These guys have been watching whats going on, following what they've been doing, and are working with the FBI... do you really think no one thought in advanced 'hey, when we piss them off, they'll come after us too!'
No... they thought of it in advanced and said 'perfect, now lets set it up so we can have it setup in a perfect way for us to gleen the absolute most information in the process.
Anyone stupid enough to do this isn't a major player anyway, or won't be for long. They basically just started a war with the cops, the only thing you can do to piss off a cop more than embarrassing them is killing one of them. So now they've changed it from being an annoying bunch of twits who don't really do any damage and no one is going to invest any serious effort into finding... into a matter of personal pride for every person working on it. They also have the advantage of funding and not having to cower in mommies basement.
This just shows the ignorance 'anonymous' has...
If you'd have payed attention in school you'd know mob justice isn't a good idea, perfect example here.
Uhm, there are never any syscalls in libc that aren't in the kernel since... you know... syscalls are... calls into the kernel. You can't make one the kernel doesn't support.
Movement involves some sort of organization and long term goal. Anonymous is a mob who's only goal is to wreak havoc when it suits them on what it suits them.
Pokemon cards and Facebook are fads. That doesn't make it a movement.
Just because a group of people start doing something new doesn't mean its a movement.
I'm fairly sure you don't understand what a movement is.
An organized effort by supporters of a common goal.
The Internet was actually designed to be distributed... true story.
It only happens to have a few large choke points because its economically effective to do so.
Believe it or not it is entirely possible for the Internet to be used over terrestrial radio... in fact... it can be done by 'amateurs'! In fact... it already is!
Right now the Internet has these choke points because theres no reason other than FUD not to have it that way. Should the actual need for a more diverse infrastructure arise due to the government going psycho than we'll shift gears and make it go that direction. Yes, it'll suck for a period of time to start with until new links are added, and we'll probably have to lose things that consume massive bandwidth for pleasure like youtube... but rest assured, porn will make sure we recover promptly.
Its just silly to spend a bunch of money for a bunch of links that aren't needed and all the installation costs that go with it.
The Internet works pretty much exactly like fido net when you use UUCP. The difference is simply how you dial the phone line... the data is actually STILL traveling over the same fiber and copper as it did when you sent your fidonet mail up to your mail hub and distributed back to other nodes.
As for seeing Facebook and Twitter as a path for 'freedom of the people'... well that just makes you sound like a freaking idiot. Neither of these sites provide anything that wasn't already done before them on the Internet as well in more traditional methods. Old idea, new theme, new fad... not a world changer. The only difference is now we're paying attention to someone hundreds of miles away from us that has no bearing on our lives what so ever, instead of the people in our own neighborhoods. Its just a different popularity contest.
We'd just call her a psycho bitch and no one would be even a little impressed. She'd also never get a date again since no intelligent person wants to be on the wrong end of her. The same would happen to a guy if he did it.
Today, women get praised because she did it on the Internet... and a guy would end up being taken to jail, labeled a sex offender and have his life ruined.
Seriously people, what the fuck is wrong with you? This behavior is unacceptable. Do not give her attention. The entire event and everything she does should be ignored, herself included. We seriously need to stop giving people who behave unacceptably any attention.
You need to be more active in your local government, far more absurd things come up every day. This isn't even a little surprising, its more surprise that its news... as was said, it'll probably never see the light of day... like the millions of other things that come up briefly throughout the country. Everyone gets their fair chance to propose ideas, and everyone else gets the chance to tell them to fuck off.
If your numbers are 85/15, this suggests that there is something about your project that is leaving a number of potential contributors on the table. What is that?
Yes, it suggests that women are smarter have better things to do than sitting around all day arguing with deletion nazis and all the other crap that Wikimedia's people bring to the table. Instead they can be out doing something far more entertaining and/or useful to the world than editing articles only to have some other jackass revert the change tomorrow.
This is simply more proof that women are smarter than us.
Its a problem for the same reason low numbers of female workers is a problem in any tech job.
Jimmy thinks if he can get more 'female editors' he'll have a better chance of getting laid before he dies.
Too bad Jimmy and the rest of these idiots don't get that women neither like them nor their jobs and THATS why they have a lower number of female workers... their off doing the shit the like rather than standing around to stroke your ego and provide you with eye candy.
Now if you want to talk about something that its clearly a sexist problem. Beauty pagents. When was the last time you saw a man in Miss America or Miss Universe?! We need to get the number of men in that contest up! Think of the gays!
You both made the mistake of calling them anything other than what they are. They are not Anonymous. They are douche bags who attack people. They remind me a lot of Whale Wars cast members.
There are times when you must do things you know would otherwise be 'bad'.
Sometimes you have to choose to let/make one person suffer so another one doesn't, or another group doesn't.
Your mind should instantly ask the question once it recognizes that you're doing something bad.
It does not mean that you don't do it, it means you need to carefully weight the variables in the situation and choose the best overall outcome. You may still feel like shit because you had to do something bad, but that still doesn't mean its unethical.
Example:
Asteroid is going to hit the Earth very soon and utterly destroyed, so soon in fact that if you don't leave you and everyone with you on the last ship to leave will die, all 10k people on your massive ark. We'll call it the B Ark you see. You are in command. As your ship is about to lift off, you get notified there is a man that didn't make it to his own ship, he's an hour away from you. He needs you to pick him up, but if you do, the asteroid will be too close and you'll be destoryed before you can get far enough away.
The pilot asks: Do you want to try to get him or leave?
Now the answer should be completely clear to you, but you also should have had some sort of question about it due to leaving the man behind to die.
Sometimes its not always so clear. Sometimes its much harder to tell which is the lesser of too evils.
What if you change the original question from
Is it okay to outsource it and put people out of jobs in my deparment' to 'I can outsource IT, the company keeps operating for another year which will save the jobs of all the other employees
OR
I can keep the IT department in house so my department doesn't have to suffer, but the company will likely go out of business in 6 months because of that'...
And thats ignoring the possibility that by outsourcing it you may just be giving someone who is WAY better at it, who has far better skills than your local IT douche who is already overpaid and bitchy and ignoring the fact that communications with foreigners is going to cause communications problems which will result in a hidden but real cost in wasted time (versus equally capable local employees that speak your native tongue, whatever it may be).
There are a lot of questions to take into account before you can decide if something is ethical. There are clear times: 'I don't like this guy cause he speaks French, can I shoot him?' but those times aren't what we're talking about here.
To answer the question the article poses: That probably depends on if you're the guy getting hired, getting laid off or in this case the guy making the decision.
The real question is not is it ethical to do it or not. It is both and neither, how you handle it is what makes it ethical or not. Doing it to line your own pockets and get a bigger bonus when you already have plenty of money is one thing. Doing it because you only have to lay off 5 people this week rather than 50 people in a month makes it a little different. Make the decision that appears to be the best overall and you'll be doing the best thing you can for your species. Personally, I put my own country above the species and my family and friends above both. I realize that is not the best for the species, but I'm okay with that.
Just remember any sacrifices you and your staff make to take one for the team are likely never to be repaid by those above you. Since being unethical tends to get you ahead, those higher up the food change tend to be less ethical and will be happy to sacrifice you regardless of how you've helped them in the past.
even though American Workers are more competitive in the global workforce
Uhm, no, they aren't, hence why outsourcing is done. IF American workers were competitive the question wouldn't ever come up.
The question posed is basically 'should I feel bad that I'm dumping my neighbors because he wants to much money and I can find a guy across town that will do it for way less so even though I have to ship it across town its STILL cheaper'.
If American workers were competitive it wouldn't ever come up. American workers expect to get paid a lot and have nice cushy lives and think its 'unethical' to let someone else do the same job for half the price. Its the sense of entitlement seen in IT and people such as yourself that ultimately leads to the jobs being outsourced.
Now that the world has come up with methods to tap these people who are capable of doing the same work but are willing to do so in order to eat tonight rather than doing it because they have to make the payment on their overpriced house/car/ipod/smartphone/multiple computers/televisions/all the other luxuries we take for granted every day... well, expect more to go overseas until american workers adjust their attitude.
All we did was put people out of work by automating routine tasks.
WRONG.
All you did was force those people to move to a job that was harder to automate at this point in time. Probably a job that paid them more in the process as it was more complicated... otherwise you would have replaced those jobs with robots as well.
Until computers have AI better than the human brain all you will be doing is forcing them to go get paid more or retire. People will bitch up a storm about it and will remember their old job like it was the best in the world... all the while ignoring the fact they are missing a thumb because of it or walking on a wooden stump due to a factory accident.
Neither is really unethethical as soon as you remove one thing from the equation.
People still think something posted on the Internet is private.
Thats the problem. This new site did exactly what we've done since the internet was created, take publicly accessible data and mash it up into something useful for them. The Internet was BUILT ON AND FOR this sort of thing to happen.
It wasn't until the general public started using the web that this became a problem. Note, I say 'the web', not 'the internet'. Its really only what people do on the web that gets them bent out of shape. People get upset because they think that they can leave things on a public network and it mysteriously stays private and secure without them even having to THINK about it.
Okay, so it is wrong of them to imply these people wanted to be part of their site, but the solution isn't to chastise them for doing so as a punishment as that really accomplishes absolutely nothing.
How about we start educating people about how retarded their facebook posts are by showing them its basically like putting a flyer up with all that shit on it in a grocery store. Educating the ignorant masses as to the fact that there is no privacy on the Internet is the proper start.
We also need to stop using the word 'privacy' in relation to the internet ESPECIALLY IN WEB BROWSERS. Stop calling it fucking private browsing for instance, there is not a thing private about it, its just a little more difficult to correlate. Not much though.
Facebook is not private no one has any right to bitch about someone making a copy, false advertising is another story.
He did nothing right except steal from others, he showed exactly how to be perfectly unethical and have the unwashed masses thing you're great WHILE you rape.
The difference is, if someone takes it off my belt I'll know it.
If someone malicious attacks google or your google account, you end up with software on your phone without any prior knowledge.
So go ahead, take my phone out of my pocket, install malicious app on it, and put it back in my pocket... I'm pretty sure I'll know, unless you happen to get it during the 7 or so hours a night when its not in my hand or my pocket... but instead laying next to me on my nightstand... I'm pretty confident I'll know you did it.
On the contrary, Google can install things all day long and you may never notice since it or anyone else with the right information can do it wirelessly. Doesn't have to be Google, just has to be someone that finds an exploit. THIS IS WHY STATICLY CONFIGURED REMOTE ACCESS AND CONTROL IS BAD. Not just because Google can do it... but because ANYONE with the right info can do it to millions of devices.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about security, even if you're trying to be funny.
Of course, its important to note, since most people are new to smart phones in general that they pretty much all had some sort of setup like this done via the carriers since cell phones started. Its also important to notice that AFAIK Apple was the first to more or less take all control away (not that they didn't maintain it for themselves) from the carriers (at least initially).
The toolbar sends your search queries on it as well as ALL SITES YOU VISIT to Microsoft on a regular basis. Microsoft then uses this information to correlate searches using the data gathered to modify the ranking of its search results AS WELL as find pages that aren't linked to any known page.
When you uninstall the toolbar is when it stops. You clearly didn't read the EULA for the toolbar you checked yes to. Next time don't agree to give away your data without considering the consequences.
If you installed the bing toolbar it steals your clicks.
If you installed any toolbar, you get what you deserve. The point of toolbars is to steal your clicks, any 'features' they provide (you know, another search box and another batch of bookmark buttons).
If you were unaware of the point of toolbars, you are probably not up to slashdot level of tech knowledge yet.
First google news where they used slugs from newspapers to populate their pages.
And on google news it is extremely clear that they leeched that information from the newspapers themselves, complete with links to where google found the information. Its providing a news search engine that works... exactly like a regular search engine does. Google wasn't trying to pretend they are reporting the news themselves, just pointing you at the people who are.
. Then google books in which they made books available despite the publishers protests.
Yes, they made legally public domain books available despite the publishers request which... is funny because the publishers had no rights to the works they were bitching about... then they got together and worked with the publishers to appease them so they would shut the fuck up about something they had no legal grounds for. These are publishers. Not authors. The two groups of people bitching are the middle men/leechs that produce nothing themselves. The publishers. Google are competitors jumped on the band wagon too... who were granted the exact same privileges google has, google doesn't have a special deal, anyone can do the same thing... in fact... google will even give you the raw fucking data, but that wasn't good enough... because google would have it first and the competitors wouldn't be able to get it as quick as google... unless they did it themselves and that would be too expensive... Seriosuly, look at the real discussions between these people. It makes me never want to read a book again just knowing how fucking greedy publishers were during that ordeal.
The complaint here, since you clearly didn't bother to understand it was that it was unfair for Google to do it because it was such a massive undertaking that once Google had do it, no one in their right minds would spend the money to do it again, everyone would just use Google's reference, making Google an effective monopoly through no action of their own. The complaint was 'Google is so good at it that we'll never be able to compete unless you give us an advantage Google doesn't have.'
"20-century model" in a "21-century package" is "doomed to fail from the get go". Oh my. Such buzz-filled nonsense makes me sick. A paper book is a 16-century model, and a Kindle is the same but in a "21-century" package. Are they doomed to fail?
He's just pissed off that he writes stories for a website few people have heard of and no one reads his blog which he made and is super cool.
While The Daily isn't my style, I agree with you. I want my local newspaper, as a nice app on my phone/ipad, something I'm used to, but on my ipad so I always have it with me. I'd prefer NOT to have a fuckton of ads since it costs me to download them and there is limited screen space on my phone, so I'm willing to pay for it.
I don't want a freaking flashy/jumpy/animated/clippyized version of the news paper.
I don't want 'new and exciting' from my newspaper, its a utility to me, I just want it to do its job.
People who want new and exciting are the retards who think Twitter, Facebook, and their personal blog are authoritative news sources.
Thats what you get for listening to 'them' rather than paying attention to what politicians have actually done versus they say they've done.
I've learned in politics that the best thing to do is vote for the guy who does exactly what you don't want done. You can safely assume none of the things they tell you they'll do during their campaigning will get done, so you pick the guy who you least agree with, that will earn you the most benefit, treat it like opposite world and pay attention and politics are amazingly predictable.
Slashdot Mirror
Two wrongs never make a right, they only occasionally in algebra make a True, but never a right.
Did you ever consider it might have been intentional?
Idiot.
They are completely prepared.
'Anonymous' just walked into an ambush.
These guys have been watching whats going on, following what they've been doing, and are working with the FBI ... do you really think no one thought in advanced 'hey, when we piss them off, they'll come after us too!'
No ... they thought of it in advanced and said 'perfect, now lets set it up so we can have it setup in a perfect way for us to gleen the absolute most information in the process.
Anyone stupid enough to do this isn't a major player anyway, or won't be for long. They basically just started a war with the cops, the only thing you can do to piss off a cop more than embarrassing them is killing one of them. So now they've changed it from being an annoying bunch of twits who don't really do any damage and no one is going to invest any serious effort into finding ... into a matter of personal pride for every person working on it. They also have the advantage of funding and not having to cower in mommies basement.
This just shows the ignorance 'anonymous' has ...
If you'd have payed attention in school you'd know mob justice isn't a good idea, perfect example here.
Uhm, there are never any syscalls in libc that aren't in the kernel since ... you know ... syscalls are ... calls into the kernel. You can't make one the kernel doesn't support.
Movement involves some sort of organization and long term goal. Anonymous is a mob who's only goal is to wreak havoc when it suits them on what it suits them.
Pokemon cards and Facebook are fads. That doesn't make it a movement.
Just because a group of people start doing something new doesn't mean its a movement.
I'm fairly sure you don't understand what a movement is.
An organized effort by supporters of a common goal.
Organized.
The Internet was actually designed to be distributed ... true story.
It only happens to have a few large choke points because its economically effective to do so.
Believe it or not it is entirely possible for the Internet to be used over terrestrial radio ... in fact ... it can be done by 'amateurs'! In fact ... it already is!
Right now the Internet has these choke points because theres no reason other than FUD not to have it that way. Should the actual need for a more diverse infrastructure arise due to the government going psycho than we'll shift gears and make it go that direction. Yes, it'll suck for a period of time to start with until new links are added, and we'll probably have to lose things that consume massive bandwidth for pleasure like youtube ... but rest assured, porn will make sure we recover promptly.
Its just silly to spend a bunch of money for a bunch of links that aren't needed and all the installation costs that go with it.
The Internet works pretty much exactly like fido net when you use UUCP. The difference is simply how you dial the phone line ... the data is actually STILL traveling over the same fiber and copper as it did when you sent your fidonet mail up to your mail hub and distributed back to other nodes.
As for seeing Facebook and Twitter as a path for 'freedom of the people' ... well that just makes you sound like a freaking idiot. Neither of these sites provide anything that wasn't already done before them on the Internet as well in more traditional methods. Old idea, new theme, new fad ... not a world changer. The only difference is now we're paying attention to someone hundreds of miles away from us that has no bearing on our lives what so ever, instead of the people in our own neighborhoods. Its just a different popularity contest.
We'd just call her a psycho bitch and no one would be even a little impressed. She'd also never get a date again since no intelligent person wants to be on the wrong end of her. The same would happen to a guy if he did it.
Today, women get praised because she did it on the Internet ... and a guy would end up being taken to jail, labeled a sex offender and have his life ruined.
Seriously people, what the fuck is wrong with you? This behavior is unacceptable. Do not give her attention. The entire event and everything she does should be ignored, herself included. We seriously need to stop giving people who behave unacceptably any attention.
You need to be more active in your local government, far more absurd things come up every day. This isn't even a little surprising, its more surprise that its news ... as was said, it'll probably never see the light of day ... like the millions of other things that come up briefly throughout the country. Everyone gets their fair chance to propose ideas, and everyone else gets the chance to tell them to fuck off.
Yes, it suggests that women are smarter have better things to do than sitting around all day arguing with deletion nazis and all the other crap that Wikimedia's people bring to the table. Instead they can be out doing something far more entertaining and/or useful to the world than editing articles only to have some other jackass revert the change tomorrow.
This is simply more proof that women are smarter than us.
Its a problem for the same reason low numbers of female workers is a problem in any tech job.
Jimmy thinks if he can get more 'female editors' he'll have a better chance of getting laid before he dies.
Too bad Jimmy and the rest of these idiots don't get that women neither like them nor their jobs and THATS why they have a lower number of female workers ... their off doing the shit the like rather than standing around to stroke your ego and provide you with eye candy.
Now if you want to talk about something that its clearly a sexist problem. Beauty pagents. When was the last time you saw a man in Miss America or Miss Universe?! We need to get the number of men in that contest up! Think of the gays!
You both made the mistake of calling them anything other than what they are. They are not Anonymous. They are douche bags who attack people. They remind me a lot of Whale Wars cast members.
Interestingly enough, 3rd grade was the last time anyone cared too.
Considering that almost all politicians are lawyers, you have to be really naive to expect it to be any different.
Not true at all.
There are times when you must do things you know would otherwise be 'bad'.
Sometimes you have to choose to let/make one person suffer so another one doesn't, or another group doesn't.
Your mind should instantly ask the question once it recognizes that you're doing something bad.
It does not mean that you don't do it, it means you need to carefully weight the variables in the situation and choose the best overall outcome. You may still feel like shit because you had to do something bad, but that still doesn't mean its unethical.
Example:
Asteroid is going to hit the Earth very soon and utterly destroyed, so soon in fact that if you don't leave you and everyone with you on the last ship to leave will die, all 10k people on your massive ark. We'll call it the B Ark you see. You are in command. As your ship is about to lift off, you get notified there is a man that didn't make it to his own ship, he's an hour away from you. He needs you to pick him up, but if you do, the asteroid will be too close and you'll be destoryed before you can get far enough away.
The pilot asks: Do you want to try to get him or leave?
Now the answer should be completely clear to you, but you also should have had some sort of question about it due to leaving the man behind to die.
Sometimes its not always so clear. Sometimes its much harder to tell which is the lesser of too evils.
What if you change the original question from
OR
And thats ignoring the possibility that by outsourcing it you may just be giving someone who is WAY better at it, who has far better skills than your local IT douche who is already overpaid and bitchy and ignoring the fact that communications with foreigners is going to cause communications problems which will result in a hidden but real cost in wasted time (versus equally capable local employees that speak your native tongue, whatever it may be).
There are a lot of questions to take into account before you can decide if something is ethical. There are clear times: 'I don't like this guy cause he speaks French, can I shoot him?' but those times aren't what we're talking about here.
To answer the question the article poses: That probably depends on if you're the guy getting hired, getting laid off or in this case the guy making the decision.
The real question is not is it ethical to do it or not. It is both and neither, how you handle it is what makes it ethical or not. Doing it to line your own pockets and get a bigger bonus when you already have plenty of money is one thing. Doing it because you only have to lay off 5 people this week rather than 50 people in a month makes it a little different. Make the decision that appears to be the best overall and you'll be doing the best thing you can for your species. Personally, I put my own country above the species and my family and friends above both. I realize that is not the best for the species, but I'm okay with that.
Just remember any sacrifices you and your staff make to take one for the team are likely never to be repaid by those above you. Since being unethical tends to get you ahead, those higher up the food change tend to be less ethical and will be happy to sacrifice you regardless of how you've helped them in the past.
Uhm, no, they aren't, hence why outsourcing is done. IF American workers were competitive the question wouldn't ever come up.
The question posed is basically 'should I feel bad that I'm dumping my neighbors because he wants to much money and I can find a guy across town that will do it for way less so even though I have to ship it across town its STILL cheaper'.
If American workers were competitive it wouldn't ever come up. American workers expect to get paid a lot and have nice cushy lives and think its 'unethical' to let someone else do the same job for half the price. Its the sense of entitlement seen in IT and people such as yourself that ultimately leads to the jobs being outsourced.
Now that the world has come up with methods to tap these people who are capable of doing the same work but are willing to do so in order to eat tonight rather than doing it because they have to make the payment on their overpriced house/car/ipod/smartphone/multiple computers/televisions/all the other luxuries we take for granted every day ... well, expect more to go overseas until american workers adjust their attitude.
WRONG.
All you did was force those people to move to a job that was harder to automate at this point in time. Probably a job that paid them more in the process as it was more complicated ... otherwise you would have replaced those jobs with robots as well.
Until computers have AI better than the human brain all you will be doing is forcing them to go get paid more or retire. People will bitch up a storm about it and will remember their old job like it was the best in the world ... all the while ignoring the fact they are missing a thumb because of it or walking on a wooden stump due to a factory accident.
Neither is really unethethical as soon as you remove one thing from the equation.
People still think something posted on the Internet is private.
Thats the problem. This new site did exactly what we've done since the internet was created, take publicly accessible data and mash it up into something useful for them. The Internet was BUILT ON AND FOR this sort of thing to happen.
It wasn't until the general public started using the web that this became a problem. Note, I say 'the web', not 'the internet'. Its really only what people do on the web that gets them bent out of shape. People get upset because they think that they can leave things on a public network and it mysteriously stays private and secure without them even having to THINK about it.
Okay, so it is wrong of them to imply these people wanted to be part of their site, but the solution isn't to chastise them for doing so as a punishment as that really accomplishes absolutely nothing.
How about we start educating people about how retarded their facebook posts are by showing them its basically like putting a flyer up with all that shit on it in a grocery store. Educating the ignorant masses as to the fact that there is no privacy on the Internet is the proper start.
We also need to stop using the word 'privacy' in relation to the internet ESPECIALLY IN WEB BROWSERS. Stop calling it fucking private browsing for instance, there is not a thing private about it, its just a little more difficult to correlate. Not much though.
Facebook is not private no one has any right to bitch about someone making a copy, false advertising is another story.
So since you clearly have no clue how facebook started other than their marketing speech ...
You do realize Zuckerberg did the exact same thing when starting Facebook right?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-survives-ad-board-the/
He did nothing right except steal from others, he showed exactly how to be perfectly unethical and have the unwashed masses thing you're great WHILE you rape.
The difference is, if someone takes it off my belt I'll know it.
If someone malicious attacks google or your google account, you end up with software on your phone without any prior knowledge.
So go ahead, take my phone out of my pocket, install malicious app on it, and put it back in my pocket ... I'm pretty sure I'll know, unless you happen to get it during the 7 or so hours a night when its not in my hand or my pocket ... but instead laying next to me on my nightstand ... I'm pretty confident I'll know you did it.
On the contrary, Google can install things all day long and you may never notice since it or anyone else with the right information can do it wirelessly. Doesn't have to be Google, just has to be someone that finds an exploit. THIS IS WHY STATICLY CONFIGURED REMOTE ACCESS AND CONTROL IS BAD. Not just because Google can do it ... but because ANYONE with the right info can do it to millions of devices.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about security, even if you're trying to be funny.
Of course, its important to note, since most people are new to smart phones in general that they pretty much all had some sort of setup like this done via the carriers since cell phones started. Its also important to notice that AFAIK Apple was the first to more or less take all control away (not that they didn't maintain it for themselves) from the carriers (at least initially).
The toolbar sends your search queries on it as well as ALL SITES YOU VISIT to Microsoft on a regular basis. Microsoft then uses this information to correlate searches using the data gathered to modify the ranking of its search results AS WELL as find pages that aren't linked to any known page.
When you uninstall the toolbar is when it stops. You clearly didn't read the EULA for the toolbar you checked yes to. Next time don't agree to give away your data without considering the consequences.
If you installed the bing toolbar it steals your clicks.
If you installed any toolbar, you get what you deserve. The point of toolbars is to steal your clicks, any 'features' they provide (you know, another search box and another batch of bookmark buttons).
If you were unaware of the point of toolbars, you are probably not up to slashdot level of tech knowledge yet.
And on google news it is extremely clear that they leeched that information from the newspapers themselves, complete with links to where google found the information. Its providing a news search engine that works ... exactly like a regular search engine does. Google wasn't trying to pretend they are reporting the news themselves, just pointing you at the people who are.
Yes, they made legally public domain books available despite the publishers request which ... is funny because the publishers had no rights to the works they were bitching about ... then they got together and worked with the publishers to appease them so they would shut the fuck up about something they had no legal grounds for. These are publishers. Not authors. The two groups of people bitching are the middle men/leechs that produce nothing themselves. The publishers. Google are competitors jumped on the band wagon too... who were granted the exact same privileges google has, google doesn't have a special deal, anyone can do the same thing ... in fact ... google will even give you the raw fucking data, but that wasn't good enough ... because google would have it first and the competitors wouldn't be able to get it as quick as google ... unless they did it themselves and that would be too expensive ... Seriosuly, look at the real discussions between these people. It makes me never want to read a book again just knowing how fucking greedy publishers were during that ordeal.
The complaint here, since you clearly didn't bother to understand it was that it was unfair for Google to do it because it was such a massive undertaking that once Google had do it, no one in their right minds would spend the money to do it again, everyone would just use Google's reference, making Google an effective monopoly through no action of their own. The complaint was 'Google is so good at it that we'll never be able to compete unless you give us an advantage Google doesn't have.'
He's just pissed off that he writes stories for a website few people have heard of and no one reads his blog which he made and is super cool.
While The Daily isn't my style, I agree with you. I want my local newspaper, as a nice app on my phone/ipad, something I'm used to, but on my ipad so I always have it with me. I'd prefer NOT to have a fuckton of ads since it costs me to download them and there is limited screen space on my phone, so I'm willing to pay for it.
I don't want a freaking flashy/jumpy/animated/clippyized version of the news paper.
I don't want 'new and exciting' from my newspaper, its a utility to me, I just want it to do its job.
People who want new and exciting are the retards who think Twitter, Facebook, and their personal blog are authoritative news sources.
Thats what you get for listening to 'them' rather than paying attention to what politicians have actually done versus they say they've done.
I've learned in politics that the best thing to do is vote for the guy who does exactly what you don't want done. You can safely assume none of the things they tell you they'll do during their campaigning will get done, so you pick the guy who you least agree with, that will earn you the most benefit, treat it like opposite world and pay attention and politics are amazingly predictable.