How Apple Lost the iPhone 4: Until now, Apple's legendary security has always worked perfectly. Perhaps there was a blurry factory photo here, or some last-minute information strategically whispered to some friendly media there. But when it comes to the big stuff, everything is airtight. At their Cupertino campus, any gadget or computer that is worth protecting is behind armored doors, with security locks with codes that change every few minutes. Prototypes are bolted to desks. Hidden in these labs, hardware, software and industrial-design elves toil separately on the same devices, without really having the complete picture of the final product. And hidden in every corner, the Apple secret police, a team of people with a single mission: To make sure nobody speaks. And if there's a leak, hunt down the traitor, and escort him out of the building. Using lockdowns and other fear tactics, these men in black are the last line of defense against any sneaky eyes. The Gran Jefe Steve trusts them to avoid Apple's worst nightmare: The leak of a strategic product that could cost them millions of dollars in free marketing promotion. One that would make them lose control of the product news cycle. But the fact is that there's no perfect security. Not when humans are involved. Humans that can lose things. You know, like the next generation iPhone 4.
NYT: "In apps marketed for children 5 and under in the Google Play store, there were pop-up ads with disturbing imagery. There were ads that no child could reasonably be expected to close out of, and which, when triggered, would send a player into more ads. Dancing treasure chests would give young players points for watching video ads, potentially endlessly. The vast majority of ads were not marked at all. Characters in childrenâ(TM)s games gently pressured the kids to make purchases, a practice known as host-selling, banned in childrenâ(TM)s TV programs in 1974 by the Federal Trade Commission. At other times an onscreen character would cry if the child did not buy something."
You can't be 'Internet Awesome', Google tells children on their 'Certificates of Internet Awesomeness', unless 'You know how to tell the difference between the real and the fake.' By that standard, Google itself is not 'Internet Awesome.' From Tuesday's Google Online Security Blog post: "Last week, BuzzFeed News provided us with information that helped us identify new aspects of an ad fraud operation across apps and websites that were monetizing with numerous ad platforms, including Google. While our internal systems had previously caught and blocked violating websites from our ad network, in the past week we also removed apps involved in the ad fraud scheme so they can no longer monetize with Google. Further, we have blacklisted additional apps and websites that are outside of our ad network, to ensure that advertisers using Display & Video 360 (formerly known as DoubleClick Bid Manager) do not buy any of this traffic. We are continuing to monitor this operation and will continue to take action if we find any additional invalid traffic. While our analysis of the operation is ongoing, we estimate that the dollar value of impacted Google advertiser spend across the apps and websites involved in the operation is under $10 million."
From U.S. Patent 9,692,838, assigned to Facebook, Inc. for Generating business insights using beacons on online social networks:
"In particular embodiments, authorization to access or view content deposited at one or more beacons 310 (e.g., by a user, social-networking system 160, or third-party system 170) may be based on conditions set by the creator or depositor of the content or by another entity. A restrictive condition on access to certain content at one or more beacons 310 may include membership in a specified group. For example, authorized group members may include, by example and not by way of limitation: members of a certain social club; users who have purchased access rights to the particular content; direct connections of a particular user node or concept node in social graph 200; users having phone numbers with a certain area code or prefix; registered users of a downloaded mobile device application, other suitable conditions, or any combination thereof. Restrictions to access may additionally be based on user-specific information, including but not limited to: demographic attributes of the user (e.g., age, gender, nationality, race, ethnicity, and/or locality);"
Can you find any raw figures in the Google diversity annual report 2018? "Sometimes it is percentages that are given and raw figures that are missing," warns How to Lie With Statistics, "and this can be deceptive too." And yet the lack of raw figures doesn't keep Google from boasting, "We are further increasing transparency. Google's publication of workforce representation data in 2014 helped shape the current industry conversation on diversity in tech. We aim to take the conversation-and our work to the next level as we further refine our approach, so this year we've published new and more detailed workforce representation data."
...or due to changes made in wake of the Google-Uber lawsuit settlement. But the questions probably need to be asked, in light of statements made by both companies: 1. A note on our lawsuit against Otto and Uber: "Recently, we uncovered evidence that Otto and Uber have taken and are using key parts of Waymo's self-driving technology." 2. Uber and Waymo Reach Settlement: "We are taking steps with Waymo to ensure our Lidar and software represents just our good work."
A Google-CodeCademy award program offered $1,000 bonuses to teachers who got 10 or more high school kids to take a JavaScript course, but only counted students from "groups traditionally underrepresented in computer science (girls, or boys who identify as African American, Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native)."
According to the College Board, 40% of the score for the new Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles course - whose higher-than-other-subject-area pass rates were recently celebrated by tech-bankrolled Code.org - is based upon assessment of non-exam "Performance Tasks."
"The Disney 2016 tutorial, Moana: Wayfinding with Code, will bring the Hour of Code to students around the world for Computer Science Education Week and beyond!," exclaims the Disney Hour of Code Digital Toolkit. "Since 2014, The Walt Disney Company has worked with Code.org to build Hour of Code tutorials featuring Disney characters that inspire kids of all ages to try coding. Disney and Code.org's 2014 Hour of Code tutorial featured Anna and Elsa from Frozen and in 2015 the tutorial featured Rey, BB-8, Princess Leia and R2-D2 from The Force Awakens. Since that time, over 40 million students have tried Disney coding tutorials." Like Microsoft, the Hour of Code has apparently been very good to Disney branding. In 2014, after starring in a signature Hour of Code tutorial used to "teach President Obama to code", Disney Princesses Elsa and Anna went on to dethrone tech-shamed Barbie as the most popular girls' holiday season toy.
Slashdot Mirror
How Apple Lost the iPhone 4: Until now, Apple's legendary security has always worked perfectly. Perhaps there was a blurry factory photo here, or some last-minute information strategically whispered to some friendly media there. But when it comes to the big stuff, everything is airtight. At their Cupertino campus, any gadget or computer that is worth protecting is behind armored doors, with security locks with codes that change every few minutes. Prototypes are bolted to desks. Hidden in these labs, hardware, software and industrial-design elves toil separately on the same devices, without really having the complete picture of the final product. And hidden in every corner, the Apple secret police, a team of people with a single mission: To make sure nobody speaks. And if there's a leak, hunt down the traitor, and escort him out of the building. Using lockdowns and other fear tactics, these men in black are the last line of defense against any sneaky eyes. The Gran Jefe Steve trusts them to avoid Apple's worst nightmare: The leak of a strategic product that could cost them millions of dollars in free marketing promotion. One that would make them lose control of the product news cycle. But the fact is that there's no perfect security. Not when humans are involved. Humans that can lose things. You know, like the next generation iPhone 4.
NYT: "In apps marketed for children 5 and under in the Google Play store, there were pop-up ads with disturbing imagery. There were ads that no child could reasonably be expected to close out of, and which, when triggered, would send a player into more ads. Dancing treasure chests would give young players points for watching video ads, potentially endlessly. The vast majority of ads were not marked at all. Characters in childrenâ(TM)s games gently pressured the kids to make purchases, a practice known as host-selling, banned in childrenâ(TM)s TV programs in 1974 by the Federal Trade Commission. At other times an onscreen character would cry if the child did not buy something."
You can't be 'Internet Awesome', Google tells children on their 'Certificates of Internet Awesomeness', unless 'You know how to tell the difference between the real and the fake.' By that standard, Google itself is not 'Internet Awesome.' From Tuesday's Google Online Security Blog post: "Last week, BuzzFeed News provided us with information that helped us identify new aspects of an ad fraud operation across apps and websites that were monetizing with numerous ad platforms, including Google. While our internal systems had previously caught and blocked violating websites from our ad network, in the past week we also removed apps involved in the ad fraud scheme so they can no longer monetize with Google. Further, we have blacklisted additional apps and websites that are outside of our ad network, to ensure that advertisers using Display & Video 360 (formerly known as DoubleClick Bid Manager) do not buy any of this traffic. We are continuing to monitor this operation and will continue to take action if we find any additional invalid traffic. While our analysis of the operation is ongoing, we estimate that the dollar value of impacted Google advertiser spend across the apps and websites involved in the operation is under $10 million."
From U.S. Patent 9,692,838, assigned to Facebook, Inc. for Generating business insights using beacons on online social networks:
"In particular embodiments, authorization to access or view content deposited at one or more beacons 310 (e.g., by a user, social-networking system 160, or third-party system 170) may be based on conditions set by the creator or depositor of the content or by another entity. A restrictive condition on access to certain content at one or more beacons 310 may include membership in a specified group. For example, authorized group members may include, by example and not by way of limitation: members of a certain social club; users who have purchased access rights to the particular content; direct connections of a particular user node or concept node in social graph 200; users having phone numbers with a certain area code or prefix; registered users of a downloaded mobile device application, other suitable conditions, or any combination thereof. Restrictions to access may additionally be based on user-specific information, including but not limited to: demographic attributes of the user (e.g., age, gender, nationality, race, ethnicity, and/or locality);"
Can you find any raw figures in the Google diversity annual report 2018? "Sometimes it is percentages that are given and raw figures that are missing," warns How to Lie With Statistics , "and this can be deceptive too." And yet the lack of raw figures doesn't keep Google from boasting, "We are further increasing transparency. Google's publication of workforce representation data in 2014 helped shape the current industry conversation on diversity in tech. We aim to take the conversation-and our work to the next level as we further refine our approach, so this year we've published new and more detailed workforce representation data."
In related news, "Forty-seven percent of the school leaders surveyed by Education Week said they feel mild or strong pressure to expand computer science from vendors and the technology industry. That's compared with 28 percent who said they feel such pressure from parents and 23 percent from teachers."
...in after-hours trading.
...or due to changes made in wake of the Google-Uber lawsuit settlement. But the questions probably need to be asked, in light of statements made by both companies: 1. A note on our lawsuit against Otto and Uber: "Recently, we uncovered evidence that Otto and Uber have taken and are using key parts of Waymo's self-driving technology." 2. Uber and Waymo Reach Settlement: "We are taking steps with Waymo to ensure our Lidar and software represents just our good work."
So, too late to exchange those old Geoffrey Dollars for Bitcoin?
A Google-CodeCademy award program offered $1,000 bonuses to teachers who got 10 or more high school kids to take a JavaScript course, but only counted students from "groups traditionally underrepresented in computer science (girls, or boys who identify as African American, Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native)."
Napster "Speed" column: DSL, Cable, 56K, 14.4, Unknown
The Friendly Orange Glow: The Untold Story of the PLATO System and the Dawn of Cyberculture
Computer Chronicles
SIRI: "No, but hum a few bars and I'll play it!"
Maybe this is a "hearing aid" for Siri on HomePod?
According to the College Board, 40% of the score for the new Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles course - whose higher-than-other-subject-area pass rates were recently celebrated by tech-bankrolled Code.org - is based upon assessment of non-exam "Performance Tasks."
See: Before Barbie's Brainy Makeover, Mattel Execs Met With White House, Google
Floating, falling
Sweet intoxication
Touch me, trust me
Savor each sensation
Let the dream begin
Let your darker side give in
To the power of the music that I write
The power of the music of the night
Google.com Apr 22, 1999
<center>
<img src="/web/19990422191353im_/http://www.google.com/google.jpg" alt="Google! (Beta version)">
<table border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<form name="f" method="GET" action="/web/19990422191353/http://www.google.com/search">
<center>Search the web using Google<br></center>
<center><input type="text" name="q" value="" size="40" framewidth="4"><br></center>
<center><input type="submit" value="Google Search">
<input type="submit" name="sa" value="I'm feeling lucky"><br></center>
</form>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="more.html">More Google!</a><br>
<p><font size="-1">Copyright ©1999 Google Inc.</font>
</center>
Those renderings have a Georges Seurat vibe, no?
Fortitude is the almost scientifically sound TV show you should be watching
Dissatisfied with earlier efforts to correct tech's gender imbalance, it appears Google may be getting ready to play hardball. On Saturday, news leaked of the search giant's soon-to-launch 'Project Moses,' which a Google spokesperson would only say will draw inspiration from the project's namesake and utilize Google Maps' new 'Share Location' feature.
Mama don't take my Kodachrome
Leave your boy so far from home
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
...you know what's cool? A billion dollar Pentagon contract!
"The Disney 2016 tutorial, Moana: Wayfinding with Code, will bring the Hour of Code to students around the world for Computer Science Education Week and beyond!," exclaims the Disney Hour of Code Digital Toolkit. "Since 2014, The Walt Disney Company has worked with Code.org to build Hour of Code tutorials featuring Disney characters that inspire kids of all ages to try coding. Disney and Code.org's 2014 Hour of Code tutorial featured Anna and Elsa from Frozen and in 2015 the tutorial featured Rey, BB-8, Princess Leia and R2-D2 from The Force Awakens. Since that time, over 40 million students have tried Disney coding tutorials." Like Microsoft, the Hour of Code has apparently been very good to Disney branding. In 2014, after starring in a signature Hour of Code tutorial used to "teach President Obama to code", Disney Princesses Elsa and Anna went on to dethrone tech-shamed Barbie as the most popular girls' holiday season toy.