Samsung has put A LOT of time and energy into Tizen but Tizen is OSS from the ground up. Google gave us a mostly OSS Android experience but OEM's don't like being beholden to them in many areas.
What he said. Also, Tizen is NOT "OSS from the ground up". It is a mishmash of licensing schemes and some of the software is very definitely proprietary.
Capitalism by force is common, and deserves a separate name.
It does have a separate name. Two, actually: force and fraud.
That's why I said it isn't Capitalism. In an actual free-market capitalist system, force and fraud are prohibited. That's why monopolies, for example, are supposed to be prohibited in most cases: monopoly is force.
Hillary wouldn't have a campaign at all without BC. She's only relevant because she's Mrs Clinton.
In all honesty, I don't think she's relevant anyway.
Despite all the Democrat noise about running her in 2016, I think if they stopped to really think about things, they'd realize she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected, but on the small chance she did, it would be a disaster for their party.
Just take an objective look at her political career. Hillary Clinton is a traitorous, corrupt, lying sack of sh*t who would sell the US out to China at the first opportunity.
I don't care if they want to run a woman for President. But if they run Hillary, they're making a huge mistake. After 2 years of her Presidency nobody would ever trust a Democrat again for the rest of their lives.
That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).
This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.
Perhaps you should take a course in economics? The whole notion of "black markets" is based on criminality and clearly capitalistic. It's clear you're offended in the use of "capitalist" not because it's untrue but because you recognize that others might quickly equate crime and capitalism.
Perhaps you should take a better course in mind-reading.
No, the reason I said it is that OP was clearly full of shit. Capitalism is based on voluntary trade. Forcing a "trade" at the point of a gun is not voluntarily, and therefore is not capitalism.
In the purely academic sense, since you recommended a course in economics, "capitalist" vs "socialist" comes down to who controls the means of production.
Yes, precisely.
But no, owning guns is not a capitalistic practice. Capitalism does not rely on force for production. Production happens via voluntary exchange. That is one of the fundamental principles of a capitalist system. Taking something with guns does not involve a "voluntary" exchange, therefore it is not capitalism.
You didn't "point out the Constitutional authority". There is none.
And while some of your reasons may be valid... there are valid reasons to do lots of illegal things. So what? The fact that they may have justification does not make it more legal.
That can be fine if you're working relatively independently, but if you're functioning as a part of a team and need to interact with them regularly, there's more friction involved if you're not co-located
Nonsense. I repeat: only if you're not doing it right.
I worked as part of a team who mostly worked remotely and we actually worked BETTER that way. We actually communicated BETTER and more often remotely, via IM, Campfire, and telephone, than when we were working in the same office, in the same building. Just truth, no exaggeration.
Management has to be willing to set things up properly so you can do that. But as much as I hate to keep repeating myself, it can work BETTER than the other way.
By the way: our product turned out great and was acquired by a multi-Billiion $$ corporation.
I have worked that way ever since and it has usually turned out okay. There have been a couple of exceptions. I worked for one outfit that claimed to be Agile but that actually turned out to mean they tried to use Pivotal Tracker to micro-manage anyway. That isn't Doing It Right.
Um... no. This just sounds ignorant. It's no more "capitalist" than any other criminal organization that wants money. Hint: they existed in ostensibly "communist" countries and in socialist countries as well. There is nothing "capitalist" about it.
Dear OP: please choose your words better. Or take a course in economics. Or something. But leave the propaganda out next time.
I don't understand how the prosecution can ask for a default judgement without solid compelling evidence of a crime. Without a discovery of the drives contents I'm assuming they had other evidence.
First, part of the reason you don't understand this is because you are under the impression that copyright infringement for personal use is a crime. It is NOT. This is a civil matter, not criminal.
Generally speaking, copyright infringement is only criminal if you are doing it in bulk for profit. Historically, that meant what has been known legally for about 100 years as copyright piracy, which again in general refers to making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works and selling them.
It is today's media industry which has deliberately attempted to confuse you by labeling downloads of copyrighted material for personal use piracy. It is not. Piracy is a legal term referring to PROFITING from unauthorized copying of copyrighted works.
Now, back to the case at hand: being a civil matter, and not criminal, the court need not require probable cause in order to demand that evidence be produced (although it probably can't be seized beforehand. However, because of this, people have been known to destroy evidence after being served notice of a lawsuit. If they do that for the purpose of hiding the evidence, and the plaintiff can show that, it may be ruled spoliation of evidence, and could result in a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
But despite this not being a criminal matter, plaintiff still bears the burden of showing that spoliation happened, via genuine evidence. In this case, plaintiff's claim of spoliation was not backed by evidence; it was a claim without substance. Defendant had a reasonable explanation for the drive's demise, and plaintiff could not show otherwise.
I also don't understand how a drive can be ruled as evidence if nothing is yet discovered on the hard drive.
Remember that this is a civil matter. Standards of evidence are different. If a reasonable person would believe that the drive contained evidence, a judge might ask that it be produced. It very much depends on the circumstances.
If you worked at EOP you were getting the best the government had to offer. If YOUR stuff "wasn't cutting edge", just imagine what some low-level bureaucrat or secretary might be stuck with.
No, definitely not exactly this. Remote working really doesn't work well. Especially remote working across 8 time zones (i.e. you only actually get to chat to each other for 1-2 hours a day)
Remote work CAN work great, if you're doing it right.
I've worked with people who did it right. Everybody had a grand time and produced a great product.
When it doesn't work well, it can be awful. But don't blame the process, blame the people who don't implement it well.
Congres... elected representatives.... created the FCC. You're whining about nothing. Every stupid position in government is not elected. So What. I don't need to hold elections for the clerk at the DMV.
The "clerk of the DMV" does not have the power to regulate. The DMV merely enforces laws passed by your State legislature. Therein lies the difference, and why GP is not "whining about nothing".
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to delegate their law-making powers to some outside bureaucracy. The legal authority of the FCC is very questionable indeed, regardless of whether it has been accepted for many decades.
The proper role of the FCC would be as an advisory body to Congress, which then makes the laws. Instead, it has become an extra-Constitutional, quasi-legal body in itself, which should be unacceptable to thinking Americans.
Further: if the FCC is going to propose "NEW" rules, and vote on them without public input, I believe it would be violating the laws requiring public input for "new" major regulations.
The problem with doxing... Is that everyone has some skeletons in the closet they're hiding.
No, that's not "the problem with doxing" (which hackers tend to spell with two Xes by the way). The problem is that the information is available in the first place.
OP says
And I believe this will change how we think about computing and the Internet.
... but THAT is the real problem. If this will change your thinking, you haven't been thinking enough. This has been a recognized problem for a decade and a half, and it's why some of us have been screaming for better privacy controls for all of that time.
The courts have recognized that even snooping into someone's public records can, in some cases, be considered illegal "stalking" or invasion of privacy. We need to go further and make sure a lot of that information is better protected from the very beginning.
I am very careful to not give out personal information on the internet. I have zero respect for people who intentionally violate my desire for privacy and spread my information around where they know I do not want it known (you know who you are). Even when it falls short of "doxxing", it is an unethical, despicable practice. I consider anyone who does it deliberately a lowlife, and that's being very polite.
It is true that recent generations need to get this idea of "everything is fair game" out of their heads. But until they do, all one can do is be careful. Because even if you don't have anything to hide, people who want to attack you can present information out of context or in misleading ways. Or both.
I have had both of these happen, right here on Slashdot. Which is why when someone is wrong about my personal details (and man, have they ever been wrong!), I neither confirm nor deny. In fact sometimes I even subtly encourage them to believe the wrong thing, so they will lead themselves further astray.
But make no mistake: doxxing is sociopathic behavior. It is a combination of hitting below the belt and stabbing in the back. Especially if the victim is relatively innocent.
Yes, in fact I've been looking at a lot of the newer SSDs coming out that are reporting sustained random read rates slower than sustained random writes (4k blocks).
it's simple, left wing is for the people, right wing is for the aristocracy, which now a days is the rich and big business. The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but are still very pro-business. You just have to look at their health reform which is pro-insurance companies or the 2008 financial crisis where they helped the bankers rather then the people.
In the U.S., basically Left means Democrat and Right means Republican. Which means all 4 of them have lost much meaning.
Ostensibly today, Left and Democrat mean "big government" or "government economic control" along with "social liberalism", while Right or Republican means "small government" but also "social control".
Note the word "ostensibly". It's all BS, and both sides want to control everything in your life, from who you can or cannot hire or do business with to who you sleep with, plus how you spend your money, and how much of it, before Government confiscates the rest.
The single Left-Right dichotomy has always been bullshit, but at least Back In The Day it had some real meaning.
It all boils down to this: Government, and those who run it, are generally hungry for both power and money. No matter whose "side" they claim to be on.
All other political ills stem from those two things. There are a few good people in Government but at least today they are overwhelmed by the greedy powermongers.
It would have been nice if TFA explained what it was talking about, re: fraud, because I doubt its what you suggest.
I don't.
While it's possible TFA meant something else, I said from the beginning that it was probably an inside job. Anything is a galaxy-scale violation of Occam's Razor.
Gee... sounds almost like Ma Bell after the breakup.
I'm not being derogatory. Other countries which have similar schemes have better internet for less money than most of the U.S. That's part of what Title II is all about: having a semi-"public" infrastructure, with equal access to it. In other words, actual competition.
REAL proponents of free market capitalism should have no problem with that idea. Those who do are those who either (A) don't understand that currently we have an oligopoly not a free market, or (B) want to protect their privileged position.
I suppose there IS another question, but I'm not sure what it is. The fraud part seems clear, but what about misrepresentation and how that can affect one's perceived character? It's not libel... I think. So just what is it?
It is very unlikely that the latter is a "new" issue. I'm just wondering what label it goes under. Hollywood stars and other rich people have sued over having their "personal brand" usurped before. But if they have one, then so should everyone else. Reputations are not reserved to the rich.
Giving others the impression that individuals support something that they actually don't could get you fined and placed under house arrest.
What he did wasn't "giving an impression". It was fraud, plain and simple. The court certainly thought so.
There's ethical considerations to be had.
Yes, there certainly are. But the REAL ethical consideration is whether this constitutes fraud. Again the issue is plain and simple. It might not be simple to decide, but the nature of the actual question here is black and white.
All in all, I think it's an interesting question, but it is being a bit obfuscated by the way it was presented here.
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung has put A LOT of time and energy into Tizen but Tizen is OSS from the ground up. Google gave us a mostly OSS Android experience but OEM's don't like being beholden to them in many areas.
What he said. Also, Tizen is NOT "OSS from the ground up". It is a mishmash of licensing schemes and some of the software is very definitely proprietary.
Capitalism by force is common, and deserves a separate name.
It does have a separate name. Two, actually: force and fraud.
That's why I said it isn't Capitalism. In an actual free-market capitalist system, force and fraud are prohibited. That's why monopolies, for example, are supposed to be prohibited in most cases: monopoly is force.
Hillary wouldn't have a campaign at all without BC. She's only relevant because she's Mrs Clinton.
In all honesty, I don't think she's relevant anyway.
Despite all the Democrat noise about running her in 2016, I think if they stopped to really think about things, they'd realize she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected, but on the small chance she did, it would be a disaster for their party.
Just take an objective look at her political career. Hillary Clinton is a traitorous, corrupt, lying sack of sh*t who would sell the US out to China at the first opportunity.
I don't care if they want to run a woman for President. But if they run Hillary, they're making a huge mistake. After 2 years of her Presidency nobody would ever trust a Democrat again for the rest of their lives.
No, I'm pretty sure it was Much Ado About Nothing.
That was quick. Usually it takes forever for the government to do anything. You can tell that a federal election is coming up, probably sooner (spring) rather than later (October).
This still isn't enough though. Knowingly doing this should be a criminal offense.
Perhaps you should take a course in economics? The whole notion of "black markets" is based on criminality and clearly capitalistic. It's clear you're offended in the use of "capitalist" not because it's untrue but because you recognize that others might quickly equate crime and capitalism.
Perhaps you should take a better course in mind-reading.
No, the reason I said it is that OP was clearly full of shit. Capitalism is based on voluntary trade. Forcing a "trade" at the point of a gun is not voluntarily, and therefore is not capitalism.
In the purely academic sense, since you recommended a course in economics, "capitalist" vs "socialist" comes down to who controls the means of production.
Yes, precisely.
But no, owning guns is not a capitalistic practice. Capitalism does not rely on force for production. Production happens via voluntary exchange. That is one of the fundamental principles of a capitalist system. Taking something with guns does not involve a "voluntary" exchange, therefore it is not capitalism.
You didn't "point out the Constitutional authority". There is none.
And while some of your reasons may be valid... there are valid reasons to do lots of illegal things. So what? The fact that they may have justification does not make it more legal.
That can be fine if you're working relatively independently, but if you're functioning as a part of a team and need to interact with them regularly, there's more friction involved if you're not co-located
Nonsense. I repeat: only if you're not doing it right.
I worked as part of a team who mostly worked remotely and we actually worked BETTER that way. We actually communicated BETTER and more often remotely, via IM, Campfire, and telephone, than when we were working in the same office, in the same building. Just truth, no exaggeration.
Management has to be willing to set things up properly so you can do that. But as much as I hate to keep repeating myself, it can work BETTER than the other way.
By the way: our product turned out great and was acquired by a multi-Billiion $$ corporation.
I have worked that way ever since and it has usually turned out okay. There have been a couple of exceptions. I worked for one outfit that claimed to be Agile but that actually turned out to mean they tried to use Pivotal Tracker to micro-manage anyway. That isn't Doing It Right.
a very mature, well-oiled capitalist machine
Um... no. This just sounds ignorant. It's no more "capitalist" than any other criminal organization that wants money. Hint: they existed in ostensibly "communist" countries and in socialist countries as well. There is nothing "capitalist" about it.
Dear OP: please choose your words better. Or take a course in economics. Or something. But leave the propaganda out next time.
I don't understand how the prosecution can ask for a default judgement without solid compelling evidence of a crime. Without a discovery of the drives contents I'm assuming they had other evidence.
First, part of the reason you don't understand this is because you are under the impression that copyright infringement for personal use is a crime. It is NOT. This is a civil matter, not criminal.
Generally speaking, copyright infringement is only criminal if you are doing it in bulk for profit. Historically, that meant what has been known legally for about 100 years as copyright piracy, which again in general refers to making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works and selling them.
It is today's media industry which has deliberately attempted to confuse you by labeling downloads of copyrighted material for personal use piracy. It is not. Piracy is a legal term referring to PROFITING from unauthorized copying of copyrighted works.
Now, back to the case at hand: being a civil matter, and not criminal, the court need not require probable cause in order to demand that evidence be produced (although it probably can't be seized beforehand. However, because of this, people have been known to destroy evidence after being served notice of a lawsuit. If they do that for the purpose of hiding the evidence, and the plaintiff can show that, it may be ruled spoliation of evidence, and could result in a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
But despite this not being a criminal matter, plaintiff still bears the burden of showing that spoliation happened, via genuine evidence. In this case, plaintiff's claim of spoliation was not backed by evidence; it was a claim without substance. Defendant had a reasonable explanation for the drive's demise, and plaintiff could not show otherwise.
I also don't understand how a drive can be ruled as evidence if nothing is yet discovered on the hard drive.
Remember that this is a civil matter. Standards of evidence are different. If a reasonable person would believe that the drive contained evidence, a judge might ask that it be produced. It very much depends on the circumstances.
Before, floppies were -reliable-. I used floppies a *LOT* more than USB disks
You want reliable? At the time paper tape was more reliable than either floppies OR hard disks OR magnetic tape.
Granted, the data density was low. But as long as you took care of your tape spools, they never wore out, never dropped a single bit.
But while that is 100% true, I don't think anybody wants to go back to those days.
This means little.
If you worked at EOP you were getting the best the government had to offer. If YOUR stuff "wasn't cutting edge", just imagine what some low-level bureaucrat or secretary might be stuck with.
I don't think I "forgot" those things. They are implicit in what I wrote.
I have also worked at times for firms in Hawaii (meaning their timezone could NOT be ignored).
I have also worked in situations in which various workers were 12 hours apart. It can work.
No, definitely not exactly this. Remote working really doesn't work well. Especially remote working across 8 time zones (i.e. you only actually get to chat to each other for 1-2 hours a day)
Remote work CAN work great, if you're doing it right.
I've worked with people who did it right. Everybody had a grand time and produced a great product.
When it doesn't work well, it can be awful. But don't blame the process, blame the people who don't implement it well.
Congres... elected representatives.... created the FCC. You're whining about nothing. Every stupid position in government is not elected. So What. I don't need to hold elections for the clerk at the DMV.
The "clerk of the DMV" does not have the power to regulate. The DMV merely enforces laws passed by your State legislature. Therein lies the difference, and why GP is not "whining about nothing".
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to delegate their law-making powers to some outside bureaucracy. The legal authority of the FCC is very questionable indeed, regardless of whether it has been accepted for many decades.
The proper role of the FCC would be as an advisory body to Congress, which then makes the laws. Instead, it has become an extra-Constitutional, quasi-legal body in itself, which should be unacceptable to thinking Americans.
Further: if the FCC is going to propose "NEW" rules, and vote on them without public input, I believe it would be violating the laws requiring public input for "new" major regulations.
The problem with doxing... Is that everyone has some skeletons in the closet they're hiding.
No, that's not "the problem with doxing" (which hackers tend to spell with two Xes by the way). The problem is that the information is available in the first place.
OP says
And I believe this will change how we think about computing and the Internet.
... but THAT is the real problem. If this will change your thinking, you haven't been thinking enough. This has been a recognized problem for a decade and a half, and it's why some of us have been screaming for better privacy controls for all of that time.
The courts have recognized that even snooping into someone's public records can, in some cases, be considered illegal "stalking" or invasion of privacy. We need to go further and make sure a lot of that information is better protected from the very beginning.
I am very careful to not give out personal information on the internet. I have zero respect for people who intentionally violate my desire for privacy and spread my information around where they know I do not want it known (you know who you are). Even when it falls short of "doxxing", it is an unethical, despicable practice. I consider anyone who does it deliberately a lowlife, and that's being very polite.
It is true that recent generations need to get this idea of "everything is fair game" out of their heads. But until they do, all one can do is be careful. Because even if you don't have anything to hide, people who want to attack you can present information out of context or in misleading ways. Or both.
I have had both of these happen, right here on Slashdot. Which is why when someone is wrong about my personal details (and man, have they ever been wrong!), I neither confirm nor deny. In fact sometimes I even subtly encourage them to believe the wrong thing, so they will lead themselves further astray.
But make no mistake: doxxing is sociopathic behavior. It is a combination of hitting below the belt and stabbing in the back. Especially if the victim is relatively innocent.
Yes, in fact I've been looking at a lot of the newer SSDs coming out that are reporting sustained random read rates slower than sustained random writes (4k blocks).
It will happen. Or something like it. This is a Corporate Money Grubbing Law and I don't see it lasting for very long.
It sounds almost as bad as SOPA.
it's simple, left wing is for the people, right wing is for the aristocracy, which now a days is the rich and big business. The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but are still very pro-business. You just have to look at their health reform which is pro-insurance companies or the 2008 financial crisis where they helped the bankers rather then the people.
In the U.S., basically Left means Democrat and Right means Republican. Which means all 4 of them have lost much meaning.
Ostensibly today, Left and Democrat mean "big government" or "government economic control" along with "social liberalism", while Right or Republican means "small government" but also "social control".
Note the word "ostensibly". It's all BS, and both sides want to control everything in your life, from who you can or cannot hire or do business with to who you sleep with, plus how you spend your money, and how much of it, before Government confiscates the rest.
The single Left-Right dichotomy has always been bullshit, but at least Back In The Day it had some real meaning.
It all boils down to this: Government, and those who run it, are generally hungry for both power and money. No matter whose "side" they claim to be on.
All other political ills stem from those two things. There are a few good people in Government but at least today they are overwhelmed by the greedy powermongers.
It would have been nice if TFA explained what it was talking about, re: fraud, because I doubt its what you suggest.
I don't.
While it's possible TFA meant something else, I said from the beginning that it was probably an inside job. Anything is a galaxy-scale violation of Occam's Razor.
Gee... sounds almost like Ma Bell after the breakup.
I'm not being derogatory. Other countries which have similar schemes have better internet for less money than most of the U.S. That's part of what Title II is all about: having a semi-"public" infrastructure, with equal access to it. In other words, actual competition.
REAL proponents of free market capitalism should have no problem with that idea. Those who do are those who either (A) don't understand that currently we have an oligopoly not a free market, or (B) want to protect their privileged position.
I am going to amend my own post here.
I suppose there IS another question, but I'm not sure what it is. The fraud part seems clear, but what about misrepresentation and how that can affect one's perceived character? It's not libel... I think. So just what is it?
It is very unlikely that the latter is a "new" issue. I'm just wondering what label it goes under. Hollywood stars and other rich people have sued over having their "personal brand" usurped before. But if they have one, then so should everyone else. Reputations are not reserved to the rich.
Giving others the impression that individuals support something that they actually don't could get you fined and placed under house arrest.
What he did wasn't "giving an impression". It was fraud, plain and simple. The court certainly thought so.
There's ethical considerations to be had.
Yes, there certainly are. But the REAL ethical consideration is whether this constitutes fraud. Again the issue is plain and simple. It might not be simple to decide, but the nature of the actual question here is black and white.
All in all, I think it's an interesting question, but it is being a bit obfuscated by the way it was presented here.