My question was about technical advantages/disadvantages. Since the target audience is people who don't use anything, relative popularity doesn't matter.
Mainly because FaceTime "just works" whereas Google Hangouts still to this day has "issues" wherein there'll be audio without video, weird disconnects, etc. For non-technical users FaceTime is a simple one-click solution that's the closest thing we have to the "video phone" of the future as shown in the past.
Hmm. I haven't experienced the issues you describe with Hangouts -- and I use it for hours every day, on many different devices (most of my business meetings are via Hangouts). Not sure if I'm just lucky or what. I guess I do see disconnects, once in a blue moon.
An iPad with FaceTime. Sorry, but this is really the simplest one out there.
Why is it better than a good Android tablet with Google Hangouts? Serious question, looking for a serious answer. I'm wondering if there really is anything that Apple has done here that's significantly better, or if it's just a question of inertia/bias.
There is no difference between a share with a comment on G+ and a comment on YouTube. They are the same thing. I think there's an argument to be made that shares without any comment are noise on YouTube... of course, I think they're largely noise on G+ as well, so maybe the solution is to find a way to encourage people to write something when sharing.
I do not see how this can be considered circumvention or contempt. Google has a long history of being transparent in this way. They make public what content they delist because of copyright violations and it is only right that they inform a website when they do similar for "right to be forgotten".
Further, if you read Google's document they indicate that in the case of data protection removals they inform the webmaster of the URL that has been de-listed, with no information about the details of the request or the requester. This seems like a sensible and serious attempt to balance the right of the webmaster to know that his content is no longer being indexed (for some searches) with the right of privacy of the person requesting removal.
It also seems to be the cause of the hoopla a few weeks back which put Google in the crosshairs of many who claimed the company was trying to sensationalize the removals. Google had removed the link when the searched topic was the name of a commenter on the article (who asked for it to be removed), but not when the searched topic was person the article was about, or other relevant terms. The webmaster saw that the URL had be de-listed for some searches and the paper wrote an article about how the URL had been removed entirely, even though it was obviously in the public interest, asserting that Google was intentionally removing things that weren't justified under the law in order to provoke a backlash against it. The assumption that it had been removed entirely was incorrect, of course, but Google couldn't provide information about the rationale or scope of the removal without violating the privacy of the requester.
I, personally, think the "right to be forgotten" is ridiculous, but it appears to me that Google is trying very hard to comply with it, letter and spirit.
(Disclosure: I'm a Google employee, but I have nothing to do with any of this and know nothing about it beyond what I read in the press. Also, I'm not a company spokesperson of any sort; they pay me to sit at a desk and pound out code.)
Communism is powerful, powerful stuff. So powerful it managed to spread laziness, poverty, and hideously poor engineering in a country populated entirely by Germans.
+1 Insightful.
Given the German peoples' repeatedly demonstrated ability to be an economic powerhouse even against severe odds, that's a really telling point.
Astonishing how well the east german economy worked for nearly 50 years if you consider this, hm... lying to yourself system?
I don't know, I drove through portions of former East Germany not too many years after unification, and from what I saw, it worked *exactly* as well as you'd expect. The difference between west and east was stark and startling. In the west, there were occasional items in need of maintenance and modernization, just as you'll find anywhere, but by and large everything was well-built, well-maintained... and cheerful. The last bit is hard to explain, but it was more than just the use of bright colors on stores and signs, it was just an overall feeling of energy and exuberance. In contrast, nearly everything in the east was poorly-built, in need of maintenance, and drab. The roads were narrow, rough and full of holes. The bridges were rickety-looking and clearly needed maintenance. Many, many of the buildings had sagging rooflines, especially the farmhouses and barns. Much was unpainted, rusting steel, or unpainted, drying and spitting wood and what was painted was clearly painted only to make it last longer because it was all gray and black.
It strikes me that that's *exactly* what I'd expect a culture that habitually pretends to work to fool the planners to produce. No energy, no motivation, no reason to innovate.
From what I understand, it has been a huge burden on western Germany to drag their eastern fellows into the 21st century. The other thing I noticed when driving through east Germany, both that first time and even more a few years later, was that it seemed like they were rebuilding the entire country at once. And I know my west German friends grumbled often about the taxes for reconstruction, though they seemed generally to think that it was a price worth paying.
Australians are generally lazy but get a reputation for being hard workers overseas due to the way we deal with it. The idea is to get into the work as quickly as possibly so we can get it done and bugger off home early:)
I prefer to arrive late and leave early to make up for it.
I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.
I think it's safe to assume that all of the data you put into Google services is fair game. I suspect (but don't know), that Google isn't actually able to make the kind of detailed, nuanced use of the data that is often speculated, but the privacy policy says they collect the data you put into their services, so I'd assume that all of it is collected.
Not withstanding the free-access pipe straight to the NSA..
Doesn't exist. Government requests have to go through the process of being vetted by Google's attorneys and are rejected if not legitimate, including if overly broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to tap the lines between data centers any more, either, because it's all encrypted now.
We'd like to know which data Google sells to who. Its clear that they do sell the data.
They don't, except for aggregated non-personally identifiable. That means it's not possible to identify a person.
Whats the "aggregated" information on breast cancer patients aged 40-41 in zipcode 33333. Oh look ! Its only a single person.
Google isn't that dumb, and neither are attorneys or judges.
I suppose that's true for the shares that don't add a comment. Well, except that I like to see when my G+ friends have shared something, whether I'm looking at it from G+ or from YouTube. So, just removing the text-free shares wouldn't be quite the ticket, either. Hmm.
I have to disagree with that. YouTube is a much friendlier and saner place since the integration. The integration did increase the noise on Google+, but all in all I think it's better.
Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.
What's to "come clean" about? Their privacy policy says they aggregate information about you from all your uses of their services. There you go. That's it. What else do you want to know? What they'll use it for? For providing you services, and for selling ads which they display to you.
Seems pretty obvious and straightforward to me.
(Disclosure: It's not really relevant to the content of my comment, but I'm a Google employee. I'm not, however, a Google spokesperson. The above is my own words and opinions only.)
You can also plead no contest, which has the same result as pleading guilty, but without admitting guilt.
As for the point about Microsoft not being a defendant, you're right that third parties don't have the same options... but they also don't have the same justification for refusal, since compliance will not implicate them in anything, unless, of course, it would implicate them in something else, in which case they can negotiate a deal for qualified immunity.
I have no problem with a court saying that if you refuse to turn over relevant documents then they will be assumed to be as damaging as possible to your case. I do have a problem with them saying that if you don't turn over the documents you'll be subject to potentially indefinite jail time and fines in excess of whatever damages you were accused of inflicting on the other party.
You have the former option as well, if you prefer. You can simply stipulate in court to the prosecution's allegations regarding the evidence. Where this is tantamount to pleading guilty, you can do that, too.
No, our government should be required to go through the other government to get that information. Our government does not have jurisdiction in other countries PERIOD.
True, but irrelevant in cases like this. The US government does have jurisdiction over Microsoft's US operations, and Microsoft's US operations have the ability to retrieve the information from Microsoft's servers in Ireland. The mere fact that the data is in Ireland is no reason that the US company can't be ordered to retrieve the data they control and have access to.
Similarly, if you were being investigated for a crime you could be required by the courts to turn over the records of you Swiss bank account. The court couldn't issue orders to the Swiss bank (though they could make a request, which the bank might choose to honor, or they could ask the Swiss authorities to issue an order to the bank, which the bank would have to honor if the Swiss government chose to cooperate), but it absolutely could issue orders to you, a US person in the US, and your failure to comply would result in you being held in contempt of court, and jailed or otherwise punished until you do comply.
in the long term, the book stores go out of business now its harder to find interesting books.
Nonsense.
Look at Baen's model... the first few chapters of all of their books are available for free, all on-line, all trivially easy for you to browse and sample, at no risk, wherever and whenever it's convenient to you. For that matter, they offer full novels from their top authors for free. So you can read the first book of a 15-novel series at no cost, hooking you for the other 14.
How can book stores, with their limited shelf space and immobility, compete with that?
Of course, that's Baen, not Amazon. Because Baen is a publisher, they have the freedom to do things like offer the first ~50 pages free, while Amazon has to obey the publishers' rules. But in a world where browsing bookshelves is gone, Baen's approach, or something like it, will be necessary to generate sales, so it will be done.
Just because you're accustomed to one way of finding good reading material doesn't mean it's the only one, or even the best one.
I don't know the fine details of this bug, but am I the only one appalled at how obvious this bug sounds? It doesn't even properly check the certificate? I mean buffer overflows and such are one thing, but not properly testing your certificate code seems unforgivable.
No, it's not that it doesn't check certificates generally, it's that if there's an additional, extra certificate of a particular form in the list that forms an app's certificate chain (but isn't actually in the chain) then that extra certificate gets included in the list of signatures associated with an app... making other apps that query the signature list believe that the app is signed by a certificate it's not. This doesn't, for example, fool the Play store into believing an app is from developer A when it's really from developer B. But it can fool other apps. There are some apps that load others as plugins, and make decisions about which plugins to load based on whether they're signed by a particular key. This flaw allows malicious apps to subvert that, convincing the plugin-loading apps to execute them, thereby giving the malicious app the same permissions as the plugin-loading app.
It's a serious security flaw, no doubt. But it's a little more subtle and less obvious than the summary makes it appear. Also, it appears that no app in the Play store, nor any of the other apps that Google has scanned, attempt to exploit the flaw. It's very easy to identify them by scanning the certificates in the package.
I've implemented tests for certificate chain validation code several times (not in Android), and it never once occurred to me to test for this particular odd construction, nor, I think, would anyone else think to test for it without some specific reason. This sort of bug requires inspection of the code.
(Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Android security team, but I'm not speaking in an official capacity, just summarizing what I've read of the vulnerability -- which isn't a great deal. Others on my team are well-informed, but I haven't followed this issue closely.)
Not a universal compressor, a standard compressor, such as gzip. The metric is ultimately just a comparison between the compressor being evaluated and the compressor chosen as the standard, and it is unitless.
That said, I agree with you that the scaling constant has no reason to be present. As for using the logs of times... I don't know. It's essentially a base change, expressing the time of the compressor being evaluated in the base of the standard compressor, which is then multiplied by the ratio of the compression ratios. Handling the time relationship as a base change may have some useful properties, but I can't see what they would be.
The internal "SD Card" is formatted with a Unix-style file system that provides access controls to keep apps from being able to access one anothers' data. External SD Cards are formatted with FAT32, because that's what the whole world expects. Unfortunately, FAT has no concept of ownership or permissions, so the path-based restriction is necessary to ensure that apps can't muck with each others' data.
Slashdot Mirror
A society which cannot forget , is a society which cannot forgive
That's a rather bold assertion. Care to support it?
My question was about technical advantages/disadvantages. Since the target audience is people who don't use anything, relative popularity doesn't matter.
I just think you could have chosen a better time frame than 3 hours.
Well, after three hours the suit battery is dead.
Mainly because FaceTime "just works" whereas Google Hangouts still to this day has "issues" wherein there'll be audio without video, weird disconnects, etc. For non-technical users FaceTime is a simple one-click solution that's the closest thing we have to the "video phone" of the future as shown in the past.
Hmm. I haven't experienced the issues you describe with Hangouts -- and I use it for hours every day, on many different devices (most of my business meetings are via Hangouts). Not sure if I'm just lucky or what. I guess I do see disconnects, once in a blue moon.
An iPad with FaceTime. Sorry, but this is really the simplest one out there.
Why is it better than a good Android tablet with Google Hangouts? Serious question, looking for a serious answer. I'm wondering if there really is anything that Apple has done here that's significantly better, or if it's just a question of inertia/bias.
There is no difference between a share with a comment on G+ and a comment on YouTube. They are the same thing. I think there's an argument to be made that shares without any comment are noise on YouTube... of course, I think they're largely noise on G+ as well, so maybe the solution is to find a way to encourage people to write something when sharing.
I do not see how this can be considered circumvention or contempt. Google has a long history of being transparent in this way. They make public what content they delist because of copyright violations and it is only right that they inform a website when they do similar for "right to be forgotten".
Further, if you read Google's document they indicate that in the case of data protection removals they inform the webmaster of the URL that has been de-listed, with no information about the details of the request or the requester. This seems like a sensible and serious attempt to balance the right of the webmaster to know that his content is no longer being indexed (for some searches) with the right of privacy of the person requesting removal.
It also seems to be the cause of the hoopla a few weeks back which put Google in the crosshairs of many who claimed the company was trying to sensationalize the removals. Google had removed the link when the searched topic was the name of a commenter on the article (who asked for it to be removed), but not when the searched topic was person the article was about, or other relevant terms. The webmaster saw that the URL had be de-listed for some searches and the paper wrote an article about how the URL had been removed entirely, even though it was obviously in the public interest, asserting that Google was intentionally removing things that weren't justified under the law in order to provoke a backlash against it. The assumption that it had been removed entirely was incorrect, of course, but Google couldn't provide information about the rationale or scope of the removal without violating the privacy of the requester.
I, personally, think the "right to be forgotten" is ridiculous, but it appears to me that Google is trying very hard to comply with it, letter and spirit.
(Disclosure: I'm a Google employee, but I have nothing to do with any of this and know nothing about it beyond what I read in the press. Also, I'm not a company spokesperson of any sort; they pay me to sit at a desk and pound out code.)
Communism is powerful, powerful stuff. So powerful it managed to spread laziness, poverty, and hideously poor engineering in a country populated entirely by Germans.
+1 Insightful.
Given the German peoples' repeatedly demonstrated ability to be an economic powerhouse even against severe odds, that's a really telling point.
Astonishing how well the east german economy worked for nearly 50 years if you consider this, hm ... lying to yourself system?
I don't know, I drove through portions of former East Germany not too many years after unification, and from what I saw, it worked *exactly* as well as you'd expect. The difference between west and east was stark and startling. In the west, there were occasional items in need of maintenance and modernization, just as you'll find anywhere, but by and large everything was well-built, well-maintained... and cheerful. The last bit is hard to explain, but it was more than just the use of bright colors on stores and signs, it was just an overall feeling of energy and exuberance. In contrast, nearly everything in the east was poorly-built, in need of maintenance, and drab. The roads were narrow, rough and full of holes. The bridges were rickety-looking and clearly needed maintenance. Many, many of the buildings had sagging rooflines, especially the farmhouses and barns. Much was unpainted, rusting steel, or unpainted, drying and spitting wood and what was painted was clearly painted only to make it last longer because it was all gray and black.
It strikes me that that's *exactly* what I'd expect a culture that habitually pretends to work to fool the planners to produce. No energy, no motivation, no reason to innovate.
From what I understand, it has been a huge burden on western Germany to drag their eastern fellows into the 21st century. The other thing I noticed when driving through east Germany, both that first time and even more a few years later, was that it seemed like they were rebuilding the entire country at once. And I know my west German friends grumbled often about the taxes for reconstruction, though they seemed generally to think that it was a price worth paying.
Australians are generally lazy but get a reputation for being hard workers overseas due to the way we deal with it. The idea is to get into the work as quickly as possibly so we can get it done and bugger off home early :)
I prefer to arrive late and leave early to make up for it.
Not "partly as a result". The things you mention are cultural issues, and problems, but not related to electronic enablement of 24x7 work.
I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.
I think it's safe to assume that all of the data you put into Google services is fair game. I suspect (but don't know), that Google isn't actually able to make the kind of detailed, nuanced use of the data that is often speculated, but the privacy policy says they collect the data you put into their services, so I'd assume that all of it is collected.
Not withstanding the free-access pipe straight to the NSA..
Doesn't exist. Government requests have to go through the process of being vetted by Google's attorneys and are rejected if not legitimate, including if overly broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to tap the lines between data centers any more, either, because it's all encrypted now.
We'd like to know which data Google sells to who. Its clear that they do sell the data.
They don't, except for aggregated non-personally identifiable. That means it's not possible to identify a person.
Whats the "aggregated" information on breast cancer patients aged 40-41 in zipcode 33333. Oh look ! Its only a single person.
Google isn't that dumb, and neither are attorneys or judges.
I suppose that's true for the shares that don't add a comment. Well, except that I like to see when my G+ friends have shared something, whether I'm looking at it from G+ or from YouTube. So, just removing the text-free shares wouldn't be quite the ticket, either. Hmm.
De-plus youtube while you're at it..
I have to disagree with that. YouTube is a much friendlier and saner place since the integration. The integration did increase the noise on Google+, but all in all I think it's better.
Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.
What's to "come clean" about? Their privacy policy says they aggregate information about you from all your uses of their services. There you go. That's it. What else do you want to know? What they'll use it for? For providing you services, and for selling ads which they display to you.
Seems pretty obvious and straightforward to me.
(Disclosure: It's not really relevant to the content of my comment, but I'm a Google employee. I'm not, however, a Google spokesperson. The above is my own words and opinions only.)
You can also plead no contest, which has the same result as pleading guilty, but without admitting guilt.
As for the point about Microsoft not being a defendant, you're right that third parties don't have the same options... but they also don't have the same justification for refusal, since compliance will not implicate them in anything, unless, of course, it would implicate them in something else, in which case they can negotiate a deal for qualified immunity.
I have no problem with a court saying that if you refuse to turn over relevant documents then they will be assumed to be as damaging as possible to your case. I do have a problem with them saying that if you don't turn over the documents you'll be subject to potentially indefinite jail time and fines in excess of whatever damages you were accused of inflicting on the other party.
You have the former option as well, if you prefer. You can simply stipulate in court to the prosecution's allegations regarding the evidence. Where this is tantamount to pleading guilty, you can do that, too.
No, our government should be required to go through the other government to get that information. Our government does not have jurisdiction in other countries PERIOD.
True, but irrelevant in cases like this. The US government does have jurisdiction over Microsoft's US operations, and Microsoft's US operations have the ability to retrieve the information from Microsoft's servers in Ireland. The mere fact that the data is in Ireland is no reason that the US company can't be ordered to retrieve the data they control and have access to.
Similarly, if you were being investigated for a crime you could be required by the courts to turn over the records of you Swiss bank account. The court couldn't issue orders to the Swiss bank (though they could make a request, which the bank might choose to honor, or they could ask the Swiss authorities to issue an order to the bank, which the bank would have to honor if the Swiss government chose to cooperate), but it absolutely could issue orders to you, a US person in the US, and your failure to comply would result in you being held in contempt of court, and jailed or otherwise punished until you do comply.
Have you actually shopped at Amazon? Amazon offers the first couple chapters of all their books for free.
Cool. I hadn't noticed that feature.
So there really is no advantage to browsing in physical stores.
in the long term, the book stores go out of business now its harder to find interesting books.
Nonsense.
Look at Baen's model... the first few chapters of all of their books are available for free, all on-line, all trivially easy for you to browse and sample, at no risk, wherever and whenever it's convenient to you. For that matter, they offer full novels from their top authors for free. So you can read the first book of a 15-novel series at no cost, hooking you for the other 14.
How can book stores, with their limited shelf space and immobility, compete with that?
Of course, that's Baen, not Amazon. Because Baen is a publisher, they have the freedom to do things like offer the first ~50 pages free, while Amazon has to obey the publishers' rules. But in a world where browsing bookshelves is gone, Baen's approach, or something like it, will be necessary to generate sales, so it will be done.
Just because you're accustomed to one way of finding good reading material doesn't mean it's the only one, or even the best one.
I don't know the fine details of this bug, but am I the only one appalled at how obvious this bug sounds? It doesn't even properly check the certificate? I mean buffer overflows and such are one thing, but not properly testing your certificate code seems unforgivable.
No, it's not that it doesn't check certificates generally, it's that if there's an additional, extra certificate of a particular form in the list that forms an app's certificate chain (but isn't actually in the chain) then that extra certificate gets included in the list of signatures associated with an app... making other apps that query the signature list believe that the app is signed by a certificate it's not. This doesn't, for example, fool the Play store into believing an app is from developer A when it's really from developer B. But it can fool other apps. There are some apps that load others as plugins, and make decisions about which plugins to load based on whether they're signed by a particular key. This flaw allows malicious apps to subvert that, convincing the plugin-loading apps to execute them, thereby giving the malicious app the same permissions as the plugin-loading app.
It's a serious security flaw, no doubt. But it's a little more subtle and less obvious than the summary makes it appear. Also, it appears that no app in the Play store, nor any of the other apps that Google has scanned, attempt to exploit the flaw. It's very easy to identify them by scanning the certificates in the package.
I've implemented tests for certificate chain validation code several times (not in Android), and it never once occurred to me to test for this particular odd construction, nor, I think, would anyone else think to test for it without some specific reason. This sort of bug requires inspection of the code.
(Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Android security team, but I'm not speaking in an official capacity, just summarizing what I've read of the vulnerability -- which isn't a great deal. Others on my team are well-informed, but I haven't followed this issue closely.)
Simple remote access trojan with keylogger will take care of that.
If the attacker has sufficient access to install system-level software, you're already completely screwed. Game over. Go home.
some bullshit "universal compresser"
Not a universal compressor, a standard compressor, such as gzip. The metric is ultimately just a comparison between the compressor being evaluated and the compressor chosen as the standard, and it is unitless.
That said, I agree with you that the scaling constant has no reason to be present. As for using the logs of times... I don't know. It's essentially a base change, expressing the time of the compressor being evaluated in the base of the standard compressor, which is then multiplied by the ratio of the compression ratios. Handling the time relationship as a base change may have some useful properties, but I can't see what they would be.
The internal "SD Card" is formatted with a Unix-style file system that provides access controls to keep apps from being able to access one anothers' data. External SD Cards are formatted with FAT32, because that's what the whole world expects. Unfortunately, FAT has no concept of ownership or permissions, so the path-based restriction is necessary to ensure that apps can't muck with each others' data.