161–170 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the method of building the "profile" that determines what's "relevant" for you.
What's wrong with them building a profile of me as long as I consented to it? Are you opposed to consenting agreements between willing adults and companies?
Google using captchas to get humans to read street addresses captured by street view cars to improve maps results remains one of the most Googly things they've ever done. Genius, lateral, and a little weird.
Not sure if that's good for us. We're doing work for google for free. Google Translate will replace translators, Google car will replace drivers, Google VR + map will replace city guides. We're giving them knowledge and powers to replace us, for free. Professions will disappear, people will lose jobs, Google will get richer and richer, will not pay me or you for fixing their suggestions in Google Translate or fixing…
It's just an opinion, but if the things Google has created and shared into the whole of human knowledge towards the betterment of future societies are still being used in a century for my grandkids (and the rest of humankind) to benefit from, then I think it's better than not having it because a few million people who couldn't have done it themselves said 'no' over a pittance.
I can't speak for you, but my dying thoughts won't be a sour reflection on all of opportunities to monetize my existence I might have missed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A site uses captcha because it is threatened by automated use. A site uses Google's CAPTCHA because the site cannot afford to build a (effective) CAPTCHA. If Google required the site to pay to use their CAPTCHA, those costs would be passed in some way to the user. In other words, if Google's service didn't exist, you'd be experiencing less of the site, or no site at all if they chose to use a paywall that you refuse…
I am not saying that the service is not useful. It certainly is . What I am arguing is that it requires the users to do some amount of work and so it is not free for them, and I am of the opinion that Google benefit from it much more than I do. Anyway, I am not completely against it, as I said above depending on the situation I make use of it.
The value Google gets from the thing they want, and the value you get from the thing you want, aren't particularly comparable.
Google using captchas to get humans to read street addresses captured by street view cars to improve maps results remains one of the most Googly things they've ever done. Genius, lateral, and a little weird.
Not sure if that's good for us. We're doing work for google for free. Google Translate will replace translators, Google car will replace drivers, Google VR + map will replace city guides. We're giving them knowledge and powers to replace us, for free. Professions will disappear, people will lose jobs, Google will get richer and richer, will not pay me or you for fixing their suggestions in Google Translate or fixing…
I started making my own as Google Recaptcha was getting annoying. At its most basic, hide a field. On your PHP page that does the checking, simply see if that field has anything in it. If it does, its a bot. If it doesn't, it's not a bot.
[0]: http://haacked.com/archive/2007/09/11/honeypot-captcha.aspx/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, I never heard of Pixel Tracking. That sounds super evil. Are there browser plugins to fight back on this one?
They're an even bigger thing in emails. Usually, companies would include a pixel from an external resource and then figure out if you've read the email or not by looking at was that image loaded or not. IIRC, GitHub does that. If you read the email of some notification, it won't show you that notification in your notifications. The solution is to block external image loading in your email client (I know that Thunderb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would it be? It's not clear to me. Going from throwing away the work to improving Google's image recognition is a Pareto improvement so I'm interested in the justification.
Not everyone is using the same ethical model as you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would it be? It's not clear to me. Going from throwing away the work to improving Google's image recognition is a Pareto improvement so I'm interested in the justification.
But to me this is not a Pareto improvement (i.e., this is subjective). I consider the bolstering of the hold Google (and Apple, and Amazon, and Microsoft) has over a number of common domains (and in a broader sense our lives) to be undesirable and unethical. So when I correctly teach Google's proprietary image recognition software what a traffic sign, mountain, store front (ugh, these are the worst), or tree is, I am…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's going to stop you from just stealing the content from behind the paywall because the profitability of their chosen business model is not your concern?
Their competence in restricting access to the information and preventing its decimation, I suppose.