Cryptography is hard, very hard, to get right. If you don't know if you can distinguish random data vs encrypted data, then either (1) you are an crypto expert and this is an unsolved question like P=NP, or (2) you know very little about crypto.
Well, since you are asking HERE, my bet is (2) is the actual situation.
So my answer to you would be: STOP, don't write this program. You are not qualified, and anyone using your program (including yourself) will be given a false sense of security which may end up worse than knowing your data is not hidden.
If you insist on proceeding, then first plan a couple years of self education before you start. And/. is NOT the place to begin.
The stupidity is letting the police Dept pcket the fines. Instead, like some other sane places, all fines should go to the country/state/city budget, mixed up with all other taxes. This remove all incentives for police to create speed traps in the first place and focus on reducing traffic accidents instead.
Hopefully Righthaven finds more politicians to sue. Lots more. Then maybe - just maybe - will we get some consumer friendly copyright laws.
No, you will get safehaven laws to shield politicians from these suits instead. Just like the Do-not-call-list specifically contained exemptions to let politicians call you.
Just like a real gun sight, you only look through it with one eye. So just put the crosshairs and other HUD elements on either left or right eye (configurable), then when the player wish to aim better, he can close the other eye (just like aiming a real gun).
For iron sight, even better, only the right (or left) eye would be aligned with the iron sight, the other eye would be looking down the barrel a but from the side.
The HUD elements would appear as if the player is wearing a transparent display over one eye.
If you don't want it, then DON'T BUY IT! Why is this so difficult for these anti-3D trolls to undertstand?
Because they are afraid that other people will buy it!
Yep, they are afraid that if enough people bought it, 3D will eventually be common enough that can no longer ignore it.
It is the same with the iPhone bashing crowd. They don't have to buy it, but if enough other people bought it, they would have missed out all the new stuff coming out for it.
How many more people does Apple have to hurt before it starts to tarnish the brand?
Well, the funny thing is how many people in/. who actually believe that these news will hurt Apple at all.
Look, to 99.9% of iPhone's target market, these news means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If anything, these news will be taken as a sign that the App Store is working! "Wow, those guys at Apple are really taking the time to approve the apps and not just let everything pass to boost the number of apps!"
I do software development for a living, and I own an iPhone. Even I do not care about these news. There are already more apps available than I can ever use, I am all for anything that Apple do that might increase the quality of the apps available rather than quantity. Even if those actions may turn some developers away.
But you know, if he had released his app for Android, it would be on the market now. He could even make an Android app for mocking up iPhone apps! I wish he would, just for the irony value.
Yes he could do that, but good luck trying to earn much money from Android's app store, where lots of Android users can't even pay him even if they wanted to because payment from their country is not yet supported on the store!
As an iPhone owner, I am willing to PAY for high quality apps. More importantly, I am ABLE to pay for the apps, and very conveniently too. Money is what lures developers to the platform, and fewer higher quality apps will draw more money than a hundreds of sloppy apps.
Traditional physics dogma was that nothing affected decay rates
By "Traditional physics", do you mean "high-school level physics"? Or "physics as known a century ago"?
Other posts have already correctly stated, since it is quite established that Electroweak is a single force, it is quite conceivable and within the current theoretical framework that solar flares (i.e. strong E&M fields) could affect processes involving the Weak force, i.e. radioactive decay.
The only question is how exactly would it happen and if anyone can calculate from theory the effects observed, i.e. the rates changed for different kinds of decay.
What worries me is that ISPs may quietly start crippling their default packages so they can sell "extras".
You mean like selling games with a 2-page "manual" that just tell you how to start the game, and then selling "strategy guides" that contained stuff that should have been in the manual in the first place?
By overtly giving access to these governments they can scan for US or European business partners (hopefully RIM limits to the local to that country traffic). This allows them an unfair competitive advantage as they can then direct local companies often state owned or controlled to change bids or marketing approaches.
Yes, and as we all know, the US and Europe (incl UK) governments are such bastion of moral behavior that they had never and would never ever use data collected through immoral means (e.g. spying, wire-tapping, etc) to assist their own businesses.
A more cynical person (who might have read about such abuses by various western governments in the past) would more likely to think that by gaining such access, these governments would simply be "leveling the playing field" rather than gaining any "unfair advantage".
If Borders in the UK were anything to go by, "entitled to margins" isn't really the problem. There's every possibility the structure of the entire business is such that they essentially have to charge that much or they'll be making a whacking loss.
Borders used their own specific barcode labels. Which means every book had to have a separate barcode label which they'd have to pay someone £X/hr to apply, [...]
That's exactly what GP's "entitled to margins" means.
If you are a sane manager, unless you think you are "entitled" to huge margins, you would be changing your business practices so your costs stay within your margin (which should be in line with your competitors')
By keeping their business structured in the way to requires more margin that their competitors, and keeping the high margin on the prices, they are thinking they are "entitled" to such margins, and are in fact slowly killing the company.
He replied that Google was only interested in defensive patents. Of course, that statement isn't exactly binding, but even the links you've given claim that Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement.
Yes, and North Korea is only interested in defensive use of nukes, and unlike the US, NK has never nuked anyone before.
In case you still missed the point, Google *will* start suing others for patent infringement once they got a big enough patent pool. They are currently only interested in defensive patents because that's the only kind that make sense when you have a small patent pool.
For example, posting comments on Facebook photos goes out to all people with permission to see your comments on photos.
This is exactly the reason why I very rarely post any comment on Facebook (apart from obvious privacy issues). Any normal person has friends in different circles, what's appropriate for one group may be viewed as inappropriate to another group due to different cultural/group context.
My personal opinion is that you CAN discuss the principles without going into more details
And that discussion would be as useful as discussing topics like OO-programming principles with someone who has never written a line of code. Or like discussing the issues with MySQL with someone who has never used a database or written a line of SQL.
You can make someone think they "understood" the physics, when, in fact, he haven't understood anything. Much like how you "explain" how you fixed a particular tricky bug to the upper management.
Nuclear fusion is easy. We've been able to do that for 50 years. Sustainable fusion reactions that release more energy than they require - that's trickier.
The point should be, when Helium gets expensive enough, it would be economically feasible to run fusion plants even when they are net energy negative - i.e. the sole purpose of the plant is to harvest the Helium.
It would be like desalination, you feed in energy and you get Helium as output (yeah, you will need to feed in fuel also, but we have plenty of hydrogen and deuterium on Earth, compared to Helium).
With a bit of luck and the accumulation of experience, eventually the fusion plants might become net energy positive, and that would be a bonus.
I think not. From all the complains about dropped calls I read here, I think the real culprit with iPhone dropping calls in the US is AT&T.
I don't live in the US and I never had a dropped call with my iPhone 3GS in the past full year when I am stationary (i.e. calls only drop if I was traveling and moved into an area with no coverage, I don't think any phone can avoid dropping the call in that case).
Unfortunately many 3G and 3GS phones have trouble upgrading to iOS 4. They upgrade just fine, but then can no longer connect to the cellular data network and lose visual voicemail and MMS (phone calls and text still work). I'm surprised this story has slipped under the radar so far,
It has "slipped under the radar" because even within those news/reports that I have read talking about this problem acknowledged clearly that it is a problem with the network.
People having this problem (from reports I have read) are using phone network providers that don't offer iPhone plans themselves. Unfortunately, according to the reports, some of those networks have older equipments that don't work with the new communication software used in iOS4.
As such, you would never hear about this kind of problem with operators that DO offer iPhone with their plans because they would be sure to upgrade their network to support iOS4.
If Helium gets expensive enough, it will be worth the money to build fusion plants just for the Helium even though the plant never produce a net positive energy output. So, in principle, there is big latent supply hidden.
Even before that, it would be economically infeasible for using Helium for blimps, eventually someone will figure out how to do it safely using Hydrogen.
With both a hi-res camera and display, you show more of your face than perhaps you want. Every line, pimple and stray hair shows up, when I playing with FaceTime yesterday.
Umm.. well, if you talk to someone else face-to-face at ~2-4 ft* away, every line, pimple or stray hair will be seen by the other guy too.
I suppose you won't be using FaceTime with someone you are not willing to talk face-to-face, right?
* - assuming both party hold the phone 1-2 ft away from face for comparison.
What PART of the retina (should have called it a fovea display)?
I don't understand, don't we always use the same part of the retina when reading?
I mean, when I read, I have to move my eyeballs to track along the line, so I actually only really focused on a few words in the line at a time, I have never been able to focus on one single spot and really "read" other parts of the text even though they are clearly in my field of vision.
So I suppose there is really a small part of my retina, where I "focus" on, that has high enough resolution to really read text. Isn't that true?
Wow, Google pulled an Amazon here, remotely DELETED an app from users' phone... and half of the posts here are OK with it?!
Where's the outrage? Isn't the big ADVANTAGE of Android is that it is YOUR phone, which you CONTROL, and that YOU decide what to put on it? Now Google, not only told you they hold a REMOTE KILL switch, but actually went and DID a remote kill, and wow, half of the posters here are fine with it.
But all that aside, why all this shock and thinking this is weird or new?
Maybe because, for once, an American company is on the receiving end of it?
Was there any shock when American companies, using American laws, in American courts, suing foreign people/companies with no presence in America?
Boiled down to basics by replacing a few words, there is nothing wrong, see "Are there any precedents for a copyright owner attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to copyrighted material?"
It is just plain foolish/trollish for the summary to use the term "UK-copyrighted" because in this case, the material is also copyrighted in US.
Just see it this way - it's sometimes easier to log every information available when collecting the data and then filter out the interesting parts later. Especially when it's in the prototype state. And suddenly a prototype goes into production just because it works good enough.
Yeah, right. Why not use this to justify the Sony rootkit too: "It's easier to just root the PC when preventing unauthorized action being done to the CD. And suddenly a prototype goes into production just because it works good enough."
Do you buy that?
No, the truth is people are defending Google not because it make sense, but because they want to believe Google is the good guy. This is no different from Creationists wanting to believe their idea in face of opposing evidence, it's only matter of degree.
That's true, but it's still possible that the relative values to the company are being miscalculated. If you fired that sales guy, could some other sales guy paid half as much sell the product just as well? My guess is that often the answer is "yes".
My guess is your guess is wrong. Why? Simple, if your guess is true, don't you think your CEO wouldn't leap at the opportunity to save half a million per year simply by replacing that top sales? Secondly, why didn't any of the other sales just go ahead and sell as much as that top sales, which would prove your point?
The simple fact that neither has happened is enough proof that you can't simply replace that top sales with someone else and still keep the same sales numbers.
Still don't believe it? Why don't YOU go into sales and earn your million dollars if you think it is so easy? Huh? Now you hestitiate? Maybe other people's job is not as easy as you seem to think.
If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.
Not to argue against your other points, but FYI, jumping from a building, especially where you live or work, is a very COMMON way of suicide in Asian cities.
With lots of tall enough buildings, and living in a dorm with your coworkers (most workers are from other provinces, away from home), it is not like you have lots of options for suicide, especially if it is a spur of the moment thing.
E.g., unlike US, if you slit your wrist in bath (well, my guess is they only have showers in dorm, but anyway), you would probably be found by a dorm mate within an hour. If you buy and eat lots of pills, well, it costs a bit of money, and you would still probably be found and rushed to hospital within an hour, plus most people don't have enough knowledge to know which pills will likely to actually kill you instead of just giving yourself lots of discomfort. I suppose you could try to hang yourself, but there is no much fixtures in a dorm where you could tied a rope to hang, most people don't keep hanging ropes around anyway.
So, in the heat of that moment you want to die, if you are going to jump anyway, why not do it "conveniently" from your dorm or workplace? Why take the trouble to go anywhere else?
BTW, the actual news is Foxconn is going to MOVE their factories to more in-land locations of China, where the salary is cheaper than coastal cities. So this story is bogus anyway.
Let's do a thought experiment. What if, instead of Google, it were RIAA doing this?
So, consider what if RIAA has been sending out trucks all around US, silently capture any and all wifi data they can receive, and recording them linked with GPS location, for the past 3 years. You have no idea what RIAA intend to do with all these data.
Would you still consider this ok?
Alternately, would you be worried if RIAA suddenly comes up with boatloads of money and bought out Google? Now they have all the data Google had, are you still fine with that?
Try replacing RIAA with any of your favorite organization, such as Microsoft, Apple, SCO, etc. Will your opinion change?
Slashdot Mirror
Cryptography is hard, very hard, to get right. If you don't know if you can distinguish random data vs encrypted data, then either (1) you are an crypto expert and this is an unsolved question like P=NP, or (2) you know very little about crypto.
Well, since you are asking HERE, my bet is (2) is the actual situation.
So my answer to you would be: STOP, don't write this program. You are not qualified, and anyone using your program (including yourself) will be given a false sense of security which may end up worse than knowing your data is not hidden.
If you insist on proceeding, then first plan a couple years of self education before you start. And /. is NOT the place to begin.
The stupidity is letting the police Dept pcket the fines. Instead, like some other sane places, all fines should go to the country/state/city budget, mixed up with all other taxes. This remove all incentives for police to create speed traps in the first place and focus on reducing traffic accidents instead.
Hopefully Righthaven finds more politicians to sue. Lots more. Then maybe - just maybe - will we get some consumer friendly copyright laws.
No, you will get safehaven laws to shield politicians from these suits instead. Just like the Do-not-call-list specifically contained exemptions to let politicians call you.
Just like a real gun sight, you only look through it with one eye. So just put the crosshairs and other HUD elements on either left or right eye (configurable), then when the player wish to aim better, he can close the other eye (just like aiming a real gun).
For iron sight, even better, only the right (or left) eye would be aligned with the iron sight, the other eye would be looking down the barrel a but from the side.
The HUD elements would appear as if the player is wearing a transparent display over one eye.
If you don't want it, then DON'T BUY IT! Why is this so difficult for these anti-3D trolls to undertstand?
Because they are afraid that other people will buy it!
Yep, they are afraid that if enough people bought it, 3D will eventually be common enough that can no longer ignore it.
It is the same with the iPhone bashing crowd. They don't have to buy it, but if enough other people bought it, they would have missed out all the new stuff coming out for it.
How many more people does Apple have to hurt before it starts to tarnish the brand?
Well, the funny thing is how many people in /. who actually believe that these news will hurt Apple at all.
Look, to 99.9% of iPhone's target market, these news means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If anything, these news will be taken as a sign that the App Store is working! "Wow, those guys at Apple are really taking the time to approve the apps and not just let everything pass to boost the number of apps!"
I do software development for a living, and I own an iPhone. Even I do not care about these news. There are already more apps available than I can ever use, I am all for anything that Apple do that might increase the quality of the apps available rather than quantity. Even if those actions may turn some developers away.
But you know, if he had released his app for Android, it would be on the market now. He could even make an Android app for mocking up iPhone apps! I wish he would, just for the irony value.
Yes he could do that, but good luck trying to earn much money from Android's app store, where lots of Android users can't even pay him even if they wanted to because payment from their country is not yet supported on the store!
As an iPhone owner, I am willing to PAY for high quality apps. More importantly, I am ABLE to pay for the apps, and very conveniently too. Money is what lures developers to the platform, and fewer higher quality apps will draw more money than a hundreds of sloppy apps.
Traditional physics dogma was that nothing affected decay rates
By "Traditional physics", do you mean "high-school level physics"? Or "physics as known a century ago"?
Other posts have already correctly stated, since it is quite established that Electroweak is a single force, it is quite conceivable and within the current theoretical framework that solar flares (i.e. strong E&M fields) could affect processes involving the Weak force, i.e. radioactive decay.
The only question is how exactly would it happen and if anyone can calculate from theory the effects observed, i.e. the rates changed for different kinds of decay.
What worries me is that ISPs may quietly start crippling their default packages so they can sell "extras".
You mean like selling games with a 2-page "manual" that just tell you how to start the game, and then selling "strategy guides" that contained stuff that should have been in the manual in the first place?
By overtly giving access to these governments they can scan for US or European business partners (hopefully RIM limits to the local to that country traffic). This allows them an unfair competitive advantage as they can then direct local companies often state owned or controlled to change bids or marketing approaches.
Yes, and as we all know, the US and Europe (incl UK) governments are such bastion of moral behavior that they had never and would never ever use data collected through immoral means (e.g. spying, wire-tapping, etc) to assist their own businesses.
A more cynical person (who might have read about such abuses by various western governments in the past) would more likely to think that by gaining such access, these governments would simply be "leveling the playing field" rather than gaining any "unfair advantage".
If Borders in the UK were anything to go by, "entitled to margins" isn't really the problem. There's every possibility the structure of the entire business is such that they essentially have to charge that much or they'll be making a whacking loss.
Borders used their own specific barcode labels. Which means every book had to have a separate barcode label which they'd have to pay someone £X/hr to apply, [...]
That's exactly what GP's "entitled to margins" means.
If you are a sane manager, unless you think you are "entitled" to huge margins, you would be changing your business practices so your costs stay within your margin (which should be in line with your competitors')
By keeping their business structured in the way to requires more margin that their competitors, and keeping the high margin on the prices, they are thinking they are "entitled" to such margins, and are in fact slowly killing the company.
He replied that Google was only interested in defensive patents. Of course, that statement isn't exactly binding, but even the links you've given claim that Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement.
Yes, and North Korea is only interested in defensive use of nukes, and unlike the US, NK has never nuked anyone before.
In case you still missed the point, Google *will* start suing others for patent infringement once they got a big enough patent pool. They are currently only interested in defensive patents because that's the only kind that make sense when you have a small patent pool.
For example, posting comments on Facebook photos goes out to all people with permission to see your comments on photos.
This is exactly the reason why I very rarely post any comment on Facebook (apart from obvious privacy issues). Any normal person has friends in different circles, what's appropriate for one group may be viewed as inappropriate to another group due to different cultural/group context.
My personal opinion is that you CAN discuss the principles without going into more details
And that discussion would be as useful as discussing topics like OO-programming principles with someone who has never written a line of code. Or like discussing the issues with MySQL with someone who has never used a database or written a line of SQL.
You can make someone think they "understood" the physics, when, in fact, he haven't understood anything. Much like how you "explain" how you fixed a particular tricky bug to the upper management.
Nuclear fusion is easy. We've been able to do that for 50 years. Sustainable fusion reactions that release more energy than they require - that's trickier.
The point should be, when Helium gets expensive enough, it would be economically feasible to run fusion plants even when they are net energy negative - i.e. the sole purpose of the plant is to harvest the Helium.
It would be like desalination, you feed in energy and you get Helium as output (yeah, you will need to feed in fuel also, but we have plenty of hydrogen and deuterium on Earth, compared to Helium).
With a bit of luck and the accumulation of experience, eventually the fusion plants might become net energy positive, and that would be a bonus.
I think not. From all the complains about dropped calls I read here, I think the real culprit with iPhone dropping calls in the US is AT&T.
I don't live in the US and I never had a dropped call with my iPhone 3GS in the past full year when I am stationary (i.e. calls only drop if I was traveling and moved into an area with no coverage, I don't think any phone can avoid dropping the call in that case).
Unfortunately many 3G and 3GS phones have trouble upgrading to iOS 4. They upgrade just fine, but then can no longer connect to the cellular data network and lose visual voicemail and MMS (phone calls and text still work). I'm surprised this story has slipped under the radar so far,
It has "slipped under the radar" because even within those news/reports that I have read talking about this problem acknowledged clearly that it is a problem with the network.
People having this problem (from reports I have read) are using phone network providers that don't offer iPhone plans themselves. Unfortunately, according to the reports, some of those networks have older equipments that don't work with the new communication software used in iOS4.
As such, you would never hear about this kind of problem with operators that DO offer iPhone with their plans because they would be sure to upgrade their network to support iOS4.
If Helium gets expensive enough, it will be worth the money to build fusion plants just for the Helium even though the plant never produce a net positive energy output. So, in principle, there is big latent supply hidden.
Even before that, it would be economically infeasible for using Helium for blimps, eventually someone will figure out how to do it safely using Hydrogen.
With both a hi-res camera and display, you show more of your face than perhaps you want. Every line, pimple and stray hair shows up, when I playing with FaceTime yesterday.
Umm.. well, if you talk to someone else face-to-face at ~2-4 ft* away, every line, pimple or stray hair will be seen by the other guy too.
I suppose you won't be using FaceTime with someone you are not willing to talk face-to-face, right?
* - assuming both party hold the phone 1-2 ft away from face for comparison.
What PART of the retina (should have called it a fovea display)?
I don't understand, don't we always use the same part of the retina when reading?
I mean, when I read, I have to move my eyeballs to track along the line, so I actually only really focused on a few words in the line at a time, I have never been able to focus on one single spot and really "read" other parts of the text even though they are clearly in my field of vision.
So I suppose there is really a small part of my retina, where I "focus" on, that has high enough resolution to really read text. Isn't that true?
Wow, Google pulled an Amazon here, remotely DELETED an app from users' phone... and half of the posts here are OK with it?!
Where's the outrage? Isn't the big ADVANTAGE of Android is that it is YOUR phone, which you CONTROL, and that YOU decide what to put on it? Now Google, not only told you they hold a REMOTE KILL switch, but actually went and DID a remote kill, and wow, half of the posters here are fine with it.
Amazing.
But all that aside, why all this shock and thinking this is weird or new?
Maybe because, for once, an American company is on the receiving end of it?
Was there any shock when American companies, using American laws, in American courts, suing foreign people/companies with no presence in America?
Boiled down to basics by replacing a few words, there is nothing wrong, see "Are there any precedents for a copyright owner attempting to use an American law to force an American company to take down links to copyrighted material?"
It is just plain foolish/trollish for the summary to use the term "UK-copyrighted" because in this case, the material is also copyrighted in US.
Just see it this way - it's sometimes easier to log every information available when collecting the data and then filter out the interesting parts later. Especially when it's in the prototype state. And suddenly a prototype goes into production just because it works good enough.
Yeah, right. Why not use this to justify the Sony rootkit too: "It's easier to just root the PC when preventing unauthorized action being done to the CD. And suddenly a prototype goes into production just because it works good enough."
Do you buy that?
No, the truth is people are defending Google not because it make sense, but because they want to believe Google is the good guy. This is no different from Creationists wanting to believe their idea in face of opposing evidence, it's only matter of degree.
That's true, but it's still possible that the relative values to the company are being miscalculated. If you fired that sales guy, could some other sales guy paid half as much sell the product just as well? My guess is that often the answer is "yes".
My guess is your guess is wrong. Why? Simple, if your guess is true, don't you think your CEO wouldn't leap at the opportunity to save half a million per year simply by replacing that top sales? Secondly, why didn't any of the other sales just go ahead and sell as much as that top sales, which would prove your point?
The simple fact that neither has happened is enough proof that you can't simply replace that top sales with someone else and still keep the same sales numbers.
Still don't believe it? Why don't YOU go into sales and earn your million dollars if you think it is so easy? Huh? Now you hestitiate? Maybe other people's job is not as easy as you seem to think.
If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.
Not to argue against your other points, but FYI, jumping from a building, especially where you live or work, is a very COMMON way of suicide in Asian cities.
With lots of tall enough buildings, and living in a dorm with your coworkers (most workers are from other provinces, away from home), it is not like you have lots of options for suicide, especially if it is a spur of the moment thing.
E.g., unlike US, if you slit your wrist in bath (well, my guess is they only have showers in dorm, but anyway), you would probably be found by a dorm mate within an hour. If you buy and eat lots of pills, well, it costs a bit of money, and you would still probably be found and rushed to hospital within an hour, plus most people don't have enough knowledge to know which pills will likely to actually kill you instead of just giving yourself lots of discomfort. I suppose you could try to hang yourself, but there is no much fixtures in a dorm where you could tied a rope to hang, most people don't keep hanging ropes around anyway.
So, in the heat of that moment you want to die, if you are going to jump anyway, why not do it "conveniently" from your dorm or workplace? Why take the trouble to go anywhere else?
BTW, the actual news is Foxconn is going to MOVE their factories to more in-land locations of China, where the salary is cheaper than coastal cities. So this story is bogus anyway.
Let's do a thought experiment. What if, instead of Google, it were RIAA doing this?
So, consider what if RIAA has been sending out trucks all around US, silently capture any and all wifi data they can receive, and recording them linked with GPS location, for the past 3 years. You have no idea what RIAA intend to do with all these data.
Would you still consider this ok?
Alternately, would you be worried if RIAA suddenly comes up with boatloads of money and bought out Google? Now they have all the data Google had, are you still fine with that?
Try replacing RIAA with any of your favorite organization, such as Microsoft, Apple, SCO, etc. Will your opinion change?