Google's privacy terms, The car of your future, and other privacy discussions

[Visual]

Google just announced that they will be selling your information, images and comments. I heard that instaflam and jokebook is doing the same thing. The truth finally reveals itself. Compile as many members and their information. Sell the heck out of it.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/11/google-terms-web-ads/2965507/

 

 

Addition:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-to-put-user-photos-comments-in- online-ad-endorsements/2013/10/11/322e483e-3289-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/11/google-to-sell-user-profiles-and-photos-in-ads/

 

Faked reviews and endorsements:

 

http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/twitter-says-sorry-for-fake-endorsements-legal-fall-out- unclear/

 

http://ftcbeat.com/tag/endorsements/

 

http://blogs.denverpost.com/personalinterest/2013/10/11/fake-online-reviews-call-for- caution-from-consumers/2281/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/26/fake-reviews-plague-consumer-websites

 

I am not scared of any of these huge internet moguls. I am scared for the public for what they do. As asked, i will take a break.

I am not paranoid, just informed.

Edited October 25, 2013 by david.atwell

[barbieq25]

The article says that Google will allow you to decide if you want this to happen or not. Am I reading this wrong?

[Visual]

They can't just scare away everyone at once. All of the social sites have been giving up information on all users for years at the request of the NSA. They have also been greatly compensated, so they quietly didn't put up a fight. Some have made statements about wanting to tell you all about it, but have been told not to. Once you let uncle sleep on your couch, next week he has his friends over to his "new" pad. Then, you get the house destroying party. Baby steps.

[david.atwell]

Visual, you're absolutely reading that wrong.

But I'm not getting into yet another privacy argument on here with you. I'm not going to convince you that you're being overly paranoid, and you're not going to convince me that I'm being a naive fool. Please give it a rest for a while. :-)

[SAND33P]

To be honest, im not really too fussed, anything that iv put online i have been very careful with, most of my very personal details are just faked. And in reality, what has google got on people that they want to be private? 

[Daniels]

To be honest, im not really too fussed, anything that iv put online i have been very careful with, most of my very personal details are just faked. And in reality, what has google got on people that they want to be private? 

I kind of agree with you. I do the same thing with a lot of stuff. Even with my primary account, I don't put any personal details online. I also opt out of all the stuff that supposedly exposes any details. It's hard to be completely anonymous online, but it isn't that hard to be as careful as you can.

[Visual]

This is from an unknown artist who sent it to me. You can distribute it as you wish.

 

[david.atwell]

Visual, this makes four privacy-related threads in this forum.  I'm going to merge this with another.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

@Visual:  You're starting to look paranoid.  Seriously. 

 

I'm not even sure what to make of the car image.  It looks like a teen aged attempt at a conspiracy theory.

 

If you really feel these concerns this strongly then might I suggest posting them on a like-minded forum?  You're weirding us out....

[Visual]

Sorry everybody, i know i will take some flack for these. The messenger is always blamed for reporting the crimes of others.

Many of you don't see these issues yet, because your country is not in the same horrible position as the states. Lucky you.

 

America is going to impose a mileage tax on top of the gasoline tax. They will monitor it with spying components in the cars. So i get what the picture was intended to tell me. The other point is that electric cars are not clean and based on a fraud. You plug it in at your house and never see where and how the electricity is made with fuels. Power station output has greatly increased to keep up with all the electric gadgets and cars creating as much or more carbon output. So, go ahead and toss more darts at my head. I still like you all. Call me the weird uncle, i guess.

 

I promise not to add any more.

[pyrochild]

The other point is that electric cars are not clean and based on a fraud. You plug it in at your house and never see where and how the electricity is made with fuels. Power station output has greatly increased to keep up with all the electric gadgets and cars creating as much or more carbon output.

Ridiculous. Internal combustion engines in vehicles are horribly inefficient, only using somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30% of the energy containted in the fuel. The rest of the energy is dumped out the tailpipe and radiator as heat. They also release pollutants like unburnt hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur.

 

Power plants, even ones running on fossil fuels, can achieve higher efficiencies and lower pollutant levels, because they do not have nearly the restrictions of weight, size, and cost as a vehicle does.

 

Electric cars can get their power from fossil burning plants, yes, but that electricity could also come from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, hamsters running in wheels, or matter/antimatter annihilations. Your gas car will only ever run on gas and my Jetta will only ever burn diesel. As renewable energy use increases, your argument about not being clean becomes less and less valid.

 

Besides that, electric cars are already cheaper to drive per mile than ICE cars. While the initial cost is currently quite a bit higher, that cost too is being driven down as the technology matures and demand increases.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

.... my Jetta will only ever burn diesel.

 

You know you can dump just about any cooking oil/vegetable oil in there and it will still go?

 

 

According to these guys the cooking oil is only 10% less efficient.

[pyrochild]

You know you can dump just about any cooking oil/vegetable oil in there and it will still go?

That's true for older diesels, but here's a few reasons I'm not gonna.

• My car is still under warranty.
• Newer (direct-injected) diesels require the oil to be preheated to lower the viscosity to avoid burning up the high pressure fuel pump and to alow it to atomize effectively in the cylinder. The Mercedes diesels you see running waste veggie oil are indirect injection, using much lower pressure fuel pumps and mixing the fuel with air before it enters the cylinder.
• Instead of preheating, some people use WVO in addition to a tank of diesel, starting the engine on the diesel and switching to WVO after it's warmed up. Before reaching their destination, they have to switch back to diesel and drive for x amount of miles to make sure the WVO has been purged from the fuel lines so it can start again. Inconvenient and expensive!
• Cooking oil gels up in cold weather. Well, so does diesel, but not as badly, especially when it's been winterized. (Stations switch to winterized fuel when the weather starts to get cold and the driver never has to worry about it.)
• WVO contains just enough water to be a time bomb. If the water builds up enough, it can destroy the HPFP or hydrolock the engine.
• The smell of the vehicle. Some people report that their cars start to smell like McDonald's. Ew.
• The smell of the fuel. WVO is awful. Imagine the worst smell you've ever smelt. WVO is worse.

[Daniels]

I'd like to see more natural gas cars hit the market. They've been around for quite some time...the West Virginia state gov. had them back in the 90's. My understanding is they're cleaner and more efficient...

[david.atwell]

You're talking about conversions there.  The ones made for NG are usually pretty good.

[Visual]

I also don't care who knows where I've been - I remember the fuss when there was talk of compulsory ID cards in the UK ... how was it breaching human rights ?  

The same as compulsory dna taking - I'm all for it if it puts at least one rapist behind bars who otherwise wouldn't have been caught.  If you can't do the time ... 

 

ID cards don't have anything inside of them that track where you are at all times of the day...yet, that is.

 

Ridiculous. Internal combustion engines in vehicles are horribly inefficient, only using somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30% of the energy containted in the fuel. The rest of the energy is dumped out the tailpipe and radiator as heat. They also release pollutants like unburnt hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur.

 

Power plants, even ones running on fossil fuels, can achieve higher efficiencies and lower pollutant levels, because they do not have nearly the restrictions of weight, size, and cost as a vehicle does.

 

Electric cars can get their power from fossil burning plants, yes, but that electricity could also come from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, hamsters running in wheels, or matter/antimatter annihilations. Your gas car will only ever run on gas and my Jetta will only ever burn diesel. As renewable energy use increases, your argument about not being clean becomes less and less valid.

 

Besides that, electric cars are already cheaper to drive per mile than ICE cars. While the initial cost is currently quite a bit higher, that cost too is being driven down as the technology matures and demand increases.

Gasoline cars have been built much more efficient lately. In the 70' you could see the gauge move when you were getting 8 mpg.

 

Windmills workout less than you think per kilowatt hours. No wind, no power. Plasics are killing the planet more than co2. Widmills are full of plastics and the process adds huge amounts of pollutants during their construction. Panels? No sun, no solar. The states have declared war on nuclear due to propaganda like the movie in the 70's on 3 mile island, and the Tokoyo incident. Build one on a fault line and of course it will get damaged at some point. Nuclear is the only true clean to the air source.

 

Nobody here thought it totally out yet though. Not every aspect, which i hoped somebody would see. What happens in 30 years if 300 million electric cars are on the road in the states, and all of the batteries need replacing? Batteries are considered toxic waste by the epa. They are also 2 to 300 pounds of lead, mercury, acids and a whole bunch of yummy things (it's like a forklift battery). The cost of that will be immense, so the real cost of an electric car may actually increase. The real reason for the mileage tax is because electric cars don't burn gasoline, and that's where the road taxation is. So, why not impose the mileage tax on electric cars only, and leave the gasoline cars alone? They will get double taxed.

 

Daniels is correct. Nat gas may hold the real key, but it will cost more than 1 trillion to convert gas stations into nat gas units.

[Kemaru]

I think we should drastically reduce our use of electricity, either by introducing new low-power devices or actually using fewer devices (ideally both). That way we could increase the use of renewable energy sources, though I think nuclear power is superior and not really as evil as environmentalists make it out to be. I suppose the issue with nuclear is that if it goes wrong, it tends to go horribly wrong.

Pretty soon we could have solar-panels for windows. With the introduction of wearable tech, we could charge small devices simply by walking – a backpack with a wireless charging capability? 

We don't have a car in our family, never have and never will. No matter how little they consume, they still don't match the fuel efficiency of a bicycle (inb4 someone actually calculates the efficiency), and I can easily cycle any distance within 20-30km and use public transport for longer distances.

I didn't get a licence when I turned 18 last year and I'm not planning on getting one ever – not setting that on stone though, I can't know what cars are like roughly 10 years in the future when I've settled down with children (speaking of ecological disasters).

[Visual]

I think we should drastically reduce our use of electricity, either by introducing new low-power devices or actually using fewer devices (ideally both). That way we could increase the use of renewable energy sources, though I think nuclear power is superior and not really as evil as environmentalists make it out to be. I suppose the issue with nuclear is that if it goes wrong, it tends to go horribly wrong.

Pretty soon we could have solar-panels for windows. With the introduction of wearable tech, we could charge small devices simply by walking – a backpack with a wireless charging capability? 

Name one situation other than 50 year old reactors in japan that were wrongly installed on the ring of fire of the pacific? Too much plate tectonics going on in that area. Chernobyl was about the same age. No reactors for california, unless you want japan again.

 

Today's technology in like a ox cart compared to a lamborghini. Name one nuclear sub or carrier that has had any problems. The newest nuclear animal is cold fusion. Unlike what is portrayed in movies for sensationalism, they do not explode like a bomb. Build one with today's technology and on ground not in earthquake areas, and you have a winner.

 

Solar for windows or on rooftops is subject to bylaws in most places where people live. My area forbids installations because it will detract from the neighborhood values (so they say). If you live in a city you don't own the rooftop. Most people can't afford a 35 thousand dollar system that will never repay the up front costs and the maintenance along the way, for a home that costs 200 grand. Panels live around ten years. Switches fail. Inverters fail. The skewed data by the green crowd is nothing but a lie. Solar will work along the equator and not much above it.

[david.atwell]

I live in the city, and I own my rooftop.

[Visual]

I live in the city, and I own my rooftop.

If you own a townie or home. What about the millions of condo or apartment owners who do not own the roof?

[pdnnoob]

Hold on one moment...why all the solar panel hate?

Nothing says solar panel tech can't improve. Solar panels are constantly being improved and rapidly getting cheaper. Solar panels are being sold for less than a third of the price you gave right now, and the price continues to plummet.

IKEA has integrated renewable energy into their business model. Why? Not because they are trying to save the planet. They are cutting their costs significantly by using solar power. (he talks about it about for a moment 8 minutes and 20 seconds in...sorry I didn't have time to find a better source)

And that is an outdated video. IKEA stores have now collectively installed over 500,000 solar panels. No business in their right mind would invest so much money in something with no potential return. And IKEA, a massive global industrial corporation, dumped billions of dollars into something you are calling a lie.

Solar technology is not dead and useless. It carries much potential, even in places far from the equator. Snow? Add a heating mechanism. Night and clouds? You should have some way to store the energy anyways. Maybe it isn't so viable when you live near the (ant)arctic circle where you don't get sunlight for half the year, but that doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere.

Keep in mind that technology is not stagnant. We are not at a point where nothing new can be invented. Things like solar panels can be improved and made cheaper, just as nuclear technology has been improved in its 100 years of existence. What's more, a solar panel failure isn't going to turn an entire city into a no-man's land. And I'm not saying nuclear power isn't safe, just that people are not comfortable with it for the time being.

[Daniels]

I'm all for incorporating newer forms of energy, but I most certainly hope things like coal aren't done away with completely... If it weren't for mining, I believe that my state (West Virginia) would soon be dead. Other than tourism, we don't have much else going for us...

Yes, burning coal does produce carbon emissions. But we've been doing it for hundreds of years, and (I'm about to express a really unpopular opinion here...frail ones be warned) if you look at the real climate information (not just the data that the climate control advocates want you to see), you'll see that it's not really hurting the environment. (Unpopular opinion over... )

[barbieq25]

The Australian government decided to hit us with yet another tax - this was going to generate a lot of wealth for the government by hitting the mining sector especially hard. The carbon tax - the government spent a lot of money to give to low income earners (including pensioners) extra money to off-set the higher cost of living. They spent a fortune on propaganda. Now we are a little further down the track & the new government has figures that show the new tax did not generate anywhere near the amount of revenue that it expected. Jobs by the thousands have been lost & many folk are doing it hard. The government is going to repeal the tax. 

 

Most folk did not put the extra payments away to offset bills. What we did see for quite a while on TV is ways to cut your power & water bills. Basically, they were saying don't be wasteful. Turn off things that you really don't need to have on. Why does my neighbour have their massive wattage light on day & night? Fuel prices are so high here but planning trips saves fuel. There are many ways of saving energy.

 

Conserving energy in whatever form it is produced is a must since all of it harms the environment in one way or the other. If solar only works near the equator, why is Australia going solar with the government again spending squillions to encourage people to do so? True, closer to the equator, it is more efficiently producing power.

 

Daniels, same for my state too. Just so long as we don't have to go back to the horse & cart days! It would take 2 days for us to get to the next town...Nothing wrong with a bit of variety.

[Visual]

Hold on one moment...why all the solar panel hate?

Nothing says solar panel tech can't improve. Solar panels are constantly being improved and rapidly getting cheaper. Solar panels are being sold for less than a third of the price you gave right now, and the price continues to plummet.

IKEA has integrated renewable energy into their business model. Why? Not because they are trying to save the planet. They are cutting their costs significantly by using solar power. (he talks about it about for a moment 8 minutes and 20 seconds in...sorry I didn't have time to find a better source)

And that is an outdated video. IKEA stores have now collectively installed over 500,000 solar panels. No business in their right mind would invest so much money in something with no potential return. And IKEA, a massive global industrial corporation, dumped billions of dollars into something you are calling a lie.

Solar technology is not dead and useless. It carries much potential, even in places far from the equator. Snow? Add a heating mechanism. Night and clouds? You should have some way to store the energy anyways. Maybe it isn't so viable when you live near the (ant)arctic circle where you don't get sunlight for half the year, but that doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere.

Keep in mind that technology is not stagnant. We are not at a point where nothing new can be invented. Things like solar panels can be improved and made cheaper, just as nuclear technology has been improved in its 100 years of existence. What's more, a solar panel failure isn't going to turn an entire city into a no-man's land. And I'm not saying nuclear power isn't safe, just that people are not comfortable with it for the time being.

You can buy pieces, but get an installed quote for a complete installed system like a grid-tie. I'm really close with the price.

That is not entirely true. Subsidies for installations pay for a huge amount of their savings. Taxpayers pay that subsidy for them to save. If you don't own nor can install any panels, you pay for their subsidy. Let's talk about being fair. Also, the chinese have undercut and flooded the market with cheap panels that are now being controlled.

 

I'm all for incorporating newer forms of energy, but I most certainly hope things like coal aren't done away with completely... If it weren't for mining, I believe that my state (West Virginia) would soon be dead. Other than tourism, we don't have much else going for us...

Yes, burning coal does produce carbon emissions. But we've been doing it for hundreds of years, and (I'm about to express a really unpopular opinion here...frail ones be warned) if you look at the real climate information (not just the data that the climate control advocates want you to see), you'll see that it's not really hurting the environment. (Unpopular opinion over... )

Exactly right, daniels. Pennsylvania is being hurt as well. This has impacted maybe a milion families and small towns. The greenies don't care becaue it doesn't impact them. China is burning as much coal every day and they don't care about who complains. If we don't burn it, they just sell it to china and they burn even more. I'd be willing to bet that as much or more coal is being burned on earth as it was before the green movement because of china's growth.

 

I'm not a solar hater, just don't be that the hype around it as a solve everything. The last figures i read on it was that solar and windmills make up around 2 percent of america's electric demand. A whole 2 percent after spending how many billions?

Edited November 7, 2013 by Visual

[pdnnoob]

A whole 2 percent after spending how many billions?

Right, but how much was spent on our current energy systems?

Again, the fact that it is a technology in development doesn't make it lose its viability. I agree, solar panels are not the answer to all our energy problems. Not even close, in fact. All I'm saying is that they are not "a lie".