Oh wait. It's not an article. It's an opinion piece. TwitPic will sell your photos? Where the fuck does it say that? You just made that up. This is FUD to the extreme. Who the fuck allowed this on the front page?
Their business models collide in the "selling user's private information" market.
That's only part of the business model. Facebook garners information via a social network, Google does it via search engine, email, videos, et al, but not social networking.
And another thing, for all these tech companies being with in a few miles of each other (Oracle, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.) I dont see nearly enough real-world pranks going on at rivals' campuses.
This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Anonymous the hacktivist group wouldn't steal credit cards. It's not in their interests. Anyone who would identify with Anonymous' activism has no reason or motivation to steal personal information. However, such an organization provides the perfect scapegoat, as is shown with the Sony hack and a supposed text file with "We are legion", an Anonymous phrase, being left on one of the servers.
all someone would need to do is point a camera at your analog meter dials transmitting back to an unmarked van recording the values every 15 minutes.
Just because it's easy to do doesn't mean it should be done, especially on such a large scale as this. I don't understand the hate for the proposal. It's taking preventative measures to make sure this data doesn't all into the wrong hands.
I'm not saying this isn't affecting the water or that it's only the land owners' business. My point is that you shouldn't blame the land owners for taking the payments. This is the poorest area of Pennsylvania.
Unfortunately that's not the biggest concern for residents right now. They're fighting just to get their piece of the pie. But Gov. Corbett has staunchly opposed any drilling tax.
Yeah, it probably is contaminating the water table, but do you have any idea how much these people get paid by the drillers to operate on their land? It's a lot of money, and in most cases it's enough that these people have their water trucked in and wont have to worry about it. Bad for the environment? Sure, but do you really thing a struggling farmer cares about the environment when his business is failing?
It's like training your dog, if it poos in the house, you discipline it, you don't throw it out.
Suing SONY and given them a fine are two different things. Here's a better example. If my neighbor hits my parked car and I sue him, I don't see why I would want to associate with him anymore. And on the other side of the coin, my neighbor might want me to sign a waiver before I come over to his house for fear that I'll sue him again.
Hold your horses. He's not reducing the number of claims because he thinks the claims themselves are ridiculous. He's reducing the number of claims because the number is ridiculous and not able to be tried reasonably.
Currently, there are 132 claims from seven patents asserted in this action, and there are
hundreds of prior art references in play for invalidity defenses. This is too much. The following
schedule will ensure that only a triable number of these items — three claims and eight prior art
references — are placed before the jury in October, all others to be forsaken.
Do you have any idea how long a trial would last with 132 claims and hundreds of prior art references to sort out?
As a user of SONY products, I'd prefer if my purchases weren't totally in vain. Besides, all of those fired sysadmins would have to find jobs somewhere.
The Stanford team has calculated that with 50 cubic meters (more than 13,000 gallons) of fresh water per second, a power plant based on this technology could produce up to 100 megawatts of power.
I can't find any facts detailing the flow of water through various hydroelectric dam turbines to compare to this, but 100MW from 50m^3/s seems very efficient.
Not to mention the article's author just used two completely different definitions of "hacker" interchangeably. The hackers who stole the data and hacker Geohot are two completely different types of people. It's a shame they lumped the two together.
Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.
Did they really claim to be defending themselves against a "hacker" in court? Don't they mean "suing"? And isn't it unfair to lump the hackers who stole the information with completely different hacker, Geohot? Who the fuck wrote this article?
It seems that you are the one who is too stupid to RTFA. This case isn't about users not reading the agreement nor is it about the carriers, nor about apps that might collect location info. As shown in this exerpt from the case:
Google tracks users' locations on its own, separate, apart and in addition to the information it collects in conjunction with other businesses that develop applications for Google's devices. This action is not about the applications' collection of information on users; rather, it is specifically in objection to Google's own collection of user location information.
It's about Google not being honest with its customers about how they track users. Indeed, the suit claims:
Google's Terms of Service do not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor its use of a unique device ID attached to each specific phone. Google only discloses that it is seeking permission to obtain location information from its Android Operating System cell phone users. Plaintiffs and other users did not provide any sort of informed consent to the extensive tracking at issue in this case.
It also takes issue with keeping this information unencrypted on the device itself, completely unbeknownst to the users. Location data is very sensitive and valuable information, and should be treated as such. It also makes note that collection of such information normally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant. It doesn't matter that users agreed to some sweeping agreement, because this sort of tracking should require explicit approval.
16. Plaintiffs and proposed Class members were harmed by Google's accrual of personal location, movement and travel histories because their cellular phones were used in ways they did not approve, and because they were personally tracked just as if by a tracking device for which a court-ordered warrant would ordinarily be required.
I ask you, "Does Google have no shame?" When did corporations get a free ride? It's time for them to answer some questions. I'm sick of this Google bandwagon. IMO, deception is one of the worst moral wrongs a corporation can commit, and this is exactly what Google does.
"Do no evil?" I can't believe people fall for that shit. Google is a corporation, and their only obligation is to shareholders. Google doesn't give a FUCK about you, so long as they can make a profit.
Would I pay for Google's services if it meant I wasn't tracked? Gladly. But I don't have that choice, do I?
According to the suit it collects the data with a unique ID
8. All Android Operating System phones log, record and store
users' locations based on latitude and longitude alongside a
timestamp and unique device ID attached to each specific phone.
The phones store this information in a file located on the phone.
Google intentionally began recording this information with the
release of its Android operating system. Google uses cell-tower
triangulation and/or alternatively, Google may use global
positioning system (GPS) data to obtain a users location.
Just a reminder for slashdotters to send another friendly reminder to their elderly parents not to click the tempting links offering videos of bin Laden's death.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait. It's not an article. It's an opinion piece. TwitPic will sell your photos? Where the fuck does it say that? You just made that up. This is FUD to the extreme. Who the fuck allowed this on the front page?
so give them headphones
Parents will hate it? Please explain.
Their business models collide in the "selling user's private information" market.
That's only part of the business model. Facebook garners information via a social network, Google does it via search engine, email, videos, et al, but not social networking. And another thing, for all these tech companies being with in a few miles of each other (Oracle, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.) I dont see nearly enough real-world pranks going on at rivals' campuses.
To distract the public from their own misdoings? Where do their business models collide?
This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Anonymous the hacktivist group wouldn't steal credit cards. It's not in their interests. Anyone who would identify with Anonymous' activism has no reason or motivation to steal personal information. However, such an organization provides the perfect scapegoat, as is shown with the Sony hack and a supposed text file with "We are legion", an Anonymous phrase, being left on one of the servers.
all someone would need to do is point a camera at your analog meter dials transmitting back to an unmarked van recording the values every 15 minutes.
Just because it's easy to do doesn't mean it should be done, especially on such a large scale as this. I don't understand the hate for the proposal. It's taking preventative measures to make sure this data doesn't all into the wrong hands.
The flaw in your logic is that not everyone uses facebook. Facebook is voluntary, the electric meter is not.
What about selling the data to your employer so they can keep track of you? Not as damaging as burglary, but still a huge invasion of privacy.
Are you really blaming the landowners? Money is a powerful tool.
I'm not saying this isn't affecting the water or that it's only the land owners' business. My point is that you shouldn't blame the land owners for taking the payments. This is the poorest area of Pennsylvania.
Unfortunately that's not the biggest concern for residents right now. They're fighting just to get their piece of the pie. But Gov. Corbett has staunchly opposed any drilling tax.
Yeah, it probably is contaminating the water table, but do you have any idea how much these people get paid by the drillers to operate on their land? It's a lot of money, and in most cases it's enough that these people have their water trucked in and wont have to worry about it. Bad for the environment? Sure, but do you really thing a struggling farmer cares about the environment when his business is failing?
It's like training your dog, if it poos in the house, you discipline it, you don't throw it out.
Suing SONY and given them a fine are two different things. Here's a better example. If my neighbor hits my parked car and I sue him, I don't see why I would want to associate with him anymore. And on the other side of the coin, my neighbor might want me to sign a waiver before I come over to his house for fear that I'll sue him again.
Currently, there are 132 claims from seven patents asserted in this action, and there are hundreds of prior art references in play for invalidity defenses. This is too much. The following schedule will ensure that only a triable number of these items — three claims and eight prior art references — are placed before the jury in October, all others to be forsaken.
Do you have any idea how long a trial would last with 132 claims and hundreds of prior art references to sort out?
Why would someone who wants to sue SONY for incompetence want to keep using their products?
As a user of SONY products, I'd prefer if my purchases weren't totally in vain. Besides, all of those fired sysadmins would have to find jobs somewhere.
Aren't there privacy laws in the US that mandate fines for this kind of incompetence?
The Stanford team has calculated that with 50 cubic meters (more than 13,000 gallons) of fresh water per second, a power plant based on this technology could produce up to 100 megawatts of power.
I can't find any facts detailing the flow of water through various hydroelectric dam turbines to compare to this, but 100MW from 50m^3/s seems very efficient.
Not to mention the article's author just used two completely different definitions of "hacker" interchangeably. The hackers who stole the data and hacker Geohot are two completely different types of people. It's a shame they lumped the two together.
Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.
Did they really claim to be defending themselves against a "hacker" in court? Don't they mean "suing"? And isn't it unfair to lump the hackers who stole the information with completely different hacker, Geohot? Who the fuck wrote this article?
It could very well be misinformation to throw them off their game. There might be no intelligence at all, but it doesn't hurt to say we have some.
It seems that you are the one who is too stupid to RTFA. This case isn't about users not reading the agreement nor is it about the carriers, nor about apps that might collect location info. As shown in this exerpt from the case:
Google tracks users' locations on its own, separate, apart and in addition to the information it collects in conjunction with other businesses that develop applications for Google's devices. This action is not about the applications' collection of information on users; rather, it is specifically in objection to Google's own collection of user location information.
It's about Google not being honest with its customers about how they track users. Indeed, the suit claims:
Google's Terms of Service do not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor its use of a unique device ID attached to each specific phone. Google only discloses that it is seeking permission to obtain location information from its Android Operating System cell phone users. Plaintiffs and other users did not provide any sort of informed consent to the extensive tracking at issue in this case.
It also takes issue with keeping this information unencrypted on the device itself, completely unbeknownst to the users. Location data is very sensitive and valuable information, and should be treated as such. It also makes note that collection of such information normally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant. It doesn't matter that users agreed to some sweeping agreement, because this sort of tracking should require explicit approval.
16. Plaintiffs and proposed Class members were harmed by Google's accrual of personal location, movement and travel histories because their cellular phones were used in ways they did not approve, and because they were personally tracked just as if by a tracking device for which a court-ordered warrant would ordinarily be required.
I ask you, "Does Google have no shame?" When did corporations get a free ride? It's time for them to answer some questions. I'm sick of this Google bandwagon. IMO, deception is one of the worst moral wrongs a corporation can commit, and this is exactly what Google does.
"Do no evil?" I can't believe people fall for that shit. Google is a corporation, and their only obligation is to shareholders. Google doesn't give a FUCK about you, so long as they can make a profit.
Would I pay for Google's services if it meant I wasn't tracked? Gladly. But I don't have that choice, do I?
8. All Android Operating System phones log, record and store users' locations based on latitude and longitude alongside a timestamp and unique device ID attached to each specific phone. The phones store this information in a file located on the phone. Google intentionally began recording this information with the release of its Android operating system. Google uses cell-tower triangulation and/or alternatively, Google may use global positioning system (GPS) data to obtain a users location.
Just a reminder for slashdotters to send another friendly reminder to their elderly parents not to click the tempting links offering videos of bin Laden's death.