Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×
Chrome

Submission + - Google retiring iGoogle page with no alternatives to current users->

ashtophoenix writes: "Google is retiring the iGoogle page accessible via http://www.google.com/ig. Although they are providing a long notice (retiring Nov 1 2013) they have made it clear that no alternative is being provided to the current users. How can developers trust dev platforms offered by Google if they can whimsically retire such platforms without offering any kind of an alternative? What is the rationale, seems like to push Google Play and Chrome on iGoogle users or simply a huge lack of interest. I use iGoogle daily and will definitely need a replacement tool."
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:The problem is obvious patents (Score 5, Insightful) 58

The problem is a lot more fundamental and deep-rooted than what you have described. The short time limits, lack of proper reviews are symptoms of the problem. The real problem is the people, the incentives and the fundamental lines on which our world operates. The majority of the world operates not based on the drive to create something, the passion for perfection but rather on making money and gaining fame. Also, we don't understand ideas very well. Where do ideas come from? Do they belong to the person who got them? What if multiple people had them at the same time, whether in close proximity of location or in different parts of the world. Who would they belong to then? To the person who gets the patent? Should they really belong to someone, or the person who happens to get the idea first should only get a small part of the attribution? Who is making the decision to fund patent trolls? The executives sitting in a boardroom. Who is supporting these decisions? Everyone who is a stakeholder - all top level execs as well as senior/middle mgmt as well as stock option holders. Again, incentives supplanting principles/values.

Comment Re:Why forbid it? I fully endorse such apps! (Score 1) 459

I think the problem is that you, like me, know too much about the underlying details of how the machinery works. And that's why aren't identifying well with the technology-layman. The problem is that websites like Facebook etc. ask for information in a very benign way. "Update your status", "Tag your friend". Seems very innocent. I doubt many people would question that. But most people don't know that there exists massive databases of their profiles and they are all linked together. Some probably think it's magical that gmail is showing them ads that are relevant to them. People are extra careful giving out their SSNs but when it comes to "checking in" or "Updating statuses" people don't realize what exactly they are giving out since there are several translation layers that translate this seemingly benign info into profile databases and it's hard to comprehend for most people how the interlinking of these services will result in loss of privacy. Sure you can take an extra careful minimalistic approach to giving out data but social networks have worked hard to screen the details from the people. I think with education and such breaches of privacy people will become better informed and hopefully be more careful giving out their info. But until then...I think it's a positive thing for people who know better to grow awareness about privacy.

Comment Re:Why forbid it? I fully endorse such apps! (Score 1) 459

You are a smart guy obviously. Do you really think every person including 20 somethings and over 50 somethings are as savvy with Internet Technology? Do you think they all know that even though you delete your Facebook profile the pictures/posts still remain cached? On Facebook's servers as well as on Search Engines? Do you think they know that these companies have a legal obligation retain data and submit it to the Gov when asked for? Or that Human Resources depts. are constantly scanning these profiles? I don't think so!

Comment Re:Why forbid it? I fully endorse such apps! (Score 1) 459

It's easy to say from where you are. You're probably in technology or a related field or at least a slashdotter and hence very well informed about these issues. This isn't the case with everyone. Sure I agree everybody should inform themselves - that would be great - but the world isn't ideal - not everyone has the same IQ, opportunities, education, acumen, drive, environment, understanding and comprehension. Nor does everyone avidly read about Internet privacy related issues. Until people get to that point, it's the responsibility of people who know better to educate them. This is obviously IMHO and a subjective thing. You can disagree.

Comment Re:Why forbid it? I fully endorse such apps! (Score 1) 459

I disagree that you should have zero sympathy for stupid or ignorant people or people who are "duped" into thinking that they are simply updating their status and don't really realize the implications thereof because either they are too young or too immature or not well-versed with the hyper-connectedness of services on the Internet or simply not very good at analyzing things and looking too far ahead. I think those of us who are not as "stupid" or "ignorant" or are smarter or more informed do have a responsibility for educating and speaking up against abuse of information over the Internet.

Comment Re:do they tax frosty piss? (Score 2) 157

Quoted from TFA:

In Budget lingo, this pertains to cases “where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that this clause shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund”.

It clearly says resident. How is it trying to prevent foreigners??

Android

Submission + - Android Market forced me to accept Google Play privacy policy->

ashtophoenix writes: I was trying to download an app from Android Market and clicked on the Market app. It brought forth an Ok Cancel dialogue for accepting or rejecting the "Google Play" terms of service. I hit Cancel and Market shut down.
So to get to Market I had to accept the Google Play terms of service! This kind of bundling to me was infuriating. Why should I be forced to accept the Google Play terms of service in such a roundabout manner. Additionally I am also interested in knowing if I can go back and un-accept these terms of service. Why don't we have options to un-accept terms of service if we change our mind?

Link to Original Source

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...