The whole point of having a privacy policy is that people can see that Delta is at least meeting their obligations to inform its customers. It's not about what Delta already has on them. It's about showing some basic, minimum level of responsibility--and they apparently can't even do that. It's NOT hard for them to do, and it IS the law.

And if you haven't noticed, the lack of a privacy policy does mean that Delta could technically store all your photos taken with your phone through their app, and potentially use them for marketing purposes--your consent having been implicitly given as part of your usage of the application. That isn't something that SkyMiles customers would or *should* be expected to know, nor is it information that Delta already has.

Spoken like someone who assumes that a government official should be taken on faith. In the real world, having a privacy policy means having several pages of fine-print legalese that basically means "we get whatever information we can on you and do whatever we want with it". The (existing but pointless) legal requirement to have a privacy policy says absolutely nothing about the contents of that policy, which could entirely legally read "Delta can use any of your photos for marketing purposes", and chances are no one would ever read that far.

Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

This lawsuit is nothing but more pointless grandstanding by an attorney general. Privacy policies are pointless and may actually be counterproductive; they're written by lawyers for no one and typically simply say "we can do whatever we want with the information we get from you", because the requirement to have a policy doesn't provide any restrictions on what that policy says.

Nevertheless, "for your privacy" is right behind "for the children" and "for your safety" as a rationale to shut down legitimate objections, and surely California doesn't have anything better to do to protect citizens' privacy; after all, it only lost two SSN databases this year!

"Justified" doesn't mean "fair"; it means reasonable or adequately supported by evidence. The question is whether Microsoft's pricing the Surface the same as the iPad is a wise business move.

What app(s) do you use for a serial terminal?

I was rather skeptical as well, but I bought a Toshiba Thrive (10") when it came out about a year ago, and I've been quite pleased with it. In particular, the taller aspect ratio makes reading text more convenient, since 6" is a bit wide of a column width, and a 16:9 screen gives a narrower column and a longer page.

Whole universe is deterministic.

If you can prove that, there's a Nobel in it for you. As of right now, the evidence seems against it.

Beyond just going to 1TB, the other thing Seagate could do is go with massively increasing the SSD portion, and making it a full volume instead of cache, say, 128GB or more, and then allowing us to use that as a boot/app volume.

This would defeat the purpose of having the acceleration for the massive storage; if you really want that much flash, just buy the SSD--why have the platters at all? Additionally, the XT's flash is SLC, and buying 128GB of that seems to be going for around $1k these days.

So name your ISP!

I did get a sloppy; my default mode of thinking about SSD+platters is using SSDs as journals for a transactional datastore. That said, while SRT is a nice feature, it's not universally available (even on Sandy Bridge motherboards), and support under anything but Windows leaves something to be desired. A hybrid disk drive is all-around simpler and (for now) a bit cheaper.

I'm not sure exactly which market Seagate are aiming for here.

*raises hand*

I put one of the 750GB XT's in my laptop and have been thoroughly pleased with it. It's nice to talk about having one SSD for caching and then platters for big storage of everything else, but the point of the hybrid drives is that you don't have to split up your partitions and manually allocate data between the two. A device-mapper target could theoretically do the same thing, but I'm only aware of one quite new third-party driver for Windows that attempts this sort of mapping, and in the meantime, I'm satisfied with near-instant application launches from my XT without having to touch a thing.

Don't read too much into the bad summary. The judge told the jury to determine whether Google infringed Oracle's copyright assuming the API can be copyrighted. If they find that Google did, then the judge will rule whether the API can in fact be copyrighted, but if they say that Google didn't infringe in either case, he doesn't have to make a ruling on the question (and, particularly, he avoids the scenario where he rules API's aren't copyrightable, an appeals court reverses him, and they have to redo the trial because the jury has been dismissed).

I hadn't heard Jenny McCarthy was blaming iPads now; I suppose it's an improvement from a public-health perspective.

Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and IE will all cache HTTPS content if permitted by Cache-Control headers. Of course, HTTPS, does prevent transparent proxy caches.

We're arguing on the same side; the parent to my post got modded into oblivion. He said that if you're legal, you have nothing to fear; I'm pointing out that several legal sites have already been blown away for exactly the reasons you describe.

Not sure if you're a troll or an idiot. JotForm and Dajaz1 both had their sites returned after the feds admitted that there had been no wrongdoing but they'd been shut down anyway, and Rojadirecta (which is still offline) actually had a court judgment saying it was legal.