No, they can't; don't be silly. That's not what "promoting" means, and in any case such a use would be a clear copyright violation (note elsewhere in the license where they make it clear that you still own the copyright). It seems clear to me that the intent is things like the Youtube "recommended" list. If you upload a public video, they need permission to repackage it for display in other contexts than direct viewing.
But if you insist on reading the license that uncharitably, you have to accept that Dropbox too can find plenty of wiggle room to be evil. Seriously, you're granting "all needed permissions" without enumeration -- you don't find that scary? What if Dropbox decides that "providing the service" requires revenue gained from scraping credit card numbers from stored files? See? I can come up with equally silly scenarios.
Yet, with those rights, Google are able to (worldwide) ; create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
I mean "publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content", how on earth can you formulate that so broadly for a service intended to store private files??? And how after reading that can you qualify it as "Complete FUD"?
In depth analysis are interesting and everybody here understand that google is not going to be THAT evil in the short term, but the fact this _is_ formulated like that is very interesting and not fud at all.
Google can only do those rights. They cannot sell your content, for example, because it is not enumerated in the list.
Dropbox, on the other hand, could, theoretically decide that they want to sell your information as a part of the service, and their TOS allows it.
Also keep in mind that this is Google's unified TOS for ALL Google services and products. So it includes Youtube and Google Music, both of which require those rights in order to function.
Mintty, badly. The first test gives no hat (or I just can't see it). The second causes it to get stuck in heiroglyphs. The third doesn't work correctly either. It looks like it prints xyz correctly, then jumps to the second line on screen and then continues from there.
The "cygwin bash shell" which uses cmd.exe does the first test correctly but similarly fails on the others.
It doesn't quite seem to match the Typography section.
Where it says "We’re using Georgia for body text." and that they're using em for sizing it appears to be styled as "Helmet,Freesans,sans-serif;" and using px+% (like YUI).
Also main.css has 7 declarations at the top of just the font-size for html object - which looks weird. Deleting all but the declaration "html {font-size: 62.5%;}" appears to right-size the fonts for the page.
I can't see where the web-font is supposed to be being downloaded either but I've only taken a quick glance.
Edit:
Looks like it's browser specific - this is FF11 on Linux. Somehow not applying the @media declarations correctly? Also looks like the little script isn't giving me the fastfonts css.
"Using" - more like you provide information which is the price of admission. Same as it is with any other company providing a free service. Characterizing Facebook as "evil" for this is quite silly.
And much like email, you can roll your own. It's much harder, but it's possible.
If people are willing to give up their privacy to use facebook and find value in using facebook, i'm fine with that and i won't enter a jihad to make them stop using facebook, although when i can i try to make sure they are a minimum informed about what they are giving up (while trying not to be too insistent, just providing information).
As for you can roll your own facebook, this is absolutely false. Facebook tries to get the whole planet registering with them, and don't have and probably will never have a protocol letting a fully featured "facebook bis" integrate with them (except maybe if legally bound to).
e-mail is a completely distributed service. People using gmail are not segregated from the others.
Now I'm also not pretending that facebook is evil for all that. I was initially reacting at your comparison between facebook and e-mail, which made little sense.
It does not allow infinite string compression, because you obviously have to store the original data. For hashes of good length and quality, the theory stands. I would even use MD5 and say the theory stands for non-critical every day uses given there is no attacker.
> It does not allow infinite string compression, because you obviously have to store the original data.
Nope. Say you have a hash function `h` which guarantees a unique, 128-bit output for any input. Then `h` is a function which compress any string into 128-bits:
If `y = h(x)` then it is trivial for me to write a program that will reconstruct `x` from `y`. I will simply iterate `x` through the possible input strings (which I can do because the set of strings is countable) until I find one that satisfies `h(x) == y`. Impractical, yes, but allowed by the theory, and that means the theory is invalid.
By your very own definition, "In theory" means "we have a model that makes good predictions in some circumstances."
If I let "some circumstances" be "non critical use with no attacker" and the model be "very very very very very very very very very very very very very low probability of collision when applied on pre-existing files", I don't see any problem.
The problem is that you were commenting the article using an absurdly geek point of view, interpreting each sentence as it had a very strict mathematical meaning.
In the real world, peoples sometime do misuse the language a little with the resulting sentences being easier to understand for everybody. That is generally not a call for a smart people to point out that when translated word by word (i.e. when poorly translated) using quantifiers, the statement is mathematically false. Especially when everybody on earth understand that use of "in theory" in the first place.
If Jeff wanted to make a mathematical article, he probably had written mathematical statements in the first place.
If every time you see the world "theory" you are feeling you should correct the one using it by telling him about corner cases he very probably already knows about their existence in the first place, you will loose a lot of time for a lot of non-constructive comments.
I would not call "a hash that has no need whatsoever to be tamper-proof and cares only about speed" a checksum. You don't use checksums to create a hash table. Now some checksum would be suitable for that use, but not all. So let's continue to call a hash a hash.
Google can broadcast TV ads with your private photos if they want to.