It doesn't matter what your intent was. You are free to file a claim with whatever intent you want, but if you have no evidence to back it up, you are subject to a counter-claim.
Actually, he could come out ahead. He can file a counter-claim against you for "barristry". That's when you file against someone without a reasonable belief that you have a valid claim. He could collect damages.
Whether it is evil or not depends on what people do with it. Email is not evil, but can be used for evil. Anything can be used for evil.
The person who submitted this summary is obviously an anti-Google FUD spreader. They submitted the story, referred to a secondary article instead of the original story, because they have an agenda. They purposely colored the story as "Google sells software for tyrannical bosses to put leashes on every employee." If someone actually does that, then yes, they are evil.
If they use this for the purpose for which Google designed it, I don't see how that is evil. Which delivery vehicle is closest to the pickup? Which ambulance is closest to the accident? Exactly when will my taxi arrive?
I work for Google. I don't see where Google has become evil, unless I were dumb enough to believe all the FUD and sensationalism spread by a certain few companies, and bloggers who are trying to get attention. I get it: It's the hipster geek thing to do, to cry out about how Google is evil, so you can look like you are wise and worldly, when in fact you are just parroting FUD.
I had to fly out to one of the data centers recently, so I reserved a ride from one of the shuttle companies that services the local airport. Because they tracked the location of the shuttle, I was able to hang out at my desk and do email until I got an automated alert that the shuttle had almost arrived. This, instead of spending 30 minutes sitting outside with my bags as the shuttle encounters inevitable traffic delays. This is what the tracking system does. If some company uses it for evil purposes, then complain about that company. Just as some companies can use firewalls and routers to block or monitor traffic. But those things are not evil in themselves.
Here is the Google deal: There are producers and there are consumers and they make up the economy. That's just a fact. And, unless you are a hermit, you participate in one or both groups. Producers and consumers want to find each other. How? Well, there was the old way, where producers spent a fortune broadcasting their message all over the place, littering TV, print media, and your mailbox with crap you did not want to see. And fortunes were spent on that, more than small businesses could afford, and whole forests were destroyed. There is a large cost of entry so you could blanket the world with your message which got lost among all the other large companies doing the same thing.
Or, we could target the messages. Much more efficient. Small players can now afford to advertise. The change to consumers is that they still see as many ads, but they are now less random. Small producers can afford to get their message to just the people who might be interested. Small consumers get tons of free services in exchange to seeing ads that might be something they are interested in. Everybody wins, except the conventional companies who have a vested interest in maintaining their distribution and information hegemonies.
No company does more to protect your privacy than Google. Your information never leaves the datacenter and is never viewed by human eyes. You can see just what information they collect by visiting your account page. You can use Chrome Incognito mode to do things you don't want anyone knowing about. You can turn off tracking completely if you like. If you leave it on, you are helping promote a more efficient economy where small businesses can compete against larger companies with huge advertising budgets. You are free to turn it all off, but don't turn it off just because some hipster IT geek likes to shout wolf.
It's not just the past that is haunting Microsoft. Despite the excellence of their engineering, Microsoft leadership continues to act in the evil manner they always have. The latest is the astroturfing and the underhanded attack on Android with laughably bogus patents. Same old Microsoft management, unfortunately.
Yes, there is a TON of activity on G+. It's just that everything is private by default, so when you first sign up, it looks like there is no one there.
There are some new features now, like Ripples, and What's Trending, that make it easier to find stuff that you are interested in.
Google built a great platform, and there's no need to rush it. Eventually, people will start to come over, if it suits them.
It's not trying to compete with Facebook, despite what the media says. Facebook is about telling the whole world out yourself, something people really like. G+ is about finding people with similar interests, no matter what they may be.
Really? Do you have inside information on this? Do you really believe that Google made multiple billions in Australia? Do you know if they had additional expenses in Australia last year because they were expanding there? Do you know what there expenses were at all? Do you know if they got a tax offset from the government because the brought a whole bunch of new jobs there recently? Do you know what other forms of compensation Google may have offered to Australia? Do you have all this inside information, and an understanding of complex international taxation issues?
Or do you just like to repeat things that you read on the Internet?
I work at Google. We use Google Docs internally for everything, including long, complex design documents with tables, figures, headers, footnotes, change tracking, and comments. And equations and tables and scripting and a built-in research tool, and so on. And we can all work on documents simultaneously while watching each other make changes and respond to out-of-band comments and collaborate via Hangouts which are part of our VC system. Maybe you just don't know how to use Google Docs.
As for bouncing things back and forth, we don't have to. We collaborate all in one document. The only reason you have to bounce things back and forth is because Office doesn't have real collaboration. As for trying to convert back and forth between Office and Docs, yes that would suck, because Microsoft intentionally designed their system to not play well with others. In fact, they actively subvert any attempt to develop an open standard for documents.
Chrome does not report everything you do to the "mothership". As far as I know, all it does it is watch when you type in a search term to Google. Then it measures how long it took to select a result, and it notes which result you picked. then it sends the anonymized data back to Google in order to improve the search results quality for everyone. IE does the same thing, except that it looks at the Google search results and send the info back to Microsoft in order to enhance Bing.
As for tracking you, Google and most other companies add tracking cookies in order to recognize you when you show up at an affiliated site. But this has nothing to do with any particular browser.
Um, that's what Google+ is. Google+ is the integration of all the Google services into one unified whole. So, for instance, you can do a Google+ search and see results that include you email, docs, photos, etc...
There is also a sharing page that people seem to think of as Google+, because that is where a lot of the integrated services come together. And they media tends to portray the social page as being all of Google+, so them they can make wild stories about Google and Facebook competing with each other. And I am sorry that the media misled you, but the reality is that Google+ is the integration of all the Google services into a seamless whole.
Inside of Google, there is not much talk about Facebook, or competing with Facebook. Most people at Google could care less about Facebook, except for Facebook's astroturfing. Most of the recent focus at Google is on integrating everything and making all the service interact with each other. And the number one place Google likes to show off that integration is on what you call the Google+ page. But when Google publishes numbers for Google+, they are talking about the number of accounts that use the integrated services.
That had more to do with reciprocity. Facebook sucks in a lot of data and does not share back. Google used to let people export their information to Facebook (contacts, etc...) but Facebook would not to the same in return, so Google eventually got fed up with feeding the walled gardens.
Google never has, and never will, sell information to advertiser or anyone else.
Advertisers give their ads to Google and Google places them by the people who are most likely to care. And no one has to cut down rainforests to cram your mailbox full of irrelevant fliers.
Facebook requires you to have a Facebook email account. When you sign up for Facebook, you get Facebook email for free. No way around it, I think. How it this different from Google+?
Why do you care if you have a gmail account? No one is making you use it.
It is not an invasion os privacy if both parties agree to it. In return for all the free services, you agree that Google can mechanically match ads to your content. Google is a pattern matching company. You "pay" for the services by viewing ads that are relevant to you, instead of being completely random. Companies that have something to sell love this because they know longer have to cut down entire forests just to litter the world with print ads, most of which go directly in the trash.
Both parties agreed to this, therefor it is not an invasion of privacy. Nice attempt at trolling, though. You played the part of the jaded hipster really well.
No. All Google did was use a fairly standard technique to phone home and check the status of a +1 link. Safari screwed up and piled a bunch of extra cookies on the connection, even though Safari had promised the user that it would not do that.
I'm not sure of the name. Sorry. But the same thing happens very quickly underwater, for divers. The brain tries to make everything white balanced. You go an a dive, the deeper water starts filtering out the red spectrum, and everything looks normal because your brain compensates. When you get back to the boat, you wonder why your photos all look washed out and blue. Your brain augments your reality.
It even seems to work with patterns. When I used to meditate, I would spend hours staring at a spot on the wall. If there was a flat, untextured spot, my brain would try to cover it with texture from the area around the bald spot.
What you think you "see" is just reality that's been run through a compression algorithm.
Did anyone actually read the article? There's nothing in there saying that Apple and Google can not hire away from each other. The unspoken rule is that they would not "cold-call". There's no problem with a Google employee going to look for work at Apple or vice-versa. The two companies just agreed to not actively poach from each other by cold calling employees.
All that means is that if you are unhappy with your job or compensation, all you have to do is get off your ass and ask around. All this meant was, if you work for company A and you are unhappy, then you shouldn't be whining that company B hasn't called to fix your situation. Instead, you should take control of your own life and go interview at company B.
1) Whether it is opt-in or opt-out, no one but you and Google algorithms ever see the data. 2) All the data they collect *is* available to you to review. Just check your Google dashboard. 3) No matter what you agree to, none of your information is ever given to third parties. Google matches the advertisements to your information internally.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to see all the information that Google has about you, just go to your Google account dashboard and look for yourself.
Google is interested in your favorite color and hobbies and stuff like that. They don't give a shit about your personal secrets.
It doesn't matter what your intent was. You are free to file a claim with whatever intent you want, but if you have no evidence to back it up, you are subject to a counter-claim.
I'm confused. When has Google ever sold personal information?
Oh, you were just taking a potshot. Do carry on.
Actually, he could come out ahead. He can file a counter-claim against you for "barristry". That's when you file against someone without a reasonable belief that you have a valid claim. He could collect damages.
Whether it is evil or not depends on what people do with it. Email is not evil, but can be used for evil. Anything can be used for evil.
The person who submitted this summary is obviously an anti-Google FUD spreader. They submitted the story, referred to a secondary article instead of the original story, because they have an agenda. They purposely colored the story as "Google sells software for tyrannical bosses to put leashes on every employee." If someone actually does that, then yes, they are evil.
If they use this for the purpose for which Google designed it, I don't see how that is evil. Which delivery vehicle is closest to the pickup? Which ambulance is closest to the accident? Exactly when will my taxi arrive?
Seriously, think it through.
I work for Google. I don't see where Google has become evil, unless I were dumb enough to believe all the FUD and sensationalism spread by a certain few companies, and bloggers who are trying to get attention. I get it: It's the hipster geek thing to do, to cry out about how Google is evil, so you can look like you are wise and worldly, when in fact you are just parroting FUD.
I had to fly out to one of the data centers recently, so I reserved a ride from one of the shuttle companies that services the local airport. Because they tracked the location of the shuttle, I was able to hang out at my desk and do email until I got an automated alert that the shuttle had almost arrived. This, instead of spending 30 minutes sitting outside with my bags as the shuttle encounters inevitable traffic delays. This is what the tracking system does. If some company uses it for evil purposes, then complain about that company. Just as some companies can use firewalls and routers to block or monitor traffic. But those things are not evil in themselves.
Get a clue.
Here is the Google deal: There are producers and there are consumers and they make up the economy. That's just a fact. And, unless you are a hermit, you participate in one or both groups. Producers and consumers want to find each other. How? Well, there was the old way, where producers spent a fortune broadcasting their message all over the place, littering TV, print media, and your mailbox with crap you did not want to see. And fortunes were spent on that, more than small businesses could afford, and whole forests were destroyed. There is a large cost of entry so you could blanket the world with your message which got lost among all the other large companies doing the same thing.
Or, we could target the messages. Much more efficient. Small players can now afford to advertise. The change to consumers is that they still see as many ads, but they are now less random. Small producers can afford to get their message to just the people who might be interested. Small consumers get tons of free services in exchange to seeing ads that might be something they are interested in. Everybody wins, except the conventional companies who have a vested interest in maintaining their distribution and information hegemonies.
No company does more to protect your privacy than Google. Your information never leaves the datacenter and is never viewed by human eyes. You can see just what information they collect by visiting your account page. You can use Chrome Incognito mode to do things you don't want anyone knowing about. You can turn off tracking completely if you like. If you leave it on, you are helping promote a more efficient economy where small businesses can compete against larger companies with huge advertising budgets. You are free to turn it all off, but don't turn it off just because some hipster IT geek likes to shout wolf.
It's not just the past that is haunting Microsoft. Despite the excellence of their engineering, Microsoft leadership continues to act in the evil manner they always have. The latest is the astroturfing and the underhanded attack on Android with laughably bogus patents. Same old Microsoft management, unfortunately.
Just walk next to someone else doing the same thing. It will look like you two are having a conversation.
Yes, there is a TON of activity on G+. It's just that everything is private by default, so when you first sign up, it looks like there is no one there.
There are some new features now, like Ripples, and What's Trending, that make it easier to find stuff that you are interested in.
Google built a great platform, and there's no need to rush it. Eventually, people will start to come over, if it suits them.
It's not trying to compete with Facebook, despite what the media says. Facebook is about telling the whole world out yourself, something people really like. G+ is about finding people with similar interests, no matter what they may be.
Really? Do you have inside information on this? Do you really believe that Google made multiple billions in Australia? Do you know if they had additional expenses in Australia last year because they were expanding there? Do you know what there expenses were at all? Do you know if they got a tax offset from the government because the brought a whole bunch of new jobs there recently? Do you know what other forms of compensation Google may have offered to Australia? Do you have all this inside information, and an understanding of complex international taxation issues?
Or do you just like to repeat things that you read on the Internet?
I work at Google. We use Google Docs internally for everything, including long, complex design documents with tables, figures, headers, footnotes, change tracking, and comments. And equations and tables and scripting and a built-in research tool, and so on. And we can all work on documents simultaneously while watching each other make changes and respond to out-of-band comments and collaborate via Hangouts which are part of our VC system. Maybe you just don't know how to use Google Docs.
As for bouncing things back and forth, we don't have to. We collaborate all in one document. The only reason you have to bounce things back and forth is because Office doesn't have real collaboration. As for trying to convert back and forth between Office and Docs, yes that would suck, because Microsoft intentionally designed their system to not play well with others. In fact, they actively subvert any attempt to develop an open standard for documents.
Chrome does not report everything you do to the "mothership". As far as I know, all it does it is watch when you type in a search term to Google. Then it measures how long it took to select a result, and it notes which result you picked. then it sends the anonymized data back to Google in order to improve the search results quality for everyone. IE does the same thing, except that it looks at the Google search results and send the info back to Microsoft in order to enhance Bing.
As for tracking you, Google and most other companies add tracking cookies in order to recognize you when you show up at an affiliated site. But this has nothing to do with any particular browser.
Um, that's what Google+ is. Google+ is the integration of all the Google services into one unified whole. So, for instance, you can do a Google+ search and see results that include you email, docs, photos, etc...
There is also a sharing page that people seem to think of as Google+, because that is where a lot of the integrated services come together. And they media tends to portray the social page as being all of Google+, so them they can make wild stories about Google and Facebook competing with each other. And I am sorry that the media misled you, but the reality is that Google+ is the integration of all the Google services into a seamless whole.
Inside of Google, there is not much talk about Facebook, or competing with Facebook. Most people at Google could care less about Facebook, except for Facebook's astroturfing. Most of the recent focus at Google is on integrating everything and making all the service interact with each other. And the number one place Google likes to show off that integration is on what you call the Google+ page. But when Google publishes numbers for Google+, they are talking about the number of accounts that use the integrated services.
That had more to do with reciprocity. Facebook sucks in a lot of data and does not share back. Google used to let people export their information to Facebook (contacts, etc...) but Facebook would not to the same in return, so Google eventually got fed up with feeding the walled gardens.
Google never has, and never will, sell information to advertiser or anyone else.
Advertisers give their ads to Google and Google places them by the people who are most likely to care. And no one has to cut down rainforests to cram your mailbox full of irrelevant fliers.
Facebook requires you to have a Facebook email account. When you sign up for Facebook, you get Facebook email for free. No way around it, I think. How it this different from Google+?
Why do you care if you have a gmail account? No one is making you use it.
Bing gave me two ads, one for IE. Google gave me no ads. Just reviews.
No.
This judge spent his lawyer days working at Morrison-Forrester, the premier Silicon Valley high-tech law firm. He knows all about computer software.
It is not an invasion os privacy if both parties agree to it. In return for all the free services, you agree that Google can mechanically match ads to your content. Google is a pattern matching company. You "pay" for the services by viewing ads that are relevant to you, instead of being completely random. Companies that have something to sell love this because they know longer have to cut down entire forests just to litter the world with print ads, most of which go directly in the trash.
Both parties agreed to this, therefor it is not an invasion of privacy. Nice attempt at trolling, though. You played the part of the jaded hipster really well.
No. All Google did was use a fairly standard technique to phone home and check the status of a +1 link. Safari screwed up and piled a bunch of extra cookies on the connection, even though Safari had promised the user that it would not do that.
I'm not sure of the name. Sorry. But the same thing happens very quickly underwater, for divers. The brain tries to make everything white balanced. You go an a dive, the deeper water starts filtering out the red spectrum, and everything looks normal because your brain compensates. When you get back to the boat, you wonder why your photos all look washed out and blue. Your brain augments your reality.
It even seems to work with patterns. When I used to meditate, I would spend hours staring at a spot on the wall. If there was a flat, untextured spot, my brain would try to cover it with texture from the area around the bald spot.
What you think you "see" is just reality that's been run through a compression algorithm.
Lion is 10.7
Snow Leopard was 10.6
Leopard was 10.5
Tiger was 10.5
Did anyone actually read the article? There's nothing in there saying that Apple and Google can not hire away from each other. The unspoken rule is that they would not "cold-call". There's no problem with a Google employee going to look for work at Apple or vice-versa. The two companies just agreed to not actively poach from each other by cold calling employees.
All that means is that if you are unhappy with your job or compensation, all you have to do is get off your ass and ask around. All this meant was, if you work for company A and you are unhappy, then you shouldn't be whining that company B hasn't called to fix your situation. Instead, you should take control of your own life and go interview at company B.
There was nothing "evil" about this at all.
1) Whether it is opt-in or opt-out, no one but you and Google algorithms ever see the data.
2) All the data they collect *is* available to you to review. Just check your Google dashboard.
3) No matter what you agree to, none of your information is ever given to third parties. Google matches the advertisements to your information internally.