embolism

19 ms·

151.
by embolism 13y ago
But they have stated that FaceTime uses end-to-end encryption and they can't decrypt the content. PRISM can only access data that the companies actually have. This is why Google and Facebook are so dangerous - they are deliberately cr
152.
by embolism 13y ago
What legal options can the public choose from for this follow up?
153.
by embolism 13y ago
They were innovators, but the products that made them rich were a lot simpler and more focused on short term profit than the more ambitious projects that they are now famed for. The point is that they made their money with short term projec
154.
by embolism 13y ago
Since when was eclipse the same as the java language? That analogy seems almost like a deliberate misdirection - do you really mean it? Your TLDR says it all - you tell us to look at Dart as if it were some disembodied platonic entity indep
155.
by embolism 13y ago
Absolutely agreed. And since the public can't follow up, it no longer can limit the federal government.
156.
by embolism 13y ago
Reflexive skepticism just limits our ability to think. We don't need more of it. We need intelligent people to debunk conspiracy theories, not just say 'that smells like a conspiracy theory'.
157.
by embolism 13y ago
Presumably that set of opinions is meant to make the point that the Supreme Court is still ruling things unconstitutional and therefore some things are still unconstitutional. This is true, but irrelevant. The point is that if anything ca
158.
by embolism 13y ago
An often overlooked point is that "Getting rich quick" is often portrayed as a crass and shallow pursuit, whereas in reality in the US, it translates into: 1. Good healthcare. 2. Freedom to live in a peaceful safe neighborhood whe
159.
by embolism 13y ago
This is a good argument for the constitution meaning essentially nothing since if there are no limits on how the government can control how people spend their money, there are no real limits on how much control the government can exert over
160.
by embolism 13y ago
Ordering people to pay money to a government approved set of corporations is not regulating healthcare it's regulating the people and undermining property rights. What's next? A selected group of 'food providers' that
161.
by embolism 13y ago
Suddenly FaceTime voice seems like a killer product.
162.
by embolism 13y ago
Or FaceTime
163.
by embolism 13y ago
The problem is that Google's business model fundamentally makes it into a liability for a free society. The more they stockpile data on people, the more dangerous they become. Unless we have a change in the constitution that spells ou
164.
by embolism 13y ago
The web ending up being controlled by Google isn't 'saving' it from proprietary platforms at all. If standards bodies are as feeble as you suggest aren't going to be a serious custodian for Dart anyway. Ossified standard
165.
by embolism 13y ago
'Once it's standardized' is a chicken and egg statement - since to be standardized can only happen if other parties get on board. If nobody does, Google can say 'well we tried', whether or not they made any serious
166.
by embolism 13y ago
Ok these are fair technical reasons for them doing this. Nevertheless Google's strategy also happens to leave them in control of resulting language and platform.
167.
by embolism 13y ago
That's not irrational at all - Google tracks almost everything you do on the web via the Google analytics code and Adsense code that are on the web pages you visit, not just via your searches.
168.
by embolism 13y ago
If Google charged money to the users instead of the advertisers, their only incentive would be to collect data to make their services better. As it is, they also have a very strong incentive to collect data to make their advertising better,
169.
by embolism 13y ago
No - not like JavaScript. None of Google's goals are harmed by Dart. That's the point - it's there to serve their goals by diverting effort away from improving JavaScript - a project that benefits everyone towards supporti
170.
by embolism 13y ago
Apple is in complete control over its version of Objective-C, the runtime, and the libraries. The fact that parts of this are contributed to open source projects makes it no less proprietary.
171.
by embolism 13y ago
If Google submits Dart to an independent standards body that has a governance model that includes other interested parties e.g. Mozilla, Apple, W3C, and doesn't make Google king, and if Google agrees to adhere to the standard and n
172.
by embolism 13y ago
Yes, because none of that will have any effect on Google's control over what runtime goes into Chrome and their ability to make unilateral decisions about the language's future. It's fully owned and controlled by Google.
173.
by embolism 13y ago
Finally google will have a proprietary language to compete on a level playing field with Apple without having to worry about web standards.
174.
by embolism 13y ago
Yeah - every tech company with talented employees produces results that are just as good. Management and CEO talent is irrelevant, as we can all see. Jobs deserves only contempt.
175.
by embolism 13y ago
When you pay a fee, you don't have any rights to limit what's done with the money after you've handed it over.
176.
by embolism 13y ago
In other words it's nothing at all like a fee , as you described it earlier. But, if things are as you say, Google can do whatever it likes with the data according to the ToS. If people don't like data about them being given to t
177.
by embolism 13y ago
Firstly I was responding to the parent who said that Google tells us what they do with our data. Whether you think of it as ours or theirs, they don't tell us what they do with it. Secondly, if what you say is true, then we should stop
178.
by embolism 13y ago
Google doesn't tell us what they are doing with our data.