You are insinuating that the collected data leaves Google's servers and enters the advertiser's servers.

It does not.

Google's business model is: give ad banner to Google, fill out a form specifying the desired demographic targets, done. Google then stores the banner on their server and their server sends out the banner when a user matching the chosen demographics views a page with Google backed ads on it.

I am insinuating nothing of the kind. If you read what I have said and what you quoted I have not stated that Google passes personal user details on directly to the customer. That categorised data becomes the product which Google sells via their advertising program. As you have said, they sell targeted advertising and without user data supplied via interaction with their services there would be no product for them to sell. I would be interested to know how you know exactly what Google does with the data they collect however. Perhaps you work for them?

Google will NEVER sell data of its customers...not because of any moral code, but because it is simply not profitable. They sell *targeted* advertising space on services offered for free, Like TV...or newspapers. Its why Google make Billions.

Exactly how do you think they "target" that advertising? They use algorithms applied to the data supplied by the users through their interaction with the Google services including search history, chats, contact lists etc. to categorise what the users' and their friends' and contacts' interests are, what socio-economic category they fall into, and where they are geographically. That data is the Google product and that is what they sell.

There is a fundamental difference to your example. When you visit a restaurant, you as the diner are the customer, the restaurant is the supplier and the product is the food and service. I think you misundertand the Google service user's relationship to Google. The service user isn't the customer. Google encourages the user to provide personal data in return for access to a service. That data then becomes Google's product which Google then sells on businesses and organisations - it's actual customers. It is the data customers who have the customer - supplier relationship.

Agreed, this constant chasing of crappy video with modern technology is simply amazing to me. (looking at you Instagram).

Its not like the current users have any fond memories of the great 16mm heyday, most of the users grew up in the digital age.
Every one of them has a cell phone in their pocket that can do a better job. None of them have any memories of Bolex, and those that do
are well over 65 years old.

Where is the market for this device?

The market is probably for people who like the Bolex film camera - they still make the H16 (16mm) camera in electric or mechanical versions. The market for these is mostly small film makers or wealthy hobbyists. Some higher budget films are also still shot on 16mm for atmospheric effect with the added grain giving a rawer or grittier "more real-life" effect.

I agree, the Unicomp has exactly the same feel (and sound) as the Model M and far superior build and 'heft' compared to most keyboards. Well worth the money and I've bought three from them. Model Ms - certainly here in the UK - are very hard to come by and ultra expensive when they come up with a UK layout. The Unicomp, even with the high shipping cost from the US and import duty, comes in at around £100. I did manage to banjax one by spilling coffee over it but barring future liquid intrusion, my other two are going strong and feel like they'll last a lifetime - just like the Model M.

Me too. My 11C is 32 years old and my daily user. The design is near perfect and only bettered by the 15C for it's complex number handling in my humble opinion. I must admit I was never a fan if TIs, always considering HP to have much better quality and of course, RPN. The output from HP these days is all from China and the build quality nowhere near what it was - the only plus is that they still make a few RPN models.

Each control system requires comparatively little processing power but high reliability and redundancy. As an example, the back-up flight computer on the space shuttles was an HP-41CV/CX pocket calculator and later, an HP42S. These models were chosen specifically for build quality, reliability and lack of known inherent bugs, oh - and low outgassing.

An anonymous reader writes: Britam, a UK defense contractor company was hacked and a collection of confidential documents were released. The documents include a passports, incident reports, contracts and also a very controversial e-mail in which Britam reveal an "approved by Washington" plan to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame the Assad regime for it.Link to Original Source

theodp writes: That his 28-year-old whip-smart, well-educated CS grad friend could be unaware of MacWrite and MacPaint took Dave Winer by surprise. 'They don't, for some reason,' notes Winer, 'study these [types of seminal] products in computer science. They fall between the cracks of "serious" study of algorithms and data structures, and user interface and user experience (which still is not much-studied, but at least is starting). This is more the history of software. Much like the history of film, or the history of rock and roll.' So, Dave asks, what early software was influential and worthy of a Software Hall of Fame?

crankyspice writes: Having recently picked up the Erector set I've wanted since I was a kid, I quickly found myself wanting to plunge deeper into makerspace by adding more sophisticated electronics to moving devices (rovers, maybe eventually flying bots). My first instinct was Arduino (maybe because of brand recognition?), but that got me thinking — what's the "best" platform out there (most flexible)? Arduino with its myriad options (Nano, Mega, Uno, Mini)? PICAXE? BASIC Stamp? Raspberry Pi? (The latter seems like it would easily be the most flexible, but at greater cost in terms of weight and complexity.) I'm a hobbyist programmer, having learned C and C++ in college and recently re-learning Java (took and passed the Oracle Certified Professional exam, FWIW)...

rtfa-troll writes: The Register tells us that Microsoft has begun squabbling with PC manufacturers over the reasons behind the failure of Windows 8. Microsoft is "frustrated with major OEMs who didn't build nearly enough touch systems". PC manufacturers have hit back saying that they "would have been saddled with the costs of a huge piles of unsold units" claiming that customers actually avoided higher end touch products which were available and instead bought lower end cheaper laptops whilst "Microsoft is not blaming itself for" the failure of it's own touch device, surface RT. The PC manufacturer's claims that touch is the problem seem to be backed by reviews, and some educational rants from users and opinion from user interface design experts, however Microsoft sees this differently . Microsoft is planning to strike back at the PC vendors in February with Surface pro; with a shorter battery life and much heavier than a normal tablet, this is being seen as a direct competitor to traditional laptops. By using it's desktop operating system franchise as a lever Microsoft will be able to enter the lower specification end of the Laptop market with a cost advantage which make make life difficult for former partners such as HP and Dell.

This is yet another example of politicians throwing money at technology to try and solve problems of policy and administration. It's a bit like buying a new TV to cure a broken leg. Nothing but a distraction.