Has it been forgotten that a few weeks ago a more advanced form of this 'sniffing' was shown NOT using javascript? http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/13/2125211/Sniffing-Browser-History-Without-Javascript So, y'all that thing 'Oh, No Script protects me' think again.. This exploit has been around for years and I'm pretty sure it's been used for quite some time as well. Maybe I'm just apathetic about people knowing what sites I visit but... Meh, let them know, what harm could it do? (Yea, I know, I don't visit child porn so what do I have to hide?):)
Hate to tell you, this/.'d sites methods are... Extremely overkill.. You can do the same thing without any Javascript at all.. So your little 'No Script' bubble has just been popped. http://www.making-the-web.com/misc/sites-you-visit/nojs/
if they feel pain? Cattle defiantly do, we still eat them.. As, I'm sure, a wide variety of other food stuffs feels pain as well..
Re:And Yet... You Only Have Yourself to Blame
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 0, Troll
And now we learn the truth of arivanov's mis-truths. He's a bitter ex-google applicant that is envious of those that work on the luxurious Google campus.
I pitty him, he doesn't know what he's missing out on.
I love responses saying I am wrong that prove my point anyway... Thanks for removing the further 'thought bumps' and making my argument even more clear.
"Participant agrees not to release any articles mentioning the name of Google." Yes, that is exactly what they are trying to say and what I was trying to clarify. don't release 'articles' mentioning 'Google'.. Where the two quoted words are defined within the same section of the NDA as 'articles' == Articles, Advertizing, Publicity and 'Google' == matters relating to this 'Agreement' (Agreement is defined in Introduction and section 2) and being about Google.
One thing you have to keep in mind when reading legal-ese is that first and foremost, yes, it is all open to interpretation. But, this particular agreement is clearly worded and in no uncertian terms SPELLS OUT exactly what it's refering to..
Taking half of a sentence out of it and saying 'OMGz we can't mention Google ever again if we sign this!!!!1!1!!oneone' is just pure stupidity. The fact that the OP takes this slanted view of the NDA doesn't bode well for his 'reading comprehension' skills.
And I see people here eating up the Hype over this fraction of a sentence taken out of context. The reason I ask whether this should have made news is because the entire foundation of the article ('you must sign an agreement that forbids you to 'mention or imply the name of Google' in public ever again.') is completely laughable.
Ok... let's deconstruct (reverse engineer?) the part of the NDA that most people seem to be getting their panties in a bunch over,
4. Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced
review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any
articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this
Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has
taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the
name of Google; (b) make copies of documents containing
Confidential Information; or (c) reverse engineer, disassemble,
decompile, translate, or attempt to discover any prototypes,
software, algorithms, or underlying ideas which embody Google's
Confidential Information. specifically Section 4a.
Now, you know the legal-ese buzzwords in this are rather minimal so I'm not sure why you people are having SUCH a hard time reading this.. but let me break it down for you...
(a) issue or release any
articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this
Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has
taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the
name of Google; First let's take out the parenthetical un-needed junk.
(a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this Agreement or mentioning or implying the name of Google; *points up* Is that any more clear without the 'thought bump' in the middle? Participant agrees not to 'issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this Agreement or mentioning or implying the name of Google'..... Meaning don't release news stories or make advertisements about something 'confidential' relating to Google of which you know nothing about. Ya know, like spreading rumors.
Open your eyes folks, not a THING unusual about this NDA except for the wording.. And that in itself isn't unusual, it is just that Google seems to getting a lot more attention than any company before them.
Side Note: Does this really deserve to be an article?
.... But Google's had their AJAX Libraries opensource and available to the public for a LONG time (http://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-ajaxslt/). So Yahoo just got religated back to second-class. Nothing more to see here, move along.
I for one, welcome my new google overlords.
Well, my question then is when did it stop? My girlfriend is a MySpace Addict.. More accruately she's addicted to covering her myspace 'page' with YouTube Music Videos (She has about 10 of them scattered over her page). She never noticed any problem, and I never heard the music from her computer stop any this last week. This all still tells me the story is bogus. Do we have any verification? I don't trust this 'The Independent' at all.
This story is totally bogus, just to see a friend of mine and I started accounts and corresponded about youtube, and several other video sharing sites. Also checked out the 'Independent' and it seems quite a number of their stories have the information all wrong. Can we get this story removed or corrected since I would hate to see Slashdot degrade to the quality of 'The Independent'?
Slashdot Mirror
Stupidest thing I've ever seen... Honestly they think this is advanced tech or anything even remotely impressive?
Has it been forgotten that a few weeks ago a more advanced form of this 'sniffing' was shown NOT using javascript? http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/13/2125211/Sniffing-Browser-History-Without-Javascript So, y'all that thing 'Oh, No Script protects me' think again.. This exploit has been around for years and I'm pretty sure it's been used for quite some time as well. Maybe I'm just apathetic about people knowing what sites I visit but... Meh, let them know, what harm could it do? (Yea, I know, I don't visit child porn so what do I have to hide?) :)
Hate to tell you, this /.'d sites methods are... Extremely overkill.. You can do the same thing without any Javascript at all.. So your little 'No Script' bubble has just been popped. http://www.making-the-web.com/misc/sites-you-visit/nojs/
The excuse I hide behind isn't that they don't feel it, but I just don't give a f**k if they feel anything or not. Food is food is food.
if they feel pain? Cattle defiantly do, we still eat them.. As, I'm sure, a wide variety of other food stuffs feels pain as well..
And now we learn the truth of arivanov's mis-truths. He's a bitter ex-google applicant that is envious of those that work on the luxurious Google campus.
I pitty him, he doesn't know what he's missing out on.
"Participant agrees not to release any articles mentioning the name of Google." Yes, that is exactly what they are trying to say and what I was trying to clarify. don't release 'articles' mentioning 'Google'.. Where the two quoted words are defined within the same section of the NDA as 'articles' == Articles, Advertizing, Publicity and 'Google' == matters relating to this 'Agreement' (Agreement is defined in Introduction and section 2) and being about Google.
One thing you have to keep in mind when reading legal-ese is that first and foremost, yes, it is all open to interpretation. But, this particular agreement is clearly worded and in no uncertian terms SPELLS OUT exactly what it's refering to..
Taking half of a sentence out of it and saying 'OMGz we can't mention Google ever again if we sign this!!!!1!1!!oneone' is just pure stupidity. The fact that the OP takes this slanted view of the NDA doesn't bode well for his 'reading comprehension' skills.
And I see people here eating up the Hype over this fraction of a sentence taken out of context. The reason I ask whether this should have made news is because the entire foundation of the article ('you must sign an agreement that forbids you to 'mention or imply the name of Google' in public ever again.') is completely laughable.
Actually, that is a genius idea and I think Google should be made aware of the suggestion.
.... But Google's had their AJAX Libraries opensource and available to the public for a LONG time (http://sourceforge.net/projects/goog-ajaxslt/). So Yahoo just got religated back to second-class. Nothing more to see here, move along. I for one, welcome my new google overlords.
Well, my question then is when did it stop? My girlfriend is a MySpace Addict.. More accruately she's addicted to covering her myspace 'page' with YouTube Music Videos (She has about 10 of them scattered over her page). She never noticed any problem, and I never heard the music from her computer stop any this last week. This all still tells me the story is bogus. Do we have any verification? I don't trust this 'The Independent' at all.
This story is totally bogus, just to see a friend of mine and I started accounts and corresponded about youtube, and several other video sharing sites. Also checked out the 'Independent' and it seems quite a number of their stories have the information all wrong. Can we get this story removed or corrected since I would hate to see Slashdot degrade to the quality of 'The Independent'?