Lastly, I would like to point out that another solution aside from Ghostery or Noscript is just to not use Wired's site at all. Vote with your feet and bring your eyeballs elsewhere for pageviews and adclicks.
To be able to "vote with your feet," you have to know that the site is spying on you to begin with. The sites tend not to tell you, and it's a bit problematic to have to run every web interaction through a sniffer to catch the snoops.
The only realistic option is to block scripting.
The problem with Tynt, as others have pointed out, is not that they are "helping" us with attribution. It's that they are spying on what we highlight. Not what we copy -- although that would be bad enough (just because I copy it doesn't mean I'm republishing it) -- but what we highlight.
I actually believe that Tynt aren't trying to be bad guys here, but they're managing it just the same.
I don't want to see anybody die, but it's all about acceptable risk. We make decisions about acceptable risk all the time, and one of the ones we make is to drive and allow others to drive -- in spite of the fact that orders of magnitude more people die each and every year directly because of this behavior than because of terrorist acts.
Our response to the risk of terrorist attacks is completely out of proportion to the actual risk.
Perhaps. But something like that was supposed to happen with the 9/11 planes too, and yet it didn't in spite of the planes being off course and unresponsive for a very long time. Why should we expect anything different now?
Yes, I understand that. But it's pointless, as someone could just as easily hijack a Canadian (or Central American, for that matter) flight that was not intended to enter US airspace -- and therefore not subject to US "screening," then make it enter US airspace and pull off the same stunt anyway.
Don't like the conditions, don't go there. Boycott the US.
This is about flights that are only traveling through US airspace, not landing in the US, so they are already not going there.
The US is certainly within its rights to do this, but it is a very odd thing to do nonetheless: it doesn't increase US security at all, and further tarnishes our already very tarnished image.
The world is increasingly boycotting the US, and things like this simply accelerate the trend. That is a bad thing, since we rely on the cooperation of the world to maintain our standard of living, technology, and, yes, security.
I believe the El-Al airline would beg to differ with that assessment. The difference is, they aren't afraid to hurt the feelings of crybabies to enforce security. We in the U.S. are.
We're not afraid of hurting anybody's feelings. This is a fight about freedom, not comfort. God forbid we run things like El-Al.
Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.
Apples and oranges. They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq, which means that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to extreme lengths than is typical. Even so, the percentage of the population willing to do these things is quite small. The percentage of that percentage that would be willing to come over here and engage in the same things is even smaller.
Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.
I think that it's quite fair. History bears this out time and time again. Perhaps the people who are putting these rules into place have our best interests in mind (although I'd be surprised if that's the main concern for most of them -- most of them are worried about political ramifications and fundraising, not our best interests) however there will inevitably come corrupt goons who will abuse these rules, potentially to disastrous effect.
But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty? When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?
Perhaps so, however this is not the situation we are facing. What we are facing, speculations of future technology aside, is the inverse of this -- we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security. Personally, I'd rather live in a dangerous and free world than a safe and unfree one. As near as I can see, based on what the government (and too many people) have been saying and doing, is that this is the decision in front of us.
This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.
Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better. Also, it's years away from being technologically possible, at best. We'd still be subject to the whims of the authorities, we'd still lose our privacy, we'd still be treated like cattle and like criminals.
The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances. I hate being so demeaned, and avoid it. If it gets worse, such as full body scans (whether your fantasy version or the one that exists now), pat-downs, etc., then I simply will no longer fly at all. I'm far from the only one who takes this stance.
Someone in the real world that works on cars, develops deodorant or makes heart medication doesn't say "I'm a Scientist so I'm right!" They say "I'm an automative engineer, or a chemist that works on medication, or I'm a chemist that designs right guard."
Unless they hear someone make completely ignorant claims about what they designed. Tell the chemist who made Right Guard that the stuff can turn lead into gold and I think you'll hear his rebuttal boil down to "I made it, so I should know." The reason for this is, of course, that it's impossible to prove the facts to completely ignorant people -- they don't have enough foundational knowledge to understand what you're saying.
All too often in the debates about GCC someone who is a climate researcher will go "Well I'm a climate researcher so I'm right and the people that don't agree with me are idiots."
Yes, it's bad people management, but all too often the people that don't agree with them ARE idiots. Scientists love disagreement, just not uninformed disagreement.
Besides, just because someone acts like a dick doesn't mean they're wrong.
I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.
Considering how easy it is to get on the sex offender list without being any sort of danger to children (or anyone else), I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.
If you want to make Google evil over this, then Boeing, Apple, and virtually every other multi-national corporation is equally evil for doing business in the PRC and obeying the local laws there.
Google IS evil over this. But you're right, so are the other multinationals. They are helping to fund and support an evil regime, and the evil does indeed rub off.
Google, and those other companies, should not be doing business in China at all.
This is exactly why I never want to move everything "in the cloud", or in to Internet services for that matter.
I'm with you. I get nervous trusting any third party -- I even run my own mailservers, fileservers, wikis, web servers and so forth, primarily so I don't have to trust a third party for reliability or security -- but then, I'm a freak.
There's something I don't understand, though -- "cloud computing" is just a sexy name for "centralized computing" or server-based computing, which is a throwback to the '50s-'70s. People sem to have forgotten why everyone was so excited to be able to get away from that model in the first place.
If you want to distribute code for Windows Mobile and Android, you can just send the user a file.
Precisely! This is a huge win, and although I'm sure that iPhone apps outsell Android simply because of the difference in user base sizes, to compare sales from the two stores is comparing apples and oranges.
I have to say, I don't get Android. What's the appeal?
Well, personally, I'm not terribly thrilled by Android. However, I do want a handheld computer both for my personal use and to develop commerical apps for.
The appeal of Android (such as it is) to me is simple. It has nothing to do with OSS. It's that it's not the iPhone. This means I don't have to deal with the app store either as a customer or developer, and that I don't have to have AT&T as my carrier. Those two wins are great enough to overcome the weak bits of Android.
Which is why I trust SELinux less than most other flavors. Sure, I can look at the code, but what are the odds I'm looking at the right part of the code, and even if I am, what are the odds that I'll actually spot a weak point?
People often forget that the NSA has a public function.
Oh, I don't think anyone is forgetting that at all. It's just that the NSA cannot be trusted, and Microsoft cannot be trusted, and so when the two work together the result is something untrustworthy.
My objection isn't that it's imperfect, but that Apple has clearly outlined the way they want iPhone development to work, and their plan is opposed to what I am willing to put up with as a developer.
Damn. So there isn't a single awesome smartphone coming for the US market? And since handheld computers are merging with smartphones (and thus on their way out), that means there isn't a single awesome handheld computer in the US?
I guess I'll have to go with Android. It has a boatload of issues too, but it's the lesser of two evils.
I remember when the US was where the action was in technology. *sigh*
They were using images obtained from an API on the Mac desktop - not on the phone.
They then sent those images to the app on the phone.
I'm not sure how that changes anything at all.
The whole issue of transference is very grey to me, I can see why they thought it might be OK but can also see why Apple decided in the end they were not.
And that right there is exactly my point. It's unclear and appears arbitrary. It's not as cut-and-dried as many people make it out to be.
I'm hardly a quitter. I'm still developing (finished and polished) apps. Just not for that platform. It doesn't offer enough benefit to tolerate policies that irritate me, so why should I?
I'm no longer using the iPhone because it doesn't meet my needs. Why should I?
I'm often told "if you don't like it, don't use it," so I'm not using it. I have no moral or ethical obligation to support things that I dislike.
Apple's going pro-user experience, which is contrary to the aims of developers.
Baloney. I mena about pro-user experiences being contrary to the aims of developers. Developers want users to love their apps, it is exactly their aim to be pro-user!
The app store is that part that is the most hostile to developers, and it has nothing to do with being pro-user. It's about Apple wanting to maintain a monopoly on the platform so they can monetize it to the greatest possible extent.
I assume that you're referring to the Rogue Amoeba rejection here. As I understand that situation, it's not entirely clear that they did use Apple icons improperly. They weren't shipping any Apple icons in their software, they were obtaining the icons through documented API calls and using them in a nonconfusing and reasonable way -- the implication of doing so is that they were using the calls in precisely the way that Apple wanted. There certainly is nothing in the developer agreements that made this obviously a Bad Thing.
That Apple thinks differently points to one of the (perhaps the) major problem with iPhone development: the rules aren't clear, and appear to be largely arbitrary. That's anti-developer right there.
Slashdot Mirror
What big routine? I just click on the placeholder that appears on the page. It's not a big deal.
Heh, you're probably right. At least "begging the question" isn't a peeve of mine. :)
Lastly, I would like to point out that another solution aside from Ghostery or Noscript is just to not use Wired's site at all. Vote with your feet and bring your eyeballs elsewhere for pageviews and adclicks.
To be able to "vote with your feet," you have to know that the site is spying on you to begin with. The sites tend not to tell you, and it's a bit problematic to have to run every web interaction through a sniffer to catch the snoops.
The only realistic option is to block scripting.
The problem with Tynt, as others have pointed out, is not that they are "helping" us with attribution. It's that they are spying on what we highlight. Not what we copy -- although that would be bad enough (just because I copy it doesn't mean I'm republishing it) -- but what we highlight.
I actually believe that Tynt aren't trying to be bad guys here, but they're managing it just the same.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
It should be "For all intents and purposes."
Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine. I usually ignore it, but couldn't this time because it was tied to a grammar joke.
I'm an American, and I actually agree with you.
I don't want to see anybody die, but it's all about acceptable risk. We make decisions about acceptable risk all the time, and one of the ones we make is to drive and allow others to drive -- in spite of the fact that orders of magnitude more people die each and every year directly because of this behavior than because of terrorist acts.
Our response to the risk of terrorist attacks is completely out of proportion to the actual risk.
Perhaps. But something like that was supposed to happen with the 9/11 planes too, and yet it didn't in spite of the planes being off course and unresponsive for a very long time. Why should we expect anything different now?
Yes, I understand that. But it's pointless, as someone could just as easily hijack a Canadian (or Central American, for that matter) flight that was not intended to enter US airspace -- and therefore not subject to US "screening," then make it enter US airspace and pull off the same stunt anyway.
Don't like the conditions, don't go there. Boycott the US.
This is about flights that are only traveling through US airspace, not landing in the US, so they are already not going there.
The US is certainly within its rights to do this, but it is a very odd thing to do nonetheless: it doesn't increase US security at all, and further tarnishes our already very tarnished image.
The world is increasingly boycotting the US, and things like this simply accelerate the trend. That is a bad thing, since we rely on the cooperation of the world to maintain our standard of living, technology, and, yes, security.
I believe the El-Al airline would beg to differ with that assessment. The difference is, they aren't afraid to hurt the feelings of crybabies to enforce security. We in the U.S. are.
We're not afraid of hurting anybody's feelings. This is a fight about freedom, not comfort. God forbid we run things like El-Al.
Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.
Apples and oranges. They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq, which means that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to extreme lengths than is typical. Even so, the percentage of the population willing to do these things is quite small. The percentage of that percentage that would be willing to come over here and engage in the same things is even smaller.
Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.
I think that it's quite fair. History bears this out time and time again. Perhaps the people who are putting these rules into place have our best interests in mind (although I'd be surprised if that's the main concern for most of them -- most of them are worried about political ramifications and fundraising, not our best interests) however there will inevitably come corrupt goons who will abuse these rules, potentially to disastrous effect.
But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty? When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?
Perhaps so, however this is not the situation we are facing. What we are facing, speculations of future technology aside, is the inverse of this -- we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security. Personally, I'd rather live in a dangerous and free world than a safe and unfree one. As near as I can see, based on what the government (and too many people) have been saying and doing, is that this is the decision in front of us.
This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.
Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better. Also, it's years away from being technologically possible, at best. We'd still be subject to the whims of the authorities, we'd still lose our privacy, we'd still be treated like cattle and like criminals.
The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances. I hate being so demeaned, and avoid it. If it gets worse, such as full body scans (whether your fantasy version or the one that exists now), pat-downs, etc., then I simply will no longer fly at all. I'm far from the only one who takes this stance.
Someone in the real world that works on cars, develops deodorant or makes heart medication doesn't say "I'm a Scientist so I'm right!" They say "I'm an automative engineer, or a chemist that works on medication, or I'm a chemist that designs right guard."
Unless they hear someone make completely ignorant claims about what they designed. Tell the chemist who made Right Guard that the stuff can turn lead into gold and I think you'll hear his rebuttal boil down to "I made it, so I should know." The reason for this is, of course, that it's impossible to prove the facts to completely ignorant people -- they don't have enough foundational knowledge to understand what you're saying.
All too often in the debates about GCC someone who is a climate researcher will go "Well I'm a climate researcher so I'm right and the people that don't agree with me are idiots."
Yes, it's bad people management, but all too often the people that don't agree with them ARE idiots. Scientists love disagreement, just not uninformed disagreement.
Besides, just because someone acts like a dick doesn't mean they're wrong.
I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.
Considering how easy it is to get on the sex offender list without being any sort of danger to children (or anyone else), I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.
If you want to make Google evil over this, then Boeing, Apple, and virtually every other multi-national corporation is equally evil for doing business in the PRC and obeying the local laws there.
Google IS evil over this. But you're right, so are the other multinationals. They are helping to fund and support an evil regime, and the evil does indeed rub off.
Google, and those other companies, should not be doing business in China at all.
This is exactly why I never want to move everything "in the cloud", or in to Internet services for that matter.
I'm with you. I get nervous trusting any third party -- I even run my own mailservers, fileservers, wikis, web servers and so forth, primarily so I don't have to trust a third party for reliability or security -- but then, I'm a freak.
There's something I don't understand, though -- "cloud computing" is just a sexy name for "centralized computing" or server-based computing, which is a throwback to the '50s-'70s. People sem to have forgotten why everyone was so excited to be able to get away from that model in the first place.
If you want to distribute code for Windows Mobile and Android, you can just send the user a file.
Precisely! This is a huge win, and although I'm sure that iPhone apps outsell Android simply because of the difference in user base sizes, to compare sales from the two stores is comparing apples and oranges.
I have to say, I don't get Android. What's the appeal?
Well, personally, I'm not terribly thrilled by Android. However, I do want a handheld computer both for my personal use and to develop commerical apps for.
The appeal of Android (such as it is) to me is simple. It has nothing to do with OSS. It's that it's not the iPhone. This means I don't have to deal with the app store either as a customer or developer, and that I don't have to have AT&T as my carrier. Those two wins are great enough to overcome the weak bits of Android.
Which is why I trust SELinux less than most other flavors. Sure, I can look at the code, but what are the odds I'm looking at the right part of the code, and even if I am, what are the odds that I'll actually spot a weak point?
Slim.
People often forget that the NSA has a public function.
Oh, I don't think anyone is forgetting that at all. It's just that the NSA cannot be trusted, and Microsoft cannot be trusted, and so when the two work together the result is something untrustworthy.
My objection isn't that it's imperfect, but that Apple has clearly outlined the way they want iPhone development to work, and their plan is opposed to what I am willing to put up with as a developer.
Damn. So there isn't a single awesome smartphone coming for the US market? And since handheld computers are merging with smartphones (and thus on their way out), that means there isn't a single awesome handheld computer in the US?
I guess I'll have to go with Android. It has a boatload of issues too, but it's the lesser of two evils.
I remember when the US was where the action was in technology. *sigh*
They were using images obtained from an API on the Mac desktop - not on the phone.
They then sent those images to the app on the phone.
I'm not sure how that changes anything at all.
The whole issue of transference is very grey to me, I can see why they thought it might be OK but can also see why Apple decided in the end they were not.
And that right there is exactly my point. It's unclear and appears arbitrary. It's not as cut-and-dried as many people make it out to be.
I'm hardly a quitter. I'm still developing (finished and polished) apps. Just not for that platform. It doesn't offer enough benefit to tolerate policies that irritate me, so why should I?
I'm no longer using the iPhone because it doesn't meet my needs. Why should I?
I'm often told "if you don't like it, don't use it," so I'm not using it. I have no moral or ethical obligation to support things that I dislike.
Apple's going pro-user experience, which is contrary to the aims of developers.
Baloney. I mena about pro-user experiences being contrary to the aims of developers. Developers want users to love their apps, it is exactly their aim to be pro-user!
The app store is that part that is the most hostile to developers, and it has nothing to do with being pro-user. It's about Apple wanting to maintain a monopoly on the platform so they can monetize it to the greatest possible extent.
"Because they are pro-user."
It's not a zero-sum game, though, and although some of Apple's iPhone policies improve things for the users, many, I would argue that most, don't.
This has nothing to do with being big fish or little fish.
"using Apple icons improperly"
I assume that you're referring to the Rogue Amoeba rejection here. As I understand that situation, it's not entirely clear that they did use Apple icons improperly. They weren't shipping any Apple icons in their software, they were obtaining the icons through documented API calls and using them in a nonconfusing and reasonable way -- the implication of doing so is that they were using the calls in precisely the way that Apple wanted. There certainly is nothing in the developer agreements that made this obviously a Bad Thing.
That Apple thinks differently points to one of the (perhaps the) major problem with iPhone development: the rules aren't clear, and appear to be largely arbitrary. That's anti-developer right there.