No, that's just the excuse that gets this "issue" talked about. Google very obviously needs to communicate the source of traffic to ad customers for conversion tracking.
Duh.
Expecting Google not to rat out visitors to ad customers is beyond naive.
Ok. Not sure the relevance of this comment.
The actual reason for the article is that normal sites no longer get referer information, HTTPS or not. Webmasters who have been infected with SEO are kinda whiny that way.
Well I'm glad you read the article. However, it is completely irrelevant to this thread as we're discussing the benefit of providing the ssl service in that it increases ssl usage overall. I merely brought up the point that making people think their data is encrypted, when in fact it is not, is more harmful than just making people use an unencrypted service and knowing their data is unencrypted. At least then they won't search for gay beastiality porn if its illegal in their state.
Yes, it is better for Google's users because they get to see referer data, probably even when they shouldn't.
Oh...you thought *you* were one of Google's users? Chances are you are product, not a customer or a user.
I know exactly who the 'product' and who the 'consumer' of Google is.
Its irrelevant to this. When traffic is HTTP or HTTPS for Google searches, Google gets that traffic either way. When the traffic is HTTPS though, that means LESS people are getting it (wireless sniffing, routers along the way, etc.) in an unencrypted format. I really could care less what information the sites I go to are missing from the search I entered that brought me to them.
Again that goes back to the "read the TFA" comment. The missing information is only part of the problem. The other problem is the presence of search data when clicking through to unencrypted sites, if they are google customers. That means google's SSL service is a lie and your unencrypted searches will be sent to certain customers regardless of using http or https.
So back to your original comment, most geeks would agree I think that more SSL is good. However, SSL that only encrypts your data some of the time (or even most of the time) will lead people to believe they are safe when they aren't. I think that is far worse than people just assuming they are not safe.
1. log in and install a "TOU" file somewhere stating that use of the computer grants you ownership of all information provided to the computer and full access to use that information for any purpose it was intended.
2. install keylogger
3. Wait for thief to login to their bank account, brokerage account, facebook account, or anything else on your computer.
4. enjoy.
You have right now a tool to screw a thief on his own terms. He thinks he has a computer that is free and clear. Make him pay for it.
And it ABSOLUTELY is, legally speaking, theft to mark federal property destroyed when its in your pocket instead.
That is not what happened and is therefore irrelevant, but you're right.
Your argument MIGHT be valid if you went, as a private citizen, to the moon today and removed something left behind. It would certainly be a fascinating legal issue. (see things like laws related to sunken treasure recovery.)
It wouldn't. turns out the 1967 space treaty says there is no such thing as abandoned property in space. Otherwise multi-stage booster rockets would be "abandoned" shortly before they fell on foreign cities or hit foreign satellites. So the camera is the property of NASA until paperwork is produced showing the official transfer of ownership.
However, I have difficulty coming up with any legal interpretation of 'abandoned' that could apply in this case until AFTER all federal employees had left the surface of the moon.
The difference between abandoned and lost or misplaced property is intent. You can't argue NASA didn't intend to abandon the launch craft, there is paperwork (the blue prints, flight plans, manifests, etc etc) proving NASA intended to abandon the camera, along with the rest of the module, on the moon. Unless NASA can produce plans to recover the camera, even if those plans were scrapped, their intent to abandon is quite clear. Though again this is all moot.
Are they? The government has fairly detailed rules about the disposal of equipment to prevent federal employees from profiting by declaring something "Trash" (a very common practice in previous centuries for people in charge of managing government funds.) If he didn't follow the correct procedures, then legally speaking, the item was stolen, end of story.
You can set whatever rules you want, they don't trump the law. Abandoned property cannot be stolen. *THAT* should be the end of the story.
But where I was leading to I think was the fact that the camera was intentionally, willfully, and obviously abandoned. NASA/Feds have no legal claim to it.
Seriously its like suing an 80 year old homeless guy for stealing a half-eaten hamburger out of your trash-can.
Not to mention, this tramp is trying to sell that half-eaten hamburger and you just spent more money calling your lawyers than he could possibly get for it. If you really want it, offer to buy it back and save us all a penny!
In all fairness, they claim to have already asked him to return the camera and he did not reply.
But yea, I really don't think that changes anything. They're wasting money trying to get the camera back... for... what reason? Is NASA funding so screwed that suing to get a 40 year old camera back is cost effective compared to just buying a new one? Are they doing it for the principle of the matter? I'm pretty sure astronauts understand that if they break the rules, they don't get to go into space. If the rules were unclear (as it appears they were), then they need to fix the rules. If astronauts are still breaking the rules, get different astronauts or review the rules.
It would set a very bad precedent if they allowed a US employee to violate the rules. I doubt the camera weighed all that much, but I'll go with the same argument that holds that it's unethical to take anything from a site, "What if everyone took a (rock, artifact, fossil, etc.)?", which my folks rightly used early and often. In this case, astronauts looting things isn't likely going to deprive science or other sightseers of knowledge or the experience, but NASA has very strict rules for very good reasons.
Astronauts are apparently allowed a small box for mementos to take into space and return with (I learned this on Pawn Stars when someone brought in a moon mission patch, photo, and autograph display). Nothing more without authorization. What if all the other members of the moon landing crew also decided to smuggle crap, and the module wound up being overweight? That could've endangered the lives of the crew. Why should Edgar's alleged bad behavior allow him to benefit in such a way that all the other moon astronauts didn't, because they behaved themselves?
Most astronauts brought stuff back to keep. The article even talks about it. But NASA regulations and the safety of the crew in regards to weight limits are not Federal Law. The fact that the crew got back safely, and nobody noticed the difference, says the camera's effect was next to non-existent. Sure, he should be repremanded, possibly lose the right to fly in space, but that's it. The camera was abandoned, he "found" it.
I'm not sure what the government is charging him with (there may be special laws covering this), but if they are charging him with theft, he'll win, hands down.
Theft is knowingly appropriating somebody else's property for your own use. However, abandoned property is not owned by anybody, and therefore cannot be stolen.
The moon, by international treaty, is not owned by anybody, especially the United States. The camera was a part of the lunar module, which was intended (and did, though minus the camera), to be abandonded on the lunar surface (after falling down and being turned into a pile of twisted metal).
IINAL
I think the US Government is well within its rights to demand return of its property.
They're suing to get back their trash. The camera was a part of the lunar module which was ditched half-way off the moon, fell back to the moon, and turned into a pile of squished metal.
Seriously its like suing an 80 year old homeless guy for stealing a half-eaten hamburger out of your trash-can.
which means that voting third party makes it less likely that the third party's policy goals will be realized. Sad, but true.)
Absolutely wrong. Our system is set up in a way to ensure only real parties are included. The government defines a real party by whether or not they received at least 5% of the votes in the previous election.
Vote 3rd party, get just 5% of the votes, and next election you'll see 3 Presidential candidates being invited to all the debates. You'll see 3 names on the ballot, 3 people getting federal election funds, 3 people getting national air time, 3 people to vote for.
Seriously. With these more exact codes saying things like:
V9107XA Burn due to water-skis on fire, initial encounter
V9107XD Burn due to water-skis on fire, subsequent encounter
V9107XS Burn due to water-skis on fire, sequela
How long do you think its going to take the insurance companies to start raising rates for "stupid" people? At which point people will start lying to their doctors to avoid increased premiums (or just the embarrassment), thus reducing the effectiveness of care, increasing the duration of care, and probably increasing costs.
I don't think Insurance companies need to know how people are injured or become sick.
No, I don't. Personally I think copyright of any duration is unnecessary and illogical. But my personal beliefs there are irrelevant. I was merely commenting on the absurdity of claiming there is no philosophical or moral argument defending a 70 year duration of copyright and presented an argument to prove my point. The fact that you disagree with the statement doesn't mean the argument is invalid or indefensible, despite the "-1: disagree" rating I got for my post. If it was indefensible it would be torn apart using other sound arguments.
So let me rephrase it: defending a 70 year copyright is no different than defending a 1 second copyright. All the same issues exist, public good vs incentive to create. To say there is no moral or philosophical argument is actually just a claim that you can't think of an argument that you agree with. Such a statement is far more indicative of the speaker's limited abilities than it is of the state of the world. The "perfect" duration that maximizes the incentive to create & public good at the same time cannot currently be measured and so is merely an opinion.
As to your link about Sita, I don't think it touches my point at all. So the producer has run afoul of confusing copyright law that requires her to pay a large sum of money... That wouldn't change no matter what the duration of copyright was, people will still encounter the same issues. Replace Annette's work with something produced in 1970s and where are you? Same place.
There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says someone needs to own a song or a movie for 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. It just moves me with great anger to make sure I will do my best to hurt the bottom line of those who think dollar signs are more important than the common property of mankind.
No moral or philosophical argument?
How about this: I created it. Taking my property without my permission is theft.
The fact that you accept people can "own" a song means the song is property. That means taking the song from the possession of the creator (whatever your moral reasoning), without the creator's permission, is theft.
The number of years you allow the creator to own his own work is irrelevant. 1 second or 1 million years, you're still at the end taking his property.
The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.
Can't say I'm a bit surprised. I would hate for record labels to face an income gap toward the end of their lives.
They've been complaining about an income gap for several years now. Lets hope it means what the law change suggests.
I used to work at Circuit City and they would do exactly that. I had customers that wanted a specific model laptop and the only one available was "pre-optimized". They charged an extra $75.00 for the tech to open the box, go through the initial setup prompts and uninstall maybe one or two things. The customers came in looking for a laptop advertised at a specific price and it was my job to tell them that they would have to pay an additional $75.00 on top of that price because all we had left was the "optimized" version.
Classic illegal bait & switch method. Damnit, I'm going to sue Circuit City into bankruptcy!!
Apparently, carbon footprint calculations are a selective thing to them.
1 iPad 2 = 105kg CO2 (http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPad_2_Environmental_Report.pdf)
1 gallon jet fuel = 8.5kg CO2
105kg * 11,000 = 1,155,000kg
8.5kg * 326,000 = 2,771,000kg per year
Though really that is comparing apples & oranges: production cost vs related usage cost. Better would be to compare the CO2 impact of creating the paper manuals vs the CO2 impact of creating the iPads.
1 lb paper produces ~7 lbs CO2. 11,000 manuals * 38 pounds each = 2,926,000 lbs = 1,330,000kg CO2. That is just the paper though. Still, lets just assume the CO2 cost of shipping the paper, printing the book, binding the book & shipping the book is 0 because I'm getting bored of googling and need to get back to work (grrrr/. )
So, 1.15 million kg for iPad production
or 1.3 million kg for paper production
They're about equal.
The 2.8 million kg CO2 from saving jet fuel each and every year is just environmental icing.
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? [snip] Why isn't anyone doing this?
Well, no need to join up and go in together as the initial investment requirement is so low
The drawback appears to be in waiting for it to spontaneously ignite and tell you where the oil & gold is.
Soooo.....everyone who says blacks are getting screwed is actually a racist? Is mere awareness of race and any response to it at all what constitutes racism in your book, or what?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything else you said; I just cannot fathom that last sentence no matter how I try.
No, people that say "blacks are getting screwed because whites are racist", is racist. The articles says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It just briefly states the summary of the published study (blacks get fewer research grants), then turns into a blog about all the possible reasons white racism is keeping the black man down. Nothing ever established that the discrimination happening in the NIH review process was BECAUSE of race. Nothing established that the NIH review process was flawed. Nothing even states the race of the reviewers in the NIH approval process. Maybe they're all hispanic/asian/indian & extremely racist against blacks.
And yet, with absolutely no information beyond "blacks get fewer grants", the article has assumed that the reason is because the NIH reviewers (which are presumably predominately white) are racist.
What you've CLEARLY failed to grasp is that this story isn't new or news.
The only person clearly failing to grasp anything here is you with the point behind my post. I'll address a couple points then explain it in plain english.
1) MAC addresses are not personally identifiable information nor was the Apple data you quoted me on "anonymous". It, in fact, was personally identifiable because a database of device ID's for iPhones *does* exist, unlike MAC addresses.
So, connecting a MAC address to a physical home address is not personally identifiable? Putting that connection into a publicly accessible search engine like google.com does not qualify as a database? But location data stored only on your own phone & computer is not anonymous enough for you.
2) Google doesn't allow you to "opt-out" because they already opted everyone out. They disabled this feature after the security researcher questioned pointed it out. You want to be "double opted-out"?
Uh, no. They disabled the google.com search. They still have my information and they still use it.
3) Google sniffed the MAC addresses on purpose. That was the whole point of the sniffing. They've never, ever denied that (nor should they, its a perfectly legitimate and useful thing to do--Skyhook does the same thing and that's why your iPod touch can locate itself without having GPS). What they didn't realize was that they also hadn't fully truncated the payload data of the packets they sniffed to get at the MAC addresses. Because the packet data they recorded was MACHINE PARSED (to extract the MAC addresses), nobody realized the extra data was there. If they had been recording it on purpose, however, they wouldn't have been truncating packets *at all*.
MAC addresses don't float around the packet. You don't need to store any payload data to get the address. It is at the same place every time. If you only want the MAC address (sender or receiver), you only get the MAC address because you only look at those specific bytes. There is nothing accidental about reading or storing payload data. Nor is there anything accidental about storing the physical address where you got that MAC address, connecting the two, and allowing everybody to search it.
4) Of course those mac addresses were recorded! Of course they were used in Google maps. Google has said this all along. It was their DEFENSE, not something they were ashamed of. CNET is reporting on something that was eminently obvious to everyone when the initial story broke, assuming it's some shocking new angle when it's simply not.
Their defense was "ya we did it"? That is not a defense, that is "pleading guilty". Their defense is that unencrypted wireless networks are public conversation and thus not subject to wiretapping laws. What CNET is reporting in *this* article is confirmation of the presumption that client MAC addresses were recorded. No, its not a new angle, it is confirmation of a slightly older angle.
You simply don't have a very good handle of the facts,
Next time hold off on that crap until I actually share what I know of the facts and you take the time to figure out if I don't understand the facts, or merely disagree with you.
Now on to the plain English: My point in my last post is that i think claiming Google to be the innocent bumbling forthright apologetic simpleton giant while portraying Apple as an evil sadistic cash-cow that wants to steal your baby's soul to power their puppy masher is silly. They used different methods to do the same kind of thing with slightly different, though very comparable, privacy concerns, reactions, & solutions. I'm more suspect of Google in this matter though because of Google's business model: get as much information as possible so they can sell it. They don't "accidentally gather information", they "accidentally? violate
Google, to its credit, at least had the decency to step up and say "Yeah, our mistake. We're sorry."
The article I read (conveniently linked above) says:
"security consultant Ashkan Soltani, was the first to report",
it was unclear at the time whether Google's location database
Anecdotal evidence suggested
Google declined repeated requests for comment for this article
Google does not provide any [snip] opt-out
Well, I guess if you *really* love google you can consider repeated denials for comment to be an apology.
doesn't get uploaded to them its not really "tracking" [snip]
its existence creates a liability for its users[snip]
at least Google showed a lot more forthrightness and honesty
So the existence of anonymous data creates a liability for the users. But Google collecting personally identifiable information and making it searchable on their website and by their phones while not allowing you to opt-out is... nothing to worry about. Its the same thing.
Google didn't admit to anything. Google got caught. When each little bit of information was discovered they stopped denying that part, but forced people to keep digging to find out what other information they stored and made searchable. They did it for FOUR YEARS. Nobody does something for FOUR YEARS and then honestly believes "Omg I had no idea I was doing that!". On top of everything, they don't offer any opt-out. All the outrage, no opt-out.
You're a fan-boy at heart, ignoring whatever is convenient so Google can be a good guy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's just the excuse that gets this "issue" talked about. Google very obviously needs to communicate the source of traffic to ad customers for conversion tracking.
Duh.
Expecting Google not to rat out visitors to ad customers is beyond naive.
Ok. Not sure the relevance of this comment.
The actual reason for the article is that normal sites no longer get referer information, HTTPS or not. Webmasters who have been infected with SEO are kinda whiny that way.
Well I'm glad you read the article. However, it is completely irrelevant to this thread as we're discussing the benefit of providing the ssl service in that it increases ssl usage overall. I merely brought up the point that making people think their data is encrypted, when in fact it is not, is more harmful than just making people use an unencrypted service and knowing their data is unencrypted. At least then they won't search for gay beastiality porn if its illegal in their state.
I know exactly who the 'product' and who the 'consumer' of Google is.
Its irrelevant to this. When traffic is HTTP or HTTPS for Google searches, Google gets that traffic either way. When the traffic is HTTPS though, that means LESS people are getting it (wireless sniffing, routers along the way, etc.) in an unencrypted format. I really could care less what information the sites I go to are missing from the search I entered that brought me to them.
Again that goes back to the "read the TFA" comment. The missing information is only part of the problem. The other problem is the presence of search data when clicking through to unencrypted sites, if they are google customers. That means google's SSL service is a lie and your unencrypted searches will be sent to certain customers regardless of using http or https.
So back to your original comment, most geeks would agree I think that more SSL is good. However, SSL that only encrypts your data some of the time (or even most of the time) will lead people to believe they are safe when they aren't. I think that is far worse than people just assuming they are not safe.
You have right now a tool to screw a thief on his own terms. He thinks he has a computer that is free and clear. Make him pay for it.
And it ABSOLUTELY is, legally speaking, theft to mark federal property destroyed when its in your pocket instead.
That is not what happened and is therefore irrelevant, but you're right.
Your argument MIGHT be valid if you went, as a private citizen, to the moon today and removed something left behind. It would certainly be a fascinating legal issue. (see things like laws related to sunken treasure recovery.)
It wouldn't. turns out the 1967 space treaty says there is no such thing as abandoned property in space. Otherwise multi-stage booster rockets would be "abandoned" shortly before they fell on foreign cities or hit foreign satellites. So the camera is the property of NASA until paperwork is produced showing the official transfer of ownership.
However, I have difficulty coming up with any legal interpretation of 'abandoned' that could apply in this case until AFTER all federal employees had left the surface of the moon.
The difference between abandoned and lost or misplaced property is intent. You can't argue NASA didn't intend to abandon the launch craft, there is paperwork (the blue prints, flight plans, manifests, etc etc) proving NASA intended to abandon the camera, along with the rest of the module, on the moon. Unless NASA can produce plans to recover the camera, even if those plans were scrapped, their intent to abandon is quite clear. Though again this is all moot.
Are they? The government has fairly detailed rules about the disposal of equipment to prevent federal employees from profiting by declaring something "Trash" (a very common practice in previous centuries for people in charge of managing government funds.) If he didn't follow the correct procedures, then legally speaking, the item was stolen, end of story.
You can set whatever rules you want, they don't trump the law. Abandoned property cannot be stolen. *THAT* should be the end of the story.
How many 16mm cameras does one government need nowadays?
How many traffic corners does New York City have? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/24/226203/nyc-mayor-wants-traffic-camera-on-every-corner
But where I was leading to I think was the fact that the camera was intentionally, willfully, and obviously abandoned. NASA/Feds have no legal claim to it.
Not to mention, this tramp is trying to sell that half-eaten hamburger and you just spent more money calling your lawyers than he could possibly get for it. If you really want it, offer to buy it back and save us all a penny!
In all fairness, they claim to have already asked him to return the camera and he did not reply.
But yea, I really don't think that changes anything. They're wasting money trying to get the camera back ... for ... what reason? Is NASA funding so screwed that suing to get a 40 year old camera back is cost effective compared to just buying a new one? Are they doing it for the principle of the matter? I'm pretty sure astronauts understand that if they break the rules, they don't get to go into space. If the rules were unclear (as it appears they were), then they need to fix the rules. If astronauts are still breaking the rules, get different astronauts or review the rules.
They're being tools.
It would set a very bad precedent if they allowed a US employee to violate the rules. I doubt the camera weighed all that much, but I'll go with the same argument that holds that it's unethical to take anything from a site, "What if everyone took a (rock, artifact, fossil, etc.)?", which my folks rightly used early and often. In this case, astronauts looting things isn't likely going to deprive science or other sightseers of knowledge or the experience, but NASA has very strict rules for very good reasons.
Astronauts are apparently allowed a small box for mementos to take into space and return with (I learned this on Pawn Stars when someone brought in a moon mission patch, photo, and autograph display). Nothing more without authorization. What if all the other members of the moon landing crew also decided to smuggle crap, and the module wound up being overweight? That could've endangered the lives of the crew. Why should Edgar's alleged bad behavior allow him to benefit in such a way that all the other moon astronauts didn't, because they behaved themselves?
Most astronauts brought stuff back to keep. The article even talks about it. But NASA regulations and the safety of the crew in regards to weight limits are not Federal Law. The fact that the crew got back safely, and nobody noticed the difference, says the camera's effect was next to non-existent. Sure, he should be repremanded, possibly lose the right to fly in space, but that's it. The camera was abandoned, he "found" it.
Theft is knowingly appropriating somebody else's property for your own use. However, abandoned property is not owned by anybody, and therefore cannot be stolen.
The moon, by international treaty, is not owned by anybody, especially the United States. The camera was a part of the lunar module, which was intended (and did, though minus the camera), to be abandonded on the lunar surface (after falling down and being turned into a pile of twisted metal).
IINAL
I think the US Government is well within its rights to demand return of its property.
They're suing to get back their trash. The camera was a part of the lunar module which was ditched half-way off the moon, fell back to the moon, and turned into a pile of squished metal.
Seriously its like suing an 80 year old homeless guy for stealing a half-eaten hamburger out of your trash-can.
which means that voting third party makes it less likely that the third party's policy goals will be realized. Sad, but true.)
Absolutely wrong. Our system is set up in a way to ensure only real parties are included. The government defines a real party by whether or not they received at least 5% of the votes in the previous election.
Vote 3rd party, get just 5% of the votes, and next election you'll see 3 Presidential candidates being invited to all the debates. You'll see 3 names on the ballot, 3 people getting federal election funds, 3 people getting national air time, 3 people to vote for.
Voting 3rd party will change everything
No amount of tax attorneys can get around a sales tax.
Doing your shopping overseas tends to help though.
How long do you think its going to take the insurance companies to start raising rates for "stupid" people? At which point people will start lying to their doctors to avoid increased premiums (or just the embarrassment), thus reducing the effectiveness of care, increasing the duration of care, and probably increasing costs.
I don't think Insurance companies need to know how people are injured or become sick.
you understand ownership of a song to be some sort of ironclad truth, like owning your right or left hand. insane and bizarre
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2424088&cid=37383158
No, I don't. Personally I think copyright of any duration is unnecessary and illogical. But my personal beliefs there are irrelevant. I was merely commenting on the absurdity of claiming there is no philosophical or moral argument defending a 70 year duration of copyright and presented an argument to prove my point. The fact that you disagree with the statement doesn't mean the argument is invalid or indefensible, despite the "-1: disagree" rating I got for my post. If it was indefensible it would be torn apart using other sound arguments.
So let me rephrase it: defending a 70 year copyright is no different than defending a 1 second copyright. All the same issues exist, public good vs incentive to create. To say there is no moral or philosophical argument is actually just a claim that you can't think of an argument that you agree with. Such a statement is far more indicative of the speaker's limited abilities than it is of the state of the world. The "perfect" duration that maximizes the incentive to create & public good at the same time cannot currently be measured and so is merely an opinion.
As to your link about Sita, I don't think it touches my point at all. So the producer has run afoul of confusing copyright law that requires her to pay a large sum of money... That wouldn't change no matter what the duration of copyright was, people will still encounter the same issues. Replace Annette's work with something produced in 1970s and where are you? Same place.
There is no moral or philosophically defensible position that says someone needs to own a song or a movie for 70 years. The only explanation is greed overstepping all sense of proportion and reason. Disgusting. It just moves me with great anger to make sure I will do my best to hurt the bottom line of those who think dollar signs are more important than the common property of mankind.
No moral or philosophical argument?
How about this: I created it. Taking my property without my permission is theft.
The fact that you accept people can "own" a song means the song is property. That means taking the song from the possession of the creator (whatever your moral reasoning), without the creator's permission, is theft.
The number of years you allow the creator to own his own work is irrelevant. 1 second or 1 million years, you're still at the end taking his property.
From TFA
The change applies to the copyright on studio recordings, which is often owned by record labels, rather than the right to the composition, which is owned by the songwriters.
Can't say I'm a bit surprised. I would hate for record labels to face an income gap toward the end of their lives.
They've been complaining about an income gap for several years now. Lets hope it means what the law change suggests.
I used to work at Circuit City and they would do exactly that. I had customers that wanted a specific model laptop and the only one available was "pre-optimized". They charged an extra $75.00 for the tech to open the box, go through the initial setup prompts and uninstall maybe one or two things. The customers came in looking for a laptop advertised at a specific price and it was my job to tell them that they would have to pay an additional $75.00 on top of that price because all we had left was the "optimized" version.
Classic illegal bait & switch method. Damnit, I'm going to sue Circuit City into bankruptcy!!
Apparently, carbon footprint calculations are a selective thing to them.
1 iPad 2 = 105kg CO2 (http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/iPad_2_Environmental_Report.pdf) /. )
So, 1.15 million kg for iPad production
1 gallon jet fuel = 8.5kg CO2
105kg * 11,000 = 1,155,000kg
8.5kg * 326,000 = 2,771,000kg per year
Though really that is comparing apples & oranges: production cost vs related usage cost. Better would be to compare the CO2 impact of creating the paper manuals vs the CO2 impact of creating the iPads.
1 lb paper produces ~7 lbs CO2. 11,000 manuals * 38 pounds each = 2,926,000 lbs = 1,330,000kg CO2.
That is just the paper though. Still, lets just assume the CO2 cost of shipping the paper, printing the book, binding the book & shipping the book is 0 because I'm getting bored of googling and need to get back to work (grrrr
or 1.3 million kg for paper production
They're about equal.
The 2.8 million kg CO2 from saving jet fuel each and every year is just environmental icing.
You should be thanking, not ridiculing.
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? [snip] Why isn't anyone doing this?
Well, no need to join up and go in together as the initial investment requirement is so low
The drawback appears to be in waiting for it to spontaneously ignite and tell you where the oil & gold is.
spread the word.
Bird.
Soooo.....everyone who says blacks are getting screwed is actually a racist? Is mere awareness of race and any response to it at all what constitutes racism in your book, or what? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything else you said; I just cannot fathom that last sentence no matter how I try.
No, people that say "blacks are getting screwed because whites are racist", is racist. The articles says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It just briefly states the summary of the published study (blacks get fewer research grants), then turns into a blog about all the possible reasons white racism is keeping the black man down. Nothing ever established that the discrimination happening in the NIH review process was BECAUSE of race. Nothing established that the NIH review process was flawed. Nothing even states the race of the reviewers in the NIH approval process. Maybe they're all hispanic/asian/indian & extremely racist against blacks.
And yet, with absolutely no information beyond "blacks get fewer grants", the article has assumed that the reason is because the NIH reviewers (which are presumably predominately white) are racist.
Not exactly. There are mavericks. Look for the members that the other members call crazy. Those are the people to vote for.
And what do the mavericks do once it becomes inconvenient to be a maverick?
John McCain's presidential campaign says it all.
Even The Maverick was shown to be a fully owned subsidiary of The Republican Party.
What you've CLEARLY failed to grasp is that this story isn't new or news.
The only person clearly failing to grasp anything here is you with the point behind my post. I'll address a couple points then explain it in plain english.
1) MAC addresses are not personally identifiable information nor was the Apple data you quoted me on "anonymous". It, in fact, was personally identifiable because a database of device ID's for iPhones *does* exist, unlike MAC addresses.
So, connecting a MAC address to a physical home address is not personally identifiable? Putting that connection into a publicly accessible search engine like google.com does not qualify as a database? But location data stored only on your own phone & computer is not anonymous enough for you.
2) Google doesn't allow you to "opt-out" because they already opted everyone out. They disabled this feature after the security researcher questioned pointed it out. You want to be "double opted-out"?
Uh, no. They disabled the google.com search. They still have my information and they still use it.
3) Google sniffed the MAC addresses on purpose. That was the whole point of the sniffing. They've never, ever denied that (nor should they, its a perfectly legitimate and useful thing to do--Skyhook does the same thing and that's why your iPod touch can locate itself without having GPS). What they didn't realize was that they also hadn't fully truncated the payload data of the packets they sniffed to get at the MAC addresses. Because the packet data they recorded was MACHINE PARSED (to extract the MAC addresses), nobody realized the extra data was there. If they had been recording it on purpose, however, they wouldn't have been truncating packets *at all*.
MAC addresses don't float around the packet. You don't need to store any payload data to get the address. It is at the same place every time. If you only want the MAC address (sender or receiver), you only get the MAC address because you only look at those specific bytes. There is nothing accidental about reading or storing payload data. Nor is there anything accidental about storing the physical address where you got that MAC address, connecting the two, and allowing everybody to search it.
4) Of course those mac addresses were recorded! Of course they were used in Google maps. Google has said this all along. It was their DEFENSE, not something they were ashamed of. CNET is reporting on something that was eminently obvious to everyone when the initial story broke, assuming it's some shocking new angle when it's simply not.
Their defense was "ya we did it"? That is not a defense, that is "pleading guilty". Their defense is that unencrypted wireless networks are public conversation and thus not subject to wiretapping laws. What CNET is reporting in *this* article is confirmation of the presumption that client MAC addresses were recorded. No, its not a new angle, it is confirmation of a slightly older angle.
You simply don't have a very good handle of the facts,
Next time hold off on that crap until I actually share what I know of the facts and you take the time to figure out if I don't understand the facts, or merely disagree with you.
Now on to the plain English: My point in my last post is that i think claiming Google to be the innocent bumbling forthright apologetic simpleton giant while portraying Apple as an evil sadistic cash-cow that wants to steal your baby's soul to power their puppy masher is silly. They used different methods to do the same kind of thing with slightly different, though very comparable, privacy concerns, reactions, & solutions. I'm more suspect of Google in this matter though because of Google's business model: get as much information as possible so they can sell it. They don't "accidentally gather information", they "accidentally? violate
Google, to its credit, at least had the decency to step up and say "Yeah, our mistake. We're sorry."
The article I read (conveniently linked above) says:
Well, I guess if you *really* love google you can consider repeated denials for comment to be an apology.
doesn't get uploaded to them its not really "tracking" [snip]
its existence creates a liability for its users[snip]
at least Google showed a lot more forthrightness and honesty
So the existence of anonymous data creates a liability for the users. But Google collecting personally identifiable information and making it searchable on their website and by their phones while not allowing you to opt-out is ... nothing to worry about. Its the same thing.
Google didn't admit to anything. Google got caught. When each little bit of information was discovered they stopped denying that part, but forced people to keep digging to find out what other information they stored and made searchable. They did it for FOUR YEARS. Nobody does something for FOUR YEARS and then honestly believes "Omg I had no idea I was doing that!". On top of everything, they don't offer any opt-out. All the outrage, no opt-out.
You're a fan-boy at heart, ignoring whatever is convenient so Google can be a good guy.