dude, I can see you don't like to read. Let me recap prior posts.
both the recent incidents, the browsers were acting by default, and not by user choice
I'll grant you that in many instances the user unknowingly relied on browser defaults, but in many others such as for me the user made an informed decision on his browser settings. You're saying that because many users used defaults, it's ok that Google hacked my safari to get around my express preferences. I feel violated by an entity that I was silly enough to trust.
how it is wrong to give a user what they expressly opted in for?
this is disingenuous at best. You can't claim that users were ignorant of their browser defaults, then claim that they read and understood all the invisible cookie implications of signing into a google account.
Here's what google should have done. On safari when cookies are blocked, pop up a dialog box. "Your browser is currently blocking cookies from Google affiliates. In order to get the best Google experience including the +1 buttons, please change your browser settings. Instructions for doing this are here (insert link)."
NOPE, in this analogy google would break the window to put the flyers into the car. This is the illegal part. There's not internet analogue to putting flyers in the windshields. Perhaps this is a pop-under?
Let me make a car analogy to simplify it for you. My car is configured to automatically lock when parked (like safari, default cookie setting, see?). At the same time, I signed up for google's informational flyer service, where they put a map in my car with stores I might be interested in, and also throws I an few ad flyers. But there,s a conflict, right? I asked google to put shit in my car, but my car locks by default. Obviously, the correct resolution is for google to respect my locked car, but yu're telling me that it is correct for google to break in to leave me the flyers even though I don't want anybody to go in my car. Do you understand how wack that is? Now that I,ve laid it out for you using small words, please admit that you were wrong.
The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."
First off, I chose to set/keep my Safari settings to block third party cookies, so Google went around my express privacy choices. I'm still waiting for my apology.
Second off, what does non-PII even mean in this context, or on the internet at all anymore? They add a cookie that links your computer behavior to your google account. Advertisers track your behavior against the body of data already collected on you. Isn't that how all tracking works? How is this different than any other tracking?
Third, you say Safari users weren't savvy enough to know that they had blocked cookies in the preferences, but were savvy enough to know that by signing into google they "opted in to targeted ads." Nope, you have to choose one or the other. Most people are likely clueless about their browser settings AND their google tracking settings. How is Google clearly right on this, and Safari clearly wrong?
Lastly, I laugh at your justification for the IE thing. If Google chose to abuse the trust based system, it's not their fault?
I hope you own google stock, because if you're just a fanboi with no monetary benefit, then it's especially sad.
Yes, this is the best approach. An explicit opt in - to gain access to this service, you need to give us access to you rbrowsing habits by logging into an account / accepting cookies or whatever. I both this case and safari, google is making an end run around privacy choices that users have made, ie the choice to block third party cookies, and stealing user info anyways. Yes, when the door is locked and you crawl down a chimney, then take something that the owner didn't want you to have, it's stealing.
In America, a persons rights are inalienable and endowed by the creator. It doesn't matter if you can or can't enter into or abide by an agreement. I think you're tring to get at the idea of a social contract, but this is separate from a person's rights.
Objectively false. There's a reason they call game meat "gamey". Your experience may differ, obviously, but only because you've eaten either 1) game meat or 2) shit.
don't blame the abuser! it's the victim's fault. she should have known better than to try to talk to him when he was stinking drunk again. Look what she made him do!
but fish are constrained in a barrel, just like us on Earth.
didn't you read the original question? Everything presupposes we're in space for space battles. What makes you think we would be limited to earth? What makes you think that the space battle would happen in earth's orbit?
If I paid for the device, ethically, I have the right to use what ever software I want on it.
also, this is silly on its face. ethically or not, you only have the right to use a small subset of software on your toy. only a portion of software is written for a particular device! ethically, if you want to play temple run on your and-crap, to f'n bad! because they don't make it for your and-crap.
Although I could jail break (I spelled it right this time Kell!) Apple hardware, I would still need to pay for it. The looks and the specs on the iPad 3 make it damn tempting to do so.
non-sequitir? If you bought an android tablet, you would also have to pay for it. so how is paying for it a differentiator?
is ghostery sufficient to block trackers and problems like the article says? I use it, and am always surprised by how many tracking pixels it finds on the web. speaking of which, now slashdot has trackers from twitter, facebook, and google+? that's a pain.
Slashdot Mirror
both the recent incidents, the browsers were acting by default, and not by user choice
I'll grant you that in many instances the user unknowingly relied on browser defaults, but in many others such as for me the user made an informed decision on his browser settings. You're saying that because many users used defaults, it's ok that Google hacked my safari to get around my express preferences. I feel violated by an entity that I was silly enough to trust.
how it is wrong to give a user what they expressly opted in for?
this is disingenuous at best. You can't claim that users were ignorant of their browser defaults, then claim that they read and understood all the invisible cookie implications of signing into a google account.
Here's what google should have done. On safari when cookies are blocked, pop up a dialog box. "Your browser is currently blocking cookies from Google affiliates. In order to get the best Google experience including the +1 buttons, please change your browser settings. Instructions for doing this are here (insert link)."
um, who is the garage security in this case? this is overly complex.
NOPE, in this analogy google would break the window to put the flyers into the car. This is the illegal part. There's not internet analogue to putting flyers in the windshields. Perhaps this is a pop-under?
duk duo go pulls search queries from bing - google can't do naught.
Of course it can. It's a pico projector.
Let me make a car analogy to simplify it for you. My car is configured to automatically lock when parked (like safari, default cookie setting, see?). At the same time, I signed up for google's informational flyer service, where they put a map in my car with stores I might be interested in, and also throws I an few ad flyers. But there,s a conflict, right? I asked google to put shit in my car, but my car locks by default. Obviously, the correct resolution is for google to respect my locked car, but yu're telling me that it is correct for google to break in to leave me the flyers even though I don't want anybody to go in my car. Do you understand how wack that is? Now that I,ve laid it out for you using small words, please admit that you were wrong.
The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."
-1 Flamebait.
Second off, what does non-PII even mean in this context, or on the internet at all anymore? They add a cookie that links your computer behavior to your google account. Advertisers track your behavior against the body of data already collected on you. Isn't that how all tracking works? How is this different than any other tracking?
Third, you say Safari users weren't savvy enough to know that they had blocked cookies in the preferences, but were savvy enough to know that by signing into google they "opted in to targeted ads." Nope, you have to choose one or the other. Most people are likely clueless about their browser settings AND their google tracking settings. How is Google clearly right on this, and Safari clearly wrong?
Lastly, I laugh at your justification for the IE thing. If Google chose to abuse the trust based system, it's not their fault?
I hope you own google stock, because if you're just a fanboi with no monetary benefit, then it's especially sad.
Yes, this is the best approach. An explicit opt in - to gain access to this service, you need to give us access to you rbrowsing habits by logging into an account / accepting cookies or whatever. I both this case and safari, google is making an end run around privacy choices that users have made, ie the choice to block third party cookies, and stealing user info anyways. Yes, when the door is locked and you crawl down a chimney, then take something that the owner didn't want you to have, it's stealing.
In America, a persons rights are inalienable and endowed by the creator. It doesn't matter if you can or can't enter into or abide by an agreement. I think you're tring to get at the idea of a social contract, but this is separate from a person's rights.
Most hunters eat their prey
[citation needed]
best tasting meat I ever ate
Objectively false. There's a reason they call game meat "gamey". Your experience may differ, obviously, but only because you've eaten either 1) game meat or 2) shit.
don't blame the abuser! it's the victim's fault. she should have known better than to try to talk to him when he was stinking drunk again. Look what she made him do!
The question was "real" space combat, not TV-physics space combat.
woosh! (like a space plane would do)
Or shoot bags of flour at them, and once one hits, you'll be able to blow them up easily.
+1 Insightful
But not so long ago, Adobe Illustrator would fire up and you'd get this picture of Botticelli's Venus gracing your screen
perhaps it was a copyright violation? they received a take down notice?
but fish are constrained in a barrel, just like us on Earth.
didn't you read the original question? Everything presupposes we're in space for space battles. What makes you think we would be limited to earth? What makes you think that the space battle would happen in earth's orbit?
If your ship is 100% covered in perfect mirrors, then you'll never be able to fire back, or even see where you are going.
that's why they're 100% perfect two-way mirrors. like on law and order.
Slashdot is a social network...
Wrong! social networks don't have a "block advertising" check box on the homepage.
you know what, you're right! I've never met a john smith either. Funny, no?
or a cylon!
If I paid for the device, ethically, I have the right to use what ever software I want on it.
also, this is silly on its face. ethically or not, you only have the right to use a small subset of software on your toy. only a portion of software is written for a particular device! ethically, if you want to play temple run on your and-crap, to f'n bad! because they don't make it for your and-crap.
I'm sorry, I forgot. Apple iz teh evilz! seriously, man. buy whatever you want, but get off your high horse about it.
Although I could jail break (I spelled it right this time Kell!) Apple hardware, I would still need to pay for it. The looks and the specs on the iPad 3 make it damn tempting to do so.
non-sequitir? If you bought an android tablet, you would also have to pay for it. so how is paying for it a differentiator?
is ghostery sufficient to block trackers and problems like the article says? I use it, and am always surprised by how many tracking pixels it finds on the web. speaking of which, now slashdot has trackers from twitter, facebook, and google+? that's a pain.
Did anybody else read the headline as "Obama orders cheaper pennis? Sounds like a viagra spam mi got yesterday.
Sorry, meant to reply to the parent. His reference to voiding the warrantee is an allusion to ios jaibreaking, which has nothing to do with OSx.