In the week before advance screenings in Los Angeles and New York, SeaWorld sent out a "Dear Film Critic" letter that castigated the documentary as "shamefully dishonest, deliberately misleading, and scientifically inaccurate." Journalists and bloggers around the world, never averse to controversy, pricked up their ears. If the film's producers ever worried about insufficient funds for advertising, they can lay that fear to rest.
I don't think free publicity was what SeaWorld had in mind. I have not even heard of this movie before this, now I have to admit I'm curious.
THE FATHER OF SPIN: EDWARD L. BERNAYS & THE BIRTH OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
One of Bernays's skills was sensing where public opinion was moving, and using it in his favour. His first success was a campaign for the American Tobacco Company to encourage women to smoke. Slimness was becoming fashionable for women, so he flogged cigarettes as a healthy alternative to sweets, enlisting the help of “experts” to claim in the press that cigarettes also disinfected the mouth.
Women were still resistant, though; which was when Bernays had the brilliant idea of using cigarettes as a symbol of emancipation. He put it about in the papers that the taboo against women smoking in public was symptomatic of male oppression, and organised a march down Fifth Avenue of fashionable young women with their “torches of freedom”. He orchestrated massive press coverage (which omitted to mention that the march was led by his secretary). Afterwards, newspapers carried reports of women being seen smoking in the street; and within a few weeks, the Broadway theatres changed their rules to allow women into their smoking rooms.
Bernays also invented a tool much-used since: the front organisation. When, for instance, a new government in Guatemala threatened to take over some of the vast plantations of the United Fruit Company, and distribute it among the peasants, Bernays set up the Middle America Information Bureau. United Fruit financed the Bureau, which provided information to the newspapers about communist penetration in Guatemala. The newspapers printed the information, the American public was inflamed, there was a CIA-backed insurgency and the elected government was toppled and replaced by a right-wing totalitarian regime.
In other words, advertising/publicity is simply a means to brainwash the masses into doing what the advertisers want. The word 'Machiavellian' comes to mind.
Either way, the old saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" comes true, and some marketer who was called out is probably walking all the way to the bank.
Not... necessarily. There is such a thing as bad publicity, as amply demonstrated by MS recently with regards to the XboxOne DRM and other issues. That bought them a lot of ill-will from their ex-fans. Sure, they did a 180, retracted their position and maybe clawed back some of their hard core fans. But everything they've been doing since is to make up for lost traction for their new console. Worse still, they publicly boosted their strongest competitor at a very crucial time, when the new consoles were being unveiled and the publicity machine was gearing up to create hype.
Hell, it was basically win-win. If he wasn't found out, great, more entries. If he was called out, even more publicity. Either way, more people know about it and that was the entire point.
Except... thats not the point. The point from a marketing perspective is to close sales for your client. There is no point spamming a million eyeballs if none of them are potential customers. Thats the reason why Google Adwords commands premium rates- because they can deliver ads to people who are most likely to buy the product (i.e. those searching for "ipad sale" etc).
On this issue, there is no guarantee that this stunt will increase participation in the Samsung Smart App Contest. Those people checking it out may still go "meh" and pass on it.
More importantly, if this thing blows up, it has the potential to damage Samsung's brand. Samsung is a billion dollar company and Samsung Smart App is in comparison a piddly portion of the whole. If however, Samsung gains a reputation for astroturfing, it could seriously damage the brand. Just look at what is happening to MS now, I have seen numerous posts supportive of MS products on many tech forums being derided as being from paid shills, and rightly so since they were outed. Once the brand is poisoned, it is extremely difficult to repair .
One of the more geographically remote locations was Africa, where Japan and China, and to a growing extent South Korea and India, are in fierce competition to win contracts for energy and mineral rights on the continent.
Africa’s allure is easy to understand. Libya ranks ninth in world oil reserves, Nigeria 10th and Angola 16th. For natural gas reserves, Nigeria ranks eighth, Algeria ninth and Egypt 15th.
In addition, Africa holds 95.5 percent of the world’s platinum reserves, 58.3 percent of all diamonds, 49.2 percent of all cobalt, 45.8 percent of the chromium supply and 27.1 percent of the world’s manganese.
I guess if it comes for free, that's one thing, but how much money do you think China wants to invest exfiltrating data from Africa as opposed to their first-world competitors?
Why don't you ask the NSA? They could probably tell you.
According to the recently published Kaspersky Security Bulletin 2012, 99% of newly discovered mobile malicious programs target the Android platform.
99% of newly discovered malware is not the same as 99% of viruses. Stop spinning.
Further, having a larger number of malware directed at a platform does not mean that particular platform is less secure. Malware makers will benefit the most by having large infection pools, and will thus often target the most popular platform, which right now is Android.
You should also note, also in TFA you linked:-
One of the most unusual examples of mobile malware in 2012 was the "Find and Call" application that managed to sneak into the Google Play store as well as Apple’s application store.
Dare I say, both platforms pwned then? The only truth is that neither platform is totally secure, and that security depends on the manner of use; for example, if you jailbreak or root your phone, you are more exposed. Trying to spin it either way is an exercise in stupidity.
Anyone stupid enough to use a strangers "charger" deserves what they get, and its no ordinary charger, but a computer attached via usb cord.
Come on, lets get a sense of perspective instead of going into fanboyism (or anti for that matter).
Before today I had absolutely no idea a microcomputer could be made to look like a charger, or that the charging port on iPhones could be used to hack iOS. If you read TFA, the way they did it is pretty deceptive and ingenious.
The charger could be made to look like a typical Apple charger, meaning those looking to infect iPhones and iPads could leave them lying around in public charging zones to trick unsuspecting members of the public.
In the demonstration in Las Vegas, the researchers used the Facebook app as an example of an software that could be compromised. Once the charger is plugged in and the user inputs their PIN code, the charger silently and invisibly removes the target app, in this case the official Facebook app. It then replaces it - in exactly the same position on your iPhone/iPad homescreen - with what looks like a perfect replacement. In actual fact this is malware and once you launch it, your phone/tablet has been compromised.
Its fair to say that most people have a blind spot insofar as power ports are concerned, we normally don't think of it as a point of entry and this is the social engineering trick this hack takes advantage of . In fact, I think that prior to iPod/iPhones, no device used their power point to double up as a data connector. Pre-iphone, I remember swapping and borrowing Nokia/Sony etc. phone chargers from friends/strangers with no repercussions whatsoever.
It is very insulting and unfair to call people who would use a stranger's charger 'stupid' -not everyone is a techie or keeps updated with technology news. Which is probably why you posted as AC instead of under your own name =)
My point is that IP law is in a state of flux and given the uncertainty and the risk-adverse corporate culture most companies have, I won't be surprised if the directive from management was "Don't copy, make our own".
Further, before the Oracle vs. Google case most people believed APIs to be unpatentable as well. That didn't stop Oracle from filing a very expensive and lengthy lawsuit.
A taxi driver choked and robbed a passenger in a dispute over a tip near San Francisco’s Buena Vista Park early Sunday morning, a police spokesman said today.
Not quite on murder, but licensing does not guarantee safety per se.
I can talk about London, UK. Here, there have been several rapes, assaults and murders carried out by licensed taxi drivers. But the rates are substantially higher in the unregulated (and illegal) world of unlicensed cabs. This is unsurprising, given that to drive a licensed cab you need to have a clean criminal record.
I agree with you that unlicensed gypsy cabs are unsafe. However, here we are talking about cabs operating under ridesharing companies, which is a totally different animal. To get an idea of how they operate and their safety record, have a look at this article.
They key point is this:-
The problem is, the company typically partners with third-party limo and taxi services to pre-vet drivers, doing background checks and ensuring that they have all the necessary licenses or permits. City to city, Uber drivers are required to abide by whatever local regulations are in their jurisdiction.
For the most part, Uber and its partners follow the same regulations all the usual cab or limo services do. Which is to say, if Uber’s regulations are soft, so are those that are followed by every other taxi or limo service out there.
So, now knowing that cabs operating under ridesharing companies do follow safety regulations, does this change your opinion?
Getting in a car with a stranger carries some risk. Regulations can and do help lower that risk. Not perfectly, and not completely, and there are other ways of lowering the risk as well, but denying an obvious truth is just dumb.
That actually depends on the nature of the regulations. If they deal specifically with safety issues like background checks, then yes. If the regulations are of the "pay $$ for a licence" variety, that will not increase your safety. For the record, the taxi drivers were arrested by SFO not for being unsafe, but for unlawful trespassing. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
Incidentally, it's pretty unpleasant to joke about sexual coercion.
Hmm, the taxi driver was certainly making an unwanted proposition, but I hardly think it was coercive...Nevertheless, since my joke offends you, I apologise.
SFO thinks ridesharing companies should pay its fees. Fair enough, so SFO should sue them and recover the monies.
What they are not entitled to do, is to apply illegal coercion/pressure on the ridesharing companies by arresting their drivers. Take note that the TFA makes it clear that their officers have no powers of arrest, which is why they had to resort to the charade of making 'citizen arrests'. You might also question why, if it is the California Penal Code they claim was breached, they are taking action themselves instead of handing it over to the police.
The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
Oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest.
I think its pretty clear SFO has abused their authority by making the arrests. Their actions are pretty much unprecedented anywhere in the US, or in the world for that matter.
Actually, from the examples cited, it seems to me to be painfully obvious why in those cases information was not shared.
One of the most painful things in our culture is to watch other people repeat earlier mistakes. We're not fond of Bill Gates, but it still hurts to see Microsoft struggle with problems that IBM solved in the 1960s.
For quite a long period of time, IBM and MS were stiff competitors (remember OS/2 warp?). I doubt MS would inform IBM what they were working on, much less seek help. In fact, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule for software companies to share code with each other. Selling code, after all, is usually how they make money.
'We marvel that the runtime environment of the web browser can do things that we had working 25 years ago on the Mac.'
Im fairly confident that Apple would sue any company that copies its software written for the Mac. Let us also not forget how much problems Oracle caused for Google when they sued over the Java API in Android. Yes, it is efficient to reuse old tried and tested code, but it also opens you up to a lawsuit. So it is not so much reinventing the wheel as trying to find a different way of doing things so you wont get sued. For that, you have current IP laws to thank.
One of the problems with modern computer technology is that programmers don't learn from the great masters. 'There is such a thing as a Beethoven or Mozart of software design,' Locklin writes. 'Modern programmers seem more familiar with Lady Gaga. It's not just a matter of taste and an appreciation for genius. It's a matter of forgetting important things.
The problem here is with equating writing software to producing works of art. People are willing to go out of their way to learn and improve themselves to paint better or make beautiful music because it enables them to express themselves. It's emotionally satisfying. OTOH most software is programmed to achieve a certain utility and the programmer is faced with constraints e.g. having to use certain libraries etc. He is rarely able to express himself, and his work is subject to the whims of his bosses. For most everyday programmers, I think there is no real motivation to 'learn from the great masters'.
An exception might be the traditional hacking/cracking community where the members program for the sheer joy/devilry of it. I understand there is a fair amount of sharing of code/information/knowledge/learning from the great masters within their community.
It's all about the money. The SF airport officials want their cut of the fares and are bullying the rideshare cabs to get it. This is what they said in April:-
The airport has demanded that six different ridesharing companies quit their SFO operations until further notice.
“It’s not fair for the cab companies that go through the permitting process to compete with these unregistered vehicles,” said airport spokesman Doug Yakel. “Not only are we talking about the limited space at the airport, but also the safety of our passengers.”
A trip to the airport can result in a $50 fare for cabs, but drivers must pay nominal fees each time they enter and exit the hub as part of the permitting process overseen by the CPUC. SFO wants all ridesharing companies to be certified by the CPUC before operating at the airport.
So, when banning the ridesharing cabs (who don't pay their 'nominal fees') didn't work, they started arresting the cab drivers.
After the cease and desist order was issued, airport officials and police began “admonishing” rideshare drivers who dropped off or picked up passengers at the airport.
Starting July 10, airport officials began slapping rideshare operators with citizen arrests for trespassing when they were discovered at the airport. “This is not the type of arrest where somebody gets put in jail,” Doug Yakel told Ars. “It's a misdemeanor and it's for trespassing.” Yakel went on to say that the curbside airport police observe and “have the right to question drivers,” if they see anything that appears to indicate ridesharing. Tells include anything from the giant pink mustache that Lyft drivers slap on their car grill to seeing the rider and driver exchange money before the rider leaves. “There could be a variety of different things that [airport police] would be looking for to see if there's a rideshare transaction,” Yakel explained.
At that point, airport police contact an airport official, who writes the rideshare driver a citation for a court date. Yakel said that officials are writing citations under California Penal Code section 602.4, which states that people offering “goods, merchandise, property, or services of any kind whatsoever” on airport property, without the airport's permission, are guilty of a misdemeanor. Yakel told Ars that he didn't know how high the fine for such a misdemeanor might be.
Before regulating, how about the existing cab companies clean up their own act first.
From TFA:-
Taxi drivers are holding a noon rally at San Francisco City Hall Tuesday to “keep taxis regulated and safe” and are calling for the end of ridesharing services.
They are calling the growing practice a “clear public safety hazard.”
Apparently, regulated taxis in San Francisco are so safe that theres a dedicated webpage discussing homicide prevention strategies. For cabs specifically in SF only.
San Francisco taxi drivers routinely flout the law by refusing rides, declining to take credit cards, charging unauthorized fees, speeding, smoking, and talking and texting on cellphones while driving, according to a year’s worth of passenger complaints reviewed by The Bay Citizen.
Taxis infested with bed bugs, drivers falling asleep at the wheel, rude behavior and difficulty getting a cab also were among the complaints. One patron reported that a cab driver allegedly stole his credit card number and used it to make purchases in Brazil. And two friends were upset when a driver offered them a 10 percent discount if they made out in front of him.
Actually, hmm, my sympathies might lie with the cab driver on the making out bit. But only if shes hot. ^_-
Mobile Games Publishing is a new pilot program to help small and medium-sized developers take their mobile games global. Through the program, we will work with select game developers and provide promotional support for their games in placements across our mobile apps.
This is FB's monetisation plan for mobile, apparently. My guess is that you will get an Admob-like bar or its equivalent within the FB mobile app.
“Basically, when a web browser goes to a page, that page can force the browser to do whatever it wants – make web connections, download illegal files, attack other Internet sites, make illegal searchers – whatever,” Grossman told me in an interview last week.
Assuming you're using the latest Firefox with Adblock and Noscript, how true is that claim?
Would it, for example, stop the ad network attack vector mentioned in TFA?
I used to assume running Noscript is sufficient protection, but with all the news of exploits floating around, I'm no longer sure.
I am hoping someone can answer that, because I've seen many many different definitions, most of which favour whoever is doing the defining at that time.
Does it refer to a theoretical view of network architecture, in which every packet is treated identically regardless of its origin or the nature of its content -- data, voice, or video?
Is it a set of guarantees/rights for consumers that they will not be constrained in any way from accessing the lawful content of their choice?
Or, is it a set of protections (via FCC's rules) for content providers to ensure they are not unfairly disadvantaged by ISPs that may also offer competing content, including television programming and on-demand movies?
Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests. Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, use your Google Fiber account to provide a large number of people with Internet access, or use your Google Fiber account to provide commercial services to third parties (including, but not limited to, selling Internet access to third parties).
'Should not' carries a very different meaning from 'Must not'. The first provides guidelines, the second is an absolute ban.
TFA fans the flames by telling users that clause stops them from using Google Fiber from doing a lot of things most people would not consider to be unfair use, such as:-
But Google’s legally binding Terms of Service outlaw Google Fiber customers from running their own mail server, using a remotely accessible media server, SSHing into a home computer from work to retrieve files, running a Minecraft server for friends to share, using a Nest thermometer, using a nanny camera to watch over a childcare provider or using a Raspberry Pi to host a WordPress blog.... The server ban also prohibits you from attaching your personal computer to Google Fiber if you are using peer-to-peer software, because that works by having your computer be both a client and a server.
However Google did not say that any of uses were prohibited. What Google does say in its response is that:-
Furthermore, Mr. McClendon’s request that the Commission modify Google Fiber’s ToS is based on his desire to host a server for use in his business.Google Fiber does not currently support business use of its service. Google Fiber is a residential offering only.
There are many things Google does that I dislike (give me back iGoogle!) but lets crucify them for what they do, not made-up tales/fears.
Companies don't exist to be nice, they exist to make money for their owners and shareholders.
And this shabby excuse has been used time and again to justify the many evils companies inflict on the world in their pursuit of profit. Such as Union Carbide's poisoning of India.
There was a time before companies existed, when businesses bore the names of their founders such as Walter & Sons. Often the owners refrained from acts of outright evil because they did not want to taint their name, and their sons and grandsons similarly restrained themselves so as not to soil their grandfather's name. If that was not sufficient deterrent, the fact that they were held personally liable often did.
With the creation of companies, responsibility became diffused. Bad things were done by 'the company' -except that this was a lie. Companies do not have independent will, their actions are dictated by management who often disappear after collecting their fat bonuses.
It is too late now to argue companies should nto exist- they do, and are here to stay. But since companies enjoy the status of separate legal entities, they should be judged accordingly. If an individual behaves in an evil manner, I judge them evil, and the same with companies. If an individual commits evil to get rich, I would not excuse his behaviour if his excuse was that his sole aim in life was to get rich. We should also not accept the same excuse for companies. Do evil, be judged evil, no excuses.
I believe that when Google was young, as a whole it really did believe in ideals such as "Don't be evil". I don't think anyone would publicly adopt such a motto which is so easy to ridicule unless they really meant to stick to it. Their actions in the early years also largely support this view.
However, as Google matured as a money-making corporation, its character gradually changed. Idealists left and more corporate hardened souls were taken on. In some ways, this is not unlike the process of growing up from an idealistic teenager living in a world of absolutes to an adult having financial commitments and facing temptations to cut corners to meet the bottom line.
I think that there is a struggle internally now within Google for its soul- whether it should stick to its ideals and risk financial loss, or take the easy way and act like every other company out there and prioritise profit.
We can, hopefully, reverse the trend by reminding Google (loudly) of its ideals and perhaps shaming them into acting better. Although Google is sliding towards the evil side of the scale, it is still way too early to give up on them. Think of Google as a wayward child verging into criminality; you can either write them off and ensure that another hardened criminal joins the world, or try to teach them what is wrong and hopefully, maybe they will change for the better.
The US is the easy case. Until you find a way to get China, North Korea, Iran, (oppressive regime X), et al. to give them up, and various terrorist groups to stop attacking*, you're going to be stuck with it.
I hope you are seriously not making the argument that the US must do it because regimes like China, North Korea and Iran are doing it. There are a lot of things that China, North Korea and Iran do that the US would do well not to emulate , starting with opressing their own citizens.
the free democratic nations need intelligence agencies that are capable of helping to protect their societies.
Nobody disagrees with that broad principle. Whether the intelligence agencies need to have the power to indiscriminately harvest untargeted information on everyone to be capable at their job however, is in issue. If you want to take it to extremes, you could also make the argument that the NSA should be given the powers once held by Stasi, KGB, and their Chinese equivalents to be truly capable. It is true that this would increase the effectiveness of the NSA but I dont think anyone really wants to go there.
Unilateral disarmament in the face of aggression tends to have significant negative consequences.
Strawman argument. No one is suggesting that the US, or the NSA "unilaterally disarm" against China, North Korea, Iran et. al. The whole reason why PRISM blew up was because the NSA was collecting data not on China, North Korea or Iran, but on their own citizens and innocent third parties . That is only insofar as PRISM is concerned, we have no idea what other information may be collected by other programs because the NSA won't tell us.
That would be the equivalent of using your arms on your own family and innocent outsiders in the face of aggression.
At Dish headquarters in Englewood, a suburb of Denver, the day begins no later than 9 a.m. Badges used to be the preferred method of entry into the building. But a few years ago, after noticing that some employees were taking advantage of the system by having others badge-in for them, Ergen upgraded to fingerprint scanners. If a worker is late, an e-mail is immediately sent to human resources, which then sends another to that person’s boss, and sometimes directly to Ergen.
Broadcasters used to be content with the money they took in from advertisers, which supported "free" over-the-air television. But in recent years as broadcasters have lost viewers to cable and advertisers are shifting to the Internet, stations have been seeking new sources of revenue by demanding payment from cable and satellite companies for the right to retransmit their programming.
News Corp.'s Fox is not the only network seeking a slice of its affiliates' retransmission fees. CBS, ABC and NBC are also negotiating for a percentage. However, there is a consensus that Fox is being the most aggressive of the networks. None of the Big Three has yet threatened to drop its local affiliate if it doesn't get the money.
While the corporate skirmishing is waged far above the heads of TV viewers, it is likely to have a real-world effect on households that pay for cable or satellite service — about 90% of all TV-watching homes in the country — in the form of higher monthly rates as local providers look to make up the difference.
Basically, its all about the money. The broadcasting networks have already been paid by retransmission fees and are double dipping into advertising fees.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:-
I don't think free publicity was what SeaWorld had in mind. I have not even heard of this movie before this, now I have to admit I'm curious.
First, a bit of background on the "father of spin"
In other words, advertising/publicity is simply a means to brainwash the masses into doing what the advertisers want. The word 'Machiavellian' comes to mind.
Either way, the old saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" comes true, and some marketer who was called out is probably walking all the way to the bank.
Not... necessarily. There is such a thing as bad publicity, as amply demonstrated by MS recently with regards to the XboxOne DRM and other issues. That bought them a lot of ill-will from their ex-fans. Sure, they did a 180, retracted their position and maybe clawed back some of their hard core fans. But everything they've been doing since is to make up for lost traction for their new console. Worse still, they publicly boosted their strongest competitor at a very crucial time, when the new consoles were being unveiled and the publicity machine was gearing up to create hype.
Hell, it was basically win-win. If he wasn't found out, great, more entries. If he was called out, even more publicity. Either way, more people know about it and that was the entire point.
Except... thats not the point. The point from a marketing perspective is to close sales for your client. There is no point spamming a million eyeballs if none of them are potential customers. Thats the reason why Google Adwords commands premium rates- because they can deliver ads to people who are most likely to buy the product (i.e. those searching for "ipad sale" etc).
On this issue, there is no guarantee that this stunt will increase participation in the Samsung Smart App Contest. Those people checking it out may still go "meh" and pass on it.
More importantly, if this thing blows up, it has the potential to damage Samsung's brand. Samsung is a billion dollar company and Samsung Smart App is in comparison a piddly portion of the whole. If however, Samsung gains a reputation for astroturfing, it could seriously damage the brand. Just look at what is happening to MS now, I have seen numerous posts supportive of MS products on many tech forums being derided as being from paid shills, and rightly so since they were outed. Once the brand is poisoned, it is extremely difficult to repair .
Natural resources is the name of the game. And its not just China eyeing the riches.
I guess if it comes for free, that's one thing, but how much money do you think China wants to invest exfiltrating data from Africa as opposed to their first-world competitors?
Why don't you ask the NSA? They could probably tell you.
Please, read TFA you linked to.
99% of newly discovered malware is not the same as 99% of viruses. Stop spinning.
Further, having a larger number of malware directed at a platform does not mean that particular platform is less secure. Malware makers will benefit the most by having large infection pools, and will thus often target the most popular platform, which right now is Android.
You should also note, also in TFA you linked :-
Dare I say, both platforms pwned then? The only truth is that neither platform is totally secure, and that security depends on the manner of use; for example, if you jailbreak or root your phone, you are more exposed. Trying to spin it either way is an exercise in stupidity.
Anyone stupid enough to use a strangers "charger" deserves what they get, and its no ordinary charger, but a computer attached via usb cord.
Come on, lets get a sense of perspective instead of going into fanboyism (or anti for that matter).
Before today I had absolutely no idea a microcomputer could be made to look like a charger, or that the charging port on iPhones could be used to hack iOS. If you read TFA, the way they did it is pretty deceptive and ingenious.
Its fair to say that most people have a blind spot insofar as power ports are concerned, we normally don't think of it as a point of entry and this is the social engineering trick this hack takes advantage of . In fact, I think that prior to iPod/iPhones, no device used their power point to double up as a data connector. Pre-iphone, I remember swapping and borrowing Nokia/Sony etc. phone chargers from friends/strangers with no repercussions whatsoever.
It is very insulting and unfair to call people who would use a stranger's charger 'stupid' -not everyone is a techie or keeps updated with technology news. Which is probably why you posted as AC instead of under your own name =)
Algorithms aren't patentable.
I'm not a programmer, so I'll tend to defer to your knowledge. However, have a look at this article on how to patent algorithms.
And this discussion on a programmer's forum about patented algorithms. (as an aside, Google's Page Rank is a patented algorithm? *shock*)
My point is that IP law is in a state of flux and given the uncertainty and the risk-adverse corporate culture most companies have, I won't be surprised if the directive from management was "Don't copy, make our own".
Further, before the Oracle vs. Google case most people believed APIs to be unpatentable as well. That didn't stop Oracle from filing a very expensive and lengthy lawsuit.
For you to make your case effectively, you'd need that page to be about murders of passengers by their taxi drivers.
All right. I give you another link S.F. Taxi Driver Chokes Passenger For Not Leaving Tip
Not quite on murder, but licensing does not guarantee safety per se.
I can talk about London, UK. Here, there have been several rapes, assaults and murders carried out by licensed taxi drivers. But the rates are substantially higher in the unregulated (and illegal) world of unlicensed cabs. This is unsurprising, given that to drive a licensed cab you need to have a clean criminal record.
I agree with you that unlicensed gypsy cabs are unsafe. However, here we are talking about cabs operating under ridesharing companies, which is a totally different animal. To get an idea of how they operate and their safety record, have a look at this article.
They key point is this :-
So, now knowing that cabs operating under ridesharing companies do follow safety regulations, does this change your opinion?
Getting in a car with a stranger carries some risk. Regulations can and do help lower that risk. Not perfectly, and not completely, and there are other ways of lowering the risk as well, but denying an obvious truth is just dumb.
That actually depends on the nature of the regulations. If they deal specifically with safety issues like background checks, then yes. If the regulations are of the "pay $$ for a licence" variety, that will not increase your safety. For the record, the taxi drivers were arrested by SFO not for being unsafe, but for unlawful trespassing. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
Incidentally, it's pretty unpleasant to joke about sexual coercion.
Hmm, the taxi driver was certainly making an unwanted proposition, but I hardly think it was coercive...Nevertheless, since my joke offends you, I apologise.
SFO thinks ridesharing companies should pay its fees. Fair enough, so SFO should sue them and recover the monies.
What they are not entitled to do, is to apply illegal coercion/pressure on the ridesharing companies by arresting their drivers. Take note that the TFA makes it clear that their officers have no powers of arrest, which is why they had to resort to the charade of making 'citizen arrests'. You might also question why, if it is the California Penal Code they claim was breached, they are taking action themselves instead of handing it over to the police.
Lets see how extortion is defined :-
I think its pretty clear SFO has abused their authority by making the arrests. Their actions are pretty much unprecedented anywhere in the US, or in the world for that matter.
...is anyone else disturbed that the Moscow subway system has/needs its own police department? Just how bad is the crime there, anyway?
Actually, from the examples cited, it seems to me to be painfully obvious why in those cases information was not shared.
For quite a long period of time, IBM and MS were stiff competitors (remember OS/2 warp?). I doubt MS would inform IBM what they were working on, much less seek help. In fact, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule for software companies to share code with each other. Selling code, after all, is usually how they make money.
Im fairly confident that Apple would sue any company that copies its software written for the Mac. Let us also not forget how much problems Oracle caused for Google when they sued over the Java API in Android. Yes, it is efficient to reuse old tried and tested code, but it also opens you up to a lawsuit. So it is not so much reinventing the wheel as trying to find a different way of doing things so you wont get sued. For that, you have current IP laws to thank.
The problem here is with equating writing software to producing works of art. People are willing to go out of their way to learn and improve themselves to paint better or make beautiful music because it enables them to express themselves. It's emotionally satisfying. OTOH most software is programmed to achieve a certain utility and the programmer is faced with constraints e.g. having to use certain libraries etc. He is rarely able to express himself, and his work is subject to the whims of his bosses. For most everyday programmers, I think there is no real motivation to 'learn from the great masters'.
An exception might be the traditional hacking/cracking community where the members program for the sheer joy/devilry of it. I understand there is a fair amount of sharing of code/information/knowledge/learning from the great masters within their community.
It's all about the money. The SF airport officials want their cut of the fares and are bullying the rideshare cabs to get it. This is what they said in April :-
So, when banning the ridesharing cabs (who don't pay their 'nominal fees') didn't work, they started arresting the cab drivers.
Before regulating, how about the existing cab companies clean up their own act first.
From TFA:-
Apparently, regulated taxis in San Francisco are so safe that theres a dedicated webpage discussing homicide prevention strategies. For cabs specifically in SF only.
And one of the main reasons ridesharing is taking off is that apparently existing regulated cabs offer terrible service.
Actually, hmm, my sympathies might lie with the cab driver on the making out bit. But only if shes hot. ^_-
From the FB developer's site:-
This is FB's monetisation plan for mobile, apparently. My guess is that you will get an Admob-like bar or its equivalent within the FB mobile app.
From TFA:-
Assuming you're using the latest Firefox with Adblock and Noscript, how true is that claim?
Would it, for example, stop the ad network attack vector mentioned in TFA?
I used to assume running Noscript is sufficient protection, but with all the news of exploits floating around, I'm no longer sure.
I am hoping someone can answer that, because I've seen many many different definitions, most of which favour whoever is doing the defining at that time.
Does it refer to a theoretical view of network architecture, in which every packet is treated identically regardless of its origin or the nature of its content -- data, voice, or video?
Is it a set of guarantees/rights for consumers that they will not be constrained in any way from accessing the lawful content of their choice?
Or, is it a set of protections (via FCC's rules) for content providers to ensure they are not unfairly disadvantaged by ISPs that may also offer competing content, including television programming and on-demand movies?
I know its fashionable to hate on Google right now, but isn't TFA saying things Google didn't say?
For example, TFA claims:-
But if you look at Google's actual response, they say :-
'Should not' carries a very different meaning from 'Must not'. The first provides guidelines, the second is an absolute ban.
TFA fans the flames by telling users that clause stops them from using Google Fiber from doing a lot of things most people would not consider to be unfair use, such as :-
However Google did not say that any of uses were prohibited. What Google does say in its response is that :-
There are many things Google does that I dislike (give me back iGoogle!) but lets crucify them for what they do, not made-up tales/fears.
Companies don't exist to be nice, they exist to make money for their owners and shareholders.
And this shabby excuse has been used time and again to justify the many evils companies inflict on the world in their pursuit of profit. Such as Union Carbide's poisoning of India.
There was a time before companies existed, when businesses bore the names of their founders such as Walter & Sons. Often the owners refrained from acts of outright evil because they did not want to taint their name, and their sons and grandsons similarly restrained themselves so as not to soil their grandfather's name. If that was not sufficient deterrent, the fact that they were held personally liable often did.
With the creation of companies, responsibility became diffused. Bad things were done by 'the company' -except that this was a lie. Companies do not have independent will, their actions are dictated by management who often disappear after collecting their fat bonuses.
It is too late now to argue companies should nto exist- they do, and are here to stay. But since companies enjoy the status of separate legal entities, they should be judged accordingly. If an individual behaves in an evil manner, I judge them evil, and the same with companies. If an individual commits evil to get rich, I would not excuse his behaviour if his excuse was that his sole aim in life was to get rich. We should also not accept the same excuse for companies. Do evil, be judged evil, no excuses.
I believe that when Google was young, as a whole it really did believe in ideals such as "Don't be evil". I don't think anyone would publicly adopt such a motto which is so easy to ridicule unless they really meant to stick to it. Their actions in the early years also largely support this view.
However, as Google matured as a money-making corporation, its character gradually changed. Idealists left and more corporate hardened souls were taken on. In some ways, this is not unlike the process of growing up from an idealistic teenager living in a world of absolutes to an adult having financial commitments and facing temptations to cut corners to meet the bottom line.
I think that there is a struggle internally now within Google for its soul- whether it should stick to its ideals and risk financial loss, or take the easy way and act like every other company out there and prioritise profit.
We can, hopefully, reverse the trend by reminding Google (loudly) of its ideals and perhaps shaming them into acting better. Although Google is sliding towards the evil side of the scale, it is still way too early to give up on them. Think of Google as a wayward child verging into criminality; you can either write them off and ensure that another hardened criminal joins the world, or try to teach them what is wrong and hopefully, maybe they will change for the better.
dont be such a submissive corporate fuckpig
Says the anonymous coward defending Microsoft over DRM and openness...
I have to admit, I loled.
The US is the easy case. Until you find a way to get China, North Korea, Iran, (oppressive regime X), et al. to give them up, and various terrorist groups to stop attacking*, you're going to be stuck with it.
I hope you are seriously not making the argument that the US must do it because regimes like China, North Korea and Iran are doing it. There are a lot of things that China, North Korea and Iran do that the US would do well not to emulate , starting with opressing their own citizens.
the free democratic nations need intelligence agencies that are capable of helping to protect their societies.
Nobody disagrees with that broad principle. Whether the intelligence agencies need to have the power to indiscriminately harvest untargeted information on everyone to be capable at their job however, is in issue. If you want to take it to extremes, you could also make the argument that the NSA should be given the powers once held by Stasi, KGB, and their Chinese equivalents to be truly capable. It is true that this would increase the effectiveness of the NSA but I dont think anyone really wants to go there.
Unilateral disarmament in the face of aggression tends to have significant negative consequences.
Strawman argument. No one is suggesting that the US, or the NSA "unilaterally disarm" against China, North Korea, Iran et. al. The whole reason why PRISM blew up was because the NSA was collecting data not on China, North Korea or Iran, but on their own citizens and innocent third parties . That is only insofar as PRISM is concerned, we have no idea what other information may be collected by other programs because the NSA won't tell us.
That would be the equivalent of using your arms on your own family and innocent outsiders in the face of aggression.
This will probably hurt their campaign to bring Ubuntu to mobile.
Their kickstarter at Indiegogo already seems to be slowing down.
Not quite fair to link a forum breach to Ubuntu, but public perception is what matters.
You probably read it this article.
Or maybe on AOL
...one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash.
That is certainly the argument Fox used. What they conveniently left out is that Fox collects retransmission fees from Dish.
In fact, Dish was at one time forced to drop Fox programming because, according to Dish :-
In addition, the broadcast networks including Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC have demanded that its affiliates hand over a percentage of the money they receive from local cable operators that retransmit their signals.
Basically, its all about the money. The broadcasting networks have already been paid by retransmission fees and are double dipping into advertising fees.