If you want Google to treat every service like a separate account, then create a separate account for every service. And learn to use incognito mode for porn and bomb-making and all the other stuff you don't want anyone to know about.
And for god's sake, stop whining about this, you fucking paranoid losers.
What sort of a moron doesn't use incognito mode (provided by Google Chrome) for browsing porn? Or anyother activity they don't want people to know about?
Let's say I type a person's name into google.com. Maybe there are a lot of people with that name. Since Google knows my profession and the other areas I've expressed interest in, it has a better shot at finding the person I am actually interested in. I don't understand why anyone would not want this. Except, perhaps, to play the part of the cynical hipster who is fighting "The Man".
Maybe I am interested in music from the 1920s. I type in a esoteric lyric, and matches for songs from that period are given a higher ranking than all the other random junk out there.
This is a basic AI problem. Having more context allows for better search results. Better search results helps Google compete with Microsoft to place more and better matched ads. More ads means more money for Google, so they can spend it on all the cool stuff they are really interested in, like driverless cars.
And if you don't want this, how hard is it to hit that one button that turns it off? Sheesh.
There is an official stance at Google about brain teasers. They are utterly banned. If an interviewer uses one, his feedback will be discarded by the Hiring Committee.
Estimation problems are permitted. How many pigeons are there in Manhattan? You don't have to figure out the answer. You only have to demonstrate that you can think of clever ways to determine how to find the numbers you need to find the answer.
"A man drives his car into a hotel and loses all his money"? Never asked at Google and so very very banned.
If it is a question that has only a single trick answer that you might get through luck. Absolutely banned.
If it is a question that has many potential solutions and allows you to demonstrate creative problem solving, no problem.
What makes you think that Google hasn't been working on this for some time now?
It's an obvious idea. It's what everyone wants. Google has been refining its speech recognition technology for years now. Google-411. Google Voice transcription. Google voice search. Google is a pattern recognition company. Did you really believe that this idea never occurred to them before Apple released Siri? Really?
So, let me see if I understand. Google is a bunch of "bloody morons" because they feel compelled to adhere to the laws of the country in which they are incorporated? Did I get that right?
Google makes the source code for Android publicly available as soon as it is out of the development stage. It is the handset manufacturers who refuse to give you a way to update.
Um. No. The vast majority of software used at Google was written by Google engineers. Google does use linux workstations for development, a linux kernel in the datacenter, and open sourced compilers. That's about it. They contribute changes back to the community where it makes sense. In the case of the datacenter kernel, the changes would be of no value to the community at large, since they are targeted at a VERY specific environment.
You really don't seem to understand how search engines work. You generally get a higher ranking if you are more popular. Google services are more popular.
The search results offered by Google are a reflection of how popular things are on the Internet. Nothing is pushed down because it is a competitor. Nothing is raised just because it is a Google product.
There is no evidence that Google cooks their results. At best, they get a cheap rate on the advertising slots, which are clearly marked as such.
There was a claim recently in the US that Google services always appeared at position number 3. If you look at the evidence, which was offered by Google's competitors (Microsoft), you will see that they ignored results that did not fit their expectations and kept deleting their cookies in order to get Google to randomly assign them slightly different, perhaps experimental, versions of the search algorithm that just happened to return a Google product in the third spot. Once they got that, they recorded that "fact" and continued trying new cookies until the got the next result that they wanted. Does anyone really believe that Microsoft Executives are above that sort of behavior?
Google revolutionized the advertising business with Adwords and Adsense BEFORE they purchased DoubleClick, which was acquired so they could expand the reach of what they were already doing.
Google Chrome is much more than just a simple interface on top of webkit.
Gmail is much more that smart filtering, but nice try.
Google has many experienced, older people. Google is advancing web technology. Google released new technology to the public all the time, in terms of distributed computing, web technology, languages, and tools. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
I work at Google. I'm 45, I think. I walk around and the crowd doesn't seem particularly young. Most of the engineers in my group are in their thirties and forties.
There does seems to be a perception that everyone at Google is young and beautiful and energetic. I really have no idea how that perception got started.
They are just announcing the cancelations. That doesn't mean that much better replacements won't be coming before the original projects are actually cancelled. Look for them.
Maybe Goggle provides analytical tools to get you aggregate data for people who visit your site. Maybe you are harvesting information from people who were directed to your site by Google. I don't know. But Google does not sell personal information.
Perhaps you can explain in more detail how you are getting this information from Google.
No. They definitely do NOT sell information. Any information they collect never leaves the datacenter. It is impossible for any commercial entity to approach Google and get information about you. Despite the fact that Google could make five times as much cash by doing so.
Advertisers come to Google and say, "Here is our product. Show it to people who are most interested." At no point does Google give any information about an individual to any one.
Claiming that Google sells information is disingenuous FUD.
Google doesn't want all your data. They just want anything that will help them do a better job of targeting ads, so they can take a cut of the money that would have gone to useless information brokers and middlemen, so that they can have an even bigger pile of money to spend on their real projects, like driverless cars.
They don't really care about stuff like: your name or phone number or address. They do care about: what sort of stuff you like to buy and what is nearby you at the current moment.
At the end of the day, anything that connects you with what you want to have, is what Google wants to know. Anything else gets scrubbed pretty quickly. Nothing personal, but they just don't care about the details of your life. Just maximize ad efficiency so they can get more money to work on the real stuff. Stuff like gmail and contacts the other apps, those are mostly apps that Google developed for internal use and released to the public as a convenience. The robots that pattern match mail contents to ads, those help defray the datacenter costs.
Google has a very dedicated legal team. Requests by the government are fought, tooth and nail, and everything is logged in the transparency report. But the law does have the right to seize certain data, which is why Google anonymizes everything as quickly as possible.
Microsoft has had no problem ratting out it's customers, or removing their sites from Bing is it offends a lucrative foreign government deal.
It's not a new language any more than Java6 is a different language than Java5.
What it provides is an efficient low-level language with convenient features to support high-level ideas. without the incredible bloat associated with Java.
After a month of coding Java, I figured out that there are many ways that a hidden reference can hold the entire memory graph hostage. Good luck tracking those down! before the code ships! If you're even bright enough to notice it on top of all the other memory that bloated Java code hogs up.
I've never had a memory leak in C++. I use auto or smart pointers or else I add delete code in my destructor as soon as I add "new" statements. It that's too complicated for you, then maybe Java is more your speed.
Aeiri is correct. Seroquel is primarily an anti-psychotic. Just ask any psychiatrist. I know people people who use it for that reason. In non-psychotic people it induces drowsiness, and I know people who use it for that reason as well. I've never heard of anyone using it for depression. Perhaps as part of a bipolar regime. Even if some people do use it to treat depression, it is primarily an anti-psychotic and labeling it as an "anti-depressant" is misleading because it has the opposite effect.
It sounds like the OP was just confused about the classification, perhaps because of the prevalence of anti-depressants in the pharmaceutical industry.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want Google to treat every service like a separate account, then create a separate account for every service. And learn to use incognito mode for porn and bomb-making and all the other stuff you don't want anyone to know about.
And for god's sake, stop whining about this, you fucking paranoid losers.
What sort of a moron doesn't use incognito mode (provided by Google Chrome) for browsing porn? Or anyother activity they don't want people to know about?
Google does not, and has never, sold personal information. All they do it match ads to users. No personal data ever leaves the datacenter.
Let's say I type a person's name into google.com. Maybe there are a lot of people with that name. Since Google knows my profession and the other areas I've expressed interest in, it has a better shot at finding the person I am actually interested in. I don't understand why anyone would not want this. Except, perhaps, to play the part of the cynical hipster who is fighting "The Man".
Maybe I am interested in music from the 1920s. I type in a esoteric lyric, and matches for songs from that period are given a higher ranking than all the other random junk out there.
This is a basic AI problem. Having more context allows for better search results. Better search results helps Google compete with Microsoft to place more and better matched ads. More ads means more money for Google, so they can spend it on all the cool stuff they are really interested in, like driverless cars.
And if you don't want this, how hard is it to hit that one button that turns it off? Sheesh.
There is an official stance at Google about brain teasers. They are utterly banned. If an interviewer uses one, his feedback will be discarded by the Hiring Committee.
Estimation problems are permitted. How many pigeons are there in Manhattan? You don't have to figure out the answer. You only have to demonstrate that you can think of clever ways to determine how to find the numbers you need to find the answer.
"A man drives his car into a hotel and loses all his money"? Never asked at Google and so very very banned.
If it is a question that has only a single trick answer that you might get through luck. Absolutely banned.
If it is a question that has many potential solutions and allows you to demonstrate creative problem solving, no problem.
What makes you think that Google hasn't been working on this for some time now?
It's an obvious idea. It's what everyone wants. Google has been refining its speech recognition technology for years now. Google-411. Google Voice transcription. Google voice search. Google is a pattern recognition company. Did you really believe that this idea never occurred to them before Apple released Siri? Really?
So, let me see if I understand. Google is a bunch of "bloody morons" because they feel compelled to adhere to the laws of the country in which they are incorporated? Did I get that right?
Google makes the source code for Android publicly available as soon as it is out of the development stage. It is the handset manufacturers who refuse to give you a way to update.
Um. No. The vast majority of software used at Google was written by Google engineers. Google does use linux workstations for development, a linux kernel in the datacenter, and open sourced compilers. That's about it. They contribute changes back to the community where it makes sense. In the case of the datacenter kernel, the changes would be of no value to the community at large, since they are targeted at a VERY specific environment.
You really don't seem to understand how search engines work. You generally get a higher ranking if you are more popular. Google services are more popular.
The search results offered by Google are a reflection of how popular things are on the Internet. Nothing is pushed down because it is a competitor. Nothing is raised just because it is a Google product.
There is no evidence that Google cooks their results. At best, they get a cheap rate on the advertising slots, which are clearly marked as such.
There was a claim recently in the US that Google services always appeared at position number 3. If you look at the evidence, which was offered by Google's competitors (Microsoft), you will see that they ignored results that did not fit their expectations and kept deleting their cookies in order to get Google to randomly assign them slightly different, perhaps experimental, versions of the search algorithm that just happened to return a Google product in the third spot. Once they got that, they recorded that "fact" and continued trying new cookies until the got the next result that they wanted. Does anyone really believe that Microsoft Executives are above that sort of behavior?
Google revolutionized the advertising business with Adwords and Adsense BEFORE they purchased DoubleClick, which was acquired so they could expand the reach of what they were already doing.
Google Chrome is much more than just a simple interface on top of webkit.
Gmail is much more that smart filtering, but nice try.
Google has many experienced, older people. Google is advancing web technology. Google released new technology to the public all the time, in terms of distributed computing, web technology, languages, and tools. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
I work at Google. I'm 45, I think. I walk around and the crowd doesn't seem particularly young. Most of the engineers in my group are in their thirties and forties.
There does seems to be a perception that everyone at Google is young and beautiful and energetic. I really have no idea how that perception got started.
They are just announcing the cancelations. That doesn't mean that much better replacements won't be coming before the original projects are actually cancelled. Look for them.
Bullshit. Provide details.
Maybe Goggle provides analytical tools to get you aggregate data for people who visit your site. Maybe you are harvesting information from people who were directed to your site by Google. I don't know. But Google does not sell personal information.
Perhaps you can explain in more detail how you are getting this information from Google.
No. They definitely do NOT sell information. Any information they collect never leaves the datacenter. It is impossible for any commercial entity to approach Google and get information about you. Despite the fact that Google could make five times as much cash by doing so.
Advertisers come to Google and say, "Here is our product. Show it to people who are most interested." At no point does Google give any information about an individual to any one.
Claiming that Google sells information is disingenuous FUD.
Google doesn't want all your data. They just want anything that will help them do a better job of targeting ads, so they can take a cut of the money that would have gone to useless information brokers and middlemen, so that they can have an even bigger pile of money to spend on their real projects, like driverless cars.
They don't really care about stuff like: your name or phone number or address.
They do care about: what sort of stuff you like to buy and what is nearby you at the current moment.
At the end of the day, anything that connects you with what you want to have, is what Google wants to know. Anything else gets scrubbed pretty quickly. Nothing personal, but they just don't care about the details of your life. Just maximize ad efficiency so they can get more money to work on the real stuff. Stuff like gmail and contacts the other apps, those are mostly apps that Google developed for internal use and released to the public as a convenience. The robots that pattern match mail contents to ads, those help defray the datacenter costs.
Google has a very dedicated legal team. Requests by the government are fought, tooth and nail, and everything is logged in the transparency report. But the law does have the right to seize certain data, which is why Google anonymizes everything as quickly as possible.
Microsoft has had no problem ratting out it's customers, or removing their sites from Bing is it offends a lucrative foreign government deal.
It's not a new language any more than Java6 is a different language than Java5.
What it provides is an efficient low-level language with convenient features to support high-level ideas. without the incredible bloat associated with Java.
After a month of coding Java, I figured out that there are many ways that a hidden reference can hold the entire memory graph hostage. Good luck tracking those down! before the code ships! If you're even bright enough to notice it on top of all the other memory that bloated Java code hogs up.
I've never had a memory leak in C++. I use auto or smart pointers or else I add delete code in my destructor as soon as I add "new" statements. It that's too complicated for you, then maybe Java is more your speed.
Aeiri is correct. Seroquel is primarily an anti-psychotic. Just ask any psychiatrist. I know people people who use it for that reason. In non-psychotic people it induces drowsiness, and I know people who use it for that reason as well. I've never heard of anyone using it for depression. Perhaps as part of a bipolar regime. Even if some people do use it to treat depression, it is primarily an anti-psychotic and labeling it as an "anti-depressant" is misleading because it has the opposite effect. It sounds like the OP was just confused about the classification, perhaps because of the prevalence of anti-depressants in the pharmaceutical industry.