I don't see how the lack of understanding would make the broadcasted information less public.
Does a blind person have an excuse on "I cannot see myself" if, getting naked in public places, would be considered offensive?
Could a deaf person ask anyone else "Don't hear what I'm saying, because I myself cannot hear"?
Well, those are different questions. Most blind people know that other people can see them, even though they themselves cannot see. And the blind person would not sue a sighted person for looking at them.
Most people don't understand that WiFi == broadcast. They don't. Even when their computer picks up signals from the neighbors, they think: that's interesting. They almost never think: my neighbors can see my signal! This is not an excuse, merely an observation. Ignorance of the truth is not protection from it.
Stop making excuses for the technological ineptitude of the masses of asses.
It's not an excuse. It's a fact: people don't understand this stuff. I agree with you about this. I don't think Google did anything wrong; instead of suing Google, the states should spend their money on educating people about how to secure their home networks. DUH!
Exactly. There are serious data breaches every week somewhere in the U.S. and yet suddenly it's Crucifixion Time when Google records a snippet of information that you were already sending out publicly. Just surfing the Internet or searching on Google will give them far more information about you than that little cache of WiFi packets.
And what about Skyhook? Is it okay when they catalog all the WiFi stations in the U.S.? You think they didn't record any info? Oh, but wait, our fancy schmartphones use it for better location accuracy, so it's all good... move along, nothing to sue here.
Information you broadcast without limiting who can receive/understand it - is not private information - your own actions have MADE it public information. (emphasis added)
Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.
If I don't want you petting my dog, I can put up a fence around my yard that keeps the dog in and strangers out. But there's no fence I can use to stop wireless signals from going past my physical property, or to keep you from petting my computer... digitally, I mean... hey, stop it.
So in essence all that posturing about defending human rights, freedom of expression and standing against censorship was a marketing ploy to try to mask their acceptance and embracing of totalitarian practices, all in order to worship the all mighty dollar (or euro, yen, or any other currency).
Read the article. Then actually visit google.cn. Google managed to find a loophole in it all: they still offer uncensored searching (via their site in Hong Kong) and there is no site search capability on their China-based site. It comes down to a remarkably silly technicality that, somehow, China decided to approve.
Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.
Seriously. It's not even hidden: it says "google.com.hk" in enormous letters right on it. The only other links go to the music, translation, and product links.
But, this is Slashdot, where it is rare to RTFA or, heaven forbid, try to experience the thing.
Aside: it's kind of funny to read the various headlines about this. Some say that China "approved" the Google request; others say China "compromised"; others say the two "make nice" with each other; others call it a "miracle"; still others say Google blew it. A crazy range of opinion there.
I assumed it would be a crowdsourcing approach like Ushahidi, where the public sends in reports of violence via mobile phone, usually simple text messaging. Initially developed for the post-election violence in Kenya, Wikipedia notes that it has also been used "to track anti-immigrant violence in South Africa... violence in eastern Congo... pharmacy stockouts in several East African countries... monitor elections in Mexico and India... [and by Al Jazeera] to collect eyewitness reports during the 2008-2009 Gaza War."
There is value in mapping violence. Even if you can't stop it, it is helpful to know when and where it is occuring, to help formulate a response -- and in many of these places, the simple act of documenting violence is itself revolutionary.
And if you can use existing infrastructure (like a quick text message on a mobile phone) then it's even better.
I assumed it would be a crowdsourcing approach like Ushahidi, where the public sends in reports of violence via mobile phone, usually simple text messaging. Initially developed for the post-election violence in Kenya, Wikipedia notes that it has also been used "to track anti-immigrant violence in South Africa... violence in eastern Congo... pharmacy stockouts in several East African countries... monitor elections in Mexico and India... [and by Al Jazeera] to collect eyewitness reports during the 2008-2009 Gaza War."
There is value in mapping violence. Even if you can't stop it, it is helpful to know when and where it is occuring, to help formulate a response -- and in many of these places, the simple act of documenting violence is itself revolutionary.
Of course, Meyerowitz's allegedly-winning idea was to use technology to map genocide events in real time and use the info to "provide early warning" of new genocide locations, assist relief organizations, etc. That's worth putting money into and would be, essentially, "putting money into the pressing problem" as you said.
It is an open book. However, having dealt with a number of design contracts, there may have been a written agreement between the designer and the campaign that nobody else would use that site design, which this would violate to some extent. Nonetheless, there are ways around that: posting screen shots with commentary, for example, or just quoting the text.
I'd also expect Angle to contact The Wayback Machine if she doesn't want old copies of her site online...
You're also lazy, and ill informed. You could have spent a fraction of a second (0.15 seconds) with Google to find about 3,860,000 results for the search term "Rasmussen bias" to discover that, yes, in fact, there is some discussion of this point.
I know there is discussion. Even your quote says differences "can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate" and FiveThirtyEight has, in the past, noted Rasmussen's surprising accuracy in predicting election outcomes. Your link would not support the GPP's description of "horribly flawed" to Rasmussen -- merely "hmm that's interesting".
Factcheck analyzes a tremendous number of political statements, whether from Democrats or Republicans or even a few libertarians. If Obama gives a speech, they check his facts and conclusions against current data. If Palin says something on a talk show, they check her facts and conclusions against current data. They frequently correct misquotes from both the conservatives and liberals; hence, no real bias. But they generally pay attention to volume, so if Ron Paul has been widely misquoted, then they will pay attention to him.
Find me an example of Ron Paul being misquoted and I will happily submit it to them with a beg to analyze it (and you should too, since numbers count).
I'll also note that Factcheck and MSNBC are radically different organizations. MSNBC ought to air politicians like Ron Paul. (He was on MSNBC on February 23... but he's sure not there very often.) But MSNBC is a 24-hour for-profit news channel, while Factcheck is a small non-profit news watchdog. I agree with you on MSNBC, which tends to be a bunch of leftist hacks. However, I strongly disagree about Factcheck, because I think they're doing an excellent job.
Your link attempts to argue that it's OK, because she has not much less experience than Clarence Thomas. If Clarence Thomas is your model of everything a good Supreme Court justice should be, I guess that's ok, but for the rest of us that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
I agree, it's not a ringing endorsement -- but they're not trying to provide a ringing endorsement. They are pointing out that it is incongruous for Republicans were generally accepting of Thomas' level of experience, but have cited this issue as a strike against Kagan. It is duplicitous to claim it both ways.
Factcheck does not "take a position" -- they analyze political statements and present the relevant facts, better than any other watchdog. If they have "bias by omission" then they've got huge biases in every direction. They hardly tackle every false statement made.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how the lack of understanding would make the broadcasted information less public. Does a blind person have an excuse on "I cannot see myself" if, getting naked in public places, would be considered offensive? Could a deaf person ask anyone else "Don't hear what I'm saying, because I myself cannot hear"?
Well, those are different questions. Most blind people know that other people can see them, even though they themselves cannot see. And the blind person would not sue a sighted person for looking at them.
Most people don't understand that WiFi == broadcast. They don't. Even when their computer picks up signals from the neighbors, they think: that's interesting. They almost never think: my neighbors can see my signal! This is not an excuse, merely an observation. Ignorance of the truth is not protection from it.
Stop making excuses for the technological ineptitude of the masses of asses.
It's not an excuse. It's a fact: people don't understand this stuff. I agree with you about this. I don't think Google did anything wrong; instead of suing Google, the states should spend their money on educating people about how to secure their home networks. DUH!
Failing to recognize the potential consequences of your actions does not absolve you from being responsible for them.
Exactly so. I wasn't trying to suggest that consumers could not be accountable for this.
Wish I had mod points because yeah, that's it exactly.
Exactly. There are serious data breaches every week somewhere in the U.S. and yet suddenly it's Crucifixion Time when Google records a snippet of information that you were already sending out publicly. Just surfing the Internet or searching on Google will give them far more information about you than that little cache of WiFi packets.
And what about Skyhook? Is it okay when they catalog all the WiFi stations in the U.S.? You think they didn't record any info? Oh, but wait, our fancy schmartphones use it for better location accuracy, so it's all good... move along, nothing to sue here.
Information you broadcast without limiting who can receive/understand it - is not private information - your own actions have MADE it public information. (emphasis added)
Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.
If I don't want you petting my dog, I can put up a fence around my yard that keeps the dog in and strangers out. But there's no fence I can use to stop wireless signals from going past my physical property, or to keep you from petting my computer... digitally, I mean... hey, stop it.
I wished our western governments would backtrack on their biggest red herring as well (draconian Copyright!)
This cannot happen as long as "Mine! Mine! Mine!" remains the defining attitude of Western culture. (Or at least American culture.)
Well, while we are at it... link.
Read the article. Then actually visit google.cn. Google managed to find a loophole in it all: they still offer uncensored searching (via their site in Hong Kong) and there is no site search capability on their China-based site. It comes down to a remarkably silly technicality that, somehow, China decided to approve.
Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.
Seriously. It's not even hidden: it says "google.com.hk" in enormous letters right on it. The only other links go to the music, translation, and product links.
But, this is Slashdot, where it is rare to RTFA or, heaven forbid, try to experience the thing.
Aside: it's kind of funny to read the various headlines about this. Some say that China "approved" the Google request; others say China "compromised"; others say the two "make nice" with each other; others call it a "miracle"; still others say Google blew it. A crazy range of opinion there.
Of course, Jonkman does not mention any features that Suricata has, which Snort does not, like multithreading...
right sed fred?
Mortly Indies? Never heard of them. What kind of music do they play?
I'm going to quote a post of my own:
I assumed it would be a crowdsourcing approach like Ushahidi, where the public sends in reports of violence via mobile phone, usually simple text messaging. Initially developed for the post-election violence in Kenya, Wikipedia notes that it has also been used "to track anti-immigrant violence in South Africa... violence in eastern Congo... pharmacy stockouts in several East African countries... monitor elections in Mexico and India... [and by Al Jazeera] to collect eyewitness reports during the 2008-2009 Gaza War."
There is value in mapping violence. Even if you can't stop it, it is helpful to know when and where it is occuring, to help formulate a response -- and in many of these places, the simple act of documenting violence is itself revolutionary.
And if you can use existing infrastructure (like a quick text message on a mobile phone) then it's even better.
I assumed it would be a crowdsourcing approach like Ushahidi, where the public sends in reports of violence via mobile phone, usually simple text messaging. Initially developed for the post-election violence in Kenya, Wikipedia notes that it has also been used "to track anti-immigrant violence in South Africa... violence in eastern Congo... pharmacy stockouts in several East African countries... monitor elections in Mexico and India... [and by Al Jazeera] to collect eyewitness reports during the 2008-2009 Gaza War."
There is value in mapping violence. Even if you can't stop it, it is helpful to know when and where it is occuring, to help formulate a response -- and in many of these places, the simple act of documenting violence is itself revolutionary.
Of course, Meyerowitz's allegedly-winning idea was to use technology to map genocide events in real time and use the info to "provide early warning" of new genocide locations, assist relief organizations, etc. That's worth putting money into and would be, essentially, "putting money into the pressing problem" as you said.
It is an open book. However, having dealt with a number of design contracts, there may have been a written agreement between the designer and the campaign that nobody else would use that site design, which this would violate to some extent. Nonetheless, there are ways around that: posting screen shots with commentary, for example, or just quoting the text.
I'd also expect Angle to contact The Wayback Machine if she doesn't want old copies of her site online...
For what it's worth, the Nexus One had similar problems... where's the lawsuit?
If Kin is dead, would Windows Phone 7 be the next of kin?
You're also lazy, and ill informed. You could have spent a fraction of a second (0.15 seconds) with Google to find about 3,860,000 results for the search term "Rasmussen bias" to discover that, yes, in fact, there is some discussion of this point.
I know there is discussion. Even your quote says differences "can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate" and FiveThirtyEight has, in the past, noted Rasmussen's surprising accuracy in predicting election outcomes. Your link would not support the GPP's description of "horribly flawed" to Rasmussen -- merely "hmm that's interesting".
I'm not Republican, but ... [citation needed] for the Rasmussen reference.
Well, we will just have to disagree on this.
Factcheck analyzes a tremendous number of political statements, whether from Democrats or Republicans or even a few libertarians. If Obama gives a speech, they check his facts and conclusions against current data. If Palin says something on a talk show, they check her facts and conclusions against current data. They frequently correct misquotes from both the conservatives and liberals; hence, no real bias. But they generally pay attention to volume, so if Ron Paul has been widely misquoted, then they will pay attention to him.
Find me an example of Ron Paul being misquoted and I will happily submit it to them with a beg to analyze it (and you should too, since numbers count).
I'll also note that Factcheck and MSNBC are radically different organizations. MSNBC ought to air politicians like Ron Paul. (He was on MSNBC on February 23... but he's sure not there very often.) But MSNBC is a 24-hour for-profit news channel, while Factcheck is a small non-profit news watchdog. I agree with you on MSNBC, which tends to be a bunch of leftist hacks. However, I strongly disagree about Factcheck, because I think they're doing an excellent job.
Then, unfortunately, you might need to start your own political watchdog...
Your link attempts to argue that it's OK, because she has not much less experience than Clarence Thomas. If Clarence Thomas is your model of everything a good Supreme Court justice should be, I guess that's ok, but for the rest of us that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
I agree, it's not a ringing endorsement -- but they're not trying to provide a ringing endorsement. They are pointing out that it is incongruous for Republicans were generally accepting of Thomas' level of experience, but have cited this issue as a strike against Kagan. It is duplicitous to claim it both ways.
Factcheck does not "take a position" -- they analyze political statements and present the relevant facts, better than any other watchdog. If they have "bias by omission" then they've got huge biases in every direction. They hardly tackle every false statement made.