Google tracking codes are on a majority of sites anyway, and you probably find the sites using Google. They already know which URLs you go to.
You know, Google, the web already had this feature
221–230 of 444 posts
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTML5 is not standard, certainly not open. Everyone abandoned WebKit for some unknown reason having to do with Apple. Please list these OSS Apps, I would love to know since Google and Wikpedia say nothing like that.
TextEdit and Chess are two.
And even more important - CUPS.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has done an amazing job of mixing really shitty practices like this with really amazing things like the self driving car and glass. As long as they continue to diversify and innovate they will have supporters... even if they often break their "don't be evil" motto.
Is glass really that amazing? Personally I think it's going to fail, like a long line of recent Google products.
Not sure it'll be a huge consumer hit, but you can't argue that they're innovating, they're continuing to push technology further.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why don't you want your YouTube account linked to your Gmail? Because. Do I even need a reason?
Under some circumstances, yes, you should have a reason: say Google makes it require an effort to keep the accounts separate (I think this might aspect be the case), then you probably should have a reason for thinking its worth the effort.
No. The accounts are already linked! My accounts are not separate. This is a common misconception apparently: my Google accounts are already linked in a single Google Account. I'm not very happy with it, but hey... it's comfortable.
I just refuse to have the social aspects of Google imposed on me through Google+. I don't want my mum to know I liked "Used Panties Exchange" in Google Play. Heck, I don't even want Google+! It's a service I don't need, don't want and feel it's just getting pushed on me.
But well, even then... it's just because I just don't want to! Why don't you use ? Because you don't want to. Period.
It's like jokes: they're not funny if you try too hard. I might've tried the service by myself, but they just blew away any interest I had. If they're so desperate for users it certainly can't be a good place to be.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#225Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…
>Google has overstayed the web's welcome. Then stop using their products. Switch to bing, switch to Internet Explorer, get an iPhone and shut up about it. No, google has not "overstayed the web's welcome", google has overstayed the welcome of a few entitled silicon valley golddiggers who will continue feeling wronged for the next 10 minutes until they realize what wonderful things google has created in the world for…
The harshness of your reply seems unwarranted.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mean correlates with stupid. More stupid people watch TV than read. YouTube is TV.
I've found grim proof of this by observing people at shared computers in public libraries. It's not simply people watching a video now and then, but dozens of people spending their entire allotment of time watching YouTube as they would watch TV, amidst a sea of free books.
Proof of what? The post you're commenting on makes two claims: (1) mean correlates with stupid, (2) more stupid people watch TV than read. How does your library experience prove either of those things? I guess you meant (2), but how do you know how smart library users that watch videos on computers are and how smart library users that read are? Did you just apply some prejudice you have? I wouldn't regard that as proof. And as a person that greatly enjoys reading, watching TV and watching videos on YouTube, I'll probably be offended by any such prejudice. ;)
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…
Personally I'd hate a default to 240 feature. I don't care about bandwidth, I'm tired of clicking the HQ button.
I think it was meant as a setting, which could live along side a default to HD setting.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#228I have always been somewhat of a Google fanboy except for a few misgivings about their worrisome breadth of infiltration into people's live and things like the iGoogle shutdown but the Reader situation has been a huge slap in the face that made me lose a lot of faith in them. There is a huge war between Facebook and Google for global control of the most popular social graph and as much as I like Zuckerberg as a perso…
> I think there should be a third option in the form of a decentralized social protocol.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Joining IS a huge deal. Lots of things are getting shared when you have a Google+ account, most of which I don't want to share (e.g. which YouTube videos I like, my Google Play comments...) and have to be turned off explicitly. I know this because I once was a Google+ user for a short time (during which I didn't even notice). When I mentioned Facebook I just meant: "I'm not into the biggest and most useful social net…
> and have to be turned off explicitly. Why is `opt-out` a big deal?
It's not "opt out once," it's opt out and monitor that your decision isn't "forgotten" at any point in the future in which case you need to opt out again. So, yeah, "continuous hidden opt out" is annoying.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One could make a very well-founded argument, for example, that Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and even EA or Comcast are not, strictly speaking, "evil" companies. I'll venture to say this is the case. Most tech firms are small-fries when it comes to evil. Cargill, Monsanto, and pretty much any oil company - now that's serious evil. And that's just in recent history. We're not even talking the East India Trading company.…
Are you sure Monsanto is evil? As far as I understand, contrary to popular belief they only sue farmers who use their patented seeds if they also buy the pesticide that goes along with those seeds. Maybe they're evil for some other reason I'm not aware of?
Are you kidding?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/genetically-modifie...
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Appeal-set-January-organic-f...
The latter is just evil. Suing farmers cause crops were contaminated through unwanted pollination by neighboring farms [using Monsanto's genetically altered seeds and chemicals]. Finally the farmers are banning together and counter-suing.
And this are just 2 examples. Do further searching and you'll find many more cases going back decades.