Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #24371 > unrolled thread

Google Drive--Even More Evil

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-25 12:18 -0400
    Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 13:09 -0400
    Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-04-25 13:44 -0400
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-04-25 13:59 -0700
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-25 23:03 +0200
    Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-26 11:29 +0200
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-04-26 07:41 -0700
        Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-26 19:21 -0400
          Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2012-04-27 13:27 -0600
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-26 12:15 -0400
        Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2012-04-26 09:35 -0700
          Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-26 14:45 -0400
            Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-04-26 17:43 -0400
          Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-05-17 16:40 +0200
    Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> - 2012-04-26 08:25 -0500
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-04-26 10:03 -0400
        Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-26 19:25 -0400
          Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-26 22:31 -0400
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-26 11:56 -0400
        Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-04-26 12:14 -0400
      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-27 14:40 +0200
        Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-27 10:46 -0400
          Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-27 11:25 -0400
          Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-27 17:51 +0200
            Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2012-04-27 15:59 -0700
              Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2012-04-27 18:58 -0700
                Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-28 10:03 -0400
                  Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 12:06 -0400
                  Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-28 13:33 -0400
                    Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-30 10:47 -0400
                Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-28 12:32 -0400
                  Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-28 22:46 +0200
                    Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-30 10:35 -0400
                      Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-05-01 09:37 +0200
              Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-28 12:53 +0200
        Re: Google Drive--Even More Evil "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> - 2012-04-27 10:14 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#24371 — Google Drive--Even More Evil

Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know 
it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit 
of information it can compile about you.

In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched 
Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and 
Microsoft's SkyDrive.

Just one hitch: 
ANYTHING YOU SAVE TO GOOGLE'S CLOUD, GOOGLE CLAIMS *IT*OWNS*!!!

From Google Drive's terms of service (TOS):
"Your Content in our Services: When you upload or otherwise submit 
content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a 
worldwide licence to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create 
derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations 
or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our 
Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and 
distribute such content...

"...This licence continues even if you stop using our Services..."

All your data are belong to US!

Google counters that the first sentence of its TOS states: "You retain 
ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that 
content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." Oh really?!? 

What good is 'ownership' if you have given away all the rights?

More details here:

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-goog
le-drive/>

Use ANY Google service at your peril.

You have been warned!

-- 
The problem with Crapitalism is there is an infinite supply 
of vicious, greedy bastards demanding everything for themselves
and happy to let everyone else pay the price.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#24375

In article <fmoore-52AF84.12181325042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know 
> it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit 
> of information it can compile about you.

Jeezus, Fred, Jolly Roger is going to have to kill-file you now.
-- 

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24376

Since Apple dpesn't want to enable iCloud for Snow Leopard, if there are
other services which enable their remote storage for Snow Leopard, I
might go with them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24382

On 2012-04-25 17:44:56 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> Since Apple dpesn't want to enable iCloud for Snow Leopard, if there are
> other services which enable their remote storage for Snow Leopard, I
> might go with them.

Dropbox, Wuala, Box.net to start with.

And many apps, both desktop and iOS, are "aware" of these services and 
either deal with them directly or are enable to use them through the 
normal filesystem.  (In particular, Dropbox just syncs from a folder in 
your local filesystem, so you don't need any specific "cloud awareness" 
on the part of applications on the desktop.  Wuala *can* do that, or 
can work purely cloud-like).

None of them, however, take care of syncing my iCal and AddressBook 
information, which I'll really miss.  I have one machine which cannot 
go beyond Snow Leopard and I'm not planning on retiring it soon.  I was 
hoping for a long time that Apple would relent and enable some of the 
iCloud syncing for SL (and there were screen shots a long time ago from 
some dev build of SL which showed some iCloud stuff, but apparently 
they decided never to release that stuff).

I'll miss the MobileMe galleries, too, but there are plenty of suitable 
substitutes (including, again, Dropbox and Wuala, both of which enable 
you to share photo galleries synced up to your local filesystem)

I'm a little skeptical of GDrive, and appreciate Fred sharing the 
rather unpleasant terms of service.

With Wuala, not only do they make no claims on your data, but they 
cannot even decrypt it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24386

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:44:56 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Since Apple dpesn't want to enable iCloud for Snow Leopard, if there are
> other services which enable their remote storage for Snow Leopard, I
> might go with them.

Wuala have just announced that they've bumped their free storage to 5GB.

Allegedly to celebrate the third birthday of joining forces with Lacie.

Wuala does require Java though, so if you are avoiding that product for 
whatever reason, Wuala isn't for you.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24408

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:13 -0400, Fred Moore wrote:

> Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know
> it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit
> of information it can compile about you.
> 
> In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched
> Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and
> Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> 
> Just one hitch:
> ANYTHING YOU SAVE TO GOOGLE'S CLOUD, GOOGLE CLAIMS *IT*OWNS*!!!
> 
> From Google Drive's terms of service (TOS): "Your Content in our
> Services: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services,
> you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide licence to use,
> host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those
> resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make
> so that your content works better with our Services), communicate,
> publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such
> content...
> 
> "...This licence continues even if you stop using our Services..."
> 
> All your data are belong to US!
> 
> Google counters that the first sentence of its TOS states: "You retain
> ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that
> content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." Oh really?!?
> 
> What good is 'ownership' if you have given away all the rights?
> 
> More details here:
> 
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-
goog
> le-drive/>
> 
> Use ANY Google service at your peril.
> 
> You have been warned!

But are they any worse than the rest?

From Ars Technica:

<http://bit.ly/IevpHq>
----------------------
Google Drive files can end up in ads, even though you still own them

When Ars spoke to the Electronic Frontier Foundation about Google Drive's 
terms of service, the EFF found little about them that was more 
suspicious than in any other similar cloud service. But Rebecca Jeschke, 
EFF's media relations director and digital rights analyst, paused over 
one phrase: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited 
purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to 
develop new ones." Promoting?
-----------------------

Also see that article's comments.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24416

On 2012-04-26 09:29:00 +0000, Paul Sture said:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:13 -0400, Fred Moore wrote:
>> Google counters that the first sentence of its TOS states: "You retain
>> ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that
>> content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." Oh really?!?
>> 
>> What good is 'ownership' if you have given away all the rights?
>> 
>> More details here:
>> 
>> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-
> goog
>> le-drive/>
>> 
> 
> But are they any worse than the rest?

Maybe.
> 
> From Ars Technica:
> 
> <http://bit.ly/IevpHq>
> ----------------------
> Google Drive files can end up in ads, even though you still own them

Note that that article discusses Dropbox, iCloud, Microsoft SkyDrive, 
and Google Drive but does not address Wuala -- which, unlike the rest 
of them, does not have the ability to access or read your files because 
they don't have your encryption key.  (Though all bets are probably off 
for anything you put into Wuala into a "public" area, such as their 
photo file sharing section).

All the rest retain a key to unencrypt your data for "your" (and their) 
convenience - which has advantages - it can allow them to do things 
like make it easier for third party apps to access/use your data, set 
up a web page for you to be able to get at your data without a local 
app, etc etc.  But it also means that, for example, if they are told to 
comply with law enforcement and turn your data over, they can turn it 
over unencrypted.  Wuala also has to turn over data to law enforcement 
if asked - but since they don't have your keys, at most they can turn 
over your encrypted files.  And if they have a security breach (like 
DropBox had a while back) nobody's going to get at your unencrypted 
files.

At least that's all my understanding of it.  I use both Dropbox and 
Wuala -- for different things.  Dropbox definitely has much less 
obtrusive integration both into my filesystem and into all the apps, 
especially iOS ones, which can work with it.  But the personal content 
either goes into Wuala or into encrypted files on Dropbox (ie. 
1Password uses Dropbox, but the datafile it keeps up there is encrypted 
by 1Password, not Dropbox).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24435

On 04-26-2012 10:41, Bread wrote:
> Wuala -- which, unlike the rest of them, does not have the ability to
> access or read your files because they don't have your encryption key.

They're _probably_ on the level, but is their app open source?
Or has anyone verified with non-Wuala code that the encryption
actually does depend on the key you supposedly don't give them?

If you use that key with their app to decrypt your files, it's
possible for the app to send them the key.

i doubt that would happen, but it's possible.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24457

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> writes:

> On 04-26-2012 10:41, Bread wrote:
>> Wuala -- which, unlike the rest of them, does not have the ability to
>> access or read your files because they don't have your encryption key.
>
> They're _probably_ on the level, but is their app open source?
> Or has anyone verified with non-Wuala code that the encryption
> actually does depend on the key you supposedly don't give them?
>
> If you use that key with their app to decrypt your files, it's
> possible for the app to send them the key.
>
> i doubt that would happen, but it's possible.

Even verified open source isn't necessarily secure:

    http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html

Best to encrypt it locally, using a tool chain you wrote from scratch :-)

-- 
Jim Janney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24420

In article <s3hn69-164.ln1@news.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> 
wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:13 -0400, Fred Moore wrote:
> 
> > Use ANY Google service at your peril.
> > 
> > You have been warned!
> 
> But are they any worse than the rest?

For brevity, I didn't quote the Dropbox TOS from the CNET article in my 
original post. Here it is:

"Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with 
information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together, 
"your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim 
any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to 
your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that 
are needed to run the Services, as explained below."

'Damn it, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!', but I like the tone of 
that. Unless they completely contradict it somewhere else in their TOS, 
why isn't that good, binding insurance?

To also respond to Bread's point that Wuala doesn't have encryption keys 
so it can't respond to government demands for info, that's certainly a 
plus. However, I never put ANYTHING on a Fog service which I don't mind 
seeing on the front page of the New York Times (or Fox Lies), unless I 
have encrypted it myself with AES256 so it's not available. In other 
words, my password backup list is well encrypted and unavailable to 
prying eyes on Dropbox. Other miscellaneous docs are not, but I still 
don't want to give away any rights to the Fog storage provider. With 
Dropbox's TOS, I don't.

(Fog is a cloud which hasn't entirely gotten off the ground.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24421

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> For brevity, I didn't quote the Dropbox TOS from the CNET article in my
> original post. Here it is:
> 
> "Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with
> information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together,
> "your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim
> any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to
> your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that
> are needed to run the Services, as explained below."
> 
> 'Damn it, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!', but I like the tone of
> that. Unless they completely contradict it somewhere else in their TOS,
> why isn't that good, binding insurance?

In particular, I note that the dropbox terms specifically limit their
use to things "needed to run the Services." That's the kind of stuff I
*want* them to be able to do - else I wouldn't be using the services.

On the other hand, the Google Drive terms include allowing Google to use
your stuff to promote their services. That's a whole different ball game
and could cover darn near anything.

I accidentally read one article about this issue on, as Fred accurately
calls it, "Fox Lies". (Clicked a link without noticing that was where it
went to). It had a comment that the competing services all had simillar
terms, but that comment seemed to completely paper over the differences,
mentioning only the parts that supported the point (as typical). That
bit about use for promoting the service is a pretty big difference to
me.

Of course, I'd be pleased to see the pictures of my cute 7-month-old
granddaughter on the front page of the NY Times. That's most of the kind
of thing they would find. But the principle still bugs me. I even own (a
little bit of) Google stock, but it still bugs me.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24426

In article <1kj5jdc.c860iyk68pmoN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Of course, I'd be pleased to see the pictures of my cute 7-month-old
> granddaughter on the front page of the NY Times. That's most of the kind
> of thing they would find. But the principle still bugs me. I even own (a
> little bit of) Google stock, but it still bugs me.

Note that Google tried this before with the introduction of Picasa IIRC. 
I in fact posted that by the terms of that TOS, Google could sell the 
photo of your cute 7-month-old granddaughter to a Chinese manufacturer 
which could be put it on a product ending up in Wal-Mart. Now whether 
there is a real risk to the child in this, I can't say; but what 
responsible parent or grandparent would agree to this? And certainly not 
without a substantial royalty payment to the child's college fund.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24430

In article <fmoore-479999.14451126042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> In article <1kj5jdc.c860iyk68pmoN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > Of course, I'd be pleased to see the pictures of my cute 7-month-old
> > granddaughter on the front page of the NY Times. That's most of the kind
> > of thing they would find. But the principle still bugs me. I even own (a
> > little bit of) Google stock, but it still bugs me.
> 
> Note that Google tried this before with the introduction of Picasa IIRC. 
> I in fact posted that by the terms of that TOS, Google could sell the 
> photo of your cute 7-month-old granddaughter to a Chinese manufacturer 
> which could be put it on a product ending up in Wal-Mart. Now whether 
> there is a real risk to the child in this, I can't say; but what 
> responsible parent or grandparent would agree to this? And certainly not 
> without a substantial royalty payment to the child's college fund.

I agree with you. 

Someone will shirley come along and <whiney_voice> That's a worst-case 
scenario </whiney_voice> to which I would reply <superior_smug_tone> 
Getting shot in the neck by a drunken 16-year-old crack-head with a 25 
acp is a worst-case scenario too. That's why we have laws banning 
crystal meths, 25 calibre pistols (where I live), and under-age drinking 
</superior_smug_tone>

That said, I've set up my Drive account; I'll see how it works.
-- 

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25281

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:35:01 -0700, Richard Maine wrote:

> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> 
>> For brevity, I didn't quote the Dropbox TOS from the CNET article in my
>> original post. Here it is:
>> 
>> "Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with
>> information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together,
>> "your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim
>> any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to
>> your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that
>> are needed to run the Services, as explained below."
>> 
>> 'Damn it, Jim, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!', but I like the tone of
>> that. Unless they completely contradict it somewhere else in their TOS,
>> why isn't that good, binding insurance?
> 
> In particular, I note that the dropbox terms specifically limit their
> use to things "needed to run the Services." That's the kind of stuff I
> *want* them to be able to do - else I wouldn't be using the services.
> 
> On the other hand, the Google Drive terms include allowing Google to use
> your stuff to promote their services. That's a whole different ball game
> and could cover darn near anything.
> 

Google alternatives in the news:

<http://bit.ly/JNEEgy>

"Private: some search engines make money by not tracking users
DuckDuckGo and Ixquick take a tiny bite out of Google."

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24413

In article <fmoore-52AF84.12181325042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know 
> it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit 
> of information it can compile about you.
> 
> In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched 
> Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and 
> Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> 

...

RULES FOR BETTER WRITING

26.  Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not 
needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24415

In article 
<lybanon-BEB9C3.08250626042012@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
 Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In article <fmoore-52AF84.12181325042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> 
> > Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know 
> > it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit 
> > of information it can compile about you.
> > 
> > In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched 
> > Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and 
> > Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> 
> 26.  Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not 
> needed.

The passive voice should never be used.
-- 

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24436

On 04-26-2012 10:03, Warren Oates wrote:
>   Matthew Lybanon<lybanon@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>>
>> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
>>
>> 26.  Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
>> needed.
>
> The passive voice should never be used.

It's OK to end a sentence with.  A preposition.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
                     — Clarence Darrow

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24440

In article <jnclhp$nce$2@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 04-26-2012 10:03, Warren Oates wrote:
> >   Matthew Lybanon<lybanon@earthlink.net>  wrote:
> >>
> >> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> >>
> >> 26.  Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not
> >> needed.
> >
> > The passive voice should never be used.
> 
> It's OK to end a sentence with.  A preposition.

This is pedantry up with which I will NOT put!

--
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you 
handy.
     --Red Green

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24418

In article 
<lybanon-BEB9C3.08250626042012@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
 Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In article <fmoore-52AF84.12181325042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> 
> > Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know 
> > it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit 
> > of information it can compile about you.
> > 
> > In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched 
> > Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and 
> > Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> 
> 26.  Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not 
> needed.

If, Matthew, you mean the two occurrences of 'it's' in the second quoted 
paragraph, you are absolutely correct. Should have been 'its'. My bad. 
Haste makes waste. Thanks for your substantive contribution to the 
discussion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24419

In article <fmoore-172A65.11561526042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <lybanon-BEB9C3.08250626042012@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>  Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <fmoore-52AF84.12181325042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Supposedly Google's corporate motto is 'Don't be evil'. As we all know 
> > > it violated that a very long time ago by stealing and selling every bit 
> > > of information it can compile about you.
> > > 
> > > In it's latest bid to expand it's online evil empire, it has launched 
> > > Google Drive, an online data storage service to compete with Dropbox and 
> > > Microsoft's SkyDrive.
> > > 
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
> > 
> > 26.  Use the apostrophe in it's proper place, and omit it when its not 
> > needed.
> 
> If, Matthew, you mean the two occurrences of 'it's' in the second quoted 
> paragraph, you are absolutely correct. Should have been 'its'. My bad. 
> Haste makes waste. Thanks for your substantive contribution to the 
> discussion.

Reminds me of something that's been attributed to every dead scholar in 
history (see note), when some author sent him a manuscript to read: 
"Thank you for sending me your book; I shall waste no time in reading 
it."

Note to see: I've seen it attributed to Disraeli, Oscar Wilde, 
Churchill, and Ben Johnson.
-- 

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web