Is there any reason this should have stayed private? This is certainly interesting information, and nobody gets hurt by having this publicly. In fact it is very interesting information, because it reveals the sort of mindset within that agency: People do to others what they don't accept being done to themselves. This is sick.
Why do people always cry for law and lawyers? This case here is blindingly obvious, no need for lawyers. Somebody made a mistake, an accident. The easy solution would be to just send it back, everything is back to normal, nobody gets harmed. Lawyers are only required here because apparently quite a few people are happy to exploit that mistake for personal benefit.
This is a very selfish view. Sure, you probably won't be harmed if you don't vaccinate against chicken pox, but only because everybody else does. We already do have a high degree of herd immunity and this is the only reason for the very low risk here. Before widespread vaccination we had 4 million cases each year, with 100..150 dead in the USA. In other words, more than half the population was affected. So this is the deal: either vaccinate, or take a 50% risk of being knocked out for a week, maybe hospitalized or even dead.
Except that Google makes everything free and open, everybody is invited to copy it. There is nothing else they can do, short of bribing standard bodies.
For a Google-account you don't have to give up any private information, they just want your name and an email-address.
Do you use any other registration-based service with any other company? If yes you are a hypocrite, because the others are not better than Google when it comes to privacy. If no you are lying, you do have an account at least with Slashdot, and for sure your contributions here tell a lot about you. Are you aware that this page here sends *plenty* of information all around the world? Ghostery finds Google-doubleclick, Google-Adsense, Google-Analytics, Amazon and some other trackers here. So probably Google already knows a lot about you and you gain exactly nothing by not having an account there.
Could we please stop saying "more than" in scientific contexts, except when needed? This phrase is intended to denote situations where we just know a lower boundary of the correct value, but in recent time it's being (ab-)used mostly for a dramatic effect. I really wish people would either give precise figures, or when this is not practical, use the words invented to mark numbers as approximations, like "roughly" or "about". Statistically speaking, the difference is that "roughly" implies an effort to find a "simple" number close to the correct expectation value, but "more than" implies we picked just some number that's surely below the confidence interval.
The Droid X2 runs Android which is made by Google.
And what does this have to do with the problem at hand? The graphics chip is made by NVidia. But you can blame neither company for creepy software created by Motorola. The worst you can blame Google for is being remiss when it comes to cleaning up the existing infrastructure.
In addition to the local air pollution, electric cars greatly decrease the noise level in cities, which currently for many people is an even bigger problem.
History is certainly one of the subjects that could be useful because we could learn something and avoid making the same mistakes over and over. Unfortunately that's not the focus of the historians, they are in it more for the spectacular things. So they spend endless time and money discussing if some ancient piece of fabric in some church belonged to some guy who lived around there. On the other hand they ignore many of the things that could help us today. So yes, as we do it right now history is mostly useless because we don't focus on usefulness here.
Research within the humanities is mostly useless for the society at large. Useless as in "without them we wouldn't miss anything". Doubt it? Then try to find at least one useful result coming out of philosophy or sociology within the last twenty years.
On the other hand, teaching humanities may include a gem or two, although I haven't met a scientist yet who had problems because he skipped humanities entirely.
It's more about intimidation. Now everybody knows the government doesn't like bitcoins, and considering the recently discussed surveillance capabilities nobody can pretend anymore bitcoins are anonymous. The result is 1984-like: Most people will think twice before using a presumably monitored internet for engaging in something the government doesn't like.
Most technical and social structures are designed in a way to maximize performance of the average case. If they wanted to improve worst case performance they had to sacrifice average performance. Or in non-technical terms: They typically cannot just add resources to better support the minority, they would have to pull the resources from somewhere else, where the same resources would help many more people. Is it worth it? Maybe sometimes, but certainly not always.
We do not accept the religious bullshit from extremist, but here we do exactly the same thing: We attack people only because they do not follow the official doctrine of decent american behavior. Which in fact is even worse than religious bullshit, because many (most?) Americans are just hypocrites here.
Those booth-girls don't hurt or offend anybody. And no, it's not an offence just because somebody claims it is. In fact even here, among all those pathetic voices, it's hard to find anybody who even claims that he/she is personally offended. Rational people would just go for the easiest solution of this problem: Just ignore it, and let those booth-girls have fun. There wouldn't be any problem if everybody just ignored it.
The basic idea here is freedom and tolerance. Why can't people just ignore what they don't like? Can anybody explain how a woman can possibly be offended by the behavior of other, completely unrelated women? It's not like they attack or hurt anybody personally. Those booth-girls have fun, many people looking at them have fun, and those who don't have fun can just ignore them.
You dodged the most important question: What is it good for? If I just want to get a job done, is there any kind of "job" beside "having fun setting up a strange OS" where NetBSD would be the appropriate choice?
This gives him away, because it's hardly objective. Too bad he doesn't tell which company he actually does trust, because then we'd know who's paying him.
It's obvious that both Boost and C++ come mostly from an academic environment. In a sense it's very general, but this makes it sometimes hard to apply to practical problems. For example, try to create a random number from 0 to 1. Any other language has a function for that. Not so C++, here you have to create two objects before you can generate a random number. Which makes it more versatile, but also more cumbersome. Same goes for the reference documentation: mostly incomprehensible because of all the template arguments, and a library is only as useful as it's documentation.
6 teens killed in Ohio SUV crash is the next article on the same site. Quite consistent, both articles show that reckless driving is high priority for the people in Ohio.
In principle this kind of lobbying is OK. Then it's the job of the politicians to accept only the proposals that are beneficial for the society, and to dismiss anything else. This particular proposal certainly belongs to the latter category, because it's just destructively aimed at competition. Even without that law schools are free not to use Google docs.
You just repeat what everybody already knows and make it sound bad. Where have we seen this perfidious tactics before? Hint: not from Google. This is why people trust Google more than Microsoft.
And, of course, with Chrome OS you exactly know what is being send and where. Good luck finding out what Windows sends home.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any reason this should have stayed private? This is certainly interesting information, and nobody gets hurt by having this publicly. In fact it is very interesting information, because it reveals the sort of mindset within that agency: People do to others what they don't accept being done to themselves. This is sick.
Why do people always cry for law and lawyers? This case here is blindingly obvious, no need for lawyers. Somebody made a mistake, an accident. The easy solution would be to just send it back, everything is back to normal, nobody gets harmed. Lawyers are only required here because apparently quite a few people are happy to exploit that mistake for personal benefit.
This is a very selfish view. Sure, you probably won't be harmed if you don't vaccinate against chicken pox, but only because everybody else does. We already do have a high degree of herd immunity and this is the only reason for the very low risk here. Before widespread vaccination we had 4 million cases each year, with 100..150 dead in the USA. In other words, more than half the population was affected. So this is the deal: either vaccinate, or take a 50% risk of being knocked out for a week, maybe hospitalized or even dead.
Except that Google makes everything free and open, everybody is invited to copy it. There is nothing else they can do, short of bribing standard bodies.
This affects only Google APIs. So if you disable the Google-Service, any apps talking to Google-Services won't work anymore. Big surprise.
Apple sells end users to advertisers as well, so they are direct competitors.
For a Google-account you don't have to give up any private information, they just want your name and an email-address.
Do you use any other registration-based service with any other company? If yes you are a hypocrite, because the others are not better than Google when it comes to privacy. If no you are lying, you do have an account at least with Slashdot, and for sure your contributions here tell a lot about you. Are you aware that this page here sends *plenty* of information all around the world? Ghostery finds Google-doubleclick, Google-Adsense, Google-Analytics, Amazon and some other trackers here. So probably Google already knows a lot about you and you gain exactly nothing by not having an account there.
Just curious ... when have they intentionally broken trust?
Could we please stop saying "more than" in scientific contexts, except when needed? This phrase is intended to denote situations where we just know a lower boundary of the correct value, but in recent time it's being (ab-)used mostly for a dramatic effect. I really wish people would either give precise figures, or when this is not practical, use the words invented to mark numbers as approximations, like "roughly" or "about". Statistically speaking, the difference is that "roughly" implies an effort to find a "simple" number close to the correct expectation value, but "more than" implies we picked just some number that's surely below the confidence interval.
The Droid X2 runs Android which is made by Google.
And what does this have to do with the problem at hand? The graphics chip is made by NVidia. But you can blame neither company for creepy software created by Motorola. The worst you can blame Google for is being remiss when it comes to cleaning up the existing infrastructure.
In addition to the local air pollution, electric cars greatly decrease the noise level in cities, which currently for many people is an even bigger problem.
History is certainly one of the subjects that could be useful because we could learn something and avoid making the same mistakes over and over. Unfortunately that's not the focus of the historians, they are in it more for the spectacular things. So they spend endless time and money discussing if some ancient piece of fabric in some church belonged to some guy who lived around there. On the other hand they ignore many of the things that could help us today. So yes, as we do it right now history is mostly useless because we don't focus on usefulness here.
Research within the humanities is mostly useless for the society at large. Useless as in "without them we wouldn't miss anything". Doubt it? Then try to find at least one useful result coming out of philosophy or sociology within the last twenty years. On the other hand, teaching humanities may include a gem or two, although I haven't met a scientist yet who had problems because he skipped humanities entirely.
It's more about intimidation. Now everybody knows the government doesn't like bitcoins, and considering the recently discussed surveillance capabilities nobody can pretend anymore bitcoins are anonymous. The result is 1984-like:
Most people will think twice before using a presumably monitored internet for engaging in something the government doesn't like.
Except that Chrome phones home the first time you start it up to check for upgrades.
This hasn't been true for more than three years. In fact Google is very transparent about all privacy issues within Chrome.
Most technical and social structures are designed in a way to maximize performance of the average case. If they wanted to improve worst case performance they had to sacrifice average performance. Or in non-technical terms: They typically cannot just add resources to better support the minority, they would have to pull the resources from somewhere else, where the same resources would help many more people. Is it worth it? Maybe sometimes, but certainly not always.
We do not accept the religious bullshit from extremist, but here we do exactly the same thing: We attack people only because they do not follow the official doctrine of decent american behavior. Which in fact is even worse than religious bullshit, because many (most?) Americans are just hypocrites here. Those booth-girls don't hurt or offend anybody. And no, it's not an offence just because somebody claims it is. In fact even here, among all those pathetic voices, it's hard to find anybody who even claims that he/she is personally offended. Rational people would just go for the easiest solution of this problem: Just ignore it, and let those booth-girls have fun. There wouldn't be any problem if everybody just ignored it.
The basic idea here is freedom and tolerance. Why can't people just ignore what they don't like? Can anybody explain how a woman can possibly be offended by the behavior of other, completely unrelated women? It's not like they attack or hurt anybody personally. Those booth-girls have fun, many people looking at them have fun, and those who don't have fun can just ignore them.
You dodged the most important question: What is it good for? If I just want to get a job done, is there any kind of "job" beside "having fun setting up a strange OS" where NetBSD would be the appropriate choice?
This gives him away, because it's hardly objective. Too bad he doesn't tell which company he actually does trust, because then we'd know who's paying him.
It's obvious that both Boost and C++ come mostly from an academic environment. In a sense it's very general, but this makes it sometimes hard to apply to practical problems. For example, try to create a random number from 0 to 1. Any other language has a function for that. Not so C++, here you have to create two objects before you can generate a random number. Which makes it more versatile, but also more cumbersome. Same goes for the reference documentation: mostly incomprehensible because of all the template arguments, and a library is only as useful as it's documentation.
6 teens killed in Ohio SUV crash is the next article on the same site. Quite consistent, both articles show that reckless driving is high priority for the people in Ohio.
In principle this kind of lobbying is OK. Then it's the job of the politicians to accept only the proposals that are beneficial for the society, and to dismiss anything else. This particular proposal certainly belongs to the latter category, because it's just destructively aimed at competition. Even without that law schools are free not to use Google docs.
You just repeat what everybody already knows and make it sound bad. Where have we seen this perfidious tactics before? Hint: not from Google. This is why people trust Google more than Microsoft. And, of course, with Chrome OS you exactly know what is being send and where. Good luck finding out what Windows sends home.
Nobody ever came up with a single patent that applies here. So "patent encumbered" is just the usual MS crap.