Whether she should or should not get money is up to the courts, of course.
Fictitious scenario:
- person A opts-in to "prank" campaign and provides e-mail address of person B - person B receives an e-mail from person A telling them of a survey - person B completes the survey based on a trust-relationship with person A (otherwise, they'd probably just delete the e-mail)
Questions:
If the survey page was overtly deceptive as to it's intent (e.g. a "personality" survey for a car advertisement campaign), is it at all reasonable to assume that person B will become a FOCUSED target of an advertisement campaign? Furthermore, has person B provided informed consent - that is, did this person have full knowledge of the intended use of her personal information (e-mail address and any other information that may have been provided)?
The final question is: who is responsible? In my mind it's person A, the "friend" in the original story, because this person provided full informed consent AND was the reason that person B became involved at all. Without their direct action, person B would not have been involved.
Then again, seeing Ford+Advertising Company on the hook for a stupid marketing campaign wouldn't be terrible either.
I would both agree and disagree. Yes, I have different social circles - work, friends, and family are three simple categories.
However, I don't see the point in putting artificial walls between these things. Yeah, I'm not going to automatically send party announcements to my colleagues, but I also don't really care if they know what I'm doing on the weekend. I'm pretty sure that they don't care, either. And, if I happen to do something embarrassing, reckless, or stupid, then I really should be more careful with my own life.
I don't have anything against facebook, and I happen to think it's an interesting way to share a measured amount of information about myself with the world. The problem that I have in this case is with people who think Facebook is somehow responsible or required to maintain privacy when, in most cases, I should be more responsible with what information I choose to share.
I've never heard of a situation where a little more prudence at the individual level would not have prevented the situation from happening in the first place.
I simply assume that no company/organization will ever do anything in my best interest unless I have a significant financial stake in it (and, even then...)
Don't publish/post anything that you wouldn't want made public.
Simple enough, people? Seriously.
Grow. The. Fuck. Up. Stop being retarded, paranoid jackasses. Facebook, et.al., are out to make MONEY. That means collecting information, data, digesting it in some way, and then selling that information to advertisers/perverts/your mom/etc.
I just don't get why people are up in arms about "privacy" on a public website, even one with "private" areas. I mean, it's kind of interesting how people will put personal information on a public website and then build virtual walls around it to keep other people out.
Are you so embarrassed by your circle of friends/family that you really don't want other people to know?
Do you really think that you are such an interesting fucking nobody that everyone in the whole goddamn universe wants to know everything about you?
You are one nobody among a collective of nobodies. Deal.:)
because, you know, with a global recession and all, a decline in sales of luxury items... hmm... I guess if I hadn't taken economics in school, I might be able to see a co-relation between the two. Now all I can think of is two lines on a graph, with one moving left, the other moving down, and companies like Ubisoft trying to keep P higher than it should be. So it goes...
gotta get that last text message in before dying...
actually, maybe it could be a resuscitation for clippy.
I see that your heart is no longer beating, would you like to summon the paramedics? [Ok] [Cancel] Or perhaps you want to get in one more text message.
tld u i wuz hrdcre
Blade Runner has only been released once on DVD, over 10 years ago; Bzzt. wrong. you obviously missed the DVD re-release last year. It was a better transfer of the director's cut but a clear money-grab from people who weren't aware that one year later (now) the Final Cut would rear it's beautiful head.
"it could drastically reduce the profits a seller would make on these sites."
How so? Profits would remain exactly the same. For all law abiding citizens who declare all income, nothing would change at all. They go to church, pay their taxes, and help their land-lady carry out her garbage. However, for those who don't declare their income, well... yeah, I guess the tax man cometh.
"You can't license something to me after I just paid for it."
Is it too hard to understand the idea that you purchased a license?
Software is protected under copyright law. You purchased a copy of the software and, along with the software, came a license which governs the use of the software. This license gives you rights which copyright law doesn't really understand (things like "install" and "run" aren't concepts that fall under copyright).
By default, in lieu of an EULA, standard copyright law would apply. The license is a take it or leave it proposition - the license was a part of the "offer/acceptance" process of you buying the software. If you didn't like the EULA, you shouldn't have bought it. If you're one of those snivling "well, I didn't see it first" morons, then you shouldn't have bought it. If it came bundled with your computer and you really didn't want it, then you shouldn't have bought it. If you don't agree with Microsoft's licensing practices which have been pretty much standard since 1995 (and possibly before, but I won't argue before that), then you shouldn't have bought it. If you think Windows is shit, then you should be looking for something else. Are you getting the idea yet?
You bought the software. It came with a limited warranty (in areas that prohibit non-warranty sales) that, for SP-1 and previous users, is no longer valid (if you buy Windows XP now, you'll very likely get a SP2 version. It was as good as Microsoft could reasonably make it at the time and they have the right to amend the licnese as they see fit (as much as you have the right to not install it).
Well yeah. Why spend money suing someone who doesn't have any? I thought the whole point of the patent system was to visciously extort money from anyone who might have had the same idea as you.
There was another case though that was MUCH more interesting. A student who was not doing well in the class had posted a request for somebody to complete one of the projects. I don't want to give too many revealing details, but in the end the guy who actually did the work (and took the student's money for it) tipped him off to me! He claimed to hate cheaters a lot too and laughed all the way to the bank I'm sure.
I have done that before. I was bored one day, wandering around usenet, when I found a posting that was asking for an assignment to be done. It wasn't just the usual "I have to do X" but it was "here's my assignment, can anyone do it for me?" Well, I was young and brash, still in highschool and here was a university level programming assignment...
I initially just did the assignment for myself -- could I do it. When it was done, I decided to send it out to the guy with a note: "I'm only in highschoo, but this is how I might do it." What he didn't know was that I BCC'd his professor on the e-mail. A few weeks later I recieved a note from the professor thanking me for my honesty, chasting me for my dishonesty, and praising me for the quality of my solution.
Lets say you have a Java app that, in whatever way, uses the standard jdbc classes. One of your users chooses to use the MYSQL jdbc drivers to connect to a MySQL server. Your app doesn't need to be GPL, imo, because the only code YOU used was sun's JDBC code. Your user chose to link it to the GPL'd drivers and it's their responsability to adhere to the license. Since they can't distribute your code (they don't have it) as long as they don't distribute the binaries to the app, they are not in violation (since the code bit only applies to distribution).
HOWEVER, if you either specifically tell the user to use MySQL or expect the GPL mysql driver in your code (ie, specifically referencing the driver in the connect setup) then you are in GPL territory.
Now lets say you have a C/C++ app and you link in the mysql library (either statically or dynamically). The mysql client lib is under gpl and you, if you distribute your application, would be required to release it under the gpl - after all, you are using gpl'd code. The only way around this would be to find or develop and use a non-gpl driver.
The real answer, anyway, is that it depends on what you are linking to and how you link to it. Yes, simply connecting to a MySQL server does not implictly bind you to the GPL - just like Microsoft isn't required to GPL internet explorer because it can talk to a GPL'd webserver. However, if you are using the GPL'd drivers to connect, you are in GPL territory (not because you are connecting, but because you are using the GPL'd code to do it).
"Unless I've misunderstood the concept, this new provision, if implemented (say) in MySQL, would require a website to disclose all its source code to anyone who can access it"
From the article (emphasis mine):
Stallman said developers may be encouraged to add a command to their GPL-licensed Web application that lets users download the source code. The inclusion of this command in modified versions of the program will then be enforced by an additional clause in GPL 3.
"We're looking at an approach where programs used (on a public server) will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running," Stallman said. "If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program."
For example, look at the website for PHP and, specifically, the bottom. There is a link that shows me the source for that page (and further links to an index of the whole source). Let's assume that, for the moment, that the code that's behind their website is offered under the GPL. If so, I could, under GPLv2, copy that code, create my own website with it, make modifications as I see fit, and remove the link to download source.
The proposal, for GPLv3, is that if you make a program with a web interface and include a link to the current code behind that page, then anyone who takes the code must leave that link intact. Since MySQL doesn't have a web-based interface, moving it to the GPLv3 would not force websites that use MySQL to release any code - even if they modify MySQL directly for their use. It would, however, mean that if PHPMyAdmin went to GPLv3 and added a link to the source of the current version, users wouldn't be allowed to remove it. And, if they make any modifications, those changes would be included in that link.
Speaking of PHPMyAdmin brought an important consideration to bear: passwords. Often, especially in PHP based scripts, the username/password to the database and other resources is kept in clear text in a php file. Would redacting sensetive information, such as passwords, from any source download link violate the GPLv3? I hope not, and I don't think so (because such redactions wouldn't inhibit the otherwise normal operation of the software).
Did you remember to tell them that the organization operating htis "relief fund" is a private indivudal operating from the website of his private business? And that he is offering rewards for donating to this private fund that he will recieve a nice big fat tax credit for? And that Paypal hasn't done anything wrong with respect to locking the accoint since it is entirely probable that people donating to the account have filed complaints (for a number of reasons, not limited to: being asshats, accidently paying twice and then "correcting" it by filing a complaint).
Gee. Maybe there's more to the story than just Paypal closing a suspicious account...
So, some random internet website jockey sets up an account and begins to accept tens of thousands of dollars. Presumably, this money is going to be donated to the Red Cross on behalf of the users of a website and for the victims of a horrible disaster. However, some users begin filing charge-backs and... oh, maybe it's not completly legit...
Remember, Paypal doesn't have trained monkeys, sitting behind keyboards, waiting for the next sucker to come along and open an account. Like many other companies who deal with money, they have computer systems that scan transactions and hunt down fraud proactively.
Let's pretend we're the computer and imagine what we see:
an account is either opened or has been dormant for a long time (Lowtax gave up Paypal a long time ago)
there is a sudden surge of money from numerous accounts. Possibly a lot of these accounts are new, too -- possibly using stolen credit cards (remember, we don't know for a fact that everything is legit.)
chargebacks begin to appear (even if it's only a fraction of a percent of the donators involved)
Now, does the system just happily let the money go through? Possibly to Lowtax's bank account where, if the chargebacks are true, Paypal is out the money? And what is this hurricane thing? I doubt Paypal programmed in a check for natural disaster donation possibilities (although it might not be a bad idea, it is something that doesn't -- hopefully -- happen frequent enough to justify an entire process to analyze).
Also, Lowtax is running this donation thing from the same website that he runs his regular business. Hmmm.. Maybe the IRS will be interested in hearing of his handling over $20,000 in "donations"... especially since, I don't think, he doesn't run a not-for-profit. Oh well.
MAYBE, just maybe, it's all true. There's some evil exec at paypal who saw the transactions and lit up a big fat cigar with a $100 bill. Then he closed the account and withdrew the money to his petty cash drawer. Because, you know, they're evil like that.
But, in reality, the money is still there. Lowtax, and lowtax alone, needs to contact paypal via phone. Or maybe he can just continue to rant about it on the Internet and hope it all goes magically away.
Next time, folks, donate to a real charity. Something Awful, good intentions aside, isn't a charity. Something about the best laid plans of mice... men have got nothing to do with it... none at all.
Slashdot Mirror
But after UCLA typed the 'l' and the 'o,' the 'g' caused a memory overflow on the SRI IMP.
So the Internets wasn't even 3 characters old and it was already being hacked and DOS'd. So, so lame.
Whether she should or should not get money is up to the courts, of course.
Fictitious scenario:
- person A opts-in to "prank" campaign and provides e-mail address of person B
- person B receives an e-mail from person A telling them of a survey
- person B completes the survey based on a trust-relationship with person A (otherwise, they'd probably just delete the e-mail)
Questions:
If the survey page was overtly deceptive as to it's intent (e.g. a "personality" survey for a car advertisement campaign), is it at all reasonable to assume that person B will become a FOCUSED target of an advertisement campaign? Furthermore, has person B provided informed consent - that is, did this person have full knowledge of the intended use of her personal information (e-mail address and any other information that may have been provided)?
The final question is: who is responsible? In my mind it's person A, the "friend" in the original story, because this person provided full informed consent AND was the reason that person B became involved at all. Without their direct action, person B would not have been involved.
Then again, seeing Ford+Advertising Company on the hook for a stupid marketing campaign wouldn't be terrible either.
Just my 2 cents.
I would both agree and disagree. Yes, I have different social circles - work, friends, and family are three simple categories.
However, I don't see the point in putting artificial walls between these things. Yeah, I'm not going to automatically send party announcements to my colleagues, but I also don't really care if they know what I'm doing on the weekend. I'm pretty sure that they don't care, either. And, if I happen to do something embarrassing, reckless, or stupid, then I really should be more careful with my own life.
I don't have anything against facebook, and I happen to think it's an interesting way to share a measured amount of information about myself with the world. The problem that I have in this case is with people who think Facebook is somehow responsible or required to maintain privacy when, in most cases, I should be more responsible with what information I choose to share.
I've never heard of a situation where a little more prudence at the individual level would not have prevented the situation from happening in the first place.
Well, anyway... just an opinion. :P
I simply assume that no company/organization will ever do anything in my best interest unless I have a significant financial stake in it (and, even then...)
Don't publish/post anything that you wouldn't want made public.
Simple enough, people? Seriously.
Grow. The. Fuck. Up. Stop being retarded, paranoid jackasses. Facebook, et.al., are out to make MONEY. That means collecting information, data, digesting it in some way, and then selling that information to advertisers/perverts/your mom/etc.
I just don't get why people are up in arms about "privacy" on a public website, even one with "private" areas. I mean, it's kind of interesting how people will put personal information on a public website and then build virtual walls around it to keep other people out.
Are you so embarrassed by your circle of friends/family that you really don't want other people to know?
Do you really think that you are such an interesting fucking nobody that everyone in the whole goddamn universe wants to know everything about you?
You are one nobody among a collective of nobodies. Deal. :)
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/05/murdochs-ultimatum-to-amazon-give-us-the-names-or-else/
other way around
because, you know, with a global recession and all, a decline in sales of luxury items... hmm... I guess if I hadn't taken economics in school, I might be able to see a co-relation between the two. Now all I can think of is two lines on a graph, with one moving left, the other moving down, and companies like Ubisoft trying to keep P higher than it should be. So it goes...
actually, maybe it could be a resuscitation for clippy. I see that your heart is no longer beating, would you like to summon the paramedics? [Ok] [Cancel] Or perhaps you want to get in one more text message. tld u i wuz hrdcre
"it could drastically reduce the profits a seller would make on these sites."
How so? Profits would remain exactly the same. For all law abiding citizens who declare all income, nothing would change at all. They go to church, pay their taxes, and help their land-lady carry out her garbage. However, for those who don't declare their income, well... yeah, I guess the tax man cometh.
"You can't license something to me after I just paid for it."
Is it too hard to understand the idea that you purchased a license?
Software is protected under copyright law. You purchased a copy of the software and, along with the software, came a license which governs the use of the software. This license gives you rights which copyright law doesn't really understand (things like "install" and "run" aren't concepts that fall under copyright).
By default, in lieu of an EULA, standard copyright law would apply. The license is a take it or leave it proposition - the license was a part of the "offer/acceptance" process of you buying the software. If you didn't like the EULA, you shouldn't have bought it. If you're one of those snivling "well, I didn't see it first" morons, then you shouldn't have bought it. If it came bundled with your computer and you really didn't want it, then you shouldn't have bought it. If you don't agree with Microsoft's licensing practices which have been pretty much standard since 1995 (and possibly before, but I won't argue before that), then you shouldn't have bought it. If you think Windows is shit, then you should be looking for something else. Are you getting the idea yet?
You bought the software. It came with a limited warranty (in areas that prohibit non-warranty sales) that, for SP-1 and previous users, is no longer valid (if you buy Windows XP now, you'll very likely get a SP2 version. It was as good as Microsoft could reasonably make it at the time and they have the right to amend the licnese as they see fit (as much as you have the right to not install it).
Quit being a collective of cry-babies.
never had layoffs maybe, but hasnt the whole Duke team quite and left several times over?
t _history
you're probably thinking of the Ion Storm team(s) that developed Daikatana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikatana#Developmen
The bed should only be used for two things-sex and sleep.
Or, in the case of geeks, one thing.
Then where is the geek supposed to sleep?
Well yeah. Why spend money suing someone who doesn't have any? I thought the whole point of the patent system was to visciously extort money from anyone who might have had the same idea as you.
But I could be wrong.
No. I don't think so.
Doesn't look too good
w .jpg
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4388/ie7b2acid4p
I have done that before. I was bored one day, wandering around usenet, when I found a posting that was asking for an assignment to be done. It wasn't just the usual "I have to do X" but it was "here's my assignment, can anyone do it for me?" Well, I was young and brash, still in highschool and here was a university level programming assignment...
I initially just did the assignment for myself -- could I do it. When it was done, I decided to send it out to the guy with a note: "I'm only in highschoo, but this is how I might do it." What he didn't know was that I BCC'd his professor on the e-mail. A few weeks later I recieved a note from the professor thanking me for my honesty, chasting me for my dishonesty, and praising me for the quality of my solution.
True. If you don't distribute then, even if the GPL applies, it's a moot point.
The GPL doesn't force you to release *anything* but, if you do, you must abide by the source requirements.
It greatly depends on how you 'use' it.
:)
Lets say you have a Java app that, in whatever way, uses the standard jdbc classes. One of your users chooses to use the MYSQL jdbc drivers to connect to a MySQL server. Your app doesn't need to be GPL, imo, because the only code YOU used was sun's JDBC code. Your user chose to link it to the GPL'd drivers and it's their responsability to adhere to the license. Since they can't distribute your code (they don't have it) as long as they don't distribute the binaries to the app, they are not in violation (since the code bit only applies to distribution).
HOWEVER, if you either specifically tell the user to use MySQL or expect the GPL mysql driver in your code (ie, specifically referencing the driver in the connect setup) then you are in GPL territory.
Now lets say you have a C/C++ app and you link in the mysql library (either statically or dynamically). The mysql client lib is under gpl and you, if you distribute your application, would be required to release it under the gpl - after all, you are using gpl'd code. The only way around this would be to find or develop and use a non-gpl driver.
The real answer, anyway, is that it depends on what you are linking to and how you link to it. Yes, simply connecting to a MySQL server does not implictly bind you to the GPL - just like Microsoft isn't required to GPL internet explorer because it can talk to a GPL'd webserver. However, if you are using the GPL'd drivers to connect, you are in GPL territory (not because you are connecting, but because you are using the GPL'd code to do it).
Oh, and IANAL and IMHO and YMMV and TANSTAAFL.
Let's say I write a CGI script implemented in an interpreter distributed under GPL 3
r eterIsGPL/
e gation/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterp
and/or my CGI script calls such an open source program.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggr
Does this mean, I have to distributed the CGI script source code?
Not because of the interpreter, however depending on how you've "called such a program" in your CGI script, you might have to.
"Unless I've misunderstood the concept, this new provision, if implemented (say) in MySQL, would require a website to disclose all its source code to anyone who can access it"
From the article (emphasis mine):
For example, look at the website for PHP and, specifically, the bottom. There is a link that shows me the source for that page (and further links to an index of the whole source). Let's assume that, for the moment, that the code that's behind their website is offered under the GPL. If so, I could, under GPLv2, copy that code, create my own website with it, make modifications as I see fit, and remove the link to download source.
The proposal, for GPLv3, is that if you make a program with a web interface and include a link to the current code behind that page, then anyone who takes the code must leave that link intact. Since MySQL doesn't have a web-based interface, moving it to the GPLv3 would not force websites that use MySQL to release any code - even if they modify MySQL directly for their use. It would, however, mean that if PHPMyAdmin went to GPLv3 and added a link to the source of the current version, users wouldn't be allowed to remove it. And, if they make any modifications, those changes would be included in that link.
Speaking of PHPMyAdmin brought an important consideration to bear: passwords. Often, especially in PHP based scripts, the username/password to the database and other resources is kept in clear text in a php file. Would redacting sensetive information, such as passwords, from any source download link violate the GPLv3? I hope not, and I don't think so (because such redactions wouldn't inhibit the otherwise normal operation of the software).
But it's just programming... TO THE EXTREME!!!
Did you remember to tell them that the organization operating htis "relief fund" is a private indivudal operating from the website of his private business? And that he is offering rewards for donating to this private fund that he will recieve a nice big fat tax credit for? And that Paypal hasn't done anything wrong with respect to locking the accoint since it is entirely probable that people donating to the account have filed complaints (for a number of reasons, not limited to: being asshats, accidently paying twice and then "correcting" it by filing a complaint).
Gee. Maybe there's more to the story than just Paypal closing a suspicious account...
So, some random internet website jockey sets up an account and begins to accept tens of thousands of dollars. Presumably, this money is going to be donated to the Red Cross on behalf of the users of a website and for the victims of a horrible disaster. However, some users begin filing charge-backs and... oh, maybe it's not completly legit...
Remember, Paypal doesn't have trained monkeys, sitting behind keyboards, waiting for the next sucker to come along and open an account. Like many other companies who deal with money, they have computer systems that scan transactions and hunt down fraud proactively.
Let's pretend we're the computer and imagine what we see:
Now, does the system just happily let the money go through? Possibly to Lowtax's bank account where, if the chargebacks are true, Paypal is out the money? And what is this hurricane thing? I doubt Paypal programmed in a check for natural disaster donation possibilities (although it might not be a bad idea, it is something that doesn't -- hopefully -- happen frequent enough to justify an entire process to analyze).
Also, Lowtax is running this donation thing from the same website that he runs his regular business. Hmmm.. Maybe the IRS will be interested in hearing of his handling over $20,000 in "donations"... especially since, I don't think, he doesn't run a not-for-profit. Oh well.
MAYBE, just maybe, it's all true. There's some evil exec at paypal who saw the transactions and lit up a big fat cigar with a $100 bill. Then he closed the account and withdrew the money to his petty cash drawer. Because, you know, they're evil like that.
But, in reality, the money is still there. Lowtax, and lowtax alone, needs to contact paypal via phone. Or maybe he can just continue to rant about it on the Internet and hope it all goes magically away.
Next time, folks, donate to a real charity. Something Awful, good intentions aside, isn't a charity. Something about the best laid plans of mice... men have got nothing to do with it... none at all.
Is this a *new* idea? Hardly.
http://www.fu-fme.com/ (humor)
http://www.sinulator.com/ (real)
So I guess the next logical step was a chicken. I think these guys have spent too much time on a farm.