This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.
You are correct, both logically and legally. IANAL but I am a law student, and to take trespass to land as an example, the difference between making the slightest representation that something is unauthorized and making the slightest representation that it is authorized makes all the difference in the eyes of the law. I know nothing of Swedish law but I have a very hard time seeing this suit fly in US court unless he signed an agreement saying he would not repost the links (which he may have done).
Ack...I suppose I forgot to add "...or unless the judge were technically incompetent" which appears to sometimes be the case.
This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.
You are correct, both logically and legally. IANAL but I am a law student, and to take trespass to land as an example, the difference between making the slightest representation that something is unauthorized and making the slightest representation that it is authorized makes all the difference in the eyes of the law. I know nothing of Swedish law but I have a very hard time seeing this suit fly in US court unless he signed an agreement saying he would not repost the links (which he may have done).
This is the most brilliant analogy I have ever seen of this issue. It leaves me with two feelings:
1) hope that it gets modded way up so people can finally understand the difference between open servers and unlocked houses, and
2) hunger for cookies ...all in the same post!
you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ?
No. Same as publishers who set out a stack of books on a table with a sign saying "free" make you pay for what you take from the table. Wait, they don't? Well, I'll be darned!
If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.
To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.
...but the fact that you left the front door to your store unlocked during normal business hours does give rise to a reasonable assumption that you are inviting the public to enter your store.
Your biggest error is in not recognizing that your analogy isn't even close to appropriate. My error was trying to use your phenomenally broken analogy to help you see that.
No, your error was in failing to realize you were arguing with an idiot. Everything else flows from that.
to me, if the hacker could not possibly have ignored the stuff was not free for all, the case is clear.
What hacker? The guy posted a link to a publicly available feed. When you go surfing around, do you think "shit, I might be hacking, this link might be unauthorized" with every link you click?
How is that relevant? It's about wikis and other editable documents, whereas slashdot posts are completely uneditable after they've been posted. I really expected that link to say something like, "rhetorical questions are stupid ways of making a point unless everyone already agrees with you", which would have been way more apropos, if debatably premised.
Let's see... native Chinese stuff made by Chinese guys for the Chinese - sounds like a perfect idea to me. I'm sure the integration with Baidu and Chinese culture in general will make for a very usable operating system in China... outside of China, however... what's the point?
I think the point is that the Chinese market is the world's largest untapped smartphone market. But you're right, there are a ton of other fish in the sea. Even if Baidu achieves complete dominance, taking all those 1.3 billion potential customers off the table, that still leaves more than 5 billion potential customers in the rest of the world who don't speak Chinese and will use Google because Baidu gives them nothing.
Google's preference order for the structure of the mobile market, from most preferred to least preferred, is probably something like:
1) Android is a popular, unified platform controlled by Google.
2) Android is a popular but fragmented platform, with carriers and handset makers doing whatever they like.
3) Android is an unpopular platform. Apple dominates the market, and has the power to lock Google out of mobile advertising.
Based on Google's behavior, it's clear their primary goal with Android was simply to avoid #3. Trying to achieve #1 would have required Google to exert control over the platform that carriers and handset makers would have likely objected to, this lowering adoption rates and increasing the probability of #3 occurring. So Google was willing to give up nearly all control, and settle for #2. They'd rather have a fragmented market than one controlled by Apple.
I think you're totally right. All the people saying "Google is trying to control our phones! Google is trying to control our phones!" are ignoring how inconsistent Google's actions are with actually trying for #1, and how much more their actions point toward #2. Of course they want #1, they're a for-profit company; that doesn't mean they think #1 is viable.
I use a lot of different OS platforms on a daily basis (Win, Mac, Linux, BSD...) for different purposes, but Linux is *NOT* making inroads on the desktop after 15 years (or more) of being there.
To be eligible for hero status, an individual must be (1)...(2) reasonably young (it pains me to report that Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger, NASA's youngest astronaut and now just 31, barely makes the cut), and, critically to my naive son's way of thinking, (3)...
Since when do 8-year-olds know the difference between 45-year-olds and 30-year-olds? They were all just grown-ups to me when I was that age. There were, like, 4 categories of people: kids, big kids, grown-ups, and old folks (technically a subset of grown-ups, but distinguished by completely gray/white hair and large amounts of wrinkles). I don't think I became aware of the difference between 45 and 30 until I was at least 11.
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one asshole to dissolve the political bongs which have connected them with another and to assume alimony...."
I don't think the message is coming through quite right.
Yes, Microsoft was able to branch out by spreading mediocrity but the world was a lot less tech savvy then.
Also, they held the desktop OS monopoly back then too. Facebook doesn't exactly have a social networking monopoly, although they are better poised to achieve one than any other company. I think of it like the situation Microsoft was in back in 1982.
I use facebook occasionally, and since Monday I've been looking for something that even remotely resembles a revolutionary and useful messaging interface.
I just can't find it, the messaging system I see is the same useless shit as it always was.
To be fair, the "same useless shit" in facebook is far superior to the messaging system in Slashdot, which consists of looking up your friend's recent posts list, clicking one at random, then making an off-topic public reply.
I really, really want to make another Ninja Gaiden joke, but after all the stories about this spacecraft I just don't have another one in me. Sorry, Slashdot. I have failed you.
Slashdot Mirror
I have ADD, I know. However, the person in question was in fact percieved as "slow". As in "stupid".
But did the person in question in fact have ADHD? 'cuz if not your OP was blowing smoke on that point.
This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.
You are correct, both logically and legally. IANAL but I am a law student, and to take trespass to land as an example, the difference between making the slightest representation that something is unauthorized and making the slightest representation that it is authorized makes all the difference in the eyes of the law. I know nothing of Swedish law but I have a very hard time seeing this suit fly in US court unless he signed an agreement saying he would not repost the links (which he may have done).
Ack...I suppose I forgot to add "...or unless the judge were technically incompetent" which appears to sometimes be the case.
This guy didn't subvert the system by "hacking" or "stealing". All this guy did was violate some executives idea of "security through obscurity". I can't post things online that I own and then sue you if you find them without my consent. I can protect them and then sue if you subvert that system.
You are correct, both logically and legally. IANAL but I am a law student, and to take trespass to land as an example, the difference between making the slightest representation that something is unauthorized and making the slightest representation that it is authorized makes all the difference in the eyes of the law. I know nothing of Swedish law but I have a very hard time seeing this suit fly in US court unless he signed an agreement saying he would not repost the links (which he may have done).
Any reference for that? Googling the term primarily brings back references to here...
That's cause he made it up. There is no such crime as he described.
This is the most brilliant analogy I have ever seen of this issue. It leaves me with two feelings:
...all in the same post!
1) hope that it gets modded way up so people can finally understand the difference between open servers and unlocked houses, and
2) hunger for cookies
you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ?
No. Same as publishers who set out a stack of books on a table with a sign saying "free" make you pay for what you take from the table. Wait, they don't? Well, I'll be darned!
If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.
To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.
...but the fact that you left the front door to your store unlocked during normal business hours does give rise to a reasonable assumption that you are inviting the public to enter your store.
Your biggest error is in not recognizing that your analogy isn't even close to appropriate. My error was trying to use your phenomenally broken analogy to help you see that.
No, your error was in failing to realize you were arguing with an idiot. Everything else flows from that.
to me, if the hacker could not possibly have ignored the stuff was not free for all, the case is clear.
What hacker? The guy posted a link to a publicly available feed. When you go surfing around, do you think "shit, I might be hacking, this link might be unauthorized" with every link you click?
You're right. Geocities certainly represented the height of Internet civilization ;)
They didn't just build websites, they built cities, man, cities!
A thought on rhetorical questions that seems relevent here.
How is that relevant? It's about wikis and other editable documents, whereas slashdot posts are completely uneditable after they've been posted. I really expected that link to say something like, "rhetorical questions are stupid ways of making a point unless everyone already agrees with you", which would have been way more apropos, if debatably premised.
Let's see... native Chinese stuff made by Chinese guys for the Chinese - sounds like a perfect idea to me. I'm sure the integration with Baidu and Chinese culture in general will make for a very usable operating system in China... outside of China, however... what's the point?
I think the point is that the Chinese market is the world's largest untapped smartphone market. But you're right, there are a ton of other fish in the sea. Even if Baidu achieves complete dominance, taking all those 1.3 billion potential customers off the table, that still leaves more than 5 billion potential customers in the rest of the world who don't speak Chinese and will use Google because Baidu gives them nothing.
Google's preference order for the structure of the mobile market, from most preferred to least preferred, is probably something like:
1) Android is a popular, unified platform controlled by Google. 2) Android is a popular but fragmented platform, with carriers and handset makers doing whatever they like. 3) Android is an unpopular platform. Apple dominates the market, and has the power to lock Google out of mobile advertising.
Based on Google's behavior, it's clear their primary goal with Android was simply to avoid #3. Trying to achieve #1 would have required Google to exert control over the platform that carriers and handset makers would have likely objected to, this lowering adoption rates and increasing the probability of #3 occurring. So Google was willing to give up nearly all control, and settle for #2. They'd rather have a fragmented market than one controlled by Apple.
I think you're totally right. All the people saying "Google is trying to control our phones! Google is trying to control our phones!" are ignoring how inconsistent Google's actions are with actually trying for #1, and how much more their actions point toward #2. Of course they want #1, they're a for-profit company; that doesn't mean they think #1 is viable.
I use a lot of different OS platforms on a daily basis (Win, Mac, Linux, BSD...) for different purposes, but Linux is *NOT* making inroads on the desktop after 15 years (or more) of being there.
Tell that to my dad, my sister, and my wife.
To be eligible for hero status, an individual must be (1)...(2) reasonably young (it pains me to report that Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger, NASA's youngest astronaut and now just 31, barely makes the cut), and, critically to my naive son's way of thinking, (3)...
Since when do 8-year-olds know the difference between 45-year-olds and 30-year-olds? They were all just grown-ups to me when I was that age. There were, like, 4 categories of people: kids, big kids, grown-ups, and old folks (technically a subset of grown-ups, but distinguished by completely gray/white hair and large amounts of wrinkles). I don't think I became aware of the difference between 45 and 30 until I was at least 11.
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one asshole to dissolve the political bongs which have connected them with another and to assume alimony...."
I don't think the message is coming through quite right.
...and we'll have Warp Drive! Huzzah!
Yes, Microsoft was able to branch out by spreading mediocrity but the world was a lot less tech savvy then.
Also, they held the desktop OS monopoly back then too. Facebook doesn't exactly have a social networking monopoly, although they are better poised to achieve one than any other company. I think of it like the situation Microsoft was in back in 1982.
I use facebook occasionally, and since Monday I've been looking for something that even remotely resembles a revolutionary and useful messaging interface.
I just can't find it, the messaging system I see is the same useless shit as it always was.
To be fair, the "same useless shit" in facebook is far superior to the messaging system in Slashdot, which consists of looking up your friend's recent posts list, clicking one at random, then making an off-topic public reply.
We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time.
Yeah, 1720 was when IP over Avian Carriers was invented, though it took that one 270 years of use to even get put into a written standard.
And they thought Godzilla was just some stupid movies... the fools.
You would think the Japanese of all people would want to heed the warning.
Uhh, the Russians would like a word: LUNA 16. Why do we forget the accomplishments of the Russians?
Because the Japanese were our cold-war allies. Russkies shoulda thought of that before they raised the iron curtain.
I really, really want to make another Ninja Gaiden joke, but after all the stories about this spacecraft I just don't have another one in me. Sorry, Slashdot. I have failed you.
Even if that were possible, this would be too blatant a bug to have slipped through QA.
This is Microsoft QA we are talking about here..... Vista slipped through that QA.
Don't forget ME, and 98, and 3.1, and...
It's not a "normal" consumer accessible slot; they're buried, and you have to disassemble the phone and void your warranty to get at it.
When has voiding our warranties ever stopped us?