Monday, November 25, 2013
Remember when I wondered if Google was getting too big, and too inquisitive?
Now, does Google want your DNA? Do you realize how much that test would cost if it weren't subsidized? Why would anyone want to subsidize it?
I don't like the answer.
.
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Monday, November 25, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
3799 Blowing my nose
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Heard on BBC radio, in reference to attacks on women in India: "Each attack is more brutal than the next." Um, doesn't that mean the attacks are decreasing in brutality?
------------------------------
"The government didn't violate a convicted terrorist's constitutional right to a speedy trial when it detained him for five years at Guantanamo Bay before trying him in court, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday" [not this past Thursday]. Details here. Basically, a federal court ruled that his right to a speedy trial was not abridged by his having been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without charges, during which time he was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques". From the WSJ Law Blog, "The circuit court agreed with a lower-court judge that the government’s decision to delay prosecution so it could extract valuable intelligence on al Qaeda was reasonable."
Let me get this straight. The court said that a speedy trial does not trump national security, so it's ok to keep this guy for five years of intense interrogation because he's a terrorist, BEFORE a trial to determine if he's a terrorist. In other words, if the authorities think you're guilty then you're guilty. He was convicted right off the bat, with no hearing and no lawyer, without a trial, by his captors. And this is ok?
I don't know about you, but that's scary, and even scarier that a federal court said it was ok. What if that kind of thinking spreads to other federal or state agencies?
Actually, it has been going on for a long time. If you are arrested on on drug dealing charges, or even if you are only suspected of illegality, the state/feds can confiscate practically everything you own and sell it, and keep the money, BEFORE your criminal trial. If it turns out you are not guilty, you don't just get your stuff back. It's a long expensive legal battle you can't afford and are unlikely to win. Too bad, so sad. Your property is long gone, you had been "convicted" and fined on mere suspicion. Look up "asset forfeiture" on Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------
Ever wonder whence the expression "short shrift", meaning you were shrugged off quickly and not taken seriously? Not being Catholic, I didn't know that shrift is confession to a priest and the penance and absolution that follow. So if you were given short shrift, either your sins were minor, or you got a brushoff. Simple. Wow.
--------------------------------------------
Google wants to scan and digitize millions of books, the entire book, from research libraries as grist for their search mill. They'd already processed gazillions of books when publishers and authors' guild(s) protested that it was copyright infringement. It's significant that research libraries buy the books, and don't make money on them. Google has not purchased the books, and will make money on them through advertising on search results pages. Fair use? Not? I say no, get permission, but I'm not the judge.
If you're interested, the story's at http://mashable.com/2013/09/24/google-books-lawsuit/.
---------------------------------------------
I'm thinking Google is getting too big. They provide an lot of very expensive services for free (think of Google maps - how much must THAT cost?) and supposedly they get income from advertising, but, uh, when's the last time you were very aware of Google advertising? They are gradually taking over the internet, and then tying it all together (Blogger, Gmail, Chrome, you can't have a YouTube account anymore unless you also have a Google+ account, etc.) and they are asking for a LOT of information through those accounts and gathering more information from your activities on those accounts.
Advertising isn't paying for everything Google is doing, I guarantee that. Not even selling top ranking in search results. I am very suspicious.
Pretty soon for every house on those Google maps, they will have the names, ages, details, photos, interests, purchasing habits and preferences of all the occupants.
Who is funding all this, and what is the ultimate purpose?
.
Heard on BBC radio, in reference to attacks on women in India: "Each attack is more brutal than the next." Um, doesn't that mean the attacks are decreasing in brutality?
------------------------------
"The government didn't violate a convicted terrorist's constitutional right to a speedy trial when it detained him for five years at Guantanamo Bay before trying him in court, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday" [not this past Thursday]. Details here. Basically, a federal court ruled that his right to a speedy trial was not abridged by his having been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without charges, during which time he was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques". From the WSJ Law Blog, "The circuit court agreed with a lower-court judge that the government’s decision to delay prosecution so it could extract valuable intelligence on al Qaeda was reasonable."
Let me get this straight. The court said that a speedy trial does not trump national security, so it's ok to keep this guy for five years of intense interrogation because he's a terrorist, BEFORE a trial to determine if he's a terrorist. In other words, if the authorities think you're guilty then you're guilty. He was convicted right off the bat, with no hearing and no lawyer, without a trial, by his captors. And this is ok?
I don't know about you, but that's scary, and even scarier that a federal court said it was ok. What if that kind of thinking spreads to other federal or state agencies?
Actually, it has been going on for a long time. If you are arrested on on drug dealing charges, or even if you are only suspected of illegality, the state/feds can confiscate practically everything you own and sell it, and keep the money, BEFORE your criminal trial. If it turns out you are not guilty, you don't just get your stuff back. It's a long expensive legal battle you can't afford and are unlikely to win. Too bad, so sad. Your property is long gone, you had been "convicted" and fined on mere suspicion. Look up "asset forfeiture" on Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------
Ever wonder whence the expression "short shrift", meaning you were shrugged off quickly and not taken seriously? Not being Catholic, I didn't know that shrift is confession to a priest and the penance and absolution that follow. So if you were given short shrift, either your sins were minor, or you got a brushoff. Simple. Wow.
--------------------------------------------
Google wants to scan and digitize millions of books, the entire book, from research libraries as grist for their search mill. They'd already processed gazillions of books when publishers and authors' guild(s) protested that it was copyright infringement. It's significant that research libraries buy the books, and don't make money on them. Google has not purchased the books, and will make money on them through advertising on search results pages. Fair use? Not? I say no, get permission, but I'm not the judge.
If you're interested, the story's at http://mashable.com/2013/09/24/google-books-lawsuit/.
---------------------------------------------
I'm thinking Google is getting too big. They provide an lot of very expensive services for free (think of Google maps - how much must THAT cost?) and supposedly they get income from advertising, but, uh, when's the last time you were very aware of Google advertising? They are gradually taking over the internet, and then tying it all together (Blogger, Gmail, Chrome, you can't have a YouTube account anymore unless you also have a Google+ account, etc.) and they are asking for a LOT of information through those accounts and gathering more information from your activities on those accounts.
Advertising isn't paying for everything Google is doing, I guarantee that. Not even selling top ranking in search results. I am very suspicious.
Pretty soon for every house on those Google maps, they will have the names, ages, details, photos, interests, purchasing habits and preferences of all the occupants.
Who is funding all this, and what is the ultimate purpose?
.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
3319 I give up
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
I saw this notice when I went to Blogger today:
I was faced with the usual "gotta check the box that you read the Terms and Conditions". I've worked with lawyers long enough to know that you DO read the legal stuff or suffer the consequences, but Picasa didn't make it easy. The terms and conditions were in a small unexpandable box, and each paragraph was one very long line, so you had to scroll right and left forever, as well as down.
Most people would shrug, skip it, and check the box. I copied the damn thing to the notepad, and read it, because with that extreme format, I figure they're hiding something.
I found this little gem:
Sigh.
Oh, yeah, every photo that ever appeared on my blog is out there. I know that putting them on my blog I "gave" them to the internet, but I didn't give up my rights to control them if I so chose. I still retained the right to control --- until Google/Blogger/Picasa took it away.
I can't make the albums out there private. I did check the box to not give out the link, but I don't know what that means. Let me know if you suddenly can't see photos on entries. *I* can still see them, but I don't know if anyone else can. Please check out the immediately preceding post. Is the shirt dress still there?
.
Garrison Keillor says he speaks Danish well enough to get into trouble,
but not well enough to get out of it.
---------------------------------------------------
but not well enough to get out of it.
---------------------------------------------------
This is longish, but do read it.
It may be important to you or someone you know.
It may be important to you or someone you know.
I saw this notice when I went to Blogger today:
Do more with your photosSo I went to Picasa to look.
Your blog's photos have their
own album in Picasa Web Albums.
Take a look.
I was faced with the usual "gotta check the box that you read the Terms and Conditions". I've worked with lawyers long enough to know that you DO read the legal stuff or suffer the consequences, but Picasa didn't make it easy. The terms and conditions were in a small unexpandable box, and each paragraph was one very long line, so you had to scroll right and left forever, as well as down.
Most people would shrug, skip it, and check the box. I copied the damn thing to the notepad, and read it, because with that extreme format, I figure they're hiding something.
I found this little gem:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services. [Emphasis mine.]That's the bit that got me banned from Facebook for life when I objected to Facebook's retaining my photos for their own use even after I had deleted them from my account. That word "irrevocable" means that once posting the photos, you can never regain control of them. Note, by the way, that paragraph 11.2 directly contradicts the last sentence of paragraph 11.1. That means that advertisers with relationships with Google can use your photos on ads offering, say, STD cures, and you have no say.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
Sigh.
Oh, yeah, every photo that ever appeared on my blog is out there. I know that putting them on my blog I "gave" them to the internet, but I didn't give up my rights to control them if I so chose. I still retained the right to control --- until Google/Blogger/Picasa took it away.
I can't make the albums out there private. I did check the box to not give out the link, but I don't know what that means. Let me know if you suddenly can't see photos on entries. *I* can still see them, but I don't know if anyone else can. Please check out the immediately preceding post. Is the shirt dress still there?
.
Monday, February 14, 2011
3166 Google search rankings
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ever wonder how sites end up on the top in Google searches? The answer: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all
.
"In any group of three people, there's generally at least one disruptive moron."
-- Scott Adams --
------------------------------------------------------
-- Scott Adams --
------------------------------------------------------
Ever wonder how sites end up on the top in Google searches? The answer: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all
.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
861 Commenting, A/C, and Searching
Saturday, September 2, 2006
I read a lot of blogs and journals. (See the list on the right.) I don't read all of them every day. I had been voraciously reading the middle eastern ones until I got too depressed. Actually, it wasn't depression, it was anxiety as I watched the moods shift. I got seasick from the rollercoaster, and had to take a break.
I don't read most of them directly. My PC is old and slow (how slow? I'll tell you how slow. I push the "on" button in the morning, and then come back 20 minutes later, and it might be up by then. I'm not kidding. As soon as I get the finances straightened out and the den clean enough to let someone else in, I'll do something about that), and I have a very slow dial-up connection (when I click on a link, I play a few hands of solitaire or hearts while I wait for it to load), so I use Bloglines.
Bloglines gives me the entries since the last time I looked, all in one place, without the pretty graphics and long text pages that take forever to load. And without the sound and animations some folks have that can lock up my machine.
But, I can't leave comments through Bloglines. I have to go to the actual journal to comment. So, I don't much comment. Not as much as I'd like to, anyway.
---------------------------------------------
I switched over from A/C to heat today, and got a bit of a surprise. Actually, two surprises.
I had turned the A/C off at the thermostat about two weeks ago, which should have shut off the water flow, but when I went downstairs, I could hear water flowing through the pipes into the heat pump. The water should flow only when the A/C is actually blowing air. That means maybe the well pump has been running steadily for who knows how long. The actual pump is in the well in the front yard, so I don't hear it. I've had well men tell me that's ok, running steadily is better than off and on, but I still don't like it. If nothing else, it's a waste of electricity.
The unknown is that if there was just a dribble getting through, then the pump wasn't on steady, but was going off and on for a long time. Which is BAD. And having the pump pulled and replaced is a minimum of $3,000. We've done that twice already in the 12 years I've been living here. It's not in the budget!!!!
I have to turn the water on and off to the A/C when I switch to and from the oil furnace. Somewhere along the line I must have fiddled with the shutoff valve up near the ceiling. It was almost off. That's why all summer the A/C wasn't getting enough water. Well, one reason. I suspect it's still pretty silt-clogged, but it sure might have worked better if the valve had been all the way open. My main problem is that with this left/right problem I have, I can never remember which way valves, lightbulbs, screws, everything else, goes.
Too many unknowns. I've got to replace that heat pump, no matter what. Just if it was inadequate this summer because it wasn't getting enough water, then maybe I have a little more time.
------------------------------------
A while ago, I mentioned to Roman that the college ought to offer a credit-free course in searching. With SiteMeter (click on the icon at the bottom of this page), I can see who got here through a search engine, and what they were searching for. I can even click on the search engine results page url and see exactly what hits they got. A lot of people have no idea how to select search arguments that will find what they're looking for.
Like, someone got here a few weeks ago by searching for I love you. I don't know what they were looking for, but that's going to get them hits on every page that contains the word "you", and the word "I", and the word "love", whether the words are anywhere near each other or not. If they wanted to narrow it to the exact phrase, then it should have been in quotes.
Some search args are mysteries. Like the person who was looking for logic problems eye color island ferry solution. I'd love to know what they were looking for! That's some combination. (I would have put quotation marks around the first two args, and around the second two args, to keep them related - " logic problems" "eye color" island ferry solution. There used to be a way to say "Return a result only if these two args are within x words of each other", in which case one might want to say "keep 'ferry' and 'island' no more than four words apart, as in "We took the ferry to Grand Bebop Island", but I don't remember, and I'm not going to look it up now. )
And then there was the person who was searching for and then he put my purse in the other woman's car. This person was obviously searching for a specific page, which they knew contained that exact phrase. But again, without any quotes, they got a gazillion hits, every page that contained some combination of those words somewhere on the page, whether related or not.
No wonder some people complain that searching the internet is useless, that they "can't find what they're looking for".
Besides grouping words into phrases, you have to select the right words. You need to know a little bit about what you're looking for, to know what words to include, and what words NOT to include. That's an art, but it can be taught.
And then there's the wild cards and operators. EBay searching is an absolute art, and I'm pretty much an expert. I can find exactly what I want with very little dross in the list.
But then, with a system as slow as mine, I was forced to learn. I can't scroll through screens and screens of useless hits.
More people should take a look at the "Advanced Search" most search engines offer. It doesn't mean it's for experts, it's quite clear, and will reduce the number of false hits.
Oh, that class? Roman thought it was a good idea and suggested I draw up an outline and sell it to the college, and then teach it. Nah. I'm not that eager to take on more. I was kinda thinking he might do it.
He shuddered.
I read a lot of blogs and journals. (See the list on the right.) I don't read all of them every day. I had been voraciously reading the middle eastern ones until I got too depressed. Actually, it wasn't depression, it was anxiety as I watched the moods shift. I got seasick from the rollercoaster, and had to take a break.
I don't read most of them directly. My PC is old and slow (how slow? I'll tell you how slow. I push the "on" button in the morning, and then come back 20 minutes later, and it might be up by then. I'm not kidding. As soon as I get the finances straightened out and the den clean enough to let someone else in, I'll do something about that), and I have a very slow dial-up connection (when I click on a link, I play a few hands of solitaire or hearts while I wait for it to load), so I use Bloglines.
Bloglines gives me the entries since the last time I looked, all in one place, without the pretty graphics and long text pages that take forever to load. And without the sound and animations some folks have that can lock up my machine.
But, I can't leave comments through Bloglines. I have to go to the actual journal to comment. So, I don't much comment. Not as much as I'd like to, anyway.
---------------------------------------------
I switched over from A/C to heat today, and got a bit of a surprise. Actually, two surprises.
I had turned the A/C off at the thermostat about two weeks ago, which should have shut off the water flow, but when I went downstairs, I could hear water flowing through the pipes into the heat pump. The water should flow only when the A/C is actually blowing air. That means maybe the well pump has been running steadily for who knows how long. The actual pump is in the well in the front yard, so I don't hear it. I've had well men tell me that's ok, running steadily is better than off and on, but I still don't like it. If nothing else, it's a waste of electricity.
The unknown is that if there was just a dribble getting through, then the pump wasn't on steady, but was going off and on for a long time. Which is BAD. And having the pump pulled and replaced is a minimum of $3,000. We've done that twice already in the 12 years I've been living here. It's not in the budget!!!!
I have to turn the water on and off to the A/C when I switch to and from the oil furnace. Somewhere along the line I must have fiddled with the shutoff valve up near the ceiling. It was almost off. That's why all summer the A/C wasn't getting enough water. Well, one reason. I suspect it's still pretty silt-clogged, but it sure might have worked better if the valve had been all the way open. My main problem is that with this left/right problem I have, I can never remember which way valves, lightbulbs, screws, everything else, goes.
Too many unknowns. I've got to replace that heat pump, no matter what. Just if it was inadequate this summer because it wasn't getting enough water, then maybe I have a little more time.
------------------------------------
A while ago, I mentioned to Roman that the college ought to offer a credit-free course in searching. With SiteMeter (click on the icon at the bottom of this page), I can see who got here through a search engine, and what they were searching for. I can even click on the search engine results page url and see exactly what hits they got. A lot of people have no idea how to select search arguments that will find what they're looking for.
Like, someone got here a few weeks ago by searching for I love you. I don't know what they were looking for, but that's going to get them hits on every page that contains the word "you", and the word "I", and the word "love", whether the words are anywhere near each other or not. If they wanted to narrow it to the exact phrase, then it should have been in quotes.
Some search args are mysteries. Like the person who was looking for logic problems eye color island ferry solution. I'd love to know what they were looking for! That's some combination. (I would have put quotation marks around the first two args, and around the second two args, to keep them related - " logic problems" "eye color" island ferry solution. There used to be a way to say "Return a result only if these two args are within x words of each other", in which case one might want to say "keep 'ferry' and 'island' no more than four words apart, as in "We took the ferry to Grand Bebop Island", but I don't remember, and I'm not going to look it up now. )
And then there was the person who was searching for and then he put my purse in the other woman's car. This person was obviously searching for a specific page, which they knew contained that exact phrase. But again, without any quotes, they got a gazillion hits, every page that contained some combination of those words somewhere on the page, whether related or not.
No wonder some people complain that searching the internet is useless, that they "can't find what they're looking for".
Besides grouping words into phrases, you have to select the right words. You need to know a little bit about what you're looking for, to know what words to include, and what words NOT to include. That's an art, but it can be taught.
And then there's the wild cards and operators. EBay searching is an absolute art, and I'm pretty much an expert. I can find exactly what I want with very little dross in the list.
But then, with a system as slow as mine, I was forced to learn. I can't scroll through screens and screens of useless hits.
More people should take a look at the "Advanced Search" most search engines offer. It doesn't mean it's for experts, it's quite clear, and will reduce the number of false hits.
Oh, that class? Roman thought it was a good idea and suggested I draw up an outline and sell it to the college, and then teach it. Nah. I'm not that eager to take on more. I was kinda thinking he might do it.
He shuddered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)