Ever wonder why we need 1,835 PAGES of legislation to say "Do Not dump raw sewage into the river."?
No. Lawyers will endlessly debate that a regulation is too vague and does not cover the case, so you have to cover all the conceivable corner cases in legally specific wording. Because it will be interpreted in a legal venue. And build in loopholes for your contributors. That takes a lot of pages.
I doubt Google would do anything on either side, in order to keep toeing the line. They want to be seen as neutral, with the anti-trust investigations and being a target for piles of DMCA takedowns. If they are against it, which they probably are not, they will protest quietly.
More importantly, Congress has probably realized that they will also have the power to shut down parts of the internet, keeping their constituents' eyes shut. No one wants websites to show those pesky flip-flops and lies, and if they can shut it down with a copyright complaint, many of their problems go away.
The only thing these hearings are doing is making clear exactly what would break, what wouldn't, and how far they can push it. That way they can say they did due diligence and concluded the bill was sound.
The problem is, anyone opposing will only contribute to the next campaign.
From a congress critter's point of view, it makes more sense. MAFIAA donated X amount of dollars for my last campaign, without having any specific issue on the table. Just to get me elected. All I have to do is not annoy them, and I can count on about that much for my next campaign.
On the other hand, if you piss them off, they will send their dollars to get you unelected, hoping the next guy supports them.
It's not about 'buying' a congressthing for a specific issue, it's about having continuous support as long as you don't vote against their interests. One time donors will forget about you the moment they feel safe.
Remember how they started - giving search results with a clean interface. What you were looking for, and nothing else. Their target market, when they started, was people who wanted to find what they were looking for.
Then they realized how much money they could make on advertising, and search stopped being their product. Eyeballs are now their product. That's when they switched target markets from "people who knew what they wanted" to "the lowest common denominator".
They make a web browser (Chrome), and fund a competitor (FireFox), because they want to reach the most eyeballs. Android is all about Google services and advertising. GoogleBook (sorry, Google+) is about reaching the drooling window-lickers who have to know what Snooki is wearing today, if they aren't using Android, Google Search, Chrome, Gmail, or any other Google service.
Got it backwards. Getting the right bacteria can apparently cure diabetes, or at least remove the symptoms. Killing all the bacteria with an antibiotic won't magically introduce the correct bacteria. (I retained the plural because it's not clear if there is just one strain, or if they have to work together with others)
There is no 'reset' with bacteria, only killing some or nearly all and hoping you get the right replacements. You have to put the right ones in there.
Kind of like H.P. Lovecraft, really. Imaginative world, writing is meh.
First thing I thought of. I've been reading Lovecraft straight through, and it's boilerplate stories which overlap and reference each other. You can make a general outline of every story ever, including the ones he ghost-wrote for someone else.
But when you close your eyes and imagine the story, and the richness of the mythology, it's magnificently organized.and impressive.
If I had better writing skills, I would love to be the one to re-write all of the stories. Same plot, same characters, no real changes, just better writing. According to many sources, since they were in a magazine and not renewed, they should be public domain, allowing this sort of thing to happen. Kinda like the modernization of the Bronte sisters with vampires and such, I've seen those in the bookstore.
I'd live a Tolkien re-write as well, but I understand we'll have to wait a few years for that.
There is no argument. A collection of facts is not copyrightable.
One would have to first prove that the WURFL database is in fact a collection of facts. Until that is established, the legal system does not assume it is the case.
And as long as a court exists, and at least one lawyer, there is always room for an argument. Even worse, with the DMCA, no argument even needs made.
And that is the answer to "I'm really not sure what could stop a fork of a GPL project" which is what I responded to. I'm not saying it's correct, but that explains the situation reasonably enough.
And before someone with poor reading comprehension crucifies me on nitpicks, the latest original liberally licensed data was used as a base, not the current explicitly restrictive data.
That means the whole case depends on how effective the included disclaimer works The data is meant for use with the WURFL API available on the official WURFL website at http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ . If it serves to tie the data to a specific implementation, OpenDDR is hosed. If not, no worries.
I'm just answering the question, not claiming which way the situation will go. I happen to agree that WURFL compiled contributions from a number of parties without ownership being assigned, and so if anyone owns the data it is the contributor, not WURFL. And further, if we poll each contributor, they would likely disagree with this restriction and choose a more permissive license. "Contributing means you agree" type of claims are probably not enforceable, since inclusion in WURFL is the only way to get your additions in widespread use.
I'm really not sure what could stop a fork of a GPL project.
The database is the problem, not the code, and the data is not GPL.
And, it would be easy to argue that while the database is commonly known or available information (like a phone book), the collection as it is constitutes a copyrightable work. Extracting the data might be a workaround, but the dataset is so huge it almost requires a hierarchical data organization. Any reasonable attempt would be derivative.
I figured that was the case, but there is a distinction between resolving to learn something and not being able to do it. False dichotomy and all that.
Unfortunately, since you posted facts, theodp won't be able to practice his critical thinking skills. Or alternately practice being more subtle about driving page views for Codecademy with the rhetorical question. A few more obvious problems with this story are the following assumptions apparently based solely on a tweet and a short bio:
Heading up development of something means you can do it (managers can manage work without being able to do the work, not saying whether it's good just that it happens all the time)
EE graduate in '64 was capable of programming (he may have had courses, but he may have been more capable of building a logic circuit than coding for one)
Someone who left Saloman in 1981 still remembers enough to be able to write programs (most people forget skills if they don't use them, especially for 30 years outside of a rapidly evolving field)
Someone who resolves to learn something in a domain is learning the same thing (he could know something that's not relevant, and want to learn a more up to date language or environment)
To be fair, he is a bit of a kook. Please let me explain with an example. Ron Paul believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and who they hire, and that government should not interfere.
I agree this is technically true from a Constitutional standpoint, and I would support a nation with these ideals.
The difficult part is that our current culture holds that "all men are created equal" surpasses individual liberty when people interact. This is not unreasonable, as we are still making up for racial discrimination which affected many people still alive today from the civil rights movements.
As a society, we cannot at this time roll back the laws and say you can now discriminate at will. Our shared cultural values do not allow that. It will not be possible until nearly all of the people who remember the civil rights era have passed away, and new generations who believe in looking not at skin color, but the value of a person take hold. Only then can people make their own decisions on who to include.
The US is a country with wounds, and we have to use casts and bandages in place until those woulds have healed. Only then can we let the body loose to its freedom.
A good politician tempers his personal beliefs with cultural mores, in effect supporting what's good for the people right now, and for the future. This will evolve as the culture evolves. Long term, he is absolutely correct.
But we have to take gradual steps to get there. He would be much more successful if he focused on the things that need to change right now, and left the changes that we're not ready for in the future. But then he wouldn't be calling it like he sees it. Politics is a difficult balance, and he's not balancing, which is why he is being marginalized.
You have to play the game, and he refuses, so he looks like a kook. I respect him as a man of principle, but he's getting very little done, so he gets no credibility as a man of action.
Campaing finance reform - the constituents can see where their money came from, but so can the Congress members. Who supported me? Whose approval do I need to be re-elected? And there you have it.
Even the non-corrupt people have a reason to be favorable to the people who got them elected, to keep their seat. Making the lists public just means they don't have to keep track of where the money came from themselves. Honestly, has anyone been voted out just because they voted on the side of their funding? I don't remember seeing it.
"What sites are at the greatest risk? Sites where people are expressing themselves...." That's why it has bipartisan support. Congress hates that. Normal people will oppose it, but anyone powerful enough to keep themselves in power through censorship will take full advantage of that power.
That is the main reason I am opposed to it, the inevitable abuse of power that seems to follow from every seemingly innocent government power grab.
I wouldn't. The endless lawsuits would be sickening, and based on some of the things I've read about google lawsuits in the past, google are likely to lose. Even though they are giving people a preview of life after SOPA, which no one in the process will understand.
They will win their lawsuits, regret it, and have entrenched SOPA in the process, making it impossible to back out of. For a while, they will be happy, until everyone complains about everyone else. Especially when Congress peoples' websites which host verbatim copies of news articles get delisted. Then the fun begins.
You might want to rephrase a bit. They understand the part that affects them, where their words are accurately captured an replayed when it is most inopportune. They do not understand, and do not want to understand, what this bill will do. They only understand that the people paying them want to be able to pull the plug on something they don't like, and Congress thinks they would like to have that ability, too.
They may be malicious, but they do not understand more than is relevant to their interests. They mocked and derided the experts they invited to explain it to them, almost as if they invited people just to show them they didn't care and were actively not listening. They wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.
TYhe internet is evil, because it is one of the few remaining places that random people have an equal voice to politicians. And that scares them. All they know is fear.
Microsoft is trying to force upgrade off their old browser. That gives them points in my book. they realize it's holding back the web, and unless you opt out, you're going to get upgraded.
You sound vengeful. I have posted piles of anti-Microsoft stuff here, but this is the rare place where they are doing the right thing. They don't have to support IE6, so it's not like they are just making less work for themselves - they could just ignore it. They are actively working on an update to get IE6 off of peoples' computers, adding work for themselves for no benefit. Except for people like me, who have to make sure things work in all browsers our clients may have.
Historically that's true. But with automated and unmanned drones, it doesn't take that many soldiers willing to protect their country to supress a revolution. And with the firepower available, the willing soldiers will have the advantage over the people who don't get to take their airplanes or tanks home with them. It would take an incredibly organized bunch of rogue soldiers who gain access to military equipment and then turn on their leaders. I don't see that happening, do you?
The USA has already detained unconstitutionally one of its citizens (Padilla), and assassinated with a drone another (Al-Awlaki).
That is exactly the reason they did not want to release the data - it could be misinterpreted. As I remember, wheels speeding up due to hitting ice is the example they gave.
That said, and this is the first time I've seen a black box report so don't trust me, it looks like all delta-V was negative. If it were recording tire speed and it slipped on ice, we should have seen acceleration exceeding what the car is capable of. So either it happened before the recording, or it didn't happen.
Analysis of the crash scene is probably going to be more helpful here than the black box, I hope someone took pictures.
You miss the point of the patent. It's to prevent other people from doing something which reads on their invention. Not necessarily to implement it themselves.
That said, Apple will probably use this, but I doubt they will turn this into their default and only password recovery method. More likely, it will be an (expensive) optional add-on. This is direct in-house competition to all the crazy ways third parties offer to keep passwords secure for the Windows environment.
You have taken a patent and assumed how it will be implemented, and attacked that. Pretty much your basic strawman argument.
Source sharing is essentially public knowledge, it has been around for a long time. Long enough to assume that's why they have the code.
What the recipients do with the source has not been disclosed to my knowledge.
I would assume it's up to the recipient to figure out what to do with it, and make sure that is allowed in their contract (Microsoft allegedly tries to negotiate a "come and read it yourself" kind of access so you can't build or copy it, or leak it, after Mainsoft's reported partial leak). Hopefully they do exactly what you describe. But I doubt anyone from any group that has source code is going to tell you what security measures they use.
You are a small minority. "No one is buying this because I get headaches" is the worst reply ever. Mostly replying to all people who listed that as their primary complaint, you happen to be the most highly moderated of the bunch so I replied to you.
Try these:
A small percentage of people get headaches
A small percentage of people cannot see out both eyes well
A small percentage of people have some strange aversion to wearing glasses, despite a lot of people having to do so
A small percentage of people have seen bad 3D and don't understand how much better it is
A small percentage of people have seen poorly set up demos at big box stores and it looks less impressive than it is
A small percentage of people are grumpy old men who see no reason to change their ways
Add that up and you get something significant, before you even get to the questions of cost and content availability. It's a non-starter, and I wish more people would avoid it so I get a cheaper 3D TV.
From the meetings I've seen, they could be genuinely clueless and taking the word of someone who has enough money to take them out to lunch. Anti-SOPA people don't have connected lobbyists. Plus, the pols are proud of their ignorance and sneered at the experts who said this was a bad thing.
Politicians are always dirty, this is no exception. And they need to be shamed every time they do something stupid. But blaming it on straight up bribery is missing important points about the many ways Congress is dysfunctional.
NDAA says you are a thread to the country, citizen or not, and can now be detained indefinitely. And no one is going to be able to counter the massive firepower, including automated drones, to make this happen.
Maybe 11 years ago it might have been remotely possible, but the republic is here to stay until people start starving in the streets (no citizens to tax) or another country takes over violently.
The application of this is more of a chair-swapping setup, for example a call center where someone works 8 hours at a station and goes home, and someone else uses the same station for 8 hours, and someone else comes in. You don't want to catch cold/flu from someone else, and you definitely don't want MRSA. Disinfecting between swaps, even if it only removes some of the germs, will go a long way towards keeping employees in their seats in stead of out sick.
And hospitals probably, libraries, and the germophobes, too.
Keep in mind, each person may have good bacteria specific to their makeup, what doesn't trigger a disease or infection in one person might throw off the balance in another. So if you borrow someone else's keyboard, there is a very very small possibility of causing problems. Statistically speaking, it will not happen to you.
I read it every day, and I still was unsure, since I use file deduplication almost daily. A little context might have helped. timothy seems to have added some links with context, but slashdot editors aren't known for their accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Lawyers will endlessly debate that a regulation is too vague and does not cover the case, so you have to cover all the conceivable corner cases in legally specific wording. Because it will be interpreted in a legal venue. And build in loopholes for your contributors. That takes a lot of pages.
I doubt Google would do anything on either side, in order to keep toeing the line. They want to be seen as neutral, with the anti-trust investigations and being a target for piles of DMCA takedowns. If they are against it, which they probably are not, they will protest quietly.
More importantly, Congress has probably realized that they will also have the power to shut down parts of the internet, keeping their constituents' eyes shut. No one wants websites to show those pesky flip-flops and lies, and if they can shut it down with a copyright complaint, many of their problems go away.
The only thing these hearings are doing is making clear exactly what would break, what wouldn't, and how far they can push it. That way they can say they did due diligence and concluded the bill was sound.
The problem is, anyone opposing will only contribute to the next campaign.
From a congress critter's point of view, it makes more sense. MAFIAA donated X amount of dollars for my last campaign, without having any specific issue on the table. Just to get me elected. All I have to do is not annoy them, and I can count on about that much for my next campaign.
On the other hand, if you piss them off, they will send their dollars to get you unelected, hoping the next guy supports them.
It's not about 'buying' a congressthing for a specific issue, it's about having continuous support as long as you don't vote against their interests. One time donors will forget about you the moment they feel safe.
Remember how they started - giving search results with a clean interface. What you were looking for, and nothing else. Their target market, when they started, was people who wanted to find what they were looking for.
Then they realized how much money they could make on advertising, and search stopped being their product. Eyeballs are now their product. That's when they switched target markets from "people who knew what they wanted" to "the lowest common denominator".
They make a web browser (Chrome), and fund a competitor (FireFox), because they want to reach the most eyeballs. Android is all about Google services and advertising. GoogleBook (sorry, Google+) is about reaching the drooling window-lickers who have to know what Snooki is wearing today, if they aren't using Android, Google Search, Chrome, Gmail, or any other Google service.
Got it backwards. Getting the right bacteria can apparently cure diabetes, or at least remove the symptoms. Killing all the bacteria with an antibiotic won't magically introduce the correct bacteria. (I retained the plural because it's not clear if there is just one strain, or if they have to work together with others)
There is no 'reset' with bacteria, only killing some or nearly all and hoping you get the right replacements. You have to put the right ones in there.
First thing I thought of. I've been reading Lovecraft straight through, and it's boilerplate stories which overlap and reference each other. You can make a general outline of every story ever, including the ones he ghost-wrote for someone else.
But when you close your eyes and imagine the story, and the richness of the mythology, it's magnificently organized.and impressive.
If I had better writing skills, I would love to be the one to re-write all of the stories. Same plot, same characters, no real changes, just better writing. According to many sources, since they were in a magazine and not renewed, they should be public domain, allowing this sort of thing to happen. Kinda like the modernization of the Bronte sisters with vampires and such, I've seen those in the bookstore.
I'd live a Tolkien re-write as well, but I understand we'll have to wait a few years for that.
There is no argument. A collection of facts is not copyrightable.
One would have to first prove that the WURFL database is in fact a collection of facts. Until that is established, the legal system does not assume it is the case.
And as long as a court exists, and at least one lawyer, there is always room for an argument. Even worse, with the DMCA, no argument even needs made.
And that is the answer to "I'm really not sure what could stop a fork of a GPL project" which is what I responded to. I'm not saying it's correct, but that explains the situation reasonably enough.
And before someone with poor reading comprehension crucifies me on nitpicks, the latest original liberally licensed data was used as a base, not the current explicitly restrictive data.
That means the whole case depends on how effective the included disclaimer works The data is meant for use with the WURFL API available on the official WURFL website at http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ . If it serves to tie the data to a specific implementation, OpenDDR is hosed. If not, no worries.
I'm just answering the question, not claiming which way the situation will go. I happen to agree that WURFL compiled contributions from a number of parties without ownership being assigned, and so if anyone owns the data it is the contributor, not WURFL. And further, if we poll each contributor, they would likely disagree with this restriction and choose a more permissive license. "Contributing means you agree" type of claims are probably not enforceable, since inclusion in WURFL is the only way to get your additions in widespread use.
The database is the problem, not the code, and the data is not GPL.
And, it would be easy to argue that while the database is commonly known or available information (like a phone book), the collection as it is constitutes a copyrightable work. Extracting the data might be a workaround, but the dataset is so huge it almost requires a hierarchical data organization. Any reasonable attempt would be derivative.
I figured that was the case, but there is a distinction between resolving to learn something and not being able to do it. False dichotomy and all that.
Unfortunately, since you posted facts, theodp won't be able to practice his critical thinking skills. Or alternately practice being more subtle about driving page views for Codecademy with the rhetorical question. A few more obvious problems with this story are the following assumptions apparently based solely on a tweet and a short bio:
Heading up development of something means you can do it (managers can manage work without being able to do the work, not saying whether it's good just that it happens all the time)
EE graduate in '64 was capable of programming (he may have had courses, but he may have been more capable of building a logic circuit than coding for one)
Someone who left Saloman in 1981 still remembers enough to be able to write programs (most people forget skills if they don't use them, especially for 30 years outside of a rapidly evolving field)
Someone who resolves to learn something in a domain is learning the same thing (he could know something that's not relevant, and want to learn a more up to date language or environment)
they only call Ron Paul a 'kook'
To be fair, he is a bit of a kook. Please let me explain with an example. Ron Paul believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and who they hire, and that government should not interfere.
I agree this is technically true from a Constitutional standpoint, and I would support a nation with these ideals.
The difficult part is that our current culture holds that "all men are created equal" surpasses individual liberty when people interact. This is not unreasonable, as we are still making up for racial discrimination which affected many people still alive today from the civil rights movements.
As a society, we cannot at this time roll back the laws and say you can now discriminate at will. Our shared cultural values do not allow that. It will not be possible until nearly all of the people who remember the civil rights era have passed away, and new generations who believe in looking not at skin color, but the value of a person take hold. Only then can people make their own decisions on who to include.
The US is a country with wounds, and we have to use casts and bandages in place until those woulds have healed. Only then can we let the body loose to its freedom.
A good politician tempers his personal beliefs with cultural mores, in effect supporting what's good for the people right now, and for the future. This will evolve as the culture evolves. Long term, he is absolutely correct.
But we have to take gradual steps to get there. He would be much more successful if he focused on the things that need to change right now, and left the changes that we're not ready for in the future. But then he wouldn't be calling it like he sees it. Politics is a difficult balance, and he's not balancing, which is why he is being marginalized.
You have to play the game, and he refuses, so he looks like a kook. I respect him as a man of principle, but he's getting very little done, so he gets no credibility as a man of action.
Campaing finance reform - the constituents can see where their money came from, but so can the Congress members. Who supported me? Whose approval do I need to be re-elected? And there you have it.
Even the non-corrupt people have a reason to be favorable to the people who got them elected, to keep their seat. Making the lists public just means they don't have to keep track of where the money came from themselves. Honestly, has anyone been voted out just because they voted on the side of their funding? I don't remember seeing it.
"What sites are at the greatest risk? Sites where people are expressing themselves...." That's why it has bipartisan support. Congress hates that. Normal people will oppose it, but anyone powerful enough to keep themselves in power through censorship will take full advantage of that power.
That is the main reason I am opposed to it, the inevitable abuse of power that seems to follow from every seemingly innocent government power grab.
I wouldn't. The endless lawsuits would be sickening, and based on some of the things I've read about google lawsuits in the past, google are likely to lose. Even though they are giving people a preview of life after SOPA, which no one in the process will understand.
Google's Belgian Newspaper problem. The quick flip-flop makes me call this the Belgian Waffle.
They will win their lawsuits, regret it, and have entrenched SOPA in the process, making it impossible to back out of. For a while, they will be happy, until everyone complains about everyone else. Especially when Congress peoples' websites which host verbatim copies of news articles get delisted. Then the fun begins.
You might want to rephrase a bit. They understand the part that affects them, where their words are accurately captured an replayed when it is most inopportune. They do not understand, and do not want to understand, what this bill will do. They only understand that the people paying them want to be able to pull the plug on something they don't like, and Congress thinks they would like to have that ability, too.
They may be malicious, but they do not understand more than is relevant to their interests. They mocked and derided the experts they invited to explain it to them, almost as if they invited people just to show them they didn't care and were actively not listening. They wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.
TYhe internet is evil, because it is one of the few remaining places that random people have an equal voice to politicians. And that scares them. All they know is fear.
Microsoft is trying to force upgrade off their old browser. That gives them points in my book. they realize it's holding back the web, and unless you opt out, you're going to get upgraded.
You sound vengeful. I have posted piles of anti-Microsoft stuff here, but this is the rare place where they are doing the right thing. They don't have to support IE6, so it's not like they are just making less work for themselves - they could just ignore it. They are actively working on an update to get IE6 off of peoples' computers, adding work for themselves for no benefit. Except for people like me, who have to make sure things work in all browsers our clients may have.
Historically that's true. But with automated and unmanned drones, it doesn't take that many soldiers willing to protect their country to supress a revolution. And with the firepower available, the willing soldiers will have the advantage over the people who don't get to take their airplanes or tanks home with them. It would take an incredibly organized bunch of rogue soldiers who gain access to military equipment and then turn on their leaders. I don't see that happening, do you?
The USA has already detained unconstitutionally one of its citizens (Padilla), and assassinated with a drone another (Al-Awlaki).
That is exactly the reason they did not want to release the data - it could be misinterpreted. As I remember, wheels speeding up due to hitting ice is the example they gave.
That said, and this is the first time I've seen a black box report so don't trust me, it looks like all delta-V was negative. If it were recording tire speed and it slipped on ice, we should have seen acceleration exceeding what the car is capable of. So either it happened before the recording, or it didn't happen.
Analysis of the crash scene is probably going to be more helpful here than the black box, I hope someone took pictures.
You miss the point of the patent. It's to prevent other people from doing something which reads on their invention. Not necessarily to implement it themselves.
That said, Apple will probably use this, but I doubt they will turn this into their default and only password recovery method. More likely, it will be an (expensive) optional add-on. This is direct in-house competition to all the crazy ways third parties offer to keep passwords secure for the Windows environment.
You have taken a patent and assumed how it will be implemented, and attacked that. Pretty much your basic strawman argument.
Source sharing is essentially public knowledge, it has been around for a long time. Long enough to assume that's why they have the code.
What the recipients do with the source has not been disclosed to my knowledge.
I would assume it's up to the recipient to figure out what to do with it, and make sure that is allowed in their contract (Microsoft allegedly tries to negotiate a "come and read it yourself" kind of access so you can't build or copy it, or leak it, after Mainsoft's reported partial leak). Hopefully they do exactly what you describe. But I doubt anyone from any group that has source code is going to tell you what security measures they use.
You are a small minority. "No one is buying this because I get headaches" is the worst reply ever. Mostly replying to all people who listed that as their primary complaint, you happen to be the most highly moderated of the bunch so I replied to you.
Try these:
Add that up and you get something significant, before you even get to the questions of cost and content availability. It's a non-starter, and I wish more people would avoid it so I get a cheaper 3D TV.
From the meetings I've seen, they could be genuinely clueless and taking the word of someone who has enough money to take them out to lunch. Anti-SOPA people don't have connected lobbyists. Plus, the pols are proud of their ignorance and sneered at the experts who said this was a bad thing.
Politicians are always dirty, this is no exception. And they need to be shamed every time they do something stupid. But blaming it on straight up bribery is missing important points about the many ways Congress is dysfunctional.
NDAA says you are a thread to the country, citizen or not, and can now be detained indefinitely. And no one is going to be able to counter the massive firepower, including automated drones, to make this happen.
Maybe 11 years ago it might have been remotely possible, but the republic is here to stay until people start starving in the streets (no citizens to tax) or another country takes over violently.
The application of this is more of a chair-swapping setup, for example a call center where someone works 8 hours at a station and goes home, and someone else uses the same station for 8 hours, and someone else comes in. You don't want to catch cold/flu from someone else, and you definitely don't want MRSA. Disinfecting between swaps, even if it only removes some of the germs, will go a long way towards keeping employees in their seats in stead of out sick.
And hospitals probably, libraries, and the germophobes, too.
Keep in mind, each person may have good bacteria specific to their makeup, what doesn't trigger a disease or infection in one person might throw off the balance in another. So if you borrow someone else's keyboard, there is a very very small possibility of causing problems. Statistically speaking, it will not happen to you.
I read it every day, and I still was unsure, since I use file deduplication almost daily. A little context might have helped. timothy seems to have added some links with context, but slashdot editors aren't known for their accuracy.