It's a koan post. You're supposed to contemplate it, discover your inner peace, meditate, ask yourself the same question you asked of others, and become either enlightened or so frustrated you burn your master's straw hut down and evict him from the universe. What you discover about this one word will reveal much about the universe.
When I read that the US is the least free country in the world, here's what I compare.
What does the constitution or equivalent document say, versus what does the country allow?
If a country chooses to implement Sharia law, in accordance with the votes of their citizens (legitimately, for the sake of argument), are they free? I would argue yes, they decided this is what they wanted. Many would say no, Sharia is very restrictive. The citizens have certain expectations, and as long as they have the same expectations as the government, they feel free.
The underlying theme of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, writings of the Founding Fathers, and history of the pre-Declaration arrivals, has been "If you have no reason nor proof, then leave me alone."
Freedom to practice Catholic and/or Reformed Christianity as you wish, instead of bowing to the rules of the Church of England's hybrid methodology is a big sticking point, and has since been expanded to any religion. Unless you are Muslim, then you get profiled and denied rights. Unofficially, and under the guise of safety of course.
Freedom from search and seizure, a common practice of intimidation of the early British forces. Unless you posess controlled substances, which you might use, and which you might become addicted to, and which may cause you, and small numbers, to commit crimes to be able to purchase. So to prevent all that, the pre-crime DEA will remove your posessions before you actually commit a crime, and put you in jail despite having no proof or reason.
Freedom of speech, unless someone, without due process, decides you are violating the perpetual copyright. Civil disobedience is not possible, and the fine line between infringement and fair use gets decided not in a court, but in a simple complaint. Currently, the DMCA requires a "good faith" complaint, and the responder has to reply under penalty of perjury, that the original request was mistaken. If I believe it is fair use, but a trial proves otherwise, I do not have a good faith defense. But if I am proven correct, at most I get restoration of my content. The clear incentive is to simply give in, unless you have deep pockets.
Compared to its goals, USA is very much not a free country at this point. Compared to their goals, other countries are surprisingly permissive. This is the standard to which I hold the country. How closely do you hold to your own stated goals?
It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites.
Let me explain how this works. Congress passes a law with very specific wording. They may have a specific intent, but they are not required (allowed?) to state their intent. The wording is what goes into the federal statutes.
Years later, someone decides to do something. They ask a lawyer if the lawyer can justify their actions based on the wording (not the intent) of the law. Then judges get to decide if the lawyers have made a good case, on one side or the other.
One problem is the interim, where low level judges basically throw dice to decide what is legal or not. Some good comes of it, some bad.
Ultimately, the second harm comes when a case makes it to a high enough level that it establishes a citable case which others can reference. Typically, these go with the wording, not the intent, of the law. If it says the government can block sites based on illegal activity, the judge really has no choice but to allow it. I've seen many opinions where the judge clearly disagrees but says that is the way the law is written, so it must be allowed.
Only at the point where it can be called unconstitutional (at the federal level by the US Supreme Court) or otherwise thrown out (at the state level, if it is a state law), can it be reined in. The harm between the first case and when it is thrown out, including financials incurred by many defendants, is the real crime against individuals.
Overall, society can work these out. But individuals have to have standing to complain, to fight back, to pay the court costs and lawyer fees to establish the law for the rest of us.
I guarantee this law, as written, will be misused. That's the problem. If it is worded a bit better, clarified with amendments, maybe these intermediate effects won't happen. Better wording in laws, in the first place, will prevent potential harm. Maybe we will get lucky, and this won't be misused.
But if anyone sees some advantage in taking this literally, word for word, and can justify their actions with someone who has passed the bar in one state, why wouldn't they take that advantage? Go ahead and ask for examples, I'm sure whoever replies to you will have more than I care to put together.
I hate to nit-pick, but if you are performing from a score published since 1923, which most people do, then it may actually be a violation of copyright.
You see, these days, publishers take public-domain scores, make updates and annotations, and the published work is now protected by copyright. Your upload is a public performance of a copyrighted work, as much as that does not make sense. That one staccato or those ties, may not have been part of the original. Or the left hand may have been realized essentially out of thin air from figured bass.
Now, how do you tell that apart from something which was published in the 200 years before perpetual copyright got a hold of it? Impossible, and I would argue that the standard should be high in the case of old music.
But take an honest look around at what anyone is playing from. Very few random Youtube uploaders as using 90 year old source books. Statistically speaking, it is likely a technical copyright violation, even if the music itself was written a very long time ago.
Since the other comments were not informative at all - There are separate copyrights for the recording and the score, often owned by different companies.
Smart artists who still want major-label backing will given in to RIAA contracts, but retain publishing rights. RIAA is left to police the album recording only, and the artist can either police or ignore any other representation of the music. Underinformed artists sign away all rights, and the RIAA or more likely ASCAP can go after any other version of the song as well.
Harry Fox, ASCAP, and BMI are usually the ones which "represent" songwriters, trolling bars to see if they are performing music (karaoke, live bands, or the Happy Birthday song) withoput having paid a performance license.
There are Bach scores in copyright because they have had editorial marks or updated notation (a direct copy with a new cover would not qualify). There are Bach recordings in copyright because they were recorded recently. The opposite is true as well. Many fine recordings and scores are public domain because they happened long enough ago.
I don't think you get it. Since Windows 3 and before, Windows has been easy to use without a mouse. Windows 7 requires a mouse in its native install.
I can work twice as fast as most people, because I don't have to identify a target, move the mouse to it, click something, maybe repeat. I used to be faster, but I now have 4 different layouts of the home/end/pgdwn/pgup/insert/delete keys, I can't do it automatically any more.
ALT+TAB is broken in Windows 7, not every Microsoft program uses distinct underlined shortcuts for every menu. Without the ribbon, I could do a few ALT- commands, and if I forgot how one ended the menu was right there telling me what to do next. In Office 2003, it just says "Shortcut" with what you typed so far. If I forgot one, I either have to look it up somewhere or just stop using it as a shortcut. Excel Data sort - ALT-D-S, select a column. I can't add a secondary sort without either using the mouse, or hitting TAB a bunch of times. Explorer is almost impossible to use, because the tab order is all wrong, and it highlights things like the expandable local drives, removable drives, network drives.
I listed specific examples of where it is broken, so you can't say I didn't give it a chance. I have given it a chance, and it does not let me be productive. It hinders me from doing what I want to be able to do. Microsoft had me trained from 1995, and remained consistent. now the mouse is king, and touch surfaces will be the norm.
Yes, I will allow for advancements in the field. But when you make something *worse* and remove things that actually worked, and that have been around for 10 years, that's bad.
We have new options and interfaces, but being able to navigate by keyboard quickly if I need to would have been perfect. But no, just like GNOME, Microsoft is saying that everyone needs to use a mouse because touch is where the OS is moving, and if your productivity takes a hit you are really complaining about change.
Consider the PC vs. Console gamer wars. You can play a game with the limited subset of a controller, and some people prefer that. You can also have direct access to item selection and numerous other things with a 104-key keyboard, often supplemented with mouse or other device like joystick. Having both available is the key to widening your user base. The condescending UI forces the PC users to have a Console interface. If done well, like Fallout with its hotkey item selection, the Console can be just as powerful. Done poorly, and most seem to be, it is a slap in the face.
In a downtime situation, when time counts, I can get what I need quickly with the old paradigm, and that's what my company pays me for. Move the mouse, point double click, double click again because it was busy and thinks I single clicked, this is not effective.
I never switched to Linux because of the inconsistency, and even Apple was "innovative" enough to completely ignore their own guidelines. Windows was the last hope I had to be productive, and now that's down the toilet.
The only people who seem to be comfortable with it are either complete novices or people who were not very adept at other interfaces, effectively making the current one the only one they truly know. And that leaves them no basis for comparison.
Have you paid attention to the folder layout of Windows 7, starting at your "Desktop"? There's no simple "My Documents" any more where all your stuff is.
There's the Desktop, where you presumably keep everything you're working on. But there's no real point putting stuff there because you only see it if you use one app at a time, or just after your computer starts.
[Username], which holds all of your folders. In the OS, it's \user\desktop\ but in the desktop paragidm it's desktop\user\
My documents, My music, My everything are all under the username folder. And half of those are actually shortcuts to elsewhere because they moved the structure around. And a quarter are just shortcuts that link to other folders that are right next to them!
Special folders like Recent (c:\users\user\recent\ ) are hidden under \application data\microsoft\roaming\appdata\recent\ or something like that and it's not a shortcut, it's a JUNCTION. Which is arguably how they should have been done in the first place, but now you have both SHORTCUTS and JUNCTIONS to deal with.
As an aside, I tried to de-duplify some data with an app that was not aware of all the junctions in Windows 7. I deleted piles of files that appeared to be distinct, when they were actually the same thing accessed through junction points.
Bottom line, you can't have a reasonable metaphor when you create spaghetti links to support backwards compatibility, allow users to discover locations "intuitively", support a 1-to-1 mapping of real life, and whatever else they were trying to do. It's messy, does not make things easier, and is not sustainable. Torch it and start over, let people bitch for a year, and you're done.
And for your #1, WebOS was tied to hardware, until TouchPads were discontinued. It was a combined hardware/software platform that they bought from Palm.
The point is, they aren't getting software development for free as suggested. Some help probably, but not free.
And as far as looking to sell WebOS, that obviously didn't work or they wouldn't be opening it.
Otherwise I agree, I've felt that a lot of Java code I read is equivalent to scripting (think WSH / VBScript). Or it has been built point-and-click style via Eclipse with little thought to what actually needs to happen. Some is good, it's just that a lot isn't.
In support - learning to improvise, usually in jazz, is sometimes a difficult thing to kick-start. Playing the same pattern, adjusting pitch to match the chord changes, is a standard technique. Play the same thing over and over, pretty soon your brain just wants to do something different.
I've seen well-known people hit a mental block (it's obvious once you listen to piles of them playing the same tune differently). The easy way to get out of it is sit on a single note, or a simple rhythm, until you get inspired. People like to say it's a clever use of repetition to establish expectations and then break those expectations. It might be, sometimes.
Lots of new things in art have been a result of limitations which force you to think in new ways.
Language evolves, I have come to accept. And that is a stupid name for a logical fallacy anyway, especially if you know what the common usage of "begging" is. People say what they have heard, irregardless of how correct it is.
Informing people is one thing, correcting someone is futile. Here's why. Someone uses a phrase because that's the way they heard or read it. For every person, you have a source and probably several peer audience members who heard/read the same thing. You would have to build a time machine to get even marginally close to correcting enough people to get this fixed.
Change the name of the fallacy, and in 1 generation of schooling you'll have enough new people using it correctly that it won't matter any more.
So you would rather convert your data into XML instead of having a tool do it for you? That's pretty much the point of this, having a tool to do the work for you. Maybe it will even work by converting it to XML and using XSLT. But the data definitions will help everyone who uses it instead of everyone rolling their own.
FTFA
For each new type of data structure, a vendor would provide a pattern library identifying the basic structure of the data, which the software would then use to "extract the constructs of interest from the document," Weaver said.
I have a binary file problem right now, I built a parser to convert it to text, and I can see the differences easily that way. Many files are exact duplicates in a different format (like a JPEG saved as a GIF and BMP), and many others are only slightly different (think French or Spanish converted to the English alphabet where the accents are lost). Weeding through the files is a lot easier, and if I could define the format and have the tool do it for me I would not have had to "roll my own"
That is, unless you want to detect that moving a block of code or data from one place to another in a file has no actual effect, in which case good luck because that's a domain-specific hard problem.
If your format definition says ordering is important, like for a programming language, that would be 10 edits. I can think of piles of examples, po translation files would be one, where the order doesn't matter. If someone sorts the list to be able to compare if one file is missing phrases, I don't care, I only want to see what's new and different. The format definition would say that order is not important.
The problem is a court order does not specify that one client's data is in scope and another is out. Usually it would be a seizure of all computers so they can find the records they want.
Hosting companies have had their entire racks seized, putting all of their customers out of service just so they can find 1 user/client who is causing problems (usually copyright MAFIAA raids). Offsite backups and service restoration aside, the feds have your data and you aren't even the target of the warrant. A bit of snooping and keyword searches, now you're a terrorist and can be held indefinitely because the government says so. You likely won't even get the chance to object that your data was not in the warrant because the servers were, and your data just happened to be on the servers.
Without the servers, they don't know which user names or accounts to put in the warrant, or even that there may be multiple clients, and there's not really a good way to seize just the data that belongs to one client.
So it's a framework for capturing what the carrier configures it to capture. What's important is, what does the carrier want to capture? If anyone gives a fat damn, we need to know how to get the configuration. Even if that means disassembling the code because configuration is done at compile time. Each carrier will be different, and I'm pretty sure each device could be different.
We never saw data leave the device. Simple. Don't trust anything, and prove data being sent with actual packet captures. Echkart's video shows events being caught, nothing more, as you pointed out. If someone says the next wave is harmless, it is simple to demonstrate that it's not. Explain it with as few syllables as possible with a video that anyone could reproduce. Get the word out right now that Eckhart's vieo is misleading, even if people don't understand exactly why.
Distrust everything, even security researchers. Double check their results yourself, especially if their conclusions follow from the data.
If you read your contract, you agreed. And, they can already see nearly everything anyway. If you bought the phone directly and not through a carrier, you probably have a valid legal situation, but they most likely don't install CARRIERIQ on a direct purchased phone. And as for the post-termination data collection, I haven't seen anything showing the data is sent anywhere after the contract is terminated, or in fact any actual packet capture of any data sent - only internal events being fired.
Every text you send, they already have because they have to send it. Every non-encrypted request, they have the full URL If you're counting on SSL to protect you, consider SSL and TLS 1.0 plaintext
If you start a proprietary app like Yelp or Shazam, you have no guarantee they are using any encryption, and should assume everything is being seen by your carrier.
Their disclosure should read, very simply, we are going to know everything you do because it's going over our network. But that would freak people out, so they don't.
Carrier IQ allows a higher level of detail, but it has not been proven to send anything but aggregate statistics which legitimately could help your carrier isolate problems without people having to call. The only concern I have is that the captured events might be a target for malware.
They don't want users uninstalling it because it's useful information.
If you want full disclosure, you're going to have to build the kernel yourself, and read every line of the code, or disassemble it. Otherwise, read every line of your contract and assume the most lenient interpretation.
CarrierIQ makes money if you buy a phone and install a custom kernel - most likely a per-device contract.
CarrierIQ is making money by selling a service that carriers want. To reply to the original:
If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS.
Android doesn't, the carrier does, that's why they put it in.
My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer.
No, just the phone manufacturer, and only if you bought it directly. If you bought it through the carrier, your only relationship is with the carrier. They build and customize the OS because they can.
I should be able to decide what other relationships I want.
You buy something, sign an agreement, and don't understand all of the implications of the agreement. And blame the other party.
You can't get a closed software phone, or closed anything, and trust anything about it. This has been proven repeatedly, and there are people who investigate everything - from what Microsoft sends with its crash or WGA data, to what Apple stores in its GPS logs.
If you care about your privacy, but you trust closed software until someone else tests it and brings up concerns, you don't deserve your cut of anything.
Your carriers won't help you. Go Senator Franken!
And if you depend on Congress to investigate and change the rules, remember Citizens United. It will only go so far, and it won't protect the next technology company on the next wave of technology. They investigated Apple for GPS logging, it didn't stop this. They investigated Facebook's privacy settings, it didn't stop this. Even if Congress puts a complete halt to this, it won't affect anything that comes next.
If you value privacy, you will not use anything you don't understand completely. Packet captures, wireless dumps, debugging, hell disassemble everything. Either care about it, or accept that everyone is spying on everything you do until you make sure they aren't. If that means coating your house in a Faraday cage so your TV can't be made out, it's up to you to understand that your TV can be viewed through your wall, or don't use a TV.
You can't leave this up to Congress. Talk with your wallet. Cancel your contract AND ACCEPT THE ETF. If you want to fight the fee, good luck in arbitration because you probably agreed to "data collection in support of our network" and "arbitration instead of a lawsuit". And unless you contributed more to a Senator's PAC than the wireless company did, you have a very slim chance of getting results. Franken can make a stick, but he can't change anything unless the majority agrees, and the other chamber. And I guarantee you didn't contribute to every congress person's campaign. Sometimes the system works, but it's rare.
I don't get it. A framework has piles of domain-specific code that has been tested and is pretty much guaranteed to work. Sure you can hunt around for some open source implementation of every little thing you might use, but having it built in helps.
Chances are, if you're not using some sort of framework, you're using your own libraries or code which basically take the place of a framework. Unless you're doing no output, having something take care of the remaining browser quirks really helps, and especially handling the new mobile platforms.
What quirks you say? Write to the standards? Of course. And then you get a router whose configuration is javascript-based, and does not work at all in Chrome, but works in FireFox and IE. Sure blame Linksys for being crap, or not testing enough, or whatever.
The point is, frameworks do things for you so you don't have to. I can't think of any project that wouldn't be helped from a framework. Unless you're doing something with processing on the server and display on the client. Then it's pretty obvious you don't need a framework, and aren't the audience for the question.
Microsoft has always chosen the most generic names. Windows, Office, Internet Explorer. How about "Microsoft Network" for their online adventure?
And their framework isn't really MVC as I understand it. They have moved responsibility of core parts into other parts. Now it's more like Doc/View from their MFC days, and less like actual MVC.
Your experience has you quite biased towards these sorts of things. You only watched this video, I can tell, and didn't pay attention.
In the disassembly for stage 3, the messages "loading stage x license key", when they clearly said you were on "stage 2 of 3", were good hints. The unused firmware bits were fairly obvious because they had the right size and served no other purpose, and the unused bytes from stage 1 were obvious after you get your mind on the "unused bits from each stage" track.
And the VM part wasn't trivial. This guy did it in python, but it was intended to be done in javascript. The implementation doesn't really matter, but understanding the bit fiddling needed to implement it is a valuable skill. If you have the skills to disassemble, but not write anything more complicated than hello world, you're probably not useful to them. Not a difficult challenge, but one where you can easily make a mistake and grind your gears for hours. Remember the intent, to find viable candidates for cybersecurity who are interested in doing this sort of thing. Sometimes cyber security is boring but you do what's necessary to solve the problem.
And they never advertised it as a hack-it contest or programming challenge, just a puzzle. So it didn't have to even be fun or entertaining to do - just something to solve. Note as well, they didn't ask for contact information or offer a resume upload - just "Please consider applying with us". So it doesn't even get you an interview.
If you spent the time and are curious enough, you're probably someone they want. If not, you're probably not.
GP post focused on the government, but the article was about the federal reserve. Now everyone is arguing about the federal budget and social security, when this has nothing to do with either.
The fed gave out loans at below market prices, I think.01% The fed turns over all profits minus 6% dividend to the treasury, meaning that these loans made money for the federal government. This was no bailout unless you count giving heavy discounts a bailout. No money was lost.
The bad thing is the banks turned around and bought Treasury bills, which actually is part of the federal government, the budget, and national debt, and market prices. This is where you get people saying that "the government" gave out zero interest loans and the banks made money off those loans. It's a close summary, but not exactly correct. Misleading at best, although it might reach ignorant and possibly malicious.
The other bad thing of course is companies reporting they were healthy when they weren't, especially publically traded ones which may qualify as securities fraud. But if they worked out a loan deal with the Fed, maybe they actually were covered, and it wasn't a problem. We don't know.
Isn't the federal reserve a different entity from the treasury? And isn't the federal reserve not part of the government? I'm pretty sure that's the case, it's essentially a private entity that can do whatever it wants with money it can create whenever it feels like it.
The only outrage here is that publically traded companies were lying about their health. To get angry about any other part of this means you have to question the Creature from Jekyll Island, and to do that you have to know a little more how this all works.
Your quote says "receives" but your link says "logs". We still don't know what happens to those logs. There may be no privacy problem here other than potential availability to malware.
Yes, that is important, and yes the logs should be stopped. But you are asserting something we don't know is true.
That ended well before you think it did. If people thought they could wait out copyright and download anything from 1983 or earlier without legal problems, and most stuff from 1997 or earlier, we might be more honest. And the industry wouldn't be so mind-bogglingly afraid of the internet becuase they would have incentive to create new works for revenue, not mine 70 year old material for rent seeking. But we'll never know how that changes things.
The contract was a one-sided EULA negotiated on our behalf without our consent, and I did not ratify it. Indefinite extensions make the copyright term effectively unlimited, especially for a normal person's lifetime, and therefore unconstitutional. Also, I don't see music and movies covered anywhere, but eBooks are, according to the original word.
Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Science" is not limited to fields of modern scientific inquiry, but to all knowledge, including philosophy and literature.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a koan post. You're supposed to contemplate it, discover your inner peace, meditate, ask yourself the same question you asked of others, and become either enlightened or so frustrated you burn your master's straw hut down and evict him from the universe. What you discover about this one word will reveal much about the universe.
When I read that the US is the least free country in the world, here's what I compare.
What does the constitution or equivalent document say, versus what does the country allow?
If a country chooses to implement Sharia law, in accordance with the votes of their citizens (legitimately, for the sake of argument), are they free? I would argue yes, they decided this is what they wanted. Many would say no, Sharia is very restrictive. The citizens have certain expectations, and as long as they have the same expectations as the government, they feel free.
The underlying theme of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, writings of the Founding Fathers, and history of the pre-Declaration arrivals, has been "If you have no reason nor proof, then leave me alone."
Freedom to practice Catholic and/or Reformed Christianity as you wish, instead of bowing to the rules of the Church of England's hybrid methodology is a big sticking point, and has since been expanded to any religion. Unless you are Muslim, then you get profiled and denied rights. Unofficially, and under the guise of safety of course.
Freedom from search and seizure, a common practice of intimidation of the early British forces. Unless you posess controlled substances, which you might use, and which you might become addicted to, and which may cause you, and small numbers, to commit crimes to be able to purchase. So to prevent all that, the pre-crime DEA will remove your posessions before you actually commit a crime, and put you in jail despite having no proof or reason.
Freedom of speech, unless someone, without due process, decides you are violating the perpetual copyright. Civil disobedience is not possible, and the fine line between infringement and fair use gets decided not in a court, but in a simple complaint. Currently, the DMCA requires a "good faith" complaint, and the responder has to reply under penalty of perjury, that the original request was mistaken. If I believe it is fair use, but a trial proves otherwise, I do not have a good faith defense. But if I am proven correct, at most I get restoration of my content. The clear incentive is to simply give in, unless you have deep pockets.
Compared to its goals, USA is very much not a free country at this point. Compared to their goals, other countries are surprisingly permissive. This is the standard to which I hold the country. How closely do you hold to your own stated goals?
Let me explain how this works. Congress passes a law with very specific wording. They may have a specific intent, but they are not required (allowed?) to state their intent. The wording is what goes into the federal statutes.
Years later, someone decides to do something. They ask a lawyer if the lawyer can justify their actions based on the wording (not the intent) of the law. Then judges get to decide if the lawyers have made a good case, on one side or the other.
One problem is the interim, where low level judges basically throw dice to decide what is legal or not. Some good comes of it, some bad.
Ultimately, the second harm comes when a case makes it to a high enough level that it establishes a citable case which others can reference. Typically, these go with the wording, not the intent, of the law. If it says the government can block sites based on illegal activity, the judge really has no choice but to allow it. I've seen many opinions where the judge clearly disagrees but says that is the way the law is written, so it must be allowed.
Only at the point where it can be called unconstitutional (at the federal level by the US Supreme Court) or otherwise thrown out (at the state level, if it is a state law), can it be reined in. The harm between the first case and when it is thrown out, including financials incurred by many defendants, is the real crime against individuals.
Overall, society can work these out. But individuals have to have standing to complain, to fight back, to pay the court costs and lawyer fees to establish the law for the rest of us.
I guarantee this law, as written, will be misused. That's the problem. If it is worded a bit better, clarified with amendments, maybe these intermediate effects won't happen. Better wording in laws, in the first place, will prevent potential harm. Maybe we will get lucky, and this won't be misused.
But if anyone sees some advantage in taking this literally, word for word, and can justify their actions with someone who has passed the bar in one state, why wouldn't they take that advantage? Go ahead and ask for examples, I'm sure whoever replies to you will have more than I care to put together.
I hate to nit-pick, but if you are performing from a score published since 1923, which most people do, then it may actually be a violation of copyright.
You see, these days, publishers take public-domain scores, make updates and annotations, and the published work is now protected by copyright. Your upload is a public performance of a copyrighted work, as much as that does not make sense. That one staccato or those ties, may not have been part of the original. Or the left hand may have been realized essentially out of thin air from figured bass.
Now, how do you tell that apart from something which was published in the 200 years before perpetual copyright got a hold of it? Impossible, and I would argue that the standard should be high in the case of old music.
But take an honest look around at what anyone is playing from. Very few random Youtube uploaders as using 90 year old source books. Statistically speaking, it is likely a technical copyright violation, even if the music itself was written a very long time ago.
Since the other comments were not informative at all - There are separate copyrights for the recording and the score, often owned by different companies.
Smart artists who still want major-label backing will given in to RIAA contracts, but retain publishing rights. RIAA is left to police the album recording only, and the artist can either police or ignore any other representation of the music. Underinformed artists sign away all rights, and the RIAA or more likely ASCAP can go after any other version of the song as well.
Harry Fox, ASCAP, and BMI are usually the ones which "represent" songwriters, trolling bars to see if they are performing music (karaoke, live bands, or the Happy Birthday song) withoput having paid a performance license.
There are Bach scores in copyright because they have had editorial marks or updated notation (a direct copy with a new cover would not qualify). There are Bach recordings in copyright because they were recorded recently. The opposite is true as well. Many fine recordings and scores are public domain because they happened long enough ago.
I don't think you get it. Since Windows 3 and before, Windows has been easy to use without a mouse. Windows 7 requires a mouse in its native install.
I can work twice as fast as most people, because I don't have to identify a target, move the mouse to it, click something, maybe repeat. I used to be faster, but I now have 4 different layouts of the home/end/pgdwn/pgup/insert/delete keys, I can't do it automatically any more.
ALT+TAB is broken in Windows 7, not every Microsoft program uses distinct underlined shortcuts for every menu. Without the ribbon, I could do a few ALT- commands, and if I forgot how one ended the menu was right there telling me what to do next. In Office 2003, it just says "Shortcut" with what you typed so far. If I forgot one, I either have to look it up somewhere or just stop using it as a shortcut. Excel Data sort - ALT-D-S, select a column. I can't add a secondary sort without either using the mouse, or hitting TAB a bunch of times. Explorer is almost impossible to use, because the tab order is all wrong, and it highlights things like the expandable local drives, removable drives, network drives.
I listed specific examples of where it is broken, so you can't say I didn't give it a chance. I have given it a chance, and it does not let me be productive. It hinders me from doing what I want to be able to do. Microsoft had me trained from 1995, and remained consistent. now the mouse is king, and touch surfaces will be the norm.
Yes, I will allow for advancements in the field. But when you make something *worse* and remove things that actually worked, and that have been around for 10 years, that's bad.
We have new options and interfaces, but being able to navigate by keyboard quickly if I need to would have been perfect. But no, just like GNOME, Microsoft is saying that everyone needs to use a mouse because touch is where the OS is moving, and if your productivity takes a hit you are really complaining about change.
Consider the PC vs. Console gamer wars. You can play a game with the limited subset of a controller, and some people prefer that. You can also have direct access to item selection and numerous other things with a 104-key keyboard, often supplemented with mouse or other device like joystick. Having both available is the key to widening your user base. The condescending UI forces the PC users to have a Console interface. If done well, like Fallout with its hotkey item selection, the Console can be just as powerful. Done poorly, and most seem to be, it is a slap in the face.
In a downtime situation, when time counts, I can get what I need quickly with the old paradigm, and that's what my company pays me for. Move the mouse, point double click, double click again because it was busy and thinks I single clicked, this is not effective.
I never switched to Linux because of the inconsistency, and even Apple was "innovative" enough to completely ignore their own guidelines. Windows was the last hope I had to be productive, and now that's down the toilet.
The only people who seem to be comfortable with it are either complete novices or people who were not very adept at other interfaces, effectively making the current one the only one they truly know. And that leaves them no basis for comparison.
Have you paid attention to the folder layout of Windows 7, starting at your "Desktop"? There's no simple "My Documents" any more where all your stuff is.
There's the Desktop, where you presumably keep everything you're working on. But there's no real point putting stuff there because you only see it if you use one app at a time, or just after your computer starts.
[Username], which holds all of your folders. In the OS, it's \user\desktop\ but in the desktop paragidm it's desktop\user\
My documents, My music, My everything are all under the username folder. And half of those are actually shortcuts to elsewhere because they moved the structure around. And a quarter are just shortcuts that link to other folders that are right next to them!
Special folders like Recent (c:\users\user\recent\ ) are hidden under \application data\microsoft\roaming\appdata\recent\ or something like that and it's not a shortcut, it's a JUNCTION. Which is arguably how they should have been done in the first place, but now you have both SHORTCUTS and JUNCTIONS to deal with.
As an aside, I tried to de-duplify some data with an app that was not aware of all the junctions in Windows 7. I deleted piles of files that appeared to be distinct, when they were actually the same thing accessed through junction points.
Bottom line, you can't have a reasonable metaphor when you create spaghetti links to support backwards compatibility, allow users to discover locations "intuitively", support a 1-to-1 mapping of real life, and whatever else they were trying to do. It's messy, does not make things easier, and is not sustainable. Torch it and start over, let people bitch for a year, and you're done.
Joel disagrees, bug fixes tend to accmulate. Things you should never do
The bugs happen when new features are added, same as with the original developers.
And for your #1, WebOS was tied to hardware, until TouchPads were discontinued. It was a combined hardware/software platform that they bought from Palm.
The point is, they aren't getting software development for free as suggested. Some help probably, but not free.
And as far as looking to sell WebOS, that obviously didn't work or they wouldn't be opening it.
You don't need a JVM, you can go directly to machine code.
Otherwise I agree, I've felt that a lot of Java code I read is equivalent to scripting (think WSH / VBScript). Or it has been built point-and-click style via Eclipse with little thought to what actually needs to happen. Some is good, it's just that a lot isn't.
Six word stories have been very enlightening.
In support - learning to improvise, usually in jazz, is sometimes a difficult thing to kick-start. Playing the same pattern, adjusting pitch to match the chord changes, is a standard technique. Play the same thing over and over, pretty soon your brain just wants to do something different.
I've seen well-known people hit a mental block (it's obvious once you listen to piles of them playing the same tune differently). The easy way to get out of it is sit on a single note, or a simple rhythm, until you get inspired. People like to say it's a clever use of repetition to establish expectations and then break those expectations. It might be, sometimes.
Lots of new things in art have been a result of limitations which force you to think in new ways.
Language evolves, I have come to accept. And that is a stupid name for a logical fallacy anyway, especially if you know what the common usage of "begging" is. People say what they have heard, irregardless of how correct it is.
Informing people is one thing, correcting someone is futile. Here's why. Someone uses a phrase because that's the way they heard or read it. For every person, you have a source and probably several peer audience members who heard/read the same thing. You would have to build a time machine to get even marginally close to correcting enough people to get this fixed.
Change the name of the fallacy, and in 1 generation of schooling you'll have enough new people using it correctly that it won't matter any more.
So you would rather convert your data into XML instead of having a tool do it for you? That's pretty much the point of this, having a tool to do the work for you. Maybe it will even work by converting it to XML and using XSLT. But the data definitions will help everyone who uses it instead of everyone rolling their own.
FTFA
I have a binary file problem right now, I built a parser to convert it to text, and I can see the differences easily that way. Many files are exact duplicates in a different format (like a JPEG saved as a GIF and BMP), and many others are only slightly different (think French or Spanish converted to the English alphabet where the accents are lost). Weeding through the files is a lot easier, and if I could define the format and have the tool do it for me I would not have had to "roll my own"
If your format definition says ordering is important, like for a programming language, that would be 10 edits. I can think of piles of examples, po translation files would be one, where the order doesn't matter. If someone sorts the list to be able to compare if one file is missing phrases, I don't care, I only want to see what's new and different. The format definition would say that order is not important.
The problem is a court order does not specify that one client's data is in scope and another is out. Usually it would be a seizure of all computers so they can find the records they want.
Hosting companies have had their entire racks seized, putting all of their customers out of service just so they can find 1 user/client who is causing problems (usually copyright MAFIAA raids). Offsite backups and service restoration aside, the feds have your data and you aren't even the target of the warrant. A bit of snooping and keyword searches, now you're a terrorist and can be held indefinitely because the government says so. You likely won't even get the chance to object that your data was not in the warrant because the servers were, and your data just happened to be on the servers.
Without the servers, they don't know which user names or accounts to put in the warrant, or even that there may be multiple clients, and there's not really a good way to seize just the data that belongs to one client.
So it's a framework for capturing what the carrier configures it to capture. What's important is, what does the carrier want to capture? If anyone gives a fat damn, we need to know how to get the configuration. Even if that means disassembling the code because configuration is done at compile time. Each carrier will be different, and I'm pretty sure each device could be different.
The patent tells us nothing.
We never saw data leave the device. Simple. Don't trust anything, and prove data being sent with actual packet captures. Echkart's video shows events being caught, nothing more, as you pointed out. If someone says the next wave is harmless, it is simple to demonstrate that it's not. Explain it with as few syllables as possible with a video that anyone could reproduce. Get the word out right now that Eckhart's vieo is misleading, even if people don't understand exactly why.
Distrust everything, even security researchers. Double check their results yourself, especially if their conclusions follow from the data.
If you read your contract, you agreed. And, they can already see nearly everything anyway. If you bought the phone directly and not through a carrier, you probably have a valid legal situation, but they most likely don't install CARRIERIQ on a direct purchased phone. And as for the post-termination data collection, I haven't seen anything showing the data is sent anywhere after the contract is terminated, or in fact any actual packet capture of any data sent - only internal events being fired.
Every text you send, they already have because they have to send it. Every non-encrypted request, they have the full URL If you're counting on SSL to protect you, consider SSL and TLS 1.0 plaintext
If you start a proprietary app like Yelp or Shazam, you have no guarantee they are using any encryption, and should assume everything is being seen by your carrier.
Their disclosure should read, very simply, we are going to know everything you do because it's going over our network. But that would freak people out, so they don't.
Carrier IQ allows a higher level of detail, but it has not been proven to send anything but aggregate statistics which legitimately could help your carrier isolate problems without people having to call. The only concern I have is that the captured events might be a target for malware.
They don't want users uninstalling it because it's useful information.
If you want full disclosure, you're going to have to build the kernel yourself, and read every line of the code, or disassemble it. Otherwise, read every line of your contract and assume the most lenient interpretation.
Short version: do not buy a subsidized phone.
CarrierIQ makes money if you buy a phone and install a custom kernel - most likely a per-device contract.
CarrierIQ is making money by selling a service that carriers want. To reply to the original:
Android doesn't, the carrier does, that's why they put it in.
No, just the phone manufacturer, and only if you bought it directly. If you bought it through the carrier, your only relationship is with the carrier. They build and customize the OS because they can.
You buy something, sign an agreement, and don't understand all of the implications of the agreement. And blame the other party.
You can't get a closed software phone, or closed anything, and trust anything about it. This has been proven repeatedly, and there are people who investigate everything - from what Microsoft sends with its crash or WGA data, to what Apple stores in its GPS logs.
If you care about your privacy, but you trust closed software until someone else tests it and brings up concerns, you don't deserve your cut of anything.
And if you depend on Congress to investigate and change the rules, remember Citizens United. It will only go so far, and it won't protect the next technology company on the next wave of technology. They investigated Apple for GPS logging, it didn't stop this. They investigated Facebook's privacy settings, it didn't stop this. Even if Congress puts a complete halt to this, it won't affect anything that comes next.
If you value privacy, you will not use anything you don't understand completely. Packet captures, wireless dumps, debugging, hell disassemble everything. Either care about it, or accept that everyone is spying on everything you do until you make sure they aren't. If that means coating your house in a Faraday cage so your TV can't be made out, it's up to you to understand that your TV can be viewed through your wall, or don't use a TV.
You can't leave this up to Congress. Talk with your wallet. Cancel your contract AND ACCEPT THE ETF. If you want to fight the fee, good luck in arbitration because you probably agreed to "data collection in support of our network" and "arbitration instead of a lawsuit". And unless you contributed more to a Senator's PAC than the wireless company did, you have a very slim chance of getting results. Franken can make a stick, but he can't change anything unless the majority agrees, and the other chamber. And I guarantee you didn't contribute to every congress person's campaign. Sometimes the system works, but it's rare.
I don't get it. A framework has piles of domain-specific code that has been tested and is pretty much guaranteed to work. Sure you can hunt around for some open source implementation of every little thing you might use, but having it built in helps.
Chances are, if you're not using some sort of framework, you're using your own libraries or code which basically take the place of a framework. Unless you're doing no output, having something take care of the remaining browser quirks really helps, and especially handling the new mobile platforms.
What quirks you say? Write to the standards? Of course. And then you get a router whose configuration is javascript-based, and does not work at all in Chrome, but works in FireFox and IE. Sure blame Linksys for being crap, or not testing enough, or whatever.
The point is, frameworks do things for you so you don't have to. I can't think of any project that wouldn't be helped from a framework. Unless you're doing something with processing on the server and display on the client. Then it's pretty obvious you don't need a framework, and aren't the audience for the question.
Microsoft has always chosen the most generic names. Windows, Office, Internet Explorer. How about "Microsoft Network" for their online adventure?
And their framework isn't really MVC as I understand it. They have moved responsibility of core parts into other parts. Now it's more like Doc/View from their MFC days, and less like actual MVC.
Your experience has you quite biased towards these sorts of things. You only watched this video, I can tell, and didn't pay attention.
In the disassembly for stage 3, the messages "loading stage x license key", when they clearly said you were on "stage 2 of 3", were good hints. The unused firmware bits were fairly obvious because they had the right size and served no other purpose, and the unused bytes from stage 1 were obvious after you get your mind on the "unused bits from each stage" track.
And the VM part wasn't trivial. This guy did it in python, but it was intended to be done in javascript. The implementation doesn't really matter, but understanding the bit fiddling needed to implement it is a valuable skill. If you have the skills to disassemble, but not write anything more complicated than hello world, you're probably not useful to them. Not a difficult challenge, but one where you can easily make a mistake and grind your gears for hours. Remember the intent, to find viable candidates for cybersecurity who are interested in doing this sort of thing. Sometimes cyber security is boring but you do what's necessary to solve the problem.
And they never advertised it as a hack-it contest or programming challenge, just a puzzle. So it didn't have to even be fun or entertaining to do - just something to solve. Note as well, they didn't ask for contact information or offer a resume upload - just "Please consider applying with us". So it doesn't even get you an interview.
If you spent the time and are curious enough, you're probably someone they want. If not, you're probably not.
GP post focused on the government, but the article was about the federal reserve. Now everyone is arguing about the federal budget and social security, when this has nothing to do with either.
The fed gave out loans at below market prices, I think .01% The fed turns over all profits minus 6% dividend to the treasury, meaning that these loans made money for the federal government. This was no bailout unless you count giving heavy discounts a bailout. No money was lost.
The bad thing is the banks turned around and bought Treasury bills, which actually is part of the federal government, the budget, and national debt, and market prices. This is where you get people saying that "the government" gave out zero interest loans and the banks made money off those loans. It's a close summary, but not exactly correct. Misleading at best, although it might reach ignorant and possibly malicious.
The other bad thing of course is companies reporting they were healthy when they weren't, especially publically traded ones which may qualify as securities fraud. But if they worked out a loan deal with the Fed, maybe they actually were covered, and it wasn't a problem. We don't know.
Isn't the federal reserve a different entity from the treasury? And isn't the federal reserve not part of the government? I'm pretty sure that's the case, it's essentially a private entity that can do whatever it wants with money it can create whenever it feels like it.
The only outrage here is that publically traded companies were lying about their health. To get angry about any other part of this means you have to question the Creature from Jekyll Island, and to do that you have to know a little more how this all works.
Your quote says "receives" but your link says "logs". We still don't know what happens to those logs. There may be no privacy problem here other than potential availability to malware.
Yes, that is important, and yes the logs should be stopped. But you are asserting something we don't know is true.
That ended well before you think it did. If people thought they could wait out copyright and download anything from 1983 or earlier without legal problems, and most stuff from 1997 or earlier, we might be more honest. And the industry wouldn't be so mind-bogglingly afraid of the internet becuase they would have incentive to create new works for revenue, not mine 70 year old material for rent seeking. But we'll never know how that changes things.
The contract was a one-sided EULA negotiated on our behalf without our consent, and I did not ratify it. Indefinite extensions make the copyright term effectively unlimited, especially for a normal person's lifetime, and therefore unconstitutional. Also, I don't see music and movies covered anywhere, but eBooks are, according to the original word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
I am following the legal law of the land, unconstitutional laws be damned.