besides the obvious filtering of content, will Google also be limiting advertisements and tracking of kids searches?
I would imagine it will be targeting adverts at kids, and tracking just as much.
A more interesting question is "how will Google determine who is a kid?". Will adults have to login to get the grown-up version, and prove that their login really belongs to an adult by providing, for example, credit card details?
Now you have tracking that's worth big money to marketeers.
Mod parent up! In fact, in many jurisdictions payment processors are required by law to monitor for and report "suspicious" payments. Individual staff can be held liable, and go to jail, for not doing it.
And cash is no answer. Large cash withdrawals count as "suspicious".
Not only that, but they fucking maintain their own DB of certs instead of relying on the OS.
So I can install and trust a cert on my machine (or everyone's machine by policy) but Firefox won't fucking play by the rules.
You have to find and use an obscure tool just to manage certs for Firefox. No thanks, assholes.
IMO Firefox are doing this right. Having known good copies of the major root certs bundled with the browser is a strong defense against MITM attacks. I've worked in more than one organisation that was doing MITM on their staff's SSL sessions (unknown to the staff) by silently pushing "trusted" DIY certs to the workstations by policy. Chrome and IE swallowed this without complaint. Only Firefox complained that I didn't in fact have a secure session with, for example, google.com.
The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society.
Sure they care. They care a lot. They just don't care in the way that you care. They care about whether their efforts to maintain the status quo succeed. That's it. But undermining the law is very much part and parcel of that maintenance. The people running our countries are career criminals and if the law were to catch up with them, they would be in trouble. They must continually erode the law, or they will be labeled as what they are. Thieves, crooks, con artists, frauds.
This article tells you all you need you know about the establishment's reaction. From TFA:
"The report also reveals that the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."
But the report then concludes that MI5 (and the other security services) are blameless and it's all the fault of some Internet company. Simultaneously whitewashing the security services failure and justifying (in their minds) further cranking up of mass surveillance.
Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention) has proven to be the best system for generating profits while improving the overall economy for all people involved. People tossed out the free market and they are trying really hard to toss out capitalism as well, they saw all the wealth generated in a free market capitalist system and believe that that wealth is gained somehow immorally, however I argue that making profits in a capitalist free market system is the most moral way to run an economy.
There is ampleevidence that the rule set favoured by "free market" proponents enriches a small minority at the expense of everybody else. That doesn't make for a healthy (or moral) society.
Hell, Monsanto NEVER sold Terminator seeds.
I find that people who rant about them as an example of the evils of Monsanto invariably don't know what the hell they are talking about. It is a nice bellwether.
True. They've just patented Terminator seeds. But they've promised never to use the patent. So nothing to worry about there then.
A better example is aircraft automation. Some fly-by-wire systems automated the routine stuff, of controlling and stabilizing the aircraft, but would drop out to manual control if the situation went outside the programmed parameters. This led to the crash of Air France 296 when the autopilot was disabled because of the low altitude during an air show flyover, and it turned out that the pilot didn't know how to fly the plane because he had relied on the computer far more than even he had realized. When the computer shut down, the pilot was unable to perform the "low level" task of keeping the plane in controlled wing-level flight.
Not to be pedantic, but the linked article doesn't say that at all. The pilot and co-pilot both had 20+ years experience. In fact the Captain was an Air France test pilot and "he had been heavily involved in test flying the A320 type and had carried out manoeuvres beyond normal operational limitations". The crash investigation found that the cause was flying too low (30 feet, instead of the designated minimum 100 feet) and too slow (running the engines at Flight Idle - minimum thrust), and consequently not being able to pull up in time to avoid hitting a stand of trees. As the linked article says, "The Captain's previous experience flying the aircraft type at the edge of its limits may have led to overconfidence and complacency".
Actually no. You can use Azure AD as an extension of your own AD, and it does support 3rd party SSO against Google and other SaaS apps. This can be a good solution for organisations that can't (or don't want to) expose their own internal AD on the internet.
You're conflating a specific unspecified job with a job in general.
No he's not. The same thing is happening more and more in the UK; people with jobs who are not paid enough to live on.
It is indeed ironic that the free market types, who say they don't want government interference (or a welfare system), are quite happy to pay their workers below the poverty line and let the government (by way of welfare) take up the slack.
Actually, Jobs just brought people over to see the demo. No one actually saw any code.
Actually, according to Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age, Xerox management instructed their developers to give Jobs a copy of the code. Which they did under protest, pointing out that Xerox were basically handing over the "crown jewels".
to find that the audience prefers misinfotainment over news. They demand entertainment over learning. Illusion over reality.
I am old enough to remember a day when the news was actually just that... News.... No opinion mixed in. Just the facts. When opinion was offered, usually after the real news, it was labeled as such.
Then media consolidation happened, the fairness doctrine was tossed and newsrooms nationwide were expected to turn a profit.
You've hit the nail on the head. If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Flat Earth News. It covers how the new owners of news organisations increasingly cared more about sales (and advertising) than real news, cut their journalist head count (especially serious investigative journalists), and now get most of their content from a handful of agencies (which is why you see the same stories, often word-for-word, in multiple outlets).
Nobody really cares if you know a fool proof way to kill the prez (well, aside of some professional paranoiacs). As long as you don't act upon it, you're fine. If you DO, though, don't expect to remain free (or, for that matter, alive) for any measurable stretch of time.
Being an asshole may not be a crime. But threatening to kill somebody (whether you follow through or not) or spreading fabricated stories alleging criminal behavior to destroy somebody's good name is a crime. And rightly so.
The "I only posted it, so it's all OK" meme is part of the problem here.
Quarter to quarter, hmm, a piece of crap this quarter is still a piece of crap next quarter.
The other side of that coin is that business goes in cycles; even fundamentally sound companies don't return bigger profits quarter, after quarter, after quarter.
Case in point: personal computing manufacturers typically have big Q4s. Companies spend the last of the current year's budget, and consumers buy laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc. for themselves or others for Christmas. Q1, by comparison, is always quiet; something that a significant percentage of shareholders always seem surprised by.
I once worked at a Fortune 500 company in Silicon Valley that didn't want to train employees because they might get certified, leave for a competitor, and make two to three times what they're currently making. Never mind that most employees were training themselves on company time, getting certified on their own time, and leaving for a competitor to make big bucks. Most companies just don't want to pay for training anymore, much less send people off to conferences where they might network and get hired by a competitor.
CFO asks CEO: "What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?"
What terms of service do you agree to when you purchase a ticket and attend the event? Do you agree not to take and post videos of the event?
The ticket ToS specifically forbids any posting of match content. In fact you cannot bring any dedicated "audio, visual, or audio-visual" equipment into the ground. You can bring your mobile phone with you but, if you use it to capture any of the action, nothing you capture "may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites."
The copyright angle is pretty moot. By buying your ticket, you've signed up to these terms and conditions.
First off TFA is about as weak on details as it is in verb conjugation. And we just clip and paste without editing?
What is proper insurance cover(age)? Are the limits too low, or not commercially based? Or not vetted properly?
TFA was clear enough. Licensed taxi drivers (certainly in most EU countries) are expected to demonstrate a level of competence and suitability to operate as a commercial driver; e.g. must not have a criminal record, must pass an advanced driving test, must pass a medical, must have proper commercial vehicle insurance, etc. And it is illegal to transport passengers for money without a commercial license and commercial vehicle insurance.
Uber's position is that anybody who downloads their app can call themselves a taxi driver and, if they don't meet the licensing standards, well it's the drivers's problem not Uber's. That is disingenuous. Uber are operating as a "driver for hire" service but trying to avoid any of the responsibilities being a "driver for hire" operator. Uber could easily resolve this by verifying that anybody signing up with them has a valid commercial license and insurance. But they seem strangely reluctant to do that. That's neither good competition nor good for the consumer.
Anyone want to argue against my cynicism? Are Gartner reports actually useful to some people?
Cynicism yes. But healthy skepticism is always good!
In my experience Gartner have some good people - recognised subject matter experts - and if they are working in topic areas important to you then the reports are worth it. As mentioned by others, the reports carry weight with PHBs and if you can show that Gartner agrees with what you are proposing it can be a huge help. Of course, not everybody is at that level. YMMV.
For the same reason, the Hype Cycle is useful for positioning new technologies. It's interesting that TFA's title is actually very misleading. The Gartner graphic shows cloud computing entering the "Trough of Disillusionment" (where reality bites the folks who drank the kool-aid) and not "going mainstream".
Overall, I agree that patents don't help much with innovation. However, I think pharmaceutical patents, unlike most other patents, do, in fact, encourage innovation. The fact that they encourage the wrong kind of innovation (minor variations on existing drugs) is not a problem with patents per se, it's a problem with the costs and risks of FDA approval: it's much safer to develop a small variant of an existing drug than to develop a completely novel drug for untreatable diseases.
Sorry, guys, you can't have it all: lots of innovation, safety, and low cost. Pick any two.
No offense, but you don't know much about the pharmaceutical industry. Ben Goldacre's book Bad Pharma is a good place to start. And this article explains how, contrary to being great innovators, the big pharmaceuticals are running down their own R&D in favour of cherry picking the work of small biotech outfits and publicly funded researchers and rebranding it as their own.
He wants new features, new syntactical elements, gamechangers like generics, enums, and closures. He wants fun things to learn while sticking with the "same" language, things which will hopefully let him use even higher layers of abstraction.
Which is not in itself a bad thing. If Java doesn't add new useful features it'll get replaced by something that has them. But I'm not sure Java has a lot of room left in its complexity budget to add new stuff without becoming too confusing to stick with (assuming it hasn't already, which is debatable:) It may be best to let Java coast for a bit.
The funny thing is that new features (like closures) have been appearing much more regularly since Oracle took over. The author of TFA seems to forget that after Sun released Java 6 (in 2006) there wasn't major release for years, and Java developers despaired as useful proposed new features got mired in the JCP.
Since Oracle took over we've had two major releases - Java 7 (in 2011), and Java 8 (in 2014) - as well a multiple minor releases. Java 9 is targeted for 2016. It's hardly a language that is stagnating.
Slashdot Mirror
besides the obvious filtering of content, will Google also be limiting advertisements and tracking of kids searches?
I would imagine it will be targeting adverts at kids, and tracking just as much.
A more interesting question is "how will Google determine who is a kid?". Will adults have to login to get the grown-up version, and prove that their login really belongs to an adult by providing, for example, credit card details?
Now you have tracking that's worth big money to marketeers.
Money Laundering Laws... pretty much EVERYWHERE
Mod parent up! In fact, in many jurisdictions payment processors are required by law to monitor for and report "suspicious" payments. Individual staff can be held liable, and go to jail, for not doing it.
And cash is no answer. Large cash withdrawals count as "suspicious".
Citations: Heritability of IQ Race and Intelligence
The "Race and Intelligence" article has the following cautions at the top:
This article's factual accuracy is disputed.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.
Not exactly a convincing support for your argument
Not only that, but they fucking maintain their own DB of certs instead of relying on the OS. So I can install and trust a cert on my machine (or everyone's machine by policy) but Firefox won't fucking play by the rules. You have to find and use an obscure tool just to manage certs for Firefox. No thanks, assholes.
IMO Firefox are doing this right. Having known good copies of the major root certs bundled with the browser is a strong defense against MITM attacks. I've worked in more than one organisation that was doing MITM on their staff's SSL sessions (unknown to the staff) by silently pushing "trusted" DIY certs to the workstations by policy. Chrome and IE swallowed this without complaint. Only Firefox complained that I didn't in fact have a secure session with, for example, google.com.
If they start blocking by DNS, go via IP directly. If they are blocking IP directly, either go VPN or Tor.
Running Bittorent over Tor is a bad idea. As the linked article says, look at I2P instead.
The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society.
Sure they care. They care a lot. They just don't care in the way that you care. They care about whether their efforts to maintain the status quo succeed. That's it. But undermining the law is very much part and parcel of that maintenance. The people running our countries are career criminals and if the law were to catch up with them, they would be in trouble. They must continually erode the law, or they will be labeled as what they are. Thieves, crooks, con artists, frauds.
This article tells you all you need you know about the establishment's reaction. From TFA:
"The report also reveals that the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."
But the report then concludes that MI5 (and the other security services) are blameless and it's all the fault of some Internet company. Simultaneously whitewashing the security services failure and justifying (in their minds) further cranking up of mass surveillance.
Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention) has proven to be the best system for generating profits while improving the overall economy for all people involved. People tossed out the free market and they are trying really hard to toss out capitalism as well, they saw all the wealth generated in a free market capitalist system and believe that that wealth is gained somehow immorally, however I argue that making profits in a capitalist free market system is the most moral way to run an economy.
Except that isn't the case at all. As eloquently demonstrated by Ha-Joon Chang (economics professor at Cambridge University), the "free market" is a myth. Every market has its rules, it just depends which set you are playing by.
There is ample evidence that the rule set favoured by "free market" proponents enriches a small minority at the expense of everybody else. That doesn't make for a healthy (or moral) society.
Hell, Monsanto NEVER sold Terminator seeds. I find that people who rant about them as an example of the evils of Monsanto invariably don't know what the hell they are talking about. It is a nice bellwether.
True. They've just patented Terminator seeds. But they've promised never to use the patent. So nothing to worry about there then.
A better example is aircraft automation. Some fly-by-wire systems automated the routine stuff, of controlling and stabilizing the aircraft, but would drop out to manual control if the situation went outside the programmed parameters. This led to the crash of Air France 296 when the autopilot was disabled because of the low altitude during an air show flyover, and it turned out that the pilot didn't know how to fly the plane because he had relied on the computer far more than even he had realized. When the computer shut down, the pilot was unable to perform the "low level" task of keeping the plane in controlled wing-level flight.
Not to be pedantic, but the linked article doesn't say that at all. The pilot and co-pilot both had 20+ years experience. In fact the Captain was an Air France test pilot and "he had been heavily involved in test flying the A320 type and had carried out manoeuvres beyond normal operational limitations". The crash investigation found that the cause was flying too low (30 feet, instead of the designated minimum 100 feet) and too slow (running the engines at Flight Idle - minimum thrust), and consequently not being able to pull up in time to avoid hitting a stand of trees. As the linked article says, "The Captain's previous experience flying the aircraft type at the edge of its limits may have led to overconfidence and complacency".
Off topic. Only applies to azure.
Actually no. You can use Azure AD as an extension of your own AD, and it does support 3rd party SSO against Google and other SaaS apps. This can be a good solution for organisations that can't (or don't want to) expose their own internal AD on the internet.
You're conflating a specific unspecified job with a job in general.
No he's not. The same thing is happening more and more in the UK; people with jobs who are not paid enough to live on.
It is indeed ironic that the free market types, who say they don't want government interference (or a welfare system), are quite happy to pay their workers below the poverty line and let the government (by way of welfare) take up the slack.
Actually, Jobs just brought people over to see the demo. No one actually saw any code.
Actually, according to Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age, Xerox management instructed their developers to give Jobs a copy of the code. Which they did under protest, pointing out that Xerox were basically handing over the "crown jewels".
NoClass sounds more like it.
"When they said you was IClass, well that was just a lie".
(ducks and runs)
I am old enough to remember a day when the news was actually just that... News.... No opinion mixed in. Just the facts. When opinion was offered, usually after the real news, it was labeled as such.
Then media consolidation happened, the fairness doctrine was tossed and newsrooms nationwide were expected to turn a profit.
You've hit the nail on the head. If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Flat Earth News. It covers how the new owners of news organisations increasingly cared more about sales (and advertising) than real news, cut their journalist head count (especially serious investigative journalists), and now get most of their content from a handful of agencies (which is why you see the same stories, often word-for-word, in multiple outlets).
But acting upon it is.
Nobody really cares if you know a fool proof way to kill the prez (well, aside of some professional paranoiacs). As long as you don't act upon it, you're fine. If you DO, though, don't expect to remain free (or, for that matter, alive) for any measurable stretch of time.
Being an asshole may not be a crime. But threatening to kill somebody (whether you follow through or not) or spreading fabricated stories alleging criminal behavior to destroy somebody's good name is a crime. And rightly so.
The "I only posted it, so it's all OK" meme is part of the problem here.
save some space for telephone sanitizers and hairdressers
Beat me to it! My first thought when I saw the headline was "Golgafrincham B Ark".
Quarter to quarter, hmm, a piece of crap this quarter is still a piece of crap next quarter.
The other side of that coin is that business goes in cycles; even fundamentally sound companies don't return bigger profits quarter, after quarter, after quarter.
Case in point: personal computing manufacturers typically have big Q4s. Companies spend the last of the current year's budget, and consumers buy laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc. for themselves or others for Christmas. Q1, by comparison, is always quiet; something that a significant percentage of shareholders always seem surprised by.
I once worked at a Fortune 500 company in Silicon Valley that didn't want to train employees because they might get certified, leave for a competitor, and make two to three times what they're currently making. Never mind that most employees were training themselves on company time, getting certified on their own time, and leaving for a competitor to make big bucks. Most companies just don't want to pay for training anymore, much less send people off to conferences where they might network and get hired by a competitor.
CFO asks CEO: "What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?"
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
What terms of service do you agree to when you purchase a ticket and attend the event? Do you agree not to take and post videos of the event?
The ticket ToS specifically forbids any posting of match content. In fact you cannot bring any dedicated "audio, visual, or audio-visual" equipment into the ground. You can bring your mobile phone with you but, if you use it to capture any of the action, nothing you capture "may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites."
The copyright angle is pretty moot. By buying your ticket, you've signed up to these terms and conditions.
First off TFA is about as weak on details as it is in verb conjugation. And we just clip and paste without editing?
What is proper insurance cover(age)? Are the limits too low, or not commercially based? Or not vetted properly?
TFA was clear enough. Licensed taxi drivers (certainly in most EU countries) are expected to demonstrate a level of competence and suitability to operate as a commercial driver; e.g. must not have a criminal record, must pass an advanced driving test, must pass a medical, must have proper commercial vehicle insurance, etc. And it is illegal to transport passengers for money without a commercial license and commercial vehicle insurance.
Uber's position is that anybody who downloads their app can call themselves a taxi driver and, if they don't meet the licensing standards, well it's the drivers's problem not Uber's. That is disingenuous. Uber are operating as a "driver for hire" service but trying to avoid any of the responsibilities being a "driver for hire" operator. Uber could easily resolve this by verifying that anybody signing up with them has a valid commercial license and insurance. But they seem strangely reluctant to do that. That's neither good competition nor good for the consumer.
Anyone want to argue against my cynicism? Are Gartner reports actually useful to some people?
Cynicism yes. But healthy skepticism is always good!
In my experience Gartner have some good people - recognised subject matter experts - and if they are working in topic areas important to you then the reports are worth it. As mentioned by others, the reports carry weight with PHBs and if you can show that Gartner agrees with what you are proposing it can be a huge help. Of course, not everybody is at that level. YMMV.
For the same reason, the Hype Cycle is useful for positioning new technologies. It's interesting that TFA's title is actually very misleading. The Gartner graphic shows cloud computing entering the "Trough of Disillusionment" (where reality bites the folks who drank the kool-aid) and not "going mainstream".
Overall, I agree that patents don't help much with innovation. However, I think pharmaceutical patents, unlike most other patents, do, in fact, encourage innovation. The fact that they encourage the wrong kind of innovation (minor variations on existing drugs) is not a problem with patents per se, it's a problem with the costs and risks of FDA approval: it's much safer to develop a small variant of an existing drug than to develop a completely novel drug for untreatable diseases.
Sorry, guys, you can't have it all: lots of innovation, safety, and low cost. Pick any two.
No offense, but you don't know much about the pharmaceutical industry. Ben Goldacre's book Bad Pharma is a good place to start. And this article explains how, contrary to being great innovators, the big pharmaceuticals are running down their own R&D in favour of cherry picking the work of small biotech outfits and publicly funded researchers and rebranding it as their own.
He wants new features, new syntactical elements, gamechangers like generics, enums, and closures. He wants fun things to learn while sticking with the "same" language, things which will hopefully let him use even higher layers of abstraction.
Which is not in itself a bad thing. If Java doesn't add new useful features it'll get replaced by something that has them. But I'm not sure Java has a lot of room left in its complexity budget to add new stuff without becoming too confusing to stick with (assuming it hasn't already, which is debatable :) It may be best to let Java coast for a bit.
The funny thing is that new features (like closures) have been appearing much more regularly since Oracle took over. The author of TFA seems to forget that after Sun released Java 6 (in 2006) there wasn't major release for years, and Java developers despaired as useful proposed new features got mired in the JCP.
Since Oracle took over we've had two major releases - Java 7 (in 2011), and Java 8 (in 2014) - as well a multiple minor releases. Java 9 is targeted for 2016. It's hardly a language that is stagnating.
And they don't learn anything that you don't know (or don't want them to know).
What else does this article's author expect Java to be? A programming language and a runtime are exactly what Java is supposed to be.
Exactly. You would think that a self-proclaimed "Strategic Developer" would know that! :-)