Even if the GP was a bit harsh, I don't understand why you think its wrong to be suspicious of Google's motives? What happening is fairly obvious. They want to become a platform like Windows/Linux/OSX and establish control. Chrome (the browser) + NaCl is the trojan horse to accomplish this. I personally would definitely *NOT* want a future with a SaaS model where running applications on my machine would necessitate internet access to Googles servers.

Your 'if you don't like it, fork it' attitude is misplaced. That works for tiny 'hello world' type open source projects. Once OSS projects get to be complex you cannot just fork them without major $ resources. Without the money all you can do is complain on online forums.

Also, One could say a similar thing to you. If you don't like the comment, ignore it :)

I understand your point. BUT.. The list of companies that pays world class researchers and does not file for patents is rather short. In fact, I cant think of a single one off the top of my head.

Who cares if they shelve it as long as they publish it. Just last week I benefited from their research. MSR has a paper on resolution independent curve rendering and using that technique to render text using implicit curves. People are using that to render fonts inside the pixel shader w/o any font/graphics API !

Some evil trickery forces people to apply for jobs? MSR has a Vulcan mind meld?

Besides.. I'm happy if they hire the smartest people and keep publishing papers. Everyone gets to benefit.

You're underestimating the legacy java crap that bank/intranet websites run on (Though I have yet to find one that uses ActiveX). My bank's (OCBC) website requires java.. and requires some shitty hardware token for generating and validating one time use numbers. I basically have to maintain a separate browser install with the java plugin enabled for it.

No, you cannot chose any ipsw. After choosing the firmware it has to check with apple's servers before proceeding. Ergo, Apple has blocked me from using any firmware besides what they think I should use.

The irony of *YOU* calling others 'retard' is quite delicious.

If nobody complains and remains quiet, nothing will ever change. I'm glad I do not subscribe to such a pathetic way of life.

Your planet seems to be the one where facts can be created just by stating them. On my planet, facts need to be supported by evidence.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/09/cannot-downgrade-ios-7-ios-6-1-3-ios-6-1-4.html

False. Apple will force me to use iOS 7 whenever I reformat and restore my phone which I end up doing atleast once a year because the phone slows down after about a year of use.

If you have a device that has the A5 or newer chip, you cannot downgrade the OS because Apple has fixed bugs people used earlier.

Also *IF* and that's a big if some people (on some devices) have managed to restore the OS back go 6, they are using techniques that use flaws in Apples update process. They have to know in advance the steps that need to be taken. e.g. (If you happen to be the one of people that know how to.. and managed to cache their SHSH blobs in advance - note that this technique used to work but does not anymore). Apple *does not* allow you to downgrade.

You can ask the voices in your head...

If its so easy to find, then post a link detailing how to downgrade my iPhone 4S to 6.1.3.

Apple is choosing what version of iOS I can and can't use on a device that *I OWN*. Don't know why you guys are defending such policies.

Apple is choosing what version of iOS I can and can't use on a device that *I OWN*. Good job defending that,

You cant use SHSH blobs now. Apple has introduced the APTicket mechanism which makes them useless.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/09/cannot-downgrade-ios-7-ios-6-1-3-ios-6-1-4.html

Because you can never go back to 6.1.3 now. (officially .. w/o jailbreak, etc). If you have any problem with your phone and you need to reinstall the OS .. you are screwed - you *have* to install iOS 7. Or if you decide to upgrade to 7 just to "see what it was like" and found it slow on your particular hardware, too bad, you cant go back. - This is especially bad for "dated" hardware like the iPhone 4.

>They don't know who you are.

Thats untill you login to any email id or other online account with your real name from the same IP enough times to form a link between the "anonymous" ID and the "real" ID.

I think we've gotten fairly off-topic here so I'll just let this be my last response.
--

Its never been tested so we'll never know. Besides, the point is moot since nobody can expect an average user to sue giant corporations - given their army of lawyers.

Okay. I'll take that at face value.

When I type google.com into a browser, I am not expressing any intent for Google to track me. Google is simply assuming that the fact that any packets are routed through their networks gives them the right to inspect and track/save them. What if every single internet backbone provider starting mining data packets? After all, when you go the route of implicit-authorization anyone can do anything. In my opinion recording data without permission should be illegal before companies really start testing the boundaries (and they will eventually). I've been online since 1996 and I remember the days when setting cookies or recording visitor IP addresses was considered invasion of privacy !

What if Google decides that people who click on ads should have their traffic/service prioritized? I'm sure it makes great business sense - in fact - it makes perfect sense to simply do it without telling anyone. Once you create a successful business which relies primarily on user data/clicks/impressions - the only way to grow in a saturated market is to give the 1-2% "paying customers" who click on ads something extra.

And I'm not even getting to what can happen if data is used to manipulate peoples psychology. Google can enable really evil advertising. e.g. If I was exchanging emails with my family regarding any personal health problems, Google is the perfect platform to show me an ad for some anti-depressant or some other pill especially if some automated algorithm determined I was in a vulnerable frame of mind.

Ofcource it wont start out that way. Maybe some geek will come up with an automated algorithm to map the user into N-personality/mood dimensions and you can even run some kind of genetic algorithm to determine which category ads are successful for which state of mind.

There could be some perfectly "nice" use case where I'm more likely to order a pizza online when I come home late and Google detects a change using some android gps location data or IP or what have you.

I have simply too many fears of user exploitation.Its not restricted to only Google. I doubt I can be comfortable with any business that charges no money upfront for their products.

I wanted to contrast the language difference between TOS and Privacy Policy. A TOS is something "I Agree" to whereas a Privacy Policy is just something Google tells me it might or might not do with my data. A huge difference. It is evident in the language too, TOS allows Google to sell personally identifiable data, while privacy policy states they wont. Privacy Policies are not legally binding - so its merely a PR thing. TOS gives Google rights - for e.g. to kick a user out of their service whenever they want - without giving the *user* any rights - other than what the privacy policy states they might do.

Given the amount of personal info Google has, I hope that's true for everyone's sake.

Well, nothing stops individual employees from leaking/spying on data anyway. And it has happened .. at Google/Facebook/etc, so all the security in the world will only stop external script-kiddies and other low-level information hackers but cant stop anyone who is motivated enough.

Your statement contains an implicit assumption that data *must* be collected. I am of the opposite view. Personal data should never be automatically collected, even in an anonymous fashion. All data collection must be done through a specific means (e.g. user submitted form) via an explicit opt-in event - not just clicking "I Agree" on some large wall of text that nobody can understand.

I have never seen any option of permanently deleting data. I assume deleted just means hidden from the user. One reason being google cant guarentee that the data is deleted from all the backups, and another reason is - even deleted data is valuable for targeting ads.

I'm sure we disagree on most of the above since you work for Google :)

Well I don't really know about other divisions. I just happened to run into this because I setup a google adwords account recently for our company and managed to catch this setting and turn it off. More importantly, the terms of service allows google to sell any data to anyone.

For e.g.

----------------
Your TOS states:

"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

And your privacy policy states:

We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply:

        We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.

        We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites. For example, we may share information publicly to show trends about the general use of our services.
----------------

Not exactly comforting. Though I suppose for any online advertising company, such things are boiler plate legalese stuff to avoid future lawsuits. When things are going good user privacy is important from a PR perspective but when things go bad and wall street/investors/other idiot MBA types turn on the pressure, most companies fold and will sell out to make money.

Maybe but why would individual user information be useful to anyone? I mean .. if I was trying to sell a product, I'd want to target an entire class of people conforming to certain criteria rather than specifically Bob or Sally.