1. Your cell phone doesn't have a 360-like controller. 2. Your cell phone likely won't play games on your TV. 3. Every game on the OUYA can be tried for free. You don't have to put a credit card in to start downloading apps from the store. 4. Your cell phone can't be a dedicated media center. 5. Mother-fucking-Towerfall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es-okjDMAbI
Consider that many people consider $99 media center appliances to be a good bargain. Now consider a device at the same price that includes a gaming controller and plays games. That somehow makes it less viable?
2. When George W. Bush asked for search data tied to IP addresses, all the major search provides just handed it over without a warrant and Google refused. Google's response was to go one step further and alter their policies to anonymize their logs even sooner to help protect their users.
I am who I am. I've had the same handle since BBS days. If you take a few seconds Googling me, you can likely found out just about anything you want about me because I have nothing to hide.
You are correct that I'm pedantic. I focus on facts and I truly detest FUD. I do try to stamp it out. I thought Slashdot appreciated that.
I do always find it odd when an AC questions me when I have the courage to sign in and stand behind my statements.
Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.
I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?
I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.
Microsoft does keep track of email correspondence, see the link I posted earlier in the thread.
I know that Google data-mines me to provide me free services. But they're not giving my data to anyone else. I'll gladly deal with seeing ads to get free services that I like. If you don't like that arrangement, then no one forces you to use their services. But you won't find a web services provider that doesn't data-mine you.
Microsoft and Yahoo when contacted admitted to having this service that matched internet accounts to voting lists so that political parties could target you online.
Please check my first link. Even with their new service, they still mine the data in your email for ads. Microsoft openly admits it.
"Microsoft tells me that the data mined by the Outlook mail service won't go as deep as others, so while ads served will be contextual"
Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.
Microsoft's Scroogled ads suggest PEOPLE are actively reading your email, which is FUD. And Microsoft claiming they don't mine you for personal data for contextual ads is just a pure lie as well.
All of your posts are defending Microsoft mining data while blasting Google for the same. I hope you enjoy your paid position.
Microsoft and Google both track you to serve up contextual ads. However, the key differences are:
* Microsoft handed over search data to the US government without a warrant while Google refused. * Microsoft SELLS YOUR PRIVATE DATA to third-parties without telling you. Google never gives your private data to someone else. * The EFF ranks Microsoft as having a worse record for protecting your privacy.
The fact that Google makes more money from advertising doesn't make them evil or nefarious. It means consumers prefer them.
Search engine: Microsoft and Google Desktop OS: All three Mobile OS: All three Music service: All three Messaging service: All three Email: All three Maps: All three Videos: Microsoft and Google Cloud storage: All three
It isn't like Microsoft isn't in these other markets.
With Apple, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads. With Microsoft, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads. With Google, you get services for free, but are tracked and sold contextual ads.
It is only bad business if the media calls them out on it, which hasn't really happened. That is why Microsoft spends a small fortune on astroturfing, shifting the focus on Google for privacy concerns.
They says theirs isn't as deep, so it respects your privacy more, but what it really means is that they're not as good at serving up contextual ads, but they're still scanning your email.
Making a ridiculous statement that anyone knows is patently false is the reason I'm calling bullshit.
Again, anyone with any smart phone can test this theory that logging into Gmail on your computer and mobile device at the same time does not lock your account.
I'm pretty sure hundreds of millions of users are logged into Gmail on a web interface while also using their Android phones, and they don't have all their email accounts locked.
The issue is that Microsoft's privacy track record is worse.
When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.
Microsoft has ad campaigns suggesting Google employees are actively reading your email, even though they know that is an outright lie, the very definition of FUD.
Even worse, Microsoft is a hypocrite because they scan your email to serve up contextual ads as well.
Microsoft also has a patent on selling your private data to the highest bidder.
Google isn't giving your private data to anyone. They just serve you ads. Microsoft outright sells your data to people without your knowledge. And when they know they can't compete with Google on price, their only response is FUD.
1. Sweden extraditing Assange would be extremely difficult because they'd have to sign off on it, and so would the UK. Neither have suggested they would.
2. Manning was in solitary, not tortured.
3. The UCMJ places more restrictions on you. Members of the military are basically held to a higher standard and have FEWER rights than others. For example, you can face a court martial and a separate criminal trial and double-jeopardy does not apply. This was explained to me that I was effectively waiving some of my rights when I joined the Marine Corps. Bradley Manning voluntarily made that choice.
4. You're suggesting that the UK and Sweden have both been duped and Ecuador has proof of this. But said proof hasn't been revealed publicly. If Assange had any proof he was framed, why wouldn't he reveal it?
5. Agiza was an Egyptian wanted in Egypt that Sweden handed back to Egypt. Sweden had negotiated promises from Egypt that he would not be tortured, and Egypt lied. Sweden had also labeled Agiza a terrorist, which it has not done to Assange. Sweden ruled that letting Agiza in the country was a security risk because they labeled him a terrorist, and thusly deported him to his home country, while at the same time demanding that Egypt not torture him. Sweden had zero qualms letting Assange in the country. Saying this situation is the same is nothing short of ridiculous. They are completely different.
6. This is by far the most important point. Conspiracy theorists assume that anyone who speaks negatively of the US government is rounded up and punished for it, but all evidence speaks to the contrary. Plenty of Americans speak out negatively about the government every single day with nothing happening to them.
Again, there is zero documented evidence that he was framed. There is zero documented evidence that Sweden would be able to or willing to extradite to the US for someone they haven't gone after themselves.
If Assange faced rape charges in Sweden, how would that lead to extradition to the US?
Again, Assange hasn't been charged with anything in the US and there is no extradition request. Nor does Sweden have a record that would indicate they would extradite him.
You're saying there is some conspiracy that the CIA framed him for something fairly trivial in Sweden (rather than just apprehend him) to get him extradited, when the whole thing is a long shot. You're talking about odds, and those are some long odds.
If Assange truly supported his supposed ideals of transparency and accountability, wouldn't he be willing to stand trial and defend his name?
The initial intent of the subreddit was to find anyone who was seen at the scene with a backpack and pass all of those photos on to the FBI. That intent was noble, and the work could have been useful.
Then someone out of the blue called two people suspects with no evidence (other than the color of their skin) and people accepted it without asking for any reason why they were suspects. That was the clear failure.
The mods of the subreddit failed to direct people back to the original purpose of just finding everyone with a backpack.
His accuser hates Castro? That must mean she works for the CIA!
Everyone who opposes Castro definitively works for the CIA! She worked with a group, who is connected to one member who hates Castro, and thusly was backed by the CIA! It's all proof!
Obama had fundraiser meetings with Bill Ayer, which clearly proves that Obama is secretly working for a terrorist organization!
Drawing a lose connection between two lines to support confirmation bias is the tool of a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't represent reality.
But Assange insists the only reason he can't defend himself against the rape accusation is that Sweden would immediately send him off to the US. There are three problems with that statement.
1. The US hasn't charged him with a crime or filed an extradition request for him. 2. Before the rape accusation, he felt Sweden was a safe location. Now magically it isn't. 3. Sweden doesn't have a history of extraditing people to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Your cell phone doesn't have a 360-like controller.
2. Your cell phone likely won't play games on your TV.
3. Every game on the OUYA can be tried for free. You don't have to put a credit card in to start downloading apps from the store.
4. Your cell phone can't be a dedicated media center.
5. Mother-fucking-Towerfall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es-okjDMAbI
Consider that many people consider $99 media center appliances to be a good bargain. Now consider a device at the same price that includes a gaming controller and plays games. That somehow makes it less viable?
Google gets warrants to hand over data, just like everyone else. There are some differences however in how Google handles government requests.
1. Google tries to be very transparent about what requests they get from the government, and how much they are forced to hand over.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/
2. When George W. Bush asked for search data tied to IP addresses, all the major search provides just handed it over without a warrant and Google refused. Google's response was to go one step further and alter their policies to anonymize their logs even sooner to help protect their users.
3. Google has even considered moving data centers to the ocean to keep your private data away from government demands.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/googles-search-goes-out-to-sea/
I am who I am. I've had the same handle since BBS days. If you take a few seconds Googling me, you can likely found out just about anything you want about me because I have nothing to hide.
You are correct that I'm pedantic. I focus on facts and I truly detest FUD. I do try to stamp it out. I thought Slashdot appreciated that.
I do always find it odd when an AC questions me when I have the courage to sign in and stand behind my statements.
Do SEC filings count as credible references? Or Microsoft's own statements?
Google made over 43 BILLION dollars in ad revenue last year.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html
Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.
http://marketingland.com/microsoft-q4-2012-earnings-online-advertising-revenue-up-12-16740
Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.
http://marketingland.com/seeking-to-banish-distraction-microsoft-replaces-hotmail-display-ads-with-deals-4790
I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?
I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.
Microsoft has a service like Google Analytics, it just happens that no one uses it:
http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster
Microsoft does keep track of email correspondence, see the link I posted earlier in the thread.
I know that Google data-mines me to provide me free services. But they're not giving my data to anyone else. I'll gladly deal with seeing ads to get free services that I like. If you don't like that arrangement, then no one forces you to use their services. But you won't find a web services provider that doesn't data-mine you.
Microsoft and Yahoo when contacted admitted to having this service that matched internet accounts to voting lists so that political parties could target you online.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2012/06/microsoft-yahoo-sell-tracking-data-to-political-campaigns/1#.UZUsm8XA9yV
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-microsoft-and-yahoo-are-selling-politicians-access-to-you
Again, citation needed. Anonymous, empty anecdotes are not evidence.
Please check my first link. Even with their new service, they still mine the data in your email for ads. Microsoft openly admits it.
"Microsoft tells me that the data mined by the Outlook mail service won't go as deep as others, so while ads served will be contextual"
Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.
Microsoft's Scroogled ads suggest PEOPLE are actively reading your email, which is FUD. And Microsoft claiming they don't mine you for personal data for contextual ads is just a pure lie as well.
All of your posts are defending Microsoft mining data while blasting Google for the same. I hope you enjoy your paid position.
I'll focus on documented facts instead.
Microsoft and Google both track you to serve up contextual ads. However, the key differences are:
* Microsoft handed over search data to the US government without a warrant while Google refused.
* Microsoft SELLS YOUR PRIVATE DATA to third-parties without telling you. Google never gives your private data to someone else.
* The EFF ranks Microsoft as having a worse record for protecting your privacy.
The fact that Google makes more money from advertising doesn't make them evil or nefarious. It means consumers prefer them.
Search engine: Microsoft and Google
Desktop OS: All three
Mobile OS: All three
Music service: All three
Messaging service: All three
Email: All three
Maps: All three
Videos: Microsoft and Google
Cloud storage: All three
It isn't like Microsoft isn't in these other markets.
With Apple, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Microsoft, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Google, you get services for free, but are tracked and sold contextual ads.
You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?
[citation needed]
Astroturfer or ignorant?
Microsoft tracks you everywhere for contextual ads as well. And they value your privacy far less than Microsoft.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsofts-new-outlook-mail-welcome-hotmail-replacement-917473
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013
Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.
http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/
And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/02/gates_ozzie_other_microsoft_execs_patent_personal_data_mining.html
http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/
Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers.
And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/02/gates_ozzie_other_microsoft_execs_patent_personal_data_mining.html
It is only bad business if the media calls them out on it, which hasn't really happened. That is why Microsoft spends a small fortune on astroturfing, shifting the focus on Google for privacy concerns.
Except Microsoft does mine your email context to serve up contextual ads.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsofts-new-outlook-mail-welcome-hotmail-replacement-917473
They says theirs isn't as deep, so it respects your privacy more, but what it really means is that they're not as good at serving up contextual ads, but they're still scanning your email.
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013
Microsoft is extremely hypocritical in their claims of privacy protection, and their attacks on Google.
Making a ridiculous statement that anyone knows is patently false is the reason I'm calling bullshit.
Again, anyone with any smart phone can test this theory that logging into Gmail on your computer and mobile device at the same time does not lock your account.
I'm pretty sure hundreds of millions of users are logged into Gmail on a web interface while also using their Android phones, and they don't have all their email accounts locked.
I smell a bullshit astroturfer.
The issue is that Microsoft's privacy track record is worse.
When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.
Microsoft has ad campaigns suggesting Google employees are actively reading your email, even though they know that is an outright lie, the very definition of FUD.
Even worse, Microsoft is a hypocrite because they scan your email to serve up contextual ads as well.
Microsoft also has a patent on selling your private data to the highest bidder.
Google isn't giving your private data to anyone. They just serve you ads. Microsoft outright sells your data to people without your knowledge. And when they know they can't compete with Google on price, their only response is FUD.
http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/
1. Sweden extraditing Assange would be extremely difficult because they'd have to sign off on it, and so would the UK. Neither have suggested they would.
2. Manning was in solitary, not tortured.
3. The UCMJ places more restrictions on you. Members of the military are basically held to a higher standard and have FEWER rights than others. For example, you can face a court martial and a separate criminal trial and double-jeopardy does not apply. This was explained to me that I was effectively waiving some of my rights when I joined the Marine Corps. Bradley Manning voluntarily made that choice.
4. You're suggesting that the UK and Sweden have both been duped and Ecuador has proof of this. But said proof hasn't been revealed publicly. If Assange had any proof he was framed, why wouldn't he reveal it?
5. Agiza was an Egyptian wanted in Egypt that Sweden handed back to Egypt. Sweden had negotiated promises from Egypt that he would not be tortured, and Egypt lied. Sweden had also labeled Agiza a terrorist, which it has not done to Assange. Sweden ruled that letting Agiza in the country was a security risk because they labeled him a terrorist, and thusly deported him to his home country, while at the same time demanding that Egypt not torture him. Sweden had zero qualms letting Assange in the country. Saying this situation is the same is nothing short of ridiculous. They are completely different.
6. This is by far the most important point. Conspiracy theorists assume that anyone who speaks negatively of the US government is rounded up and punished for it, but all evidence speaks to the contrary. Plenty of Americans speak out negatively about the government every single day with nothing happening to them.
Again, there is zero documented evidence that he was framed. There is zero documented evidence that Sweden would be able to or willing to extradite to the US for someone they haven't gone after themselves.
If Assange faced rape charges in Sweden, how would that lead to extradition to the US?
Again, Assange hasn't been charged with anything in the US and there is no extradition request. Nor does Sweden have a record that would indicate they would extradite him.
You're saying there is some conspiracy that the CIA framed him for something fairly trivial in Sweden (rather than just apprehend him) to get him extradited, when the whole thing is a long shot. You're talking about odds, and those are some long odds.
If Assange truly supported his supposed ideals of transparency and accountability, wouldn't he be willing to stand trial and defend his name?
The initial intent of the subreddit was to find anyone who was seen at the scene with a backpack and pass all of those photos on to the FBI. That intent was noble, and the work could have been useful.
Then someone out of the blue called two people suspects with no evidence (other than the color of their skin) and people accepted it without asking for any reason why they were suspects. That was the clear failure.
The mods of the subreddit failed to direct people back to the original purpose of just finding everyone with a backpack.
The term rape is probably not applicable, but that's the problem with redefining terms.
However, the principle that he is calling for total transparency and accountability of others, while acting like a hypocrite still applies.
His accuser hates Castro? That must mean she works for the CIA!
Everyone who opposes Castro definitively works for the CIA! She worked with a group, who is connected to one member who hates Castro, and thusly was backed by the CIA! It's all proof!
Obama had fundraiser meetings with Bill Ayer, which clearly proves that Obama is secretly working for a terrorist organization!
Drawing a lose connection between two lines to support confirmation bias is the tool of a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't represent reality.
But Assange insists the only reason he can't defend himself against the rape accusation is that Sweden would immediately send him off to the US. There are three problems with that statement.
1. The US hasn't charged him with a crime or filed an extradition request for him.
2. Before the rape accusation, he felt Sweden was a safe location. Now magically it isn't.
3. Sweden doesn't have a history of extraditing people to the US.