The luxury product comparison sounds like a straw man argument.
Macs are not very expensive when you compare similar hardware. It's just also very difficult to find similar hardware. Remember "it has speakers" isn't the same as what the iMac has. Similarly, "It has a camera, isn't the same as the iMac", "it has a keyboard...", "it has a display", "it's very quiet", "it has technical support"... it goes on and on.
Most people don't need half the features it has, and would rather have upgradability, more storage, blah blah. So it doesn't make sense.
The iMac is great if you need most of what it offers. Otherwise, it's a lot of money for stuff you don't need.
"We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information."
"PII" and "Sensitive PII" are defined differently in Google, these two sentences are talking about two different things. To me this is clear they are vague about consent for the sharing of PII, and they can share it with anyone they like. Does agreement with the privacy policy provide consent? if not, what does "opt-in consent" mean and why does it expressly apply to Sensitive PII and not other PII?
Whereas to highlight the Apple point:
...Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes.
It's not perfect, but it is certainly different than Google's policy.
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
This is a very strange paragraph.
- First, it implies that they do sell the "golden goose".
- Second, How does "opt-in" differ from "consent", it sounds stronger? To me it implies that consent to share with other companies is NOT opt-in, that it's "opt-out" at best. Automatically granted by the privacy policy at worst.
Keep in mind "sensitive personal information" is defined as " confidential medical facts, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or sexuality"... and nothing else.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there are a lot of hairs to split in this agreement. They even flat-out state they'll sell non PII to advertisers: "We may share non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites." But even this sentence is a deflection from the fact you've already consented to them sharing your PII in the earlier paragraphs.
Disclosure to Third Parties
At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers. For example, when you purchase and activate your iPhone, you authorize Apple and your carrier to exchange the information you provide during the activation process to carry out service. If you are approved for service, your account will be governed by Apple and your carrier’s respective privacy policies. Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes.
Paragraph 304, 305 are pretty clear, they even highlight the point:
Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet
access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.
Does it say anywhere that they're "responsible" to filter it? Has it come up in the past few years as an issue?
It really doesn't look like a bad document, and it is very clear in paragraph 75 why it should exist.
The record on remand continues to convince us that
broadband providers—including mobile broadband providers—have the incentives and ability to engage
in practices that pose a threat to Internet openness, and as such, rules to protect the open nature of the
Internet remain necessary. Today we take steps to ensure that the substantial benefits of Internet
openness continue to be realized.
While I get your political stance, is there anything specifically which makes you say: “I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. ”
It seems to have been immediately effective against throttling, censorship and stabilizing to business.
What do you want fixed? The existence of executive orders? Net neutrality upsets you somehow? I'm not American, I don't understand how this is a partisan issue.
Do you not like the Internet?
The only reasons I heard to oppose Net Neutrality would be summed up something like:
The Internet is a 30 year old experiment which must end in its current form because
- it is a tool for foreign propaganda (Russia, China ISIS)
- It is a tool for foreign agents to attack citizens' computers
- it is a tool for crime against American corporations and for criminals to collude, communicate and evade detection
- it is a tool for corporations to surveil people's private lives
- it is a tool for evading state taxes
- it is a tool for pornography, violence and morally depraved activities
- It is killing American businesses such as content distribution and the free press
- it is a tool which hurts the American entertainment industry because of mass piracy
Apparently removing Net Neutrality will give the telcos the ability to restrict usage so arbitrarily and severely that you'll only be able to see what the American corporate silos want you to see. No more free exchange of ideas, but instead it is a tool for a "consumer" to purchase "content", and for the dying "content distributors" to charge for access to "consumers".
I'm trying really hard to understand if there's some logic behind this. Is this world, where the Internet as we know it is dead and the pipes running into your house simply carry a better selection of what was available on TV thirty years ago, what you want?
Net neutrality and the Internet itself are like a dream come true. The Internet was built on net neutrality and the lack of laws protecting it was threatening its very existence in the U.S.. The arguments supporting it is in every online innovation made in the past three decades, including this dumb website we're on.
Sorry if I'm totally misunderstanding your comment that you're "gettting my way here;)"
Fully waterproof, 8 months on a disposable Lithium battery.
I really only want a sleep tracker and maybe a wristwatch, so taking it off to charge makes it useless. The HR model has some additional functions, but you have to charge it every couple weeks and the usefulness and any accuracy of wrist-based heart rate monitoring is... dubious.
Does anyone on Slashdot who owns one know more about them?
So you're saying Microsoft, because they sell the service as a product is more likely to expose your information than Google, who sells your information as a product.
It's so illogical to me that I thought you were arguing that you had nothing to hide. No... I don't get it.
"Same here, I guess. If you want to look up historical reports, you just have to have the Secret Knowledge about what the facts were at the time, and then you just destructively edit the historical references and quotes so that they assert facts from a later time."
There's no secret knowledge. Manning made her thoughts very clear on what she was going through at the time she gave up the secrets.
All your hypothetical statements about whether a trans person should be referred to in their non-preferred pronoun in the past is purely hypothetical because I didn't make any such references. She privately identified female when the crime was committed, and even communicated it to her commanding officer.
She wore a dress and came out to her commanding office before handing over the secrets.
Whether she identified male or female while she was pretending to listen to Lady Gaga and downloading files is uncertain enough to not matter. Pointing out that her circumstances forced her to publicly identify as male at that time is pointless and cruel.
One should really avoid any comparison with Manning. Manning is a U.S. citizen who swore an oath to defend the country and turned over files she was entrusted with. I think she was punished appropriately, and strongly agree with her release and criminal record.
Assange has no such relationship with the U.S. and shouldn't be subject to its arbitary, extraterritorial whims.
Slashdot Mirror
The luxury product comparison sounds like a straw man argument.
Macs are not very expensive when you compare similar hardware. It's just also very difficult to find similar hardware. Remember "it has speakers" isn't the same as what the iMac has. Similarly, "It has a camera, isn't the same as the iMac", "it has a keyboard...", "it has a display", "it's very quiet", "it has technical support"... it goes on and on.
Most people don't need half the features it has, and would rather have upgradability, more storage, blah blah. So it doesn't make sense.
The iMac is great if you need most of what it offers. Otherwise, it's a lot of money for stuff you don't need.
For PII, Google says:
which goes to my other post... https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11507983&cid=55777001
"PII" and "Sensitive PII" are defined differently in Google, these two sentences are talking about two different things. To me this is clear they are vague about consent for the sharing of PII, and they can share it with anyone they like. Does agreement with the privacy policy provide consent? if not, what does "opt-in consent" mean and why does it expressly apply to Sensitive PII and not other PII?
Whereas to highlight the Apple point:
It's not perfect, but it is certainly different than Google's policy.
I don't see the parallel, Apple and Google's Definition of PII is pretty industry standard.
One paragraph talks about PII, the other paragraph talks about non-PII.
Google's own privacy policy seems to contradict your statement.
https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#nosharing
This is a very strange paragraph.
Keep in mind "sensitive personal information" is defined as " confidential medical facts, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or sexuality"... and nothing else.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there are a lot of hairs to split in this agreement. They even flat-out state they'll sell non PII to advertisers: "We may share non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites." But even this sentence is a deflection from the fact you've already consented to them sharing your PII in the earlier paragraphs.
You should really include a link and indicate that there’s more in the paragraph. https://www.apple.com/ca/legal/privacy/en-ww/
Paragraph 304, 305 are pretty clear, they even highlight the point:
Does it say anywhere that they're "responsible" to filter it? Has it come up in the past few years as an issue?
It really doesn't look like a bad document, and it is very clear in paragraph 75 why it should exist.
While I get your political stance, is there anything specifically which makes you say: “I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. ”
It seems to have been immediately effective against throttling, censorship and stabilizing to business.
What do you want fixed? The existence of executive orders? Net neutrality upsets you somehow? I'm not American, I don't understand how this is a partisan issue.
Do you not like the Internet?
The only reasons I heard to oppose Net Neutrality would be summed up something like:
The Internet is a 30 year old experiment which must end in its current form because
- it is a tool for foreign propaganda (Russia, China ISIS)
- It is a tool for foreign agents to attack citizens' computers
- it is a tool for crime against American corporations and for criminals to collude, communicate and evade detection
- it is a tool for corporations to surveil people's private lives
- it is a tool for evading state taxes
- it is a tool for pornography, violence and morally depraved activities
- It is killing American businesses such as content distribution and the free press
- it is a tool which hurts the American entertainment industry because of mass piracy
Apparently removing Net Neutrality will give the telcos the ability to restrict usage so arbitrarily and severely that you'll only be able to see what the American corporate silos want you to see. No more free exchange of ideas, but instead it is a tool for a "consumer" to purchase "content", and for the dying "content distributors" to charge for access to "consumers".
I'm trying really hard to understand if there's some logic behind this. Is this world, where the Internet as we know it is dead and the pipes running into your house simply carry a better selection of what was available on TV thirty years ago, what you want?
Net neutrality and the Internet itself are like a dream come true. The Internet was built on net neutrality and the lack of laws protecting it was threatening its very existence in the U.S.. The arguments supporting it is in every online innovation made in the past three decades, including this dumb website we're on.
Sorry if I'm totally misunderstanding your comment that you're "gettting my way here ;)"
The Activite or Nokia Steel are interesting to me... you woulnd't know it from the appearance, but they're a bit thick.
https://health.nokia.com/us/en/steel-hr
Fully waterproof, 8 months on a disposable Lithium battery.
I really only want a sleep tracker and maybe a wristwatch, so taking it off to charge makes it useless. The HR model has some additional functions, but you have to charge it every couple weeks and the usefulness and any accuracy of wrist-based heart rate monitoring is... dubious.
Does anyone on Slashdot who owns one know more about them?
Outlook didn't kick Lotus Notes to the curb... IBM kicked Lotus Notes to the curb.
So you're saying Microsoft, because they sell the service as a product is more likely to expose your information than Google, who sells your information as a product.
It's so illogical to me that I thought you were arguing that you had nothing to hide. No... I don't get it.
I don't see how this is different than saying "I have nothing to hide"
Ruby's great.
Ruby programmers are insufferable.
The game looks about as Islamic as Tetris looks Soviet.
It looks very temporary. It would be interesting to see how a permanent installation would be designed to handle a hurricane.
"No cologne or after-shave.... be sure to wear the standard grey uniform..."
You're describing my home town. Although people think various shades of grey are stylish.
The program detects arbitrary files and retrieves samples of them using signatures provided by a company in Russia.
"You did talk about the subject."
Are you talking about names or are you talking about pronouns? Or is it about the general theme now?
Is the name thing some kind of metaphor?
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I intentionally didn't use Manning's first name so as to NOT make a political point about this.
You were the first person in this thread to use private Manning's first name.
You objected to the pronoun. That's not necessary for the search.
It's hard to understand what you're talking about because I didn't use Manning's first name.
"Same here, I guess. If you want to look up historical reports, you just have to have the Secret Knowledge about what the facts were at the time, and then you just destructively edit the historical references and quotes so that they assert facts from a later time."
There's no secret knowledge. Manning made her thoughts very clear on what she was going through at the time she gave up the secrets.
All your hypothetical statements about whether a trans person should be referred to in their non-preferred pronoun in the past is purely hypothetical because I didn't make any such references. She privately identified female when the crime was committed, and even communicated it to her commanding officer.
She's only asking you to accept a pronoun. The rest is none of my business.
This is old.
She wore a dress and came out to her commanding office before handing over the secrets.
Whether she identified male or female while she was pretending to listen to Lady Gaga and downloading files is uncertain enough to not matter. Pointing out that her circumstances forced her to publicly identify as male at that time is pointless and cruel.
One should really avoid any comparison with Manning. Manning is a U.S. citizen who swore an oath to defend the country and turned over files she was entrusted with. I think she was punished appropriately, and strongly agree with her release and criminal record.
Assange has no such relationship with the U.S. and shouldn't be subject to its arbitary, extraterritorial whims.
The recording might not be authentic.