ntakasaki

Here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/0...

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...

This one comes to mind, which they left unfixed for years.

http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/Apple...

Have you read the entire thing? It's about comparing them to VCs wives, presumably housewives, not about a special female perspective on, say a female focused startup, but being compared to a female who wants to be in a traditional role in a patriarchal society. Not sure how any one can miss it as badly as you did.

They already take advantage of their in several different ways.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ftc-says-google-skewed-search...

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yelp-complains-outranked-...

http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embrace...

http://searchengineland.com/google-results-too-ad-heavy-1662...

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/ftc-googles-ad-practice-i...

http://www.benedelman.org/adlabeling/google-colors-oct2014.h...

Do you think that if Mozilla ran a similar campaign it would see more success? Somehow I don't think so.

Barely anyone cares about online privacy. MS found that out with the failed Scroogled campaign which they scrapped after it tanked. People value free stuff more than privacy.

There are some interesting court cases going on though, with the analogs of your scenario but with student data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/0...

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/google-deceptively-tracks...

I don't think so, see my other comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11048311

From a different article:

>When Olmos, who says he has spent thousands of pounds on Apple products over the years, took it to an Apple store in London, staff told him there was nothing they could do, and that his phone was now junk. He had to pay £270 for a replacement and is furious.

>IMO bricking on touch ID issues is extreme, but maximises the security of the device.

We are all smart people here and there are several ways to have security without bricking expensive hardware.

First, the update can wipe the device instead of bricking it.

Second, Apple can provide an option to replace the fingerprint chip and charge, $150-$200 or whatever it costs for it.

There would be several better solutions that the most profitable company in the world could figure out if they wanted to. It's funny how their particular solution happens to make them even more money through shutting down third party repairs and making people buy new phones.

This is like your home alarm software(made by the home builder) remotely burning down your house and telling you to build a new one because someone may have tampered with home access and could possibly enter your home.

Your analogy is way off.

This is more like your Tesla car's keyfob misfunctioning and you get it repaired by a non-Tesla dealer. The dealer could've put in a backdoor to get into the vehicle.

Tesla releases a big new update for their car software and now your Tesla is completely bricked and Tesla refuses to repair it, saying you have to buy a new car.

Is that acceptable?

What's the price on this, does anyone know?

Also, typed Ctrl-F "linux" on that page and didn't find a single mention, which is interesting from a branding perspective.

Edit: Can this run, say LibreOffice or Gimp or any other Linux program?

>Google has been very upfront on exactly how their business model works with users since day one. I don't find this comparison warranted.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

How many people know Google using location data from Android phones to track which physical stores users visit?

They were even mining paid Google Apps for Business accounts for tracking data.

From http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...

Highlights:

"As part of a potentially explosive lawsuit making its way through federal court, the giant online-services provider Google has acknowledged scanning the contents of millions of email messages sent and received by student users of the company’s Apps for Education tool suite for schools. In the suit, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company also faces accusations from plaintiffs that it went further, crossing a “creepy line” by using information gleaned from the scans to build “surreptitious” profiles of Apps for Education users that could be used for such purposes as targeted advertising."

"A Google spokeswoman confirmed to Education Week that the company “scans and indexes” the emails of all Apps for Education users for a variety of purposes, including potential advertising, via automated processes that cannot be turned off—even for Apps for Education customers who elect not to receive ads. The company would not say whether those email scans are used to help build profiles of students or other Apps for Education users, but said the results of its data mining are not used to actually target ads to Apps for Education users unless they choose to receive them."

...

"Student-data-privacy experts contend that the latter claim is contradicted by Google’s own court filings in the California suit. They describe the case as highly troubling and likely to further inflame rising national concern that protection of children’s private educational information is too lax."

"Mr. Thiele said his district has used Google Apps for Education since 2008. Officials there have always been aware that the company does “back-end processing” of students’ email messages, he said, but the district’s agreement with Google precludes such data from being used to serve ads to students or staff members. As long as the company abides by those terms, Mr. Thiele said, “I don’t have any problem with it.” In an emailed statement provided to Education Week, Bram Bout, the director of Google Apps for Education, said that “ads in Gmail are turned off by default for Google Apps for Education and we have no plans to change that in the future.”" ... "Those plaintiffs in the California lawsuit allege that Google treats Google Apps for Education email users virtually the same as it treats consumer Gmail users. That means not only mining students’ email messages for key words and other information, but also using resulting data—including newly created derivative information, or “metadata”—for “secret user profiling” that could serve as the basis for such activities as delivering targeted ads in Google products other than Apps for Education, such as Google Search, Google+, and YouTube."

"The plaintiffs allege that Google has employed such practices since around 2010, when it began using a new technology, known as Content Onebox, that allows the company to intercept and scan emails before they reach their intended recipients, rather than after messages are delivered to users’ inboxes, regardless of whether ads are turned off."

"While the allegations by the plaintiffs are explosive, it’s the sworn declarations of Google representatives in response to their claims that have truly raised the eyebrows of observers and privacy experts. Contrary to the company’s earlier public statements, Google representatives acknowledged in a September motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for class certification that the company’s consumer-privacy policy applies to Apps for Education users. Thus, Google argues, it has students’ (and other Apps for Education users’) consent to scan and process their emails."

"In November, Kyle C. Wong, a lawyer representing Google, also argued in a formal declaration submitted to the court in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification that the company’s data-mining practices are widely known, and that the plaintiffs’ complaints that the scanning and processing of their emails was done secretly are thus invalid. Mr. Wong cited extensive media coverage about Google’s data mining of Gmail consumer users’

>Mr. Wong’s inclusion of the following reference to the disclosure provided to students at the University of Alaska particularly caught the attention of privacy advocates: The University of Alaska (“UA”) has a “Google Mail FAQs,” which asks, “I hear that Google reads my email. Is this true?” The answer states, “They do not ‘read’ your email per se. For use in targeted advertising on their other sites, if your email is not encrypted, software (not a person) does scan your email and compile keywords for advertising. For example, if the software looks at 100 emails and identifies the word ‘Doritos’ or ‘camping’ 50 times, they will use that data for advertising on their other sites.” “The fact that Google put this in their declaration means we take it as true,” said Ms. Barnes of the privacy watchdog group EPIC. Google’s sworn court statements reveal that the company has violated student trust by using students’ education records for profit.”

From a Google filing in court about Gmail privacy:

>Indeed, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).

>it's "inconceivable" that someone using a Gmail account would not be aware that the information in their email would be known to Google.

>Or it can result in spec which helps everyone instead of just MS alone.

Just MS alone? DirectX helps hundreds of millions of gamers, a whole bunch of game and application developers and companies.

That's like saying improvements to the Linux kernel help only the Linux kernel.

>Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL

Huh, how do you see that? The spec is developed behind closed doors by corporate folks each with their own interests. Even the W3C holds open discussions with specs.

A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.

Perhaps because design by a committee of peers usually results in a fragmentation and compatibility nightmare like this:

Edit: The below blog redirects HN referrers to a funny image macro, copy paste the link instead.

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/06/i-have-ported-xscreensaver-...

The delayed spec hasn't even been released yet and Nvidia is already making Vulkan extensions on its own.

https://developer.nvidia.com/engaging-voyage-vulkan

Also, Vulkan is going to support extensions like OpenGL did which fragmented the hell out of OpenGL.

Nvidia is already beginning the lock in and fragmentation process by making Vulkan extensions.

https://developer.nvidia.com/engaging-voyage-vulkan

>NVIDIA will therefore provide a few Vulkan extensions from day zero, so that you as developer can enjoy less obstacles on your path to Vulkan. We will support consuming GLSL shader strings directly next to Vulkan's mandatory SPIR-V input

Or it can be a very nice object based API instead of a state based API that made sense in 1992 as the slide deck said and certainly didn't make any sense in 2008 when the industry group Khronos sided with the commercial CAD industry to screw over Linux consumer gaming because there was no money in it. How was that DirectX's fault again?

I am guess you're not a game developer and your post is yet another case of [1].

I am a game dev and here are some links that show to non game devs why DirectX is more popular:

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2711231

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/linus-...

So is the iPad Pro a "new" product or a new product?

Here's a few examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2457760

"arguably more bad than good being done"

>Also, IIRC it's a requirement in the USA that public (and not-NFP) companies must always act to 'increase shareholder value', so the giving away of products or services could be considered a legal exposure. The obvious way to work around this concern is to label it marketing, which brings us back to where we came in.

There is no such requirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...

>EDIT: Sorry - misread your 404 question -- try these:

I read those and I don't find anything to justify OPs "$400m to fund ways to destroy GNU/Linux" or The Register's characterization of '$421m to fight Linux".

They do a lot of things like most big companies, and some people seem to concentrate only the bad.

For example, they started funding OpenSSL and other core infrastructure[1] projects of the Linux foundation after the Heartbleed fiasco. But you don't find that kind of news on here.

By the way "$400m to fund ways to destroy GNU/Linux" seems to be quite hyperbolic, especially coming from 'The Register'. The link in the article goes to a 404 page, do you have any real details of the so called campaign?

[1] https://threatpost.com/group-backed-by-google-microsoft-to-h...

>> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.

That's well put and explains the furor over Bill Gates' charity work while other immensely rich folks get zero heat for essentially hoarding their wealth like Scrooge McDuck instead.

The Azure credits can be used to run 'GNU/Linux'. A full one fifth of workloads on Azure run Linux.

The new rules don't increase the labor supply.

Relax, it's just literally Fox News reporting.

The source is Breitbart, and both articles starting with "The Obama Administration...." should give you a clue that this is a hit piece and will not just bend facts, but outirght lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News_Network

Miano is just trying to sell his new book about this matter, co-authored with Michelle Malkin, a right wing Fox News contributor. So the more lies they can pile in, the better for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin

Also, they don't like these new rules because big business can no longer stagnate wages for many immigrants stuck for decades in the immigration backlog.

I guess they don't also don't like this provision which makes it easier to report employer abuses:

>H-1B Whistleblowers: Establishing special eligibility for otherwise unavailable extensions and changes of status for H-1B “whistleblowers” who face retaliation for reporting an employer’s violation of an H-1B Labor Condition Application

>I find it hard to digest that someone who is paid to work on these mattters full time can get so many facts wrong.

Simple, think of them like you do used cars salesmen or lawyers, their job is to lie even if they know the truth, and their audience will know no better, so it works very well.