I have no interest in a location service, so it damned well better be something which is easily disabled.
Noted....but you're the product, not the consumer, so good luck with that.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I went "all in" on Google a while back. I log into my browser, I log into my phone, I let them see my documents, I let them know my location. Some number of "partner" companies know an awful lot about me....and in return I get pretty good information from Google in real time (or even in "precog" in Now) that I find helpful....and I get that information on a from-Google HTC one running stock Android.
The entire article is misleading, or vague at best.
By "Department of Homeland Security," they mean the CGIS - Coast Guard Investigative Services - which for those of you who only watch CBS, is like NCIS, only for the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard participated in the raid because:
Carlos Díaz, the chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, said in a statement that the Coast Guard Investigative Service was asked to participate in the raid because the search involved a Coast Guard employee. Flanagan is an ordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore.
So, "Homeland Security" participated because the CGIS is, technically, under the DHS, and only because the guy they raided is in the Coast Guard.
The only thing that puzzles me is how an ordinance technician for the US Coast Guard isn't allowed to have a gun:)
They're doing that *too* of course, since while they're rolling them out, they'll still need to replace broken ones in parts of town that they're not in.
...but the question is simply a matter of if it's more efficient to replace an existing, working, lightbulb with an LED.
I know it was for me, but my replacement costs were low. [I didn't have to pay the laborer...]
I'm not Dr. Who apologist, but the "Magic Wand" was pretty minimally used for the 1st and 2nd Doctors, almost forbidden for use by the 3rd Doctor, and has been almost written out of existence.
There's a section in the middle where the Magic Wand gets used every week, but it's mostly a non-thing.
Unless you live in some union controlled state, your boss already has that right. I've lived and worked in that world since the 60's. If you don't like an employee, fire them. Get another.
You can get fired for anything that isn't Title VII.
It's about monitoring my ever-so-precious-pliers. Tracking my reach that point. It may be trivial to tag every last Styrofoam cup in the year 20whatever.
Most people seem to understand tracking trucks and company laptops...
The blurry line now is over monitoring software on personal equipment kept 24-7 by employees for things like (mandated) email on personal devices. Hey, you're salaried, and I need you on call, so go visit IT and get track-'em-all installed on your phone as a requirement for opening our mail client.
What happens when a boss doesn't like the movie you went to see? or the church you go to?
Well, my movie attendance isn't something federally protected, so, they can fire me if they don't like my taste in movies -- unless you're in some silly state where we can't choose who we hire and fire. Drink a Coke? Sorry, we prefer Pepsi drinkers here. Here's your last check.
> However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his > girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the > following day
That sounds like a bad management decision. So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem and brought back the equipment he borrowed before anyone needed it... so in response they let him go and now have to train someone else to do his job.... which last study I saw said costs the company, on average, 150% of a workers normal salary
I really doubt that if you took all of the incidents where any employee ever did that for the company, and added them all up, it wouldn't equal the loss in productivity of replacing one average worker.
Well, maybe the next guy they train will be trustworthy, because the guy they fired sure wasn't.
As an employer, I hate when my employees steal from me -- there's a cost to maintaining vehicles -- and stealing a few bucks worth of car rental is still theft, and still reason to fire dishonest, untrustworthy employees. It's also terrible for the other employees, in that they learn they too can steal.
Replacing thieves is always less expensive than keeping them.
I'd moderate this some combination of informative/insightful if I weren't replying here.
While I don't *love* that my employer is reading this very post of mine, I respect that they're entitled to to do so. I'm using their computer, network, and time to do so. They allow me modest personal use of the internet, and in return, I know I'm getting watched.
I make a choice as an employee. I can choose to work for places that monitor my communications, or I can work elsewhere. I suppose the argument is that eventually I'll have no other option, but in the meantime, I'll just politely use their services and submit to minimal oversight of my activities. [e.g. this post being in a giant pile of other logs.]
It's important to note that Google's goal isn't to be a search engine, directing you to pages that might have the content that you're searching for, but to be an ANSWER engine, giving you the result of your query.
If you type "southwest airlines" without "fourth quarter earnings" or "lost my luggage" into Google, they should pretty much show you Southwest Airlines' site and options on that site immediately. Look at the picture from the article:
That's pretty much the ANSWER to typing "Southwest Airlines" in the combo box -- which is where everyone's being taught to "just type whatever they want" and end up in the right place.
It's silly for Google not to monetize this if they can -- because they're still going to give the answer.
If you don't believe Google's "search" engine isn't shifting to an answer engine, try some searches like "new york to california by car" or "alfonso cuaron" and see if a good answer to your query doesn't just appear.
Yes, they want our metadata. Yes, they want to see ads.
Slashdot Mirror
People will pay whatever is charged up to the point that the market will bear.
+Everything, informative.
In exchange for a great end-to-end user experience with the Google suite, I give up a lot of information about myself.
I do so freely, and I like what I get in return.
If that makes me a sucker, then so be it.
I have no interest in a location service, so it damned well better be something which is easily disabled.
Noted. ...but you're the product, not the consumer, so good luck with that.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I went "all in" on Google a while back. I log into my browser, I log into my phone, I let them see my documents, I let them know my location. Some number of "partner" companies know an awful lot about me. ...and in return I get pretty good information from Google in real time (or even in "precog" in Now) that I find helpful. ...and I get that information on a from-Google HTC one running stock Android.
I have Fringe to blame for that.
I don't mean to godwin, but I spent most of my life wondering when I would have left Germany if I lived there during the rise of the Nazis
You just tripped, and fell, and your keyboard typed out Nazis?
The entire article is misleading, or vague at best.
By "Department of Homeland Security," they mean the CGIS - Coast Guard Investigative Services - which for those of you who only watch CBS, is like NCIS, only for the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard participated in the raid because:
Carlos Díaz, the chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, said in a statement that the Coast Guard Investigative Service was asked to participate in the raid because the search involved a Coast Guard employee. Flanagan is an ordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore.
So, "Homeland Security" participated because the CGIS is, technically, under the DHS, and only because the guy they raided is in the Coast Guard.
The only thing that puzzles me is how an ordinance technician for the US Coast Guard isn't allowed to have a gun :)
The sun's half-life is 4.5 billion years?
Can you draw me the Christian/Catholic Venn diagram, please?
...the idea that's it's "un-Christian" is silly.
Torture has always been en vogue by those with the power to use it - regardless of race, religion, color, or creed, or land of origin.
Public outcry over it has come and gone.
Torture has been a staple of Christianity since at least 1252 when Pope Innocent IV* authorized its use by inquisitors.
[*I can't make these names up, kids.]
Well, not *just* yet, anyway.
I'm sure there's plenty of kickbacks in the roll-out phase.
So... ..3-5 years?
They're doing that *too* of course, since while they're rolling them out, they'll still need to replace broken ones in parts of town that they're not in.
I know it was for me, but my replacement costs were low. [I didn't have to pay the laborer...]
I'm not Dr. Who apologist, but the "Magic Wand" was pretty minimally used for the 1st and 2nd Doctors, almost forbidden for use by the 3rd Doctor, and has been almost written out of existence.
There's a section in the middle where the Magic Wand gets used every week, but it's mostly a non-thing.
Unless you live in some union controlled state, your boss already has that right. I've lived and worked in that world since the 60's. If you don't like an employee, fire them. Get another.
You can get fired for anything that isn't Title VII.
They same way you do now.
Tracking doesn't change this.
If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.
It's about monitoring my ever-so-precious-pliers. Tracking my reach that point. It may be trivial to tag every last Styrofoam cup in the year 20whatever.
Most people seem to understand tracking trucks and company laptops...
The blurry line now is over monitoring software on personal equipment kept 24-7 by employees for things like (mandated) email on personal devices. Hey, you're salaried, and I need you on call, so go visit IT and get track-'em-all installed on your phone as a requirement for opening our mail client.
What happens when a boss doesn't like the movie you went to see? or the church you go to?
Well, my movie attendance isn't something federally protected, so, they can fire me if they don't like my taste in movies -- unless you're in some silly state where we can't choose who we hire and fire. Drink a Coke? Sorry, we prefer Pepsi drinkers here. Here's your last check.
My church attendance, on the other hand, is one of those things already federally protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Unless the Delaware or Connecticut laws are a secret, they are (or at least should be) informed.
I said it elsewhere in this thread and I'll say it again.
Replacing dishonest, untrustworthy employees is always less expensive in the long run than keeping them.
I don't employ thieves, even when they're expensive to replace.
> However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his
> girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the
> following day
That sounds like a bad management decision. So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem and brought back the equipment he borrowed before anyone needed it... so in response they let him go and now have to train someone else to do his job.... which last study I saw said costs the company, on average, 150% of a workers normal salary
I really doubt that if you took all of the incidents where any employee ever did that for the company, and added them all up, it wouldn't equal the loss in productivity of replacing one average worker.
Well, maybe the next guy they train will be trustworthy, because the guy they fired sure wasn't.
As an employer, I hate when my employees steal from me -- there's a cost to maintaining vehicles -- and stealing a few bucks worth of car rental is still theft, and still reason to fire dishonest, untrustworthy employees. It's also terrible for the other employees, in that they learn they too can steal.
Replacing thieves is always less expensive than keeping them.
Schindler's List
Well, that escalated quickly.
If I'm paying you to use my pliers, and I only bug the pliers while you're using them in my employ, then yes. Of course I do.
I'd moderate this some combination of informative/insightful if I weren't replying here.
While I don't *love* that my employer is reading this very post of mine, I respect that they're entitled to to do so. I'm using their computer, network, and time to do so. They allow me modest personal use of the internet, and in return, I know I'm getting watched.
I make a choice as an employee. I can choose to work for places that monitor my communications, or I can work elsewhere. I suppose the argument is that eventually I'll have no other option, but in the meantime, I'll just politely use their services and submit to minimal oversight of my activities. [e.g. this post being in a giant pile of other logs.]
Protip: "fewer"
Morons, indeed.
The slippery slope rarely ends in genocide.
It's important to note that Google's goal isn't to be a search engine, directing you to pages that might have the content that you're searching for, but to be an ANSWER engine, giving you the result of your query.
If you type "southwest airlines" without "fourth quarter earnings" or "lost my luggage" into Google, they should pretty much show you Southwest Airlines' site and options on that site immediately. Look at the picture from the article:
http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2013/10/google-full-page-sponsored-image-ad.jpg
That's pretty much the ANSWER to typing "Southwest Airlines" in the combo box -- which is where everyone's being taught to "just type whatever they want" and end up in the right place.
It's silly for Google not to monetize this if they can -- because they're still going to give the answer.
If you don't believe Google's "search" engine isn't shifting to an answer engine, try some searches like "new york to california by car" or "alfonso cuaron" and see if a good answer to your query doesn't just appear.
Yes, they want our metadata.
Yes, they want to see ads.
These "banners" are the answer to our queries.
Bring them on.