The music industry insisted that computers are only for piracy and that no one would ever pay for music online.
iTunes is now the single largest retailer of music.
Now Hollywood and TV studios are being dragged into this, and most are slow to catch on to the fact that if you provide a good service for a good price, people will pay for it.
Why watch a low-quality pirated copy of a movie on a streaming site if I can subscribe to Netflix on the cheap?
No, Chrome fully renders ads, even with adblock. Malicious code in the ads still runs. It just hides the ad from you.
That is why I said a:
"Give me a Chrome with a proper ad block (that stops the ad from loading, not just hiding it)"
I do bounce back and forth between Chrome and Firefox most days on my Windows box, but hidden ads in Chrome have trigged my anti-virus a few times. And that is with my running a HOSTS file which blocks most ads to begin with.
ReactOS is designed to run Windows code. Windows malware should run just fine on it. How is that secure? Likewise, people have proven you can run Windows malware on Wine. Which is why you should avoid running IE in Wine unless you absolutely need to.
Linux/BSD/openSolaris is the solution and I highly recommend it. openSUSE is my distro of choice. I keep Windows on my gaming rig largely for gaming.
The sandboxed IE is anything but secure, especially since plugins aren't sandboxed.
All those Flash ads that IE isn't sandboxing can install software in the background without telling you.
Friends never let friends use IE.
If you want to be secure browsing the web in Windows I recommend a HOSTS file, Spybot Search and Destroy (immunization feature), Firefox + Adblock Plus, and Microsoft Security Essentials.
Most days, I love me some Chrome. But a proper ad blocking solution is an absolute must on Windows.
Google makes money off advertising. I get that. But many ads on the internet pose legitimate security risks.
Give me a Chrome with a proper ad block (that stops the ad from loading, not just hiding it) and I'll use Chrome every day. I'd even subscribe to a filter that blocks other ads, and allows Google ads through.
I've heard that on average, a person is captured on camera 1,000 times in a given day in London. That number seems a little high, when when I was there, I did notice camers EVERYWHERE.
These were Apple laptops, right? I know Apple offers MobileMe tracking on lost/stolen iPads and iPhones. Why not work with Apple on a solution for laptops as well?
The second someone first uttered the phrase "turning on a webcam on a child's laptop without their knowledge" anyone with a shred of common sense should have said no.
Didn't the principal suspend a kid for supposedly taking "drugs" at home, that turned out to be Mike N' Ikes?
The principal was at the very least aware of images taken of students in their homes and had no problems with them at the time the suspension was issued.
I don't claim to know the facts of the matter, but it sure looks like lies compounding on lies. I really hope the people in charge get nailed for this. If I was a parent with a student at that school, I'd be filing a lawsuit.
Who are you going to use for a search engine? Largely your options fall to those three, or two these days given that Microsoft provides Yahoo's search.
So your options are Microsoft or Google.
My original point is that I trust Google more than Microsoft because Microsoft has already proven they will hand my data over, where as Google has not.
You're worried Google *might*, except Microsoft already does.
At some point this might sink in. However, I'm not sure it ever will.
As for the quote, I've addressed it about five times in this thread. That is his personal opinion. However, I'd rather judge a company based on facts. I look at the track record of the official policies of Google. What have they done in the history of their company?
They fought the US government and refused to hand over data. They fought China. They fought Brazil. They anonymize their logs sooner, of their own volition, as opposed to Microsoft now being forced to do so in the EU. They added fine-grained privacy controls to Chrome.
Name one action Google has taken as a company that demonstrates I should trust them less than the available alternatives for major search engines.
The $450 Asus model I referenced has a higher resolution, is very light, and claims almost the exact same battery life.
The iPhone/iPad UI isn't perfect for every task either.
The Asus convertible allows you to use multi-touch when you want to, or keyboard/mouse when you want to. So the interface is better as well.
You insist the iPad doesn't have less functionality than a netbook, except the netbook I'm talking about has all the functionality of the iPad (save for GPS - compass is a subset of the GPS), with tons of additional functionality.
Three of my coworkers have an iPad. They've brought them into work to show off, but all say they have no intention of carrying it around. So the GPS is useless. It is a device to use largely on your couch. The only advantage the device has is worthless.
They show a chart that lists declines in Netbook YoY growth from July of 2009, and cite the iPad as being the reason why. The iPad wasn't even ANNOUNCED until January of 2010.
The chart doesn't list netbook sales, but rather the rate of growth over the last year. You'll note that netbook sales still have positive growth.
So despite the fact there was this sudden MASSIVE surge to buy netbooks in the past two years, netbook sales continue to grow. But the growth rate of that surge did not continue upward. And even though the decline started six months before anyone had heard of an iPad, clearly this is all about the iPad.
Bull-fucking-shit. But nice try.
That being said, I'd buy an iPad at $200. For $300 or more, I expect more PC-like functioanlity and would prefer a netbook. In fact, Asus makes a nice convertible netbook/tablet that is cheaper than the iPad, has 10 times the storage, a faster processer, a webcam, I can install whatever software I want, it runs Flash, has more RAM, has a full keyboard built-in when I want it, etc. etc. etc.
If I can get that at $450, why would I want to spend so much more for far less functionality?
CNN was probably the best network when it came to journalism and integrity initially, and then Fox News and MSNBC trashed CNN in the ratings. Now they'll do anything to catch up.
Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world. Since when did journalism and integrity sell?
CNN has a sister station called CNNi which focuses on international news stories. Sadly, most of the American public is more concerned about Tiger Woods nailing a Perkins waitress than whether or not genocide is occuring in Kenya.
My concern is that CNN used to be the one network I trusted. They showed both sides. They seperated headline/news shows from opinion shows. I saw a story during the 1996 Olympics where CNN (owned by Ted Turner) ratted out their boss for rounding up homeless and forcibly removing them from Atlana. They earned serious credibility with me that day.
However, CNN fell to third in ratings behind MSNBC and Fox News, proving that the American public prefer to be spoon-fed biased opinion shows that they know they'll agree with. Since then, CNN has been desperate for ratings and has become a shadow of their former selves.
CBS, like ABC and NBC, tend to have a Liberal slant (just like most talk radio, and Fox News have a Conservative slant). I wonder if partnering with CBS will further the degredation of the network CNN once was.
There were follow-up articles as well that mention Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo did hand over data. Bush ended up asking for search data cross-referenced with IP addresses.
Microsoft isn't harmless because they track information from just as many sources with Hotmail, Bing, MSN, Live services, etc.
Not to mention that Microsoft owns 10% of Facebook who change policies as often as they can to make it extremely difficult to keep up with privacy options. Facebook's latest move was to start sharing your details with other websites without asking you.
Again, as a 10% owner, Microsoft may have been in on that move. I don't use Bing or Live Services, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Microsoft and Facebook sharing user information across their myriad of sites and services.
Again, you insist you're safer with a company that owns a patent on selling your information, and one that has a history of handing information over.
Which is worse, a company that has no history of doing that, but could, or the company you know will in fact do that?
No, Google asked the NSA to better secure Gmail because Chinese hackers compromised Gmail. They didn't hand over email to anyone.
Compare that to Microsoft and Yahoo just handing data over.
You're paranoid that Google could hand over data, and you miss the fact that every other competitor already has handed data over.
Did Google tell George W. Bush to screw himself when he asked for search data? Oh, yeah, they did. They are required to abide by laws (like the Patriot Act) but when they had multiple court orders from Brazil, they fought as long as they could so they wouldn't have to hand over information. Just like they fought against China to protect their users.
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo just handed over your data.
Which company should you trust to do searches on?
Go ahead and trust the others. It demonstrates an amazing command of logic on your part.
Google was the first to make this move of their own accord. If the EU forces Bing to anonymize data for EU users, that does nothing for users outside the EU.
It was kind of a big deal, but since many Slashdot editors only post stories insisting that Google is evil, it was somewhat overlooked on Slashdot.
That's not a privacy issue.
If you're looking to see which company protects its users, only Google has a positive track record here. However, if you only want to focus on privacy specifically, then Google has refused to hand over user data to China, where as Yahoo has. Again, Google is leading the pack on protecting users.
Until they use it it's not an issue
What? You're not concerned that Microsoft pursued the patent in the first place?
When Mozilla suggested users would be better off using Bing, they did so in the overwhelming face of evidence to the contrary.
I've seen the statement quoted over and over and over again.
That doesn't change the fact that AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft just handed search data over to the US government. Yahoo handed over data on a Chinese journalist to the government. Microsoft has a patent to sell your information.
Google meanwhile anonymizes logs and has a record of fighting government agencies to protect privacy.
Again, ignore actual factual evidence all day long. Instead, trust companies who have a known record of handing your data over. That clearly is the way to go.
It bothers me when I hear people in Congress oppose this, saying it endorses pornography and will create more of it. We need to keep the web "safe" for our children.
They fail to realize that putting porn behind a TLD makes it easier to filter it out so children can't find it.
While they want to index all information in the world, they aren't handing your information out to others, which is why they anonymize your search data even sooner now.
The other search companies are in fact handing over your data to others.
Google has fought multiple governments to protect privacy. No other search company can say the same thing.
Except people leaving Google over privacy concerns are idiots.
Everyone is focusing on an opinion statement from one individual as opposed to actual track records of the companies.
Which company decided to anonymize their logs sooner to protect users? Oh, that would be Google. Which company has fought court orders to protect privacy? Oh, that would be Google. What company fought China? Oh, what would be Google. What company said they wouldn't have over user IPs linked to search results to George W. Bush? Oh, what would be Google?
Which company handed over your personal data without a warrant? Oh, that would be Microsoft. Which company never objected to censoring results in China? Oh, that would be Microsoft. Which company just secured a new patent to sell your personal data to the highest bidder? Oh, that would be Microsoft.
Encouraging people to move over to Bing to protect your privacy flies in the fact of every fact we know.
Except Microsoft does have a global network of connected search, advertising and analytics. And again, they just secured a patent to sell your personal information (including calendar dates, photos, etc.) to the highest bidder. Read that sentence a few more times until it sinks in.
Microsoft handed over your search data without a warrant to the US government. Google did not.
And since Microsoft now provides Yahoo's search as well, they've got 28% of the market between Bing and Yahoo. Yes, Google is king of the hill at 65%, but this isn't David vs Goliah here.
In fact, Google's share of the search market is declining while Bing's share is rising.
Your analogy fails. Both a tiger and a shark want to steal your steak.
Microsoft has a patent to sell your information to the highest bidder, and has already shown a willingness to just fork your private data over.
Google has a history of fighting to protect your private data. An automated process serves up ads to you that have a contextual relationship to your private data, but that data is not being handed out. Nor is anyone just sitting around reading it.
There is a world of difference between the two approaches.
Your second statement is even more flawed. You suggest you can trust Microsoft more, because Google is inherently more likely to screw you over to preserve their business model.
Again, history demonstrates that Microsoft doesn't mind screwing users, where as Google is all about providing free services to users and then protecting them.
It is because Google's revenue comes from advertising that they can't afford to screw their users over. If they lose their users, they lose their business model. It is in Google's best intereest to keep their users happy.
Microsoft can piss off most individual end users (like they have with Hotmail fiascos, Vista, etc) and it doesn't matter. Microsoft lives and dies with big contracts in the enterprise world. They can care less what the individual consumer thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the link!
Outstanding. Last I had read, it wasn't possible for a Chrome extension to accomplish this without changing Chrome's core code.
I don't know if they have worked around this, or if something has changed.
I think Hulu will eventually move to a model like this.
It amazes me that it was someone at NBC who was willing to do something like Hulu before anyone else.
The music industry insisted that computers are only for piracy and that no one would ever pay for music online.
iTunes is now the single largest retailer of music.
Now Hollywood and TV studios are being dragged into this, and most are slow to catch on to the fact that if you provide a good service for a good price, people will pay for it.
Why watch a low-quality pirated copy of a movie on a streaming site if I can subscribe to Netflix on the cheap?
No, Chrome fully renders ads, even with adblock. Malicious code in the ads still runs. It just hides the ad from you.
That is why I said a:
"Give me a Chrome with a proper ad block (that stops the ad from loading, not just hiding it)"
I do bounce back and forth between Chrome and Firefox most days on my Windows box, but hidden ads in Chrome have trigged my anti-virus a few times. And that is with my running a HOSTS file which blocks most ads to begin with.
ReactOS is designed to run Windows code. Windows malware should run just fine on it. How is that secure? Likewise, people have proven you can run Windows malware on Wine. Which is why you should avoid running IE in Wine unless you absolutely need to.
Linux/BSD/openSolaris is the solution and I highly recommend it. openSUSE is my distro of choice. I keep Windows on my gaming rig largely for gaming.
The sandboxed IE is anything but secure, especially since plugins aren't sandboxed.
All those Flash ads that IE isn't sandboxing can install software in the background without telling you.
Friends never let friends use IE.
If you want to be secure browsing the web in Windows I recommend a HOSTS file, Spybot Search and Destroy (immunization feature), Firefox + Adblock Plus, and Microsoft Security Essentials.
Combined you're pretty safe.
Most days, I love me some Chrome. But a proper ad blocking solution is an absolute must on Windows.
Google makes money off advertising. I get that. But many ads on the internet pose legitimate security risks.
Give me a Chrome with a proper ad block (that stops the ad from loading, not just hiding it) and I'll use Chrome every day. I'd even subscribe to a filter that blocks other ads, and allows Google ads through.
Canonical can focus on keeping the FSF happy, or they can focus on trying to someday turn a profit and brining sustainability to their company.
Why do they need to justify this decision? It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I make a comment that I trust Google more than Microsoft.
You take affront.
You then repeat later that you're not sure how Microsoft is relevant.
Look back to the first sentence of this post.
Repeat until you get it.
You are willfully ignorant. You're going on my block list.
I've heard that on average, a person is captured on camera 1,000 times in a given day in London. That number seems a little high, when when I was there, I did notice camers EVERYWHERE.
Not to mention this was always a bad idea.
These were Apple laptops, right? I know Apple offers MobileMe tracking on lost/stolen iPads and iPhones. Why not work with Apple on a solution for laptops as well?
The second someone first uttered the phrase "turning on a webcam on a child's laptop without their knowledge" anyone with a shred of common sense should have said no.
Didn't the principal suspend a kid for supposedly taking "drugs" at home, that turned out to be Mike N' Ikes?
The principal was at the very least aware of images taken of students in their homes and had no problems with them at the time the suspension was issued.
I don't claim to know the facts of the matter, but it sure looks like lies compounding on lies. I really hope the people in charge get nailed for this. If I was a parent with a student at that school, I'd be filing a lawsuit.
Who are you going to use for a search engine? Largely your options fall to those three, or two these days given that Microsoft provides Yahoo's search.
So your options are Microsoft or Google.
My original point is that I trust Google more than Microsoft because Microsoft has already proven they will hand my data over, where as Google has not.
You're worried Google *might*, except Microsoft already does.
At some point this might sink in. However, I'm not sure it ever will.
As for the quote, I've addressed it about five times in this thread. That is his personal opinion. However, I'd rather judge a company based on facts. I look at the track record of the official policies of Google. What have they done in the history of their company?
They fought the US government and refused to hand over data. They fought China. They fought Brazil. They anonymize their logs sooner, of their own volition, as opposed to Microsoft now being forced to do so in the EU. They added fine-grained privacy controls to Chrome.
Name one action Google has taken as a company that demonstrates I should trust them less than the available alternatives for major search engines.
The $450 Asus model I referenced has a higher resolution, is very light, and claims almost the exact same battery life.
The iPhone/iPad UI isn't perfect for every task either.
The Asus convertible allows you to use multi-touch when you want to, or keyboard/mouse when you want to. So the interface is better as well.
You insist the iPad doesn't have less functionality than a netbook, except the netbook I'm talking about has all the functionality of the iPad (save for GPS - compass is a subset of the GPS), with tons of additional functionality.
Three of my coworkers have an iPad. They've brought them into work to show off, but all say they have no intention of carrying it around. So the GPS is useless. It is a device to use largely on your couch. The only advantage the device has is worthless.
They show a chart that lists declines in Netbook YoY growth from July of 2009, and cite the iPad as being the reason why. The iPad wasn't even ANNOUNCED until January of 2010.
The chart doesn't list netbook sales, but rather the rate of growth over the last year. You'll note that netbook sales still have positive growth.
So despite the fact there was this sudden MASSIVE surge to buy netbooks in the past two years, netbook sales continue to grow. But the growth rate of that surge did not continue upward. And even though the decline started six months before anyone had heard of an iPad, clearly this is all about the iPad.
Bull-fucking-shit. But nice try.
That being said, I'd buy an iPad at $200. For $300 or more, I expect more PC-like functioanlity and would prefer a netbook. In fact, Asus makes a nice convertible netbook/tablet that is cheaper than the iPad, has 10 times the storage, a faster processer, a webcam, I can install whatever software I want, it runs Flash, has more RAM, has a full keyboard built-in when I want it, etc. etc. etc.
If I can get that at $450, why would I want to spend so much more for far less functionality?
Oh, the i-before the name!
CNN was probably the best network when it came to journalism and integrity initially, and then Fox News and MSNBC trashed CNN in the ratings. Now they'll do anything to catch up.
Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world. Since when did journalism and integrity sell?
CNN has a sister station called CNNi which focuses on international news stories. Sadly, most of the American public is more concerned about Tiger Woods nailing a Perkins waitress than whether or not genocide is occuring in Kenya.
My concern is that CNN used to be the one network I trusted. They showed both sides. They seperated headline/news shows from opinion shows. I saw a story during the 1996 Olympics where CNN (owned by Ted Turner) ratted out their boss for rounding up homeless and forcibly removing them from Atlana. They earned serious credibility with me that day.
However, CNN fell to third in ratings behind MSNBC and Fox News, proving that the American public prefer to be spoon-fed biased opinion shows that they know they'll agree with. Since then, CNN has been desperate for ratings and has become a shadow of their former selves.
CBS, like ABC and NBC, tend to have a Liberal slant (just like most talk radio, and Fox News have a Conservative slant). I wonder if partnering with CBS will further the degredation of the network CNN once was.
There were follow-up articles as well that mention Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo did hand over data. Bush ended up asking for search data cross-referenced with IP addresses.
Microsoft isn't harmless because they track information from just as many sources with Hotmail, Bing, MSN, Live services, etc.
Not to mention that Microsoft owns 10% of Facebook who change policies as often as they can to make it extremely difficult to keep up with privacy options. Facebook's latest move was to start sharing your details with other websites without asking you.
Again, as a 10% owner, Microsoft may have been in on that move. I don't use Bing or Live Services, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Microsoft and Facebook sharing user information across their myriad of sites and services.
Again, you insist you're safer with a company that owns a patent on selling your information, and one that has a history of handing information over.
Which is worse, a company that has no history of doing that, but could, or the company you know will in fact do that?
This is a no brainer.
No, Google asked the NSA to better secure Gmail because Chinese hackers compromised Gmail. They didn't hand over email to anyone.
Compare that to Microsoft and Yahoo just handing data over.
You're paranoid that Google could hand over data, and you miss the fact that every other competitor already has handed data over.
Did Google tell George W. Bush to screw himself when he asked for search data? Oh, yeah, they did. They are required to abide by laws (like the Patriot Act) but when they had multiple court orders from Brazil, they fought as long as they could so they wouldn't have to hand over information. Just like they fought against China to protect their users.
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo just handed over your data.
Which company should you trust to do searches on?
Go ahead and trust the others. It demonstrates an amazing command of logic on your part.
In addition to j_l_cgull's posting, also
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-content/bing-makes-moves-to-comply-with-eu-anonymization-directive-does-google-006505.php [cmswire.com]
Google was the first to make this move of their own accord. If the EU forces Bing to anonymize data for EU users, that does nothing for users outside the EU.
Please cite references.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/060119-060352
It was kind of a big deal, but since many Slashdot editors only post stories insisting that Google is evil, it was somewhat overlooked on Slashdot.
That's not a privacy issue.
If you're looking to see which company protects its users, only Google has a positive track record here. However, if you only want to focus on privacy specifically, then Google has refused to hand over user data to China, where as Yahoo has. Again, Google is leading the pack on protecting users.
Until they use it it's not an issue
What? You're not concerned that Microsoft pursued the patent in the first place?
When Mozilla suggested users would be better off using Bing, they did so in the overwhelming face of evidence to the contrary.
I've seen the statement quoted over and over and over again.
That doesn't change the fact that AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft just handed search data over to the US government. Yahoo handed over data on a Chinese journalist to the government. Microsoft has a patent to sell your information.
Google meanwhile anonymizes logs and has a record of fighting government agencies to protect privacy.
Again, ignore actual factual evidence all day long. Instead, trust companies who have a known record of handing your data over. That clearly is the way to go.
It bothers me when I hear people in Congress oppose this, saying it endorses pornography and will create more of it. We need to keep the web "safe" for our children.
They fail to realize that putting porn behind a TLD makes it easier to filter it out so children can't find it.
While they want to index all information in the world, they aren't handing your information out to others, which is why they anonymize your search data even sooner now.
The other search companies are in fact handing over your data to others.
Google has fought multiple governments to protect privacy. No other search company can say the same thing.
Except people leaving Google over privacy concerns are idiots.
Everyone is focusing on an opinion statement from one individual as opposed to actual track records of the companies.
Which company decided to anonymize their logs sooner to protect users? Oh, that would be Google. Which company has fought court orders to protect privacy? Oh, that would be Google. What company fought China? Oh, what would be Google. What company said they wouldn't have over user IPs linked to search results to George W. Bush? Oh, what would be Google?
Which company handed over your personal data without a warrant? Oh, that would be Microsoft. Which company never objected to censoring results in China? Oh, that would be Microsoft. Which company just secured a new patent to sell your personal data to the highest bidder? Oh, that would be Microsoft.
Encouraging people to move over to Bing to protect your privacy flies in the fact of every fact we know.
Except Microsoft does have a global network of connected search, advertising and analytics. And again, they just secured a patent to sell your personal information (including calendar dates, photos, etc.) to the highest bidder. Read that sentence a few more times until it sinks in.
Microsoft handed over your search data without a warrant to the US government. Google did not.
And since Microsoft now provides Yahoo's search as well, they've got 28% of the market between Bing and Yahoo. Yes, Google is king of the hill at 65%, but this isn't David vs Goliah here.
In fact, Google's share of the search market is declining while Bing's share is rising.
Your analogy fails. Both a tiger and a shark want to steal your steak.
Microsoft has a patent to sell your information to the highest bidder, and has already shown a willingness to just fork your private data over.
Google has a history of fighting to protect your private data. An automated process serves up ads to you that have a contextual relationship to your private data, but that data is not being handed out. Nor is anyone just sitting around reading it.
There is a world of difference between the two approaches.
Your second statement is even more flawed. You suggest you can trust Microsoft more, because Google is inherently more likely to screw you over to preserve their business model.
Again, history demonstrates that Microsoft doesn't mind screwing users, where as Google is all about providing free services to users and then protecting them.
It is because Google's revenue comes from advertising that they can't afford to screw their users over. If they lose their users, they lose their business model. It is in Google's best intereest to keep their users happy.
Microsoft can piss off most individual end users (like they have with Hotmail fiascos, Vista, etc) and it doesn't matter. Microsoft lives and dies with big contracts in the enterprise world. They can care less what the individual consumer thinks.