Again, the main point is that auto clicking can have unintended consequences. Its naive to think its just going to screw up advertisers and not provide an entirely new avenue for exploitation.
Shouldn't it be fairly simple to write the plug-in to "click" on ads, download the ads, and then direct the download results straight to/dev/null? Downloading an ad shouldn't have to mean actually interpreting the data or rendering anything and certainly not executing any downloaded JS code; all the advertiser needs to know is that you've "clicked" on something (which means you've downloaded it); they don't know that you didn't actually look at the ad.
That is a good description of an expected sequence of events. However unintended consequences involve things one is not expecting, that one has not considered. Which are things commonly associated with exploits. I'm sure that in time we'll learn of a sequence of events where auto clicking on a button yielded negative consequences.
"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
The government figured out ride sharing vs commercial activity long ago in the area of a private pilot's license vs a commercial pilot's license. A private pilot can take a passenger who chips in for fuel. I think the chipping in has to be accurate with respect to fuel, no gross overpaying for the passenger's fair share. Also I don't think splitting rental or maintenance costs were allowed, just fuel. And the passenger can absolutely have no influence on where or when the plane departs and where it goes. The passenger literally has to be leaving, arriving and go to a destination that the pilot was going to anyway. If the passenger has such influence on the flight a commercial license is necessary.
That said, maybe a new commercial class of driver's license is needed for "drivers for hire"? Something that involves a little extra driver training, a vehicle inspection, insurance requirements, etc?
Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Technically representation and voting are different things. Representation means you have a person in the legislature representing you. Someone you can go to and share your grievances with. Voting means you got to pick that person.
So, why couldn't all those colonialists send a letter to an MP back in England?
Because there was no colonial sent to Parliament as an MP, no MP representing the colonies. No colonial, not even those with a franchise to vote in a colony, could vote for an MP. Only those living in England could vote for an MP.
You just said that being represented had nothing to do with being able to vote for your representative. The 13 colonies were represented by parliament. They just didn't get to vote for them. By your argument they should have been content with that.
Representatives in the colonial legislatures were (1) from the region they represented and (2) they were voted into office by citizens of that region. (1) and (2) were considered necessary in that era for representation. So while one individual colonist did not get to vote for a representative, some number of colonists did. That non-voting colonist had a "neighbor" chosen by other "neighbors" to write to. (1) and (2) were absent with respect to parliament. No colonials present. No one elected by colonials. Hence no representation.
Or how about an ad that has a button "I agree to upload my address book" ?
As with many "good" ideas, the big problems are often due to the unintended consequences and responses.
What? You've discovered a way for Javascript code to access someone's "address book" and upload it without any further prompting from the user? And this is a real problem rather than some hypothetical issue that would never happen?
You are having a forest/trees moment.
That said, good thing that there are no javascript exploits that lead to arbitrary code execution. Otherwise a user could inadvertently approve of running such arbitrary code via an auto clicking addon. Its not unauthorized use of the user's computer since they clicked?
Again, the main point is that auto clicking can have unintended consequences. Its naive to think its just going to screw up advertisers and not provide and entirely new avenue for exploitation.
The addon user did not give explicit permission to the advertising companies to do business with the website through himself. Websites generally don't even have EULA. If they then are prevented from doing this questionable business through non-consenting parties, that should be fine.
My understanding is that tortious interference is about a 3rd party (the user in this case) interfering with business between others (website and advertiser). The third party does not need to be part of any agreement in order to be interfering. Users of this addon might be at risk if so.
It would only be criminal fraud if the intention was for a competitor to gain an advantage, to demand payments for it to stop, or to extract more money from advertising agencies' clients...
It might be illegal for merely trying to interfere with business between others (website and advertiser). Tortious interference.
I have a few devices for testing. I have NOT tried this but it might be interesting:
"The Remote Test Lab is a solution that enables developers to control devices remotely. Using the Remote Test Lab service, you can test your application on a real device." http://developer.samsung.com/r...
That's all very well and good unless one doesn't own windows.
But not owning windows is more of a political issue than a technical issue. If you are a moderately serious Android developer that needs the NDK then getting Windows and dual booting your Mac or PC wouldn't seem to be much of a problem.
Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Technically representation and voting are different things. Representation means you have a person in the legislature representing you. Someone you can go to and share your grievances with. Voting means you got to pick that person.
So, why couldn't all those colonialists send a letter to an MP back in England?
Because there was no colonial sent to Parliament as an MP, no MP representing the colonies. No colonial, not even those with a franchise to vote in a colony, could vote for an MP. Only those living in England could vote for an MP.
Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Technically representation and voting are different things. Representation means you have a person in the legislature representing you. Someone you can go to and share your grievances with. Voting means you got to pick that person.
Also be careful with found father era references. In those days in some jurisdictions only landowners could vote. Like today's felons, the non-land owners in those jurisdiction were represent, they could speak and correspond with representatives, but could not vote.
Perhaps applying an open source license to your code does so but merely making source code available to users does not.
Yes because we have all seen how much copyright laws are respected!
They are well respected by companies that don't want to see their income go to lawyers and the owners of a library they pirated. Source code licenses have made money.
Having programmed the 8048 and 8051 in assembly language I can appreciate the tech. However I think the 12-year old technology label is probably referring to something like the RAD750. Its roughly a hardened PowerPC G3 at 200 Mhz, sort of comparable to what was in the original iMac. I think the RAD750 was used on some of the Mars missions.
Open source is not about being free, it is mostly about the sharing of information with the goal of making it better and aiding everyone. Those who open source their software get the benefit of other people extending it, who then contribute back to the project in some manner. Those who use Open Source software can take advantage of the community and its work and oversight.
Its not that simple. Your definition matches various commercial closed source libraries where you have the option to buy a binary license or a source license.
Also you left out what is perhaps the greatest draw of open source or closed source licensing. Your project is not at the mercy of someone else. You have the convenience of using an existing library but if the vendor fails you have the source and can fix things yourself as a last resort. Not that having a community find/fix bugs isn't nice, its just secondary to controlling your own destiny. And to be clear the community finding/fixing bugs can apply to the closed source license.
Opening the code removes the ability to adequately charge for the "intellectual property"...
Perhaps applying an open source license to your code does so but merely making source code available to users does not. Again, source license referred to above.
Android is *NOT* Linux based, it is merely Linux hosted. Android is its own OS, its own environment.
And now you know why Richard Stallman was right about calling the familiar desktop and server operating system "GNU/Linux". Android has a completely different userland on top of the same Linux kernel that underlies GNU/Linux.
No. Android is not some sort of userland, not some sort of GUI layer. It is its own thing. Android is a basically a Java based OS where the hardware and the host operating system are both abstracted away.
hmm where these "constructive well thought out amendments " actually spoiling amendments?
No. Those I lumped under "Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down.".
What I thought "constructive well thought out amendments" were more like someone identifying a loophole/exploit and suggesting a fix. A fix that did not go against the spirit and intent of the legislation. Reasonable constructive criticisms and suggestions. And I want to emphasize these loopholes and exploits were not even discussed. Zero questions, zero debate, zero discussion; just an immediate no vote. Its not like they thought about it and decided no.
Seriously, the committee was complete theatre. It truly seemed that the legislation was written in a closed back room process and that absolutely no changes were going to be allowed. All the Democrats were apparently aware of this and played their proper role and offered no amendments at all, asked no questions, offered no discussion.
Because some idiot decided to strip the security out of Linux to make Android. No Android app is safe, auto updates of a safe app can make it unsafe with no notice to the user. They took the safest OS there is and made a Frankenstein POS out of it to make it user friendly.
Android is *NOT* Linux based, it is merely Linux hosted. Android is its own OS, its own environment. As such Android is perfectly free to have less or *more* security than Linux. There was no stripping security out, there was only how much security to build into this new and independent environment.
There is a way for apps to jump through some hoops and access Linux (NDK) but only about 25% of apps (last I read) do this. For the vast majority of Android Apps and Android Developers they are just like Android users. They don't see or use Linux at all. If Android were to be updated to host on BSD these users and developers would not know or care. Of the remain 25%, many of their apps would still compile and run. Many use standard *nix calls, nothing Linux specific like most FOSS software.
Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.
He was personally freed from all consequences once re-elected. As he told the Russian President he would never have to face another election so he would be more flexible once re-elected.
As for consequences to the democratic party he is no more free before the recent midterm election than after. What he did and what he will do will effect the party, be it helpful or hurtful.
you do know how parliamentary procedure works with you know amendments to motions:-) id suggest reading Citrine and Roberts rules as background than the standing orders and rules of debate for the congress before making that assumption
Did you ever watch CSPAN when Obamacare was being drafted? I watched one night. Something drafted in the backrooms by who knows who was brought out. Democrats offered zero amendments. Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down. Other republicans offered constructive well thought out amendments with explanations for the problem / unintended consequence they were addressing. Every single one of these amendments were voted down **without** discussion. No questions. No debate. No discussion. Nothing. It was as if the current text of the bill was negotiated somewhere else behind closed doors and **zero** changes could be made.
Textbooks, and Electric Company videos, about bills... meet the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, the main point is that auto clicking can have unintended consequences. Its naive to think its just going to screw up advertisers and not provide an entirely new avenue for exploitation.
Shouldn't it be fairly simple to write the plug-in to "click" on ads, download the ads, and then direct the download results straight to /dev/null? Downloading an ad shouldn't have to mean actually interpreting the data or rendering anything and certainly not executing any downloaded JS code; all the advertiser needs to know is that you've "clicked" on something (which means you've downloaded it); they don't know that you didn't actually look at the ad.
That is a good description of an expected sequence of events. However unintended consequences involve things one is not expecting, that one has not considered. Which are things commonly associated with exploits. I'm sure that in time we'll learn of a sequence of events where auto clicking on a button yielded negative consequences.
"Hey Ez, where are you going"? "Up to the store". "Mind if I go with you, I need a few things". "Not at all". "Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
The government figured out ride sharing vs commercial activity long ago in the area of a private pilot's license vs a commercial pilot's license. A private pilot can take a passenger who chips in for fuel. I think the chipping in has to be accurate with respect to fuel, no gross overpaying for the passenger's fair share. Also I don't think splitting rental or maintenance costs were allowed, just fuel. And the passenger can absolutely have no influence on where or when the plane departs and where it goes. The passenger literally has to be leaving, arriving and go to a destination that the pilot was going to anyway. If the passenger has such influence on the flight a commercial license is necessary.
That said, maybe a new commercial class of driver's license is needed for "drivers for hire"? Something that involves a little extra driver training, a vehicle inspection, insurance requirements, etc?
Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Technically representation and voting are different things. Representation means you have a person in the legislature representing you. Someone you can go to and share your grievances with. Voting means you got to pick that person.
So, why couldn't all those colonialists send a letter to an MP back in England?
Because there was no colonial sent to Parliament as an MP, no MP representing the colonies. No colonial, not even those with a franchise to vote in a colony, could vote for an MP. Only those living in England could vote for an MP.
You just said that being represented had nothing to do with being able to vote for your representative. The 13 colonies were represented by parliament. They just didn't get to vote for them. By your argument they should have been content with that.
Representatives in the colonial legislatures were (1) from the region they represented and (2) they were voted into office by citizens of that region. (1) and (2) were considered necessary in that era for representation. So while one individual colonist did not get to vote for a representative, some number of colonists did. That non-voting colonist had a "neighbor" chosen by other "neighbors" to write to. (1) and (2) were absent with respect to parliament. No colonials present. No one elected by colonials. Hence no representation.
And the developers of the addon are probably even more at risk
Or how about an ad that has a button "I agree to upload my address book" ?
As with many "good" ideas, the big problems are often due to the unintended consequences and responses.
What? You've discovered a way for Javascript code to access someone's "address book" and upload it without any further prompting from the user? And this is a real problem rather than some hypothetical issue that would never happen?
You are having a forest/trees moment.
That said, good thing that there are no javascript exploits that lead to arbitrary code execution. Otherwise a user could inadvertently approve of running such arbitrary code via an auto clicking addon. Its not unauthorized use of the user's computer since they clicked?
Again, the main point is that auto clicking can have unintended consequences. Its naive to think its just going to screw up advertisers and not provide and entirely new avenue for exploitation.
The addon user did not give explicit permission to the advertising companies to do business with the website through himself. Websites generally don't even have EULA. If they then are prevented from doing this questionable business through non-consenting parties, that should be fine.
My understanding is that tortious interference is about a 3rd party (the user in this case) interfering with business between others (website and advertiser). The third party does not need to be part of any agreement in order to be interfering. Users of this addon might be at risk if so.
It would only be criminal fraud if the intention was for a competitor to gain an advantage, to demand payments for it to stop, or to extract more money from advertising agencies' clients ...
It might be illegal for merely trying to interfere with business between others (website and advertiser). Tortious interference.
... or who knows what else?
Or how about an ad that has a button "I agree to upload my address book" ?
As with many "good" ideas, the big problems are often due to the unintended consequences and responses.
I have a few devices for testing. I have NOT tried this but it might be interesting:
"The Remote Test Lab is a solution that enables developers to control devices remotely. Using the Remote Test Lab service, you can test your application on a real device."
http://developer.samsung.com/r...
That's all very well and good unless one doesn't own windows.
But not owning windows is more of a political issue than a technical issue. If you are a moderately serious Android developer that needs the NDK then getting Windows and dual booting your Mac or PC wouldn't seem to be much of a problem.
Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Technically representation and voting are different things. Representation means you have a person in the legislature representing you. Someone you can go to and share your grievances with. Voting means you got to pick that person.
So, why couldn't all those colonialists send a letter to an MP back in England?
Because there was no colonial sent to Parliament as an MP, no MP representing the colonies. No colonial, not even those with a franchise to vote in a colony, could vote for an MP. Only those living in England could vote for an MP.
You are not a "real" programmer until you've done serial I/O by flipping an output toggle up and down by hand on the front panel! ;-)
I thought only a "true scotsman programmer" would be expected to go to that level. :-)
Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?
Technically representation and voting are different things. Representation means you have a person in the legislature representing you. Someone you can go to and share your grievances with. Voting means you got to pick that person.
Also be careful with found father era references. In those days in some jurisdictions only landowners could vote. Like today's felons, the non-land owners in those jurisdiction were represent, they could speak and correspond with representatives, but could not vote.
>If those old computers were any good, then the Voyagers would still be working. Oh wait ...
The "new" stuff isn't doing so bad. The PowerPC G3s on Mars are doing well.
You are not a "real" programmer unless you've done serial I/O by flipping an output pin up and down in your code. ;-)
Perhaps applying an open source license to your code does so but merely making source code available to users does not.
Yes because we have all seen how much copyright laws are respected!
They are well respected by companies that don't want to see their income go to lawyers and the owners of a library they pirated. Source code licenses have made money.
Having programmed the 8048 and 8051 in assembly language I can appreciate the tech. However I think the 12-year old technology label is probably referring to something like the RAD750. Its roughly a hardened PowerPC G3 at 200 Mhz, sort of comparable to what was in the original iMac. I think the RAD750 was used on some of the Mars missions.
Open source is not about being free, it is mostly about the sharing of information with the goal of making it better and aiding everyone. Those who open source their software get the benefit of other people extending it, who then contribute back to the project in some manner. Those who use Open Source software can take advantage of the community and its work and oversight.
Its not that simple. Your definition matches various commercial closed source libraries where you have the option to buy a binary license or a source license.
Also you left out what is perhaps the greatest draw of open source or closed source licensing. Your project is not at the mercy of someone else. You have the convenience of using an existing library but if the vendor fails you have the source and can fix things yourself as a last resort. Not that having a community find/fix bugs isn't nice, its just secondary to controlling your own destiny. And to be clear the community finding/fixing bugs can apply to the closed source license.
Opening the code removes the ability to adequately charge for the "intellectual property" ...
Perhaps applying an open source license to your code does so but merely making source code available to users does not. Again, source license referred to above.
Android is *NOT* Linux based, it is merely Linux hosted. Android is its own OS, its own environment.
And now you know why Richard Stallman was right about calling the familiar desktop and server operating system "GNU/Linux". Android has a completely different userland on top of the same Linux kernel that underlies GNU/Linux.
No. Android is not some sort of userland, not some sort of GUI layer. It is its own thing. Android is a basically a Java based OS where the hardware and the host operating system are both abstracted away.
hmm where these "constructive well thought out amendments " actually spoiling amendments?
No. Those I lumped under "Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down.".
What I thought "constructive well thought out amendments" were more like someone identifying a loophole/exploit and suggesting a fix. A fix that did not go against the spirit and intent of the legislation. Reasonable constructive criticisms and suggestions. And I want to emphasize these loopholes and exploits were not even discussed. Zero questions, zero debate, zero discussion; just an immediate no vote. Its not like they thought about it and decided no.
Seriously, the committee was complete theatre. It truly seemed that the legislation was written in a closed back room process and that absolutely no changes were going to be allowed. All the Democrats were apparently aware of this and played their proper role and offered no amendments at all, asked no questions, offered no discussion.
Because some idiot decided to strip the security out of Linux to make Android. No Android app is safe, auto updates of a safe app can make it unsafe with no notice to the user. They took the safest OS there is and made a Frankenstein POS out of it to make it user friendly.
Android is *NOT* Linux based, it is merely Linux hosted. Android is its own OS, its own environment. As such Android is perfectly free to have less or *more* security than Linux. There was no stripping security out, there was only how much security to build into this new and independent environment.
There is a way for apps to jump through some hoops and access Linux (NDK) but only about 25% of apps (last I read) do this. For the vast majority of Android Apps and Android Developers they are just like Android users. They don't see or use Linux at all. If Android were to be updated to host on BSD these users and developers would not know or care. Of the remain 25%, many of their apps would still compile and run. Many use standard *nix calls, nothing Linux specific like most FOSS software.
I'm perfectly aware of that, but if a camelback weighs 4 pounds with a liter of water in it, it's made of 1.8 pounds of nylon.
That's about the empty weight of many models. I'm referring to the complete unit, pack with bladder.
Why would Obama care about lobbyist money? As of two weeks ago, he's been freed of all political consequences to any of his actions. He can finally do what he thinks is right.
He was personally freed from all consequences once re-elected. As he told the Russian President he would never have to face another election so he would be more flexible once re-elected.
As for consequences to the democratic party he is no more free before the recent midterm election than after. What he did and what he will do will effect the party, be it helpful or hurtful.
Vauge requirements and design are par for the course.
Shipping without any testing and bug fixes at all are not.
you do know how parliamentary procedure works with you know amendments to motions :-) id suggest reading Citrine and Roberts rules as background than the standing orders and rules of debate for the congress before making that assumption
Did you ever watch CSPAN when Obamacare was being drafted? I watched one night. Something drafted in the backrooms by who knows who was brought out. Democrats offered zero amendments. Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down. Other republicans offered constructive well thought out amendments with explanations for the problem / unintended consequence they were addressing. Every single one of these amendments were voted down **without** discussion. No questions. No debate. No discussion. Nothing. It was as if the current text of the bill was negotiated somewhere else behind closed doors and **zero** changes could be made.
... meet the real world.
Textbooks, and Electric Company videos, about bills