It seems Facebook has realized that Google has dropped the ball on privacy with that real name fiasco. Which seems to be getting even worse. Today when logging into Google+ I got this:
Hey, this is important: Add a phone to your account Without a phone number, you could lose all access to your account if you forget your password or if your account is hijacked. Learn more [Phone number (mobile or landline)]
Google will only use your number for account security. We'll never share it with other companies or send you unwanted messages--ever. Adding a phone number helps make your account much more secure.
In very small font below: "Click _here_ to skip this step anyway."
So now they are even trying to extract my phone number from me. Geez.
Initially the attraction was: well it's like Facebook, but not run by hated corporation Facebook. By now Facebook can say: "Well, we may have our flaws, but at least we are not Google".
"So eh... you want me to have kids with my sister?"
"You_Shall_Not_Lay_With_Your_Sister."
"Uhm... so with my mom then? That's a bit weird innit?"
"You_Shall_Not_Lay_With_Your_Mother."
"... with my dad? I don't think that's even biologically possible."
"You_Shall_Not_Lay_With_Your_Father."
"You know apart from the biology aspect, since we are talking... my brother and I don't get on all that well these days. Do you think you could accept some of his offerings, sometimes? I mean nobody likes vegetarians, but it really would take the pressure off, you know..."
Well, lets say you have collected info from your employer about their wrongdoings or shady actions. (Just a random example.) Also lets assume you would like to not be thrown in jail for making it public.
So you obtain the information from your employers computer system, you smuggle it out on a CD or USB stick and you pass it on to Wikileaks. The next step is to get rid of any evidence which might connect you to the event. Erase the USB stick and drop it into a river, delete any notes, uninstall whatever tools you might have used to obtain the information.
Now the situation has changed, for some reason Wikileaks has lost access to the info, but your employer is aware of the fact that there was a breach. Likely your employer will start an investigation, trying to find out who the whistle blower was and start a security audit in order to prevent a similar breach to occur in the future. (Unless they are a bank in which case they just to hope it won't happen again.) You might even be watched already because you are in the list of suspects. Would you submit the information again? Maybe, but things just got a lot more risky, and your trust in Wikileaks is much diminished.
Well I would. Nobody wants to work in a shitty environment. The most qualified and knowledgeable employees will have better options, so they are more likely to leave. A manager who is creating a shitty work environment drains their company of the best people and makes it harder to hire new talent.
Obviously nobody is perfect, and a manager who fails in one area might make up for that in others, but being considered rude by your employees is not a good thing for the bottom line.
In the German system a temporary injunction ("einstweilige Verfuegung") is relatively easy to get. There is not much checking of evidence, and there is relatively little chance for the opposing party to intervene before the decision is made. The focus is on speed. If it looks like the plaintiff is not merely wasting time, but genuinely believes they have a case - then the injunction will be granted.
Nevertheless using a temporary injunction is risky, because it automatically makes the requesting party (Apple in this case) liable for damages caused to the party the injunction is directed at (Samsung in this case). This means if Apple loses their main case - if the court decides the devices are not similar enough or if the design is deemed to be to trivial or if there is prior art or anything else - they will have to pay damages to Samsung. Even if everything they said was in good faith. Samsung does not need to prove that Apple doctored images, or that their suit was without base. If they lose Apple will have to pay.
That's why the standard of evidence is allowed to be so low: it's essentially deemed not to cause damage to party it's directed at. Either they are found to be in the clear - in which case they get compensated for their loss, or they are found to have violated the requestors rights - in which case the temporary injunction served to keep their damages smaller.
There are different ways to make it social though, and they chose not to use these. That's very likely because they want the data, not for technical reasons. It doesn't bother me that I can't play these games on G+, nor does it bother me that I can't play them on Android (Angry Birds wants access to your phone number and your location - probably so you can win the highscore in your immediate neighborhood, right?). However it's worth discussing how G+ *is* implementing things and what the consequences are for the users of the service.
Well, they could give you an option to share your score with your circles. If that really was what they were trying to accomplish.
Or they could let you play the game without that particular feature given that you don't particularly care about sharing high scores. If that really was what they were trying to accomplish.
They are actually doing a good job to keep the games out of the way for those not interested in them. They are on a separate tab, and if you don't click that, you are not bothered by anything games related.
Having said that - if you click on a game (any game as far as I can tell) you get a dialog like this:
Angry Birds is requesting permission to:
View basic information about your account
View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google
Why does Angry Birds need to know who I interact with and how much? So I deny that, and consequently don't get to play.
I opt to play sushi cat instead. They don't ask me to give them info about my friends.
I think your experience is probably in the US? Being able to get cash back from the store is not unheard of in other countries, but it's a lot less common than in the US. Also card payments are less common in other countries, usually cash is preferred. (On average it's a lot quicker, plus many people prefer not to leave a record of every little purchase they make.)
As for withdrawal fees - my German bank (DKB) lets me withdraw money anywhere in the world using my visa card, and they swallow the withdrawal fee. (They don't charge for the account either and pay interest on my savings - it's a pretty good deal.) Very convenient when you are traveling, and I'm getting rather good exchange rates as well.
Is that a US thing? My wife has an Incredible S (purchased in Taiwan) and I have a Galaxy S2 (purchased in Germany). Both allow tethering. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for making me aware of the per app permission thingy, sounds like I should give Cyanogen a try.
Well, I have personal experience with German civil courts, though not in that field. It seems to me that generally evidence is submitted by the parties involved and it's up to the opposing side to challenge that evidence. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, both sides are assumed to act in good faith and be trustworthy.
So if Apples submitted false data, why did Samsung's legal team not challenge that?
Florian is a high-school graduate, that's it. Referring to him on legal matters (as the article did) is a dubious choice, regardless whether he happens to be right or wrong in this particular instance. I would have preferred to read the opinion of an actual expert.
Probably: courts like to have evidence on paper, so that it can be signed, filed, reproduced and published. (Imagine you were a judge and the case was about similarity in truck design... )
Well their focus seems on having games on a separate tab. So if you don't want to know about games you don't click on that tab and you don't hear about others playing games either.
Don't know if that works perfectly, but that appears to be their goal: "your circles will only see the updates when they're interested in playing games too".
I'm not generally opposed to spanking. The available research shows quite conclusively that there is no harm when used on smaller children, and for somewhat older children that it can still work - though it's less efficient than other forms of discipline. If you find it works for you and your child, I think that should be completely up to you and the state should butt out.
Having said that, the idea that a child running wild - after years of lacking discipline and parental neglect - could be cured by a single spanking... that's beyond naive. It takes years to raise a child, you are not going to make a significant difference by a single application of discipline - no matter what that is.
Slashdot Mirror
*Translations* get re-written.
It seems Facebook has realized that Google has dropped the ball on privacy with that real name fiasco. Which seems to be getting even worse. Today when logging into Google+ I got this:
In very small font below: "Click _here_ to skip this step anyway."
So now they are even trying to extract my phone number from me. Geez.
Initially the attraction was: well it's like Facebook, but not run by hated corporation Facebook. By now Facebook can say: "Well, we may have our flaws, but at least we are not Google".
Why even bother with history, when you must admit it contains errors? Which part of History Books contain facts, and which doesn't?
If we manage to gain new information about history, we will change the history books to reflect this. I don't believe the same is true for the bible.
Well, lets say you have collected info from your employer about their wrongdoings or shady actions. (Just a random example.) Also lets assume you would like to not be thrown in jail for making it public.
So you obtain the information from your employers computer system, you smuggle it out on a CD or USB stick and you pass it on to Wikileaks. The next step is to get rid of any evidence which might connect you to the event. Erase the USB stick and drop it into a river, delete any notes, uninstall whatever tools you might have used to obtain the information.
Now the situation has changed, for some reason Wikileaks has lost access to the info, but your employer is aware of the fact that there was a breach. Likely your employer will start an investigation, trying to find out who the whistle blower was and start a security audit in order to prevent a similar breach to occur in the future. (Unless they are a bank in which case they just to hope it won't happen again.) You might even be watched already because you are in the list of suspects. Would you submit the information again? Maybe, but things just got a lot more risky, and your trust in Wikileaks is much diminished.
Who blames Carly because she was rude?
Well I would. Nobody wants to work in a shitty environment. The most qualified and knowledgeable employees will have better options, so they are more likely to leave. A manager who is creating a shitty work environment drains their company of the best people and makes it harder to hire new talent.
Obviously nobody is perfect, and a manager who fails in one area might make up for that in others, but being considered rude by your employees is not a good thing for the bottom line.
Well, it still could have value as a proof of concept. Just in case we need it in the future.
In the German system a temporary injunction ("einstweilige Verfuegung") is relatively easy to get. There is not much checking of evidence, and there is relatively little chance for the opposing party to intervene before the decision is made. The focus is on speed. If it looks like the plaintiff is not merely wasting time, but genuinely believes they have a case - then the injunction will be granted.
Nevertheless using a temporary injunction is risky, because it automatically makes the requesting party (Apple in this case) liable for damages caused to the party the injunction is directed at (Samsung in this case). This means if Apple loses their main case - if the court decides the devices are not similar enough or if the design is deemed to be to trivial or if there is prior art or anything else - they will have to pay damages to Samsung. Even if everything they said was in good faith. Samsung does not need to prove that Apple doctored images, or that their suit was without base. If they lose Apple will have to pay.
That's why the standard of evidence is allowed to be so low: it's essentially deemed not to cause damage to party it's directed at. Either they are found to be in the clear - in which case they get compensated for their loss, or they are found to have violated the requestors rights - in which case the temporary injunction served to keep their damages smaller.
There are different ways to make it social though, and they chose not to use these. That's very likely because they want the data, not for technical reasons. It doesn't bother me that I can't play these games on G+, nor does it bother me that I can't play them on Android (Angry Birds wants access to your phone number and your location - probably so you can win the highscore in your immediate neighborhood, right?). However it's worth discussing how G+ *is* implementing things and what the consequences are for the users of the service.
it's that it breaks the game's contract.
There is no contract. A contract requires consent from all involved. An expectation or a wish from one side, does not constitute a contract.
Well, they could give you an option to share your score with your circles. If that really was what they were trying to accomplish.
Or they could let you play the game without that particular feature given that you don't particularly care about sharing high scores. If that really was what they were trying to accomplish.
I unhappily suspect they have learned from it: people appear to be willing to put up with it.
They are actually doing a good job to keep the games out of the way for those not interested in them. They are on a separate tab, and if you don't click that, you are not bothered by anything games related.
Having said that - if you click on a game (any game as far as I can tell) you get a dialog like this:
Angry Birds is requesting permission to:
View basic information about your account
View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google
Why does Angry Birds need to know who I interact with and how much? So I deny that, and consequently don't get to play.
I opt to play sushi cat instead. They don't ask me to give them info about my friends.
I think your experience is probably in the US? Being able to get cash back from the store is not unheard of in other countries, but it's a lot less common than in the US. Also card payments are less common in other countries, usually cash is preferred. (On average it's a lot quicker, plus many people prefer not to leave a record of every little purchase they make.)
As for withdrawal fees - my German bank (DKB) lets me withdraw money anywhere in the world using my visa card, and they swallow the withdrawal fee. (They don't charge for the account either and pay interest on my savings - it's a pretty good deal.) Very convenient when you are traveling, and I'm getting rather good exchange rates as well.
tethering is enabled by default
Is that a US thing? My wife has an Incredible S (purchased in Taiwan) and I have a Galaxy S2 (purchased in Germany). Both allow tethering. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for making me aware of the per app permission thingy, sounds like I should give Cyanogen a try.
I think you basically just need to set: Account->Discussions->Classic Discussion System(D1).
Because they didn't even get to see the complaint - sorry should have read the article properly.
Well, I have personal experience with German civil courts, though not in that field. It seems to me that generally evidence is submitted by the parties involved and it's up to the opposing side to challenge that evidence. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, both sides are assumed to act in good faith and be trustworthy.
So if Apples submitted false data, why did Samsung's legal team not challenge that?
Florian is a high-school graduate, that's it. Referring to him on legal matters (as the article did) is a dubious choice, regardless whether he happens to be right or wrong in this particular instance. I would have preferred to read the opinion of an actual expert.
A tomato is a fruit, surely on Slashdot we know stuff like that?
Probably: courts like to have evidence on paper, so that it can be signed, filed, reproduced and published. (Imagine you were a judge and the case was about similarity in truck design ... )
These guys will be next. A black rectangular design with a fruit on it? Who do they think they are fooling?
Well their focus seems on having games on a separate tab. So if you don't want to know about games you don't click on that tab and you don't hear about others playing games either.
Don't know if that works perfectly, but that appears to be their goal: "your circles will only see the updates when they're interested in playing games too".
There is: UbuntuOne has a music store, too. No DRM.
I'm not generally opposed to spanking. The available research shows quite conclusively that there is no harm when used on smaller children, and for somewhat older children that it can still work - though it's less efficient than other forms of discipline. If you find it works for you and your child, I think that should be completely up to you and the state should butt out.
Having said that, the idea that a child running wild - after years of lacking discipline and parental neglect - could be cured by a single spanking ... that's beyond naive. It takes years to raise a child, you are not going to make a significant difference by a single application of discipline - no matter what that is.