Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Microsoft Chrome Privacy Idle

Leaked Microsoft Video Parodies Chrome Ad 243

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the fighting-for-evildoer-crown dept.
First time accepted submitter Stratus311 writes "An article from The Verge shows a video leaked from Microsoft that parodies Google's Chrome ad. From the article: 'Microsoft and Google have been locked in a war of words over a YouTube Windows Phone app, but in the midst of the arguments a new Scroogled ad has emerged. Designed to be an internal-only video, a copy has somehow managed to find its way onto the web right in the middle of Google's I/O developer conference.'" "Somehow" leaked.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Microsoft Video Parodies Chrome Ad

Comments Filter:
  • Insightful video (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sprego (2925147) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:01PM (#43743035)
    I feel like Microsoft is truly correct with this video. Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

    At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

    Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.
    • by Antipater (2053064) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:06PM (#43743101)

      Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior.

      So does every other company in the world with an advertising department.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:09PM (#43743145)

      Truly correct fore sure. The part that is missing though is "we would do it if we had the chance".

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:12PM (#43743175)
      MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype [slashdot.org] messages? Don't kid yourself about MS motivations. They would monetize you in every single way they can and they will sell data to third parties. They are just not as good as Google yet. Google makes no pretense about it; it's how they make money from the free services they provide.
      • Have you even read the article you link to?
        • A Microsoft server accesses URLs sent in Skype chat messages, even if they are HTTPS URLs and contain account information

          Did you?

          • by poetmatt (793785)

            I don't recall people opting in to MS having a log of people's URLs in skype, even if it's under the bullshit excuse of "security".

          • Why are your URLs containing account information? Seriously? Example site that uses such info?

            Anyway, that has been debunked at multiple places, and people have reported that even HTTP URLs can be scanned. Also, there is no GET request, only a HEAD request to check mimetype etc.

      • Re:Insightful video (Score:5, Interesting)

        by LordLimecat (1103839) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:43PM (#43743591)

        Skype is worse than you think. Research the partnership that Skype has with TOM in china. Hint: If you plan on using skype in china, you probably dont want to download their version: It reports every word you say directly to the CCC.

        Call me when Google Talk starts shipping with backdoors for one of the more politically repressive governments out there.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lemou (2654725)
      And watch the astroturfing moment start... Microsoft is doing the same. They are less successful than Google, that's it.
    • Re:Insightful video (Score:5, Informative)

      by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:32PM (#43743431) Homepage Journal

      Astroturfer or ignorant?

      Microsoft tracks you everywhere for contextual ads as well. And they value your privacy far less than Microsoft.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsofts-new-outlook-mail-welcome-hotmail-replacement-917473 [nbcnews.com]

      https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 [eff.org]

      Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.

      http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/ [rt.com]

      And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.

      http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/02/gates_ozzie_other_microsoft_execs_patent_personal_data_mining.html [bizjournals.com]

      • Tired of this constant copy paste Google Ad talking points.

        For one last time:

        Microsoft, does not, repeat DOES NOT, use the content inside your email to target ads. However they do use the sender(if it's a company like say JCPenny) and the subject line of the email to target ads, as well as other Bing related ads.

        Google, on the contrary, looks INSIDE your email body to target ads. That's what the scroogled ads were about.

        Now, stop spreading bullshit FUD links with no real meat in them.

        • Re:Insightful video (Score:4, Informative)

          by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:53PM (#43743689) Homepage Journal

          Please check my first link. Even with their new service, they still mine the data in your email for ads. Microsoft openly admits it.

          "Microsoft tells me that the data mined by the Outlook mail service won't go as deep as others, so while ads served will be contextual"

          Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.

          Microsoft's Scroogled ads suggest PEOPLE are actively reading your email, which is FUD. And Microsoft claiming they don't mine you for personal data for contextual ads is just a pure lie as well.

          All of your posts are defending Microsoft mining data while blasting Google for the same. I hope you enjoy your paid position.

      • by V!NCENT (1105021)

        Microsoft is correct. They do the same thing. That is also correct.

        But what I'd like to see is Facebook Vs. Google Vs. Microsoft Vs. Apple.

        Let them all call each other out and show everyone how bad it sucks!

      • Bullcrap, stop this nonsense.

        The RT link which you give as a reference for selling data says this:

        In recent campaigns, and its believed that even in the current race for the White House, politicians have paid good money to target specific crowds by purchasing ads through Microsoft and Yahoo that will reach a certain group of users that meet specific criteria, such as location and political affiliation. By creating a rough profile of Internet users based on all available information, campaigns can purchase niche advertisements that are only sent to certain users based on what is known about them.

        So they showed ads to people based on criteria the advertizer provided and if the ad viewer was interested they clicked on the ad and went to the advertizers site. This is not the same as "SELLING DATA".

        Do you want to see just a sample of Google's Adwords sale pages for advertizers?

        http://blog.protocol80.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Topic-Targeting-Adwords.jpg [protocol80.com]
        https://www.dentalplans.com/content/images/adwords [dentalplans.com]

    • by jovius (974690)

      The psychological manipulation and citizen monitoring have been going on since the beginning of organized societies, because the rulers needed to secure their position and so know everything. It's build in the human psyche.

      This has since turned into a science since the 1920s at least, when Edward Bernays came up with the whole new field called Public Relations and successfully applied Freudian psychoanalysis in his consulting business for large corporations. His book 'Propaganda' is worth reading, and the d

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by poetmatt (793785)

      do you have any idea how much this is a pot calling the kettle black?

      The difference between MS and google is very, very explicit.

      1: you can take everything out of google. they pretty much enable it. No such thing exists for MS.
      2: you choose to opt into google in the first place. MS does not give you such an option, and defaults to you being opted in (windows, IE, bing).

      Google is not a completely innocent company, but this entire article is the biggest fucking strawman ever (and the laziest).

      • Re:Insightful video (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gtbritishskull (1435843) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @05:16PM (#43745003)
        I recently bought a computer with Windows 7. While I was going through the setup dialog, it asked me to agree to allow the computer to send search data to Microsoft (and Bing). But, the decline option had in parenthesis next to it that if I declined then I basically was not going to be able to use Windows. So, I had to agree to be opted in, and then go behind it and opt out (by uninstalling the Bing bar or whatever it was). But, I ended up installing a vanilla Windows 7 installation which didn't have the phone home ridiculousness.
    • but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.

      Hello first post troll, but you unintentionally stumbled on something interesting.

      See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:

      http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it [ppcblog.com]or-maybe-not/

      http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [blumenthals.com]

      Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of

    • Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

      Correct up until the last 3 words. Google has ALWAYS been clear that data collection and advertising are their business models, and that thats the price of their service. They also tend to fight VERY strongly against government attempts to grab that data, and to anonymize data that can be anonymized.

      Compare to Microsoft, who plays the defender of privacy despite the fact that Bing has the EXACT SAME MODEL as google, and they used to scan email in the EXACT SAME FASHION as gmail until criticism got them to

    • by Immerman (2627577)

      >At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

      How exactly did this get modded Insightful instead of Funny? Microsoft values your privacy exactly as much as Google - i.e. not at all. In this day and age you can pretty much guarantee that *any* information you provide to a company will be leveraged for profit in any way they can think of. Regardless of whether you've paid them for the

    • by Dishevel (1105119)

      Fucking AWESOME!
      Sure. Microsoft does not use the information they have from windows, bing, office, live, xbox to target ads or to sell.

      At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

      You can be wary of Google if you want. But that line right there makes you either retarded or a shill.
      You choose.

      • by Nerdfest (867930)

        Actually, I originally stopped using Windows completely when I caught it sending information to Microsoft through one of their desktop search services. I can't think of any other reason that data would be of use to them.

    • by kryliss (72493)

      Microsoft is just upset that they didn't do it first.

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      After Google changed their privacy policy I don't see how anybody could disagree with you OR this video, at the end of the day Google wants to know what you had for breakfast because that is how they make their money. You the user are not their customer, you are the product, the advertisers are the customers. I wouldn't mind this if they were just upfront about it but as you say they employ an army of shrinks to give you a 'warm fuzzy feeling" instead of just being honest about it.

      That is why in the inter

    • by unixisc (2429386)
      I'm sure Google would be more than happy to 'value your privacy' if you coughed up the cash like you did for Microsoft. The reason they monetize you is that most of the 'yous' have fewer objections to being monetized, as opposed to parting with their money. At least ads can be ignored.
    • Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

      So what? No I mean really so what? If I wasn't getting anything in return I'd be outraged, but I am.

      In return for something that MANY other companies take from us without anything in return, Google takes our information and gives us THE world class search engine, incredible experiences across multiple platforms, productivity applications, services many other companies didn't offer, and all this in exchange for what we give other companies anyway and often with a price attached.

      If this is so bad, why do I no

  • FFS Slashdot.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bazmail (764941) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:08PM (#43743121)
    Stop calling quiet press releases "leaks" FFS. We all know people yawn at press releases so they call it a leak and you look like an investigative journalist. Everyone wins right? Bleh fuck it. Slashdot has officially joined The Great Stupiding.
    • I'm not trying to be "that guy" who's more cynical than everyone else in the thread, but does that surprise you?

      There's a poisonous low-attention span, taking everything at face-value thread in the internet, where the end user is expected to the only layer of bullshit detecting that occurs. Content aggregators echo and repeat anything that sounds interesting or will get clicks. Cynical marketers exploit that kind of behavior to spew bullshit over the internet without it looking like its coming from them.

  • I'm pretty sure Microsoft used to insert adverts into the footer of hotmail emails.

  • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:12PM (#43743177)

    Apple wants to sell you hardware, services and content. You pay for everything.
    Microsoft wants to sell you hardware, services and content. You pay for everything.
    Google wants you to use their services. You're being sold to pay for everything.

    • With Apple, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
      With Microsoft, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
      With Google, you get services for free, but are tracked and sold contextual ads.

      • Pardon my ignorance, but when has Apple ever provided contextual ads? The only ad network they run is iAds, and as far as I've heard, they don't tailor the ads for the user. A developer who includes iAds in their app can tailor the ads for their app (e.g. only allow ads for techie things), but that isn't user-specific.

        Also, it's worth pointing out that Microsoft also offers a number of free services (e.g. search engine, e-mail, etc.). As such, it makes sense why both they and Google would seek to monetize m

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          According to Apple [apple.com]:

          "Each ad is shown only to the audience you want to reach, in the apps they love and use the most. Our highly-effective targeting can leverage demographic data, as well as unique interest and preference data that taps into user passions that are relevant for your brand."

          That is pretty much the same as Google. Personal data is not given to advertisers, but they can make use of it by asking for ads to be targeted at specific groups. It is a lot better than Facebook that lets advertisers iden

      • This is simply not true. I use Apple's products every day, and I am neither tracked not advertised to by them.

        When I used to have a Google account, I was tracked with every action I did, and advertised to with most.

    • by zlives (2009072)

      google is there fore just much more efficient, and capable by necessity. not sure if I think thats good or bad!

  • by Apathist (741707) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:13PM (#43743183)
    Designed to be "internal-only", my ass. Designed to be "leaked" is more like it...
    • by Lord Grey (463613)

      Microsoft's internal videos have made it out into the wild [youtube.com] before. The iPod box video was eventually confirmed real [ipodobserver.com].

      This Scroogled video, on the other hand, feels like a transparent marketing ploy.

    • It may well have been so. Big companies have sales conferences and all sorts of other internal conferences and they do make internal videos. Microsoft certainly do. It may have always been intended for public consumptions, but equally it may have been intended for internal consumption. We just don't know. And prejudice for/against a company isn't a reliable way of guessing accurately.

      • by Apathist (741707)
        While I agree that judging without prejudice is usually the best approach, I think in this case the liberal use of the second-person personal-pronoun (ie, "you") would have been a giveaway about who the intended target audience actually is... unless you think they are going to all this trouble to convince internal-only Microsoft employees not to use Chrome?
        • It's a parody. The original uses "you". It wouldn't be much of a parody if it changed the form of the statements.

  • Jealous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EMG at MU (1194965) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:16PM (#43743241)
    It just seems like MS is jealous that Google is making money hand over fist. Microsoft tried to do the same thing Google did. They have a search engine and advertising business. They just aren't as good at it as Google. Tracking is pretty independent of what browser you use anyways. Besides, people don't give a shit that they are being monetized. People still use facebook don't they? And people do realize, to some probably limited extent, that facebook is all about monetizing them.
  • Negativity? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ashvagan (885082) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:22PM (#43743311)
    Don't we have ads on Bing? Don't we ads on Hotmail/Outlook.com? Don't we have ads on every service out there from Microsoft that's free? If you can't trust Google, you will never trust Microsoft either. Birds of a feather ...?
    • Don't we have ads on Bing? Don't we ads on Hotmail/Outlook.com? Don't we have ads on every service out there from Microsoft that's free? If you can't trust Google, you will never trust Microsoft either. Birds of a feather ...?

      I think it's fairly notable that Eric Schmidt regularly expresses his disdain toward the concept of privacy and the people who want it. Microsoft CEO may have a bad image, too, but since this discussion is about privacy I think that Schmidt is basically asking us to condemn Google in that regard and laughing at us when we do.

    • Right. The sensible approach is to trust neither of them.

  • double meh.

  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:35PM (#43743473)
    Quick! Put it on YouTube so everyone ... can... see... it.

    .
  • Brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yebyen (59663) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:39PM (#43743537) Homepage

    The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.

    It doesn't make me want to use Internet Explorer, but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.

    Which is more than I can say for these comments!

    • The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.

      It doesn't make me want to use [that which shall not be named], but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.

      Which is more than I can say for these comments!

      Emboldening mine.
      Windows update sends MS a list of every program installed in the registry... I'm sure that's in your best interest.
      MS calling out Google over tracking is beyond pots and kettles: The black level here is on par with two neutron stars continuing to argue over who hit who first to cause the blackhole.
      That is to say: No one can give a damn about the negative light they shine upon each other, until it's too late and they've devoured another damn planet alive.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:47PM (#43743627)

    I think Microsoft makes lots of these internal videos.

    I worked as a temp at Microsoft a few years back, and there was a screen in the building that showed videos on loops. There was a pretty cool ad showing the wonders of an "ultra-mobile PC" being used in tablet mode, for example. (It didn't mention cost or battery life, just the cool stuff you could do.)

    Anyway I saw a video, something like ten minutes long, that was a parable about outsourcing IT: This C-level guy (maybe the CEO but I'm not sure) wakes up and starts his day; his car comes by to pick him up, but it isn't his usual driver. "Where's my usual driver?" "He's... not here." The driver introduces himself as "Charles" and the C-level guy immediately starts calling him "Chuck" (which annoyed me right there). They get to the office building and all the people are gone. C-level guy: "Where is everyone?" Charles: "You forgot them." It turns out that the company decided to outsource IT to save money, not thinking about the effect this would have on the workers, so now this is a magical "A Christmas Carol" sort of situation where Charles is taking the C-level guy on a tour to show him what is bad now. A sales guy lost a sale because he didn't have a Windows Mobile smartphone. Other things... the one I remember is that they visited the server room, and it was empty, because the IT was outsourced to the cloud (this was pre-Azure so cloud meant non-Microsoft and therefore bad). A kid, maybe nine years old, rolled slowly past on a skateboard. "Who's that?" asked the C-level guy. "Oh, that's Linux." At the very end, the C-level guy wakes up for real and of course the people aren't missing, and he bumps into Charles who it seems is actually in his IT department. "Oh, can we get those Windows Mobile phones now?" Happy ending! Heart-warming!

    I've searched YouTube a few times to see if this was ever leaked, but I don't know what it was called and I've never found it.

  • Whats the big deal with getting ads for things I may actually care about (as opposed to crap I dont care about)? Its really on me to decide whether I want to spend the money on it so if it really ends up costing me a lot of money then thats my fault, not the advertisers. Either MSFT has nothing else to hit the competitor with or they truly believe that everyone has gotten so bad at moderation (Which I guess is true in the US) that they cannot get out of their own way and not spend money on everything that
  • F. U. D. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Geldon (444090) on Thursday May 16, 2013 @02:55PM (#43743717)

    From the video, Microsoft wants you to think that Google is an evil oppressor that takes money out of your pocket by selling data on your behavior. They also want you to think that Google is "watching" you like some nosey neighbor who rather than blabbing your secrets all over town, will instead sell all your dirty secrets to the highest bidder.

    And hey, if you think of it like that, it's pretty scary.

    But seriously. Have you ever tried to actually sell your personal data to someone? Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!" I'm sure that they'd probably look at you with some understandable confusion. Nothing is worth more than you can sell it for. That's simply the reality of economics. So your personal information generally has 0 monetary value to you and would probably cost you more to sell than it would cost you in time and energy to affect that sale.

    Google is providing you a service. You're "paying" for that service by allowing Google to monetize your personal information ON YOUR BEHALF. It's a sort of barter agreement. Google will give you something at no monetary cost in exchange for the opportunity to sell your data to third parties. They're not selling your emails. They're not selling your text messages. They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason). They're effectively acting as your agent to monetize your demographic information. And rather than paying you in cash, they're paying you in services.

    This is actually no different than how broadcast television works. They use companies like Nielsen to determine aggregate demographic information on the viewership for a given show. Then they sell that information to third parties (advertisers), who supply the necessary capital to run the TV channel and produce new content, which the network then gives to you for "free". Google's model is identical. Just because Google can fine-tune that demographic information does not alter the basic structure of the model.

    All the FUD about "big data" relies on some over-zealous anthropomorphization of large scale data processing systems. Microsoft likes to use phrases like "Google reads your email" to scare you into thinking that there's some overworked engineers at Google that do nothing all day except sit around and chuckle about those emails you sent to your wife. But that just doesn't happen. It's scare tactics put out by people who have either never worked with large data sets or are purposefully obfuscating the truth with the intent to scare you.

    In the end, you ultimately have a choice: You can simply stop using Google's services and thereby refuse to opt-in to their tracking. Humankind lasted millions of years without Google. You can avoid Google today if you don't want to pay for their services. But to freak out and say that Google is somehow operating nefariously by monetizing their services in a way that doesn't cost you cash out of pocket comes across as a bit obtuse.

    • Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!"

      Nice marketing effort. But completely disingenuous. If it was a case that Google had a profile form, that you filled in with relatively innocuous information like this, on the understanding that Google will commercialise it to pay for the service, then few people would have a problem with it. You would be conciously giving them information, for a purpose.

      But Google doesn't work like that. What Google actually do is record every search term you ever type in, and every email that's send from or to you, and e

      • How is Google going to use this creepy information? As far as I know, they are only going to show you ads that could possibly show you things like doctors that specialize in pancreatic cancer, researchers looking for volunteers with pancreatic cancer, pancreatic cancer medicines, etc. Are they going to tell any of your friends or family (or any companies for that matter) that you have (or think you have) pancreatic cancer? Not that I have ever heard about. And the ads might actually help you find a doct

    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      Google is providing you a service. You're "paying" for that service by allowing Google to monetize your personal information ON YOUR BEHALF. It's a sort of barter agreement. Google will give you something at no monetary cost in exchange for the opportunity to sell your data to third parties.

      That's a clever analysis, though I think a summary of Google has to include the ads! ...

      Google offers a bundled package: they will (1) monetize your personal data, (2) take the proceeds, (3) use it to subsidise free services that you want, and (4) force you to watch ads that you don't want. It's a complete take-it-or-leave it package.

      For me, the ads are such a negative that I'm mostly willing to reject the entire package. For instance the price of their email service (i.e. monetizing my personal data and fo

      • And that is perfectly fine. As long as I maintain the right to take the package (which for me provides a value many times its cost), then I have no problem with your right to "leave" it.
  • hasn't quite figure how to implement these features into their software. Otherwise, you can be certain that they would be just as intrusive as they say Chrome is... or worse.

  • I can only speculate on what kind of kind, generous and benevolent entity would produce such an informative production. Surely a non-profit of course? Regardless, they must _clearly_ must have the interests of the general populace at heart!

    And I do look forward to a similarly insightful exposee on the likes of Facebook, Amazon, and the many other, lesser known advertising/tracking groups in the internet...

  • Microsoft seems to have a tradition of doing this kind of ad parody. I remember seeing one in the early 1990s that was a parody of the You Will [wikipedia.org] television ads that AT&T was running at the time. There was a scene with a woman walking along a beach while wearing a large straw hat. The hat suddenly beeps, the woman takes it off her head, and there is a piece of paper sticking out. Voice over narration: "Have you ever received a fax in your hat on the beach? You will.... and the company that will brin
  • Alex: No. No! NO! Stop it! Stop it, please! I beg you! This is sin! This is sin! This is sin! It's a sin, it's a sin, it's a sin!

    Dr. Brodsky: Sin? What's all this about sin?

    Alex: That! Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music!

    Dr. Branom: Are you referring to the background score?

    Alex: Yes.

    Dr. Branom: You've heard Beethoven before?

    Alex: Yes!

    Dr. Brodsky: So, you're keen on music?

    Alex: YES!

    Dr. Brodsky: Can't be helped. Here's the punishment element perhaps.

  • Something to compete with Google.

    They've been terrible about it. I WANT TO BUY MS. I do. But what are my options?

    They could have dominated smart phones if they just offered a reasonable OS. They could have built Windows compatibility into their smartphone platform. Don't pretend they couldn't... people have run Windows XP on the newer smartphones. ACTUAL WINDOWS XP. If you can run windows XP on those things then you can run a program emulation that lets you run windows software sans booting the whole window

  • Absolute bottom line is if you use any online services whether free or pay, it can easily be assumed that you have no online privacy at all. If that bothers you, then maybe the interwebs aren't for you.

    I have been using Google services for as long as they've been available for me to use. My life has had absolutely NO negative effects because of this and no money has left my pocket. If I've been sold to other companies for marketing purposes then I sure as shit haven't seen it or felt it. I also have a Wi
  • If Microsoft positioned themselves as not only critics of Google's disregard for privacy (see countless statements by Schmidt, for example) but as actual champions of lobbying, legislation, standards, and technologies that always favored the consumer's right to privacy, security, and choice/notification, they could really win me and a few other people over.

    Merely pointing out how someone else is super shitty and shady, alone, isn't enough.

  • Not a single comment was incorrect. If the DHLS did this, the uproar would be toppling. One interesting aspect is that even though this data is being collected in the raw, the information is mercantile. I guess then we can chant, "All Hail Ad Blockers."
  • by gmezero (4448)

    Someone's bitter.

  • Downloading Firefox now

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...