this story [...] could have done without all the pretense though.
No, I think the pretense is part of his brand. This guy, who apparently is a travel aficionado and a devoted travel privacy activist, is perhaps even more significantly a master of self-promotion. The only useful information about him is provided on his own blog (the bio linked from the summary), which does a fantastic job enumerating the various rippling waters that Edward Hasbrouck evidently walks upon.
I'd be repelled except that he really seems to know his stuff.
RTFA. RTFS, even. Black Hat didn't cancel the talk. The person giving the talk, CTO of Armorize, an application security company with R&D operations in Taiwan, cancelled the talk due to political pressure.
Is it possible that you don't feel ashamed by this and even try to spin it around?
Yes! We have a winner! Give the man a [Cuban] cigar! One thing we Americans (and others) fear mor than death is change. Let's spin it like this: The US is a sickeningly rich country.
Lots of shrimp are already being affected by this.
The article doesn't contain enough information to justify this conclusion. The article implies that shrimp are being affected by this, but cites NOTHING that actually shows that shrimp have been affected. The researcher observed the behaviour change in shrimp in the lab when exposed to the antidepressant levels presumed to be present in the waterways containing the effluent in question. The article didn't cite any study of the behaviour of shrimp in the wild that demonstrated the problem.
The real environmental concerns are: How long do these (and other) pharmaceutical chemicals last in the ocean? What are the effects of the numerous and various chemicals humans dump into the ocean? (My wild guess is that this antidepressant issue is the least of our worries.)
Judging by the video, it looked like it was implemented in software.
And Linux device drivers are, mmm... not software?
I understand, you're saying that the implementation was done as a user space application, not using a specialized hardware device that required a new device driver. Your answer really is that the device drivers may already be installed on your Linux system, but you would need the application they wrote in order to use the new input method.
Censorship, as people object to it, is when someone else prevents you from seeing something they don't want you to see. This browser tool, by contrast, allows YOU to choose things you don't want to see on the Internet.
So no, this is not hypocrisy. It's only censorship in the sense that choosing not to look at something is censoring your vision.
I definitely agree with the spirit of what you're saying.
However, keep in mind that Disney really doesn't want to prevent other people from making money by using their copyrighted material, as long as Disney is also getting a (big) piece of it. This is why the merchandising occurs; toy manufacturers still make decent money on the related items, even though they pay a nice royalty fee to Disney.
Are you seriously suggesting that Pixar and Tarantino TOGETHER have made them as much money as Snow White alone ?
I definitely suggest that. In fact, I suspect Pixar has made more money on Cars and its merchandising alone than from the entire history of Snow White-related income and associated merchandising.
However, I'd have a heck of a time proving that, since there is more Cars-related merchandise than you think, and it's impossible to track Disney/Pixar's income from that, in addition to the fact that it's even less possible to measure and adjust into today's dollars the historical revenue of Snow White going back to it's 1937 release.
My training is mathematics. I don't have this guy's brain, but I sure hope that if, by some chance, I discover anything remotely as interesting as he has, I'll not sell out either. If every bright man did it for enjoyment of his discipline, life would be glorious.
While on one hand, I totally agree with this, on the other hand, I think there's an adult-entertainment industry analogy just begging to be made here.
Apple is making a change to provide more useful information to users of their device. They are not claiming it will keep calls from dropping, but that it will give you information that will help you know when your calls are likely to drop.
Yes, it sucks that the iPhone has antenna issues. Yes, it sucks that they experience disconnections. However, suggesting that Apple is being deceptive when they are doing a reasonable job of mitigating a hardware problem by providing a software update is not accurate or fair.
Oh, and you SUCK for putting me in the position of defending Apple. I don't like Apple's model, I don't like the closed ecosystem, and I don't like the smug, cult-like user community. But this issue is NOT an example of what I don't like about Apple. This is an example of Apple doing the right thing. I encourage this from every company, and suggesting it's bad is overt discouragement to companies that do the right thing.
I think what the he's saying is that it's nicer to warn somebody and give them the opportunity to stop their undesirable behavior than it is to just go ahead and file suit without warning.
Here's what your analogy looks like when it's accurate: You tell somebody that "if you don't stop that within two days, I'm going to punch you in the nose," instead of just going ahead and punching them in the nose.
That's a fair response, but I think I disagree somewhat with your terminology. The fact that the people chose who will perform the offices of government makes them legitimate according to the US Constitution. If those who were elected then act against the will of the people who voted for them, they may be corrupt, but the government is still generally legitimate.
In any case, the difference between illegitimate and corrupt is debateable, and your general point still holds.
On the other hand, I contend that the violent actions performed by the government do NOT make the government illegitimate. If the people support such actions, I argue they are legitimate. Those actions may indicate that the government (and constituency) is morally reprehensible, but that is totally separate from its legitimacy.
Ultimately, you may reject the authority of the government in general because of it's moral failures, but to reject the legitimacy of the government implicitly rejects its founding principles embodied in the US Constitution.If you do, indeed, reject the legitimacy of the constitutional foundation of the US government, then I stand fully corrected, and to you, the US government by its very definition is illegitimate.
This is not a direct quote of the anonymous scientists, this is just crappy writing from the journalist. In other words, it's not the scientists who can't get it right, it's the idiot writing about it.
In the US, we DO have a legitimate government, in the sense that the majority of voters have chosen it. That is as true today as it was when anyone else was president.
Whether or not YOU voted for this government doesn't alter its legitimacy.
This doesn't mean that everything the government does is wise, good, admirable; it just means that we, the people, have chosen those who are responsible for making our laws and making the decisions that "the government" must make.
This guy is playing a dangerous game. He's baiting a country's military. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of the members of those military organizations might not be his biggest fans.
In any case, his lawyers are right. For his own safety's sake, he needs to keep a low profile, not just avoid the US government.
Somebody, please Read The Fine Article! The person filing suit was a professor at Stanford before being hired by Google. He lasted less than two years at the company. There is no statistical evidence that this is a pattern at Google.
My wild speculation is that the guy just didn't like corporate culture; he was accustomed to the academic environment, which was possibly a better fit for this guy. (Also consider, he may not have really "fit in" at Stanford either, which may be part of what led to his departure from Stanford.)
Slashdot Mirror
this story [...] could have done without all the pretense though.
No, I think the pretense is part of his brand. This guy, who apparently is a travel aficionado and a devoted travel privacy activist, is perhaps even more significantly a master of self-promotion. The only useful information about him is provided on his own blog (the bio linked from the summary), which does a fantastic job enumerating the various rippling waters that Edward Hasbrouck evidently walks upon.
I'd be repelled except that he really seems to know his stuff.
RTFA. RTFS, even. Black Hat didn't cancel the talk. The person giving the talk, CTO of Armorize, an application security company with R&D operations in Taiwan, cancelled the talk due to political pressure.
Good grief.
Is it possible that you don't feel ashamed by this and even try to spin it around?
Yes! We have a winner! Give the man a [Cuban] cigar! One thing we Americans (and others) fear mor than death is change. Let's spin it like this: The US is a sickeningly rich country.
Lots of shrimp are already being affected by this.
The article doesn't contain enough information to justify this conclusion. The article implies that shrimp are being affected by this, but cites NOTHING that actually shows that shrimp have been affected. The researcher observed the behaviour change in shrimp in the lab when exposed to the antidepressant levels presumed to be present in the waterways containing the effluent in question. The article didn't cite any study of the behaviour of shrimp in the wild that demonstrated the problem.
The real environmental concerns are:
How long do these (and other) pharmaceutical chemicals last in the ocean?
What are the effects of the numerous and various chemicals humans dump into the ocean? (My wild guess is that this antidepressant issue is the least of our worries.)
Judging by the video, it looked like it was implemented in software.
And Linux device drivers are, mmm... not software?
I understand, you're saying that the implementation was done as a user space application, not using a specialized hardware device that required a new device driver. Your answer really is that the device drivers may already be installed on your Linux system, but you would need the application they wrote in order to use the new input method.
Censorship, as people object to it, is when someone else prevents you from seeing something they don't want you to see.
This browser tool, by contrast, allows YOU to choose things you don't want to see on the Internet.
So no, this is not hypocrisy. It's only censorship in the sense that choosing not to look at something is censoring your vision.
Agreed. The source is the Salmagundi Papers, 1807.
Thanks, I got mixed up. That means this is 4% more awesome than I thought! Woohoo!
Excellent point. What this means is that when I go out to buy a liter of protons, I'm getting, like, 4% fewer than it says on the label, right?
(Of course, Google wouldn't convert protons to liters, so I have a feeling I'm doing this wrong.)
I definitely agree with the spirit of what you're saying.
However, keep in mind that Disney really doesn't want to prevent other people from making money by using their copyrighted material, as long as Disney is also getting a (big) piece of it. This is why the merchandising occurs; toy manufacturers still make decent money on the related items, even though they pay a nice royalty fee to Disney.
What!?! Now where am I going to keep my password list?
Are you seriously suggesting that Pixar and Tarantino TOGETHER have made them as much money as Snow White alone ?
I definitely suggest that. In fact, I suspect Pixar has made more money on Cars and its merchandising alone than from the entire history of Snow White-related income and associated merchandising.
However, I'd have a heck of a time proving that, since there is more Cars-related merchandise than you think, and it's impossible to track Disney/Pixar's income from that, in addition to the fact that it's even less possible to measure and adjust into today's dollars the historical revenue of Snow White going back to it's 1937 release.
It's real boss!
My training is mathematics. I don't have this guy's brain, but I sure hope that if, by some chance, I discover anything remotely as interesting as he has, I'll not sell out either. If every bright man did it for enjoyment of his discipline, life would be glorious.
While on one hand, I totally agree with this, on the other hand, I think there's an adult-entertainment industry analogy just begging to be made here.
The Climategate hotel can finally go back to business as usual. Woohoo!
Google agrees. "iTouch" definitely means "iPod Touch".
Apple is making a change to provide more useful information to users of their device. They are not claiming it will keep calls from dropping, but that it will give you information that will help you know when your calls are likely to drop.
Yes, it sucks that the iPhone has antenna issues. Yes, it sucks that they experience disconnections. However, suggesting that Apple is being deceptive when they are doing a reasonable job of mitigating a hardware problem by providing a software update is not accurate or fair.
Oh, and you SUCK for putting me in the position of defending Apple. I don't like Apple's model, I don't like the closed ecosystem, and I don't like the smug, cult-like user community. But this issue is NOT an example of what I don't like about Apple. This is an example of Apple doing the right thing. I encourage this from every company, and suggesting it's bad is overt discouragement to companies that do the right thing.
I think what the he's saying is that it's nicer to warn somebody and give them the opportunity to stop their undesirable behavior than it is to just go ahead and file suit without warning.
Here's what your analogy looks like when it's accurate: You tell somebody that "if you don't stop that within two days, I'm going to punch you in the nose," instead of just going ahead and punching them in the nose.
Sorry, the last sentence lost me. How does the OpenDocument Format relate to mainframe software?
That's a fair response, but I think I disagree somewhat with your terminology. The fact that the people chose who will perform the offices of government makes them legitimate according to the US Constitution. If those who were elected then act against the will of the people who voted for them, they may be corrupt, but the government is still generally legitimate.
In any case, the difference between illegitimate and corrupt is debateable, and your general point still holds.
On the other hand, I contend that the violent actions performed by the government do NOT make the government illegitimate. If the people support such actions, I argue they are legitimate. Those actions may indicate that the government (and constituency) is morally reprehensible, but that is totally separate from its legitimacy.
Ultimately, you may reject the authority of the government in general because of it's moral failures, but to reject the legitimacy of the government implicitly rejects its founding principles embodied in the US Constitution.If you do, indeed, reject the legitimacy of the constitutional foundation of the US government, then I stand fully corrected, and to you, the US government by its very definition is illegitimate.
This is not a direct quote of the anonymous scientists, this is just crappy writing from the journalist. In other words, it's not the scientists who can't get it right, it's the idiot writing about it.
In the US, we DO have a legitimate government, in the sense that the majority of voters have chosen it. That is as true today as it was when anyone else was president.
Whether or not YOU voted for this government doesn't alter its legitimacy.
This doesn't mean that everything the government does is wise, good, admirable; it just means that we, the people, have chosen those who are responsible for making our laws and making the decisions that "the government" must make.
Heh... to refine your point, I'd say we (in the US) are definitely getting the government we've asked for, whether or not we deserve it.
This guy is playing a dangerous game. He's baiting a country's military. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of the members of those military organizations might not be his biggest fans.
In any case, his lawyers are right. For his own safety's sake, he needs to keep a low profile, not just avoid the US government.
Somebody, please Read The Fine Article! The person filing suit was a professor at Stanford before being hired by Google. He lasted less than two years at the company. There is no statistical evidence that this is a pattern at Google.
My wild speculation is that the guy just didn't like corporate culture; he was accustomed to the academic environment, which was possibly a better fit for this guy. (Also consider, he may not have really "fit in" at Stanford either, which may be part of what led to his departure from Stanford.)