You assume google wants to get rid of software patents, rather than corner the market?
It's not an assumption. Google dislikes software patents and actively lobbies against them. Google has been forced to play the patent game or be destroyed by lawsuits, but the company really doesn't like it.
I can honestly say that I make smarter decisions when on my medications. I focus better, get things done, my social life improves, and I'm just generally better at living.
Yes, speed has that effect on almost everybody.
To a degree, this is absolutely true. If you take a bunch people who don't have AD(H)D and give them the medications, you generally will see a modest improvement in cognitive tests that benefit from improved focus. This is why there is a black market in ADD meds in universities, because they really do help people do better on tests.
But that in no way detracts from the fact that for people with the disorder, it's like flipping a switch. For them, it's not an incremental improvement, but a huge change in behavior and performance. I have ADD and all of my kids have it, in varying degrees, so I have a lot of direct, personal experience with the disorder in its different manifestations, and the drugs, and how and when they help, and to what degree.
For the people that need them ADD meds are a fantastic tool. They're not the only tool... one of my key coping strategies is simply having a job that keeps me engaged and exploits the flip side of ADD's distraction prone-ness: hyperfocus. Writing code fully engages my brain for long periods of time, which I alternate with goofing off (like posting to slashdot). It works very well for me. Oh, and I also self-medicate with caffeine, that helps too.
For my kids who are in school, that strategy isn't really available. The meds are a big help for them, at least until they get to high school and especially college where there are more options for picking really engaging courses.
It sounds to me like you're downplaying concerns because you like Google... a lot.
I don't make any bones about that, I do like Google. A lot. It's not perfect, and I don't think I'll ever be truly comfortable with advertising as a primary revenue source (I'm quite happy to see non-ad revenues climbing), but I think the company creates a lot of great technology, and that it tries really hard to do the right things.
Enough to dismiss those concerns as "not liking people that work hard" and not caring about them the moment they don't align to the reality of PR.
I don't believe I ever said anything about "not liking people that work hard". And where did I dismiss any concerns because they don't align to the reality of PR? On a purely technical level, SPDY is a good protocol, better than NFHU, which is why the committee adopted it, PPAPI still has a lot of growing up to do but NPAPI is simply terrible, and WebP is a better image format than the raft of things it replaces.
I guess it's easier to defend a gigantic corporation that pays your checks then it is to consider the viewpoints of the people who see it from the other side of the fence.
Show me some -- technical, not google-bashing Microsoft PR -- viewpoints and I'll be happy to discuss them, within the limitations of my own knowledge.
Much better to dismiss with nebulous and chuckle-worthy platitudes.
I think you didn't read the post you responded to.
This is the same attitude that lead to Microsoft's downfall. I know because I've worked for both companies.
I call bullshit on this claim. However, it's easy enough to check: What was your username at Google? I can look up your CL stats. I know plenty of Microsofties I could get to vet that side of your claim.
I see the same thing happening at Google that happened at Microsoft.
I don't see that at all. I see plenty of problems at Google, but they're completely different sorts of problems. The biggest difference is that Google has never relied on locking its users in, and indeed goes out of its way to make sure users are free to take their data and go elsewhere. Google has introduced a lot of new technologies, but standardizes everything. In a way I think this is evidence of Google's arrogance. Google is convinced that given a level playing field, it will win. That may or may not be true, but it's what Googlers believe and so Google does not try to lock users in -- which is pretty much the opposite of Microsoft's core business strategy all the way back to "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" (which they didn't exactly do, but the statement accurately captures the attitude).
But you know what? I really don't want to waste any more of your time with my misinformed negativity. If your happy with things the way they are, I'm not going to ruin it for you. Time will tell.
Time will indeed tell. And I wouldn't say I'm "happy" with the way things are. I have never been happy with the state of technology and I'm sure I never will be. There will always be pain points and things that need to be improved, and there will always be opportunities for new ideas -- which will often create the pain points as transitions occur.
But I do like the directions Google is pushing technology, and I never did like what Microsoft did (back in their heyday it always seemed to me that they were holding back progress not pushing it forward; the contrast between my NeXTstep machine and Windows for Workgroups was simply laughable, and Windows 95 just highlighted it).
Pepper is not a real API. PPAPI is essentially just a crapton of exposed inner Chromium guts.
This is not true. It is true that Pepper's model means the browser must implement the backing store used by the plugin, and that means there must be a stub API layer which the plugin uses to update that backing, and that the backing store and the stub layer are modeled on how Chrome works. But if you actually go look at the abstractions they're very sensible and minimal APIs, and it's hard to see what would be done differently by any other API that is attempting to do the same thing, and it's also clear that they're implementable by any browser.
It's also true that PPAPI is incomplete. The existing Flash plugin, for example, needs APIs that haven't yet been defined, so it reaches into Chromium's internals. That doesn't mean that PPAPI is just "exposed Chromium guts", it just means that it's not done yet. Google hasn't yet deprecated NPAPI and I'm sure PPAPI will be completed well before NPAPI support is actually removed.
The mozilla bug thread you linked is very interesting, though. It sounds like the real problem with Flash on Linux is that Adobe is abandoning it and Google is volunteering to pick it up, at least for Chrome. Perhaps if Google weren't willing to take on the maintenance Adobe wouldn't abandon Linux in general, that's hard to say. The Mozilla devs' primary argument for why they shouldn't bother with Pepper to get Flash is that it wouldn't work anyway, because Adobe doesn't care. They're saying that Adobe is dropping Flash for Linux and that the Google is going to have to manage ongoing source-level changes in Flash to keep it working for Chrome, and that Mozilla can't or won't do the same.
I suppose Google could step up and maintain an NPAPI-compatible Flash plugin for Linux, but it's hard to see what would motivate them to do that.
"...but said the opinions of her former employer would not guide her work."
I wonder if she rolled her eyes and winked after saying this.
This is one of those situations where I think the chosen person could actually do an enormous amount of good if they had the will to, but I have little to no hope that that will be the actual outcome.
So do you believe she was serious or not? Because if she allowed the opinions of her former employer to guide her work, she'd do an enormous amount of good by mostly eliminating software patents.
Every one of your points is partially correct, but just wrong enough to make it misleading, and the combined effect is very misleading.
They created their own replacement for NPAPI plugins, and got Adobe to prefer it over NPAPI. Now they're not going to support NPAPI anymore in a year. As a result, Linux Flash is now only going to work on their browser, and it hasn't really improved the situation in Chrome enough to justify the switch.
Google's PPAPI fixes numerous problems with NPAPI, particularly around security, because NPAPI plugins run in the same process as the browser making them a perfect vector for compromising the security of the browser, and indeed many of the major NPAPI plugins are so riddled with security problems that Google blacklisted them some time ago. And it is those same security concerns that are driving Google's decision to deprecate NPAPI completely. This is a good thing and it will make the web safer. In addition, NPAPI standardizes the API and should make it possible for a single plugin to work with multiple browsers. The end result will be not only safer for users, but should actually encourage the creation of plugins, since they'll be more widely usable.
With respect to Flash, Google didn't twist Adobe's arm. Adobe made its decisions for its own reasons; most likely because PPAPI is so much better to work with.
They didn't like other people's image formats, so they invented WebP, and got a lot of nickel-and-diming image hosters to start pressuring other browser vendors to support the format as if it's a proven tech... even though it's a "standard" that has shifted so much it's turned into such a kitchen sink of a format that everyone will basically have to use their implementation.
Again "didn't like" is misleading. The available image formats had serious deficiencies. Only GIF supported multi-frame animations, but did it in about the most inefficient way possible (storing each full frame, and compressing them individually with run-length encoding). JPEG works great for still images, but is far less efficient at compression than modern approaches, and also doesn't support layering, animations or transparency, and is limited to 24-bit color. JPEG2000 provided much more efficient compression, but lacked most everything else. PNG was pretty good at lossless stuff, but nothing else.
And once again, Google didn't twist anyone's arms. It created a better image format, started supporting and using it, and then put it through the standardization process. Your implication that it's somehow "unproved tech" is rather laughable. It's not like there's any new technology there at all, just a better repackaging of what we already knew. And it's not a "kitchen" sink format at all. It supports both lossy and lossless modes, with variable bit depths and includes animation (because it's actually based on VP8, a video format, this was very easy). It's very flexible which means it's somewhat complex, but it's actually simpler than the raft of standards it's positioned to replace.
They decided that Media Source Extensions were good enough that they could flip the switch on Youtube before other browsers were ready for it, thus rendering Firefox unable to play hi-def videos in HTML5 on Youtube.. though it was completely unnecessary to do so.
I don't actually know anything about that situation. However, I suspect that your description is no more accurate than the others.
They didn't like how long it was taking to make HTML2 so they invented SPDY. They then enabled it on the products that they popularized by using other people's standards, like Google Documents, thus forcing other browser vendors to support it or feel comparitively sluggish, even though HTML2 was coming along at the time anyway.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In late 2012 the IETF HTTP committee solicited proposals from the industry, in competition
First, during the trial period, it's free. There is no comment as to how much it will cost after June 2014. Second, it's $9 per hour. So $18 to watch, say, a two hour movie. A bit pricey, methinks.
Sounds good to me. It just means that the only people who use it will be business travelers whose companies are paying. I'll actually be able to get some work done.
What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?
Sucker.
They got you to comment, didn't they? Nobody with half a brain would waste their time typing anyth...
I thought the identifier was the 15 or 16 digit number on the front of the card, and the authenticator was the three-to-four digit number on the back of the card (except in cases where a keypad is available, and then the identifier is the 15 or 16 digit number encoded on the mag strip and the authenticator is your 4 digit pin).
Nah, there are ways you can use the card number without the CVV1 or CVV2. And it's not like a three-digit authenticator adds very much security (more length there actually would help).
So google: Please don't filter out card numbers from your searches. The fault does not lie with google, but with those who put credit card numbers on the web for all to see.
I think Google did take that approach for several years, and it was found not to work. Specifically, the pages with all the card numbers didn't get taken down, and Google search made it trivial for people to find lots of potentially-valid CCNs.
IANAL, but I do follow legal issues quite closely, and read a lot of legal rulings. Absent ambiguity in the black letter law, which isn't present in this case, judges don't try to deduce intent. I'm fairly confident that in court it would be read exactly the way I'm reading it.
Also, I note that you still haven't provided a citation to any contrary law. In a separate thread another poster is telling me that there is state law to the effect of what you're saying, and claiming that it is identical across all 50 states. I'll see if he can find a citation (I've examined the law of two states and not found anything).
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment
In the USPS recommended actions, there is. In federal law, there is not. The legal definition of unordered merchandise is "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient" (See USC 39 3009(d)). The people ordered some merchandise but what they received was something else that was mailed without prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
True, at federal law, there isn't, because contracts for sale of goods are state law under the UCC, not the federal government. Under state law in every state, it's a solicited, but erroneous, shipment, and the seller has the opportunity to recover the incorrect goods at their expense and either cure by shipping the correct product or repudiate the sale and suffer penalties for breach.
Is this true even for interstate shipments? That seems unlikely. In addition, even for intrastate I think there's a good argument that such a state law contradicts federal law, if the shipment was sent via the postal service (though most such shipments are sent via UPS or FedEx, which may be different).
Also, do you have a citation (in any state) for the law you're claiming obligates the recipient (or buyer, whatever) to return the incorrect goods? I spent some time looking through Utah State Code, and it appears to me that upon receipt the buyer is fully justified in accepting the erroneous shipment and calling the transaction complete, if you choose to look at it as an error in the transaction, or in accepting the erroneous shipment as unrequested goods, and demanding that the original transaction be completed.
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment
In the USPS recommended actions, there is. In federal law, there is not. The legal definition of unordered merchandise is "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient" (See USC 39 3009(d)). The people ordered some merchandise but what they received was something else that was mailed without prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
IMO, returning the Vita is the moral and mannerly thing to do, and the company should pay for shipping and perhaps even compensate the recipient for their time to return it (maybe a free game or something). But per US law, the recipient has no obligation to return it. Of course, as noted, this incident took place in the UK and under UK law, with which I'm unfamiliar.
"Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?"
[...]
The other law I mentioned DOES apply. No, I don't have a citation at hand, but I sure hope you see that this one simply isn't relevant to the case described in TFA
I don't see that at all. USC 39 3009(d) seems perfectly clear to me, and to cover this situation quite well. If there is another statute that is a better fit then that one would take precedence, but in the absence of the law you claim exists but cannot cite, USC 39 3009 would apply just fine.
Further, if the law you reference exists, I can't find it. Clearly it would belong in Title 39 - POSTAL SERVICE. Within Title 39, the obvious place for it is part IV - MAIL MATTER. Within part IV, chapter 30 - NONMAILABLE MATTER doesn't seem like an obvious fit, but it's better than any of the others. And finally, within chapter 30, there's nothing that fits other than section 3009.
Perhaps the law you're referring to is a state law, not federal? If so, it may or may not be valid, to the extent it conflicts with federal law. But even to the extent it is valid, it applies only in the relevant state, not the US as a whole.
I went and looked at those you listed the first one only controlled what the share with advertisers and web-masters no with the government or internally.
Note the two opt out links at the bottom of the Ads Preference Manager page. Those shut off tracking of you for targeted advertising purposes, across Google properties, and/or across the web.
This article is about the government exploiting the cookies Google uses for targeted advertising. By turning those off, there's nothing for the government to track.
the second is to a web browser plug-in that they claim is to block google analytics but if I can not trust their scripts how can I trust their plugin?
What makes you think Google's "scripts" are untrustworthy? (Scare quotes because I don't know what scripts you're talking about; this is about cookies.)
Because true random in software is computationally expensive.
True, if by "computationally expensive" you mean "we have to run this until the hardware breaks and starts executing our software non-deterministically".
Otherwise, true randomness in software is simply infeasible, because chip engineers deliberately design the hardware to eliminate non-determinism.
I can think of a thousand holes in this but it kind of demonstrates how playing ball with someone like the NSA makes all Google's previous "do no evil" actions seem suspect.
Only if Google has played ball with the NSA. AFAICT, there is not evidence of that. It appears that the NSA has spied on Google without Google's knowledge or participation, though.
Because they would fall under FCC Telecomunications Act of 1996, section 702. Which would obliterate their existing business.
Would it? I don't think so. 702 requires telcos to keep their customers' information confidential, but Google does that already. It might be interpreted to require Google customer approval to deliver ads to them; it's not clear how 702(d)(3) would be interpreted in this context. But assuming Google did that, I don't think 702 would interfere with Google's operations (in my non-lawyerly opinion).
The bigger issue is that Google isn't a telephone company.
But if these companies didn't have such huge troves of private user data there would be no need to worry about NSLs, etc. They'd have nothing to give over. He's not against bulk collection of data, etc. He's simply against the government competing against him in the data collection realm.
There's a big difference. The Google data collection is optional for users (Google even provides tools to make opting out easy), and in their individual control. Government data collection is not (unless we collectively take charge of our governments and stop it).
Slashdot Mirror
You assume google wants to get rid of software patents, rather than corner the market?
It's not an assumption. Google dislikes software patents and actively lobbies against them. Google has been forced to play the patent game or be destroyed by lawsuits, but the company really doesn't like it.
I can honestly say that I make smarter decisions when on my medications. I focus better, get things done, my social life improves, and I'm just generally better at living.
Yes, speed has that effect on almost everybody.
To a degree, this is absolutely true. If you take a bunch people who don't have AD(H)D and give them the medications, you generally will see a modest improvement in cognitive tests that benefit from improved focus. This is why there is a black market in ADD meds in universities, because they really do help people do better on tests.
But that in no way detracts from the fact that for people with the disorder, it's like flipping a switch. For them, it's not an incremental improvement, but a huge change in behavior and performance. I have ADD and all of my kids have it, in varying degrees, so I have a lot of direct, personal experience with the disorder in its different manifestations, and the drugs, and how and when they help, and to what degree.
For the people that need them ADD meds are a fantastic tool. They're not the only tool... one of my key coping strategies is simply having a job that keeps me engaged and exploits the flip side of ADD's distraction prone-ness: hyperfocus. Writing code fully engages my brain for long periods of time, which I alternate with goofing off (like posting to slashdot). It works very well for me. Oh, and I also self-medicate with caffeine, that helps too.
For my kids who are in school, that strategy isn't really available. The meds are a big help for them, at least until they get to high school and especially college where there are more options for picking really engaging courses.
Have you looked at Go?
It sounds to me like you're downplaying concerns because you like Google... a lot.
I don't make any bones about that, I do like Google. A lot. It's not perfect, and I don't think I'll ever be truly comfortable with advertising as a primary revenue source (I'm quite happy to see non-ad revenues climbing), but I think the company creates a lot of great technology, and that it tries really hard to do the right things.
Enough to dismiss those concerns as "not liking people that work hard" and not caring about them the moment they don't align to the reality of PR.
I don't believe I ever said anything about "not liking people that work hard". And where did I dismiss any concerns because they don't align to the reality of PR? On a purely technical level, SPDY is a good protocol, better than NFHU, which is why the committee adopted it, PPAPI still has a lot of growing up to do but NPAPI is simply terrible, and WebP is a better image format than the raft of things it replaces.
I guess it's easier to defend a gigantic corporation that pays your checks then it is to consider the viewpoints of the people who see it from the other side of the fence.
Show me some -- technical, not google-bashing Microsoft PR -- viewpoints and I'll be happy to discuss them, within the limitations of my own knowledge.
Much better to dismiss with nebulous and chuckle-worthy platitudes.
I think you didn't read the post you responded to.
This is the same attitude that lead to Microsoft's downfall. I know because I've worked for both companies.
I call bullshit on this claim. However, it's easy enough to check: What was your username at Google? I can look up your CL stats. I know plenty of Microsofties I could get to vet that side of your claim.
I see the same thing happening at Google that happened at Microsoft.
I don't see that at all. I see plenty of problems at Google, but they're completely different sorts of problems. The biggest difference is that Google has never relied on locking its users in, and indeed goes out of its way to make sure users are free to take their data and go elsewhere. Google has introduced a lot of new technologies, but standardizes everything. In a way I think this is evidence of Google's arrogance. Google is convinced that given a level playing field, it will win. That may or may not be true, but it's what Googlers believe and so Google does not try to lock users in -- which is pretty much the opposite of Microsoft's core business strategy all the way back to "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" (which they didn't exactly do, but the statement accurately captures the attitude).
But you know what? I really don't want to waste any more of your time with my misinformed negativity. If your happy with things the way they are, I'm not going to ruin it for you. Time will tell.
Time will indeed tell. And I wouldn't say I'm "happy" with the way things are. I have never been happy with the state of technology and I'm sure I never will be. There will always be pain points and things that need to be improved, and there will always be opportunities for new ideas -- which will often create the pain points as transitions occur.
But I do like the directions Google is pushing technology, and I never did like what Microsoft did (back in their heyday it always seemed to me that they were holding back progress not pushing it forward; the contrast between my NeXTstep machine and Windows for Workgroups was simply laughable, and Windows 95 just highlighted it).
That was ISO.
No, it was ECMA. ISO ratification came later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML
Pepper is not a real API. PPAPI is essentially just a crapton of exposed inner Chromium guts.
This is not true. It is true that Pepper's model means the browser must implement the backing store used by the plugin, and that means there must be a stub API layer which the plugin uses to update that backing, and that the backing store and the stub layer are modeled on how Chrome works. But if you actually go look at the abstractions they're very sensible and minimal APIs, and it's hard to see what would be done differently by any other API that is attempting to do the same thing, and it's also clear that they're implementable by any browser.
It's also true that PPAPI is incomplete. The existing Flash plugin, for example, needs APIs that haven't yet been defined, so it reaches into Chromium's internals. That doesn't mean that PPAPI is just "exposed Chromium guts", it just means that it's not done yet. Google hasn't yet deprecated NPAPI and I'm sure PPAPI will be completed well before NPAPI support is actually removed.
The mozilla bug thread you linked is very interesting, though. It sounds like the real problem with Flash on Linux is that Adobe is abandoning it and Google is volunteering to pick it up, at least for Chrome. Perhaps if Google weren't willing to take on the maintenance Adobe wouldn't abandon Linux in general, that's hard to say. The Mozilla devs' primary argument for why they shouldn't bother with Pepper to get Flash is that it wouldn't work anyway, because Adobe doesn't care. They're saying that Adobe is dropping Flash for Linux and that the Google is going to have to manage ongoing source-level changes in Flash to keep it working for Chrome, and that Mozilla can't or won't do the same.
I suppose Google could step up and maintain an NPAPI-compatible Flash plugin for Linux, but it's hard to see what would motivate them to do that.
"...but said the opinions of her former employer would not guide her work."
I wonder if she rolled her eyes and winked after saying this.
This is one of those situations where I think the chosen person could actually do an enormous amount of good if they had the will to, but I have little to no hope that that will be the actual outcome.
So do you believe she was serious or not? Because if she allowed the opinions of her former employer to guide her work, she'd do an enormous amount of good by mostly eliminating software patents.
Every one of your points is partially correct, but just wrong enough to make it misleading, and the combined effect is very misleading.
They created their own replacement for NPAPI plugins, and got Adobe to prefer it over NPAPI. Now they're not going to support NPAPI anymore in a year. As a result, Linux Flash is now only going to work on their browser, and it hasn't really improved the situation in Chrome enough to justify the switch.
Google's PPAPI fixes numerous problems with NPAPI, particularly around security, because NPAPI plugins run in the same process as the browser making them a perfect vector for compromising the security of the browser, and indeed many of the major NPAPI plugins are so riddled with security problems that Google blacklisted them some time ago. And it is those same security concerns that are driving Google's decision to deprecate NPAPI completely. This is a good thing and it will make the web safer. In addition, NPAPI standardizes the API and should make it possible for a single plugin to work with multiple browsers. The end result will be not only safer for users, but should actually encourage the creation of plugins, since they'll be more widely usable.
With respect to Flash, Google didn't twist Adobe's arm. Adobe made its decisions for its own reasons; most likely because PPAPI is so much better to work with.
They didn't like other people's image formats, so they invented WebP, and got a lot of nickel-and-diming image hosters to start pressuring other browser vendors to support the format as if it's a proven tech... even though it's a "standard" that has shifted so much it's turned into such a kitchen sink of a format that everyone will basically have to use their implementation.
Again "didn't like" is misleading. The available image formats had serious deficiencies. Only GIF supported multi-frame animations, but did it in about the most inefficient way possible (storing each full frame, and compressing them individually with run-length encoding). JPEG works great for still images, but is far less efficient at compression than modern approaches, and also doesn't support layering, animations or transparency, and is limited to 24-bit color. JPEG2000 provided much more efficient compression, but lacked most everything else. PNG was pretty good at lossless stuff, but nothing else.
And once again, Google didn't twist anyone's arms. It created a better image format, started supporting and using it, and then put it through the standardization process. Your implication that it's somehow "unproved tech" is rather laughable. It's not like there's any new technology there at all, just a better repackaging of what we already knew. And it's not a "kitchen" sink format at all. It supports both lossy and lossless modes, with variable bit depths and includes animation (because it's actually based on VP8, a video format, this was very easy). It's very flexible which means it's somewhat complex, but it's actually simpler than the raft of standards it's positioned to replace.
They decided that Media Source Extensions were good enough that they could flip the switch on Youtube before other browsers were ready for it, thus rendering Firefox unable to play hi-def videos in HTML5 on Youtube.. though it was completely unnecessary to do so.
I don't actually know anything about that situation. However, I suspect that your description is no more accurate than the others.
They didn't like how long it was taking to make HTML2 so they invented SPDY. They then enabled it on the products that they popularized by using other people's standards, like Google Documents, thus forcing other browser vendors to support it or feel comparitively sluggish, even though HTML2 was coming along at the time anyway.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In late 2012 the IETF HTTP committee solicited proposals from the industry, in competition
I think you misread that.
First, during the trial period, it's free. There is no comment as to how much it will cost after June 2014. Second, it's $9 per hour. So $18 to watch, say, a two hour movie. A bit pricey, methinks.
Sounds good to me. It just means that the only people who use it will be business travelers whose companies are paying. I'll actually be able to get some work done.
What a pathetic day, when political trolling, with not even a hit of actual technical content, is published as as story on Slashdot. Isn't someone paid to moderate this stuff for substance and relevance?
Sucker.
They got you to comment, didn't they? Nobody with half a brain would waste their time typing anyth...
er...
damn.
I thought the identifier was the 15 or 16 digit number on the front of the card, and the authenticator was the three-to-four digit number on the back of the card (except in cases where a keypad is available, and then the identifier is the 15 or 16 digit number encoded on the mag strip and the authenticator is your 4 digit pin).
Nah, there are ways you can use the card number without the CVV1 or CVV2. And it's not like a three-digit authenticator adds very much security (more length there actually would help).
So google: Please don't filter out card numbers from your searches. The fault does not lie with google, but with those who put credit card numbers on the web for all to see.
I think Google did take that approach for several years, and it was found not to work. Specifically, the pages with all the card numbers didn't get taken down, and Google search made it trivial for people to find lots of potentially-valid CCNs.
Very true, although I would think a rather small minority would be 16 digits long and pass the Luhn test.
10% of random 15 and 16-digit numbers pass the Luhn test.
wrong. the bigger issue is why we are so silly as to use short 15 or 16 digit numbers for making financial transactions.
It's not the length that's the problem, it's the fact that we use the same value as both identifier and authenticator.
IANAL, but I do follow legal issues quite closely, and read a lot of legal rulings. Absent ambiguity in the black letter law, which isn't present in this case, judges don't try to deduce intent. I'm fairly confident that in court it would be read exactly the way I'm reading it.
Also, I note that you still haven't provided a citation to any contrary law. In a separate thread another poster is telling me that there is state law to the effect of what you're saying, and claiming that it is identical across all 50 states. I'll see if he can find a citation (I've examined the law of two states and not found anything).
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment
In the USPS recommended actions, there is. In federal law, there is not. The legal definition of unordered merchandise is "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient" (See USC 39 3009(d)). The people ordered some merchandise but what they received was something else that was mailed without prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
True, at federal law, there isn't, because contracts for sale of goods are state law under the UCC, not the federal government. Under state law in every state, it's a solicited, but erroneous, shipment, and the seller has the opportunity to recover the incorrect goods at their expense and either cure by shipping the correct product or repudiate the sale and suffer penalties for breach.
Is this true even for interstate shipments? That seems unlikely. In addition, even for intrastate I think there's a good argument that such a state law contradicts federal law, if the shipment was sent via the postal service (though most such shipments are sent via UPS or FedEx, which may be different).
Also, do you have a citation (in any state) for the law you're claiming obligates the recipient (or buyer, whatever) to return the incorrect goods? I spent some time looking through Utah State Code, and it appears to me that upon receipt the buyer is fully justified in accepting the erroneous shipment and calling the transaction complete, if you choose to look at it as an error in the transaction, or in accepting the erroneous shipment as unrequested goods, and demanding that the original transaction be completed.
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment
In the USPS recommended actions, there is. In federal law, there is not. The legal definition of unordered merchandise is "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient" (See USC 39 3009(d)). The people ordered some merchandise but what they received was something else that was mailed without prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
IMO, returning the Vita is the moral and mannerly thing to do, and the company should pay for shipping and perhaps even compensate the recipient for their time to return it (maybe a free game or something). But per US law, the recipient has no obligation to return it. Of course, as noted, this incident took place in the UK and under UK law, with which I'm unfamiliar.
"Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?"
[...] The other law I mentioned DOES apply. No, I don't have a citation at hand, but I sure hope you see that this one simply isn't relevant to the case described in TFA
I don't see that at all. USC 39 3009(d) seems perfectly clear to me, and to cover this situation quite well. If there is another statute that is a better fit then that one would take precedence, but in the absence of the law you claim exists but cannot cite, USC 39 3009 would apply just fine.
Further, if the law you reference exists, I can't find it. Clearly it would belong in Title 39 - POSTAL SERVICE. Within Title 39, the obvious place for it is part IV - MAIL MATTER. Within part IV, chapter 30 - NONMAILABLE MATTER doesn't seem like an obvious fit, but it's better than any of the others. And finally, within chapter 30, there's nothing that fits other than section 3009.
Perhaps the law you're referring to is a state law, not federal? If so, it may or may not be valid, to the extent it conflicts with federal law. But even to the extent it is valid, it applies only in the relevant state, not the US as a whole.
I went and looked at those you listed the first one only controlled what the share with advertisers and web-masters no with the government or internally.
Note the two opt out links at the bottom of the Ads Preference Manager page. Those shut off tracking of you for targeted advertising purposes, across Google properties, and/or across the web.
This article is about the government exploiting the cookies Google uses for targeted advertising. By turning those off, there's nothing for the government to track.
the second is to a web browser plug-in that they claim is to block google analytics but if I can not trust their scripts how can I trust their plugin?
What makes you think Google's "scripts" are untrustworthy? (Scare quotes because I don't know what scripts you're talking about; this is about cookies.)
Because true random in software is computationally expensive.
True, if by "computationally expensive" you mean "we have to run this until the hardware breaks and starts executing our software non-deterministically".
Otherwise, true randomness in software is simply infeasible, because chip engineers deliberately design the hardware to eliminate non-determinism.
Hmm. I thought slashdot would automatically linkify that. https://plus.google.com/117091380454742934025/posts/SDcoemc9V3J?e.
One of the first things Ted Ts'o did when he took back maintainership of /dev/random in Linux was to stop depending solely on the hardware RNG.
https://plus.google.com/117091380454742934025/posts/SDcoemc9V3J?e
I can think of a thousand holes in this but it kind of demonstrates how playing ball with someone like the NSA makes all Google's previous "do no evil" actions seem suspect.
Only if Google has played ball with the NSA. AFAICT, there is not evidence of that. It appears that the NSA has spied on Google without Google's knowledge or participation, though.
Because they would fall under FCC Telecomunications Act of 1996, section 702. Which would obliterate their existing business.
Would it? I don't think so. 702 requires telcos to keep their customers' information confidential, but Google does that already. It might be interpreted to require Google customer approval to deliver ads to them; it's not clear how 702(d)(3) would be interpreted in this context. But assuming Google did that, I don't think 702 would interfere with Google's operations (in my non-lawyerly opinion).
The bigger issue is that Google isn't a telephone company.
But if these companies didn't have such huge troves of private user data there would be no need to worry about NSLs, etc. They'd have nothing to give over. He's not against bulk collection of data, etc. He's simply against the government competing against him in the data collection realm.
There's a big difference. The Google data collection is optional for users (Google even provides tools to make opting out easy), and in their individual control. Government data collection is not (unless we collectively take charge of our governments and stop it).