Colour me surprised
I was certain they were going to thank Google for their generosity.
That said, I thought that the last sticking point was about placement of competing web sites. Weren't the other issues solved? Why are the publishers unhappy?
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Indeed, it's becoming rarer and rarer that you can just leave a comment without registering. Number of websites use Facebook comments too.
I remember the astonishment, 15 years ago, at how wild people were behaving on the web, trolling newsgroups and the like. In general, anonymity was fingered as the reason. Are these days over? Will the times come when using your real name on the web will be the norm, and using a pseudonym considered the equivalent of wearing a mask in the street?
Mostly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is the weight. It would probably be too heavy to be comfortable.
And also, probably too few people want something like this for it to be produced in reasonable prices. Wait 10 years of failed products first.
Seems like playing on words to me; users do click a box saying that Google can collect and use the information in their emails, and not that the NSA can collect and use the information in their emails.
The exact definition you give to "read", "search", "scan" and "analyse" are pretty irrelevant here.
Yeah right. Google makes tons of money in Europe, and as long as they want to do that, they'll have to comply with European regulations.
And no, redirecting all traffic to your .com domain and shutting down .fr and .de domains does not make you exempt from EU regulations either. If it was that easy, all corporations would have their sites in .tv
Heh. Compare with the gushing going on here:
The project as stated grossly underestimates the costs and the physics problems, and grossly overestimates the number of potential customers. This cannot work.
This is not the first attempt to have a levitated train-like vehicle in a vacuum tube. It's hard. And this project does not even go for full vacuum, so you have to fight air resistance.
I'm sure you can get a nice salary by trying for a few years to make it work. But you will not make any money by investing in it.
The diagram does not say removed/restored, it says added and removed.
This is because SSL is supposed to provide security on the Internet, where your data transits through semi random routing point you do not trust. That is the left part of the diagram. The right part of the diagram is Google's private infrastructure, where SSL is not needed. Google only recently realized that encryption is also necessary on its private infrastructure, but they are certainly not using SSL for this, but probably their own private encryption which may be both more powerful and simpler than SSL, because they can taylor it to their needs, and they don't need to wait for every browser out there to implement it, as they own both ends.
The central linking point between the two network is not where the NSA dastardly messes with SSL certificates because the protocol is broken; it is the point where Google removes the SSL (when going left to right) or adds the SSL (right to left) because it does not make sense to use SSL on the private infrastructure…
Just explaining, since, you know, you obviously can read diagrams but you apparently have trouble understanding the information.
Amazon is reinvesting its profits for growth, and is constantly looking for new business opportunities. Facebook on the other hand seems not to want to be more than a social network.
As an example, Amazon has a line of tablets which sell quite well. Facebook offered a phone, kind of, and it did not sell.
But hey, not an expert.
I would like to note, though, that even though people might claim a historical right to privacy, it is much harder to claim a historical right to anonymity. Before the internet, anonymity was strictly the domain of ROMANES EUNT DOMUS graffitis, anonymous letters, and possibly certain private clubs for the connoisseurs.
I'm old enough to remember the articles in the early noughties commenting how all this "newsgroup trolling" and general uncivility on the Web were due to this strange and novel anonymity enjoyed by Internet users.
"Google got into fearful trouble by recording the location of WiFi transceivers without asking for their owners' permission"
No. Google got in trouble for recording the data that was going through the WiFi networks. Recording the location of the WiFi networks has not been a problem at all, as far as I can tell…
Using your cash to buy back your shares already sends a bad signal to the investors. It means you have no clue what to do with the money. You are not planning to expand.
Apple makes very nice things, but there is a lot more that it can do. It has a kind-of cloud service that does not really live up to its name. It has a map service that is still playing catch-up. But Apple is not using its cash to try to make them better; it is paying a dividend instead. Google and Amazon would never do such a thing. As far as they are concerned, the sky is the limit and everything is invested for growth.
That is why using your cash to buy back your shares is a bad thing. Now, borrowing cash to buy back your shares is just plain stupid.
I've been asked to find the best way to distribute accounts on forms, considering each account needed to be signed off by a different set of people. I used the greedy algorithm, which was plenty good enough for the sizes involved. But it certainly was not optimal, and the problem is likely NP-hard. Did not bother to prove it though.
EDIT: it must be the subset cover problem, now that I think of it.
Considering the Google products have kept working fine not only in Chrome, but also Safari, Firefox and Opera, I'd tend to think that this is a bug in IE rather than a bug in Google products.
There was however definitely a hint of smugness in Google's way to tell Microsoft they were not allowed to create a native YouTube app for Windows devices, and that Google would not bother to write one themselves for such a small market share.
He is trying to get this wrapped up before leaving. He'll probably try to resist a solution which makes meaningless the four years of work up to now. This is supposed to be his great achievement; starting litigation now would make it his great failure.
The politicians do not have this constraint…
Google respects robots.txt, which means that it does index links to pages disallowed by the robots.txt, but never attempts to read what is in those pages. This is as far as I understand what robots.txt is supposed to do.
What Murdoch and co would like is an intermediate settings between "rank this super low because I don't know what's inside" and "read everything on this page, and put everything on Google news, ensuring that people never bother to go read it".
The robots.txt protocol is indeed a bit coarse, but I understand that the propositions from Google to the EU included some sort of mechanism to give websites more control over what data Google can grab and display.
Yeah right. Every time you watch these videos while being out and about makes you happy! And you are not paying anybody for this happiness.
Media corporations most certainly think that you should pay for this. They own the content, so they should be able to dictate exactly how and when you are allowed to watch it. If you want to watch it in any other way, there is a convenience fee for that.
I use a Mac since 2008, but this has to be the most incomprehensible thing about the UI. The shortcut for opening a file or launching a program is Command-O, and for renaming it is Enter.
I can only conclude that there are people who rename their files more often than they open them.
That was my reaction too. Even assuming there is something wrong with the cleavage, you can just ask her to dress differently…
On the matter of cultural diversity, let me say that I am very happy that television in most European countries do not treat women the way they are in Italy.
@John: Read against the sentence quoted. It amounts to "disk [is] same or better better than disk".
But that sentence is indeed the elephant in the room of the article. Even assuming prices of disk storage ever gets as cheap as tape storage, they have a long way to go before they are as reliable in the long-term.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019