Delta pilots also have the freedom to kick you off their planes if you do so in a disruptive way.
Which is completely irrelevant to this case because "being brown in charge of a T-shirt" is not disruptive. Repeatedly sending a person for screening who the TSA has already approved and then deciding to ban them rather than just making a clear decision at the begining is being disruptive.
I'm not saying that keeping knowledge around is worthless, far from it. But you keep it around to build other things on top of it, not merely to preserve it as is for posterity.
It's often difficult to tell in advance which knowledge will be valuable. You have to both gratuitous conservation and development. That's one of the reasons why libraries are so important and their destruction is a terrible crime even if nobody dies. I wonder if you are actually accusing the Chinese of not developing? It seems to me that right now most people's problem with them (of people who have a problem) is related to the fact that they are developing.
1) Do not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to, anything that violates local or United States law. This will be severely punished and strictly enforced.
In those days, where originally there may have been exactly one copy of a text, the act of copying was critical to its preservation, not to mention dissemination. One copy does no one any good.
One copy today is just as useless. The fact that copying is easier makes it even more valuable.
The Chinese copied texts no more frequently, and no more widely than any other civilization. Its just that more of them survived.
That texts have survived in China longer is due to a lack of nut-job dictators and religious zealots seeking out and destroying every copy they can find, and even burning entire libraries to do so.
The Incas? The Ancient Celts? Yes; at the end they had access to writing and even used it in last desperate attempts to preserve their culture. I'm almost certain that Roman Catholic monastries copied much more than the Chinese, but they were nowhere near the back of the pack. Furthermore, they had plenty of destruction; read up about the Warring States period or the Mongol invasions.
However; this is largely irrelevant; my point was that copying is a valued thing in Chinese culture. Not an original thing. I suspect they copied copying from whoever they copied writing from which is probably lost in the dawn of history. Educated; cultured Chinese people care about copying. As should everyone. Todays religious fanatics are the supporters of DRM who will try to put every copy onto fragile media and make it impossible to make further copies. Learning how to copy things is just as important now as it was then.
I know 4chan is not my personal army and all that, but it seems to me that accusing moot of being a Zuckerberg is a bit below the belt. I hereby call for vengeance:-) Hell, 4chan has probably produced far more of social value than Facebook.
This smiley brought to you by "occasionally having a reputation for joking is not enough to overcome Poe's law"
Who cares about being "the oldest culture in existence"? What matters is where you're now
Where you are at now is a product of where you came from. It's not an accident that Sun Tzu is still studied in West Point. Time is an excellent filter of value in ideas. It's much easier to accept his teaching if you believe that he's an important part of your culture and if you have direct access to the original texts. Still; there's one perfectly valid point in what you are saying. Many of these texts are translated and everyone can learn from Chinese culture.
So which companies exactly are you claiming "stepped up to innovate" between those dates as a result of Apple's stagnation in the UI?
I remember this small company doing innovative object oriented GUIs around that time. Xent or Tenex or someting. Maybe Next? They had these kind of Unix based workstatons. Can't remember who was the boss though.
Apart from that; this is the time when things like FVWM started up and made things like virtual desktops practical ideas that eventually made their way back to even systems such as Apples.
Strawman argument. The US has a $3.7 TRILLION manufacturing sector and it is growing. Just in case that isn't clear, measured by value the US has manufactures more than any other country in the world by a wide margin.
Google does not seem to agree. Even if it's true in some sense surely that's because the same product gets a higher value coming out of a US factory gate than it would from a Chinese one. Can someone who seriously understands these things look up "Phantom GDP Growth" which was first covered in Businessweek and give us some real way to understand these numbers in terms of actual products produced?
"Invent" means a lot more than making a YouTube video....
To who? Most people mean "make the first working example of" when they say invent. The patent office has a slightly different definition; "file the first document describing closely enough". Corporate types use the word "innovate" for your definition of invent.
In the end it doesn't matter; it's just definiting words.
What matters is; being the first person to "bring a product to market at a reasonable cost" is not enough to justify having a monopoly on providing something. Whether "being the first to deliver a document to the patent office describing" shoud be enough is a totally different question.
The Chinese don't give a shit about copying anything.
No; The Chinese care very much. China began writing long after the Mesopotanians, however, because ancient Chinese texts were carefully and repeatedly copied, they have survived much longer than texts almost anywhere else in the world. This gives them a real claim to be the oldest culture in existence. The current Chinese trend to "respect intellectual property" is a sign of their current governments disregard for the good of their culture and pandering to corporate interests over those of the Chinese people.
Parent is over-rated. Exactly how is VNC "notoriously insecure"? Because it is not encrypted? Do you really think someone is going to intercept the screen drawing compressed bitmap traffic during some ad-hoc session?
This is exactly the thing I really hate to see up here. People doling out advice when they clearly have absolutely no clue. Some belief that "if it's for 30 seconds it's too fast for them to react". Packet monitoring is done by computers. It is done any time. It is done automatically. The network guys on your network have the right to do it "for network maintenance reasons". The professional ones a) wouldn't want to see and b) earn too much to risk it. Unfortunately they have all been outsourced to the lowest paid guy in India for whom the risk of being caught is nill and the benefit of selling your bank details; or even just enough information to make a "this is Microsoft and we know you have a virus" call is huge.
And what exactly will they get?
They want exactly only one thing. Your VNC password. They will then use that next time to start an automated session which does a small install just before you log in. After that you will never see them use your VNC ever again. Please hand in your computer operating license. None of this will involve a single person.
Except you are conflating a common every day occurrence with some paranoid fantasy.
You are logged in so you do see my sig. If you have them turned off then I recommend you turn them on. However; yes; you are right. There's still plenty of chance to fight off Microsoft whilst this is now. Also I personaly believe that there is a sufficient demand building up for free hardware that there will be companies that want to provide this and that with determined support from many people Microsoft's legal strategies to block them will fail. However, for that to work we need people to actually show some spine. If nobody's capable of taking on a small hosting company then when it comes to taking on Microsoft the odds are pretty low.
Please note that Microsoft is moving over to an app store model. The hardware platforms for Windows RT already do enforce restrictions on the user's ability to do what they want. DRM already is integrated into Windows. This is not, as it was five years ago, just some future paranoid fantasy. Please get with the times.
you can isolate this servers from the rest of your network.
In the end you need to get data to and from the computers. As long as you have buffer overflows and executable data formats like excel and word there will be a way in. Remember the Stuxnet attacks against Iran were based on USB pen drive transfers. This means that network isolation is not adequate on its own and may even be an outdated counterproductive move.
My guess; A security guy in the energy industry got bored of his manager refusing to pay for anything other than audits saying "your security is great". This is his way of getting some action. A hero perhaps? If so I hope he knows how not to get caught...
Alternatively, an unsubtle message from the Iranians to the effect of "you have more to lose than we do"?
In most legal situations the purchaser of a company continues the responsibilities of the previous company. The term is slightly ambiguous but in a "contract of adhesion" between a customer and large company I understand that terms are always supposed to be interpreted in favour of the customer where they are unclear.
If it's hosted on your own drive, and copied to your backup drive that's in a geographically-remote location, it's yours until Microsoft works out how to get proper trusted computing implemented on all new PC hardware and your last hard drive from your old computers packs in.
What Sweden is attempting here isn't bringing a suspected criminal to justice, it's bringing a suspected criminal to a place where he will be abducted, tortured, and likely killed by a third party country that has no stake in the crime he is accused of.
No, Sweden is attempting to investigate a crime against some of its own citizens, which it has a legal obligation to do.
There is no legal "obligation" here because the prosecutor in charge initially said that there is no crime to answer for. That would normally be enough to allow the whole investigation to be terminated. Having said that; given the accusations I think that Sweden is right to want to continue the investigation. This kind of thing should not just be left hanging. We should not, however, pretend that any investigation would have taken place if Assange wasn't involved.
Sweden also has a legal extradition agreement with the US, which has the force of law in both countries. The Swedes a legal obligation to extradite people charged with crimes in the US to the US if the US files a valid request. If they refuse to honor such requests, then the US will be under no obligation to extradition wanted criminals to Sweden if the Swedes file a valid request.
Firstly; extraditions treaties, including this one, have exceptions which generally rule out the political crimes that the Americans want to prosecute him for. Secondly; key senior US politicians have made death threats against him. There should be no possibility of sending a person th the US in such a situation. If Sweden cannot give guarantees against this then it is in breach of many other treaties that it is signature to such as the European Convention on Human Rights.
So there's a bigger picture here that Slashdotters perennially ignore. This is about more than just Assange. This is about whether the Swedes want the US and other countries to obey extradition treaty requirements in the future should the Swedes ever want to invoke extradition. You don't just toss things like that national treaties away for somebody like Julian Assange.
It's funny the way that when it comes to things which go against Assange, international treaties are really important whilst when it comes to getting Assange, much more fundamental international treaties such as the Vienna Convention on embassies and also when it comes to several thousand years of history of immunity granted to embassies, suddenly getting Assange is much more important.
Also, you have zero evidence that the US will have Assange "abducted, tortured, and likely killed." Bradley Manning is getting a trial.
Stalin's victims got trials too. I find it very funny that you couldn't even write "fair trial" yourself; Manning's detention was clearly done in illegal conditions and completely undermines any credibility of the verdict from the trial. This is a perfect example of why extraditing anyone from the UK to the USA should be illegal.
If Julian Assange ended up in the US, he'd get a trial too. It's questionable whether they could convict him, as the DoJ has had extreme difficulty mounting a case. If they could, they'd have already filed an extradition request with the Brits and the Swedes already.
It is believed that the USA may have already filed an extradition request. In Sweden, however, the privacy laws mean that you wouldn't know.
Currently he is a criminal as he is in breach of his bail conditions.
Freedom of speech is protected under both the European and United nations conventions on human rights. Assange is potentially at risk for his involvement in Wikileaks. The United Kingdom has a legal obligation to protect him until such time as they have a clear and credible guarantee from Sweden that he will be protected from such threats. That means that it is the UK judiciary and not Assange which is breaking the law. Furthermore their breach, a human rights violation, is far more serious than a mere issue of jumping bail.
The fact that he has that link on his Slashdot homepage is, in fact, a complete excuse from the accusation of being a shill. What the Microsoft publicity people seem to do which is wrong and illegal (in most sensible jurisdictions) is pretend to be normal members of the public when in fact they are being paid.
What this guy should clearly be attacked for instead is
completely failing to mention that Sweden could easily just guarantee not to extradite Assange to the USA, thereby making the whole issue irrelevant
and so on...
The involiability of embassies is something which the USA and the UK have much more reason to care about than most countries. The idea that people should be post-justifying the hostage taking at the US embassy in Iran by making embassies subject to the vagaries of random decisions of local law is outrageous.
One of the things which caused the change of the previous British government was it's authoritarian bent and attempts to introduce fascist measures such as identity cards and it's success in introducing automatic extraordinary rendition for British citizens (the US doesn't even have to show real evidence of a crime; just an accusation).
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - animal farm
I guess we can say that anyone who votes for either Labour or Conservative in the next election is responsible, but then we get into the problems of the UK first past the posts system.
This is the kind of total unthinking stupidity which causes real problems in future. Think how many dissidents have been kept in the US embassy in China. Think what would happen if China randomly threatened to revoke the privileges of the US embassy. Mr Cameron should fire his foreign minister for even allowing this suggestion to be made.
I'm all for identifying evil as evil, but it would be nice to have some actual evidence before making the accusation.
The key thing to know is that phone based password recovery on Gmail has been used to hack accounts and that that has been widely publicised. In other words, giving your phone number over is less secure than not giving it over. In this case, Google is either stupid for continuing something they should know doesn't work or is evil for lying about why they want your phone number.
P.S. They have no intention on using the phone number to call you; Phone calls are much more expensive than the various other ways that Google has to contact you. What your phone number could potentially do is link together different accounts with different names and link you to friends who have that phone number in their uploaded phone directories.
Slashdot Mirror
You do have the freedom to express yourself.
Delta pilots also have the freedom to kick you off their planes if you do so in a disruptive way.
Which is completely irrelevant to this case because "being brown in charge of a T-shirt" is not disruptive. Repeatedly sending a person for screening who the TSA has already approved and then deciding to ban them rather than just making a clear decision at the begining is being disruptive.
drive through restaurants (which are far more dangerous than cell phones or DUI)
Why? Neither Google searches for "drive through restaurant danger" nor "accident" enlighten me.
I'm not saying that keeping knowledge around is worthless, far from it. But you keep it around to build other things on top of it, not merely to preserve it as is for posterity.
It's often difficult to tell in advance which knowledge will be valuable. You have to both gratuitous conservation and development. That's one of the reasons why libraries are so important and their destruction is a terrible crime even if nobody dies. I wonder if you are actually accusing the Chinese of not developing? It seems to me that right now most people's problem with them (of people who have a problem) is related to the fact that they are developing.
Damn it; how did you know? I'm running now.
Not germane.
In those days, where originally there may have been exactly one copy of a text, the act of copying was critical to its preservation, not to mention dissemination. One copy does no one any good.
One copy today is just as useless. The fact that copying is easier makes it even more valuable.
The Chinese copied texts no more frequently, and no more widely than any other civilization. Its just that more of them survived.
That texts have survived in China longer is due to a lack of nut-job dictators and religious zealots seeking out and destroying every copy they can find, and even burning entire libraries to do so.
The Incas? The Ancient Celts? Yes; at the end they had access to writing and even used it in last desperate attempts to preserve their culture. I'm almost certain that Roman Catholic monastries copied much more than the Chinese, but they were nowhere near the back of the pack. Furthermore, they had plenty of destruction; read up about the Warring States period or the Mongol invasions.
However; this is largely irrelevant; my point was that copying is a valued thing in Chinese culture. Not an original thing. I suspect they copied copying from whoever they copied writing from which is probably lost in the dawn of history. Educated; cultured Chinese people care about copying. As should everyone. Todays religious fanatics are the supporters of DRM who will try to put every copy onto fragile media and make it impossible to make further copies. Learning how to copy things is just as important now as it was then.
Citation needed.. Please please. Not because I don't believe you but because I'd really like to see a proper deconstruction.
Its Zuckerberg's handle is "moot."
I know 4chan is not my personal army and all that, but it seems to me that accusing moot of being a Zuckerberg is a bit below the belt. I hereby call for vengeance :-) Hell, 4chan has probably produced far more of social value than Facebook.
This smiley brought to you by "occasionally having a reputation for joking is not enough to overcome Poe's law"
Who cares about being "the oldest culture in existence"? What matters is where you're now
Where you are at now is a product of where you came from. It's not an accident that Sun Tzu is still studied in West Point. Time is an excellent filter of value in ideas. It's much easier to accept his teaching if you believe that he's an important part of your culture and if you have direct access to the original texts. Still; there's one perfectly valid point in what you are saying. Many of these texts are translated and everyone can learn from Chinese culture.
So which companies exactly are you claiming "stepped up to innovate" between those dates as a result of Apple's stagnation in the UI?
I remember this small company doing innovative object oriented GUIs around that time. Xent or Tenex or someting. Maybe Next? They had these kind of Unix based workstatons. Can't remember who was the boss though.
Apart from that; this is the time when things like FVWM started up and made things like virtual desktops practical ideas that eventually made their way back to even systems such as Apples.
Strawman argument. The US has a $3.7 TRILLION manufacturing sector and it is growing. Just in case that isn't clear, measured by value the US has manufactures more than any other country in the world by a wide margin.
Google does not seem to agree. Even if it's true in some sense surely that's because the same product gets a higher value coming out of a US factory gate than it would from a Chinese one. Can someone who seriously understands these things look up "Phantom GDP Growth" which was first covered in Businessweek and give us some real way to understand these numbers in terms of actual products produced?
"Invent" means a lot more than making a YouTube video....
To who? Most people mean "make the first working example of" when they say invent. The patent office has a slightly different definition; "file the first document describing closely enough". Corporate types use the word "innovate" for your definition of invent.
In the end it doesn't matter; it's just definiting words.
What matters is; being the first person to "bring a product to market at a reasonable cost" is not enough to justify having a monopoly on providing something. Whether "being the first to deliver a document to the patent office describing" shoud be enough is a totally different question.
The Chinese don't give a shit about copying anything.
No; The Chinese care very much. China began writing long after the Mesopotanians, however, because ancient Chinese texts were carefully and repeatedly copied, they have survived much longer than texts almost anywhere else in the world. This gives them a real claim to be the oldest culture in existence. The current Chinese trend to "respect intellectual property" is a sign of their current governments disregard for the good of their culture and pandering to corporate interests over those of the Chinese people.
Parent is over-rated. Exactly how is VNC "notoriously insecure"? Because it is not encrypted? Do you really think someone is going to intercept the screen drawing compressed bitmap traffic during some ad-hoc session?
This is exactly the thing I really hate to see up here. People doling out advice when they clearly have absolutely no clue. Some belief that "if it's for 30 seconds it's too fast for them to react". Packet monitoring is done by computers. It is done any time. It is done automatically. The network guys on your network have the right to do it "for network maintenance reasons". The professional ones a) wouldn't want to see and b) earn too much to risk it. Unfortunately they have all been outsourced to the lowest paid guy in India for whom the risk of being caught is nill and the benefit of selling your bank details; or even just enough information to make a "this is Microsoft and we know you have a virus" call is huge.
And what exactly will they get?
They want exactly only one thing. Your VNC password. They will then use that next time to start an automated session which does a small install just before you log in. After that you will never see them use your VNC ever again. Please hand in your computer operating license. None of this will involve a single person.
Except you are conflating a common every day occurrence with some paranoid fantasy.
You are logged in so you do see my sig. If you have them turned off then I recommend you turn them on. However; yes; you are right. There's still plenty of chance to fight off Microsoft whilst this is now. Also I personaly believe that there is a sufficient demand building up for free hardware that there will be companies that want to provide this and that with determined support from many people Microsoft's legal strategies to block them will fail. However, for that to work we need people to actually show some spine. If nobody's capable of taking on a small hosting company then when it comes to taking on Microsoft the odds are pretty low.
Please note that Microsoft is moving over to an app store model. The hardware platforms for Windows RT already do enforce restrictions on the user's ability to do what they want. DRM already is integrated into Windows. This is not, as it was five years ago, just some future paranoid fantasy. Please get with the times.
you can isolate this servers from the rest of your network.
In the end you need to get data to and from the computers. As long as you have buffer overflows and executable data formats like excel and word there will be a way in. Remember the Stuxnet attacks against Iran were based on USB pen drive transfers. This means that network isolation is not adequate on its own and may even be an outdated counterproductive move.
My guess; A security guy in the energy industry got bored of his manager refusing to pay for anything other than audits saying "your security is great". This is his way of getting some action. A hero perhaps? If so I hope he knows how not to get caught...
Alternatively, an unsubtle message from the Iranians to the effect of "you have more to lose than we do"?
In most legal situations the purchaser of a company continues the responsibilities of the previous company. The term is slightly ambiguous but in a "contract of adhesion" between a customer and large company I understand that terms are always supposed to be interpreted in favour of the customer where they are unclear.
If it's hosted on your own drive, and copied to your backup drive that's in a geographically-remote location, it's yours until Microsoft works out how to get proper trusted computing implemented on all new PC hardware and your last hard drive from your old computers packs in.
There FTFY.
\ Joyent may in fact already know this and calculated it cheaper to settle on offering a lifetime account again --on a per user basis--.
Given that all the responses on their forum say something to the effect of "contact support and we'll work it out" I think you may have a point.
The interest on $499 (say $20 / year) would pay for a better specified dedicated server. The guys should demand get a full refund with interest.
What Sweden is attempting here isn't bringing a suspected criminal to justice, it's bringing a suspected criminal to a place where he will be abducted, tortured, and likely killed by a third party country that has no stake in the crime he is accused of.
No, Sweden is attempting to investigate a crime against some of its own citizens, which it has a legal obligation to do.
There is no legal "obligation" here because the prosecutor in charge initially said that there is no crime to answer for. That would normally be enough to allow the whole investigation to be terminated. Having said that; given the accusations I think that Sweden is right to want to continue the investigation. This kind of thing should not just be left hanging. We should not, however, pretend that any investigation would have taken place if Assange wasn't involved.
Sweden also has a legal extradition agreement with the US, which has the force of law in both countries. The Swedes a legal obligation to extradite people charged with crimes in the US to the US if the US files a valid request. If they refuse to honor such requests, then the US will be under no obligation to extradition wanted criminals to Sweden if the Swedes file a valid request.
Firstly; extraditions treaties, including this one, have exceptions which generally rule out the political crimes that the Americans want to prosecute him for. Secondly; key senior US politicians have made death threats against him. There should be no possibility of sending a person th the US in such a situation. If Sweden cannot give guarantees against this then it is in breach of many other treaties that it is signature to such as the European Convention on Human Rights.
So there's a bigger picture here that Slashdotters perennially ignore. This is about more than just Assange. This is about whether the Swedes want the US and other countries to obey extradition treaty requirements in the future should the Swedes ever want to invoke extradition. You don't just toss things like that national treaties away for somebody like Julian Assange.
It's funny the way that when it comes to things which go against Assange, international treaties are really important whilst when it comes to getting Assange, much more fundamental international treaties such as the Vienna Convention on embassies and also when it comes to several thousand years of history of immunity granted to embassies, suddenly getting Assange is much more important.
Also, you have zero evidence that the US will have Assange "abducted, tortured, and likely killed." Bradley Manning is getting a trial.
Stalin's victims got trials too. I find it very funny that you couldn't even write "fair trial" yourself; Manning's detention was clearly done in illegal conditions and completely undermines any credibility of the verdict from the trial. This is a perfect example of why extraditing anyone from the UK to the USA should be illegal.
If Julian Assange ended up in the US, he'd get a trial too. It's questionable whether they could convict him, as the DoJ has had extreme difficulty mounting a case. If they could, they'd have already filed an extradition request with the Brits and the Swedes already.
It is believed that the USA may have already filed an extradition request. In Sweden, however, the privacy laws mean that you wouldn't know.
Currently he is a criminal as he is in breach of his bail conditions.
Freedom of speech is protected under both the European and United nations conventions on human rights. Assange is potentially at risk for his involvement in Wikileaks. The United Kingdom has a legal obligation to protect him until such time as they have a clear and credible guarantee from Sweden that he will be protected from such threats. That means that it is the UK judiciary and not Assange which is breaking the law. Furthermore their breach, a human rights violation, is far more serious than a mere issue of jumping bail.
The fact that he has that link on his Slashdot homepage is, in fact, a complete excuse from the accusation of being a shill. What the Microsoft publicity people seem to do which is wrong and illegal (in most sensible jurisdictions) is pretend to be normal members of the public when in fact they are being paid.
What this guy should clearly be attacked for instead is
The involiability of embassies is something which the USA and the UK have much more reason to care about than most countries. The idea that people should be post-justifying the hostage taking at the US embassy in Iran by making embassies subject to the vagaries of random decisions of local law is outrageous.
One of the things which caused the change of the previous British government was it's authoritarian bent and attempts to introduce fascist measures such as identity cards and it's success in introducing automatic extraordinary rendition for British citizens (the US doesn't even have to show real evidence of a crime; just an accusation).
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - animal farm
I guess we can say that anyone who votes for either Labour or Conservative in the next election is responsible, but then we get into the problems of the UK first past the posts system.
This is the kind of total unthinking stupidity which causes real problems in future. Think how many dissidents have been kept in the US embassy in China. Think what would happen if China randomly threatened to revoke the privileges of the US embassy. Mr Cameron should fire his foreign minister for even allowing this suggestion to be made.
I'm all for identifying evil as evil, but it would be nice to have some actual evidence before making the accusation.
The key thing to know is that phone based password recovery on Gmail has been used to hack accounts and that that has been widely publicised. In other words, giving your phone number over is less secure than not giving it over. In this case, Google is either stupid for continuing something they should know doesn't work or is evil for lying about why they want your phone number.
P.S. They have no intention on using the phone number to call you; Phone calls are much more expensive than the various other ways that Google has to contact you. What your phone number could potentially do is link together different accounts with different names and link you to friends who have that phone number in their uploaded phone directories.