How did you come up with that figure? My Samsung Laser Printer costs a fraction of what inkjet used to cost me. Toner doesn't dry really quickly like ink cartridges do, and I rarely ever buy new cartridges. In-fact, I've had this printer for 2 years and have spent $180 on it (still on the starter cartridge and the printer itself was cheap). I spent $300+ in 2 years when I owned a Canon inkjet, most of which was on cartridges.
You do realize that most Laser printers don't come with a full toner cartridge when bought brand-new, don't you? For instance, my Samsung ML-1710 only came with a cartridge capable of 1500 sheets, and a brand new cartridge can do 3500 sheets. You're wasting money I would think. Unless this has changed.
I use PPC printer drivers on my Intel Mac for a Samsung Laser Printer (unofficial port of the Linux drivers because Samsung sucks), and my mom does the same on her iMac with a Lexmark printer, and it works fine. Printer drivers in OS X run in userspace as far as I know, and should run through Rosetta, which they do for me. My Canon scanner also only has PPC drivers and PPC scanning software, and I use it regularily on my Intel Mac.
Google Desktop has to create an index in its own format of all of the files on your hard drive so it can search quickly. If you have 2.5 TB of storage, I'm assuming you have a lot of files that need to be indexed by Google Desktop, hence the large index..... it's kind of common sense really. But, for people that don't understand this, they do have a page mentioning this in their help center actually... They mention right in that web page that it could take up to 4 GB, twice the amount you're currently complaining about....
The group rated AOL 9.0 as "badware" because it doesn't fully uninstall when you tell it to and because all of the actions the software takes aren't disclosed to the user. Google fully discloses what their software does to the user, and I've never had a problem uninstalling Google Toolbar.
At Digg there are. I'm not sure which they have done more damage to, the comments section or the articles themselves. Some of the articles are just downright dumb, the titles often have more punctuation than letters, the comments consist of "Dupe!!!!", "LOL!!!!" and "OMG!!!!" more than anything insightful, etc etc. I finally gave up on the site after a week yet I've been reading Slashdot for 2 years now. I think Digg and Myspace should merge into a single website, and then MyDigg should just be deleted from the internet personally:-P
As for the traffic thing, it could be because Digg has more stories in a day, and thus gets more page hits than Slashdot. Looking at my Bloglines account, Digg has 6367 subscribers that use Bloglines to monitor RSS feeds, vs. 79,354 for Slashdot.
As I posted above, according to Alexa, Digg has surpassed Slashdot in the number of unique visitors per day. I would like to know why....Digg is a steaming pile of S***. Bunch of 13 year olds come and ruin it.
Because the whole point of an instant messaging program is to....ummm...talk to people perhaps? This has an unbelievable potential for abuse. One false, but widely reported accusation based on this feature has the potential to destroy someone's life.
Yes, because having the ability to not only turn over all of your communications with a person (which I believe you have the right to do), but also having the ability to turn over that user's private search data, without a subpoena, to the police is a real intelligent idea. Yessir, this has no potential for abuse by both Police posing as normal people that don't want to bother getting a subpoena or by people wanting to create problems for other people whatsoever. I've got an even better idea! MSN should pull a mass AOL, and post all of their stored search queries online that they have for everyone to browse through..... And yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Are you a fucking retard? Re-read his damn comment for fuck's sakes. He specifically stated that he was talking about the US subpoena you illiterate god damn moron.
I can. You need to learn to read and comprehend the English language better:-) He was talking about the US Government subpoena, which was about children accessing internet porn, not child pornography.
I of course understand that there are limits to what is enforceable or defendable in a EULA or TOS. I was talking in general terms. As another poster pointed out, you cannot waive your right to live, and an agreement can't force you to rob the local liquor store. For all I know, AOL, Google, Yahoo et al collecting our search data could be illegal. My point was, was that it states in their TOS that they are collecting this information, and I haven't seen any case law that would overall that clause in their TOS. Although, that may very well happen now, or a new law put into place after this AOL fiasco. We can only hope...
Just to make clear. I am completely against Google et al storing search data for the lengths of time that they do. There are useful reasons to collect and save some data for short periods of time (Google's "Did you mean...." spelling correction works based on past search queries), but Google's perpetual storage of data is ridiculous and dangerous, IMHO.
Whoops, lol. My bad. Looks like we're on the same side afterall. Oh well, at least I was nice enough to provide some case law to back up your position!!!:-P:-)
Well, I implied that you agree to their terms within reason. Obviously, you can't waive your right to live. However, AOL's TOS never require you to break the law, so I fail to see your point. And by using AOL's search engine, you have to agree to their terms, and their privacy policy specifically states (right at the top...actually, about a paragraph or so in, not paragraph 300 and some like original poster said) that they have the right to collect the data and use it for certain reasons.
I'm not saying that their data release was OK. In-fact, I think it violates their own TOS. However, they clearly have the right to collect search data.
Re:Find that in the Constitution, bright boy.
on
AOL CTO Shown the Door
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I went ahead and looked at some case law myself, and none of it supports your position.
"That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States."
In other words, the 4th Amendment does NOT apply to any entity other than the Government and does not protect a person's general right to privacy.
The ruling goes on to say:
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."
Re:Find that in the Constitution, bright boy.
on
AOL CTO Shown the Door
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I fail to see how that supports your position. There is a difference between expecting documents sitting in your filing cabinet or on your hard drive to remain personal (which is supported by the 4th amendment), and information that you knowingly and intentionally turn over to a third party, while agreeing to their TOS that specifically state that they are retaining these records, and specifically require you to waive your right for privacy. If I take my medical history and tape it to the side of my mailbox or the windshield of my car, is that information still confidential? In the eyes of the law, it is not. If you post your medical history on the internet for all eyes to see, is it still confidential? Nope. If you mail me a personal document, is there some law that says I have to burn it and not store it in my filing cabinet? Nope. As soon as you release information to a third party, unless you have a confidentiality agreement with them, or unless they are your doctor or lawyer, you've waived your right to privacy, plain and simple. I find it funny that you wave the 4th amendment around, yet you can't provide any case law supporting your position, and a strict literal reading of the amendment itself does not support your position. Go ahead and try again though!
The CTO never authorized the release.... As far as I can tell, she was not even aware of the release until after it happened. It's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.
That would be a matter of law decided by a Judge to my knowledge, and yes, to use a company's service, you agree to their terms, otherwise, you simply don't use the service. It really is that simple.
Exactly. There are numerous reasons holding onto search results is useful. However, I do disagree with Google retaining search records forever. However, it's their service that I am using for free, so I really can't complain. I do hope though, that in the future they change that policy. I somehow doubt they will though.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could ummm....buy a cheaper laser printer. I got mine 2 years ago and only paid $200, brand new.
How did you come up with that figure? My Samsung Laser Printer costs a fraction of what inkjet used to cost me. Toner doesn't dry really quickly like ink cartridges do, and I rarely ever buy new cartridges. In-fact, I've had this printer for 2 years and have spent $180 on it (still on the starter cartridge and the printer itself was cheap). I spent $300+ in 2 years when I owned a Canon inkjet, most of which was on cartridges.
You do realize that most Laser printers don't come with a full toner cartridge when bought brand-new, don't you? For instance, my Samsung ML-1710 only came with a cartridge capable of 1500 sheets, and a brand new cartridge can do 3500 sheets. You're wasting money I would think. Unless this has changed.
I use PPC printer drivers on my Intel Mac for a Samsung Laser Printer (unofficial port of the Linux drivers because Samsung sucks), and my mom does the same on her iMac with a Lexmark printer, and it works fine. Printer drivers in OS X run in userspace as far as I know, and should run through Rosetta, which they do for me. My Canon scanner also only has PPC drivers and PPC scanning software, and I use it regularily on my Intel Mac.
Google Desktop has to create an index in its own format of all of the files on your hard drive so it can search quickly. If you have 2.5 TB of storage, I'm assuming you have a lot of files that need to be indexed by Google Desktop, hence the large index..... it's kind of common sense really. But, for people that don't understand this, they do have a page mentioning this in their help center actually... They mention right in that web page that it could take up to 4 GB, twice the amount you're currently complaining about....
The group rated AOL 9.0 as "badware" because it doesn't fully uninstall when you tell it to and because all of the actions the software takes aren't disclosed to the user. Google fully discloses what their software does to the user, and I've never had a problem uninstalling Google Toolbar.
At Digg there are. I'm not sure which they have done more damage to, the comments section or the articles themselves. Some of the articles are just downright dumb, the titles often have more punctuation than letters, the comments consist of "Dupe!!!!", "LOL!!!!" and "OMG!!!!" more than anything insightful, etc etc. I finally gave up on the site after a week yet I've been reading Slashdot for 2 years now. I think Digg and Myspace should merge into a single website, and then MyDigg should just be deleted from the internet personally :-P
As for the traffic thing, it could be because Digg has more stories in a day, and thus gets more page hits than Slashdot. Looking at my Bloglines account, Digg has 6367 subscribers that use Bloglines to monitor RSS feeds, vs. 79,354 for Slashdot.
This tool can help out advertisers. Your tool wouldn't be able to. Thus, this is a better use of Google's time.
As I posted above, according to Alexa, Digg has surpassed Slashdot in the number of unique visitors per day. I would like to know why....Digg is a steaming pile of S***. Bunch of 13 year olds come and ruin it.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? compare_sites=digg.com&range=6m&size=medium&y=r&ur l=slashdot.org
Or this one.
Because the whole point of an instant messaging program is to....ummm...talk to people perhaps? This has an unbelievable potential for abuse. One false, but widely reported accusation based on this feature has the potential to destroy someone's life.
Yes, because having the ability to not only turn over all of your communications with a person (which I believe you have the right to do), but also having the ability to turn over that user's private search data, without a subpoena, to the police is a real intelligent idea. Yessir, this has no potential for abuse by both Police posing as normal people that don't want to bother getting a subpoena or by people wanting to create problems for other people whatsoever. I've got an even better idea! MSN should pull a mass AOL, and post all of their stored search queries online that they have for everyone to browse through..... And yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Are you a fucking retard? Re-read his damn comment for fuck's sakes. He specifically stated that he was talking about the US subpoena you illiterate god damn moron.
"Ok, can you elaborate on that?"
:-) He was talking about the US Government subpoena, which was about children accessing internet porn, not child pornography.
I can. You need to learn to read and comprehend the English language better
I of course understand that there are limits to what is enforceable or defendable in a EULA or TOS. I was talking in general terms. As another poster pointed out, you cannot waive your right to live, and an agreement can't force you to rob the local liquor store. For all I know, AOL, Google, Yahoo et al collecting our search data could be illegal. My point was, was that it states in their TOS that they are collecting this information, and I haven't seen any case law that would overall that clause in their TOS. Although, that may very well happen now, or a new law put into place after this AOL fiasco. We can only hope...
Just to make clear. I am completely against Google et al storing search data for the lengths of time that they do. There are useful reasons to collect and save some data for short periods of time (Google's "Did you mean...." spelling correction works based on past search queries), but Google's perpetual storage of data is ridiculous and dangerous, IMHO.
Whoops, lol. My bad. Looks like we're on the same side afterall. Oh well, at least I was nice enough to provide some case law to back up your position!!! :-P :-)
Well, I implied that you agree to their terms within reason. Obviously, you can't waive your right to live. However, AOL's TOS never require you to break the law, so I fail to see your point. And by using AOL's search engine, you have to agree to their terms, and their privacy policy specifically states (right at the top...actually, about a paragraph or so in, not paragraph 300 and some like original poster said) that they have the right to collect the data and use it for certain reasons.
I'm not saying that their data release was OK. In-fact, I think it violates their own TOS. However, they clearly have the right to collect search data.
I went ahead and looked at some case law myself, and none of it supports your position.
n avby=case&court=us&vol=389&page=353
According to The Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
"That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States."
In other words, the 4th Amendment does NOT apply to any entity other than the Government and does not protect a person's general right to privacy.
The ruling goes on to say:
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."
You mean this 4th amendment? The one that says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I fail to see how that supports your position. There is a difference between expecting documents sitting in your filing cabinet or on your hard drive to remain personal (which is supported by the 4th amendment), and information that you knowingly and intentionally turn over to a third party, while agreeing to their TOS that specifically state that they are retaining these records, and specifically require you to waive your right for privacy. If I take my medical history and tape it to the side of my mailbox or the windshield of my car, is that information still confidential? In the eyes of the law, it is not. If you post your medical history on the internet for all eyes to see, is it still confidential? Nope. If you mail me a personal document, is there some law that says I have to burn it and not store it in my filing cabinet? Nope. As soon as you release information to a third party, unless you have a confidentiality agreement with them, or unless they are your doctor or lawyer, you've waived your right to privacy, plain and simple. I find it funny that you wave the 4th amendment around, yet you can't provide any case law supporting your position, and a strict literal reading of the amendment itself does not support your position. Go ahead and try again though!
The CTO never authorized the release.... As far as I can tell, she was not even aware of the release until after it happened. It's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.
That would be a matter of law decided by a Judge to my knowledge, and yes, to use a company's service, you agree to their terms, otherwise, you simply don't use the service. It really is that simple.
Exactly. There are numerous reasons holding onto search results is useful. However, I do disagree with Google retaining search records forever. However, it's their service that I am using for free, so I really can't complain. I do hope though, that in the future they change that policy. I somehow doubt they will though.
If I had mod points, I would mod your comment up!
Prove him wrong then....