> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch > so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell > phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team
You're fired. You did not capitalize and trademark File(tm), which is a breach of contract and a willful misrepresentation of Google Authority(r).
The Borg(r), a Not-Yet-Announced Google(r) Subsidiary(tm), purchased 8/2/2012@19:55:21 GMT:)
yes I understand this, if you are not paying for something(the consumer) then you are the product.
My belief was always that google took our general information such as a middle eastern male in 27-28 range lives in upper east side new york and likes fitness and wireless communication etc etc. But they did not associate that info to my personal name. That was what facebook tries to do, and is why i am vehemently against facebook. But now I think google in pursuit of higher profits is trying to force the same thing on its users.
...Or duplicate Facebook's M.O. because hey, it's profitable.
Google is nothing but another company pushing as far as it can to own and control as much as it can (read: make tons of money by taking crap and defining the rules). They'll push and push until they piss some "top dawgs" off, get sued, and the federal government calls them a monopoly. Then they'll create alternate companies to break the monopoly and offshore 'em just for better safety. Then, one day, some new technology will come into being that replaces the excellence of Google's products without infringing on copyrights, patents, etc, and Google will start sliding downhill. The investors in Google will buy some of the new company as a safe measure but stay vested in Google, just in case.
Blah blah, you know the drill.
I'm just waiting for the day when this new technological advancement comes along (I'm thinking something like Watson on steroids) so I can play with it and watch it die. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Oh, and I also await the day Google gets slammed and I can issue the quote, "History repeats itself."
Is Google seriously trying to use the power of Google+ to twist people's arms on a real name policy? Google, you can't do that until the service is actually popular! My Google+ profile is just some bullshit I made to check out the service. I can delete it or fill it with fake info any time I want. It means nothing to me. If you insist on linking it to services I don't want it linked to, I'll just stop using the service I like less. Which is gonna be Google+!
This is the first step into complete and a total Dissociative Identity Disorder of Human Kind. You know, back in the late 90s, I went from Kevin to a joking online name of "poofmeisterp" after a mild explosion of completely harmless but foul odor was put into a rap by a friend at the time.
Now, look forward. The kid known as "Alex Smith" down the street will have two real names of "Alex" and "DestroyCarBoy". Not too long after that, he will need more to cover his past mistakes online so he'll have a new one of "Foo89JimmyBob", followed by "blAnX20XbLing".
It's sad. I think I'm going to call my sister "Blinky Wonderful McBlankerton84" and talk to her about this. Wait, that was her real name last month. Ummm.. Crap, I forgot my sister's name. Better get on medication to work through these memory problems. What's the name of that doctor again?
OMG, and the police databases will overflow will AKAs...
I've made my point.:)
Sincerely,
poofmeisterNewWorldDisassociation
P.S. Google is redefining "What's In a Name?" and putting a service mark on it.
Similar to Apple, Google should introduce a program for developers who wish to pay to have their app certified. The app would earn some kind of certification that Google has inspected the app, it meets various technical (not necessarily style) guidelines. Then the app is displayed in the store with a branded trademarked logo indicating it is certified.
Google could also have multiple levels of certification like Silver, Gold, Rhodium, etc.
Don't forget Hydrogen - the cheap one with no logo to which the developer can say, "Hey! Look at me! I paid for a certification!"
Hey, I'm not kidding. I can see the dollars a'flowing now.
After all, why does a Flashlight app need the Abuse My Personal Contacts permission?
This is probably asking too much, or over thinking it, but I would have it fail gracefully and not let the app know, or feed it misinformation. For example "Abuse My Personal Contacts" should be able to lie and tell it I have no contacts OR lie and tell it my only personal contacts are "abuse@ftc.gov" or "spamreport@gmail" or purely randomized addresses or whatever.
You can fail "Abuse My Internet Access" by returning that the inet is down, but its just as funny to let it silently drop all traffic.
Really there's four options: 1) Tell it the user told it to F off, in which case the spam app will pester the user to re-enable, so its probably useless 2) Tell it the service is down (sorry, just bad luck we have no inet access right now, or the user has zero contacts in their book) in which case the app Might pester the user, so its less useful 3) Tell it the service is up and silently drop or randomize everything. This would probably work pretty well most of the time. Suuuuuure, app, you've just posted my score or result or whatever on FB or twitter or spammed all the email addresses in my contacts, yeah app you just trust me that it wasn't all just dropped without being sent 4) Let the app have its way with the user, do whatever it wants
4a. Add on to 4.) above - add a 30-second delay to "play" or "use" the app if it can't fully access whatever resources it desires. That'll punish the ADHD/I-want-it-nows into buying apps and/or enabling ads to get to the "fun" of the app 5 seconds faster. Cuz, ya know, 5 seconds is critical to happiness.:)
I'm not being an ass. I'm so serious about that. It's sad, but hey.. I have a similar opinion about having automobiles set up in the future to be remotely shut down if the user is speeding (after giving them 1 minute to pull over). Delay of seconds or single-digit minutes is enough to mold the masses into submission.
Depending on Android version / distributor (this may be more of a thing enabled in unofficial builds, e.g. cyanogenmod), you may have the option to revoke individual permissions on a per-permission and per-app basis. Revoke its 'Internet' permission and you're good to go. Worked for Angry Birds last time I checked (with auto-updates disabled since then), however, it's possible they've added a workaround for this (e.g. force crash if certain permissions revoked).
I can see "them" caching ads, or bundling them with the install, as a punishment to those pesky jerks who try to block ads with all of those nefarious means available.:)
How about the pulldown notify screen has a list of running apps and you rate them? Making the effort of going to the store and finding the app and then staring it simpler... Or the screen where you "tap hold" and can re-arrange icons and/or drop them in the trashcan has stars in addition to ye olde trashcan
Those are really sweet ideas, which means they will never happen. Ever. Eh-vahr.:)
Or a soundboard that requires access to my browser history. But I'm sure they have a good reason for that. *clicks install*
See, you're being tricked again; you were so quick to click install that you missed the part where it said it required access to "Directly call phone numbers"!
If you want apps that require less permissions, it usually helps to look for paid apps. Free apps always want to know everything about you. As you know "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" and people want to know what they're selling. And if the app isn't what you expected, Google Play gives you a 15-minute window to get your money back.
Make it a half hour and I'll buy in. The 15-minute window is too little to test and verify comfort with an app. Oh wait, ADHD/forgetfulness money grabbin'. Forgot about that...:)
Speaking personally, I would greatly prefer it if it was required for developers to provide a brief justification for every single capability they use.
But where would all of the money go if we did that? Think of the children...
Thing is, I *want* a walled garden where I can install apps without fear of destroying my phone. I love having someone else vet the apps for malware. Now, I'm not saying that google is actually doing this, but the more they lock down their app store, the better it is. My problem is with Apple's App Store which gives you no option of going outside the walled garden if I feel like it.
How about just making it possible to block ads without rooting the device?
Ah, wait, there's no money in that. </truthfulsarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
How will we provide tech support for the teens who have no ability to talk or communicate in any method other than textual messaging? :>
...now why didn't they call it the "NeXT MS UI"? I mean... c'mon guys! You already used "New Technology" for Win NT and it worked wonderfully....
</snark> :)
Competition for first product without considerable concern for safety and backup leads to...... I've said enough.
Anyone not eating official McDonalds food--prepare for an ass whipping!
It's all about the Olympic Games - a nearly ancient past-time that we all value dearly. We're honoring the games by policing stupid shit!
We do nothing but good.
</snark>
You think that employees of a company which wants to track everything you do anywhere on the web would support the concept of anonymity?
Well sure they do. As long as they don't get caught having morals at work, they cheat to remain anonymous the same as all ;)
comments? they have comments there?
% youtube-dl 'url_goes_here'
grabs the file for me just fine.
what - there's more than that? really??
my copies never get taken down, have their formats change, etc. you mean people actually GO to the yt page, in a real browser?
wow.
Yeah, some people made a huge mistake and can't figure out how to get back to a shell prompt:
% exit
They just clicked on that picture thing that looks like a globe or something... Now look at all the trouble they're in.
Too many people online think that "anonymous" = "license to be a complete fuckwad".
s/license/encouragement/
I had to wait a whole 30 seconds to post this (god, it hurts), but:
"youz a hatah, you stooooopid idiyit *bonk belorgh you be video stupid thinks that junnnnk*
-makesnosenSeeeEeeeEEea)9iure"
I think that represents a good example. :)
> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch
> so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell
> phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team
You're fired. You did not capitalize and trademark File(tm), which is a breach of contract and a willful misrepresentation of Google Authority(r).
The Borg(r), a Not-Yet-Announced Google(r) Subsidiary(tm), purchased 8/2/2012@19:55:21 GMT :)
yes I understand this, if you are not paying for something(the consumer) then you are the product.
My belief was always that google took our general information such as a middle eastern male in 27-28 range lives in upper east side new york and likes fitness and wireless communication etc etc. But they did not associate that info to my personal name. That was what facebook tries to do, and is why i am vehemently against facebook. But now I think google in pursuit of higher profits is trying to force the same thing on its users.
...Or duplicate Facebook's M.O. because hey, it's profitable.
Google is nothing but another company pushing as far as it can to own and control as much as it can (read: make tons of money by taking crap and defining the rules). They'll push and push until they piss some "top dawgs" off, get sued, and the federal government calls them a monopoly. Then they'll create alternate companies to break the monopoly and offshore 'em just for better safety. Then, one day, some new technology will come into being that replaces the excellence of Google's products without infringing on copyrights, patents, etc, and Google will start sliding downhill. The investors in Google will buy some of the new company as a safe measure but stay vested in Google, just in case.
Blah blah, you know the drill.
I'm just waiting for the day when this new technological advancement comes along (I'm thinking something like Watson on steroids) so I can play with it and watch it die. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Oh, and I also await the day Google gets slammed and I can issue the quote, "History repeats itself."
...and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO...
Google will be starting the new internet with a new protocol, called "Page's Web(tm)(r)(c)(sm)"
Before they even do it, they've filed a lawsuit to define the owner of "Web Pages" - stolen identity!
Is Google seriously trying to use the power of Google+ to twist people's arms on a real name policy? Google, you can't do that until the service is actually popular! My Google+ profile is just some bullshit I made to check out the service. I can delete it or fill it with fake info any time I want. It means nothing to me. If you insist on linking it to services I don't want it linked to, I'll just stop using the service I like less. Which is gonna be Google+!
This is the first step into complete and a total Dissociative Identity Disorder of Human Kind. You know, back in the late 90s, I went from Kevin to a joking online name of "poofmeisterp" after a mild explosion of completely harmless but foul odor was put into a rap by a friend at the time.
Now, look forward. The kid known as "Alex Smith" down the street will have two real names of "Alex" and "DestroyCarBoy". Not too long after that, he will need more to cover his past mistakes online so he'll have a new one of "Foo89JimmyBob", followed by "blAnX20XbLing".
It's sad. I think I'm going to call my sister "Blinky Wonderful McBlankerton84" and talk to her about this. Wait, that was her real name last month. Ummm.. Crap, I forgot my sister's name. Better get on medication to work through these memory problems. What's the name of that doctor again?
OMG, and the police databases will overflow will AKAs...
I've made my point. :)
Sincerely,
poofmeisterNewWorldDisassociation
P.S. Google is redefining "What's In a Name?" and putting a service mark on it.
Similar to Apple, Google should introduce a program for developers who wish to pay to have their app certified. The app would earn some kind of certification that Google has inspected the app, it meets various technical (not necessarily style) guidelines. Then the app is displayed in the store with a branded trademarked logo indicating it is certified.
Google could also have multiple levels of certification like Silver, Gold, Rhodium, etc.
Don't forget Hydrogen - the cheap one with no logo to which the developer can say, "Hey! Look at me! I paid for a certification!"
Hey, I'm not kidding. I can see the dollars a'flowing now.
After all, why does a Flashlight app need the Abuse My Personal Contacts permission?
This is probably asking too much, or over thinking it, but I would have it fail gracefully and not let the app know, or feed it misinformation.
For example "Abuse My Personal Contacts" should be able to lie and tell it I have no contacts OR lie and tell it my only personal contacts are "abuse@ftc.gov" or "spamreport@gmail" or purely randomized addresses or whatever.
You can fail "Abuse My Internet Access" by returning that the inet is down, but its just as funny to let it silently drop all traffic.
Really there's four options:
1) Tell it the user told it to F off, in which case the spam app will pester the user to re-enable, so its probably useless
2) Tell it the service is down (sorry, just bad luck we have no inet access right now, or the user has zero contacts in their book) in which case the app Might pester the user, so its less useful
3) Tell it the service is up and silently drop or randomize everything. This would probably work pretty well most of the time. Suuuuuure, app, you've just posted my score or result or whatever on FB or twitter or spammed all the email addresses in my contacts, yeah app you just trust me that it wasn't all just dropped without being sent
4) Let the app have its way with the user, do whatever it wants
4a. Add on to 4.) above - add a 30-second delay to "play" or "use" the app if it can't fully access whatever resources it desires. That'll punish the ADHD/I-want-it-nows into buying apps and/or enabling ads to get to the "fun" of the app 5 seconds faster. Cuz, ya know, 5 seconds is critical to happiness. :)
I'm not being an ass. I'm so serious about that. It's sad, but hey.. I have a similar opinion about having automobiles set up in the future to be remotely shut down if the user is speeding (after giving them 1 minute to pull over). Delay of seconds or single-digit minutes is enough to mold the masses into submission.
</IMHO>
Why not just use a flashlight that does not ask for that?
Torch would be one such well behaved app.
Amen. Too bad it's not compatible with my damn Infuse. ;)
Depending on Android version / distributor (this may be more of a thing enabled in unofficial builds, e.g. cyanogenmod), you may have the option to revoke individual permissions on a per-permission and per-app basis. Revoke its 'Internet' permission and you're good to go. Worked for Angry Birds last time I checked (with auto-updates disabled since then), however, it's possible they've added a workaround for this (e.g. force crash if certain permissions revoked).
I can see "them" caching ads, or bundling them with the install, as a punishment to those pesky jerks who try to block ads with all of those nefarious means available. :)
</friendlysnark>
all this stuff reminds me of 15 years ago when websites were simulating Win95 popups. That got cleaned up too.
I know. It was really sweet when an "XP alert dialog" popped on the Win7 machine of a coworker the other day. :>
</snark>
How about the pulldown notify screen has a list of running apps and you rate them? Making the effort of going to the store and finding the app and then staring it simpler... Or the screen where you "tap hold" and can re-arrange icons and/or drop them in the trashcan has stars in addition to ye olde trashcan
Those are really sweet ideas, which means they will never happen. Ever. Eh-vahr. :)
Or a soundboard that requires access to my browser history.
But I'm sure they have a good reason for that.
*clicks install*
See, you're being tricked again; you were so quick to click install that you missed the part where it said it required access to "Directly call phone numbers"!
</snark> :)
If you want apps that require less permissions, it usually helps to look for paid apps. Free apps always want to know everything about you. As you know "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" and people want to know what they're selling.
And if the app isn't what you expected, Google Play gives you a 15-minute window to get your money back.
Make it a half hour and I'll buy in. The 15-minute window is too little to test and verify comfort with an app. Oh wait, ADHD/forgetfulness money grabbin'. Forgot about that... :)
Speaking personally, I would greatly prefer it if it was required for developers to provide a brief justification for every single capability they use.
But where would all of the money go if we did that? Think of the children...
</friendlysarcasm>
So how would a walled garden help?
Something about Chi. :>
If only you could 'take a snapshot'. :) Damn you, non-VM OSes. Damn you!
Thing is, I *want* a walled garden where I can install apps without fear of destroying my phone. I love having someone else vet the apps for malware. Now, I'm not saying that google is actually doing this, but the more they lock down their app store, the better it is. My problem is with Apple's App Store which gives you no option of going outside the walled garden if I feel like it.
How about just making it possible to block ads without rooting the device?
Ah, wait, there's no money in that.
</truthfulsarcasm>
<!-- Lol we could do this all day... But, I'm out of material...-->
</html>
Now ^^^^ there's ^^^^ subtle humor for ya.