While you might be able to store the entire contents of the Internet in a small space, you probably can't manage 6-10% of all of the Internet's traffic in a small space and still do so in millisecond response times.
In addition to handling 70% of every Internet search, Google also serves up a billion YouTube videos every day.
So, until Cuil or archive.org has as many people going to it, I'd venture a guess that size doesn't matter in this case... it's redundancy.
The existence of Internet monitoring equipment by itself is not enough to declare a country oppressive. No more than the existence of freedom to bear arms is enough to declare a country murderous. It's how you use such tools and the scale by which abuses are discovered that determine the morals of a government.
Could the riots in Iran ever happen in the U.S.? Sure. It's possible because we are all human. Could someone end up in the Presidency that the people are certain they didn't actually vote in? Sure. It has happened. Any systems that humans invent are going to be flawed. Putting aside the paranoia which might use these facts to paint the U.S. as being "no better than Iran" dismisses the fact that Iran's democracy is a fallacy, even moreso than the U.S.'s. In Iran, even if the vote by the people had gone the other way, the clerics have the power to completely override the vote. They only need to declare that the people clearly went against God's will.
So, given the difference... there should be a line where certain monitoring software should be allowed and where the same monitoring software should not be allowed. For instance, certain equipment may only be sold by companies to law enforcement and not to citizens. Clearly there are already lines drawn between who should have this equipment and who shouldn't have it. I cannot legally put a light-bar on my car which would appear to impersonate a police car. It's the law and it is a reasonable one. A person needs to pass their background check before being allowed to own a weapon, and this makes sense. A person also needs to pass a driving test before being allowed on the road in a motor vehicle. It makes sense. So, it also makes sense for the government to be OK with selling monitoring software to local police forces but not be OK with selling the same monitoring software to a country where there is proof their police forces are marching through the roads, indiscriminately smashing windshields of parked cars with batons without any mention by the government that these police officers will face justice for these actions. There are documented cases of people being beaten while laying on the ground surrounded by several officers in riot gear, yet you don't see the government at any level calling for the same kind of inquiry as we had with the Rodney King situation. The fact of the matter is, while bad things do happen in the U.S., at least there is some sort of sign that the government attempts to investigate wrong-doings, attempts to right wrongs, and attempts to change laws to adapt to the problems that are found. In Iran, the country is pretty much at the mercy of the clerics who have an all-encompassing override for anything that would be considered democratic.
Also, some argue that because the U.S. government doesn't go after China for the same reasons, that they should either leave Iran alone... or also go after China equally. This is rarely a valid argument when it comes to law. Take, for instance, the situation of speeding on a highway. When you get pulled over for speeding and you tell the officer "I was going the same speed as everyone else. Why did they get away with it? I shouldn't have to be punished for the rule that clearly everyone was breaking." Expect to get a ticket. If you go to court with that same argument, expect to keep the ticket. It simply isn't a valid argument. Being punished due to breaking a rule isn't about what everyone else is or isn't doing, it's about the rule you broke.
In any case, it's not like the government is imposing sanctions. They are simply saying that the U.S. government is choosing not to give money to one set of companies while being OK with giving money to other sets of companies. It's no different than when you decide Walmart is evil and stop shopping there. Nobody should force you to have to shop at a company you aren't happy with, so the government shouldn't be forced either. Sure, someone could point out j
So, you're saying that an addicted smoker telling others that they shouldn't start smoking and if they are already addicted to smoking, it would be better for their health to quit... will never be seen as sincere, unless they first quit smoking themselves. Hmmm...
It's the attempt to dictate to foreign companies what they may or may not sell.
I fail to see what "dictating" is happening with this. They aren't telling these companies who they may or may not sell to. They are only saying we aren't going to buy from you. That's it. Should the government have the freedom to pick and choose who they give money to, or do you suggest there should be some sort of dictating that needs to happen here?
While on some levels this is true, there is a plus side to all of this. While search engines are ultimately working to solve the "artificial intelligence" problem in terms of understanding what someone means when they type, spammers who write CAPTCHA solvers ultimately solve the problem of understanding text or objects as a person sees them.
All of these technologies further progress us towards a future of robots that can think, see, and interact just like us.
On the other hand, they will enslave us all.
In any case, whenever a battle between good and evil rages on, the outcome is advanced technology (or total obliteration). Even the spammers who use human-power to solve CAPTCHAs are ultimately inventing mechanisms which could be used to solve other problems, such as failed OCR attempts by book-scanning projects.
Google's single point of failure is if "[advertising] dries up or declines"? Wow. Couldn't you equally say that Microsoft's single point of failure is if they stop making money, or quite as much of it?
You act like "advertising" is something that, one day, people just won't need anymore. If anything, as the world gets bigger and bigger and bigger, businesses NEED advertising in order to be known and remain competitive.
If Google's source of income DECLINES, they can deal with it... like any other company dealing with a decline. If Google's source of income "dries up", this likely means that nearly every company in the world just vanished, or no longer needed to compete for attention. If that happens, we've got much much larger problems to worry about than whether or not Google alone can stay afloat.
I personally don't use it, but it claims to work with Chrome. I am sure there are others. Just look for greasemonkey ad-blocking scripts and try them out. With Chrome, after installing a new user script, just refresh the tab you're interested in and it should take effect immediately. If it doesn't work or you don't like it, either delete the script or move it into another path. I just create a folder under the User Scripts folder called "deactivated" and dump bad scripts in there, in case I feel like tweaking it later to get it to work better.
2) Change to the DEVELOPER channel. Releases happen more often, a later version can be found here, but the versions can be less stable, depending on whether the developers were having a good week or not.;)
3) Go to the ABOUT dialog box in Google Chrome and it will now say there is a new version. Install it.
4) Once this is complete, change the shortcut for Google Chrome and add --enable-user-scripts after the chrome.exe path and name.
5) Google Chrome will now support user scripts. These are just greasemonkey scripts for those who are unfamiliar with the term.
6) Place your scripts here:
C:\Documents and Settings\your-windows-user-name\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\User Scripts
"Default" is the default profile... if you use a different profile for Chrome, you'd want to go into that path instead.
7) Most user scripts are supported. The ones which are not supported are the ones which use certain GM_ commands. Simple ones like basic ad blockers, ones which force an HTTPS connection for certain services, once which change URLs for links, etc... all tend to work. I've had to tweak some user scripts to avoid certain issues, but some work right out of the box.
Again, it's not "simple"... it's not "clean"... but for now, it works... and is clear that Google is taking the right direction to supporting this stuff. I imagine that, eventually, Google Chrome supported user scripts will become more abundant, will be easily installed via a basic wizard within Chrome, and will likely be found in a "gallery" hosted by Google some day.
Maybe they should be "the browser is the Operating Environment" instead of "the browser is the Operating System". That would be more accurate.
Essentially what this shift is doing is it is changing the way developers build applications for use by the masses. Instead of coding back-end processes to a certain file-system and the front-end GUI in the form of modular windows for a particular OS, developers are increasingly designing their GUI's to be rendered in a browser and building the back-end on remote servers.
Google (and others) are closing this gap a bit by providing the same functionality remote servers provide, and implementing this functionality on the individual client machines (Gears)... not necessarily as a replacement, but as a fall-back when Internet access is not available or is shaky.
This design philosophy, coupled with the fact that the front-end GUI is also hosted remotely, is basically making the browser the access point to the applications people use on a daily basis... whereas, before, the user's desktop (the visible portions of the operating system and the reason most people upgraded from one operating system to the next) was the access point to the applications people used to use on a daily basis.
The shift is still happening, and it won't happen overnight, but more and more people are turning to their web browser for every task, rather than the Start Menu in Windows, for instance. Rather than running Calc to do a calculation, they might have a Calculator Gadget on their customized Google Home Page (or other equivalent site) or maybe just typing the numbers directly into the Google search box. Rather than running Solitaire on their local machine, they might be visiting a website to run a Flash-based version of Solitaire. Rather than opening Notepad to type some notes, they might be using a hosted document provider. This trend in shifting from the general desktop to the browser is continuing to happen.
While it is true that it isn't necessarily replacing the "OS" from a geek standpoint (after all, the OS is still needed to RUN the web browser), it IS replacing the public's perception of what an OS is. Most people who just USE computers and don't also TINKER with computers generally move from one operating system to the next because of the next wave of applications that this opens up to them... because of the interface changes that make doing every-day things easier... etc... Nowadays, people are staring less at their desktops and are staring at a web browser. So now, people are more interested about the advancements in web browsers than the advancements in operating systems.
Eventually, the operating system will be a moot point. One day, a Windows user will have no problem switching to Linux... because he/she won't have to worry about "will Microsoft Word run on Linux? Will I have to get used to a whole new desktop experience?" and so on... instead, the only question will be "Can I run a web browser in Linux? If so, will all of my web-based applications run in that web browser?" The answer to both of those questions is usually already "yes"... so the majority of the concerns are already taken care of.
The main areas that will not consider this kind of switch are Enterprises (which have legacy applications which will continue to remain in their respective environments) or hard-core gamers (who rely heavily on installed applications and powerful hardware configurations to meet their hard-core gaming needs.) The latter group might be eventually replaced by the console market as the line between "what is a gaming console" and "what is a computer" is continually blurred. It would not surprise me if the next PlayStation comes pre-installed with Linux, with much easier use by laymen... and if the next XBox 360 comes pre-installed with the latest flavor of Windows, complete with tie-ins with Microsoft's cloud-based services. Add a keyboard and a mouse and a hi-def television, and you're set.
As for the Enterprise... it is only a matter of ti
I think it is important to add that Google Chrome already supports add-ons (well, user scripts)... the types that block ads... customize sites... etc... I use these user scripts all the time, and these weren't ones I wrote myself... these are ones written by others.
What Chrome does not yet have is the ability for non-techies to easily find and install these user scripts. That is definitely coming, but everyone just needs to be patient. Also what is coming is the ability for such add-ons to modify and tweak the UI.
I see. Well, I suppose that is true for those who think that way. I never do.
I understand that e-mail isn't hacker-proof, that my home is not burglar-proof, that I will eventually die one day, and that no matter how safe of a driver I am, I will likely end up in an accident some day.
I also understand that in the event that my e-mail (whether it is web-based, or is supposedly a "secure" ISP-based solution) is hacked, my home is broken into, my health fails me, or I end up in an automobile accident... that if there is someone else who is responsible, that they will face consequences.
These consequences aren't meant to make email safer, make my home more secure, make me healthier, or make me more comfortable about getting into my car again... it's meant to equalize the balance of responsibility. That if someone wrongs me, they face consequences... and if I wrong someone else, I shall face consequences... and in the end, fair is fair.
It's not just about safety or privacy... it's about equality and fairness.
Saying that the fact that email is unencrypted or there are easy-to-look-up security questions does not mean that "it's not private."
Privacy is a right, not a sign of proper security. If I leave the front door of my house unlocked, it doesn't mean that I am giving permission for someone to walk in and take things.
Is it easier for someone to do? Sure. Do I still have privacy? Absolutely. Do I have security? No.
Security is locking your doors or securing your passwords. Privacy is when people abide by the laws and don't tread where they don't belong.
While I don't believe the punishment should be too harsh... what this person did, whether online or not, is against the law. Forgiving this with no punishment or a reduced punishment would suggest that everyone's private lives are fair game, as long as nobody gets physically hurt.
Well, in any case, good luck with convincing Google, Amazon, Slashdot, Yahoo, Microsoft, and countless other corporations and their teams of lawyers to change the wording that has, so far, worked well for many years.
I'd be really interested to see the outcome of your efforts and see how much better off the world is as a result. In the meantime, I applaud your efforts.
I apologize. I didn't realize you are a practicing lawyer. Because, you see, I am.
In practice, the way Google's EULA would work is... if a user uploads their content, but chooses for the content to be "private"... it is reasonable that Google must keep it private... if the user asks for it to be published, it is reasonable that Google will publish it... and if they ask for it to be deleted, it is reasonable that Google should delete it.
Now, the EULA protects Google if they "accidentally" publish something when the user didn't ask for this... or "accidentally" deletes something that the user wanted hosted. However, since the copyright owner is still the originator of the data, Google does not have free reign to do whatever they choose willfully.
If the user chooses to delete their content and Google says "no, actually, we want to publish it"... then they can be sued... even though the EULA says they have a license to publish. The license is still a license, not ownership... which means the owner still has their rights to wave their wand of ownership. In these cases, the only thing that protects Google is an accident (that could not have been reasonably avoided,) or a technicality of the technology, which may delay certain actions. As long as these circumstances are also laid out (which they are,) or Google shows a willingness to correct a mistake within a reasonable time-frame, then Google is ok. If they willfully do something against the user's explicit wishes, they can be sued, EULA or not.
No, because a "deletion" is covered by "modify". Remember, this is computer-speak that the lawyer-speak is trying to cover.
Nothing in computers actually gets DESTROYED... merely REARRANGED BITS. Delete a file, and bits are deallocated so that other bits can file that same space. Perform a virus scan, and there is a chance the bits may need to be rearranged if a virus needs to be quarantined.
If you upload a Word doc to be hosted in Google Docs, the original binary is "adapted" and "modified" to conform to Google's data structure for such files with the original binary file not being guaranteed to remain intact or be recoverable exactly, bit-for-bit, as-is.
So, really... what is being asked is that the lawyer-speak be more "humanized" to sound proper to laymen. The problem is, when you do that, then it doesn't cover the court's definition of words. Remember, just because we define a word a certain way does not mean the court defines it the same way, based on case law.
An example is the term "voluntary." To most people, this would be assumed to mean that it is "optional." So, in the case of TAX law... income tax in the United States is collected "voluntarily." This has led many fanatics to interpret this to mean "I don't have to pay taxes if I don't want to." However, this is not the way it is meant. Instead, in this context, "voluntary" is the way the courts define the fact that it is up to each citizen to calculate the amount of their own taxes and to submit their own taxes "voluntarily." This doesn't mean it is optional... it IS REQUIRED... but the collection process is a voluntary method.
So, either you're fighting to have the entire legal system re-write words and definitions and case law... or you're singling out a single corporation (Google) for some reason.
...but you STILL retain copyright, and they don't. It's permission to perform actions on your behalf, not act on their own behalf.
Imagine walking into a copy center and handing them your book you are writing and asking them to make copies. You are giving them PERMISSION to do this copying... but you AREN'T saying it's ok for them to keep a copy and, after you walk out of the store, make some more copies.
You are giving them permission to do something on YOUR behalf and YOUR behalf ONLY... because you are still the owner... the copyright holder... and they are only a service whom you have given permission (a license) to do as you ask.
Just because you give Google permission to host your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to TAKE this content off of your machine.
Just because you give Google permission to PUBLISH your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to do so even if you mark something as private.
Just because you give Google permission to DELETE your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to do so even if you ask them not to.
There are some general basis of reasonable argument that people are completely leaving out... maybe because they are not lawyers and this is wording specifically required by lawyers and courts. If the way everyone is interpreting the EULA is exactly how it would play out in court, then there would never be a need for lawyers to apply common sense to it all.
They could, yes. But they would open themselves up to every devious lawyer-wielding opportunist in the world.
I could upload a video and then wait... if Google takes it down, I can complain that I lost revenue because they took down the video that I asked them to host... and if they leave it up, I could say that I didn't want it hosted anymore and they left it up anyway.
This isn't giving them ownership... just permission... but the permission is specifically based on action. So, when I upload the content, according to the EULA, I am giving them permission to host it. If I click on a link to delete the content, I am giving them permission to delete it. Each of these actions are considered to be "perpetual and irrevocable". If they were not, then they could always resurrect something after I tell them to delete it... or they could nuke something shortly after I upload it, which would not be very good service.
I think the fundamental problem is people are confusing LICENSE with COPYRIGHT. That's the keystone of the whole debate.
When Google claims a LICENSE people are shouting "ownership"... but it's not the same thing.
COPYRIGHT=OWNERSHIP... in Google's EULA, you retain ownership (copyright)
LICENSE=PERMISSION... in Google's EULA, you are giving Google permission to do with your stuff what you ask them to (host it, scan it for viruses, etc...)
Since when does Google claim an unrestricted copyright. They aren't. They're only claiming a license. There is a HUGE difference between a license and copyright.
Think of it like a rental car place. They OWN the car. Ownership is like copyright. When they rent a car for you to drive, you get their PERMISSION. Permission is like license.
So, as long as you retain this license (permission,) you can't be arrested for stealing their car. However, the license doesn't permit you to just declare ownership over the car. It also limits what you can do with the car and how long you can have it.
So, while I do see you were defending Google in this case... at the same time, you were also spreading lies about Google.
Again, they are not claiming ownership or copyright to the work... only permission to have it on their servers when you upload it, permission to publicly display it when you click "publish," etc...
In lawyer-speak... license MEANS permission. If you actually read the TOS, it only talks about a license (permission) not that Google is retaining copyright (ownership in lawyer-speak) to the work.
I think what is more evil is when people spread these lies to get hits to their blog or news site... and then others post messages, claiming it to be true, even when it's a lie.
If you read the language, you will see that it never says Google is the OWNER of the content... only that you are giving them a LICENSE to the content. A LICENSE isn't about OWNERSHIP (that's COPYRIGHT)... it's about PERMISSION.
In other words, you still own copyright to your images in Picasa, but when you upload it to Google's website to publish to the world, you are giving Google the license to host your copyrighted content. Likewise, when you post messages to your blog on Blogger, you still retain ownership (copyright) to the content... but you are giving Google permission (a license) to publicly display your blog posts.
It is no different than writing a book (owning copyright,) then giving a publisher permission (a license) to print off several copies of your new book.
Get some perspective. This was a public release overhyped and touting the product as an FF/IE killer.
Get some perspective. That was the media, not Google. Google touted the browser concepts themselves as being innovative and having potential, they didn't tout this as a golden release. They even suggested that it likely wouldn't be widely adopted, but if Firefox and/or IE at least adopt some of the technologies themselves, it would be a win for everyone.
Mustn't have many developers. I managed to freeze it looking at 2 websites in under 5 minutes.
Good for you. You have a unique machine config. Everyone has a unique machine config. I've got a machine at work that, one day, started locking up regularly. Has something to do with disk activity. I eventually plan on starting from scratch again, reinstalling the OS. In the meantime, it's buggy. So, on that machine, Chrome is buggy and slows down from time to time. On my laptop, it works just fine and has never locked up. On my home machine, it also works well.
I suspect that on some machines it will lock up. On some machines it will crash. On some machines it will work perfectly. That's the point of a beta test. The developers can't have YOUR machine to test it on, so they release it to see what machines it might break on... what software it might have a conflict with... etc, etc, etc...
They're the ones who've created the confusion misusing the term. Also I'd argue this is ALPHA.
I agree that they created the confusion. It's unfortunate, though, that you'd argue that this is an alpha test. That's like saying, "I'd argue that I'm a Google Engineer working on the browser." I'd venture a guess that you aren't... and, thus, if you have been given access to it, and you're not a developer, I would then argue that it's a beta test. It's in the stage the development cycle says it is in, not based on the number of bugs a particular beta tester thinks it has.
IE8 was not touted as a revolutionary new browser that would blow everything else out of the water. Nor does MS generally misuse the term beta. I haven't tried it, but with a solid lineage I bet it's less buggy than Google's offering.
Maybe you need to start diversifying your reading list. I didn't read that it was touted as the best thing since sliced bread. I read that it was a Firefox killer... and I read that it would increase Firefox adoption... I read that it was an IE killer... and I read that it would hurt Firefox and help IE... I read that it was a piece of trash... and I read that it was sent from Heaven... I read a variety of things from different news sites and bloggers. What I read from Google, however, was that they are releasing a new browser and that they think it has some novel ideas in it. That they hope it will be widely adopted, or at least have its best technologies copied into other browser. They hope that browsers will become more powerful hosts for complex applications than merely HTML interpreters. So, maybe you need to diversify your reading list.
But, you're right. MS doesn't generally misuse the term beta. They misuse the term "golden" and "release". When IE7 was in beta, it never installed properly on one of my machines. Since then, that machine has never been the same. When the second build of the IE7 beta came out, I tried it again. It worked well enough. Then, when it was released, I started using it on all of my machines. It works well on my laptop, if not very slow. Firefox runs faster, but takes a long time to load initially. It also eats up a lot of memory with additional tabs. On my computer at work, IE7 locks up immediately upon running and never recovers. So, I am forced to use Firefox there. At home, IE7 runs ok, but Firefox is still faster.
I got so frustrated with the initial load time of Firefox that I installed a preloader. It loads Firefox in the background so it is always present in memory. Since Firefox seems to be such a memory hog, however, thi
They tested it. It still has bugs. So they're releasing it as an open beta. This wasn't "in vogue" in the 90's... but these days, MANY things are released in a beta after the developers have been unable to find any bugs themselves.
When developers look for bugs, it's in alpha. When the developers cannot find anymore bugs, but they know it could benefit from many more eyes, computer configurations, etc... they release it as a beta. Once all the bugs are worked out, then it is golden and is released.
Google misuses the term "beta" and sometimes mean it as "we have more features planned for this until we're comfortable taking the beta label off"... think Gmail. But in this particular case, this is a true beta from Google. Expect bugs. If you don't want to help beta test the product, wait until it has been tested for a while and is fully released.
Should we also complain that the first beta version of IE8 had bugs in it? Sure, let's.
Slashdot Mirror
...it's what you do with it.
While you might be able to store the entire contents of the Internet in a small space, you probably can't manage 6-10% of all of the Internet's traffic in a small space and still do so in millisecond response times.
In addition to handling 70% of every Internet search, Google also serves up a billion YouTube videos every day.
So, until Cuil or archive.org has as many people going to it, I'd venture a guess that size doesn't matter in this case... it's redundancy.
The existence of Internet monitoring equipment by itself is not enough to declare a country oppressive. No more than the existence of freedom to bear arms is enough to declare a country murderous. It's how you use such tools and the scale by which abuses are discovered that determine the morals of a government.
Could the riots in Iran ever happen in the U.S.? Sure. It's possible because we are all human. Could someone end up in the Presidency that the people are certain they didn't actually vote in? Sure. It has happened. Any systems that humans invent are going to be flawed. Putting aside the paranoia which might use these facts to paint the U.S. as being "no better than Iran" dismisses the fact that Iran's democracy is a fallacy, even moreso than the U.S.'s. In Iran, even if the vote by the people had gone the other way, the clerics have the power to completely override the vote. They only need to declare that the people clearly went against God's will.
So, given the difference... there should be a line where certain monitoring software should be allowed and where the same monitoring software should not be allowed. For instance, certain equipment may only be sold by companies to law enforcement and not to citizens. Clearly there are already lines drawn between who should have this equipment and who shouldn't have it. I cannot legally put a light-bar on my car which would appear to impersonate a police car. It's the law and it is a reasonable one. A person needs to pass their background check before being allowed to own a weapon, and this makes sense. A person also needs to pass a driving test before being allowed on the road in a motor vehicle. It makes sense. So, it also makes sense for the government to be OK with selling monitoring software to local police forces but not be OK with selling the same monitoring software to a country where there is proof their police forces are marching through the roads, indiscriminately smashing windshields of parked cars with batons without any mention by the government that these police officers will face justice for these actions. There are documented cases of people being beaten while laying on the ground surrounded by several officers in riot gear, yet you don't see the government at any level calling for the same kind of inquiry as we had with the Rodney King situation. The fact of the matter is, while bad things do happen in the U.S., at least there is some sort of sign that the government attempts to investigate wrong-doings, attempts to right wrongs, and attempts to change laws to adapt to the problems that are found. In Iran, the country is pretty much at the mercy of the clerics who have an all-encompassing override for anything that would be considered democratic.
Also, some argue that because the U.S. government doesn't go after China for the same reasons, that they should either leave Iran alone... or also go after China equally. This is rarely a valid argument when it comes to law. Take, for instance, the situation of speeding on a highway. When you get pulled over for speeding and you tell the officer "I was going the same speed as everyone else. Why did they get away with it? I shouldn't have to be punished for the rule that clearly everyone was breaking." Expect to get a ticket. If you go to court with that same argument, expect to keep the ticket. It simply isn't a valid argument. Being punished due to breaking a rule isn't about what everyone else is or isn't doing, it's about the rule you broke.
In any case, it's not like the government is imposing sanctions. They are simply saying that the U.S. government is choosing not to give money to one set of companies while being OK with giving money to other sets of companies. It's no different than when you decide Walmart is evil and stop shopping there. Nobody should force you to have to shop at a company you aren't happy with, so the government shouldn't be forced either. Sure, someone could point out j
So, you're saying that an addicted smoker telling others that they shouldn't start smoking and if they are already addicted to smoking, it would be better for their health to quit... will never be seen as sincere, unless they first quit smoking themselves. Hmmm...
It's the attempt to dictate to foreign companies what they may or may not sell.
I fail to see what "dictating" is happening with this. They aren't telling these companies who they may or may not sell to. They are only saying we aren't going to buy from you. That's it. Should the government have the freedom to pick and choose who they give money to, or do you suggest there should be some sort of dictating that needs to happen here?
While on some levels this is true, there is a plus side to all of this. While search engines are ultimately working to solve the "artificial intelligence" problem in terms of understanding what someone means when they type, spammers who write CAPTCHA solvers ultimately solve the problem of understanding text or objects as a person sees them.
All of these technologies further progress us towards a future of robots that can think, see, and interact just like us.
On the other hand, they will enslave us all.
In any case, whenever a battle between good and evil rages on, the outcome is advanced technology (or total obliteration). Even the spammers who use human-power to solve CAPTCHAs are ultimately inventing mechanisms which could be used to solve other problems, such as failed OCR attempts by book-scanning projects.
Google's single point of failure is if "[advertising] dries up or declines"? Wow. Couldn't you equally say that Microsoft's single point of failure is if they stop making money, or quite as much of it?
You act like "advertising" is something that, one day, people just won't need anymore. If anything, as the world gets bigger and bigger and bigger, businesses NEED advertising in order to be known and remain competitive.
If Google's source of income DECLINES, they can deal with it... like any other company dealing with a decline. If Google's source of income "dries up", this likely means that nearly every company in the world just vanished, or no longer needed to compete for attention. If that happens, we've got much much larger problems to worry about than whether or not Google alone can stay afloat.
Oh, and a user script which blocks ads and works with Google Chrome can be found here:
http://www.adsweep.org/
I personally don't use it, but it claims to work with Chrome. I am sure there are others. Just look for greasemonkey ad-blocking scripts and try them out. With Chrome, after installing a new user script, just refresh the tab you're interested in and it should take effect immediately. If it doesn't work or you don't like it, either delete the script or move it into another path. I just create a folder under the User Scripts folder called "deactivated" and dump bad scripts in there, in case I feel like tweaking it later to get it to work better.
I apologize. The best way to go about this is the following:
1) Go here and download and run the Google Chrome Channel Changer:
http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel
2) Change to the DEVELOPER channel. Releases happen more often, a later version can be found here, but the versions can be less stable, depending on whether the developers were having a good week or not. ;)
3) Go to the ABOUT dialog box in Google Chrome and it will now say there is a new version. Install it.
4) Once this is complete, change the shortcut for Google Chrome and add --enable-user-scripts after the chrome.exe path and name.
5) Google Chrome will now support user scripts. These are just greasemonkey scripts for those who are unfamiliar with the term.
6) Place your scripts here:
C:\Documents and Settings\your-windows-user-name\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\User Scripts
"Default" is the default profile... if you use a different profile for Chrome, you'd want to go into that path instead.
7) Most user scripts are supported. The ones which are not supported are the ones which use certain GM_ commands. Simple ones like basic ad blockers, ones which force an HTTPS connection for certain services, once which change URLs for links, etc... all tend to work. I've had to tweak some user scripts to avoid certain issues, but some work right out of the box.
Again, it's not "simple"... it's not "clean"... but for now, it works... and is clear that Google is taking the right direction to supporting this stuff. I imagine that, eventually, Google Chrome supported user scripts will become more abundant, will be easily installed via a basic wizard within Chrome, and will likely be found in a "gallery" hosted by Google some day.
Maybe they should be "the browser is the Operating Environment" instead of "the browser is the Operating System". That would be more accurate.
Essentially what this shift is doing is it is changing the way developers build applications for use by the masses. Instead of coding back-end processes to a certain file-system and the front-end GUI in the form of modular windows for a particular OS, developers are increasingly designing their GUI's to be rendered in a browser and building the back-end on remote servers.
Google (and others) are closing this gap a bit by providing the same functionality remote servers provide, and implementing this functionality on the individual client machines (Gears)... not necessarily as a replacement, but as a fall-back when Internet access is not available or is shaky.
This design philosophy, coupled with the fact that the front-end GUI is also hosted remotely, is basically making the browser the access point to the applications people use on a daily basis... whereas, before, the user's desktop (the visible portions of the operating system and the reason most people upgraded from one operating system to the next) was the access point to the applications people used to use on a daily basis.
The shift is still happening, and it won't happen overnight, but more and more people are turning to their web browser for every task, rather than the Start Menu in Windows, for instance. Rather than running Calc to do a calculation, they might have a Calculator Gadget on their customized Google Home Page (or other equivalent site) or maybe just typing the numbers directly into the Google search box. Rather than running Solitaire on their local machine, they might be visiting a website to run a Flash-based version of Solitaire. Rather than opening Notepad to type some notes, they might be using a hosted document provider. This trend in shifting from the general desktop to the browser is continuing to happen.
While it is true that it isn't necessarily replacing the "OS" from a geek standpoint (after all, the OS is still needed to RUN the web browser), it IS replacing the public's perception of what an OS is. Most people who just USE computers and don't also TINKER with computers generally move from one operating system to the next because of the next wave of applications that this opens up to them... because of the interface changes that make doing every-day things easier... etc... Nowadays, people are staring less at their desktops and are staring at a web browser. So now, people are more interested about the advancements in web browsers than the advancements in operating systems.
Eventually, the operating system will be a moot point. One day, a Windows user will have no problem switching to Linux... because he/she won't have to worry about "will Microsoft Word run on Linux? Will I have to get used to a whole new desktop experience?" and so on... instead, the only question will be "Can I run a web browser in Linux? If so, will all of my web-based applications run in that web browser?" The answer to both of those questions is usually already "yes"... so the majority of the concerns are already taken care of.
The main areas that will not consider this kind of switch are Enterprises (which have legacy applications which will continue to remain in their respective environments) or hard-core gamers (who rely heavily on installed applications and powerful hardware configurations to meet their hard-core gaming needs.) The latter group might be eventually replaced by the console market as the line between "what is a gaming console" and "what is a computer" is continually blurred. It would not surprise me if the next PlayStation comes pre-installed with Linux, with much easier use by laymen... and if the next XBox 360 comes pre-installed with the latest flavor of Windows, complete with tie-ins with Microsoft's cloud-based services. Add a keyboard and a mouse and a hi-def television, and you're set.
As for the Enterprise... it is only a matter of ti
I think it is important to add that Google Chrome already supports add-ons (well, user scripts)... the types that block ads... customize sites... etc... I use these user scripts all the time, and these weren't ones I wrote myself... these are ones written by others.
What Chrome does not yet have is the ability for non-techies to easily find and install these user scripts. That is definitely coming, but everyone just needs to be patient. Also what is coming is the ability for such add-ons to modify and tweak the UI.
I see. Well, I suppose that is true for those who think that way. I never do.
I understand that e-mail isn't hacker-proof, that my home is not burglar-proof, that I will eventually die one day, and that no matter how safe of a driver I am, I will likely end up in an accident some day.
I also understand that in the event that my e-mail (whether it is web-based, or is supposedly a "secure" ISP-based solution) is hacked, my home is broken into, my health fails me, or I end up in an automobile accident... that if there is someone else who is responsible, that they will face consequences.
These consequences aren't meant to make email safer, make my home more secure, make me healthier, or make me more comfortable about getting into my car again... it's meant to equalize the balance of responsibility. That if someone wrongs me, they face consequences... and if I wrong someone else, I shall face consequences... and in the end, fair is fair.
It's not just about safety or privacy... it's about equality and fairness.
Saying that the fact that email is unencrypted or there are easy-to-look-up security questions does not mean that "it's not private."
Privacy is a right, not a sign of proper security. If I leave the front door of my house unlocked, it doesn't mean that I am giving permission for someone to walk in and take things.
Is it easier for someone to do? Sure. Do I still have privacy? Absolutely. Do I have security? No.
Security is locking your doors or securing your passwords. Privacy is when people abide by the laws and don't tread where they don't belong.
While I don't believe the punishment should be too harsh... what this person did, whether online or not, is against the law. Forgiving this with no punishment or a reduced punishment would suggest that everyone's private lives are fair game, as long as nobody gets physically hurt.
Well, in any case, good luck with convincing Google, Amazon, Slashdot, Yahoo, Microsoft, and countless other corporations and their teams of lawyers to change the wording that has, so far, worked well for many years.
I'd be really interested to see the outcome of your efforts and see how much better off the world is as a result. In the meantime, I applaud your efforts.
I apologize. I didn't realize you are a practicing lawyer. Because, you see, I am.
In practice, the way Google's EULA would work is... if a user uploads their content, but chooses for the content to be "private"... it is reasonable that Google must keep it private... if the user asks for it to be published, it is reasonable that Google will publish it... and if they ask for it to be deleted, it is reasonable that Google should delete it.
Now, the EULA protects Google if they "accidentally" publish something when the user didn't ask for this... or "accidentally" deletes something that the user wanted hosted. However, since the copyright owner is still the originator of the data, Google does not have free reign to do whatever they choose willfully.
If the user chooses to delete their content and Google says "no, actually, we want to publish it"... then they can be sued... even though the EULA says they have a license to publish. The license is still a license, not ownership... which means the owner still has their rights to wave their wand of ownership. In these cases, the only thing that protects Google is an accident (that could not have been reasonably avoided,) or a technicality of the technology, which may delay certain actions. As long as these circumstances are also laid out (which they are,) or Google shows a willingness to correct a mistake within a reasonable time-frame, then Google is ok. If they willfully do something against the user's explicit wishes, they can be sued, EULA or not.
No, because a "deletion" is covered by "modify". Remember, this is computer-speak that the lawyer-speak is trying to cover.
Nothing in computers actually gets DESTROYED... merely REARRANGED BITS. Delete a file, and bits are deallocated so that other bits can file that same space. Perform a virus scan, and there is a chance the bits may need to be rearranged if a virus needs to be quarantined.
If you upload a Word doc to be hosted in Google Docs, the original binary is "adapted" and "modified" to conform to Google's data structure for such files with the original binary file not being guaranteed to remain intact or be recoverable exactly, bit-for-bit, as-is.
So, really... what is being asked is that the lawyer-speak be more "humanized" to sound proper to laymen. The problem is, when you do that, then it doesn't cover the court's definition of words. Remember, just because we define a word a certain way does not mean the court defines it the same way, based on case law.
An example is the term "voluntary." To most people, this would be assumed to mean that it is "optional." So, in the case of TAX law... income tax in the United States is collected "voluntarily." This has led many fanatics to interpret this to mean "I don't have to pay taxes if I don't want to." However, this is not the way it is meant. Instead, in this context, "voluntary" is the way the courts define the fact that it is up to each citizen to calculate the amount of their own taxes and to submit their own taxes "voluntarily." This doesn't mean it is optional... it IS REQUIRED... but the collection process is a voluntary method.
So, either you're fighting to have the entire legal system re-write words and definitions and case law... or you're singling out a single corporation (Google) for some reason.
...but you STILL retain copyright, and they don't. It's permission to perform actions on your behalf, not act on their own behalf.
Imagine walking into a copy center and handing them your book you are writing and asking them to make copies. You are giving them PERMISSION to do this copying... but you AREN'T saying it's ok for them to keep a copy and, after you walk out of the store, make some more copies.
You are giving them permission to do something on YOUR behalf and YOUR behalf ONLY... because you are still the owner... the copyright holder... and they are only a service whom you have given permission (a license) to do as you ask.
Only if you ask them to.
Just because you give Google permission to host your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to TAKE this content off of your machine.
Just because you give Google permission to PUBLISH your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to do so even if you mark something as private.
Just because you give Google permission to DELETE your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to do so even if you ask them not to.
There are some general basis of reasonable argument that people are completely leaving out... maybe because they are not lawyers and this is wording specifically required by lawyers and courts. If the way everyone is interpreting the EULA is exactly how it would play out in court, then there would never be a need for lawyers to apply common sense to it all.
They could, yes. But they would open themselves up to every devious lawyer-wielding opportunist in the world.
I could upload a video and then wait... if Google takes it down, I can complain that I lost revenue because they took down the video that I asked them to host... and if they leave it up, I could say that I didn't want it hosted anymore and they left it up anyway.
This isn't giving them ownership... just permission... but the permission is specifically based on action. So, when I upload the content, according to the EULA, I am giving them permission to host it. If I click on a link to delete the content, I am giving them permission to delete it. Each of these actions are considered to be "perpetual and irrevocable". If they were not, then they could always resurrect something after I tell them to delete it... or they could nuke something shortly after I upload it, which would not be very good service.
The EULA protects not only Google... but me.
I think the fundamental problem is people are confusing LICENSE with COPYRIGHT. That's the keystone of the whole debate.
When Google claims a LICENSE people are shouting "ownership"... but it's not the same thing.
COPYRIGHT=OWNERSHIP ... in Google's EULA, you retain ownership (copyright)
LICENSE=PERMISSION ... in Google's EULA, you are giving Google permission to do with your stuff what you ask them to (host it, scan it for viruses, etc...)
And that's exactly what their EULA says. Haven't you read it before posting about it?
Since when does Google claim an unrestricted copyright. They aren't. They're only claiming a license. There is a HUGE difference between a license and copyright.
Think of it like a rental car place. They OWN the car. Ownership is like copyright. When they rent a car for you to drive, you get their PERMISSION. Permission is like license.
So, as long as you retain this license (permission,) you can't be arrested for stealing their car. However, the license doesn't permit you to just declare ownership over the car. It also limits what you can do with the car and how long you can have it.
So, while I do see you were defending Google in this case... at the same time, you were also spreading lies about Google.
Again, they are not claiming ownership or copyright to the work... only permission to have it on their servers when you upload it, permission to publicly display it when you click "publish," etc...
In lawyer-speak... license MEANS permission. If you actually read the TOS, it only talks about a license (permission) not that Google is retaining copyright (ownership in lawyer-speak) to the work.
I think what is more evil is when people spread these lies to get hits to their blog or news site... and then others post messages, claiming it to be true, even when it's a lie.
If you read the language, you will see that it never says Google is the OWNER of the content... only that you are giving them a LICENSE to the content. A LICENSE isn't about OWNERSHIP (that's COPYRIGHT)... it's about PERMISSION.
In other words, you still own copyright to your images in Picasa, but when you upload it to Google's website to publish to the world, you are giving Google the license to host your copyrighted content. Likewise, when you post messages to your blog on Blogger, you still retain ownership (copyright) to the content... but you are giving Google permission (a license) to publicly display your blog posts.
It is no different than writing a book (owning copyright,) then giving a publisher permission (a license) to print off several copies of your new book.
Get some perspective. This was a public release overhyped and touting the product as an FF/IE killer.
Get some perspective. That was the media, not Google. Google touted the browser concepts themselves as being innovative and having potential, they didn't tout this as a golden release. They even suggested that it likely wouldn't be widely adopted, but if Firefox and/or IE at least adopt some of the technologies themselves, it would be a win for everyone.
Mustn't have many developers. I managed to freeze it looking at 2 websites in under 5 minutes.
Good for you. You have a unique machine config. Everyone has a unique machine config. I've got a machine at work that, one day, started locking up regularly. Has something to do with disk activity. I eventually plan on starting from scratch again, reinstalling the OS. In the meantime, it's buggy. So, on that machine, Chrome is buggy and slows down from time to time. On my laptop, it works just fine and has never locked up. On my home machine, it also works well.
I suspect that on some machines it will lock up. On some machines it will crash. On some machines it will work perfectly. That's the point of a beta test. The developers can't have YOUR machine to test it on, so they release it to see what machines it might break on... what software it might have a conflict with... etc, etc, etc...
They're the ones who've created the confusion misusing the term. Also I'd argue this is ALPHA.
I agree that they created the confusion. It's unfortunate, though, that you'd argue that this is an alpha test. That's like saying, "I'd argue that I'm a Google Engineer working on the browser." I'd venture a guess that you aren't... and, thus, if you have been given access to it, and you're not a developer, I would then argue that it's a beta test. It's in the stage the development cycle says it is in, not based on the number of bugs a particular beta tester thinks it has.
IE8 was not touted as a revolutionary new browser that would blow everything else out of the water. Nor does MS generally misuse the term beta. I haven't tried it, but with a solid lineage I bet it's less buggy than Google's offering.
Maybe you need to start diversifying your reading list. I didn't read that it was touted as the best thing since sliced bread. I read that it was a Firefox killer... and I read that it would increase Firefox adoption... I read that it was an IE killer... and I read that it would hurt Firefox and help IE... I read that it was a piece of trash... and I read that it was sent from Heaven... I read a variety of things from different news sites and bloggers. What I read from Google, however, was that they are releasing a new browser and that they think it has some novel ideas in it. That they hope it will be widely adopted, or at least have its best technologies copied into other browser. They hope that browsers will become more powerful hosts for complex applications than merely HTML interpreters. So, maybe you need to diversify your reading list.
But, you're right. MS doesn't generally misuse the term beta. They misuse the term "golden" and "release". When IE7 was in beta, it never installed properly on one of my machines. Since then, that machine has never been the same. When the second build of the IE7 beta came out, I tried it again. It worked well enough. Then, when it was released, I started using it on all of my machines. It works well on my laptop, if not very slow. Firefox runs faster, but takes a long time to load initially. It also eats up a lot of memory with additional tabs. On my computer at work, IE7 locks up immediately upon running and never recovers. So, I am forced to use Firefox there. At home, IE7 runs ok, but Firefox is still faster.
I got so frustrated with the initial load time of Firefox that I installed a preloader. It loads Firefox in the background so it is always present in memory. Since Firefox seems to be such a memory hog, however, thi
They tested it. It still has bugs. So they're releasing it as an open beta. This wasn't "in vogue" in the 90's... but these days, MANY things are released in a beta after the developers have been unable to find any bugs themselves.
When developers look for bugs, it's in alpha. When the developers cannot find anymore bugs, but they know it could benefit from many more eyes, computer configurations, etc... they release it as a beta. Once all the bugs are worked out, then it is golden and is released.
Google misuses the term "beta" and sometimes mean it as "we have more features planned for this until we're comfortable taking the beta label off"... think Gmail. But in this particular case, this is a true beta from Google. Expect bugs. If you don't want to help beta test the product, wait until it has been tested for a while and is fully released.
Should we also complain that the first beta version of IE8 had bugs in it? Sure, let's.