.)
What I know for fact is that if you're sharing IP in either direction, whether or not you legally own a copy of the IP is irrelevant to the legality of the sharing.
My understanding is that a single copy for archival purposes is allowed.
There is no strict number of copies allowed. However, it's also not true to say that any time you copy a DVD for any purpose it's a copyright violation. There are many circumstances under which it's not, and backups have generally been held to be one of them. Having a large number of backup copies might be taken as evidence that your purpose was something other than backing the DVD up, though.
Also, the backups and the original must be treated as an indivisible unit. I.e., if you lend/sell/give the original (or any backup), then all other copies must go along as well.
YouTube is supposed to be a kid-friendly place.
Good lord, that's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thank you.
You tube itself (the videos) are generally fine, but the comment section is one of the more famous and major of the internet cesspools. I would never characterize it as "kid-friendly".
True enough, when I need or want something then I have an idea of what it is. Then I go out and do a little research. 15 minutes with Google makes this easy.
What I don't want is for advertisers to seek me out. I don't care how well-targeted the ads are -- in fact, the better targeted they are the more objectionable I find them. I will seek out the products I want and need. I don't want them to seek me out, ever. Advertising is the primary reason I don't watch television or listen to the radio, and is the reason I use ad-blockers.
I can already hear the retort, though: "how will I know about new things I didn't know I want/need?" The answer is: friends.
I hate advertising with a passion. I don't hate the concept of advertising -- it could be done in a way I wouldn't find objectionable. Actually be informative, truthful, and complete, for example, rather than selling an image or distorting the value and qualities of the product. Even then, though, I would still loathe targeted advertising. Companies are not my friends, and I don't want them behaving as if they are. This includes any level of "knowing" me.
My big problem with the show was finding stations that broadcast it. I don't know if it was ever listed, but even his web site didn't list the stations that carried it! How the heck are you supposed to find a program to listen to if you can't find a list of stations that carry it?!
That was my problem with the show since I first heard it as a young sprout back in the early 80s in Portland, OR. Even then, it would move suddenly and without warning to a random other radio station every so often. I would then spend a stupid amount of time scanning the radio dial during the time when it was on the air, until I would finally find it's new hiding spot.
Eventually, I got a life and lost it for good. The show was incredible for me, I missed it ever since. My collection of Dr. Demento records (yes, as in vinyl) was thin gruel. I am so sad that it is passing.
Even sadder when I think what could have been, if only they made the transition to the internet. I suppose is wasn't as obvious how to do that then as it is now, but it is tragic anyway.
Read carefully: the iPad/iPhone is NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER.
By definition only. Their GP computerness is their only real selling point. Technically, they are indeed general purpose computers.
However, even granting that it's not, my response is... so what? Calling them "appliances" doesn't make developing for Apple's device any more palatable.
It's a bit of a nonissue for me, really. Apple's platform is not attractive to develop for, so once I finish a project I've already committed to, I won't do it anymore.
The thing that makes it emotional for me is that these devices could have been truly great. They come so close, it hurts. I mourn for the lost opportunity.
I'm taking Jobs up on his advice, and have finally decided on the smart phone for me -- a Nexus One. I'd been leaning that way anyhow, but this sealed the deal.
Not that I want to use it for porn (I don't -- my desktop machine is far more conveniently placed for fapping), but that I don't want someone else to tell me what I can or cannot have available on my device. Particularly not someone or some company who decides to be the Morals Police.
I know, and it's a reasonable stopgap solution, I suppose. But wouldn't it be much better if these things were not ridiculously overpriced in the first place? That's the real long-term solution, not charity.
No argument there, but a cup of coffee doesn't require $3700 up front. I'm just saying that there are quite a lot of people who can't come up with that kind of money, regardless of the long-term economics. Most people, at least in the US, would find that a substantial hardship.
It doesn't matter how good the deal is over the long term if you can't come up with the buy-in at all.
$3700 doesn't sound so bad for something that improves your quality of life so much.
$3700 may as well be a billion for a huge number of people, particularly nowadays. The amount it improves your life isn't relevant if there's simply no chance you can afford it.
Maybe the Chinese government asked them to continue operations to help lure out the attackers?
Maybe so, but I couldn't think of anything less relevant. The problem with China isn't the hacking, it's the censorship and oppression.
Bad move? Really? What are people going to do about it if Google chooses to be evil? Stop using Google? Seriously? Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least?
Actually, yes, I have been doing without Google for a couple of years now. I started weaning off when Google started censoring their Chinese search engine in the first place.
Admittedly, I do wish Google wouldn't be evil, because they have nice tools, but between the censorship, spying, and throwing their weight around like the monopolist they are striving to be, I have no hope that they'll be any different than any other huge corporation.
it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted. Can they?
No.
This has been another episode of short answers to easy questions.
I don't care what goes on behind the scenes. I care about the end result. And this end result, while unsurprising, sucks.
Google's soul is still sold, and they haven't reduced their evil level one bit. So sad.
If Google's search engine and Gmail ... came with a paid subscription, then I wouldn't use them ...
But I might (I don't use them right now.)
Sorry, but I consider this to be a good deal ... Google can mine my data all day long, I don't care.
I never said it wasn't a good deal -- whether or not the price is acceptable is a purely personal calculation. My point is that it's not accurate to call Google's service "free."
I like using all their free stuff, and my Nexus One is the cat's pajamas.
Nothing Google provides is for free. You pay for everything by exchanging access to your personal information for it.
Hmm, I use noscript and have no problem at all with Slashdot. Configuring it was easy as pie for me. I guess YMMV.
I think we need to consider browsing a webpage on a domain as similar as being on someone's private property. How is this different from a company monitoring that this page gets more click-throughs than that page? Monitoring what is being selected allows them to see what the really interesting parts of the story are.
When I go to a page and download it to my computer to be viewed, which is what a web browser does, I have visited the "private property" and understand that the web site has a record of what I've done -- which is to download their page.
However, once I have the page I am no longer on their property -- I am on my own private property now, and they no longer have any right to record my activities. To use the shopping center analogy, what Tynt is doing is like putting a tiny camera on a piece of merchandise and then reporting what I'm doing with it when I get it home. Although in the case of Tynt, it's even worse because they are using my own computer (my own private property) to engage in the snooping. That's highly objectionable to me, but not necessarily immoral per se.
The immoral part is when this is done without my knowledge, as it is with Tynt. If I could know that such a system was being used then I could choose whether or not that was something I was OK with. Keeping it secret means I am deprived of that choice. Even shopping centers have signs disclosing that they are watching you.
Someone spying on me is harm, even if it doesn't directly cost me money or stop me from engaging in activity. Harm comes in a lot of flavors.
Would you argue that it is harmless for entities to observe your every move even if they do not prevent you from engaging in legal behavior? I believe it is not harmless, that such surveillance does great harm to the social fabric, as well as simply being immoral.
I don't understand what the big deal is. I'm stealing someone's content to quote verbatim in an email, or something like that, they have the right to know they're being quoted. Maybe not the "right", but they should have the ability.
No, they shouldn't. First of all, it is perfectly possible, and extremely common, to quote someone's content verbatim and still remain within both the letter and the spirit of the law. It's called "fair use." (Even if you are engaging in copyright violation, yuo are NOT "stealing" anything, either legally or ethically. You are breaking the law, but a different law.)
The content creator has no natural right to track all uses of that content. If I quote a paragraph in an email as part of a larger discussion, the original author has no right, and should not expect, to be notified about it. Period. If a mechanism is installed that notifies the creator without the participants being aware of it, that is spying and that is evil.
(I know that tynt doesn't spy on email, I'm just running with the commenter's example.)