I never said it needed to be ported. I just think that JVM and LLVM are two great choices to port it to, especially since Mono isn't as well received as some would hope.
They pretty much are. If I choose which parts to include, exclude, paraphrase, quote, etc., then how is my opinion and position not an influence (at the very least) on the resultant piece?
The locations of Company A and Company B would complicate the scenario tremendously as you alluded to (jurisdiction). Especially if the information is "stolen" (conveniently or inconveniently).
Except that these "thin" clients aren't really thin at all. Give it a couple years and there will be quad-core smartphones doing a whole lot of stuff that will boggle our minds. It's all about the data stream to and from these devices and more processing power on either end is a technology enabler, but especially so on the client.
I read the original post as an opinionated piece about two opinionated articles, not someone trying to be a journalist and failing.
I haven't been reading Slashdot as long as many of you, but I can say I've VERY rarely read a summary here that I would remotely consider "professional journalism". So I'm confused as to why so many readers apparently expect something different than what they consistently get?
A summary on Slashdot is like a redneck amicus brief so why try to put it at some higher-level standard that it can never achieve?
Which is great in theory, but there are other ways of getting the data other than Company A selling it to Company B. For instance, what if Company B buys Company A outright and acquires the information that way? Now what if Company B was an advertising agency?
Point is that Company A may not be evil while Company B is, so customers of Company A are suddenly in jeopardy because of the merger. This kind of thing happens all the time. Sometimes companies don't even know they've acquired all of this mined data until after the acquisition. Then someone finds it and comes up with all kinds of useful ways to exploit it. How do you trace/track these kinds of things let alone prevent them?
Or maybe they were referring to the transition of the Ubuntu distributions that include GNOME and KDE? In other words, changes will need to be made so that all of the technologies could still be used and useful and they will help the GNOME and KDE teams so that things aren't a broken mess on Ubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.
What else would a summary be except someone's opinion? Seriously. How exactly do you shrink something down to fewer words without distorting the original meaning through interpretation? And if every summary was just a cut and paste job from the original article, why not just link to the original article and leave it be?
There will always be ignorant masses, and that isn't limited to those employed by government.:p
I can agree that a form of transparency isn't enough, but it should still be a requirement. Even educated people avoid reading those T&C clauses, because, as you said, they so rarely interact with reality. So... what is the answer?
Stupid is as stupid does and there is a little Gump in all of us.
I'm not as concerned with "half-assery" as I am with the law-making bodies just not understanding the technology they're writing laws to control. In other words, they may put their full hearts, as it were, into making a "great" law that is in perfect harmony with their understanding of things... which turns out to be a really horrible law because their understanding is flawed. How many of these people making these laws actually use the technology they are writing laws about? THAT is the scary part to me.
If a company keeps paper records of your online data, are they forced to "delete" that as well? Or is taking it "offline" sufficient? Can they sell the information to another company first, delete your data, and then buy it back? I could go on and on.
The problem here is that they cannot (and will not) think of everything and will most likely make the current situation worse by providing loopholes in the law (which can later be "lawfully exploited").
Slashdot Mirror
Out of nowhere, Canada invades the US in search of weapons of mass destruction.
Into your iPhone, of course!
You've never heard of a Prius? :p
Me, too. That's why I'm not speaking with myself for a few days, or at least until I get over it. The makeup sex with be awesome, though!
(just kidding)
Lorena Bobbit School of Culinary Severance?
I never said it needed to be ported. I just think that JVM and LLVM are two great choices to port it to, especially since Mono isn't as well received as some would hope.
Welcome to fuzzy differential equations? ;)
They pretty much are. If I choose which parts to include, exclude, paraphrase, quote, etc., then how is my opinion and position not an influence (at the very least) on the resultant piece?
Unless there was some form of "information laundering" going on. Which I'm sure would be possible.
The locations of Company A and Company B would complicate the scenario tremendously as you alluded to (jurisdiction). Especially if the information is "stolen" (conveniently or inconveniently).
An army of ARM powered Android servers, of course. ;)
Starting an offensive statement with "no offense" doesn't make it less offensive. :p
(not that I'm offended)
Except that these "thin" clients aren't really thin at all. Give it a couple years and there will be quad-core smartphones doing a whole lot of stuff that will boggle our minds. It's all about the data stream to and from these devices and more processing power on either end is a technology enabler, but especially so on the client.
I read the original post as an opinionated piece about two opinionated articles, not someone trying to be a journalist and failing.
I haven't been reading Slashdot as long as many of you, but I can say I've VERY rarely read a summary here that I would remotely consider "professional journalism". So I'm confused as to why so many readers apparently expect something different than what they consistently get?
A summary on Slashdot is like a redneck amicus brief so why try to put it at some higher-level standard that it can never achieve?
It's not so much that X is garbage, it just isn't nearly as useful on a thicker client with lots of resources.
Which is great in theory, but there are other ways of getting the data other than Company A selling it to Company B. For instance, what if Company B buys Company A outright and acquires the information that way? Now what if Company B was an advertising agency?
Point is that Company A may not be evil while Company B is, so customers of Company A are suddenly in jeopardy because of the merger. This kind of thing happens all the time. Sometimes companies don't even know they've acquired all of this mined data until after the acquisition. Then someone finds it and comes up with all kinds of useful ways to exploit it. How do you trace/track these kinds of things let alone prevent them?
Or maybe they were referring to the transition of the Ubuntu distributions that include GNOME and KDE? In other words, changes will need to be made so that all of the technologies could still be used and useful and they will help the GNOME and KDE teams so that things aren't a broken mess on Ubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.
What else would a summary be except someone's opinion? Seriously. How exactly do you shrink something down to fewer words without distorting the original meaning through interpretation? And if every summary was just a cut and paste job from the original article, why not just link to the original article and leave it be?
Maybe port it to JVM or LLVM?
There will always be ignorant masses, and that isn't limited to those employed by government. :p
I can agree that a form of transparency isn't enough, but it should still be a requirement. Even educated people avoid reading those T&C clauses, because, as you said, they so rarely interact with reality. So... what is the answer?
Stupid is as stupid does and there is a little Gump in all of us.
While I agree with most of what you said, do you honestly think the US is working alone in these recent actions?
The sad news is that there is an ever increasing population of people that WANT things to get to that level. Convenience at any cost, so to speak.
Which is a good thing considering how messed up the world would be if every country cherished war like the US does. :p
I'm not as concerned with "half-assery" as I am with the law-making bodies just not understanding the technology they're writing laws to control. In other words, they may put their full hearts, as it were, into making a "great" law that is in perfect harmony with their understanding of things... which turns out to be a really horrible law because their understanding is flawed. How many of these people making these laws actually use the technology they are writing laws about? THAT is the scary part to me.
If a company keeps paper records of your online data, are they forced to "delete" that as well? Or is taking it "offline" sufficient? Can they sell the information to another company first, delete your data, and then buy it back? I could go on and on.
The problem here is that they cannot (and will not) think of everything and will most likely make the current situation worse by providing loopholes in the law (which can later be "lawfully exploited").
Or maybe we'll have cases where people take themselves to court because they had their memory erased.