if I was a group that uses heavy peer pressure and the fact that as a group I have vastly more resources than any individual, monetary and time-wise, I'd certainly want anonymity stripped away so I know which individuals I'd have to silence
But/b/ values anonymity and is not (yet) a religion.
1) You've apparently never weaponized a kitten before;
2) Just like nooses and guns and such are offensive due to some of their uses as symbols, your suggestion would constitute hate speech to any group where mutilating whatever a kitten symbolizes would be offensive.
Ya'll'd've'd a better chance to clue in on that if slashdot users didn't routinely apply their analytical skills to subjects that wouldn't otherwise receive slightly off-beat analysis.
The idea that a "minefield" is effective because of secrecy is just inflammatory nonsense.
The intent and effect of these loud explosion-causing devices to deter opponents from using a mined area isn't exactly subtle.
The article, the concept of a legal minefield, and the actual area denial strategy of laying mines, is that careful planning is required to how to navigate the known unknowns if the potential reward of doing so is sufficient. The article points out some issues with various non-proprietary licenses, and advocates using a particular one of those because risk/reward ratio is adequately balanced.
In response to Hatta, which license has fewer risks or untested unknowns? A) GPL; B) MIT; C) "You may not redistribute this in any way."; D) public domain.
Evolution predicts that individual features become more capable as the benefit of having such features increases within the relevant environment. If "IE grew up in a friendly benign corporate environment" implies that it was exposed to relatively fewer threats than if it were exposed to more threats in a different environment, having protection against malware in an environment free of malware would provide a lower value than having protection against malware in a hostile environment, thus features providing malware protection would be LESS likely to occur for that reason alone. Instead, the energy required to maintain the infrastructure of that feature would be better spent on other features more closely correlated with survival and propagation.
If, on the other hand, you meant to argue that the designers of Chrome and the designers of IE had plans and considerations which were informed by things other than their browsers' operating environment, you may have a tenable argument, but not one which is based on evolution.
QUESTION 1: When you take a quiz on Facebook, what can the quiz see about you? Only your answers to its questions. Only information that is set as "public" on your profile. Almost everything on your profile, even if you use privacy settings to limit access.
Correct!
Even if you have your profile information and content set to "private," quizzes can see almost everything that you share with your friends on Facebook: your politics and religion, embarassing photos, comments you leave on your friends' Wall. It doesn't seem like a quiz developer has any reason to poke around in your profile, but it's temptingly easy to do so.
For example, here are just a few things this quiz can see in your profile:
[Random stuff from your own profile. *Some data/counts in aggregate*]
QUESTION 2: What info about you can a quiz see when your friends take a quiz? Nothing at all, unless they use your name in an answer somehow. Only information from your profile that is visible to everyone on Facebook. Almost everything on your profile, even if you use privacy settings to limit who can see that information.
Correct!
Yes, that's right: when your friend takes a quiz, the quiz maker gets access to your information! So even if you're being careful, if you haven't changed the right privacy settings, your information could be collected by anyone who writes a quiz that your friends take!
Check out what this quiz can see about some of your friends (loads slowly - give it a sec!):
[Random stuff from your friends' profiles. *Some data/counts in aggregate*]
QUESTION 3: There must be safeguards somewhere, right? My information is safe because: Facebook's default privacy settings prevent application developers from scouring my information. Facebook carefully screens developers to ensure that they are trustworthy and requires that they post and comply with a privacy policy. Facebook uses technical measures to limit how developers collect and use personal information. None of the above - and that's a real problem.
Correct!
The only protection Facebook offers by default is its Terms of Service, which state that developers must collect only the information that they need and use it only in connection with Facebook.
But all it takes to be a developer is an email address, and so few of even the top developers have a privacy policy at all, it's hard to believe that Terms of Service will hold them back if they want to collect information, and (as this quiz has shown) they can access a lot of it.
And once details about your personal life are collected by a quiz developer, who knows where they could end up or how they could be used. Shared? Sold? Turned over to the government?
QUESTION 4: OK, that sounds like a real problem. So what should I do? Give up and quit Facebook forever. Resign myself to losing control over my personal information. Demand the right to control my information without sacrificing the right to use new technology.
Of course you know the answer: take a stand and demand control!
What's going on with these quizzes just isn't right. It's time for Facebook to upgrade its privacy controls so that you decide who gets to see your personal information.
That's where you come in. As we've seen before, Facebook does respond when users protest. So we need to make some noise!
*
Update your own privacy settings.
*
Share this quiz on Facebook and encourage your friends to take it!
*
Sign our online petition and tell Facebook that you want more control of your own information.
*
And, finally, help the movement grow by becoming a fan of the dotRights campaign and voting for our "The Secret Lives of On
Babylon 5 was respected and aided by NASA JPL. SeaQuest had support from NOAA. The Mission to Mars series on Discovery had good backing from a variety of scientists, as had their previous dinosaur holodeck series.
Or did you fail to read this story the first time it was posted, particularly the parts where Facebook has been working with the Privacy Commissioner for months to resolve the issues through technical and other changes? http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.cfm
Actually - it might be to the ISP's advantage to allow this sort of thing. Some people are going to brick their boxes while tampering with them. Warranty is void, of course, if the box has been tampered with. So, the ISP gets the opportunity to sell another 20 dollar (or Euro, kroner, or whatever they use up there) box for 50 dollars.
You're aware that the act of distributing and provisioning new hardware pieces is not usually a profit centre for a service provider, right?
And, more importantly for humanity, why would we encourage situations, such as your scenario, where raw materials and energy are needlessly consumed for no tangible benefit?
I wonder what software the patent holders used to do their court paperwork? I wonder what software implements the document workflow at the courts?
It would be a shame if they found out only now that the lawyers and courts used templates, external style sheets, and data/formatting separations as might be found in several old legal-friendly products such as Wordperfect and Filemaker.
I hope no one who makes hardcopy newspapers and magazines with Quark or PageMaker (or its descendent InDesign/InCopy) remembers that such publishing apps have separated presentation and data into different files (and applications!) since the early 1990s using pointers, markers and placeholders in the document data so that ye olde 6100/se pizzabox didn't have to put six typefaces and a 1200 dpi TIFF on screen at the same time.
Maybe the patent holders should try to enforce something against the courts and the media...
There's no internal contradiction. Both positions favour wide-spread copying and the rights of the content consumers to do things with the copyrighted materials. Externally, both positions have the effect of minimizing the production cost at the expense of greater transaction costs.
And why is it that people whine so much about GPL'ed software, something you get for free and with the best of intentions, but you don't bat an eye when companies do this for their overpriced and proprietary software.
In part because the proprietary motive is clear (it heavily/exclusively favours the publisher) and most proprietary software publishers make no complex and often unclear moral claims about being freerer than software licensed under the other free and non-free licenses. By contrast, discussions such as this one among individuals who are exceptionally well versed in software licenses (as compared to the vast majority computer users and administrators) provide continuous evidence that GPL is not yet a known, stable quantity for many potential users.
Like proprietary licenses, MIT/BSD licenses (heavily/exclusively favouring the user) get little debate because they are unambiguous in both their intents and their effects.
This thread posits that some dislike for aspects of our living configuration (corporations) by members of this forum is rooted in insufficient information (Captain Planet), as evidenced elsewhere in the discussion by the relatively basic questions some participants ask about ecology and environmentalism. This thread speculates that hatred may have been indoctrinated in some fashion. The expressed intensity of feelings about the subject appears disproportionate to the level of knowledge about the same subject.
I was soliciting opinions about whether, by analogy, the expressed hatred for Microsoft arose in a similar manner.
But I am now more curious about why my objective question about the source of the negative opinions frequently expressed in this forum about Microsoft solicits an accusatory and condemnatory attack.
Am I not even allowed to ask and learn about how people gain their strongly held beliefs?
...but it comes down to de-centralizing control over DNS to the lowest level of political representation.
Just no. Not even if it's allowed to be outsourced.
Judging by the IT clue of some of the county and municipal and condo board websites on the interwebs, this would be a horrible default condition. And then there are the plethora of freedom issues (we disagree with X, so their registration fee will be over $9000).
The Internet works (but is also blighted) now because its scope is supranational by default and optionally national with non-trivial effort. What would you imagine to be the beneficial outcome of defaulting to greengroup.eco.stripminingtown.corruptstate.ccTLD?
In that case, I'd want an organization competent in Internet infrastructure to administer it, and not any group who's primary claim to fame is environmental issues.
The real issue here is deciding who gets to define what is, and what is not, a valid ecological ideology for the Internet since being granted a.eco domain will become a de facto stamp of approval for an organization's mandate and agenda. This can easily be solved by following the.cat example, where any group that claims to highlight the Catalan language and culture, without explicitly now defining an immutable value system around the subject matter.
A person, organization or company is considered to belong if they:
* already have content in Catalan published online.
* have access to a special code (sometimes called ENS), issued during special promotions or by agreements with certain institutions.
* develop activities (in any language) to promote the Catalan culture and language.
* are endorsed by 3 people or 1 institution already using a.cat domain name.
Analogous sufficient requirements of "having content about the natural or built environment or ecology published online, being blessed by internationally recognized environmental research or advocacy organizations, developing activities to promote understanding about the environment or ecology, or are endorsed by 3 people or one institution..." would put.eco on par with.museum,.aero,.int and such where the TLD denotes a realm of knowledge, endeavour or scope without endorsing a particular implementation.
Just as it was not ICANN's policy to determine what is, or is not, a sovereign state through ccTLDs, it should not be ICANN's policy to determine what is, or is not, valid environmental knowledge or policy through.eco.
I agree, but only to the extent that you're describing the media-whoring environmentalist factions to which the Western Anglosphere is popularly exposed. For example, the International Institute for Sustainable Development addresses the same China/e-waste problem (http://www.iisd.org/trade/china/markets_research.asp) that Greenpeace does, but IISD provides substantial and achievable recommendations which are not reducible to simply stop, and have street cred among international organizations and businesses. Even Greenpeace officials based in China are clueful of the fact that science is stronger than whining (e.g. see http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/environmentscience/ewaste_dumping_ground.html).
It may be that we simply get more of the rage-based advocacy because that's the market created by the popularity of our adversarial style of infotainment.
We're somewhat past the point of having the resources to be able to enhance wealth and education for the entirety of the existing population, hence the original issue.
The timing of this question one month before classes start suggests that the department or instructor missed the bookstore's deadline to order sufficient copies for sale in September, due to unexpected increases in enrollment, recently discovered issues with the old text, or to lack of administrative support/orientation to a new or sessional instructor who would be expected to adhere to bookstore or publisher/distributor deadlines.
Also, university bookstores are increasingly encouraged to operate as profitable or self-sustaining business units, putting other objectives in front of servicing students and faculty. Ordering and shelving a low/high number of copies on a rush basis may not be sufficiently profitable at the margins involved.
Trademarks need more care and attention than you seem to imply, especially the non-registered variety, as they aren't consistently the subject of the free (1,2,3,4) clauses of the license. See Firefox naming and branding, for example.
As with other sole-proprietorship operations, it may be difficult to externally determine if the project or product name is the subject of any agreements or relationships the original owner may have had with third parties. As a hypothetical, local business relationships may be based on the strength of the inclusion of $ProjectName because it was known to be authored by $OldMaintainer who is trusted, and therefore $OldMaintainer's code is trusted. As an unconnected third party from elsewhere in the world, it is likely that an outsider would have difficulty in discovering this information. If a customer enters into an agreement with a supplier which materially involves $ProjectName on the reasonable assumption (perhaps due to poor communication on the part of the new maintainers or one of the intermediaries) that it is $OldMaintainer's project and has not been altered by $NewMaintainer's contributions, which parties are responsible when the use of the current version produces undesired output?
As an example of trademark and branding considerations falling outside the strict trademark laws, how would you deal with the situation where someone who had taken over an abandoned educational Linux distribution had patched it so that it was LMOS?
Slashdot Mirror
if I was a group that uses heavy peer pressure and the fact that as a group I have vastly more resources than any individual, monetary and time-wise, I'd certainly want anonymity stripped away so I know which individuals I'd have to silence
But /b/ values anonymity and is not (yet) a religion.
I guess Safari for Windows on generic hardware (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3657) doesn't yet exist in your continuity.
The official Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection Client on OS X is published by Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.mspx?pid=Mactopia_RDC&fid=CD9EC77E-5B07-4332-849F-046611458871
Apple uses a VNC protocol for its own remote desktop clients/servers.
But: Italy, Israel.
AMS seems to work well for Germany, but much of the usual partisan BS is delegated up to the EU.
1) You've apparently never weaponized a kitten before;
2) Just like nooses and guns and such are offensive due to some of their uses as symbols, your suggestion would constitute hate speech to any group where mutilating whatever a kitten symbolizes would be offensive.
Ya'll'd've'd a better chance to clue in on that if slashdot users didn't routinely apply their analytical skills to subjects that wouldn't otherwise receive slightly off-beat analysis.
The idea that a "minefield" is effective because of secrecy is just inflammatory nonsense.
The intent and effect of these loud explosion-causing devices to deter opponents from using a mined area isn't exactly subtle.
The article, the concept of a legal minefield, and the actual area denial strategy of laying mines, is that careful planning is required to how to navigate the known unknowns if the potential reward of doing so is sufficient. The article points out some issues with various non-proprietary licenses, and advocates using a particular one of those because risk/reward ratio is adequately balanced.
In response to Hatta, which license has fewer risks or untested unknowns? A) GPL; B) MIT; C) "You may not redistribute this in any way."; D) public domain.
Your argument about evolution is faulty.
Evolution predicts that individual features become more capable as the benefit of having such features increases within the relevant environment. If "IE grew up in a friendly benign corporate environment" implies that it was exposed to relatively fewer threats than if it were exposed to more threats in a different environment, having protection against malware in an environment free of malware would provide a lower value than having protection against malware in a hostile environment, thus features providing malware protection would be LESS likely to occur for that reason alone. Instead, the energy required to maintain the infrastructure of that feature would be better spent on other features more closely correlated with survival and propagation.
If, on the other hand, you meant to argue that the designers of Chrome and the designers of IE had plans and considerations which were informed by things other than their browsers' operating environment, you may have a tenable argument, but not one which is based on evolution.
Healthcare can't threaten a defamation suit. But incorporated and natural legal entities can....
QUESTION 1: When you take a quiz on Facebook, what can the quiz see about you?
Only your answers to its questions.
Only information that is set as "public" on your profile.
Almost everything on your profile, even if you use privacy settings to limit access.
Correct!
Even if you have your profile information and content set to "private," quizzes can see almost everything that you share with your friends on Facebook: your politics and religion, embarassing photos, comments you leave on your friends' Wall. It doesn't seem like a quiz developer has any reason to poke around in your profile, but it's temptingly easy to do so.
For example, here are just a few things this quiz can see in your profile:
[Random stuff from your own profile. *Some data/counts in aggregate*]
QUESTION 2: What info about you can a quiz see when your friends take a quiz?
Nothing at all, unless they use your name in an answer somehow.
Only information from your profile that is visible to everyone on Facebook.
Almost everything on your profile, even if you use privacy settings to limit who can see that information.
Correct!
Yes, that's right: when your friend takes a quiz, the quiz maker gets access to your information! So even if you're being careful, if you haven't changed the right privacy settings, your information could be collected by anyone who writes a quiz that your friends take!
Check out what this quiz can see about some of your friends (loads slowly - give it a sec!):
[Random stuff from your friends' profiles. *Some data/counts in aggregate*]
QUESTION 3: There must be safeguards somewhere, right? My information is safe because:
Facebook's default privacy settings prevent application developers from scouring my information.
Facebook carefully screens developers to ensure that they are trustworthy and requires that they post and comply with a privacy policy.
Facebook uses technical measures to limit how developers collect and use personal information.
None of the above - and that's a real problem.
Correct!
The only protection Facebook offers by default is its Terms of Service, which state that developers must collect only the information that they need and use it only in connection with Facebook.
But all it takes to be a developer is an email address, and so few of even the top developers have a privacy policy at all, it's hard to believe that Terms of Service will hold them back if they want to collect information, and (as this quiz has shown) they can access a lot of it.
And once details about your personal life are collected by a quiz developer, who knows where they could end up or how they could be used. Shared? Sold? Turned over to the government?
QUESTION 4: OK, that sounds like a real problem. So what should I do?
Give up and quit Facebook forever.
Resign myself to losing control over my personal information.
Demand the right to control my information without sacrificing the right to use new technology.
Of course you know the answer: take a stand and demand control!
What's going on with these quizzes just isn't right. It's time for Facebook to upgrade its privacy controls so that you decide who gets to see your personal information.
That's where you come in. As we've seen before, Facebook does respond when users protest. So we need to make some noise!
*
Update your own privacy settings.
*
Share this quiz on Facebook and encourage your friends to take it!
*
Sign our online petition and tell Facebook that you want more control of your own information.
*
And, finally, help the movement grow by becoming a fan of the dotRights campaign and voting for our "The Secret Lives of On
Babylon 5 was respected and aided by NASA JPL. SeaQuest had support from NOAA. The Mission to Mars series on Discovery had good backing from a variety of scientists, as had their previous dinosaur holodeck series.
Yes, because that's worked out so well before:
"Privacy commissioner probes PM's list":
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/265982
Or did you fail to read this story the first time it was posted, particularly the parts where Facebook has been working with the Privacy Commissioner for months to resolve the issues through technical and other changes?
http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.cfm
Actually - it might be to the ISP's advantage to allow this sort of thing. Some people are going to brick their boxes while tampering with them. Warranty is void, of course, if the box has been tampered with. So, the ISP gets the opportunity to sell another 20 dollar (or Euro, kroner, or whatever they use up there) box for 50 dollars.
You're aware that the act of distributing and provisioning new hardware pieces is not usually a profit centre for a service provider, right?
And, more importantly for humanity, why would we encourage situations, such as your scenario, where raw materials and energy are needlessly consumed for no tangible benefit?
I wonder what software the patent holders used to do their court paperwork? I wonder what software implements the document workflow at the courts?
It would be a shame if they found out only now that the lawyers and courts used templates, external style sheets, and data/formatting separations as might be found in several old legal-friendly products such as Wordperfect and Filemaker.
I hope no one who makes hardcopy newspapers and magazines with Quark or PageMaker (or its descendent InDesign/InCopy) remembers that such publishing apps have separated presentation and data into different files (and applications!) since the early 1990s using pointers, markers and placeholders in the document data so that ye olde 6100/se pizzabox didn't have to put six typefaces and a 1200 dpi TIFF on screen at the same time.
Maybe the patent holders should try to enforce something against the courts and the media...
There's no internal contradiction. Both positions favour wide-spread copying and the rights of the content consumers to do things with the copyrighted materials. Externally, both positions have the effect of minimizing the production cost at the expense of greater transaction costs.
And why is it that people whine so much about GPL'ed software, something you get for free and with the best of intentions, but you don't bat an eye when companies do this for their overpriced and proprietary software.
In part because the proprietary motive is clear (it heavily/exclusively favours the publisher) and most proprietary software publishers make no complex and often unclear moral claims about being freerer than software licensed under the other free and non-free licenses. By contrast, discussions such as this one among individuals who are exceptionally well versed in software licenses (as compared to the vast majority computer users and administrators) provide continuous evidence that GPL is not yet a known, stable quantity for many potential users.
Like proprietary licenses, MIT/BSD licenses (heavily/exclusively favouring the user) get little debate because they are unambiguous in both their intents and their effects.
I apologized for Microsoft where in my question?
This thread posits that some dislike for aspects of our living configuration (corporations) by members of this forum is rooted in insufficient information (Captain Planet), as evidenced elsewhere in the discussion by the relatively basic questions some participants ask about ecology and environmentalism. This thread speculates that hatred may have been indoctrinated in some fashion. The expressed intensity of feelings about the subject appears disproportionate to the level of knowledge about the same subject.
I was soliciting opinions about whether, by analogy, the expressed hatred for Microsoft arose in a similar manner.
But I am now more curious about why my objective question about the source of the negative opinions frequently expressed in this forum about Microsoft solicits an accusatory and condemnatory attack.
Am I not even allowed to ask and learn about how people gain their strongly held beliefs?
Would that also explain the Microsoft hatred?
Just no. Not even if it's allowed to be outsourced.
Judging by the IT clue of some of the county and municipal and condo board websites on the interwebs, this would be a horrible default condition. And then there are the plethora of freedom issues (we disagree with X, so their registration fee will be over $9000).
The Internet works (but is also blighted) now because its scope is supranational by default and optionally national with non-trivial effort. What would you imagine to be the beneficial outcome of defaulting to greengroup.eco.stripminingtown.corruptstate.ccTLD?
In that case, I'd want an organization competent in Internet infrastructure to administer it, and not any group who's primary claim to fame is environmental issues.
The real issue here is deciding who gets to define what is, and what is not, a valid ecological ideology for the Internet since being granted a .eco domain will become a de facto stamp of approval for an organization's mandate and agenda. This can easily be solved by following the .cat example, where any group that claims to highlight the Catalan language and culture, without explicitly now defining an immutable value system around the subject matter.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cat
Analogous sufficient requirements of "having content about the natural or built environment or ecology published online, being blessed by internationally recognized environmental research or advocacy organizations, developing activities to promote understanding about the environment or ecology, or are endorsed by 3 people or one institution..." would put .eco on par with .museum, .aero, .int and such where the TLD denotes a realm of knowledge, endeavour or scope without endorsing a particular implementation.
Just as it was not ICANN's policy to determine what is, or is not, a sovereign state through ccTLDs, it should not be ICANN's policy to determine what is, or is not, valid environmental knowledge or policy through .eco.
I agree, but only to the extent that you're describing the media-whoring environmentalist factions to which the Western Anglosphere is popularly exposed. For example, the International Institute for Sustainable Development addresses the same China/e-waste problem (http://www.iisd.org/trade/china/markets_research.asp) that Greenpeace does, but IISD provides substantial and achievable recommendations which are not reducible to simply stop, and have street cred among international organizations and businesses. Even Greenpeace officials based in China are clueful of the fact that science is stronger than whining (e.g. see http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/environmentscience/ewaste_dumping_ground.html).
It may be that we simply get more of the rage-based advocacy because that's the market created by the popularity of our adversarial style of infotainment.
We're somewhat past the point of having the resources to be able to enhance wealth and education for the entirety of the existing population, hence the original issue.
Verifiability overlaps haphazardly with intractability. See explicitly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It"
The timing of this question one month before classes start suggests that the department or instructor missed the bookstore's deadline to order sufficient copies for sale in September, due to unexpected increases in enrollment, recently discovered issues with the old text, or to lack of administrative support/orientation to a new or sessional instructor who would be expected to adhere to bookstore or publisher/distributor deadlines.
Also, university bookstores are increasingly encouraged to operate as profitable or self-sustaining business units, putting other objectives in front of servicing students and faculty. Ordering and shelving a low/high number of copies on a rush basis may not be sufficiently profitable at the margins involved.
Trademarks need more care and attention than you seem to imply, especially the non-registered variety, as they aren't consistently the subject of the free (1,2,3,4) clauses of the license. See Firefox naming and branding, for example.
As with other sole-proprietorship operations, it may be difficult to externally determine if the project or product name is the subject of any agreements or relationships the original owner may have had with third parties. As a hypothetical, local business relationships may be based on the strength of the inclusion of $ProjectName because it was known to be authored by $OldMaintainer who is trusted, and therefore $OldMaintainer's code is trusted. As an unconnected third party from elsewhere in the world, it is likely that an outsider would have difficulty in discovering this information. If a customer enters into an agreement with a supplier which materially involves $ProjectName on the reasonable assumption (perhaps due to poor communication on the part of the new maintainers or one of the intermediaries) that it is $OldMaintainer's project and has not been altered by $NewMaintainer's contributions, which parties are responsible when the use of the current version produces undesired output?
As an example of trademark and branding considerations falling outside the strict trademark laws, how would you deal with the situation where someone who had taken over an abandoned educational Linux distribution had patched it so that it was LMOS?