How, precisely, are Windowsphone and tablet users entitled to google's software? (short answer: they are not). This is more M$ double-speak "remember when those neck-beards got all bent out of shape because we reserved the most efficient APIs for our products -- let's say this is the same thing." But it's not the same thing -- Microsoft is demanding that Google spend time and resources building a Youtube app to support M$'s (barely existent) corner of the market. Google doesn't want to have their developers spend time on that app for M$ -- so M$ built an app that flagrantly violates the TOS for the youtube API and the youtube site itself.
I don't know about the devs at MS, but I got used to it pretty quickly. My new laptop came with Win8 -- which I committed to using for 2 weeks before I spent money on a Win7 license. At first I hated the stock interface, but I got over it. The desktop is a desktop -- I can still load software off the task bar by pinning a link there. The only time I see metro is when I need to load something other than the core 4-6 tools I use (Firefox, Word, Excel, IE and Publisher)... so mostly when I want to run steam or wow.
For everything else, just hit start and start typing what you're looking for -- it pops up.
Now -- I don't think it's "better" than the start button (which did all of that without a full-screen interface that blocks my view of open docs, etc) but it's not all that bad.
The trade off is that the rest of the OS makes a bit more sense -- the interface is cleaner (less clutter around the window edge), file and print sharing is more stream-lined, etc. I have no idea what the charm bar is for, I think it should go away. But overall -- it's a standard windows experience - slightly annoying but it gets the job done. I have to go back and forth from Win7 (at work and on my desktop at home) and Win8 on my laptop -- not really enough of a difference to notice 9 times out of 10.
in fact have worked their asses off to specifically preserve your constitutional rights.
Let's see -- what has the Tea party accomplished -- blocked Obamacare? nope. Stopped taxes from going up? nope. Stopped the Patriot act? nope.
Oh, I know, they knocked off a bunch of marginal republicans, isolated the party from hispanics and more than 50% of the white population and then blew up.
Fortunately, every time some whackaloon goes crazy and kills people some fool makes the mistake of announcing the political message of the attack before it comes out that the dude was just a whackaloon.
Yes, there are many ways to go with this one -- look around and you'll see two of the points I raised already appearing in other threads here. Go to CNN and you can complete the set and add a bunch more.
The mob appears to be with me on this one. May have to reconsider my position.
More seriously -- what I/meant/ is that this is going to set up a bunch of half-baked theories and speculation. I did not intend the above as a list of likely culprits. See the first line of my post which, I thought, qualified the following statement as a list of things "some fool" might say before it turns out to have been a whackaloon. Was that not clear?
Fortunately, every time some whackaloon goes crazy and kills people some fool makes the mistake of announcing the political message of the attack before it comes out that the dude was just a whackaloon.
That being said -- if this isn't an accident -- there are so many ways to go with this one. First, it's April 15 - which is the TEA party day of action. (got to listen to a "what will you do to defend your country" speech at lunch today). Second, the last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to the victims of Newtown -- so there's that lead in. Third, various politicians et al attend the race -- so there's the assassination angle.
Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.
Google never "reads" your e-mail. Unless this place has really degraded to the point where indexing a document based on the use of key terms can't be understood to be different from reading. Reading isn't just looking for keywords in flat text - its a systemic analysis of a text with the purpose of deriving meaning. Google "reads" your e-mails like a bird "paints" your car.
And yeah, uncritically repeating an ad campaign verbatim is not at all creepy.
Google wants us to have ubiquitous fast data transfers!? THE FIENDS! clearly they are interested in capturing images of me in my underwear, all of this "building a better future" is a conspiracy toward that end.
>cough or just pay the building to hang a camera on a wall. It would just blend in with the "security" cameras and you would never know. Also, google goggles is a product that google put out more than a year ago. TFA is written by an idiot.
and to be fair, the streetview data thing was a bunch of useless snippets of data -- no one has accused google of sitting around reading people's e-mails through their streetview cars.
It does to put any foundation at all into your assumption that "I know that it takes photos and videos pretty seamlessly and pretty much all the time."
How exactly do you "know" that a product that hasn't been finalized, yet alone released to the market yet "takes photos and videos . . . pretty much all the time"? You don't. You make an assumption that your fear is reality -- that somehow a device a little bigger than a pen is going to be always-on connected to the internet and constantly recording untold gigs of image data? That's crazy. Who are these nefarious users that are going to be recording their every action "pretty much all the time" are you saying that's what you would do? I can tell you -- if every time I walk in on my wife changing google uploads that picture to drive -- I will very soon stop wearing that device and will never go back. Do you think most people would make a different choice?
Other than your fears -- what is the basis for your claim?
Did I say unintentionally? Intent and knowingly are not the same thing in law -- here, Google's coder included a module that did more than what was required for google's tasks -- that probably satisfies intent (negligently acting in a way that causes . . . well I don't know what the practical harm was . . . but for sake of argument lets just assume it was very harmful to someone) for a civil suit. Criminal or quasi criminal? Who knows. The short and sweet is "dumb people put their shit out on a wire for people to look at, Google looked at it . . . let's hold them accountable for doing that." I'm reminded of a case out of PA where some coeds decided to change in their dorm rooms with their windows open. Some ass-hat took pictures and posted it on the internet. Coeds sued for invasion of privacy. The judge said "yes you have an expectation for privacy in your home -- but the expectation is waivable, there for example, they changed in front of an open window in full view of the public -- here, Google's victims might as well have been posting their data in their front window -- it was out there for anyone to see. The only substantive difference is that technology is "magic" and people don't know that leaving their network unencrypted is like leaving their window open -- still, very weird case.
Google grabbed (small bites of) data out of the air that had been broadcast on unencrypted channels, in the process of collecting potentially useful information about networks broadcasting their SSIDs. When confronted by authorities Google investigated the allegations, found them to be true, and cooperated in isolating and destroying the data collected.
Aaron Schwartz entered onto MIT's property, hiding a laptop under a box, for the express purpose of downloading specific documents which he knew to be offered under a restricted license. When MIT added security measures to stop Mr. Schwartz, he updated his program to adapt to and circumvent the new methods and continued his (admittedly illegal) downloading. When approached by uniformed police, Mr. Schwarz ran in an attempt to avoid arrest.
Google was offered a penalty a several millions dollars (20% of own days income) and to commit its employee time to . . . what is essentially community service. Google accepted. Google was probably threatened with steeper penalties, but we won't ever know that, because Google did not try to use the press as a weapon against investigators.
Mr. Schwarz was offered a light sentence of a few months in prison, but refused because he didn't want to be branded a Felon. He was threatened with up to 35 years in prison and a fine of $1 Million dollars. Mr. Schwarz wanted to bring public pressure to bear to force the government not to hold him accountable for his actions, so he made public every offer and threat made by the prosecutors.
Let us compare this to a third group - the civil rights marchers of the 1960s in Selma. There, a group of citizens gathered on the public way and attempted to commit a completely legal act -- walking to their state capital together. The police ordered the crowd to disperse, and then began beating them with clubs, releasing attack dogs on them, and attacking them with water cannons. Many were hospitalized. John Lewis, the march organizer, was beaten with a club - receiving an injury to the head that caused his skull to fracture, then placed in jail and charged with a nuisance offense. This day has been named "bloody Sunday" because of the breadth and severity of the injuries inflicted by the police on law abiding citizens.
By introducing great government controls (economy doesn't care why) you will slow down technological development. How stupid would ancestors of 100-300 years ago have been to put clamps on industrialization? Would we be better off with, maybe, year 1900-level tech today?
You mean like the hundreds and thousands of laws we put in place to control and limit the abuses of industrialization - from labor rights, to tarriff controls to bar dumping, to environmental controls to prevent pouring spent lubricants into our lakes and rivers, etc. I think it seems to have worked out pretty well when we've, say, stopped industry from hiring 8 year olds - even though it is absolutely provably true that their little hands ARE better at fitting into tight spaces between trapped gears to release them -- and other dangerous tasks in tight spaces.
Slashdot Mirror
You appear to be unable to read the written words you are replying to. I suggest removing your head from whatever tight space it currently occupies.
How, precisely, are Windowsphone and tablet users entitled to google's software? (short answer: they are not). This is more M$ double-speak "remember when those neck-beards got all bent out of shape because we reserved the most efficient APIs for our products -- let's say this is the same thing." But it's not the same thing -- Microsoft is demanding that Google spend time and resources building a Youtube app to support M$'s (barely existent) corner of the market. Google doesn't want to have their developers spend time on that app for M$ -- so M$ built an app that flagrantly violates the TOS for the youtube API and the youtube site itself.
Microsoft is by no means "right."
Well -- we all knew they were up to something -- now we now it really was world domination, just not the way we all expected.
I don't know about the devs at MS, but I got used to it pretty quickly. My new laptop came with Win8 -- which I committed to using for 2 weeks before I spent money on a Win7 license. At first I hated the stock interface, but I got over it. The desktop is a desktop -- I can still load software off the task bar by pinning a link there. The only time I see metro is when I need to load something other than the core 4-6 tools I use (Firefox, Word, Excel, IE and Publisher) ... so mostly when I want to run steam or wow.
For everything else, just hit start and start typing what you're looking for -- it pops up.
Now -- I don't think it's "better" than the start button (which did all of that without a full-screen interface that blocks my view of open docs, etc) but it's not all that bad.
The trade off is that the rest of the OS makes a bit more sense -- the interface is cleaner (less clutter around the window edge), file and print sharing is more stream-lined, etc. I have no idea what the charm bar is for, I think it should go away. But overall -- it's a standard windows experience - slightly annoying but it gets the job done. I have to go back and forth from Win7 (at work and on my desktop at home) and Win8 on my laptop -- not really enough of a difference to notice 9 times out of 10.
in fact have worked their asses off to specifically preserve your constitutional rights.
Let's see -- what has the Tea party accomplished -- blocked Obamacare? nope. Stopped taxes from going up? nope. Stopped the Patriot act? nope.
Oh, I know, they knocked off a bunch of marginal republicans, isolated the party from hispanics and more than 50% of the white population and then blew up.
Damn am I glad there was a tea party.
He could have committed the very serious crime of been "kinda arab at the scene of an explosion," a well known felony in the states.
Just a bit of advice...if the idiots are agreeing with you, it's time to reassess your position.
I'm pretty sure you're not agreeing with me. Just saying.
Fortunately, every time some whackaloon goes crazy and kills people some fool makes the mistake of announcing the political message of the attack before it comes out that the dude was just a whackaloon.
Yes, there are many ways to go with this one -- look around and you'll see two of the points I raised already appearing in other threads here. Go to CNN and you can complete the set and add a bunch more.
And blowing up additional devices. /sigh
This is one time I REALLY didn't want to be wrong.
Unfortunately, its been confirmed to have been a bomb -- other devices were found. Let the speculation commence. I put my .50c on crazed whackaloon.
The mob appears to be with me on this one. May have to reconsider my position.
/meant/ is that this is going to set up a bunch of half-baked theories and speculation. I did not intend the above as a list of likely culprits. See the first line of my post which, I thought, qualified the following statement as a list of things "some fool" might say before it turns out to have been a whackaloon. Was that not clear?
More seriously -- what I
++good. I say this time we just bomb Nebraska. Because.
Fortunately, every time some whackaloon goes crazy and kills people some fool makes the mistake of announcing the political message of the attack before it comes out that the dude was just a whackaloon.
That being said -- if this isn't an accident -- there are so many ways to go with this one. First, it's April 15 - which is the TEA party day of action. (got to listen to a "what will you do to defend your country" speech at lunch today). Second, the last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to the victims of Newtown -- so there's that lead in. Third, various politicians et al attend the race -- so there's the assassination angle.
Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.
Or a gas line lit up and vented in two different locations. Wait and see, no point in speculating.
//cough ... my phone.
Recording service of process.
Viewing maps on my bike.
Having my own personal teleprompter.
Reading a translation of speech / movie / play / opera as I watch it without disturbing those around me.
Getting a picture of my son when he's acting cute before he stops acting cute to try to grab
Google never "reads" your e-mail. Unless this place has really degraded to the point where indexing a document based on the use of key terms can't be understood to be different from reading. Reading isn't just looking for keywords in flat text - its a systemic analysis of a text with the purpose of deriving meaning. Google "reads" your e-mails like a bird "paints" your car.
And yeah, uncritically repeating an ad campaign verbatim is not at all creepy.
Repeating Microsoft ad campaign messages on Slashdot. ++good.
Google wants us to have ubiquitous fast data transfers!? THE FIENDS! clearly they are interested in capturing images of me in my underwear, all of this "building a better future" is a conspiracy toward that end.
>cough or just pay the building to hang a camera on a wall. It would just blend in with the "security" cameras and you would never know. Also, google goggles is a product that google put out more than a year ago. TFA is written by an idiot.
and to be fair, the streetview data thing was a bunch of useless snippets of data -- no one has accused google of sitting around reading people's e-mails through their streetview cars.
It does to put any foundation at all into your assumption that "I know that it takes photos and videos pretty seamlessly and pretty much all the time."
How exactly do you "know" that a product that hasn't been finalized, yet alone released to the market yet "takes photos and videos . . . pretty much all the time"? You don't. You make an assumption that your fear is reality -- that somehow a device a little bigger than a pen is going to be always-on connected to the internet and constantly recording untold gigs of image data? That's crazy. Who are these nefarious users that are going to be recording their every action "pretty much all the time" are you saying that's what you would do? I can tell you -- if every time I walk in on my wife changing google uploads that picture to drive -- I will very soon stop wearing that device and will never go back. Do you think most people would make a different choice?
Other than your fears -- what is the basis for your claim?
Did I say unintentionally? Intent and knowingly are not the same thing in law -- here, Google's coder included a module that did more than what was required for google's tasks -- that probably satisfies intent (negligently acting in a way that causes . . . well I don't know what the practical harm was . . . but for sake of argument lets just assume it was very harmful to someone) for a civil suit. Criminal or quasi criminal? Who knows. The short and sweet is "dumb people put their shit out on a wire for people to look at, Google looked at it . . . let's hold them accountable for doing that." I'm reminded of a case out of PA where some coeds decided to change in their dorm rooms with their windows open. Some ass-hat took pictures and posted it on the internet. Coeds sued for invasion of privacy. The judge said "yes you have an expectation for privacy in your home -- but the expectation is waivable, there for example, they changed in front of an open window in full view of the public -- here, Google's victims might as well have been posting their data in their front window -- it was out there for anyone to see. The only substantive difference is that technology is "magic" and people don't know that leaving their network unencrypted is like leaving their window open -- still, very weird case.
Google grabbed (small bites of) data out of the air that had been broadcast on unencrypted channels, in the process of collecting potentially useful information about networks broadcasting their SSIDs. When confronted by authorities Google investigated the allegations, found them to be true, and cooperated in isolating and destroying the data collected.
Aaron Schwartz entered onto MIT's property, hiding a laptop under a box, for the express purpose of downloading specific documents which he knew to be offered under a restricted license. When MIT added security measures to stop Mr. Schwartz, he updated his program to adapt to and circumvent the new methods and continued his (admittedly illegal) downloading. When approached by uniformed police, Mr. Schwarz ran in an attempt to avoid arrest.
Google was offered a penalty a several millions dollars (20% of own days income) and to commit its employee time to . . . what is essentially community service. Google accepted. Google was probably threatened with steeper penalties, but we won't ever know that, because Google did not try to use the press as a weapon against investigators.
Mr. Schwarz was offered a light sentence of a few months in prison, but refused because he didn't want to be branded a Felon. He was threatened with up to 35 years in prison and a fine of $1 Million dollars. Mr. Schwarz wanted to bring public pressure to bear to force the government not to hold him accountable for his actions, so he made public every offer and threat made by the prosecutors.
Let us compare this to a third group - the civil rights marchers of the 1960s in Selma. There, a group of citizens gathered on the public way and attempted to commit a completely legal act -- walking to their state capital together. The police ordered the crowd to disperse, and then began beating them with clubs, releasing attack dogs on them, and attacking them with water cannons. Many were hospitalized. John Lewis, the march organizer, was beaten with a club - receiving an injury to the head that caused his skull to fracture, then placed in jail and charged with a nuisance offense. This day has been named "bloody Sunday" because of the breadth and severity of the injuries inflicted by the police on law abiding citizens.
See the differences?
By introducing great government controls (economy doesn't care why) you will slow down technological development. How stupid would ancestors of 100-300 years ago have been to put clamps on industrialization? Would we be better off with, maybe, year 1900-level tech today?
You mean like the hundreds and thousands of laws we put in place to control and limit the abuses of industrialization - from labor rights, to tarriff controls to bar dumping, to environmental controls to prevent pouring spent lubricants into our lakes and rivers, etc. I think it seems to have worked out pretty well when we've, say, stopped industry from hiring 8 year olds - even though it is absolutely provably true that their little hands ARE better at fitting into tight spaces between trapped gears to release them -- and other dangerous tasks in tight spaces.