The private individual allows trucks to bypass the swamp by traveling on his road. Business thrives for the grits delivery companies and they keep increasing traffic. Eventually, the burden of maintaining to road to keep up with the traffic becomes too much. The private owner says, "You are all more than welcome to keep using the road, but I'm not paying for its upkeep anymore.
There's no reason that anyone can't switch to another RSS reader.
You mean, like incognito mode in Chrome? Or a dashboard that lets you enable/disable any feature you distrust? Or enabling https by default on its services? Or two-factor authentication? Or a social site the defaults to sharing with no one, instead of sharing with everyone?
Oh, never mind. It was just an Anonymous Coward taking a potshot.
Can you share with us how you "know" this? Not "believe", but "know"?
Did the "voices" tell you? Or can you offer us even a tidbit to verify that your claims are anything other than "beliefs"?
Are you saying that you are currently in contact with "some of the highest ranking Googlers" and that they are sharing their nefarious plans with you? Or are you saying that you once went to the same school as someone who now works at Google and you did not like that person at the time?
Read up on the details the case where Google was "circumventing privacy controls in browsers". All Google was doing was trying to the the status for the +1 button on the page. A bug in Safari was piling on the extra cookies, which Google ignored.
Or, let's tape on our tin foil hats and look at it from YOUR perspective:
There were a relatively tiny number of people who actually enabled DNT in Safari. And those were people who were not likely to click on ads anyway. But, according to you, the people at Google made an active decision to that this was a market worth pursuing. So, knowing full well that privacy advocate would quickly discover that Safari was still tracking Google users, the decision was made to exploit a bug in Safari that piled on cookies to an outgoing connection.
I mean, come on, this is Google, some of the top web experts on the planet. If they knew about this Safari bug, and decided to exploit it, then they also would have known that the exploit would be discovered almost immediately and have to be removed. So you are asking us to believe that Google decided to engage in a huge PR fiasco just so that they could get a months worth of tracking info on a handful of people who were unlikely to click on ads anyway?
Is that what you want us to believe? Better add another layer of tin foil.
You can see what's in this "profile" by visiting your Google account page. This "profile" consists of some of the pages you visited and things you searched for. Basically, clues to what ads you might be likely to click on. That's all.
Google never has and never will sell your information to anyone.
yes, yes, yes, I get it, you are the tech-age hipster crying wolf. Don't let me spoil your fun.
Bundling their own browser with their own OS is not even remotely the issue.
Microsoft was convicted of actively trying to push other browsers from the market, to wipe them out. Part of their punishment, to make up for that transgression, is that they are required to offer a choice of browsers. They agreed to do so, in lieu of a more severe punishment.
They broke their promise to do that, so now the more severe punishment is being restored.
I could understand that an oversight might result in the browser choice being unavailable. I do find it a little hard to believe that, given the magnitude of the charges they were facing, someone was not assigned to double-check that the browser choice was still in there.
Microsoft likes to brag that 115,000 people signed the petition (if we are to believe Microsoft). They also like to brag that 3.5 million people visited the site.
So that means the only 0.3% percent of the site visitors found Microsoft's argument compelling.
Yes, and that business model will be walled gardens that you can not participate in without paying a fee.
If you really believed in your cause, you should entirely block any site that has a pop up. And you should stop using any search engine that is funded by advertising.
You are simply a parasite on the current business model. When there are enough parasites, the current model will collapse.
What model do you propose? Tell me about this new world where you get free Internet sites and the companies running them make no money from you?
Yes, they are commons, in the sense that they are free for all to use.
The manufacturers would not be purchasing the ads is they were not getting something better in return (more sales).
You would not use the services if they did not provide some value to you.
You are free to block the ads, and the corporations are free to stop providing the service. Once enough people start blocking the income stream for the service providers, they will stop providing the service.
I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.
The only data that Google has on you is about that you are likely to buy. I know that it is hip now to denounce Google as an evil spy, but they really don't have any information other than what you give them, what you searched for, and what affiliate sites you visited.
If I search for '555 datasheet', then the datasheet is the very first result.
In fact, as soon as I typed '555 d', Google guessed what I was searching for and started showing me results, with the datasheet being the first result. It only took five keystroke, I think Google would have figured it out sooner, except that 555 is a common part of fake phone number. So I had to type an extra two characters, ' d', before the Google instant results figured out that I was searching for datasheets.
So, contrary to what you are saying, it seems like Google is amazingly good at finding datasheets. How can we explain this disparity between our two experiences?
You don't seem like a paid shill. Would you like to try again to convince us that Google is an ad-riddled wasteland?
Three ads at the top, clearly marked as ads in a different color.
The organic results were:
1) Wikipedia (555 timer IC) 2) images for 555 timer chip 3) Know Your IC: 555 Timers 4) 555 Timer chip tutorial - YouTube 5) 555 Timer - SparkFun Electronics 6) Electronics Components: How the 555 Timer Chip Works - For... 7) LM555 Timer (Rev. B) - Texas Instruments
There is the datasheet, at position 7 on the first page. But the first search result, Wikipedia, contains the pinouts and functional specs of the chip, as well as a link to the datasheet.
I hardly had to look through 3 million links to ad farms. Would you like to revise your original statement?
The WBC is a law firm that exploits the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. They engage in acts that provoke people to sue them. When they win the case on First Amendment grounds, they then collect a jacked up fee for their legal services from the opponent. This is why they never do anything outrageous in their home state. They need to be in federal court for the 1976 Act to apply.
What Anonymous did is exactly what the WBC wants. They want publicity and notoriety so that they increase the number of parties that will sue them or in someway violate their civil "rights".
People at Google generally work 40-50 hours a week. Some people can't keep up, so they work longer hours then quit and publicly complain that Google is a slave shop. The rest of us are quite happy with the hours.
Having an advanced degree doesn't get you any more money at Google. Compensation determined by your job level (1-9) and you actual performance. At best, a PhD might start at one job level higher, if they are fresh out of school.
Slashdot Mirror
A better analogy would be:
The private individual allows trucks to bypass the swamp by traveling on his road. Business thrives for the grits delivery companies and they keep increasing traffic. Eventually, the burden of maintaining to road to keep up with the traffic becomes too much. The private owner says, "You are all more than welcome to keep using the road, but I'm not paying for its upkeep anymore.
There's no reason that anyone can't switch to another RSS reader.
Tools for protecting our privacy?
You mean, like incognito mode in Chrome? Or a dashboard that lets you enable/disable any feature you distrust? Or enabling https by default on its services? Or two-factor authentication? Or a social site the defaults to sharing with no one, instead of sharing with everyone?
Oh, never mind. It was just an Anonymous Coward taking a potshot.
Can you share with us how you "know" this? Not "believe", but "know"?
Did the "voices" tell you? Or can you offer us even a tidbit to verify that your claims are anything other than "beliefs"?
Are you saying that you are currently in contact with "some of the highest ranking Googlers" and that they are sharing their nefarious plans with you? Or are you saying that you once went to the same school as someone who now works at Google and you did not like that person at the time?
We await you fabulous stories with bated breath.
Read up on the details the case where Google was "circumventing privacy controls in browsers". All Google was doing was trying to the the status for the +1 button on the page. A bug in Safari was piling on the extra cookies, which Google ignored.
Or, let's tape on our tin foil hats and look at it from YOUR perspective:
There were a relatively tiny number of people who actually enabled DNT in Safari. And those were people who were not likely to click on ads anyway. But, according to you, the people at Google made an active decision to that this was a market worth pursuing. So, knowing full well that privacy advocate would quickly discover that Safari was still tracking Google users, the decision was made to exploit a bug in Safari that piled on cookies to an outgoing connection.
I mean, come on, this is Google, some of the top web experts on the planet. If they knew about this Safari bug, and decided to exploit it, then they also would have known that the exploit would be discovered almost immediately and have to be removed. So you are asking us to believe that Google decided to engage in a huge PR fiasco just so that they could get a months worth of tracking info on a handful of people who were unlikely to click on ads anyway?
Is that what you want us to believe? Better add another layer of tin foil.
You can see what's in this "profile" by visiting your Google account page. This "profile" consists of some of the pages you visited and things you searched for. Basically, clues to what ads you might be likely to click on. That's all.
Google never has and never will sell your information to anyone.
yes, yes, yes, I get it, you are the tech-age hipster crying wolf. Don't let me spoil your fun.
Neither is Google.
Bundling their own browser with their own OS is not even remotely the issue.
Microsoft was convicted of actively trying to push other browsers from the market, to wipe them out. Part of their punishment, to make up for that transgression, is that they are required to offer a choice of browsers. They agreed to do so, in lieu of a more severe punishment.
They broke their promise to do that, so now the more severe punishment is being restored.
I could understand that an oversight might result in the browser choice being unavailable. I do find it a little hard to believe that, given the magnitude of the charges they were facing, someone was not assigned to double-check that the browser choice was still in there.
You've lost me. How exactly do you think this works now? It sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how cookies work.
Microsoft likes to brag that 115,000 people signed the petition (if we are to believe Microsoft). They also like to brag that 3.5 million people visited the site.
So that means the only 0.3% percent of the site visitors found Microsoft's argument compelling.
Google does not sell personal information to third parties. And they never have.
At worst, they will use this as a signal to match ads to users.
That's not conspiracy. That's just keeping quite. There is no duty to report a crime. Conspiracy means that he helped set the actions in motion.
It is the tragedy of the commons. Overuse in this case means using the resource without contributing to the thing that maintains it.
Yes, and that business model will be walled gardens that you can not participate in without paying a fee.
If you really believed in your cause, you should entirely block any site that has a pop up. And you should stop using any search engine that is funded by advertising.
You are simply a parasite on the current business model. When there are enough parasites, the current model will collapse.
What model do you propose? Tell me about this new world where you get free Internet sites and the companies running them make no money from you?
Yes, they are commons, in the sense that they are free for all to use.
The manufacturers would not be purchasing the ads is they were not getting something better in return (more sales).
You would not use the services if they did not provide some value to you.
You are free to block the ads, and the corporations are free to stop providing the service. Once enough people start blocking the income stream for the service providers, they will stop providing the service.
I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.
Maybe you should use the Incognito mode (provided by Google Chrome) when you are watching porn then.
And when enough people start doing that, the free services will disappear. The tragedy of the commons.
The founders were not bought out. They are both extremely active still in the company, to the extent that they control everything.
As for being evil, there is a lot of evil out there, but it comes from competitors astroturfing the Internet.
The only data that Google has on you is about that you are likely to buy. I know that it is hip now to denounce Google as an evil spy, but they really don't have any information other than what you give them, what you searched for, and what affiliate sites you visited.
Fair enough. Why don't you suggest a search query then?
If I search for '555 datasheet', then the datasheet is the very first result.
In fact, as soon as I typed '555 d', Google guessed what I was searching for and started showing me results, with the datasheet being the first result. It only took five keystroke, I think Google would have figured it out sooner, except that 555 is a common part of fake phone number. So I had to type an extra two characters, ' d', before the Google instant results figured out that I was searching for datasheets.
So, contrary to what you are saying, it seems like Google is amazingly good at finding datasheets. How can we explain this disparity between our two experiences?
You don't seem like a paid shill. Would you like to try again to convince us that Google is an ad-riddled wasteland?
I searched for "555 timer chip".
Three ads at the top, clearly marked as ads in a different color.
The organic results were:
1) Wikipedia (555 timer IC) ...
2) images for 555 timer chip
3) Know Your IC: 555 Timers
4) 555 Timer chip tutorial - YouTube
5) 555 Timer - SparkFun Electronics
6) Electronics Components: How the 555 Timer Chip Works - For
7) LM555 Timer (Rev. B) - Texas Instruments
There is the datasheet, at position 7 on the first page. But the first search result, Wikipedia, contains the pinouts and functional specs of the chip, as well as a link to the datasheet.
I hardly had to look through 3 million links to ad farms. Would you like to revise your original statement?
Really? Give us a search phrase so we can verify this for ourselves at google.com. I dare you.
The WBC is a law firm that exploits the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. They engage in acts that provoke people to sue them. When they win the case on First Amendment grounds, they then collect a jacked up fee for their legal services from the opponent. This is why they never do anything outrageous in their home state. They need to be in federal court for the 1976 Act to apply.
What Anonymous did is exactly what the WBC wants. They want publicity and notoriety so that they increase the number of parties that will sue them or in someway violate their civil "rights".
People at Google generally work 40-50 hours a week. Some people can't keep up, so they work longer hours then quit and publicly complain that Google is a slave shop. The rest of us are quite happy with the hours.
Having an advanced degree doesn't get you any more money at Google. Compensation determined by your job level (1-9) and you actual performance. At best, a PhD might start at one job level higher, if they are fresh out of school.