The new Google phone is supposed to have this feature as well. They've been talking about it for some time. It was supposed to be out January 29th, but it was going to be for T-Mobile only. However, the latest rumor is that Sprint and Verizon will both offer the G2 under another name. HTC's CEO said the phone should be out in April now.
Government is a social contract in which members of a society sacrifice certain rights in return for benefits granted by the organization of that society.
While in almost every case I would argue that if there is no victim, there is no crime and I urge against government interference, it is extremely difficult for people to be objective about drugs.
My mother in law works for a rehab clinic. All of my direct family (parents, siblings) has spent time in jail and in rehab. And when a person is using an addictive substance, you can not reason with them, because ultimately addiction is control of their brain.
You can function while under the effects of addiction. You can appear normal and attempt to justify that drugs aren't that harmful (despite the numerous health risks) except everyone who comes through the other side of rehab and ends up sober admits to how addiction controlled their brain.
A person who isn't necessarily ultimately in control of their own thoughts is pretty frightening. And given the destruction I've witnessed first hand of what drugs can do (not always, but certainly can do) I would be extremely reticent to ever suggest that doing drugs is an essential freedom that should be protected.
The difference between drug use, and say freedom of speech is pretty significant. You can't easily lump the two together.
It is a generic file locker, not a digital music locker. And has the RIAA won a case on a music locker service? I don't see how they would unless the music locker service could easily be shared and searched, and that the company intentionally created a service to copy and distribute pirated works.
Well, if I held a terrorist manifesto in my GDrive, that might be a concern that a foreign government might storm into Google's data centers, demand to randomly see my GDrive, and then distribute that information on me.
Yet, if I was tried in an American court, that information still wouldn't be allowed as admissible evidence.
But I'm talking about MP3s and digital photos. And most of the rest of the world really doesn't seem to care about copyright infringement so much when you can buy pirate copies in stores.
And while Google has not specifically promised to keep Gdrive data in the US, they are building a massive new data storage center about 10 miles from me for an unannounced project (ahem, Gdrive) so I'm pretty sure I know where they are going to be storing the data.
Not if that location isn't shared. The RIAA has tried to fight in court that putting your music in a Shared folder for a P2P app is "making available for distribution" even if they didn't have proof that the people in question actually distributed.
Try searching in any search engine of your choice. You'll find no story of Google doing so because they haven't.
Google, now that you mention it, was the only company to fight China's censorship policies on search results. And when they eventually caved to Chinese law (if they didn't censor search results, they weren't allowed to do business in China, and Google said they'd rather have an in road in China and fight for free speech than have no in road at all).
So Google complied with Chinese law to search results, but they are the only company to put on the page "These search results have been censored."
Google is the one company fighting for your rights, and yet everyone wants to label them as evil.
A Constitutional Amendment was not passed revoking those rights, and thusly I would with great confidence fight in court that I still have them.
As for your link, it is weak sauce. An office of the law operated correctly, followed correct procedure, and made an arrest properly. Yet the article insists doing so, everyone agrees the criminal's rights were violated.
How does that make sense? The officer was given bad information about a warrant. If the officer lied about a warrant intentionally to search a person they had no right to, then there is a case here. That isn't the situation.
The article suggests that rights can't be violated period, and while I'm all for the Bill of Rights being held as absolute, the 4th Amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure.
The warrant expired, which the officer did not know about. The officer was acting reasonably given that they thought there was a current warrant, and proceeded to make an arrest.
You think that proves you no longer have Constitutional rights?
Actually they do. Anyone can take a matter to court and argue that a law impedes their Constitutional rights. In fact, it has already been ruled unconstitutional.
I knew the second anyone with a decent lawyer tried to fight one, they'd win their case.
Secondly, you assume that Google would immediately cave in to the government in a case they'd win, and in doing so, risk the entire profit model of the company? That makes zero sense.
In the two times a government has asked Google to violate user's privacy, Google has fought both times.
Your argument flies in the face of documented precedence.
Assuming that the NSA has Google's IP logs is a bit paranoid.
It doesn't make sense for the NSA to dedicate resources to infiltrate Google and steal IP logs that they can't use in court as evidence, unless you are thinking of some scheme of the NSA stealing logs from Google to use to track down foreign terrorists.
In this scenario, the NSA would not be focused on my MP3 collection, and this paranoia is unwarranted. Furthermore, if this were the case, the US would be MUCH more effective at fighting terrorism. They aren't.
When we first rolled into Iraq, we first bombed communication towers. Three weeks later we bombed TV stations, saying that insurgents immediately adapted to hiding coded messages on normal TV programming. Then insurgents just moved to the web. And most every US military commander and technology pundit will tell you that insurgents in caves have been beating the US when it comes to utilizing the internet for military purposes.
If they had access to all of Google's data, they'd know much more than they do.
Lastly, I've routinely maintained (in this very thread even) that Google's entire business model is dependent on privacy. Thusly, their protection of privacy coincides with their pursuit of profit.
That is precisely why I trust them to protect my privacy. They wouldn't have a company otherwise.
I get that having multiple people centered around a large viewscreen able to comment on the data can be extremely useful.
However, not only do I fail to see how Surface improves upon multiple people viewing the same data on individual screens while talking together (WebEx session anyone?), but I'm concerned with practical limitations of a table.
I see something four feet away from me on the table, but I can't interact with it because I can't physically touch it.
A touch table is specifically useful in casinos (where Surface is predominately displayed currently) because it invites users to interact and play.
But I'm not sure how it helps secure the Super Bowl. You may be right in that if I saw the implementation I would be convinced. I haven't asserted definitively that it doesn't help. I'm saying I don't understand how it does help, wondering if someone does know how specifically, they would explain it to a simpleton like me.
It would become public knowledge the moment that information was used as evidence in a trial, which it never has.
Google's data on people would be pretty incriminating, but their entire business model would also be destroyed if no one trusted them with private data.
Google's advertising model is based upon targeted advertising. Without users, and specifically without information on their users, Google is nothing.
Google would have a very good argument against handing over data.
Unreasonable search and seizure. It is in the Constitution. Given that I don't distribute, and haven't even broken the law, and that Google hasn't shown any willingness to work with the RIAA, even if the RIAA wanted to go after me for no apparent reason, they'd need probable cause with sufficient evidence that I broke the law, which I didn't.
Again, I'm not worried.
If you used your Gdrive and gave the entire world access, and used that to distribute, and the RIAA got wind of it, and have evidence to subpeona ip logs, well that is a different story.
So don't be stupid and use Gdrive to distribute pirated content to the known world.
Do you have any reason to suggest that Google is handing over data to the RIAA when Google has historically fought to protect the privacy of its users?
Furthermore, even if the RIAA saw my massive MP3 collection, I do have CDs to justify most of it, and I'm not distributing copies to other people. They don't have anything on me.
Google isn't a new company. They've been around a while and have a positive track record. They're fairly transparent. Microsoft and Apple have had fairly negative track records for ages.
Please explain to me your assumption that Google will change against all reason their company strategy to emulate their competitors that they constantly try to differentiate themselves from?
When Bush was talking about wanting search data for all US citizens, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL handed it over without even really being asked. Google refused, and said they would not hand over any search data unless they were forced to do so by a court of law. Google has also since decided to anonymize their logs sooner and increase their privacy policies.
The only time Google has handed data over to a government agency was one case in Brazil, when they were forced to do so by a court, and even then, they didn't do it immediately when they were first ordered to do so. And that case was when Google had evidence on a child porn ring who distributed child porn via Orkut.
So please, explain to me how can you justify statements with no basis on fact?
From what I've read, you'll be able to map it like another drive on your computer, just drag and drop files. Unlike a slow web interface with other products, you can very quickly access your files. There will be tons of storage, and it will be completely free with no nags to upgrade to a premium service.
Otherwise, exactly like this should have been handled by everyone else from day 1.
Several societies in history have banned various substances and drugs. Many Native American tribes have banned alcohol and drugs in their entire verbal history. Many Muslim nations have had similar bans for religious reasons.
England specifically did trade a ton of opium. You are correct, but even England put an end to their own profitable opium trade by outlawing the stuff in the early 19th century.
The United States were not the first nation to outlaw drugs. However, many modern drugs were outlawed until recent history, because no one understood them until recently, or the drugs weren't developed until recently.
Drugs like cocaine and heroin are fairly recent inventions in the span of written history, and weren't frowned upon until people understood the ramifications of their use and abuse.
Heck, read up on Wikipedia.
"Although the present War on Drugs is a modern phenomenon, drug laws have been a common feature of human law for several thousand years."
Slashdot Mirror
Dump Ubuntu and give openSUSE 11.1 a try.
The new Google phone is supposed to have this feature as well. They've been talking about it for some time. It was supposed to be out January 29th, but it was going to be for T-Mobile only. However, the latest rumor is that Sprint and Verizon will both offer the G2 under another name. HTC's CEO said the phone should be out in April now.
Government is a social contract in which members of a society sacrifice certain rights in return for benefits granted by the organization of that society.
While in almost every case I would argue that if there is no victim, there is no crime and I urge against government interference, it is extremely difficult for people to be objective about drugs.
My mother in law works for a rehab clinic. All of my direct family (parents, siblings) has spent time in jail and in rehab. And when a person is using an addictive substance, you can not reason with them, because ultimately addiction is control of their brain.
You can function while under the effects of addiction. You can appear normal and attempt to justify that drugs aren't that harmful (despite the numerous health risks) except everyone who comes through the other side of rehab and ends up sober admits to how addiction controlled their brain.
A person who isn't necessarily ultimately in control of their own thoughts is pretty frightening. And given the destruction I've witnessed first hand of what drugs can do (not always, but certainly can do) I would be extremely reticent to ever suggest that doing drugs is an essential freedom that should be protected.
The difference between drug use, and say freedom of speech is pretty significant. You can't easily lump the two together.
More users signing up for Google services.
It is a generic file locker, not a digital music locker. And has the RIAA won a case on a music locker service? I don't see how they would unless the music locker service could easily be shared and searched, and that the company intentionally created a service to copy and distribute pirated works.
That's awesome. Is it multiplatform at all?
Well, if I held a terrorist manifesto in my GDrive, that might be a concern that a foreign government might storm into Google's data centers, demand to randomly see my GDrive, and then distribute that information on me.
Yet, if I was tried in an American court, that information still wouldn't be allowed as admissible evidence.
But I'm talking about MP3s and digital photos. And most of the rest of the world really doesn't seem to care about copyright infringement so much when you can buy pirate copies in stores.
And while Google has not specifically promised to keep Gdrive data in the US, they are building a massive new data storage center about 10 miles from me for an unannounced project (ahem, Gdrive) so I'm pretty sure I know where they are going to be storing the data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Regardless, owning MP3s isn't illegal. It is illegal to make copies and distribute pirated copies to other people.
Not if that location isn't shared. The RIAA has tried to fight in court that putting your music in a Shared folder for a P2P app is "making available for distribution" even if they didn't have proof that the people in question actually distributed.
They kept losing the making available cases.
That was Yahoo, not Google.
Try searching in any search engine of your choice. You'll find no story of Google doing so because they haven't.
Google, now that you mention it, was the only company to fight China's censorship policies on search results. And when they eventually caved to Chinese law (if they didn't censor search results, they weren't allowed to do business in China, and Google said they'd rather have an in road in China and fight for free speech than have no in road at all).
So Google complied with Chinese law to search results, but they are the only company to put on the page "These search results have been censored."
Google is the one company fighting for your rights, and yet everyone wants to label them as evil.
Because any obvious repeat abuse wouldn't be seen as an accident in court.
A Constitutional Amendment was not passed revoking those rights, and thusly I would with great confidence fight in court that I still have them.
As for your link, it is weak sauce. An office of the law operated correctly, followed correct procedure, and made an arrest properly. Yet the article insists doing so, everyone agrees the criminal's rights were violated.
How does that make sense? The officer was given bad information about a warrant. If the officer lied about a warrant intentionally to search a person they had no right to, then there is a case here. That isn't the situation.
The article suggests that rights can't be violated period, and while I'm all for the Bill of Rights being held as absolute, the 4th Amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure.
The warrant expired, which the officer did not know about. The officer was acting reasonably given that they thought there was a current warrant, and proceeded to make an arrest.
You think that proves you no longer have Constitutional rights?
Actually they do. Anyone can take a matter to court and argue that a law impedes their Constitutional rights. In fact, it has already been ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/38113prs20081215.html
I knew the second anyone with a decent lawyer tried to fight one, they'd win their case.
Secondly, you assume that Google would immediately cave in to the government in a case they'd win, and in doing so, risk the entire profit model of the company? That makes zero sense.
In the two times a government has asked Google to violate user's privacy, Google has fought both times.
Your argument flies in the face of documented precedence.
Assuming that the NSA has Google's IP logs is a bit paranoid.
It doesn't make sense for the NSA to dedicate resources to infiltrate Google and steal IP logs that they can't use in court as evidence, unless you are thinking of some scheme of the NSA stealing logs from Google to use to track down foreign terrorists.
In this scenario, the NSA would not be focused on my MP3 collection, and this paranoia is unwarranted. Furthermore, if this were the case, the US would be MUCH more effective at fighting terrorism. They aren't.
When we first rolled into Iraq, we first bombed communication towers. Three weeks later we bombed TV stations, saying that insurgents immediately adapted to hiding coded messages on normal TV programming. Then insurgents just moved to the web. And most every US military commander and technology pundit will tell you that insurgents in caves have been beating the US when it comes to utilizing the internet for military purposes.
If they had access to all of Google's data, they'd know much more than they do.
Lastly, I've routinely maintained (in this very thread even) that Google's entire business model is dependent on privacy. Thusly, their protection of privacy coincides with their pursuit of profit.
That is precisely why I trust them to protect my privacy. They wouldn't have a company otherwise.
I get that having multiple people centered around a large viewscreen able to comment on the data can be extremely useful.
However, not only do I fail to see how Surface improves upon multiple people viewing the same data on individual screens while talking together (WebEx session anyone?), but I'm concerned with practical limitations of a table.
I see something four feet away from me on the table, but I can't interact with it because I can't physically touch it.
A touch table is specifically useful in casinos (where Surface is predominately displayed currently) because it invites users to interact and play.
But I'm not sure how it helps secure the Super Bowl. You may be right in that if I saw the implementation I would be convinced. I haven't asserted definitively that it doesn't help. I'm saying I don't understand how it does help, wondering if someone does know how specifically, they would explain it to a simpleton like me.
It would become public knowledge the moment that information was used as evidence in a trial, which it never has.
Google's data on people would be pretty incriminating, but their entire business model would also be destroyed if no one trusted them with private data.
Google's advertising model is based upon targeted advertising. Without users, and specifically without information on their users, Google is nothing.
Google would have a very good argument against handing over data.
Unreasonable search and seizure. It is in the Constitution. Given that I don't distribute, and haven't even broken the law, and that Google hasn't shown any willingness to work with the RIAA, even if the RIAA wanted to go after me for no apparent reason, they'd need probable cause with sufficient evidence that I broke the law, which I didn't.
Again, I'm not worried.
If you used your Gdrive and gave the entire world access, and used that to distribute, and the RIAA got wind of it, and have evidence to subpeona ip logs, well that is a different story.
So don't be stupid and use Gdrive to distribute pirated content to the known world.
Do you have any reason to suggest that Google is handing over data to the RIAA when Google has historically fought to protect the privacy of its users?
Furthermore, even if the RIAA saw my massive MP3 collection, I do have CDs to justify most of it, and I'm not distributing copies to other people. They don't have anything on me.
Gmail doesn't use Gmail.com.
Gdrive can easily use gdrive.google.com, and even better, the first Google search result for Gdrive can easily point to gdrive.google.com
Several people have been reporting on GDrive rumors, fairly specific ones, for months.
It just so happens that Google code also references a product whose name and description match those rumors.
The title of this article says the announcement is "Unofficial" not "Officially Confirmed".
That seems like a fair assessment to me.
Google isn't a new company. They've been around a while and have a positive track record. They're fairly transparent. Microsoft and Apple have had fairly negative track records for ages.
Please explain to me your assumption that Google will change against all reason their company strategy to emulate their competitors that they constantly try to differentiate themselves from?
How did you get modded informative?
When Bush was talking about wanting search data for all US citizens, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL handed it over without even really being asked. Google refused, and said they would not hand over any search data unless they were forced to do so by a court of law. Google has also since decided to anonymize their logs sooner and increase their privacy policies.
The only time Google has handed data over to a government agency was one case in Brazil, when they were forced to do so by a court, and even then, they didn't do it immediately when they were first ordered to do so. And that case was when Google had evidence on a child porn ring who distributed child porn via Orkut.
So please, explain to me how can you justify statements with no basis on fact?
From what I've read, you'll be able to map it like another drive on your computer, just drag and drop files. Unlike a slow web interface with other products, you can very quickly access your files. There will be tons of storage, and it will be completely free with no nags to upgrade to a premium service.
Otherwise, exactly like this should have been handled by everyone else from day 1.
My MP3 collection and some digital photos I don't wnat to lose isn't like some secret, private data I'm terrified they will analyze.
Several societies in history have banned various substances and drugs. Many Native American tribes have banned alcohol and drugs in their entire verbal history. Many Muslim nations have had similar bans for religious reasons.
England specifically did trade a ton of opium. You are correct, but even England put an end to their own profitable opium trade by outlawing the stuff in the early 19th century.
The United States were not the first nation to outlaw drugs. However, many modern drugs were outlawed until recent history, because no one understood them until recently, or the drugs weren't developed until recently.
Drugs like cocaine and heroin are fairly recent inventions in the span of written history, and weren't frowned upon until people understood the ramifications of their use and abuse.
Heck, read up on Wikipedia.
"Although the present War on Drugs is a modern phenomenon, drug laws have been a common feature of human law for several thousand years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)