Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then. It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.
I take security very seriously, so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet, and my important machines are behind their own firewall.
I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by, so they know they can log in?
Why would I want to encrypt the channel, anyway? As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I don't control. If I want it secure, I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer. Admittedly, I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network, but why? I use SCP for everything, which is easy (easier, IMO, than GUI) and it is a good habit to get into.
Which all is to say: I think the "WPA/WPA2 == security" thing is a bad meme. Good security starts above the network layer, and generally can end there. Meanwhile, securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.
The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives.
Pardon me, Mr. Lawyer, but you missed one.
The problem with testimony from a lawyer regarding such a potential lawsuit is that any lawyer would assume that a lawsuit and the testimony of opposing expert witnesses is the best way to answer the question.
The folly of this is clearly encapsulated in the statement above. First it mentions expert witnesses, then it implies that people who are not members of the set "particle physicists" could be expert witnesses. That notion is rooted in the fundamentally flawed and intrinsically lawyerly hypothesis that both sides of any supposition have equal truth value until a couple lawyers get paid and a judge decides which one is more persuasive.
To put a fine point on it, Mr. Lawyer: Your implicit supposition that a lawsuit can add anything of value to the discussion is prima facie ridiculous. Your law degree and professorship are considerable achievements, but they are not sufficient to give your opinions any merit regarding matters of particle physics -- no more than you would care about my opinion on the validity of a complex corporate contract.
In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
IMO, the matter of the court's ruling on that basis is irrelevant.
If I have a briefcase full of documents and leave it on the table in the coffeeshop while I use the bathroom, a police officer is not allowed to open it and look inside without a warrant. Certainly "opening a briefcase" is technology in common use. The Supreme Court's ruling may not be valid, but the 4th amendment still stands. While unavailability of technology may be an additional limitation on government authority, the availability of technology does not grant the government new authority which it does not have under The Constitution.
Of course, this hangs on my personal and deeply held belief that "unreasonable" must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended in the minds of the liberty-oriented thinkers who wrote it.
So you are suggesting that the "usual" insurers are totally above the possibility of being influenced by lobbyists in regards to choosing which treatments to better cover/promote...
You present an excellent point.
Certainly I believe that private industry does this as well. Kickbacks to doctors, paid junkets, or even something as simple as free pills for common, vague symptoms they can give away that keep hypochondriacs coming back (regardless of the conscious intent of the drug companies or doctors, that is the outcome).
It's a good point you present. Which argues (in my mind) for both removal of political interests and for strict regulation of the industry (assuming that we believe that medicine is too complex and trust-based for the dream of a well-informed consumer to regulate the market). Of course, regulation itself is a political process. Which brings us to the Hippocratic Oath -- which hospitals, lawyers, and litigants have discarded in favor of the civil code. Back to regulation and political processes again.
Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do', and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available'.
Interesting explanations, but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue. Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians. Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies. Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.
Run it backwards: Lobbying money flows heavily from drug companies. Politicians are heavily influenced by drug companies. Medicaid is heavily influenced by drug companies.
There are almost certainly other significant factors at play, but to ignore the influence of drug pushers on our government is stunningly short-sighted.
Also consider the health care bill: They've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance. Who are they working for? I want everyone to have access to health care. This story, however, is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations, and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers. That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.
And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms. But nice try, rabble rouser.
I... I don't know what to say.
What did that weekend at the lake mean to you? I shared my darkest secrets with you as we held each other in front of the fire. I bared my soul to you. And now you accuse me of rousing rabble?!? I thought we meant something to each other. You know how I feel about the rousing of rabble, and this is what you say? Are you trying to hurt me? Well you did. I hope you're happy with yourself.
I feel like I don't even know who you are anymore.
Get out, just get out. I don't want to see you like this.
Congratulations, Microsoft, and allow me to offer this toast:
May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition, and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.
May your long, slow, demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night, so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.
And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.
Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues.
So instead of punching myself in the teabag, I should stick needles in my eyes? I guess I can see how that is an improvement.
What are the other alternatives? I have a long history of loving Google, but frankly I see where this guy is coming from. But is it really the best answer to switch to Bing? At this point picking between Microsoft and Google is starting to feel like choosing between a republican and a democrat.
I like your post, and I think it is an important distinction to make.
What is your take on Major Hasan at Fort Hood? Suppose that he was of a clear mind and was acting on a belief that he was a holy warrior based on his conversations with the imam. He targeted military personnel. If holy war was his motive (and I do not know if it was), would he be a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or something else?
Because the operators pay for the bandwidth. The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.
That is why tiered services would solve the problem. High bandwidth users should be more profitable than other ones. Then the ISPs would be profit motivated to encourage heavy bandwidth usage, and the users would be cost motivated to be efficient with their usage.
No single thing is more at the root of this problem than the word "unlimited."
Nobody on Slashdot would ever think to say that an ISP, company or individual does not have the right to block email using whatever blocking techniques are available. Regardless of their taking responsibility for this or not. I don't think you can equate common carrier status with not blocking things because blocking is already happening. Badly.
I am a Slashdotter who does not believe ISPs should block email. I think it is fine for them to offer categorization and pigeonholing as a service, but not blocking -- for exactly the reasons you identify.
Good post though -- I'm not trying to be contrary.
Disassemble it. Printers have stepper motors and gear trains inside that you can use for robotics projects, buttons that can be repurposed, and often have PCB boards with full-size electronic components that can be desoldered for reuse. The plastic shell (with all parts and PCBs stripped) should be ABS and can be incinerated cleanly in a waste-to-energy system with a sufficient chamber temperature and resident time.
Data transmission is not subject to common carrier, and it is looking like even if something called "net neutrality" does go through, it will have lots of fun lawyerisms in it like "reasonable". If we replace POTS with VOIP, are we going to carry common carrier over, or will the ISPs and backbones be allowed to "reasonably" manage your telephone calls?
IMO, bring common carrier over to data networks. I like it because it uses a natural stick: Want to engage in biased gatekeeping? Fine, but you are liable for what travels on your network. Don't want to be liable? Fine, but you can't engage in biased gatekeeping. Yes, you can charge more for more pipe, but you can only engage in bias if you accept legal liability for everything you carry. Simple.
I think it fundamentally makes sense too. Essentially what it is saying is: If you think you are smart enough to distinguish content that is healthy for your network from that which is not, you had better be able to demonstrate that you really believe in your ability to distinguish content. That you believe it strongly enough that you are willing to take legal responsibility if you fail to distinguish content that is legal from that which is not. Until you truly believe that you can distinguish legal from illegal, you cannot be trusted with inhibiting free speech based on your supposed ability to distinguish network-unhealthy from network-healthy.
Paul Graham wrote a very informative article about "news stories" like this one many years ago.
Fun! Your post led me to actually read the piece. It is awesome. Let's break it down.
Does 10x faster development dumb down programming?
10x faster -- catches bean counters eyes.
dumb down programming -- establishes the opposition as emotionally based.
Posted by Adrian Bridgwater
Fair enough. Written by Runtime Revolution.
If you're in the business of reviewing software application development news, which coincidentally I am, then tenfold programming productivity claims tend to either raise my eyebrows or raise my hackles in equal measure.
I am an expert. This is my business. And I am objective. I don't just blindly swallow this snake oil. I frequently get angry (for example; if they don't pay me to post a puff piece).
Software development company Runtime Revolution Ltd has this week introduced its Revolution 4.0 product for application and web development - and it's available in a free version too.
blah blah blah, and you can get it for free.
This outfit doesn't seem to mess about when it comes to making big claims. The company's product uses an English syntax that requires (and I quote) '90-per cent less code than traditional languages'. I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster. But it is of any substance?
See? It's simple math. 90% less code equals ten times faster. Any idiot (particularly our target idiots) could understand this.
Runtime Revolution says that its Rev programming language descends from natural-language technologies such as Apple's HyperCard and, "Empowers people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications," and that this, "Enables software construction for everyone."
It started at Apple! Apple! The company that makes the Jesus Phone! And it empowers and enables!
Oooh, sounds dangerous doesn't it? Surely not everyone has the mind of a software programmer and the algorithmic logic that the application developer has command of is the foundation of the creativity and power that they themselves wield.
But those arrogant software engineers will claim that you need logic and thought. They don't think you are as smart as them. They think you are stupid. And they are the only ones who will be claiming you can't do this.
Of course I'm being deliberately difficult here,...
I am hard bitten and critical. I am being tough on them. I am not playing slow pitch softball, or merely posting a piece crafted by their PR department to look as though it was a personal blog post.
there are instances in modern business when a simple application may be all that's needed and hiring a full-blown development professional might be out of budgetary limits....
Those arrogant software engineers claim this stuff is hard, but you already know what you want, and it is simple. And they're so expensive -- why they cost nearly half what a middle manager with an associates degree costs.
Further, there are arguments for creating customised tools inside the business by the people that will use them....
You know what you want, and those damned software engineers refuse to give it to you even though it is easy.
I know these arguments will not water with requirements management gurus who already have a hard enough time getting customers to calm down and stop asking for stupid functionalities, but there you go.
They don't give you what you want because they are arrogant and refuse to listen to you. It has nothing to do with whether it is possible, only their arrogance and disobedience.
"The last two years have seen the most impressive growth in our business, pointing to a correlation between a tough global economy and the resourcefulness of professionals who need to do more with less," said Kevin Miller, RunRev CEO.
Making laws is easy when it is a vetted and money'd interest on one side and some upstart disruptive ne'er do well on the other. Things get a bit more complicated when there is influence on both sides of the issue. How can lawmakers possibly know what is right when there are bribes available on both sides of an issue? It is an unreasonable thing we ask of them -- ultimately they have to try to predict which side will be able to give them more money in the future.
'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said. 'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs -- purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.'
Sounds like the typical politician in a debate. Half a meaningless thought on the actual topic followed by a string of promotional sound bites for the product they're selling.
>> "I'm all in favor. I hope Apple uses this heavily with the restrictive media they distribute through iTunes, and I hope they license it broadly to all other distributors of restrictive media. It would be most excellent if this winds up on virtually every bit of restrictive media."
> You are aware the music side of iTunes is drm free now and that aac is advanced audio codec and not Apple audio codec, right?
Yes. I also have a Mac laptop, a brand new iPod Touch (which I *love*) and over 40 days of podcasts downloaded through iTMS.
I was only talking about the restrictive media they distribute, which I indicated by typing, "the restrictive media they distribute".
You are aware that most corporations are neither purely evil nor purely good, and that each action of such a corporation should be judged on its individual merit, right?
I'm all in favor. I hope Apple uses this heavily with the restrictive media they distribute through iTunes, and I hope they license it broadly to all other distributors of restrictive media. It would be most excellent if this winds up on virtually every bit of restrictive media.
Why? Because if that happens, people will start to see -- in a very personally tangible way -- how much restrictively licensed media sucks. The cost of consuming licensed media will be frustration, and more people will turn to liberally licensed media. As that happens, they will see how good it is. There is a wealth of really outstanding stuff out there being put out without restriction, based on gift-economics and self-promotion. It is already working on a small scale, and the more people who get driven away from restrictive media, the larger the audience for liberal media.
Restrictive media is poisonous to our culture. The best way to kill it is to let its own toxins attack itself. As it becomes tangibly diseased, fewer people will want to touch it. They will stop giving money to the hostile copyrightists, and they will wither. Their budgets for purchasing votes and talking points in Congress will dry up, and slowly the scales will be lifted from the eyes of the public and the representatives.
Restrictive media will kill itself if we let it, and it has too much power to allow itself to be killed any other way. So three cheers for Apple for being an unwitting pawn in hastening that demise.
Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.
Bullshit.
They were not simply providing a point of view. They were providing a point of view with the intent of the text being used as talking points in the context of a system in which they are known for giving money to the politicians whom they favor.
Suppose you go to a football game. There's a line to use the bathroom. You wait in line. A guy comes rushing through saying, "Please let me through, I'm going to throw up!" Everyone lets him through. He gets into the stall, urinates, and walks out. Did he do anything wrong? He was just acting in his own best interest.
This whole "We should not revile corporations when they act amorally" meme is a crock. Dicks are dicks, and they should be castigated. Had we a system to provide just punishment for such behavior, that would be good, and we should seek it. We should also subject such dissocial actors to public ridicule and shunning. It is how a healthy community defends itself against infection by harmful parasites.
Of course the politicians are equally to blame. And as with criminals who are the result of poor upbringing, we may understand and pity these diseased corporations. Also as with criminals, we should seek paths to rehabilitation and reconciliation with society. But we certainly should not accept or condone the behavior.
"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."
Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.
Probably not. The quote came from the ACLU, and only refers to the limits of governmental authority established in The United States Constitution. The United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.
but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.
First a disclaimer, or a proclaimer if you prefer: I am in the affiliate marketing business, and a big chunk of my earnings come from writing behavioral analysis code (linear algebra, massive matrix calculations).
Here's what's coming. The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".
An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user - so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though.
I've got to say, that sounds right to me. This seems to be saying that things which are an explicit part of the user's intent are fair game (shopping, site configuration, etc). While the surreptitious stuff that a user is unlikely to be aware of is not -- the user must be informed.
One of the fundamental principles of free market economics is that the parties to a transaction must be informed. If I am going to take a person's behavioral information I need to inform them that I am doing so. Frankly, if I'm going to use the information I have taken from them to make a profit, I would hope that the user would want a piece of the action. The information was created by them, it has value, it only seems right that they should have the option of asking me for a cut or denying me the information.
I'm not questioning the fact that this will sharply hinder the behavioral analytics business. It will. It will cost a lot of companies a lot of money. But here's the question for a true lover of the free market: Is that information yours by virtue of a just transaction, or is it that the creator of the information does not know it is being taken and you can get away with it? If the latter, is that really in accord with the noblest principles of Western economics?
Moreover, note that this is talking specifically about cookies, which are data stored on the user's computer. So even if you are still uncomfortable with the idea, answer this: What gives you the right to write to the user's hard drive without their express or implied consent? If it were the case that most web users understood what cookies were or what they are used for, you might be able to say that not turning cookies off is implied consent. But is that the case? Ask the average idiot about their cookies. Then show them what they are really doing, and watch the look on their face. I've done it, it is enlightening.
I love that you raised the relevant issues and provided solid rational support, then invited readers to think about the matter, rather than prescribing some simplistic panacea. These are complicated issues that we need to start by thinking deeply about. The first issue is that we do not yet broadly accept and understand the problem itself. While I may think I have some of the answers, the first critical step is to get people seriously considering and discussing the difference between laboratory economics (which I love) and organic system economics (which I also love).
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then. It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.
I take security very seriously, so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet, and my important machines are behind their own firewall.
I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by, so they know they can log in?
Why would I want to encrypt the channel, anyway? As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I don't control. If I want it secure, I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer. Admittedly, I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network, but why? I use SCP for everything, which is easy (easier, IMO, than GUI) and it is a good habit to get into.
Which all is to say: I think the "WPA/WPA2 == security" thing is a bad meme. Good security starts above the network layer, and generally can end there. Meanwhile, securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.
Free the APs, secure the machines and processes.
The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives.
Pardon me, Mr. Lawyer, but you missed one.
The problem with testimony from a lawyer regarding such a potential lawsuit is that any lawyer would assume that a lawsuit and the testimony of opposing expert witnesses is the best way to answer the question.
The folly of this is clearly encapsulated in the statement above. First it mentions expert witnesses, then it implies that people who are not members of the set "particle physicists" could be expert witnesses. That notion is rooted in the fundamentally flawed and intrinsically lawyerly hypothesis that both sides of any supposition have equal truth value until a couple lawyers get paid and a judge decides which one is more persuasive.
To put a fine point on it, Mr. Lawyer: Your implicit supposition that a lawsuit can add anything of value to the discussion is prima facie ridiculous. Your law degree and professorship are considerable achievements, but they are not sufficient to give your opinions any merit regarding matters of particle physics -- no more than you would care about my opinion on the validity of a complex corporate contract.
In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
IMO, the matter of the court's ruling on that basis is irrelevant.
If I have a briefcase full of documents and leave it on the table in the coffeeshop while I use the bathroom, a police officer is not allowed to open it and look inside without a warrant. Certainly "opening a briefcase" is technology in common use. The Supreme Court's ruling may not be valid, but the 4th amendment still stands. While unavailability of technology may be an additional limitation on government authority, the availability of technology does not grant the government new authority which it does not have under The Constitution.
Of course, this hangs on my personal and deeply held belief that "unreasonable" must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended in the minds of the liberty-oriented thinkers who wrote it.
So you are suggesting that the "usual" insurers are totally above the possibility of being influenced by lobbyists in regards to choosing which treatments to better cover/promote...
You present an excellent point.
Certainly I believe that private industry does this as well. Kickbacks to doctors, paid junkets, or even something as simple as free pills for common, vague symptoms they can give away that keep hypochondriacs coming back (regardless of the conscious intent of the drug companies or doctors, that is the outcome).
It's a good point you present. Which argues (in my mind) for both removal of political interests and for strict regulation of the industry (assuming that we believe that medicine is too complex and trust-based for the dream of a well-informed consumer to regulate the market). Of course, regulation itself is a political process. Which brings us to the Hippocratic Oath -- which hospitals, lawyers, and litigants have discarded in favor of the civil code. Back to regulation and political processes again.
Hmmm, it's a tough one.
Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do', and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available'.
Interesting explanations, but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue. Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians. Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies. Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.
Run it backwards: Lobbying money flows heavily from drug companies. Politicians are heavily influenced by drug companies. Medicaid is heavily influenced by drug companies.
There are almost certainly other significant factors at play, but to ignore the influence of drug pushers on our government is stunningly short-sighted.
Also consider the health care bill: They've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance. Who are they working for? I want everyone to have access to health care. This story, however, is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations, and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers. That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.
And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms. But nice try, rabble rouser.
I... I don't know what to say.
What did that weekend at the lake mean to you? I shared my darkest secrets with you as we held each other in front of the fire. I bared my soul to you. And now you accuse me of rousing rabble?!? I thought we meant something to each other. You know how I feel about the rousing of rabble, and this is what you say? Are you trying to hurt me? Well you did. I hope you're happy with yourself.
I feel like I don't even know who you are anymore.
Get out, just get out. I don't want to see you like this.
Congratulations, Microsoft, and allow me to offer this toast:
May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition, and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.
May your long, slow, demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night, so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.
And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.
Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues.
So instead of punching myself in the teabag, I should stick needles in my eyes? I guess I can see how that is an improvement.
What are the other alternatives? I have a long history of loving Google, but frankly I see where this guy is coming from. But is it really the best answer to switch to Bing? At this point picking between Microsoft and Google is starting to feel like choosing between a republican and a democrat.
I like your post, and I think it is an important distinction to make.
What is your take on Major Hasan at Fort Hood? Suppose that he was of a clear mind and was acting on a belief that he was a holy warrior based on his conversations with the imam. He targeted military personnel. If holy war was his motive (and I do not know if it was), would he be a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or something else?
Because the operators pay for the bandwidth. The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.
That is why tiered services would solve the problem. High bandwidth users should be more profitable than other ones. Then the ISPs would be profit motivated to encourage heavy bandwidth usage, and the users would be cost motivated to be efficient with their usage.
No single thing is more at the root of this problem than the word "unlimited."
You present an excellent example.
Nobody on Slashdot would ever think to say that an ISP, company or individual does not have the right to block email using whatever blocking techniques are available. Regardless of their taking responsibility for this or not. I don't think you can equate common carrier status with not blocking things because blocking is already happening. Badly.
I am a Slashdotter who does not believe ISPs should block email. I think it is fine for them to offer categorization and pigeonholing as a service, but not blocking -- for exactly the reasons you identify.
Good post though -- I'm not trying to be contrary.
Disassemble it. Printers have stepper motors and gear trains inside that you can use for robotics projects, buttons that can be repurposed, and often have PCB boards with full-size electronic components that can be desoldered for reuse. The plastic shell (with all parts and PCBs stripped) should be ABS and can be incinerated cleanly in a waste-to-energy system with a sufficient chamber temperature and resident time.
Hacking is the answer to every question. :)
Data transmission is not subject to common carrier, and it is looking like even if something called "net neutrality" does go through, it will have lots of fun lawyerisms in it like "reasonable". If we replace POTS with VOIP, are we going to carry common carrier over, or will the ISPs and backbones be allowed to "reasonably" manage your telephone calls?
IMO, bring common carrier over to data networks. I like it because it uses a natural stick: Want to engage in biased gatekeeping? Fine, but you are liable for what travels on your network. Don't want to be liable? Fine, but you can't engage in biased gatekeeping. Yes, you can charge more for more pipe, but you can only engage in bias if you accept legal liability for everything you carry. Simple.
I think it fundamentally makes sense too. Essentially what it is saying is: If you think you are smart enough to distinguish content that is healthy for your network from that which is not, you had better be able to demonstrate that you really believe in your ability to distinguish content. That you believe it strongly enough that you are willing to take legal responsibility if you fail to distinguish content that is legal from that which is not. Until you truly believe that you can distinguish legal from illegal, you cannot be trusted with inhibiting free speech based on your supposed ability to distinguish network-unhealthy from network-healthy.
Paul Graham wrote a very informative article about "news stories" like this one many years ago.
Fun! Your post led me to actually read the piece. It is awesome. Let's break it down.
Does 10x faster development dumb down programming?
10x faster -- catches bean counters eyes.
dumb down programming -- establishes the opposition as emotionally based.
Posted by Adrian Bridgwater
Fair enough. Written by Runtime Revolution.
If you're in the business of reviewing software application development news, which coincidentally I am, then tenfold programming productivity claims tend to either raise my eyebrows or raise my hackles in equal measure.
I am an expert. This is my business. And I am objective. I don't just blindly swallow this snake oil. I frequently get angry (for example; if they don't pay me to post a puff piece).
Software development company Runtime Revolution Ltd has this week introduced its Revolution 4.0 product for application and web development - and it's available in a free version too.
blah blah blah, and you can get it for free.
This outfit doesn't seem to mess about when it comes to making big claims. The company's product uses an English syntax that requires (and I quote) '90-per cent less code than traditional languages'. I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster. But it is of any substance?
See? It's simple math. 90% less code equals ten times faster. Any idiot (particularly our target idiots) could understand this.
Runtime Revolution says that its Rev programming language descends from natural-language technologies such as Apple's HyperCard and, "Empowers people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications," and that this, "Enables software construction for everyone."
It started at Apple! Apple! The company that makes the Jesus Phone! And it empowers and enables!
Oooh, sounds dangerous doesn't it? Surely not everyone has the mind of a software programmer and the algorithmic logic that the application developer has command of is the foundation of the creativity and power that they themselves wield.
But those arrogant software engineers will claim that you need logic and thought. They don't think you are as smart as them. They think you are stupid. And they are the only ones who will be claiming you can't do this.
Of course I'm being deliberately difficult here,...
I am hard bitten and critical. I am being tough on them. I am not playing slow pitch softball, or merely posting a piece crafted by their PR department to look as though it was a personal blog post.
there are instances in modern business when a simple application may be all that's needed and hiring a full-blown development professional might be out of budgetary limits....
Those arrogant software engineers claim this stuff is hard, but you already know what you want, and it is simple. And they're so expensive -- why they cost nearly half what a middle manager with an associates degree costs.
Further, there are arguments for creating customised tools inside the business by the people that will use them....
You know what you want, and those damned software engineers refuse to give it to you even though it is easy.
I know these arguments will not water with requirements management gurus who already have a hard enough time getting customers to calm down and stop asking for stupid functionalities, but there you go.
They don't give you what you want because they are arrogant and refuse to listen to you. It has nothing to do with whether it is possible, only their arrogance and disobedience.
"The last two years have seen the most impressive growth in our business, pointing to a correlation between a tough global economy and the resourcefulness of professionals who need to do more with less," said Kevin Miller, RunRev CEO.
You are resourceful and ne
Making laws is easy when it is a vetted and money'd interest on one side and some upstart disruptive ne'er do well on the other. Things get a bit more complicated when there is influence on both sides of the issue. How can lawmakers possibly know what is right when there are bribes available on both sides of an issue? It is an unreasonable thing we ask of them -- ultimately they have to try to predict which side will be able to give them more money in the future.
'From what was shared, it appears to be in the early stages of development,' a Microsoft spokeswoman said. 'From our perspective, however, our customers are already voicing their approval of the way Windows 7 just works -- across the Web and on the desktop, and on all sizes and types of PCs -- purchasing twice as many units of Windows 7 as we've sold of any other operating system over a comparable time.'
Sounds like the typical politician in a debate. Half a meaningless thought on the actual topic followed by a string of promotional sound bites for the product they're selling.
s/polemicist/polarizing person/
Yours was a perfectly natural response, and I shouldn't have responded so negatively. That was uncalled for, and I apologize.
I hold a very critical view of polemicists, and when I feel like I am being accused of it, I get touchy. Again, I'm sorry for overreacting.
>> "I'm all in favor. I hope Apple uses this heavily with the restrictive media they distribute through iTunes, and I hope they license it broadly to all other distributors of restrictive media. It would be most excellent if this winds up on virtually every bit of restrictive media."
> You are aware the music side of iTunes is drm free now and that aac is advanced audio codec and not Apple audio codec, right?
Yes. I also have a Mac laptop, a brand new iPod Touch (which I *love*) and over 40 days of podcasts downloaded through iTMS.
I was only talking about the restrictive media they distribute, which I indicated by typing, "the restrictive media they distribute".
You are aware that most corporations are neither purely evil nor purely good, and that each action of such a corporation should be judged on its individual merit, right?
I'm all in favor. I hope Apple uses this heavily with the restrictive media they distribute through iTunes, and I hope they license it broadly to all other distributors of restrictive media. It would be most excellent if this winds up on virtually every bit of restrictive media.
Why? Because if that happens, people will start to see -- in a very personally tangible way -- how much restrictively licensed media sucks. The cost of consuming licensed media will be frustration, and more people will turn to liberally licensed media. As that happens, they will see how good it is. There is a wealth of really outstanding stuff out there being put out without restriction, based on gift-economics and self-promotion. It is already working on a small scale, and the more people who get driven away from restrictive media, the larger the audience for liberal media.
Restrictive media is poisonous to our culture. The best way to kill it is to let its own toxins attack itself. As it becomes tangibly diseased, fewer people will want to touch it. They will stop giving money to the hostile copyrightists, and they will wither. Their budgets for purchasing votes and talking points in Congress will dry up, and slowly the scales will be lifted from the eyes of the public and the representatives.
Restrictive media will kill itself if we let it, and it has too much power to allow itself to be killed any other way. So three cheers for Apple for being an unwitting pawn in hastening that demise.
Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view.
Bullshit.
They were not simply providing a point of view. They were providing a point of view with the intent of the text being used as talking points in the context of a system in which they are known for giving money to the politicians whom they favor.
Suppose you go to a football game. There's a line to use the bathroom. You wait in line. A guy comes rushing through saying, "Please let me through, I'm going to throw up!" Everyone lets him through. He gets into the stall, urinates, and walks out. Did he do anything wrong? He was just acting in his own best interest.
This whole "We should not revile corporations when they act amorally" meme is a crock. Dicks are dicks, and they should be castigated. Had we a system to provide just punishment for such behavior, that would be good, and we should seek it. We should also subject such dissocial actors to public ridicule and shunning. It is how a healthy community defends itself against infection by harmful parasites.
Of course the politicians are equally to blame. And as with criminals who are the result of poor upbringing, we may understand and pity these diseased corporations. Also as with criminals, we should seek paths to rehabilitation and reconciliation with society. But we certainly should not accept or condone the behavior.
"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."
Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.
Probably not. The quote came from the ACLU, and only refers to the limits of governmental authority established in The United States Constitution. The United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.
but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.
First a disclaimer, or a proclaimer if you prefer: I am in the affiliate marketing business, and a big chunk of my earnings come from writing behavioral analysis code (linear algebra, massive matrix calculations).
Here's what's coming. The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".
An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user - so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though.
I've got to say, that sounds right to me. This seems to be saying that things which are an explicit part of the user's intent are fair game (shopping, site configuration, etc). While the surreptitious stuff that a user is unlikely to be aware of is not -- the user must be informed.
One of the fundamental principles of free market economics is that the parties to a transaction must be informed. If I am going to take a person's behavioral information I need to inform them that I am doing so. Frankly, if I'm going to use the information I have taken from them to make a profit, I would hope that the user would want a piece of the action. The information was created by them, it has value, it only seems right that they should have the option of asking me for a cut or denying me the information.
I'm not questioning the fact that this will sharply hinder the behavioral analytics business. It will. It will cost a lot of companies a lot of money. But here's the question for a true lover of the free market: Is that information yours by virtue of a just transaction, or is it that the creator of the information does not know it is being taken and you can get away with it? If the latter, is that really in accord with the noblest principles of Western economics?
Moreover, note that this is talking specifically about cookies, which are data stored on the user's computer. So even if you are still uncomfortable with the idea, answer this: What gives you the right to write to the user's hard drive without their express or implied consent? If it were the case that most web users understood what cookies were or what they are used for, you might be able to say that not turning cookies off is implied consent. But is that the case? Ask the average idiot about their cookies. Then show them what they are really doing, and watch the look on their face. I've done it, it is enlightening.
Outstanding post.
I love that you raised the relevant issues and provided solid rational support, then invited readers to think about the matter, rather than prescribing some simplistic panacea. These are complicated issues that we need to start by thinking deeply about. The first issue is that we do not yet broadly accept and understand the problem itself. While I may think I have some of the answers, the first critical step is to get people seriously considering and discussing the difference between laboratory economics (which I love) and organic system economics (which I also love).
Thank you for your insightful post.
Furthermore, I think it's a "low-hanging fruit" cop-out ... It's a witch hunt, plain and simple.
Excellent post, and a particularly insightful paragraph. Thank you.