From this summary: "...some expressed concerns on Facebook..." From another summary today: "Google today announced new integration between Gmail and Google+..."
I had G+ (until today, but before this Slashdot article), and just closed my G+ account. I still have and keep my Gmail account. You do not need G+ for Gmail.
If this feature is implemented as a cloud service, i.e. each URL will be checked by Google before the browser is executing it then say good-bye privacy. It would be the last thing that you would like to have: a browser that spies on you.
If this feature is implemented with a signature file that is updated from time to time, then it is the same snake-oil as each anti-virus and is probably not harmful. It might even be useful for those people who also have use for anti-virus software.
Reason #2 "problems with EU privacy laws" is actually quite real. While the law itself is toothless (regarding the possible sanctions), it would disturb me as an IT manager or sales manager to just use a great service like Salesforce.com and to have migrated all my data there and trained mys stuff - just to learn that I was convicted to adhere to privacy laws in the EU and that any US based company cannot comply (because of US laws) and are now obliged to change everything. Too much of a hassle; I would simply directly go with a non-US service or run the software by my own.
Reason #1 "competitive information to US companies". This is a thread, but probably only to companies that are from interest to the US. If EADS or SAP would use Google mail, they would be truly insane. Same for some small companies in the very hightech market (e.g. for sensors, advanced software, etc.).
In any case: Two issues that weight enough to not use US based services aka cloud services if you are running a European company.
BTW: This has been known for a while and since the Patriot Act is in effect no European firm should have made other assumptions. Nevertheless, seems that we needed Snowden to remind us.
The system should be modified to be round based rather than real-time. 10 seconds per round is long enough that all traders can have equal access regardless of how far they are from the stock exchange, and it is short enough that it won't be a hindrance to long-term investors. A round could spend a couple of seconds executing the trades, then publish the results, add another couple of seconds for communication, and traders will still have six seconds for calculations before the deadline for the next trading round.
This! Best idea I have seen so far - is it yours or has it been researched in more detail and been published somewhere?
How it works for me for example is I log on the online banking site, authenticate with extra-long user-id (which in itself acts as a password), a pin I've memorized, and check a number from a key-list just to log on. If I try to transfer money, they will send an SMS to my phone telling to enter n:th number on my keylist on the online banking site.
This is indeed secure - but a static predistributed key-list is a major pain. You always need to have access to it, before you can do anything. So, you can do Internet banking, but only from home (or where you store your key-list).
Swiss counter-terrorism includes probably a list of tax agents of foreign countries (such as the USA, most EU countries, and other countries looking for black money of their citizens).
The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.
No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.
No, good news would be that Google (and probably all other search engine, who do not show the DCMA requests) had completely followed all requests. There is no better way to show how stupid this whole DCMA business is.
At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay.
Fully agreed! But unfortunately, I think that only 1% (pure speculation, could be also 5% or - more likely - 0.1%) of our population understand those concepts (i.e. are able to see that those concepts are at work even if the question was not mathematically formulated for them). If we now just would get 1% more students leaving the school understanding those concepts every year...
Spain is also a fucked up mess. They've spent decades feathering their public services nest and now they're busted. They will spend generations wallowing in servitude to their creditors while public services get cut and cut again.
Spain is a fucked up mess, because of the same reasons the USA is a fucked up mess: A house building bubble. Spanish people got obscene credits (longer than 50 years sometimes) for financing their homes. Most people looked for work in construction as it was booming like hell. The bubble burst and the economy went belly-up.
It has nothing (or close to nothing) to do with public services.
This is one obvious issue. However, my main issue is that such a system fosters competition between employees. I would argue that competition only works well, if the employees do not need to collaborate. Commissions on sales work well, if the employee has an exclusive territory - I would argue that it does not work well, if one employee can snatch the customer from another employee. Sames with those badges etc.
Long story short, she kinda had it coming for failing to do due diligence.
Nobody likes lying, and it's pretty hard to defend someone who gets caught telling a lie, but, do you really believe that Yahoo hired Scott Thompson because they thought he had a CS degree, from 1979, from some tiny college that nobody has heard of?
No, but do you want a CEO (who is also responsible for all employees) who lied in his CV and got caught? Isn't this lie "unethical" behavior and cannot be tolerated in a public company?
Risk is damage * incidence. A high damage event with low incidence can be lower risk than a low damage event with high incidence. This is in fact the case when we compare nuclear with coal power.
This is correct. The problem is that apparently we cannot give concrete figures (in dollars) for "damage" nor for the likelihood "incidence" - otherwise it should be possible to get an insurance policy for nuclear power plants, or did I miss something obvious?
Great, so he could put "terrorist" and "pedophile" in the same sentence as "Internet". Only missing word is "killer game" in this sentence (for computer games that show violence). And the Americans might want to add "drug dealers" as replacement... - what a farce!
I doubt that people think that "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." for everything what Google or Wikipedia says. However, we can be sure that people think "if it comes from these sources, it must be false." for everything the RIAA CEO says about those laws. So, basically, he reinforced with his comment what people understood about SOPA etc.
The Internet didn't "take off" in 1983 for reasons that are completely unrelated to why this product failed. Most of it was because in 1983, computers were slow, modems were slow, and communication via the Internet wasn't nearly as practical as sneakernet.
And to make it clear, since this was my original point, the WWW is not the Internet. It is only a small part of it, though it is currently the most visible part of the Internet. But it is not the Internet.
The major reason was that the WWW - or better: HTML and HTTP - had not yet been invented in 1983. These ubiquitous technologies made the browser usable for the masses and replaced protocols like gopher and ftp for content access and rendering. And this was the reason for the Internet to take off - it became simple to use; even with 2400 baud modems.
In France ? Sure it succeeded considering that its been in use for 30 years, and only in june of this year will the service be taken permanently offline. [...] Minitel was BIG, so BIG that many doubted that Internet could even succeed in France in the ninties and early 2000s. The system was closed and not exceedingly expensive but it worked.
Minitel was a huge success - and a major road block in France for Internet services. Coming from Germany to France in the mid-90s, I was surprised how hard it was to get Internet access. At the end, I got it through a modem bank in my university, but ISPs were rather non existent. Thanks to Minitel, Internet was probably 3-5 years late in France.
If the services had started out integrated this would not be an issue. On Facebook you can do a search, look at someone's photos, post comments etc. and everyone knows they all share data. Should Google be treated differently just because google brought in picassa, added blogging, etc. rather than implementing them all in one go?
Yes. You signed up for different T&C and to switch services now - after you trusted 1000s of emails to Google and created 100s of G+ networks - is very expensive. So, how can you NOT accept the change and still use the service?
Slashdot Mirror
From this summary: "...some expressed concerns on Facebook..."
From another summary today: "Google today announced new integration between Gmail and Google+..."
Oh this irony!
Just give me GMail.
No problem: Just do not sign up for G+. Or delete your G+ account; your Gmail account is not affected.
I had G+ (until today, but before this Slashdot article), and just closed my G+ account. I still have and keep my Gmail account. You do not need G+ for Gmail.
If this feature is implemented as a cloud service, i.e. each URL will be checked by Google before the browser is executing it then say good-bye privacy. It would be the last thing that you would like to have: a browser that spies on you.
If this feature is implemented with a signature file that is updated from time to time, then it is the same snake-oil as each anti-virus and is probably not harmful. It might even be useful for those people who also have use for anti-virus software.
I am not a UK citizen, but travel from time to time to the UK.
How do those filters interfere with my roaming Internet access?
Reason #2 "problems with EU privacy laws" is actually quite real. While the law itself is toothless (regarding the possible sanctions), it would disturb me as an IT manager or sales manager to just use a great service like Salesforce.com and to have migrated all my data there and trained mys stuff - just to learn that I was convicted to adhere to privacy laws in the EU and that any US based company cannot comply (because of US laws) and are now obliged to change everything. Too much of a hassle; I would simply directly go with a non-US service or run the software by my own.
Reason #1 "competitive information to US companies". This is a thread, but probably only to companies that are from interest to the US. If EADS or SAP would use Google mail, they would be truly insane. Same for some small companies in the very hightech market (e.g. for sensors, advanced software, etc.).
In any case: Two issues that weight enough to not use US based services aka cloud services if you are running a European company.
BTW: This has been known for a while and since the Patriot Act is in effect no European firm should have made other assumptions. Nevertheless, seems that we needed Snowden to remind us.
The system should be modified to be round based rather than real-time. 10 seconds per round is long enough that all traders can have equal access regardless of how far they are from the stock exchange, and it is short enough that it won't be a hindrance to long-term investors. A round could spend a couple of seconds executing the trades, then publish the results, add another couple of seconds for communication, and traders will still have six seconds for calculations before the deadline for the next trading round.
This! Best idea I have seen so far - is it yours or has it been researched in more detail and been published somewhere?
How it works for me for example is I log on the online banking site, authenticate with extra-long user-id (which in itself acts as a password), a pin I've memorized, and check a number from a key-list just to log on. If I try to transfer money, they will send an SMS to my phone telling to enter n:th number on my keylist on the online banking site.
This is indeed secure - but a static predistributed key-list is a major pain. You always need to have access to it, before you can do anything. So, you can do Internet banking, but only from home (or where you store your key-list).
The consumer will pay the fines in higher prices.
Or: The consumer will pay less taxes as the fine is paid to the governments. Equally improbable.
*Report* *Warns* That *Censorship* Will Not Stop *Terrorism* - (Bullshit) Bingo!
Swiss counter-terrorism includes probably a list of tax agents of foreign countries (such as the USA, most EU countries, and other countries looking for black money of their citizens).
The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up.
No, good news would be that Google has completely disregarded any communications. The fact that the word "many" was used rather than "all" means that it is in fact quite bad news.
No, good news would be that Google (and probably all other search engine, who do not show the DCMA requests) had completely followed all requests. There is no better way to show how stupid this whole DCMA business is.
At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay.
Fully agreed! But unfortunately, I think that only 1% (pure speculation, could be also 5% or - more likely - 0.1%) of our population understand those concepts (i.e. are able to see that those concepts are at work even if the question was not mathematically formulated for them). If we now just would get 1% more students leaving the school understanding those concepts every year ...
Spain has a robust social security program
Spain is also a fucked up mess. They've spent decades feathering their public services nest and now they're busted. They will spend generations wallowing in servitude to their creditors while public services get cut and cut again.
Spain is a fucked up mess, because of the same reasons the USA is a fucked up mess: A house building bubble. Spanish people got obscene credits (longer than 50 years sometimes) for financing their homes. Most people looked for work in construction as it was booming like hell. The bubble burst and the economy went belly-up.
It has nothing (or close to nothing) to do with public services.
It's really a shame system.
This is one obvious issue. However, my main issue is that such a system fosters competition between employees. I would argue that competition only works well, if the employees do not need to collaborate. Commissions on sales work well, if the employee has an exclusive territory - I would argue that it does not work well, if one employee can snatch the customer from another employee. Sames with those badges etc.
Long story short, she kinda had it coming for failing to do due diligence.
Nobody likes lying, and it's pretty hard to defend someone who gets caught telling a lie, but, do you really believe that Yahoo hired Scott Thompson because they thought he had a CS degree, from 1979, from some tiny college that nobody has heard of?
No, but do you want a CEO (who is also responsible for all employees) who lied in his CV and got caught? Isn't this lie "unethical" behavior and cannot be tolerated in a public company?
I think a spam mod would be more helpful - flag posts for review
We rather need it to flag some stories lately ...
Risk is damage * incidence. A high damage event with low incidence can be lower risk than a low damage event with high incidence. This is in fact the case when we compare nuclear with coal power.
This is correct. The problem is that apparently we cannot give concrete figures (in dollars) for "damage" nor for the likelihood "incidence" - otherwise it should be possible to get an insurance policy for nuclear power plants, or did I miss something obvious?
Great, so he could put "terrorist" and "pedophile" in the same sentence as "Internet". Only missing word is "killer game" in this sentence (for computer games that show violence). And the Americans might want to add "drug dealers" as replacement ... - what a farce!
This! Where are my mod point when I need them?
I doubt that people think that "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." for everything what Google or Wikipedia says. However, we can be sure that people think "if it comes from these sources, it must be false." for everything the RIAA CEO says about those laws. So, basically, he reinforced with his comment what people understood about SOPA etc.
nobody had a computer at home
Millions of households had computers at that time: Commodore VC 64.
Millions of companies started to use IBM PC compatible computers.
They were just not connected, except for some geeks providing BBS boxes.
The Internet didn't "take off" in 1983 for reasons that are completely unrelated to why this product failed. Most of it was because in 1983, computers were slow, modems were slow, and communication via the Internet wasn't nearly as practical as sneakernet.
And to make it clear, since this was my original point, the WWW is not the Internet. It is only a small part of it, though it is currently the most visible part of the Internet. But it is not the Internet.
The major reason was that the WWW - or better: HTML and HTTP - had not yet been invented in 1983. These ubiquitous technologies made the browser usable for the masses and replaced protocols like gopher and ftp for content access and rendering. And this was the reason for the Internet to take off - it became simple to use; even with 2400 baud modems.
Minitel succeeded?
In France ? Sure it succeeded considering that its been in use for 30 years, and only in june of this year will the service be taken permanently offline. [...] Minitel was BIG, so BIG that many doubted that Internet could even succeed in France in the ninties and early 2000s. The system was closed and not exceedingly expensive but it worked.
Minitel was a huge success - and a major road block in France for Internet services. Coming from Germany to France in the mid-90s, I was surprised how hard it was to get Internet access. At the end, I got it through a modem bank in my university, but ISPs were rather non existent. Thanks to Minitel, Internet was probably 3-5 years late in France.
If the services had started out integrated this would not be an issue. On Facebook you can do a search, look at someone's photos, post comments etc. and everyone knows they all share data. Should Google be treated differently just because google brought in picassa, added blogging, etc. rather than implementing them all in one go?
Yes. You signed up for different T&C and to switch services now - after you trusted 1000s of emails to Google and created 100s of G+ networks - is very expensive. So, how can you NOT accept the change and still use the service?