Would you care to clarify what you meant?Hey, legal genius I'm pretty sure it's an example.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's an example, too. I came up with that example.
So do you think I can eat your icecream in the winter or not?
Would you care to clarify what you meant?Hey, legal genius I'm pretty sure it's an example.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's an example, too. I came up with that example.
So do you think I can eat your icecream in the winter or not?
Exactly.it privacy policy only apply to Googles own services not a 3rd party.
That's why we are trying to sort it out.That is not what they are saying that is what you are reading into it.
There is nothing legal about this. Both the original line and my example are plain good old English without any legal mumbo jumbo.No, I think you should be careful when you are trying to make "equivalent" parallels that is still legally binding. As we discussed not to many posts back.
It's a simple exercise in English, and has nothing to do with legality.
What do you think would be a better parallel, then?
Or can you suggest another way to understand the original without trying to come up with a simple parallel?
You know it doesn't apply. Meaning Google CANNOT get your location info. Whatever deal you make with the application developer is your own business. In this sense, Google is like just another app developer. If you don't like their privacy policy, just don't use their apps. You can still use their phone with other apps all you want.So if you are using apps from the android marketplace you don't know what applies.
And I think you are wrong, so I'm trying to expose the inconsistency in your interpretation by comparing it to how you would interpret a simple sentence with the same construct.Well I have been saying to you that we look at it differently. That's it.
And so far you have just been dodging it by saying I don't know what I am talking about, so whatever example I come up with are wrong, even though you don't know exactly how are they wrong.
Yeah, and that is the exact purpose of the new segment in the Apple Tos, to point this out.
I know you think I'm wrong lol. I think you need to be careful to change a text and saying it's equivalent according to the law with out formal training. That's why I said earlier that we'll have to see how this pans out. And that it's pointless to discuss, but you wanted to continue, but with out the necessary tools to make it meaningful IMO.
For now, we have agreed to disagree on that, so let's put that aside.Yeah, and that is the exact purpose of the new segment in the Apple Tos, to point this out.
That's like saying I cannot tell you "2x = 4y" is the same as "x = 2y" because I am not a mathematician.I know you think I'm wrong lol. I think you need to be careful to change a text and saying it's equivalent according to the law with out formal training. That's why I said earlier that we'll have to see how this pans out. And that it's pointless to discuss, but you wanted to continue, but with out the necessary tools to make it meaningful IMO.
That means, since I'm an electrical engineer, I can ever only debate about electrons in wires. Doesn't that make my life a little boring?
So how did you come to your interpretation? Intuition? Or what?
I came to mine by pattern recognition.
I recognized that the pattern
"I can A. For example, I can A if B." where A is an action and B is a condition,
is exactly the same as "I can A".
I applied the pattern to that sentence, and got my conclusion.
Last edited by cyberfish; 06-25-2010 at 12:00 AM.
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge