The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.
Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful? Not an argument that it could be harmful, but actual evidence that it is? Just about anything can be argued to be harmful. If you want this precedent that things can just be banned with no evidence then you essentially accept the tenets of dictatorship. If they cited any kind of reasonable testing or evidence I would be fine with this, but they pretty much just say "Yeah, we suspect it might be harmful, so we banned it".
I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?
It's really sad how badly Sun screwed up Java. They basically had the world in the palm of their hand at one point - one of the only ways to run rich content in the browser, the only universally available cross platform runtime that the vast majority of people had installed. They tried to do all the right things - Java WebStart to easily run Java applications from a link, downloading all the necessary components on the fly. A simple, easy way to launch applications (just double click on the jar file!).
But every single one of these "great" ideas had the most awful flawed execution, completely stupid, bone headed limitations that made you want to poke your own eyes out. This one you mention being an example. You can wrap your application up in a beautiful jar file and the user can double click it to run it. But there is no way for you to specify how much memory that application should get. And the default amount of memory is implementation dependent, so no way to predict what it will be. So they've solved all of your problems to avoid writing a native launcher and then left you still having to write one, just to pass one stupid fucking parameter to the JVM.
This is just one tiny example, but I could list a dozen of these.
Google and Apple really do not care about each other the way the fans at the lowest level seem to.
Ah, so when Steve Jobs said "I'm going to destroy Android! I'm going thermonuclear on them, I will spend every last cent of Apple's $40b in the bank to destroy Android!", he actually meant something more like:
"Ah, jolly good chaps those Google folk, helping us sell our devices by making fantastic apps!"
I'm glad we have you to clarify that. Then again, I'm not quite sure your theory maps completely onto reality.
If you believe in any of the basic tenets of democracy, the case to answer is always for the "why" side not the "why not" when it comes to censorship. Simply asking "hey, why not just introduce a repressive censorship regime?" is not valid by itself if you want to call your country a democracy.
They won't come crawling back to Google. They will crawl to their legislators to mandate that Google include them its index, thus forcing Google to index them AND pay money to do it.
He spends half the article complaining about supposed misreporting of "rounded corners" as an issue and then admits that in fact the jury did decide in favor of Apple's design patent on the rounded corners (qualified by equally dumb things like a "flat surface", and a "grid of icons", but that hardly makes the reporting of it sensationalist).
Good point. If Google is at fault here, why is Apple not also for offering a feature that claims to block 3rd party cookies and then actually allows them? Google can claim that they simply rely on the browser's stated features to actually work, and they can't be responsible for every possible bug in any browser in existence that might ignore the user's wishes and give Google more information than they should have. Personally, I think that if Google is investigated, so too should Apple be - they left this hole for a reason - presumably financially driven reasons just like Google. If Apple made the judgement that their user's convenience or their own tracking mechanisms were more important than privacy then why is Google blamed for making the same assumption?
The other question is, if this is actually prosecuted, what is going to happen to the hundreds or thousands of major web sites that are routinely doing this? Are we going to investigate them all?
Yeah, that statement doesn't really capture it very well. Google wanted (actually, needed) Java to be open source under a permissive license, not GPL. This trial is in an interesting way, an examination of the difference between the GPL and Apache licenses and how incredibly important they are. However both of them certainly qualify as open source.
He should have excused himself from the board the moment Google started working on Android.
That would have been silly because Google started working on Android when Apple was a company that made portable music players and pretty much nothing else. But even so, he did in fact recuse himself from all discussions involving the iPhone and resigned not long after its release. Since Google purchasing Android was very publicly known there is no excuse for the rest of the board for not removing him if they thought it was a problem. There was absolutely nothing secret about it, so if it was a problem as you seem to believe then that is a testament to incredible stupidity of the Apple board room and not much else.
Google released everything they created as open source, so they can hardly be anti open source. They released it under a far more liberal license than Oracle did as well. Oracle can freely copy anything they want back from Google's implementation into OpenJDK - but not the other way around.
Nobody will be forcing anyone to use metro or buy any of the walled garden metro apps.
I think the current state of knowledge is that there will be no access to non-Metro apps at all on ARM. ie. if you are using a tablet you will most certainly be forced into the walled garden. Of course you can just not buy a tablet, but you could also not buy a computer... it's not the solution we're looking for.
Do you think we can let this meme just drop off into the sludge pit of dumb rants? Apple is going after Samsung using design patents [wikimedia.org] this is a slightly different concept that the 'standard' patent for an 'invention'.
Utter rubbish. Apple is using every kind of patent imaginable from how to make a touch screen to how a scrolling list should bounce. You'd have to be pro-every-kind-of-possible-patent to agree with what Apple are doing.
they just want people to use their real names so that people don't act like fucking idiots
Twitter has shown that you can run a successful service without demanding real names.
I think a huge mistake for G+ was that they didn't make it clear up front that the real name policy was going to be enforced. It wasn't even clear to me that policy existed up front. It looked like they got greedy when they saw the early popularity and decided to take advantage of it by changing the rules. It ruined a huge part of G+'s selling point. They came out of the gate saying "We have better privacy than FB". Everyone cheered. Then Google said "But for reasons we won't explain very well and which were never stated up front we are now making everyone who uses it tell us their real names". All the privacy advocates who were cheering stopped and started booing. Dumb move Google, dumb, dumb dumb.
Even if they did announce the real name policy up front it still is a huge issue because that does not exist the rest of Google services. That means a large number of people who happily go by any moniker they like on Google services, GMail, etc. suddenly find they can't use Google+. They either have to expose their real name on an account that has years of history that they might wish to remain disconnected from their real name or they have to make a separate account for G+. Google wants its cake (people using real names) and to eat it too (connect G+ to everyone's existing Google services). Unfortunately for Google these things conflict.
Google seems to be making an art form of screwing up this kind of thing.
How do you pick the bully when you are discussing enormous multinational consumer electronics companies using the legal system to try to disrupt their competitors?
One is outputting numerous products and competing quality and satisfying consumers. The other makes hardly any products, updates them just once every 18 months or so but while doing nothing with their own products spends huge on lawyers to use dodgy tactics to delay competitors.
If HP decides they suck at PCs and close down, that doesn't mean those jobs and resources are lost. It means they have to be reallocated.
This sort of abstract economics bugs me. Yes in theory in a perfect world and a closed system with perfect frictionless economics you might be right. In practice, the system is not closed and not frictionless. When those jobs go they a) may exit the closed system (eg: disappear from the US and appear in China, India or elsewhere) or b) if they do reappear there may be a tremendous cost associated with that (people losing jobs, defaulting on their loans, marriages breaking up, children scarred by trauma of financial hardship...). There's no fundamental law that guarantees the net positives will outweigh the net negatives of any given event like this that happens. You can have your theory about the general market and how overall it moves humanity forward and also an opinion that an individual transaction is destructive and a net negative and be totally consistent.
Apple is the same or worse than Microsoft, just smaller
Except that by some metrics now they are bigger, and arguably far more powerful since they've escaped virtually any regulatory control. Microsoft is now truly a tamed beast, while Apple is a like Godzilla on the loose stomping all over the place.
Yes, I could have carried a copy of my paper records, but which would you rather depend on in that type of emergency: remembering to carry a file to the doctor or having them instantly available?
That's why I said I would like my EHR to be electronic, but rather than stored centrally, carried on my person, in a way that I'm unlikely to ever forget (phone, implanted chip, etc.).
As a counter point - suppose you did have an emergency and didn't end up at a VA facility but instead at a generic hospital somewhere? If your records were on your phone then they could get them whereas with the VA they might not. I could imagine NFC being a useful technology here - your records are in your phone and you merely need to punch in a PIN to have them made accessible to a health professional - and there could even be an "override" PIN for use in emergencies that accredited workers could look up so that if you're unconcious and can't grant consent they can still get the information.
My main fear about EHRs is mainly the centralized nature of it. Centralized databases are rarely necessary and never good, but seem to be the fantasy of every bureaucracy. I would like my EHR to be electronic, but to carry it on my phone, or in an implanted chip or something. I would like it to be illegal to store even one iota of it in a medical system that spans more than 24 hours. I want to have the power to erase it absolutely and at any time without permission from anybody. When you need to know it you can read it from my phone, and you can store any data you want right back there on the phone. If you have to keep some data for whatever reasons then you keep only the exact parts you need and you anonymize the crap out of it. If you want any more than that then you ask me very nicely for it and I choose to release it to you at my discretion.
What you do NOT do is start compiling a giant centralized database with massive amounts of information about me without my consent just in case some random future researcher wants to plunder it to publish another paper.
> . They don't know how things work, they don't care, and they don't want to have to mess with it.
To be honest, this is a little bit of a myth. Yes, most of them don't care until they one day happen upon a restriction that bothers them. For example, my mother who wanted to copy an audio book from her friend's computer onto her iPod Touch. Suddenly she is calling me up saying "I thought I could plug in my iPod and just copy it there but it doesn't show up and iTunes has scary messages about deleting everything!". And all I can say is "there's no good reason for it, but Apple doesn't want you to copy anything onto your iPod unless you do it through iTunes on your own computer. That way they make more money." And then she suddenly cared. So in most cases it's not that they don't care - it's that their lack of technical knowledge shields them from the reasons to care.
The nice thing is that these days "get a cheap phone" can mean a full featured Android smart phone for ~$120 which will give you the full smart phone experience while being cheap enough that if you lose it you can just write it off. (you might think that is a lot, but in the context of a whole trip and considering how much benefit it can be... I think it's worth it).
I think his point was that T-Mobile uses the non-standard AWS band for 3G data. So sure, you can subscribe to T-Mobile's data plan, you still aren't getting any data on a standard international GSM phone (except for edge, which is actually good enough for minimal purposes - keeping your maps working, etc.)
Depending where you're coming from it can be highly likely that your flight to Canada will involve a connection through the US - in which case, yep, you're getting fingerprinted and anything else they want to do with you.
(Yes, with enough effort / expense one can certainly get flights that enter direct... I just want to point out that the US system is perverse enough to capture even people who are just transiting through and treat them like criminals too.)
Well, I sort of have to read between the lines in your answer but it sounds like you are confirming that you can just stick a SIM into any unlocked phone. You then piled a whole bunch of conditions onto the circumstances under which you would purchase such a thing (only in your home town, only if you can try it hands on, only with a return policy that meets your criteria of "good"...). I suspect whatever I suggest you will trump up a reason why it wouldn't be acceptable to you, but just to show how easy it is here's a nice unlocked phone that you can buy today if you want.
AT&T uses the same standard UMTS bands as many regions in the world (most of europe), you can easily find phones that will give you 3G. You certainly don't have be stuck on EDGE (although you do have to be stuck on AT&T, which people might argue is similar:-) ).
Google ISN'T making an issue out of carriers and manufacturers locking down Android phones
They seem to be making an issue out of it for the devices they have anything to do with. Every Nexus and every "flagship" device (eg: Xoom) has been unlocked regardless of the carrier / manufacturer's general policy for locking the devices. I think this is where they've drawn the line: they will do the minimum to ensure that there is always at least one good quality unlocked phone that can run the latest Android. Others can do what they want, but Google will set a baseline there. It's not much, but it's something.
Slashdot Mirror
The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.
Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful? Not an argument that it could be harmful, but actual evidence that it is? Just about anything can be argued to be harmful. If you want this precedent that things can just be banned with no evidence then you essentially accept the tenets of dictatorship. If they cited any kind of reasonable testing or evidence I would be fine with this, but they pretty much just say "Yeah, we suspect it might be harmful, so we banned it".
I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?
It's really sad how badly Sun screwed up Java. They basically had the world in the palm of their hand at one point - one of the only ways to run rich content in the browser, the only universally available cross platform runtime that the vast majority of people had installed. They tried to do all the right things - Java WebStart to easily run Java applications from a link, downloading all the necessary components on the fly. A simple, easy way to launch applications (just double click on the jar file!).
But every single one of these "great" ideas had the most awful flawed execution, completely stupid, bone headed limitations that made you want to poke your own eyes out. This one you mention being an example. You can wrap your application up in a beautiful jar file and the user can double click it to run it. But there is no way for you to specify how much memory that application should get. And the default amount of memory is implementation dependent, so no way to predict what it will be. So they've solved all of your problems to avoid writing a native launcher and then left you still having to write one, just to pass one stupid fucking parameter to the JVM.
This is just one tiny example, but I could list a dozen of these.
Google and Apple really do not care about each other the way the fans at the lowest level seem to.
Ah, so when Steve Jobs said "I'm going to destroy Android! I'm going thermonuclear on them, I will spend every last cent of Apple's $40b in the bank to destroy Android!", he actually meant something more like:
"Ah, jolly good chaps those Google folk, helping us sell our devices by making fantastic apps!"
I'm glad we have you to clarify that. Then again, I'm not quite sure your theory maps completely onto reality.
If you believe in any of the basic tenets of democracy, the case to answer is always for the "why" side not the "why not" when it comes to censorship. Simply asking "hey, why not just introduce a repressive censorship regime?" is not valid by itself if you want to call your country a democracy.
They won't come crawling back to Google. They will crawl to their legislators to mandate that Google include them its index, thus forcing Google to index them AND pay money to do it.
He spends half the article complaining about supposed misreporting of "rounded corners" as an issue and then admits that in fact the jury did decide in favor of Apple's design patent on the rounded corners (qualified by equally dumb things like a "flat surface", and a "grid of icons", but that hardly makes the reporting of it sensationalist).
Good point. If Google is at fault here, why is Apple not also for offering a feature that claims to block 3rd party cookies and then actually allows them? Google can claim that they simply rely on the browser's stated features to actually work, and they can't be responsible for every possible bug in any browser in existence that might ignore the user's wishes and give Google more information than they should have. Personally, I think that if Google is investigated, so too should Apple be - they left this hole for a reason - presumably financially driven reasons just like Google. If Apple made the judgement that their user's convenience or their own tracking mechanisms were more important than privacy then why is Google blamed for making the same assumption?
The other question is, if this is actually prosecuted, what is going to happen to the hundreds or thousands of major web sites that are routinely doing this? Are we going to investigate them all?
Yeah, that statement doesn't really capture it very well. Google wanted (actually, needed) Java to be open source under a permissive license, not GPL. This trial is in an interesting way, an examination of the difference between the GPL and Apache licenses and how incredibly important they are. However both of them certainly qualify as open source.
He should have excused himself from the board the moment Google started working on Android.
That would have been silly because Google started working on Android when Apple was a company that made portable music players and pretty much nothing else. But even so, he did in fact recuse himself from all discussions involving the iPhone and resigned not long after its release. Since Google purchasing Android was very publicly known there is no excuse for the rest of the board for not removing him if they thought it was a problem. There was absolutely nothing secret about it, so if it was a problem as you seem to believe then that is a testament to incredible stupidity of the Apple board room and not much else.
Google released everything they created as open source, so they can hardly be anti open source. They released it under a far more liberal license than Oracle did as well. Oracle can freely copy anything they want back from Google's implementation into OpenJDK - but not the other way around.
TFA:
> The Windows 7 desktop just plain can’t be rented
I guess it's not precisely Windows 7, but I seem to be able to rent full Windows instances from EC2 for .12 / hour.
Nobody will be forcing anyone to use metro or buy any of the walled garden metro apps.
I think the current state of knowledge is that there will be no access to non-Metro apps at all on ARM. ie. if you are using a tablet you will most certainly be forced into the walled garden. Of course you can just not buy a tablet, but you could also not buy a computer ... it's not the solution we're looking for.
Do you think we can let this meme just drop off into the sludge pit of dumb rants? Apple is going after Samsung using design patents [wikimedia.org] this is a slightly different concept that the 'standard' patent for an 'invention'.
Utter rubbish. Apple is using every kind of patent imaginable from how to make a touch screen to how a scrolling list should bounce. You'd have to be pro-every-kind-of-possible-patent to agree with what Apple are doing.
they just want people to use their real names so that people don't act like fucking idiots
Twitter has shown that you can run a successful service without demanding real names.
I think a huge mistake for G+ was that they didn't make it clear up front that the real name policy was going to be enforced. It wasn't even clear to me that policy existed up front. It looked like they got greedy when they saw the early popularity and decided to take advantage of it by changing the rules. It ruined a huge part of G+'s selling point. They came out of the gate saying "We have better privacy than FB". Everyone cheered. Then Google said "But for reasons we won't explain very well and which were never stated up front we are now making everyone who uses it tell us their real names". All the privacy advocates who were cheering stopped and started booing. Dumb move Google, dumb, dumb dumb.
Even if they did announce the real name policy up front it still is a huge issue because that does not exist the rest of Google services. That means a large number of people who happily go by any moniker they like on Google services, GMail, etc. suddenly find they can't use Google+. They either have to expose their real name on an account that has years of history that they might wish to remain disconnected from their real name or they have to make a separate account for G+. Google wants its cake (people using real names) and to eat it too (connect G+ to everyone's existing Google services). Unfortunately for Google these things conflict.
Google seems to be making an art form of screwing up this kind of thing.
How do you pick the bully when you are discussing enormous multinational consumer electronics companies using the legal system to try to disrupt their competitors?
One is outputting numerous products and competing quality and satisfying consumers. The other makes hardly any products, updates them just once every 18 months or so but while doing nothing with their own products spends huge on lawyers to use dodgy tactics to delay competitors.
If HP decides they suck at PCs and close down, that doesn't mean those jobs and resources are lost. It means they have to be reallocated.
This sort of abstract economics bugs me. Yes in theory in a perfect world and a closed system with perfect frictionless economics you might be right. In practice, the system is not closed and not frictionless. When those jobs go they a) may exit the closed system (eg: disappear from the US and appear in China, India or elsewhere) or b) if they do reappear there may be a tremendous cost associated with that (people losing jobs, defaulting on their loans, marriages breaking up, children scarred by trauma of financial hardship ...). There's no fundamental law that guarantees the net positives will outweigh the net negatives of any given event like this that happens. You can have your theory about the general market and how overall it moves humanity forward and also an opinion that an individual transaction is destructive and a net negative and be totally consistent.
Apple is the same or worse than Microsoft, just smaller
Except that by some metrics now they are bigger, and arguably far more powerful since they've escaped virtually any regulatory control. Microsoft is now truly a tamed beast, while Apple is a like Godzilla on the loose stomping all over the place.
Yes, I could have carried a copy of my paper records, but which would you rather depend on in that type of emergency: remembering to carry a file to the doctor or having them instantly available?
That's why I said I would like my EHR to be electronic, but rather than stored centrally, carried on my person, in a way that I'm unlikely to ever forget (phone, implanted chip, etc.).
As a counter point - suppose you did have an emergency and didn't end up at a VA facility but instead at a generic hospital somewhere? If your records were on your phone then they could get them whereas with the VA they might not. I could imagine NFC being a useful technology here - your records are in your phone and you merely need to punch in a PIN to have them made accessible to a health professional - and there could even be an "override" PIN for use in emergencies that accredited workers could look up so that if you're unconcious and can't grant consent they can still get the information.
My main fear about EHRs is mainly the centralized nature of it. Centralized databases are rarely necessary and never good, but seem to be the fantasy of every bureaucracy. I would like my EHR to be electronic, but to carry it on my phone, or in an implanted chip or something. I would like it to be illegal to store even one iota of it in a medical system that spans more than 24 hours. I want to have the power to erase it absolutely and at any time without permission from anybody. When you need to know it you can read it from my phone, and you can store any data you want right back there on the phone. If you have to keep some data for whatever reasons then you keep only the exact parts you need and you anonymize the crap out of it. If you want any more than that then you ask me very nicely for it and I choose to release it to you at my discretion.
What you do NOT do is start compiling a giant centralized database with massive amounts of information about me without my consent just in case some random future researcher wants to plunder it to publish another paper.
> . They don't know how things work, they don't care, and they don't want to have to mess with it.
To be honest, this is a little bit of a myth. Yes, most of them don't care until they one day happen upon a restriction that bothers them. For example, my mother who wanted to copy an audio book from her friend's computer onto her iPod Touch. Suddenly she is calling me up saying "I thought I could plug in my iPod and just copy it there but it doesn't show up and iTunes has scary messages about deleting everything!". And all I can say is "there's no good reason for it, but Apple doesn't want you to copy anything onto your iPod unless you do it through iTunes on your own computer. That way they make more money." And then she suddenly cared. So in most cases it's not that they don't care - it's that their lack of technical knowledge shields them from the reasons to care.
The nice thing is that these days "get a cheap phone" can mean a full featured Android smart phone for ~$120 which will give you the full smart phone experience while being cheap enough that if you lose it you can just write it off. (you might think that is a lot, but in the context of a whole trip and considering how much benefit it can be ... I think it's worth it).
I think his point was that T-Mobile uses the non-standard AWS band for 3G data. So sure, you can subscribe to T-Mobile's data plan, you still aren't getting any data on a standard international GSM phone (except for edge, which is actually good enough for minimal purposes - keeping your maps working, etc.)
Depending where you're coming from it can be highly likely that your flight to Canada will involve a connection through the US - in which case, yep, you're getting fingerprinted and anything else they want to do with you.
(Yes, with enough effort / expense one can certainly get flights that enter direct ... I just want to point out that the US system is perverse enough to capture even people who are just transiting through and treat them like criminals too.)
Well, I sort of have to read between the lines in your answer but it sounds like you are confirming that you can just stick a SIM into any unlocked phone. You then piled a whole bunch of conditions onto the circumstances under which you would purchase such a thing (only in your home town, only if you can try it hands on, only with a return policy that meets your criteria of "good" ...). I suspect whatever I suggest you will trump up a reason why it wouldn't be acceptable to you, but just to show how easy it is here's a nice unlocked phone that you can buy today if you want.
AT&T uses the same standard UMTS bands as many regions in the world (most of europe), you can easily find phones that will give you 3G. You certainly don't have be stuck on EDGE (although you do have to be stuck on AT&T, which people might argue is similar :-) ).
Google ISN'T making an issue out of carriers and manufacturers locking down Android phones
They seem to be making an issue out of it for the devices they have anything to do with. Every Nexus and every "flagship" device (eg: Xoom) has been unlocked regardless of the carrier / manufacturer's general policy for locking the devices. I think this is where they've drawn the line: they will do the minimum to ensure that there is always at least one good quality unlocked phone that can run the latest Android. Others can do what they want, but Google will set a baseline there. It's not much, but it's something.