Google owns your content, so by all means, use Google Drive

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 license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).”

Google Terms of Service

It took Google five+ years to fail in cloning Dropbox, and they didn’t want people using Linux in combination with other operating systems to switch over apparently.

Other links:

So now the EU wants to find another way to ban Swedish tobacco (“snus”)

The EU has, since 1992, banned Swedish tobacco referred to as “snus” (contrary to popular belief, it does not rime on “moose”), a form of chewing tobacco used and placed under the upper gum. Regardless of surveys, studies, and research nobody is claiming it’s healthy for you. That is not where the argument and/or problem lies. The problem is that we have a gutless and bureaucratic EU Health administration and a collection of useless politicians who are chasing votes and/or cheap popularity.

The EU politicians are so full of shit.

Quote from “Dr. Lars-Erik Rutqvist – The Truth on Snus”

The EU ban was made on “all oral tobacco products” provided they were “not intended to be smoked or chewed”. In practice, this means that all forms of traditional, European smokeless tobacco products are allowed, except – snus. The logic behind this is indeed obscure as it has nothing to do with health effects, addictiveness, attractiveness, or any product feature related to these issues. It is solely based on how the product is intended to be used by the consumer.

Now the EU has gone one step further and want to outlaw flavor agents/ingredients in tobacco. So, why is all this a problem? We should try to limit tobacco use within the EU right? Specially among minors, right? All forms of tobacco use is bad for your health, right?

Let’s play with the following questions:

  • If all forms of tobacco use is dangerous, why aren’t cigarettes banned, completely done away with?
  • If someone stuffs a piece of tobacco under their upper lip, how is that bad for someone else? I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t
  • Passive smoking is proven to affect people, inhaling unfiltered cigarette smoke is bad for your health. Why aren’t cigarettes banned?
  • If flavoring tobacco is banned because it introduces young people to tobacco use, why isn’t flavoring in alcohol banned? Surely, Strawberry flavored hard spirits has zero positive health effects?

Politicians often contradict themselves (some would say this is a requirement for the job description), but this is such blatant and meaningless bullshit. Either tobacco is bad for you, or it isn’t. If it is, and they want to ban it, ban all forms of tobacco.

Quoted from “Tobacco in Australia | Facts & Issues”

Sweden has a similar prevalence of tobacco use to its neighbours, but one of the world’s lowest tobacco-attributable mortality rates. Some observers have suggested this phenomenon, known as ‘the Swedish experience’ is explained by the increasing use of smokeless tobacco by Swedish smokers, a trend that has corresponded with a decline in smoking prevalence. However, this interpretation has been debated.

Quote from Wikipedia on Youth smoking:

There is epidemiological evidence that shows Swedish snus has successfully emerged as healthier alternative to cigarettes.


Tobacco or Health in the European Union

Tobacco Control on Snus – Putting Science back in its Rightful Place
Dr. Lars-Erik Rutqvist – The Truth on Snus

EU Swedish Snus Ban!

Tobacco in Australia | Facts & Issues

Wikipedia on Youth smoking

Is Instagram for Android really worth all the hype?

So now that Instagram has “finally” launched for the Android platform, can we start breathing again? Put syrup on our pancakes again? Uninstall all of the other Android camera apps? Did we just see a puff of smoke dissipate over the glorious Instagram community?

For many (most?) iPhone and iPod touch owners, Instagram is old news by now. Apparently some 30 million users have signed up for it and/or downloaded the free app. For Android users, it was supposed to be a breath of fresh air. Or something. Apparently, some argue that Instagram for Android is better than Instagram for iPhone/iPod. If that is indeed the case, then I’m really wondering what the hype is all about.

Instagram for Android does very few things that Android users didn’t have before. With apps like Camera360 and Pixlr-O-Matic (and many many more), the available effects, frames, and other photo options surpass that of Instagram by far. The Instagram app for Android looks and behaves like a quick “conversion hack”. It behaves almost like an iPhone app. It doesn’t seem to hook into the regular camera photo shoot process (which allows, for example, Dropbox to push recently uploaded images to the “Camera Uploads” folder). It has very few effects, and the camera controls are very limited.

Granted, if the Instagram photo sharing community is what you’ve been waiting for, this is for you. If you typically share your photos on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc. then Instagram won’t do much for you.

What’s also odd is that given all the time they’ve had to prepare for the launch, one could argue that they would at least have had the time to correct the URL:s on the actual web pages that showcase your photos. If I upload an Instagram photo, the page on which it is displayed links to iTunes; where of course, I cannot download the Android Instagram app…