Probably fairly similar. Or at least no worse than it would be otherwise. Most of the times your read about the feds jumping up and down on someone, it's when they decided to be "clever" or belligerent, or similar. Nothing is more likely to get a good response than a calm, respectful response.

Coming in October: GURPS, The Motion Picture.

By Universal Pictures

True, Clue was amazing. In no small part because it was hilarious. And also because of it's novel (and I believe never repeated) multiple endings in multiple markets.

Who could possibly hate kitchens as much as he does?

Someone with a monetary incentive to make the use of kitchens equivalent to strangling puppies. I wonder who would benefit from that...

Dungeons and Dragons is a rules framework upon which stories are built, not a story itself. Making a "D&D" movie is like basing a film off "Hoyle's Book of Games."

You mean like a movie based on "Clue". Or "Battleship". Or "Candyland"?

It seems like a difficult system to put together. The odds are there are going to be holes. But, far more importantly, it seems these could be done when the API call is made, no need to track data taint.

Android apps ask for freaking every permission. That's the real concern. How do we stop asshats from wanting it all?

We used to have applications run locally. They used to have a lot more freedom - any and all apps could know exactly who you are and what your computer's UUID was, not only how your battery's doing.

Except web apps aren't primarily replacing other apps. They are replacing static content. It's like when they allowed people to put code in PDFs. Sure, I suppoe it was somewhat sandboxed and better than a special purpose EXE, but the alternative that is supplanted really was a static PDF with form information..

And even the, there used to be the option to run apps locally, and forbid them from communicating with the outside world.

at maybe it's a good thing it's being done in a browser.

Which is the other isse. It used to be, running an app was a conscious choice. Now every app and eevery pag eis tghe equivalent of a drive-by install.

Can you expound. I don't understand your suggestion.

Who cares about the police using the data. Facebook itself is 100 times scarier than any police force.

I'm going to cross respond with my reply to someone who used this same kinda concept.. his example was an optional photo app extension.

I find your idea appealing in general, and would love to see a social network that worked like that, I'm not sure how it could work. Doesn't that mean that the pictures app developer would have their own privacy settings (and maybe "backup" pictures on a server they control)? And wouldn't app interoperabiility would probably make your privacy "the weakest in the chain"/"the weakest installed"? Also, doesn't that make it where every single feature needs to hit critical mass independently... after all, how do I see your pictures if I need to install an app to do so? What about dueling options fragmenting the market?

I meant FB and Orkut did so out of scaling concerns, not for any other reason. Yes, it was stupid how G+ did it.

Probably should have just bought Twitter and WhatsApp and Instagram.

Links take you to learn more info about something.

Except that SN's are trying to host that data within themselves, and FB is using it's monopoly power and it's algorithims to prioritize stuff in the newsfeed hosted on FB.

Social networks already have you so profiled that they know where you want to go and take you there.

They know the intersection of where you will spend time and where they will serve ads. This is not the same.

t. Back then, not much thought was spent on the more sinister intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Huh? It was obvious when it launched that was their direction.

Google's name is too tarnished with regards to privacy and will never be able to launch a social media site again.

I don't know if it was really a privacy issue. After all, FaceBook is probably the only site more devoted to mining your data than Google is.

No privacy issues. If I don't want my plus profile to have pictures, I just never download a picture app.

I find your idea appealing in general, and would love to see a social network that worked like that, I'm not sure how it could work. Doesn't that mean that the pictures app developer would have their own privacy settings (and maybe "backup" pictures on a server they control)? And wouldn't app interoperabiility would probably make your privacy "the weakest in the chain"/"the weakest installed"? Also, doesn't that make it where every single feature needs to hit critical mass independently... after all, how do I see your pictures if I need to install an app to do so? What about dueling options fragmenting the market?

I actually think a big part of the failure of Google+ was something that, in hindsight, looks so small that a lot of people forget about it: When Google+ launched, it was a limited invite-only service.

You mean like Facebook and Orkut did?

But seriously, those were due to scaling concerns. Google could have flipped a switch. I think they're problem was they went backwards... feature complete to a limited number of people, as opposed to a slow feature rollout to everyone.