Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
Another Reason Google Reader Died:
Increased
Concern About Privacy and Compliance [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Link
This is really disturbing and worth drilling down to
find out
who is responsible for attaching such a rider to the
Continuing
Resolution bill.
--- Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
Looks like all of us who try to remove M$ from our computers
will become criminals. If you buy a computer that has M$
pre-installed and it doesn't call home periodically, the
Feds will come looking. And no, I WILL not dual boot.
It's Linux or nothing.
You must use M$.
You must watch TV.
You must do this.
You must not do that.
Sounds like "1984"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
Not really a newspick yet, and not off topic either. Thom Holwerda in an insightful guest article over at OSNews notes:
"We've been here before." This sort of patent bluster has been seen before with
Opus, the now-mandatory audio codec for WebRTC. The IETF is not unfamiliar with
this sort of shenanigans, and they don't let them hold things up. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
Ad industry threatens
Firefox users But both Mozilla and Brookman pointed out that
Mozilla's Firefox plans are no different than what
Apple's Safari browser
already does. By default, Safari blocks third-party cookies, and has since its
2003 debut. The iOS version of Safari has done the
same since its 2007
inception.
Oh, Really? I have used Safari since its 2003 debut, and
still use it. Sure there's a button in the settings to "Block Cookies from third
party sites and
advertisers", but I've had suspicions for some years what that
actually does. It blocks some, but not all third party cookies. I have never
seen a total of
zero third party cookies as claimed in
the other newspick on this subject. I suspect it is
caused by both Apple's incompetence, and some really clever guys in the ad
industry. I have
resorted to Safari Cookies to purge
non-white-listed cookies at the end of each session.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:51 AM EDT |
Chromebook and the low cost of being accessible [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/englund-google-far-garna-rulla-fram-kanonerna_
8033524.svd
Think Streisand effect![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Bingable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- unsearchable - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- unsearchable - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- ogooglebart (Eng. ungoogleable) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:28 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
Article link.
All I can say is:
Wow!
It's a service that is specifically targetting marketing in which a
"greeting card" was sent. In other words:
Marketing via referrals
The
whole idea of that is to get as many people to refer your product/service to as
many of their friends as possible. This would indicate - if marketing referrals
was the true business plan - that a person forwarding the "greeting card" to
more people is desirable and wanted.
Yet the company initiated a lawsuit
because people didn't stop at referring just one person????
That seems to
me to indicate the company wanted a claim of copyright infringement (no matter
how poor) - another potential means of acquiring a source of income outside
their normal income that they don't actuall deserve. This appears to be
supported in the article:
Luvdarts should actually get a cut of the
massive revenues cell phone companies generate
Only this time
instead of Google being the target, it was the cell phone companies.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
A whole page of Apple bashing, and
one para for Google. I guess the "front page article" the WSJ referred to was in
the print edition of
People's Daily, because the online versions are not
showing what they quote, English or Chinese. There is some modest criticism in
People's Daily Online,
Tuesday. The Android critical whitepaper quoted by WSJ is
available from
the
Telecommunications Research Institute of the Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology PDF, Chinese, and there's discussion at
techcrunch.
[WSJ Newspick, last para]
Beijing late last year
notified the World Trade Organization that China plans to require additional
smartphone testing and require that companies
notify the government ahead of
software upgrades. The country also has drafted standards that, if passed, could
force companies to help China's
government identify users and track their
application use. I'm trying to refrain from commenting on which
countries currently have
the most user friendly tracking ability.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Link
Call it Metro. Call it Modern UI. Call it
whatever you like.
Who the f*** would want a 22.5" monitor (or a bigger
one) without a proper wallpaper and completely taken by those flat
rectangles?
Maybe Win8 is twice as fast as Win7, maybe not. Boot time is
not THAT important to me.
I wouldn't use something that I don't like.
I
find these primary colored tiles very ugly and distasteful.
If you like
them then use them, I'm fine with that. Just don't try to force them on me,
that's not gonna work.
I can't help thinking of this photo every time I
see a windows 8 ad:
windows8 teletubbies (The interface formerly
known as Metro)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57577006-93/google-nokia-
face-off-in-video-codec-dispute/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|