I've got 2 weeks work of tunes, which is modest compared to others. Considering I'm not ever going to play 24/7, it's a very long time before I get to the end. I don't think I'm going to remember what order they were in when I play it again.
I trust Google not to do that until they give me reasons to believe otherwise.
I've now given you lots of reasons. So the second clause of that sentence isn't true. But then again you were willing to trust drug dealers, despite the widespread adulteration of drugs. For whatever reason, you're willing to trust people who don't deserve it. That's your issue, and one that I don't think we'll get to the bottom of here.
So your choices are apparently "useful battery life" or "able to browse webpages safely." Sounds about normal for Apple, since this isn't the first upgrade that completely killed battery life for most users.
It's a shame isn't it. After all, if you wanted poor battery life, you'd have bought an Android.
Facebook has what you deliberately choose to publish. Google has your email and your searches.
For example: The largest category of searches? Sex. How many of those people realise Google is categorising them by their sexual preferences and fetishes?
Keep your sexual desires to yourself? OK then:
Google knows people are considering getting a divorce before family and friends do.
You already know a divorce lawyer and keep your curiosity to what he tells you. OK:
Google knows your health problems. Especially the embarrassing ones that you'd rather look up on the internet than as your doctor about.
That's before even considering things like business secrets or things that might incriminate you.
None of these things Facebook know about unless you've chosen to share them in public or the semi-public of your friends.
As for handing it over to the government, two things. One, every IT company will have to do this if forced. Not just Google. Second, Google fights the government far more than any other IT company when it comes to handing over data.
No other IT collects this much data in the first place. No company can hand over your entire search history if they didn't collect it in the first place. Only Google can hand over that data.
but with the purpose of a targeted marketing pitch you wont see, sending you ads you don't see kind of nullifies it.
It doesn't nullify it. That profile of you is there regardless whether you see the ads.
If they change tos in future to strip personal sensitive data and use it against me
They've collected data on you without your permission. What makes you think they'll delete it just because you close your account? Closing the account doesn't delete the data. They just mark the account as closed so you can't log in again.
Good on you not being a mug by not sending your most secret data through GMail. Now are you sure that your friends are also as clued up when sending stuff to you. Conversations go two ways.
If I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've read and understood the entirety of the post, your point would seem to either be nostalgic, or you're trying to imply that the bundled e-mail services that existed before Gmail (or even today) are comparable in quality to Gmail. Please explain or correct my misinterpretation of your comment.
Neither. I'm saying ISP supplied email has been allowed to wither on the vine as people have taken up GMail and Hotmail. That they've traded privacy for convenience. And as a result ISPs haven't had the pressure to keep their email services up with the times.
If it's running it natively (i.e. you're not running a PC emulator on a PowerPC) then yes. And it does indeed have an evolutionary link to the PC. It's a PC architecture. When Apple made it they didn't just buy x86 derived cpus from Intel, they bought the full chipset - Northbridge, Southbridge etc. The motherboard is an Apple built PC motherboard. The reason it can run x86 Windows natively is it looks like a PC to Windows. Because it is a PC.
I'd argue that it's not precise, since the architecture of a modern PC bears little resemblance to the original IBM PC, but beyond that, is it meaningful or useful?
Of course it's meaningful and useful. What will the standard build of Windows or Linux run on? PCs. There's the primary use right there. What else are we going to call the evolutionary decendants of the IBM PC and it's clones if not PCs?
Now is it meaningful and useful to have the word "apes" or "felines" to describe particular branches of the animal evolutionary tree? It sure is.
The Macintosh originally launched on the Motorola 68k architecture. It then migrated to PowerPC, maintaining compatibility with 68k. It then migrated to x86, and eventually dropped all backwards compatibility. Does this mean that a current iMac is not a Macintosh computer, because it can't run the original Mac OS and doesn't use the 68k processor?
No, because unlike computer languages, the English language is not regular. Just because PC describes a computer by it's CPU and architectural heritage doesn't mean the word "Macintosh" does so. Unlike PC, the Macintosh trademark has been kept and controlled by a single company, and it means the products they assign that trademark to. No more and no less.
By the same token, can you even run the original IBM PC version of DOS on a modern system?
I haven't tried it in a long time, but I believe it does. It should do. The memory layout of the bottom 1M of memory hasn't changed. And as you point out BIOS is still offered for legacy purposes.
Actually the BIOS, and it's replacements are another good indicator for what is a PC and what isn't.
Will they still be PCs, even though they will essentially be architecturally completely different from the original PC?
To take up the animal evolutionary metaphor, there is a level of change at which a new genus of animals is warranted. So it is with PCs. Those Windows systems that use ARM chips for example. Will dropping BIOS legacy be enough? I don't know. Would losing whiskers be enough to make a cat not a cat? Classification names on evolutionary systems will always have debates about when the genus changes.
This definition of PC is still superior to every single other attempt that's been made by others in comments to the story.
Publishers only provide benifit to authors in the print world.
No, that would be printers. Publishers commission, give advances, provide editors, provide promotion, provide a brandname, get books reviewed by the important reviewers etc.
They are every bit as important as signing to a label is for a band. You can record your own CD of music and put it up for sale on the web without a record label. But it almost certainly won't see beyond your friends and family. Same goes for ebooks.
So they intentionally raised prices to slow digital down. And they used an agreement that made sure other publishers did the same.
No, if they wanted to slow digital down they'd just not do digital. They like digital, it's very profitable.
They being robots and algorithms that are profiling you on behalf of Google's customers.
We use the term "reading" because it's not just dumb processing. It's algorithms that extract meaning, and act on it.
If the government tapped your phone, and used voice recognition and AI to automatically look for "interesting" phrases, would you accept you're being listened to? Or worse?
Gmail isn't tied to any other services, ISP e-mails are tied to your internet connection. If you need a different internet connection due to speed or reliability issues or you move somewhere that the ISP doesn't cover, you are fucked.
Absolutely. Every free or bundle service will have drawbacks. But Google's drawback of making you email theirs to data mine is the worst drawback there is - if you consider email to be a private medium.
That's why I consider it worthwhile to pay a small amount to have email with my own domain.
When I switch from gmail (which I plan to do in the next year or two), I can set up auto-forward with an auto-response asking the sender to use my new e-mail. That's something NO isp will let you do after you cancel your contract
Of course they'll do it for you. Because it means the account is still live, and they're still data collecting every message that's sent to your gmail address.
Oh, and they're storing every search you do and attaching it to the same ID too. Nice.
And they're tracking people with cookies, even when they set their browser not to be tracked.
You didn't answer any of the questions. Presumably because you know that Google did this without your permission, and initially without your knowledge.
As long as they keep it to themselves and assure me that only computers (not humans) read it I have no problems.
They can't give you such an assurance. First of call because companies get hacked. Any data they hold can leak. Secondly because if a court asks for it, they hand it over. Are you sure you or your company will never face any legal action?
The few people who don't like it can simply turn it off.
The few people? People who care about their privacy you mean? Where do they turn it off. Does it delete all the data already collected (answer: no.)
As I said, for you Google can do no wrong. You're a fanboy. I don't expect you to admit Google abused everyone's privacy. But they did.
You don't seem to understand. You're right, Apple shouldn't have the ability to set prices for other stores, but what they did was get the publishers to agree that they wouldn't allow other stores (aka: Amazon) to sell for prices less than Apple.
There's absolutely no evidence of Apple being involved in a cartel.
The problem was that Apple allegedly colluded with the publishers to raise the prices of ebooks in other stores.
And it's nonsense. Apple has no ability to set prices for other stores. That is between the publisher and those other stores. Apple doesn't even set prices for their own store.
All Apple did was use exactly the same model they used for it's App Store. It'd be surprising if they didn't. It's not some fiendish plot.
Apple will let it go all the way to court because they have done nothing wrong.
It still often does. But for example my ISP only offers 25MB inbox with max. 2MB attachments and a webmail-interface from the 90s. When I can choose between that or GMail the latter wins hands down.
Given that privacy doesn't even merit a mention in your trade off, you clearly don't care about it. More the fool you.
At what point did you give them permission to save all your searches, forever, and associate them with your identity? At what point did they tell you they were doing it. At what point did you decide that that was OK?
Slashdot Mirror
And it's the only such example you ever see, because it's the only combination of phone/iOS version that had those performance problems.
Undoubtably Apple made a mistake including the 3G in the list of phones that could be upgraded to iOS4. But it's the only time they made that mistake.
You must have a long memory.
I've got 2 weeks work of tunes, which is modest compared to others. Considering I'm not ever going to play 24/7, it's a very long time before I get to the end. I don't think I'm going to remember what order they were in when I play it again.
Try a tiling window manager with virtual desktops sometime, and you'll experience real usability.
Blimey, I have't seen one of those since Windows 1.x.
I trust Google not to do that until they give me reasons to believe otherwise.
I've now given you lots of reasons. So the second clause of that sentence isn't true. But then again you were willing to trust drug dealers, despite the widespread adulteration of drugs. For whatever reason, you're willing to trust people who don't deserve it. That's your issue, and one that I don't think we'll get to the bottom of here.
So your choices are apparently "useful battery life" or "able to browse webpages safely." Sounds about normal for Apple, since this isn't the first upgrade that completely killed battery life for most users.
It's a shame isn't it. After all, if you wanted poor battery life, you'd have bought an Android.
It seems background audio from Safari and other browsers is broken as well.
Not broken. Prevented. Thank god. Web pages what play background audio are the spawn of satan.
Audio that you choose to play still works perfectly of course.
Facebook has what you deliberately choose to publish. Google has your email and your searches.
For example:
The largest category of searches? Sex. How many of those people realise Google is categorising them by their sexual preferences and fetishes?
Keep your sexual desires to yourself? OK then:
Google knows people are considering getting a divorce before family and friends do.
You already know a divorce lawyer and keep your curiosity to what he tells you. OK:
Google knows your health problems. Especially the embarrassing ones that you'd rather look up on the internet than as your doctor about.
That's before even considering things like business secrets or things that might incriminate you.
None of these things Facebook know about unless you've chosen to share them in public or the semi-public of your friends.
What's the collective noun for fanboys? I'm going with "flush". A flush of fanboys.
As for handing it over to the government, two things. One, every IT company will have to do this if forced. Not just Google. Second, Google fights the government far more than any other IT company when it comes to handing over data.
No other IT collects this much data in the first place. No company can hand over your entire search history if they didn't collect it in the first place. Only Google can hand over that data.
There's no evidence that Apple colluded with publishers in this way.
but with the purpose of a targeted marketing pitch you wont see, sending you ads you don't see kind of nullifies it.
It doesn't nullify it. That profile of you is there regardless whether you see the ads.
If they change tos in future to strip personal sensitive data and use it against me
They've collected data on you without your permission. What makes you think they'll delete it just because you close your account? Closing the account doesn't delete the data. They just mark the account as closed so you can't log in again.
Good on you not being a mug by not sending your most secret data through GMail. Now are you sure that your friends are also as clued up when sending stuff to you. Conversations go two ways.
"Oh, and they're storing every search you do and attaching it to the same ID too. Nice."
See my first point
Doesn't apply. ISPs and other search engines aren't keeping all your search history against your identity. Government can't get what doesn't exist.
"And they're tracking people with cookies, even when they set their browser not to be tracked."
I'm going to need a citation before I'll take your word on that one. They may use cookies, but...
It's not even up for debate. It's illegal. The FTC fined Google $22.5 million for doing it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577532572854142492.html
If I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've read and understood the entirety of the post, your point would seem to either be nostalgic, or you're trying to imply that the bundled e-mail services that existed before Gmail (or even today) are comparable in quality to Gmail. Please explain or correct my misinterpretation of your comment.
Neither. I'm saying ISP supplied email has been allowed to wither on the vine as people have taken up GMail and Hotmail. That they've traded privacy for convenience. And as a result ISPs haven't had the pressure to keep their email services up with the times.
If it's running it natively (i.e. you're not running a PC emulator on a PowerPC) then yes. And it does indeed have an evolutionary link to the PC. It's a PC architecture. When Apple made it they didn't just buy x86 derived cpus from Intel, they bought the full chipset - Northbridge, Southbridge etc. The motherboard is an Apple built PC motherboard. The reason it can run x86 Windows natively is it looks like a PC to Windows. Because it is a PC.
It's a Mac and it's a PC. Best of both worlds.
I'd argue that it's not precise, since the architecture of a modern PC bears little resemblance to the original IBM PC, but beyond that, is it meaningful or useful?
Of course it's meaningful and useful. What will the standard build of Windows or Linux run on? PCs. There's the primary use right there. What else are we going to call the evolutionary decendants of the IBM PC and it's clones if not PCs?
Now is it meaningful and useful to have the word "apes" or "felines" to describe particular branches of the animal evolutionary tree? It sure is.
The Macintosh originally launched on the Motorola 68k architecture. It then migrated to PowerPC, maintaining compatibility with 68k. It then migrated to x86, and eventually dropped all backwards compatibility. Does this mean that a current iMac is not a Macintosh computer, because it can't run the original Mac OS and doesn't use the 68k processor?
No, because unlike computer languages, the English language is not regular. Just because PC describes a computer by it's CPU and architectural heritage doesn't mean the word "Macintosh" does so. Unlike PC, the Macintosh trademark has been kept and controlled by a single company, and it means the products they assign that trademark to. No more and no less.
By the same token, can you even run the original IBM PC version of DOS on a modern system?
I haven't tried it in a long time, but I believe it does. It should do. The memory layout of the bottom 1M of memory hasn't changed. And as you point out BIOS is still offered for legacy purposes.
Actually the BIOS, and it's replacements are another good indicator for what is a PC and what isn't.
Will they still be PCs, even though they will essentially be architecturally completely different from the original PC?
To take up the animal evolutionary metaphor, there is a level of change at which a new genus of animals is warranted. So it is with PCs. Those Windows systems that use ARM chips for example. Will dropping BIOS legacy be enough? I don't know. Would losing whiskers be enough to make a cat not a cat? Classification names on evolutionary systems will always have debates about when the genus changes.
This definition of PC is still superior to every single other attempt that's been made by others in comments to the story.
Publishers only provide benifit to authors in the print world.
No, that would be printers. Publishers commission, give advances, provide editors, provide promotion, provide a brandname, get books reviewed by the important reviewers etc.
They are every bit as important as signing to a label is for a band. You can record your own CD of music and put it up for sale on the web without a record label. But it almost certainly won't see beyond your friends and family. Same goes for ebooks.
So they intentionally raised prices to slow digital down. And they used an agreement that made sure other publishers did the same.
No, if they wanted to slow digital down they'd just not do digital. They like digital, it's very profitable.
They being robots and algorithms that are profiling you on behalf of Google's customers.
We use the term "reading" because it's not just dumb processing. It's algorithms that extract meaning, and act on it.
If the government tapped your phone, and used voice recognition and AI to automatically look for "interesting" phrases, would you accept you're being listened to? Or worse?
Gmail isn't tied to any other services, ISP e-mails are tied to your internet connection. If you need a different internet connection due to speed or reliability issues or you move somewhere that the ISP doesn't cover, you are fucked.
Absolutely. Every free or bundle service will have drawbacks. But Google's drawback of making you email theirs to data mine is the worst drawback there is - if you consider email to be a private medium.
That's why I consider it worthwhile to pay a small amount to have email with my own domain.
When I switch from gmail (which I plan to do in the next year or two), I can set up auto-forward with an auto-response asking the sender to use my new e-mail. That's something NO isp will let you do after you cancel your contract
Of course they'll do it for you. Because it means the account is still live, and they're still data collecting every message that's sent to your gmail address.
Oh, and they're storing every search you do and attaching it to the same ID too. Nice.
And they're tracking people with cookies, even when they set their browser not to be tracked.
Enjoy.
You didn't answer any of the questions. Presumably because you know that Google did this without your permission, and initially without your knowledge.
As long as they keep it to themselves and assure me that only computers (not humans) read it I have no problems.
They can't give you such an assurance. First of call because companies get hacked. Any data they hold can leak. Secondly because if a court asks for it, they hand it over. Are you sure you or your company will never face any legal action?
The few people who don't like it can simply turn it off.
The few people? People who care about their privacy you mean? Where do they turn it off. Does it delete all the data already collected (answer: no.)
As I said, for you Google can do no wrong. You're a fanboy. I don't expect you to admit Google abused everyone's privacy. But they did.
You don't seem to understand. You're right, Apple shouldn't have the ability to set prices for other stores, but what they did was get the publishers to agree that they wouldn't allow other stores (aka: Amazon) to sell for prices less than Apple.
There's absolutely no evidence of Apple being involved in a cartel.
No, I'm not saying any of those non-sequiteur things. If I wanted to say them, I would have done so.
The problem was that Apple allegedly colluded with the publishers to raise the prices of ebooks in other stores.
And it's nonsense. Apple has no ability to set prices for other stores. That is between the publisher and those other stores. Apple doesn't even set prices for their own store.
All Apple did was use exactly the same model they used for it's App Store. It'd be surprising if they didn't. It's not some fiendish plot.
Apple will let it go all the way to court because they have done nothing wrong.
It still often does. But for example my ISP only offers 25MB inbox with max. 2MB attachments and a webmail-interface from the 90s. When I can choose between that or GMail the latter wins hands down.
Given that privacy doesn't even merit a mention in your trade off, you clearly don't care about it. More the fool you.
At what point did you give them permission to save all your searches, forever, and associate them with your identity? At what point did they tell you they were doing it. At what point did you decide that that was OK?