I have to ask: Why is this the third comment asking about anonymity when I said nothing of the sort? I was complaining about Google insisting one use their "legal" name as opposed, to, say a much more well-known nickname or online handle.
Their AUP even says people can go by nicknames if they choose---but if Google suspends an account because they didn't like your nickname, now they want proof of your "legal" name.
If the aim of the site is social networking, then they would let people go by the names they want to go by when interacting with people. If they're insisting on people using their "legal" names, either there's some sort of basic ignorance or incompetence on the part of Google+'s developers with respect to how people identify themselves, or something more nefarious is going on. And I do not believe for one second that people working for Google are in the "incompetent" or "ignorant" category.
My profile was suspended because they insist on people using their "legal" names. They tell users signing up to use the name that people know you by, but their appeal form demands you either provide a government ID or some other "official" evidence of your name like a link to a college directory.
I then go to the discussion board about profiles and virtually every recent thread is people complaining about being suspended.
Good job, Google. Just as evil as Facebook. More interested in being able to connect everyone's doings with their "legal" identity than they are at creating a social networking site for their users.
So in a country that people deride as stereotypically socialist, net neutrality is accomplished voluntarily, whereas in the purportedly "free market" U.S., the government tried to coerce ISPs to do this. What's wrong with this picture?
We all know TV is bad for you because it turns you into a lazy, passive couch potato. And now video games, cell phones and the Internet are bad for you because they...don't.
...the U.S. Government has defined sky to be red. People were shocked to wake up this morning to discover that what they see above themselves for 98% of the day isn't really "sky."
"I swear that going house to house jiggling doorknobs and poking at windows was an accident. Yeah, all those tools I had with me to pick locks and pry things open... yeah, had 'em on me by accident too."
In other words, this is basically one side of the political debate complaining that the other side is politicizing the issue.
It goes on to "call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues..."
So where were these guys when the pro-climate change crowd were trying to have climate change skeptics like Bjørn Lomborg charged in a similar manner?
... the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action...
"Taking action" is buying into one side of the political debate over climate change: Either "do something" or don't do something. But, I guess if someone agrees with your side, they're not politicizing the issue, they're just "making policy decisions."
And, in the meantime, if someone or something happens to "grab" that confidential document you are trying to print, no problem. What's that? government documents you are trying to print? Send 'em to the cloud, China can't get them there...oh wait.
Hear, hear. It never ceases to amaze me how virtually every new Google "service" further erodes people's concept of privacy. And people just eat it up. If someone ever wanted to intentionally socially engineer away the concept of "privacy" to begin with, this is how to do it. Makes you wonder...
That's pretty poor design, and I guess I've just never run into that. Of course I've seen the periodic "scheduled maintenance" notices on sites, but I always thought those were just the admins temporarily taking the site down for patching or upgrading, not downtime designed into the web app itself.
How about you just let people invent the cure and then let them ask the individuals who are colorblind if they want to be cured or not? It's only "morally wrong" if you try to force someone to be "cured" from something they don't see as a disease.
Let's ask another question: Is it morally wrong to deny someone a cure because in your own infinite arrogance you think it's "wrong" to give it to them?
And remember this when they say the information is "protected by law": Laws can be changed. (Yeah, I know that sounds obvious, but how many foolish people are assuaged by being told "don't worry, your privacy is protected by law.") They're just words on paper, the government changes them all the time, and most of the time it just breaks them without even bothering to change them.
Want to protect your privacy? Don't share information. Once it's out there, it's out there.
No one speaks for "humanity." Everyone speaks for themselves. But, I suppose that won't stop some sleazebag politician from claiming to speak for a few million or billion other people...
Slashdot Mirror
* Where one megabit equals one million bits.
Maybe Google should "fucking follow their own terms of service" which says you can use nicknames that you commonly go by.
I have to ask: Why is this the third comment asking about anonymity when I said nothing of the sort? I was complaining about Google insisting one use their "legal" name as opposed, to, say a much more well-known nickname or online handle.
Their AUP even says people can go by nicknames if they choose---but if Google suspends an account because they didn't like your nickname, now they want proof of your "legal" name.
If the aim of the site is social networking, then they would let people go by the names they want to go by when interacting with people. If they're insisting on people using their "legal" names, either there's some sort of basic ignorance or incompetence on the part of Google+'s developers with respect to how people identify themselves, or something more nefarious is going on. And I do not believe for one second that people working for Google are in the "incompetent" or "ignorant" category.
The name I'm posting with here and that I use on every other website.
My profile was suspended because they insist on people using their "legal" names. They tell users signing up to use the name that people know you by, but their appeal form demands you either provide a government ID or some other "official" evidence of your name like a link to a college directory.
I then go to the discussion board about profiles and virtually every recent thread is people complaining about being suspended.
Good job, Google. Just as evil as Facebook. More interested in being able to connect everyone's doings with their "legal" identity than they are at creating a social networking site for their users.
So in a country that people deride as stereotypically socialist, net neutrality is accomplished voluntarily, whereas in the purportedly "free market" U.S., the government tried to coerce ISPs to do this. What's wrong with this picture?
We all know TV is bad for you because it turns you into a lazy, passive couch potato. And now video games, cell phones and the Internet are bad for you because they ...don't.
That's because the "enemy" the government is referring to is the public. They obviously can't admit that in a court filing.
And yet still on all the websites I maintain, I see zero referers from anything but Google. People actually use these other search engines?
...the U.S. Government has defined sky to be red. People were shocked to wake up this morning to discover that what they see above themselves for 98% of the day isn't really "sky."
Thieves working with thieves. What a surprise there.
Well, that's sure to make what started as a silly Facebook joke become international news, isn't it.
"I swear that going house to house jiggling doorknobs and poking at windows was an accident. Yeah, all those tools I had with me to pick locks and pry things open... yeah, had 'em on me by accident too."
Typical Wikipedia bureaucracy nonsense. Nothing to see here...
In other words, this is basically one side of the political debate complaining that the other side is politicizing the issue.
So where were these guys when the pro-climate change crowd were trying to have climate change skeptics like Bjørn Lomborg charged in a similar manner?
"Taking action" is buying into one side of the political debate over climate change: Either "do something" or don't do something. But, I guess if someone agrees with your side, they're not politicizing the issue, they're just "making policy decisions."
Using the legal system to silence or punish your intellectual opponents does wonders for your credibility...
Hear, hear. It never ceases to amaze me how virtually every new Google "service" further erodes people's concept of privacy. And people just eat it up. If someone ever wanted to intentionally socially engineer away the concept of "privacy" to begin with, this is how to do it. Makes you wonder...
That's pretty poor design, and I guess I've just never run into that. Of course I've seen the periodic "scheduled maintenance" notices on sites, but I always thought those were just the admins temporarily taking the site down for patching or upgrading, not downtime designed into the web app itself.
Ah, IBM's long-standing tradition of selling tech to Nazis...
Maybe it's so fast because it only has 50-75% uptime. The IRS website is the only website I've ever seen that was "closed." See here.
If you can't convince enough people that your science is correct, just force them to agree with you.
How about you just let people invent the cure and then let them ask the individuals who are colorblind if they want to be cured or not? It's only "morally wrong" if you try to force someone to be "cured" from something they don't see as a disease.
Let's ask another question: Is it morally wrong to deny someone a cure because in your own infinite arrogance you think it's "wrong" to give it to them?
And remember this when they say the information is "protected by law": Laws can be changed. (Yeah, I know that sounds obvious, but how many foolish people are assuaged by being told "don't worry, your privacy is protected by law.") They're just words on paper, the government changes them all the time, and most of the time it just breaks them without even bothering to change them.
Want to protect your privacy? Don't share information. Once it's out there, it's out there.
No one speaks for "humanity." Everyone speaks for themselves. But, I suppose that won't stop some sleazebag politician from claiming to speak for a few million or billion other people...
And appropriately, the report about this is hosted on Wikileaks.
In two years they haven't been able to uncover a single whistleblower? Nice demonstration of the abject incompetence of government.