By the time Gmail was no longer an invite-only beta service, everyone had been talking about it for months. The buzz was enormous
Among geeks, sure. Among normal people? Not so much. A year after GMail launched, I still had non-geeks asking me 'what's your hotmail address?' meaning 'what's your personal email address' (as opposed to the work-run one).
Geeks, being those who do the most linking show up much more strongly in Google results than "normals".
Thanks for reminding that of the email hosting company Microsoft destroyed was hotmail & for the correction freebsd/Linux.
I'm not sure if the EU is aware, but Google is absurdly popular. I'd be shocked if Gmail didn't come up #1 in a search for email
That's certainly true now. But when gmail launched, it wasn't absurdly popular, it was a new contender in an established market, yet it still showed up at the top of the search results.
No. By the time Gmail was no longer an invite-only beta service, everyone had been talking about it for months. The buzz was enormous & Gmail's advantages enough to make people drop their Yahoo/other in droves for Gmail. Hell, Microsoft bought a well reputed linux based webmail service (whose name I can no longer recall) that they painfully migrated Linux>Windows to attempt to jumpstart their entry into webmail.
By the time Gmail was opened for everyone, Gmail had legitimately been linked to and talked about on the web to make it the #1 search result.
"Competition" is the smokescreen justification, the excuse they give to the public to attempt to appear noble. The EU doesn't care about competition, the real justification is the EUs volition to control online search. The right of EU politicians to erase old scandals trumps free speech & the public's right to know.
No, you blamed BYOD, which remains to be seen. I take it you've never seen a corporate iPad? I assure you they exist & while they can be infected just like corporate laptops can, it happens a lot less often...
I'm a dual national & have lived in the USA and France (Paris for the last 35).
For the proof of french journalists political orientation, I need only look back at my experiences, among them doing support for la nouvelle obs. In particular I point to the acceptation without any criticism of the extraordinarily anti-American Thierry Meysson who was the toast of every news/press outlet for over 6 months. Even today, years after his lies were shown to be complete fabrications they pop up regularly across the board of France's political spectrum.
So, you can take your typically "I/am/ french" & other assumptions & stick them where they belong.
What?!? If we really kept the government in check, the authors of "Responsable but not guilty" would be in jail. If you don't understand the reference, you don't know enough about french politics to be making comments.
and take the streets at the hint of an real or perceived BS coming from it
They? Who is this they? Ahhh, the lucky few life public transport workers who are in guaranteed life long jobs and can go on strike without any repercussions meanwhile forcing millions of others to spend hours more getting to/from work.
Those who prétend that France is in any way different than the U.S. in stupid internet memes are liars, and I say that as someone who has lived here for 30+ years & tries to ignore as much of these idiotic stories as possible. However, the French "journalists" being in their great majority left of Ché Guevarra have an automatic knee-jerk reaction to everything in modern life that they do not like: Call it American &/or "ultra liberal" so that they can blame it on the USA or the UK.
I know a few people that use FB as a way to drum up business but they are generally self employed or in public facing jobs like Musicians announcing a new gig.
For the rest of us who are employees, & it's hard to stress this enough, FaceBook != LinkedIn!
I do not use FB through company ressources, it's for friends & family only. Work relations are through LinkedIn.
The two sets rarely have anything in common & that's how it will stay.
Big Pharma & the HMOs who are making billions more thanks to Obama agree wholeheartedly with you. People who aren't one subject voters enthralled with Obamacare & those paying more for their healthcare, not so much...
Obama doesn't care about Net Neutrality, it's a political move to attempt to look good.
If Obama really cared about Net Neutrality, he wouldn't have waited until he lost both houses & thus any chance of pushing his own legislation through Congress.
Now that Obama & the Dems no longer have the power to determine the legislative agenda, he can pretend to want Net Neutrality without loosing the support of all the MAFIAA contributors in Hollywood.
You have to be abysmally ignorant to think that England's courts have anything to do with America (I'll assume the USA because the ignorant often conflate the two terms) but that's neck beards for you..
The risks to Americans and Britons to terrorists is going to be pretty close. I'm not sure about their risk to bathtubs, though. Bees are about on par with them, though.
Woosh. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever how different the UK terrorism risk is to that of the US. You've never visited the UK, never studied the risks, have no idea what the populations at risk are or how many UK/French/American citizens are fighting for ISIS at present but you'll just pull theoretical fuzzy risk evaluations out ouf your ass.
The subject is UK Justice & terrorism risks. You have no knowledge of the subject & nothing intelligent to say so just shut up.
The influx of people with western passports (that being the UK, France & even the USA For the ignorant) being trained by ISIS who then return (or are sent back) to the west are the most dangerous threats inside our countries. The USA has been lucky up to now to have avoided attacks on this vector. France, where I live, hasn't, nor has the UK.
No, there are plenty of more dangerous mundane threats than terrorists. Basically anything you would expect might kill you, and half of the things that you think couldn't possibly kill you,
None of your mundane threats are shutting down public transport, causing massive disruptions in public life or getting politicians scared enough for their reelection that they completely reorient government policy. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about & nothing intelligent to say.
You, on the other hand, cower behind those who are attempting to protect you and are well enough protected by them to ignorantly criticize the work of authorities in countries far away. Your theoretical statistics mean nothing to people with something you do not possess: experience.
Those are actual statistics, and while I'm sure your experiences make it hard to grasp the reality. I'm not sure how saying that they aren't a threat is a criticism of authorities other than the authorities trying to grasp power by preying on public fear, for which they obviously deserve criticism.
What "figures"? "Figures" you pull out of your ass are only "real" to you; boy-child. No references, no reality.
Before denigrating public fear, you need to experience some. I suggest trying to council rape victims. Given your track record here, you're bound to say something like "I've never been raped but I've read statistics that say that...". Their reaction to your drivel will at last give you an idea how stupid your arguing from ignorance is & how debilitating public fear can be.
Also, how am I cowering? The FBI, CIA, and NSA haven't protected me from terrorists. In fact, the US government has arguably had some role in creating just about every terrorist or terrorist group that has attacked domestically. They are a net negative on my susceptibility to terrorist attacks.
You know this how, oh ignorant one? Yeah, that's right, you don't, all you know is how to fart while exclaiming "smells like roses".
You have to be abysmally ignorant to think that England's courts have anything to do with America (I'll assume the USA because the ignorant often conflate the two terms) but that's neck beards for you...
As for thinking that ISIS isn't a clear and present dangerous threat, well yet again you display ignorance. The influx of people with western passports (that being the UK, France & even the USA For the ignorant) being trained by ISIS who then return (or are sent back) to the west are the most dangerous threats inside our countries. The USA has been lucky up to now to have avoided attacks on this vector. France, where I live, hasn't, nor has the UK.
I was in Paris during the series of bombings in the Metro in 1995 & my future wife was close enough to the Champs-Élysées bomb to feel the shockwave. I was in the UK during the Tube bombings in 2005. I remember the disruptions to normal life. Even though I, like most people never felt enough sense of personal danger to change how we lived our lives, the shutdown of services like the metro/tube/busses will effect you.
You, on the other hand, cower behind those who are attempting to protect you and are well enough protected by them to ignorantly criticize the work of authorities in countries far away. Your theoretical statistics mean nothing to people with something you do not possess: experience.
Ah, so you're one of the fuzzy bunny crowd, criticizing those who are protecting him from the cruel reality he refuses to admit exists. There can be no useful debate with people of your ilk unable or on willing to live in the real world.
Yes they are hypocrites, which means that their right to spy on everyone is justified & the outrage on being sped upon is fake. You cannot have it both ways.
So, "Freedom is more important than Security" without any qualifications, is it? How just is it when my freedom to take or do anything I want trumps your security?
The USA was fortunate to have founding fathers that were more astute. Ben Franklin did not say "Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", he said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". You need to learn that without qualifiers, your statements play well to the mods but are completely meaningless IRL.
You have no interest in "how much secure is an unjust and non free society" because you live in a society that unlike you, understands the importance of those qualifiers that you denigrate by ignoring them.
So you're willing to live in a world with organizations like ISIS that will kill you without any means of your government defending you, just so you can get your fix. Good to know.
I never said that the world was perfect, just that journalists & lawyers cannot become magical invisibility cloaks for people looking to hide from mi5/6.
Uproar? No. Criticism by a few, yes but without the weight of government and given that press criticism in both counter examples was magnitudes less.
Besides which, you're wrong. In the case of French monitoring, it was the government (the DGSE) monitoring it's own citizens. When the interior minister was queried on it in parliament, his answer was "yes we do the same data collection as the U.S., but given that France has no law against it, it's legal. The resulting 2 lines in the newspaper & lack of criticism by the press & lack of follow up prove my case.
Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries, it is what they must do. It is the sharing of that information to Law enforcement agencies which may be pushing boundaries, but much depends on the country, who is doing the Data Collection & who is targeted: US agencies collecting data on French Citizens: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the French Politicians & Press. French agencies collecting data on French Citizens: French Politicians state "we have a law that authorized that". Press says nothing. US agencies collecting data on German Politicians: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the German Politicians & Press. German agencies collecting data on US Politicians: German Politicians: Shhhhhhh... Press says nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
By the time Gmail was no longer an invite-only beta service, everyone had been talking about it for months. The buzz was enormous
Among geeks, sure. Among normal people? Not so much. A year after GMail launched, I still had non-geeks asking me 'what's your hotmail address?' meaning 'what's your personal email address' (as opposed to the work-run one).
Geeks, being those who do the most linking show up much more strongly in Google results than "normals".
Thanks for reminding that of the email hosting company Microsoft destroyed was hotmail & for the correction freebsd/Linux.
I'm not sure if the EU is aware, but Google is absurdly popular. I'd be shocked if Gmail didn't come up #1 in a search for email
That's certainly true now. But when gmail launched, it wasn't absurdly popular, it was a new contender in an established market, yet it still showed up at the top of the search results.
No. By the time Gmail was no longer an invite-only beta service, everyone had been talking about it for months. The buzz was enormous & Gmail's advantages enough to make people drop their Yahoo/other in droves for Gmail. Hell, Microsoft bought a well reputed linux based webmail service (whose name I can no longer recall) that they painfully migrated Linux>Windows to attempt to jumpstart their entry into webmail.
By the time Gmail was opened for everyone, Gmail had legitimately been linked to and talked about on the web to make it the #1 search result.
"Competition" is the smokescreen justification, the excuse they give to the public to attempt to appear noble. The EU doesn't care about competition, the real justification is the EUs volition to control online search. The right of EU politicians to erase old scandals trumps free speech & the public's right to know.
No, you blamed BYOD, which remains to be seen. I take it you've never seen a corporate iPad? I assure you they exist & while they can be infected just like corporate laptops can, it happens a lot less often...
And for the most of the french population and in particular journalists, the USA has no left, only two right wing parties.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
I'm a dual national & have lived in the USA and France (Paris for the last 35).
For the proof of french journalists political orientation, I need only look back at my experiences, among them doing support for la nouvelle obs. In particular I point to the acceptation without any criticism of the extraordinarily anti-American Thierry Meysson who was the toast of every news/press outlet for over 6 months. Even today, years after his lies were shown to be complete fabrications they pop up regularly across the board of France's political spectrum.
So, you can take your typically "I /am/ french" & other assumptions & stick them where they belong.
they keep their government in check
What?!? If we really kept the government in check, the authors of "Responsable but not guilty" would be in jail. If you don't understand the reference, you don't know enough about french politics to be making comments.
and take the streets at the hint of an real or perceived BS coming from it
They? Who is this they? Ahhh, the lucky few life public transport workers who are in guaranteed life long jobs and can go on strike without any repercussions meanwhile forcing millions of others to spend hours more getting to/from work.
Those who prétend that France is in any way different than the U.S. in stupid internet memes are liars, and I say that as someone who has lived here for 30+ years & tries to ignore as much of these idiotic stories as possible. However, the French "journalists" being in their great majority left of Ché Guevarra have an automatic knee-jerk reaction to everything in modern life that they do not like: Call it American &/or "ultra liberal" so that they can blame it on the USA or the UK.
All hail Amazon, the winner by proxy of this fight
I know a few people that use FB as a way to drum up business but they are generally self employed or in public facing jobs like Musicians announcing a new gig.
For the rest of us who are employees, & it's hard to stress this enough, FaceBook != LinkedIn!
I do not use FB through company ressources, it's for friends & family only. Work relations are through LinkedIn.
The two sets rarely have anything in common & that's how it will stay.
Big Pharma & the HMOs who are making billions more thanks to Obama agree wholeheartedly with you. People who aren't one subject voters enthralled with Obamacare & those paying more for their healthcare, not so much...
Obama doesn't care about Net Neutrality, it's a political move to attempt to look good.
If Obama really cared about Net Neutrality, he wouldn't have waited until he lost both houses & thus any chance of pushing his own legislation through Congress.
Now that Obama & the Dems no longer have the power to determine the legislative agenda, he can pretend to want Net Neutrality without loosing the support of all the MAFIAA contributors in Hollywood.
The risks to Americans and Britons to terrorists is going to be pretty close. I'm not sure about their risk to bathtubs, though. Bees are about on par with them, though.
Woosh. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever how different the UK terrorism risk is to that of the US. You've never visited the UK, never studied the risks, have no idea what the populations at risk are or how many UK/French/American citizens are fighting for ISIS at present but you'll just pull theoretical fuzzy risk evaluations out ouf your ass.
The subject is UK Justice & terrorism risks. You have no knowledge of the subject & nothing intelligent to say so just shut up.
No, there are plenty of more dangerous mundane threats than terrorists. Basically anything you would expect might kill you, and half of the things that you think couldn't possibly kill you,
None of your mundane threats are shutting down public transport, causing massive disruptions in public life or getting politicians scared enough for their reelection that they completely reorient government policy. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about & nothing intelligent to say.
Those are actual statistics, and while I'm sure your experiences make it hard to grasp the reality. I'm not sure how saying that they aren't a threat is a criticism of authorities other than the authorities trying to grasp power by preying on public fear, for which they obviously deserve criticism.
What "figures"? "Figures" you pull out of your ass are only "real" to you; boy-child. No references, no reality.
Before denigrating public fear, you need to experience some. I suggest trying to council rape victims. Given your track record here, you're bound to say something like "I've never been raped but I've read statistics that say that...". Their reaction to your drivel will at last give you an idea how stupid your arguing from ignorance is & how debilitating public fear can be.
Also, how am I cowering? The FBI, CIA, and NSA haven't protected me from terrorists. In fact, the US government has arguably had some role in creating just about every terrorist or terrorist group that has attacked domestically. They are a net negative on my susceptibility to terrorist attacks.
You know this how, oh ignorant one? Yeah, that's right, you don't, all you know is how to fart while exclaiming "smells like roses".
You have to be abysmally ignorant to think that England's courts have anything to do with America (I'll assume the USA because the ignorant often conflate the two terms) but that's neck beards for you...
As for thinking that ISIS isn't a clear and present dangerous threat, well yet again you display ignorance. The influx of people with western passports (that being the UK, France & even the USA For the ignorant) being trained by ISIS who then return (or are sent back) to the west are the most dangerous threats inside our countries. The USA has been lucky up to now to have avoided attacks on this vector. France, where I live, hasn't, nor has the UK.
I was in Paris during the series of bombings in the Metro in 1995 & my future wife was close enough to the Champs-Élysées bomb to feel the shockwave. I was in the UK during the Tube bombings in 2005. I remember the disruptions to normal life. Even though I, like most people never felt enough sense of personal danger to change how we lived our lives, the shutdown of services like the metro/tube/busses will effect you.
You, on the other hand, cower behind those who are attempting to protect you and are well enough protected by them to ignorantly criticize the work of authorities in countries far away. Your theoretical statistics mean nothing to people with something you do not possess: experience.
Because ISIS, Putin, the London tube bombers & co are all so cute & cuddly.
Ah, so you're one of the fuzzy bunny crowd, criticizing those who are protecting him from the cruel reality he refuses to admit exists. There can be no useful debate with people of your ilk unable or on willing to live in the real world.
Neckbeard indeed...
Then what is it then? From TFA, the "outrage" is that MI5/6 must not be able to spy on journalists or lawyers.
Yes they are hypocrites, which means that their right to spy on everyone is justified & the outrage on being sped upon is fake. You cannot have it both ways.
A more nuanced & thus truer position than that of the karma whores. Too bad you were unwilling to take the karma hit & posted AC...
See my reply to Tanshin. Justice, Freedom & Security are not absolutes as you two are claiming at present.
Ah, a believer in absolutes...
So, "Freedom is more important than Security" without any qualifications, is it? How just is it when my freedom to take or do anything I want trumps your security?
The USA was fortunate to have founding fathers that were more astute. Ben Franklin did not say "Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", he said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". You need to learn that without qualifiers, your statements play well to the mods but are completely meaningless IRL.
You have no interest in "how much secure is an unjust and non free society" because you live in a society that unlike you, understands the importance of those qualifiers that you denigrate by ignoring them.
So you're willing to live in a world with organizations like ISIS that will kill you without any means of your government defending you, just so you can get your fix. Good to know.
I never said that the world was perfect, just that journalists & lawyers cannot become magical invisibility cloaks for people looking to hide from mi5/6.
Uproar? No. Criticism by a few, yes but without the weight of government and given that press criticism in both counter examples was magnitudes less.
Besides which, you're wrong. In the case of French monitoring, it was the government (the DGSE) monitoring it's own citizens. When the interior minister was queried on it in parliament, his answer was "yes we do the same data collection as the U.S., but given that France has no law against it, it's legal. The resulting 2 lines in the newspaper & lack of criticism by the press & lack of follow up prove my case.
Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries, it is what they must do. It is the sharing of that information to Law enforcement agencies which may be pushing boundaries, but much depends on the country, who is doing the Data Collection & who is targeted:
US agencies collecting data on French Citizens: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the French Politicians & Press.
French agencies collecting data on French Citizens: French Politicians state "we have a law that authorized that". Press says nothing.
US agencies collecting data on German Politicians: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the German Politicians & Press.
German agencies collecting data on US Politicians: German Politicians: Shhhhhhh... Press says nothing.
See a pattern?