For places without street addresses, the geocoder can look up the information directly in the POI (point of interest) database and find coordinates for any feature the website is exposing. Google's map interface isn't the most well-written, even though the geocoder software they use/license (or used at one point) is perfectly capable of this.
For road routing of non-road-network points, they can either "snap to" the nearest road, or the POIs often have "entry links" where you're supposed to be routed to on the road network to get enter there (often more accurate than finding the nearest road).
Full disclosure: I work in the data department of a location-based services company that has a technology-providing business relationship with Google Maps, but I don't deal with Google directly and I'm not authorized to talk on behalf of my company to the public. If you want them to do better geocoding with better routing integration, send them a request, and they might be able to do it in short order. They should already be "capable" of it.
sourcemage.org supports any hashes supported by gnupg. In addition, it supports upstream author and package maintainer gnupg directly and lets you apply trust configuration values to the validation engine. I wrote that part of the package manager some time ago.
Gentoo's been behind the times with package management for a long while now.
The wording of the bill is solid. A donation is not a client relationship as your parent post said already.
You can't just criticize a bill saying that a misinterpretation of the explicit language would require a lawyer. For anything and everything can be criticized that way.
Susano, if your incentives are based on faith, I shudder to interact with you. If a bad piece of meat can give you visions that lead you to subterfuge, based on your faith, combined with the fact that you've abrogated rationality, there's no talking you out of anything, even murder. If you have been convinced by that bad meat to listen to it and only it, all hope is lost.
While you may be able to live without the hope of understanding, reason, tolerance, and investigation, I for one, cannot.
Luther was adamant that Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore. I don't subscribe to that belief. Again, I cannot.
Back to your comment on ESS. ESS is a technical term from game theory during repeated interactions in the prisoners' dilemma. It has nothing inherently to do with generations of individuals in population genetics, although it may be applied to it. Evolutionary, in this sense, is about the ethics of reciprocity, or, what happens when strategies are applied and tested in the context of opposing strategies. That's not the evolution you were referring to.
Stallman doesn't believe writing DRM-laden code is ethical.
But he's not forbidding anybody to try. After all, he's never promoted legislation to make DRM illegal.
He does, however, oppose legislatures from making DRM unstudiable or mandatory. He's for those FREEDOMS. He never takes away the content industry's right to attempt to DRM content.
If you read his famous "Right to Read" essay, it's about mandatory DRM, enforced by the power of law, where fair use is eliminated.
If we really did have a free marketplace (in the US) where DRM wasn't legislated by the media's congress onto the hardware manufacturers, then we'd have hardware manufacturers who would always provide DRM-unladen equipment and devices, and they'd occupy that niche for us hackers in the marketplace.
In addition to the FSF's lobbying efforts, there's the GPL, which is a license that is applied by the personal choice of the copyright holder. The copyright holder simply uses the license to make sure that his own work is unladen by DRM restrictions when he contributes his code. The copyright holder has _every right_ to do this. This is their _choice_. If the proprietary industry wants to use DRM, they are free to write their own code to do so.
RMS never lobbies to make proprietary software illegal. He says it's wrong/unethical, but not that it should be "illegal" under force of law.
Free software will win without the help of outlawing proprietary software.
This all goes back by the fundamental confusion that people have between the FSF and command economies, and why RMS insists that there's no confusion that need to be made. The FSF advocates for freer economies, not more restricted ones.
Why would people be confused? It's because the Libertarians (capital L) who broke off and formed the Open Source Initiative are fundamentally incapable of the thought necessary to make the distinction between ethos and juris (ethics and the law). RMS is way more libertarian (small L) than they are.
I used to work as a sysadmin for a medical clinic with a radiology unit.
None of them were connected to the Internet, and we used a totally separate LAN for them, and the networking to other sites were on their own separate LANs as well.
Then again, we have a fiber interlink system called "the mednet" up in Portland, Oregon, dedicated to this type of data.
They never saw the Internet. All communication was over encrypted, point-to-point links.
How the ignorant neoliberal economist forgets that money, or "material wealth" as you put it, is not an accurate proxy for happiness.
Morality aside, is there any room in your equation for immaterial wealth, such as an ethical evolutionarily stable strategy? Nope. You'll have to reformulate to catch up with economics from a sociobiological/ethological framework.
Mutt beats gmail hands down. the l button and the regular expression support in mutt rules anything google has.
Google maps is the only AJAX app that's worth anything, and it wasn't written by google, it was written by some freelancers who sold the concept to google based off of a mapping drill down server somebody else wrote.
And every other map vendor now has "draggable" maps anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It's not even that important, either. The routing and geocoding library aren't even written by google --- its speed is almost wholly a function of the algorithms that that another company (;) ) developed and sells to them with a per-use license that I'm not free to name the terms of.
AJAX can be ok, but it's not fast, and it's not easy on servers. Google had to put up massive hardware to make it scalable.
Prototype overloading isn't special. It's no more risky than getting the opportunity to run _any_ code against the target. You still need to craft exploits directly against the websites in use, except the easier passive sniffing of the native xml functions might mean less code has to be inserted in the client side. You still have to know what to do with the sniffed data on a per-site/program basis.
I just consider this an efficient use of javascript. It's not enabling anything that couldn't be done already.
The important user data for almost all sites is stored on the server anyways, not being sent over the wire, and if it were, it would require much specific effort to make the data usable.
It's not a new class of vulnerabilities, it's merely a new minor exploit technique of already-existing vulnerabilities. It doesn't decrease anybody's actual security.
I'm not sure how they managed to convince anybody these are "new" to AJAX.
Everybody's known about Javascript XSS issues for a while and the http cache/proxy issues as well
Do they get bonus points for calling them AJAX vulns? I hope not.
Fortunately, on my team, I'm not allowed to use AJAX (even XML-free Javascript) or Cookies to develop web applications -- for security reasons. Other teams have AJAX programmers on staff, but that's only for the slick b2c stuff, not the actual b2b stuff.
I'm so sorry, I was slipped up by your use of a categorical "monopolies are inherently unstable" placed near a "most" qualifier.
Please accept my apology. Now, please explain how they are "inherently" unstable "most of the time". If it's an inherent property that monopolies are unstable, then how can they be at all separated from this? What condition happens that makes monopolies inherently unstable? What then makes them stable other than government intervention?
If there are any monopolies that are stable without government support, then your argument doesn't really address the problem that a free market is unable to control all monopolies, now is it?
Since when was productivity measured by direct sales of goods and services? Every economist should now know that indirect effects are sine qua non of economic analysis.
Morever, they _do_ provide direct goods and services. The interstate highway system is a "concrete" example of both a good and a service. It's physical and provides a shared service for transportation of other goods and services. It's created immense quantities of wealth (value) through it. The New Deal took employment and goods and services directly into the hands of the government when the market system failed. The BPA, TVA, and other public utilities are also infrastructure utilities that have demonstrated consistent operating efficiency that have not been met by corporate utilities.
Demoting your feeble attempt at anonymous self-title is not being repulsive. Somebody might be confused by your moniker and assume you have some expertise in the matter, which, after some honest investigation into your knowledge, clearly you do not.
At no point have I relied on any titular endowment, but you do, true or false, as we only see an anonymous poster with a symbolic title. Questioning your title is perfectly valid.
If you do have some credentials, feel free to publish them, so we can see what embarrassment may ensue.
You said that monopolies are supported by state intervention. If you didn't mean it in all cases, then it's not a good counter to my argument that _some_ monopolies required no help from the state to be created. If you use incoherent arguments, I don't know which version of the bad argument to assume you're using to counter. Should I just make my posts extra long to counter every possible variation of stupidity you could have passed on to us?
For the record, the above error is a not all that uncommon. If you confuse logical quantifiers (some/most/none/all/etc) by leaving them out, I'm going to pick the quantifier that potentially addresses my examples. I didn't realize you weren't even bothering to address my argument and instead wanted to retreat into a non-argument. I was trying to be faithful to your argument.
You did, however, say that monopolies are unstable. I told you to look up ESS to show that they can be stable (in another thread).
Microsoft is a stable monopoly. It merely needs to continue on in its anti-trust behaviors to stay big and powerful. Its behavior is a near perfect example of an ESS.
Only governments enforcing their own anti-trust laws will stop them now.
And about the copyright law jab, again, I was trying to construct your argument since you left it out, again. If you want to make assertions with no founding, I'm merely going to continue ridiculing your feeble attempts at argument by mocking your ideological peers.
> The fact is that the more the State does, the less freedom you have.
If the state uses a progressive taxation system, then your association is no longer linear.
In fact, you may end up getting more freedom as a result of an increase in progressive taxation and a corresponding increase in public service availability.
An increase in progressive taxation may mean a tax break for the poorest majority. That consumer spending then drives up the economy more than the tax lessened it since money in the hands of aggregated wealth is much less likely to be spent than somebody living paycheck to paycheck. Trickle up.
Do right-wingers try to institute regressive taxation schemes as a self-fulfilling prophesy for their own ideological "facts"?
I used to consider that a remote conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's not as far-fetched as I thought.
Economists call it externalization, not the neighborhood effect. At least those that care to trap all externalities. Only those that want to limit externality cost to those that affect close-in neighborhoods use such a couched term.
And yes, you did imply force. You said "there's a solution". The other solution which you were abandoning in favor of yours was to not bargain with these people until they bore the cost -- the cost was repaid in build-out requirements.
If it really were optional, then you'd have no problem with the public holding out for equal access, WHICH IS THEIR SPECIFIED PRICE. IF they can't demand this in return for what they supply, then the market "should not" make this arrangement. Even in your world view.
> > If something is controlled by market forces then it is controlled by society.
> Yes - exactly! > > When something is controlled by the State, then it isn't controlled by society. > It's controlled by politicans, and their agenda is *not* the same as the agenda of society or of the people who vote them into power.
market forces == society, to you.
representative government != society, to you.
So, let me get this straight. To you, society is those who can spend money in proportion to the amount of money they control, not those who represent people under and are accountable to a one vote per person scheme.
That's why nobody can follow you. You'd rather have a plutocratic society than a democratic republic.
I didn't think fascism was a viable movement anymore, but perhaps it's still lurking beneath the divine hand.
Answer me this: is there any governmental system other than plutocracy that you'd rather have above it? I don't mean "types of plutocracy" either.
I was talking to a libertarian who believes that privatization is a good thing. I take it you didn't detect the sarcasm.
To be clear, my next paragraph said I'd "take either", which referred to the city paying for all its own infrastructure OR using franchise agreements to maintain equality and fairness.
I am and have been a forceful proponent of public ownership of utilities, but franchise agreements have been a good stopgap until we can achieve public ownership.
You're asserting that governments can't "make money". I presume you mean they can't "make capital". But, they can. They make capital all the time. If you meant they can't "make value", under what theory of value are you assuming they can't make value? The labor theory? What theory? Come on? The CCC didn't make labor and thus make value?
Wow, you really are deluded, or you just don't know the terminology. You call yourself an Economist?
I include investors who invest via a representative. Even if they could match an institutional investor's baseline, the fees they charge are exorbitant and skim much of the profit out.
Slashdot Mirror
For places without street addresses, the geocoder can look up the information directly in the POI (point of interest) database and find coordinates for any feature the website is exposing. Google's map interface isn't the most well-written, even though the geocoder software they use/license (or used at one point) is perfectly capable of this.
For road routing of non-road-network points, they can either "snap to" the nearest road, or the POIs often have "entry links" where you're supposed to be routed to on the road network to get enter there (often more accurate than finding the nearest road).
Full disclosure: I work in the data department of a location-based services company that has a technology-providing business relationship with Google Maps, but I don't deal with Google directly and I'm not authorized to talk on behalf of my company to the public. If you want them to do better geocoding with better routing integration, send them a request, and they might be able to do it in short order. They should already be "capable" of it.
PINE is from U of Washington
sourcemage.org supports any hashes supported by gnupg. In addition, it supports upstream author and package maintainer gnupg directly and lets you apply trust configuration values to the validation engine. I wrote that part of the package manager some time ago.
Gentoo's been behind the times with package management for a long while now.
The wording of the bill is solid. A donation is not a client relationship as your parent post said already.
You can't just criticize a bill saying that a misinterpretation of the explicit language would require a lawyer. For anything and everything can be criticized that way.
Susano, if your incentives are based on faith, I shudder to interact with you. If a bad piece of meat can give you visions that lead you to subterfuge, based on your faith, combined with the fact that you've abrogated rationality, there's no talking you out of anything, even murder. If you have been convinced by that bad meat to listen to it and only it, all hope is lost.
While you may be able to live without the hope of understanding, reason, tolerance, and investigation, I for one, cannot.
Luther was adamant that Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore. I don't subscribe to that belief. Again, I cannot.
Back to your comment on ESS. ESS is a technical term from game theory during repeated interactions in the prisoners' dilemma. It has nothing inherently to do with generations of individuals in population genetics, although it may be applied to it. Evolutionary, in this sense, is about the ethics of reciprocity, or, what happens when strategies are applied and tested in the context of opposing strategies. That's not the evolution you were referring to.
This analysis agrees with your parent post and does a full cost accounting:
b sidy.htm
http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_su
Try harder next time, armchair economist.
Stallman doesn't believe writing DRM-laden code is ethical.
But he's not forbidding anybody to try. After all, he's never promoted legislation to make DRM illegal.
He does, however, oppose legislatures from making DRM unstudiable or mandatory. He's for those FREEDOMS. He never takes away the content industry's right to attempt to DRM content.
If you read his famous "Right to Read" essay, it's about mandatory DRM, enforced by the power of law, where fair use is eliminated.
If we really did have a free marketplace (in the US) where DRM wasn't legislated by the media's congress onto the hardware manufacturers, then we'd have hardware manufacturers who would always provide DRM-unladen equipment and devices, and they'd occupy that niche for us hackers in the marketplace.
In addition to the FSF's lobbying efforts, there's the GPL, which is a license that is applied by the personal choice of the copyright holder. The copyright holder simply uses the license to make sure that his own work is unladen by DRM restrictions when he contributes his code. The copyright holder has _every right_ to do this. This is their _choice_. If the proprietary industry wants to use DRM, they are free to write their own code to do so.
RMS never lobbies to make proprietary software illegal. He says it's wrong/unethical, but not that it should be "illegal" under force of law.
Free software will win without the help of outlawing proprietary software.
This all goes back by the fundamental confusion that people have between the FSF and command economies, and why RMS insists that there's no confusion that need to be made. The FSF advocates for freer economies, not more restricted ones.
Why would people be confused? It's because the Libertarians (capital L) who broke off and formed the Open Source Initiative are fundamentally incapable of the thought necessary to make the distinction between ethos and juris (ethics and the law). RMS is way more libertarian (small L) than they are.
Stallman thinks people should have the opportunity to have root access to their own hardware.
That doesn't mean one should be logged in as root for processing untrusted data.
I'm sure he doesn't do his web surfing under root, for obvious reasons.
I used to work as a sysadmin for a medical clinic with a radiology unit.
None of them were connected to the Internet, and we used a totally separate LAN for them, and the networking to other sites were on their own separate LANs as well.
Then again, we have a fiber interlink system called "the mednet" up in Portland, Oregon, dedicated to this type of data.
They never saw the Internet. All communication was over encrypted, point-to-point links.
How the ignorant neoliberal economist forgets that money, or "material wealth" as you put it, is not an accurate proxy for happiness.
Morality aside, is there any room in your equation for immaterial wealth, such as an ethical evolutionarily stable strategy? Nope. You'll have to reformulate to catch up with economics from a sociobiological/ethological framework.
Going through this comment tree, I was waiting for somebody to correct the twenty false comments above you in the stack.
Thank you for not being an idiot.
About gmail and google maps...
;) ) developed and sells to them with a per-use license that I'm not free to name the terms of.
Mutt beats gmail hands down. the l button and the regular expression support in mutt rules anything google has.
Google maps is the only AJAX app that's worth anything, and it wasn't written by google, it was written by some freelancers who sold the concept to google based off of a mapping drill down server somebody else wrote.
And every other map vendor now has "draggable" maps anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. It's not even that important, either. The routing and geocoding library aren't even written by google --- its speed is almost wholly a function of the algorithms that that another company (
AJAX can be ok, but it's not fast, and it's not easy on servers. Google had to put up massive hardware to make it scalable.
Prototype overloading isn't special. It's no more risky than getting the opportunity to run _any_ code against the target. You still need to craft exploits directly against the websites in use, except the easier passive sniffing of the native xml functions might mean less code has to be inserted in the client side. You still have to know what to do with the sniffed data on a per-site/program basis.
I just consider this an efficient use of javascript. It's not enabling anything that couldn't be done already.
The important user data for almost all sites is stored on the server anyways, not being sent over the wire, and if it were, it would require much specific effort to make the data usable.
It's not a new class of vulnerabilities, it's merely a new minor exploit technique of already-existing vulnerabilities. It doesn't decrease anybody's actual security.
all the vulnerabilities discussed are not new.
I'm not sure how they managed to convince anybody these are "new" to AJAX.
Everybody's known about Javascript XSS issues for a while and the http cache/proxy issues as well
Do they get bonus points for calling them AJAX vulns? I hope not.
Fortunately, on my team, I'm not allowed to use AJAX (even XML-free Javascript) or Cookies to develop web applications -- for security reasons. Other teams have AJAX programmers on staff, but that's only for the slick b2c stuff, not the actual b2b stuff.
I'm so sorry, I was slipped up by your use of a categorical "monopolies are inherently unstable" placed near a "most" qualifier.
Please accept my apology. Now, please explain how they are "inherently" unstable "most of the time". If it's an inherent property that monopolies are unstable, then how can they be at all separated from this? What condition happens that makes monopolies inherently unstable? What then makes them stable other than government intervention?
If there are any monopolies that are stable without government support, then your argument doesn't really address the problem that a free market is unable to control all monopolies, now is it?
Are you retreating again?
Since when was productivity measured by direct sales of goods and services? Every economist should now know that indirect effects are sine qua non of economic analysis.
Morever, they _do_ provide direct goods and services. The interstate highway system is a "concrete" example of both a good and a service. It's physical and provides a shared service for transportation of other goods and services. It's created immense quantities of wealth (value) through it. The New Deal took employment and goods and services directly into the hands of the government when the market system failed. The BPA, TVA, and other public utilities are also infrastructure utilities that have demonstrated consistent operating efficiency that have not been met by corporate utilities.
Demoting your feeble attempt at anonymous self-title is not being repulsive. Somebody might be confused by your moniker and assume you have some expertise in the matter, which, after some honest investigation into your knowledge, clearly you do not.
At no point have I relied on any titular endowment, but you do, true or false, as we only see an anonymous poster with a symbolic title. Questioning your title is perfectly valid.
If you do have some credentials, feel free to publish them, so we can see what embarrassment may ensue.
You said that monopolies are supported by state intervention. If you didn't mean it in all cases, then it's not a good counter to my argument that _some_ monopolies required no help from the state to be created. If you use incoherent arguments, I don't know which version of the bad argument to assume you're using to counter. Should I just make my posts extra long to counter every possible variation of stupidity you could have passed on to us?
For the record, the above error is a not all that uncommon. If you confuse logical quantifiers (some/most/none/all/etc) by leaving them out, I'm going to pick the quantifier that potentially addresses my examples. I didn't realize you weren't even bothering to address my argument and instead wanted to retreat into a non-argument. I was trying to be faithful to your argument.
You did, however, say that monopolies are unstable. I told you to look up ESS to show that they can be stable (in another thread).
Microsoft is a stable monopoly. It merely needs to continue on in its anti-trust behaviors to stay big and powerful. Its behavior is a near perfect example of an ESS.
Only governments enforcing their own anti-trust laws will stop them now.
And about the copyright law jab, again, I was trying to construct your argument since you left it out, again. If you want to make assertions with no founding, I'm merely going to continue ridiculing your feeble attempts at argument by mocking your ideological peers.
> The fact is that the more the State does, the less freedom you have.
If the state uses a progressive taxation system, then your association is no longer linear.
In fact, you may end up getting more freedom as a result of an increase in progressive taxation and a corresponding increase in public service availability.
An increase in progressive taxation may mean a tax break for the poorest majority. That consumer spending then drives up the economy more than the tax lessened it since money in the hands of aggregated wealth is much less likely to be spent than somebody living paycheck to paycheck. Trickle up.
Do right-wingers try to institute regressive taxation schemes as a self-fulfilling prophesy for their own ideological "facts"?
I used to consider that a remote conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's not as far-fetched as I thought.
Economists call it externalization, not the neighborhood effect. At least those that care to trap all externalities. Only those that want to limit externality cost to those that affect close-in neighborhoods use such a couched term.
And yes, you did imply force. You said "there's a solution". The other solution which you were abandoning in favor of yours was to not bargain with these people until they bore the cost -- the cost was repaid in build-out requirements.
If it really were optional, then you'd have no problem with the public holding out for equal access, WHICH IS THEIR SPECIFIED PRICE. IF they can't demand this in return for what they supply, then the market "should not" make this arrangement. Even in your world view.
Damn, you're so contradictory.
> > If something is controlled by market forces then it is controlled by society.
> Yes - exactly!
>
> When something is controlled by the State, then it isn't controlled by society.
> It's controlled by politicans, and their agenda is *not* the same as the agenda of society or of the people who vote them into power.
market forces == society, to you.
representative government != society, to you.
So, let me get this straight. To you, society is those who can spend money in proportion to the amount of money they control, not those who represent people under and are accountable to a one vote per person scheme.
That's why nobody can follow you. You'd rather have a plutocratic society than a democratic republic.
I didn't think fascism was a viable movement anymore, but perhaps it's still lurking beneath the divine hand.
Answer me this: is there any governmental system other than plutocracy that you'd rather have above it? I don't mean "types of plutocracy" either.
speak from the gut, man!
p.s. Look into the prisoner's dilemma for research info on this issue.
How is Microsoft a state-assisted monopoly?
Did the state interfere with them, making them too big and powerful?
Oh, right! Copyright law grants a limited monopoly! I get it now.
But you think copyright should have infinite duration. I wonder why.
can != does (EOM)
I was talking to a libertarian who believes that privatization is a good thing. I take it you didn't detect the sarcasm.
To be clear, my next paragraph said I'd "take either", which referred to the city paying for all its own infrastructure OR using franchise agreements to maintain equality and fairness.
I am and have been a forceful proponent of public ownership of utilities, but franchise agreements have been a good stopgap until we can achieve public ownership.
You're asserting that governments can't "make money". I presume you mean they can't "make capital". But, they can. They make capital all the time. If you meant they can't "make value", under what theory of value are you assuming they can't make value? The labor theory? What theory? Come on? The CCC didn't make labor and thus make value?
Wow, you really are deluded, or you just don't know the terminology. You call yourself an Economist?
I include investors who invest via a representative. Even if they could match an institutional investor's baseline, the fees they charge are exorbitant and skim much of the profit out.