Not a bad summation -- these are corporations and corporations have one goal: to make money for the owners/share holders.
Don't get me wrong, I hate advertising and targeted ads even more, especially when I can't figure out why they are targeting me... However, consider the real costs of the services we are getting these days.
Our poor (of which I consider myself) and even our homeless have more access to information and resources and food and shelter than at any other point in history... Not to say that the rich don't have more, but 50 years ago, if I wanted up to the minute business news, I would have to steal a newspaper and hope the reporter wasn't in someone's pay... now I can walk into any library and look things up in real time, even get differing takes and opinions within minutes.
How is that paid for? Well, in the case of Microsoft based solutions, mostly through sales of things too expensive for me to buy. With Google? By advertisers wanting information so they can market baby-butt powder only to new parents without the wasted cost of advertising it to people who have no kids.
As someone tech literate, though, I do admit I hate not knowing how and what information is truly up for grabs... I know enough from working with ISP's in the past to guess what is collected, both from forms and from other sources, but it would be better to know for certain.
Privacy policies are feel-good statements that have no real legal force in most cases... and should the company go belly up, collected data IS an asset to be sold off... I'd much rather see an audit trail available from every company that collects data showing me what was collected and who it went to. Privacy policies are updated "if we remember", and we're expected to "trust us -- we'll tell you with plenty of time for you to opt out if we change it..."
Give me a real time audit trail for all my data collected and I can decide myself if I will ever trust you again.
Advertising sucks, but paying the real cost of the goods and services we get sucks even more for most people. And free software is great, when it's not abandoned by the developers, but it doesn't put food on the table. Support options might, for the really good/important projects, but a real 9-5 (hah!) job do better.
This got off track, but...
To sum up, consumers might get "boned" either with high costs or annoying adverts, but don't lose sight of what we are getting versus what our grandparents got... And if you can come up with a better way, great, I'm all ears... but if you start spouting off about "free software" and "information wants to be free", you're missing the point that everything else that keeps you alive and moving takes money from someone. If it's not you, than who?
Probably a lot of protests, a few of your more "paternalistic" chains, like Walmart might refuse to stock it, but in the end it would sell, because the protests would bring a much larger audience than it could have gotten on its own...
Hell, you'd probably get some special interest groups screaming "its about time" and buying it out on principle.
Not irrelevant if, (and I stress this is a hypothetical because we will never know until/unless someone tries it) had the cited personage actually been Michelle Obama, would the courts have rendered the decision the same way, and would the public opinion be similar (though likely with political affiliation swapped) or outraged?
Admittedly I'm cynical, but having watched how certain media outlets handle certain people with kid gloves because they are black or because they are republican or because they are democrat or because they are christian or because they are whatever... (and this happens on both sides of the aisle, so don't get your panties in a bunch because I'm maligning your "objective" news source -- they all do this)...
I honestly don't think the courts would have backed this, had it been MO, but I admit that's a feeling of mine, not something I'm claiming as a "fact". And I think, had the judges ruled the same way, some of the justices would see their death threat numbers go up...
We as a nation are NOT objective and fair, and in all honesty, we don't even really try to be...
Ive never bought anything using Bing Cashback, but the balance of my account is $2080.06. Apparently, I placed two $1 orders on January 24th of this year, and spent another $104,000 on October 24th. Lets see how these transactions might have accidentally got credited to my account.
Also the guy who posted this is an idiot for placing a $100,000 transaction which would result in a $2,000 payment, and then bragging about it. His two $1 transactions proved the vulnerability and the $0.06 payment generated is easily ignored. The $100k transaction with $2k payment is just flat out wire fraud asking for federal PMITA prison.
Has anyone here actually read the words he has posted at the begining of his post? At face value it looks like he "discovered" this when he noticed he had an account balance for SOMETHING HE CLAIMS TO HAVE NEVER USED.
But no, it's so much more fun for everyone here to ignore the words Ive never bought anything using Bing Cashback and Apparently, I placed... and call him an idiot for posted about committing a crime.
I'll second this... my daughter thinks when I talk of BBS's from my past, I'm referring to web sites. I have to remind her constantly that we only had one modem into the BBS at a time (ok, a few may have had as much as 10, but until CompuServer and Prodigy become nationwide, most didn't...)
She's 15 and can't imagine what she'd do without the internet and vacations where her cell phone doesn't have coverage are a challenge because she can't text her friends... I want her to look at the scenery and she's bitching about not getting a text.
Almost makes me understand my parents when they didn't think I needed a phone in my room... almost;-)
Read the fine print on Apple's descriptions at Apple's online store... what they are selling is clearly labeled and referred to as the Snow Leopard Upgrade. That it happens to be ABLE to install on a clean machine is irrelevant. They are selling it as an upgrade to your existing Apple hardware and software.
The only exception I think is the OS X Server package... it doesn't use the word Upgrade in it's description (but also goes for something like $499 or so...).
Does Apple's installer check to see if you are truly upgrading? No, and I actually like that cause it means I don't have to dig around for old DVD's or keep an old hard drive plugged in when I want to upgrade the one my laptop. But it doesn't change the fact that I bought an UPGRADE, not a licensed stand alone piece of software.
I think the entire digression is offtopic, but not a troll...
And the tweet comment was stupid, not funny.
The fact is, we without are becoming more and more disenfranchised... either it's because we don't care (likely, as Survivor is about to start...) or because we're losing our voice in politics to large money (which can come from large action groups or corporations, so don't get all "you hate corporations" on me here... it's the fact that money talks loudly that I'm noting here)
I don't know how the "revolution" will occur... I hope it's through votes to politicians that change policies and practices, but violence isn't out of the question... look at history. Disenfranchisement of a large portion of your population has never "gone away"... it always has a revolt, though not always violent, and not always successful.
I agree that all of these are valid issues, and I do think the 15 year estimate someone above posited is optimistic, however none of these are insurmountable. I think we probably will see wide-spread acceptance of ebooks/readers but it's gonna take a generation or two of people for whom online services like facebook, etc. have been with them practically since birth.
My daughter can't believe my parents bought me an encyclopedia set when I was in high school... in her world, if it's not online, then it's gotta be somewhere "special" -- to her encyclopedias belong in a library.
As technology gets better and more pervasive, as publishers realize they can cut costs, perhaps after existing contracts for suppliers, etc. are up for renewal, they will migrate, though I doubt the printed word will disappear completely.
As to the issues with sharing a book, if an ebook cost me $1, I can easily see me buying it multiple times throughout my life if it's one I like or use a lot. And since I'm assuming that most of these services have a site where I can track and re-download stuff I've purchased, it's not that hard of a step to allow me to temporarily assign my rights to a given product to another user... after all, it's just data.
As to data recovery, I will admit we haven't done to well with that, what with tapes and floppies that can't even be read anymore, but we (the geeks) also know this is a concern... it CAN be dealt with, if planned for. I mean, how many DVD drives can't read CD-Roms? (I know, very similar tech in terms of physical characteristics, etc, but the point is newer methods don't HAVE to break older technologies unless it truly is a fundamental change in mechanism/methodology.
We'll get there, but when the next couple of generations expect it and think we're crazy for "reading asynchronous BBS postings at 300 baud" (Daddy, what's a "baud"?), not when you and I think it's ready.
A former Toyota I had worked that way, but the Ford I currently drive leaves the socket live all the time... I've killed a battery before because I forgot this.
The real problems happen when, as in the case of Professor Gates, police ignore the requirement for a warrant and just ram their way into homes/car where they don't belong. (Oh and no a phone call is not probable cause according to the supreme court.)
OK, I'm probably gonna lose karma for this, but...
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident (and yes I know how flawed Wikipedia can be, but it does seem to fit with what I remember in articles from the time and I don't feel like digging further), The police met Gates at his door and indicated that they were investigating a possible breaking and entering. When asked for ID, Gates entered his house AND LEFT HIS DOOR OPEN so the officer followed.
Now, IANAL, but if my memory serves from what I've read (and no, I don't want to look it up right now, I'm avoiding work and don't have much time...)
(1) Not officially requesting a warrant or explicitly requesting that the officer wait outside DOES give them permission to follow you into your house, especially if you leave the door open.
(2) If a crime is suspected to be in progress, a warrant is not required, though it might result in censure of the officer if they can't properly justify it later.
Now, a possible breaking and entering, a door with obvious damage, and a man who is leaving the officers sight because he "needs to get his ID" is suspicious enough that I suspect that point 2 would be enough.
As to who said what to whom and was it racial blah blah blah... I haven't commented on that. I'm only saying that the observable facts suggest that the officer had reasonable justification to proceed without a warrant, at least until identification was provided.
They're not talking about criminalizing computing so thats a poor analogy. They are talking about 'licensing' computing. Like getting a drivers license. Honestly, would you prefer everyone on the roads just do what they want without being educated to following 'procedures' that would make the rest of us safer??
Uh... what? If I have to be licensed to compute, then refusing/failing to be licensed while computing becomes a crime... otherwise, wtf is the license for?
If it's just for identification, then it's not a license, it's more like an ID or passport. Drivers licenses HAPPEN to be a form of ID, but that's not why they're issued. You can just as easily get a state ID from the DMV (in America... I admit to not knowing about other countries) that is JUST the ID and conveys no status what-so-ever about you as a licensed or unlicensed driver.
Try driving without a drivers license and telling the officer you're not committing a crime, you're just failing to be 'licensed'.
How easily one can suspend their disbelief is also a function of what you go into the story expecting...
I was 10 when I saw the first movie -- lack of knowledge and a love of a good light show made the movie cool to me at the time; now, not so much, though I can still enjoy it as an epic tale of Good versus Evil.
If I try to watch it as "hard science fiction", I'll agree it's an epic fail, but is that Lucas's failure in what he presented, or my failure in expecting something that he never intended to provide?
If you want to insist on hard science in your science fiction, then be very selective and expect to be disappointed a lot. If you want a good story, well some of these didn't do too badly on that score.
Having worked as consultant helping companies prepare for Sarbanes and HIPPA compliance, I can tell you that both require regular reports and testing to be performed by management ensuring that their controls are in place to prevent (preferred) and/or identify an IT guy who leaks such data. With Sarbanes-Oxley, an external auditor also performs the testing and the results are sent tot he SEC and included in any public inquiry about the financial status of your company. I assume something similar is done WRT to HIPPA, but so far I haven't actually had to work on the final reports, just the initial testing we perform to help the company figure out what they have to do to become compliant.
With proper controls in place, said IT guy would be prevented (ideal) or detected during such a disclosure, even if not immediately. Impossible for IT to get around? No, but damn difficult to do with leaving a trace, assuming proper controls concerning segregation of duties, isolation of production data from development teams, and proper system reporting.
Adding Google Apps brings in a whole separate entity for which you can employ NO controls, and who have publicly stated they won't guarantee the safety of your data. There are outsourcing companies that meet the requirements for SOX and HIPPA, and they can provide documentation (SAS70 comes to mind, but others exist too) generated by outside federally licensed auditors reporting on their status regarding such controls over their access to YOUR data and access to YOUR sensitive information. From Google's public stance on your data security, I sincerely doubt that they have undergone such auditing (or if they have, failed miserably).
So, if you trust Google more than your IT staff, then it's clear you've never undergone an external audit.
That said, if you have undergone an audit and failed it in any significant way, then the risk may be similar. But properly controlled environments are VERY difficult to steal or leak data from without leaving some sort of trail.
The audits aren't perfect but they're a hell of lot better than what Google has so far provided.
From a cursory reading of the article, this isn't about copyright but about a contract the studio had signed years ago.
AFAIK & IANAL, but I don't think a contract, freely signed, expires just because copyright does, unless of course there is a clause in there stipulating it.
I'll agree that it's arbitrary... but note that I said it has this meaning with MY code; with others code, a major version of zero might discourage me, but it won't necessarily stop me if the code verifiably does something I need... (though I might check to see if other options exist first -- it may be a psychological hangup, but it's MY psychological hangup!)
But I think the whole point of this entire thread is that version numbers ARE pretty much arbitrary...
To developers they mean one thing (and even developers on the same project may differ in what they mean)
To marketers they mean something else...
To consumers yet something else.
Now, if you want to argue that there should be some standard, good luck getting everyone to agree, though I'll concede that it might make judging a software's state easier. I just don't think you'll get enough of a consensus for it to be anything more than a fad.
My point is just that, in my mind (and I realize it's in MY mind, though amicusNYCL seems to suggest I'm not the only one) a 0 suggests "unready"... or at least "incomplete".
To be honest, I dislike installing stuff that ends in a.0 as well... anything with a version of 1.0 or 2.0...etc. suggests to me that it hasn't had any bug fixes applied yet. Of course that's because we've been shown time and time again that software is released when there is pressure to do so, not when it is "completed" to the developers and QA teams satisfaction.
Generally, I agree that I dislike using other peoples code that isn't even complete enough to a have a 1 (or greater) in the "major" position...
However, I have used a 0 for the major number in my own code before it was first released, even to beta testers... In my mind, if it's version 0.x.y, then it's not ready for others to see yet... version 1.x.y means that others have seen or are using it...
no, but it would make them "Persons of Interest" until they can be interviewed...
honestly, any "proof" that relies on the ip address alone should be laughed at; however, to deny it is suggestive of a deeper look is also disingenuous...most people wouldn't know how to spoof it, and it does narrow down a geographical area, once you rule out proxy servers and the like. Of course we all know that ARIN records are kept meticulously current by all the ISPs out there...
I will concede that my use of the word "right" in this sentence: "A share holder of a company that uses it's CEO as one of it's primary selling points does have a right to know if that PR asset is about to kack." implies something stronger than may be legally or morally correct.
But you've exaggerated the issue as well... accidents happen, workers strike, epidemics occur, laws change, manufacturing plants suffer catastrophe's, people die, economies shrink... basically sh^t happens. And a lot of it happens with little to no warning.
But when publicly held company chooses to let it's CEO become an integral part of it's PR strategy, that CEO becomes more than just "a person"... he is an asset (or at least considered as one if you don't hate Apple reflexively... and before the comments, I have on occasion, so this isn't fan-boyism) Certainly, an unexpected death is just that... unexpected. So is an earthquake that takes out your largest materials supplier.
To the extent that he can, he owes the people he works for (the shareholders) a reasonable amount of information about his ability to do his job, ESPECIALLY since he is such a major PR asset for the company. Read my post again... I never said he should tell them the exact ailment and the exact treatment and the exact effects it will have on him. I said he owed them an outline that gives them the information necessary to determine if he should/needs to be replaced temporarily (or permanently) because he WORKS FOR THEM.
If I get sick, my boss expects to know how long and to what degree this is going to affect my ability to work, even if laws or a contract prevent him from outright firing me.
The fact that anything Steve might tell the shareholders will become public knowledge (i.e. newsworthy) is irrelevant. He is their employee, and if he becomes unable to do his job, even temporarily, they deserve to know because they also have a job to do, and that is, ensure their funding and direction (for the majority stakeholders) keeps the company profitable.
Having worked in IT Admin for an ISP in the past, I have to to tell you're positioning yourself as exactly the type of customer I used to tell our sales staff we didn't want.
If you weren't willing to work with our support staff and provide us the necessary information to understand where our efforts were failing, you are useless. The threats on the internet change daily (sometimes hourly) and what works today is broken tomorrow... I had enough trouble keeping up with the obvious threats that, unless a customer worked WITH me, his problems really didn't bother me.
And before you respond telling me that I lost our company business, let me just say that the one time a sales person tried to have management fire me over this, I had them check recent sales and showed that 70% of the people who left because "we weren't addressing their concerns", came back... because our support team did respond -- when utilized correctly and not through the sales filter which amounts to a bunch of commission based telemarketer monkeys screaming "it doesn't work and I can't make a sale!"
You want support, then talk to the support people and give them the details they need. Otherwise take your business to AOL or Comcast...
Where I might slightly disagree with you is that the Apple, Inc. image is very closely tied to the public illusion that IS Steve Jobs... people don't wait with baited breath for the next press release from Apple... they wait for the next PR demonstration from Steve himself. And yes, to an extent, Steve (though not his family) did agree to be an open book when he allowed himself to become such a big part of Apple's advertising and promotions.
Because of this, I think the shareholders might be due more than "medical problems"... certainly his specific medical records aren't for the public consumption, and obviously don't violate HIPPA (we have enough precedents breaking things like that), but the shareholders probably do have a right in this case to more than just "medical problems". Maybe something to the effect of "on-going treatment with an expected return to his post in 6 months, and full health within the year" kind of thing.
A cold is medical problems... so is cancer. A share holder of a company that uses it's CEO as one of it's primary selling points does have a right to know if that PR asset is about to kack.
While I don't have a real problem with the fact that a classified system that provides data is being further restricted, other, useful research will be hindered by this.
Maybe the researchers were warned that this was a perk that could go away at any time, maybe not... they should have been at any rate; however, my question (and, no, I didn't read the article, so if it's spelled out I apologize in advance, for what good that may do...)is what kind of lead time were the researches given for the cessation of data sharing?
Since it has become an important source of information, common decency argues that they should be warned and given time to come up with an alternative. Maybe the researchers (and institutions funding them) would conclude that the costs of arranging to use or build other satellites is prohibitive (let's be honest, it probably is) but they should have the time to figure out the cost of the loss against the costs of other options.
Which would likely mean a change in appropriations from congress which would mean more taxes, but come on... Think of the Children, man!
(And for the record, I wouldn't mind my taxes so much if I knew more of it went into research and science. I want the most powerful military and the best scientific data available for my tax dollars... everything else should be reviewed with a fine toothed comb and 90% of it should probably be thrown out.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not a bad summation -- these are corporations and corporations have one goal: to make money for the owners/share holders.
Don't get me wrong, I hate advertising and targeted ads even more, especially when I can't figure out why they are targeting me... However, consider the real costs of the services we are getting these days.
Our poor (of which I consider myself) and even our homeless have more access to information and resources and food and shelter than at any other point in history... Not to say that the rich don't have more, but 50 years ago, if I wanted up to the minute business news, I would have to steal a newspaper and hope the reporter wasn't in someone's pay... now I can walk into any library and look things up in real time, even get differing takes and opinions within minutes.
How is that paid for? Well, in the case of Microsoft based solutions, mostly through sales of things too expensive for me to buy. With Google? By advertisers wanting information so they can market baby-butt powder only to new parents without the wasted cost of advertising it to people who have no kids.
As someone tech literate, though, I do admit I hate not knowing how and what information is truly up for grabs... I know enough from working with ISP's in the past to guess what is collected, both from forms and from other sources, but it would be better to know for certain.
Privacy policies are feel-good statements that have no real legal force in most cases... and should the company go belly up, collected data IS an asset to be sold off... I'd much rather see an audit trail available from every company that collects data showing me what was collected and who it went to. Privacy policies are updated "if we remember", and we're expected to "trust us -- we'll tell you with plenty of time for you to opt out if we change it..."
Give me a real time audit trail for all my data collected and I can decide myself if I will ever trust you again.
Advertising sucks, but paying the real cost of the goods and services we get sucks even more for most people. And free software is great, when it's not abandoned by the developers, but it doesn't put food on the table. Support options might, for the really good/important projects, but a real 9-5 (hah!) job do better.
This got off track, but...
To sum up, consumers might get "boned" either with high costs or annoying adverts, but don't lose sight of what we are getting versus what our grandparents got... And if you can come up with a better way, great, I'm all ears... but if you start spouting off about "free software" and "information wants to be free", you're missing the point that everything else that keeps you alive and moving takes money from someone. If it's not you, than who?
--
I drank what?
Probably a lot of protests, a few of your more "paternalistic" chains, like Walmart might refuse to stock it, but in the end it would sell, because the protests would bring a much larger audience than it could have gotten on its own...
Hell, you'd probably get some special interest groups screaming "its about time" and buying it out on principle.
--
I drank what?
Not irrelevant if, (and I stress this is a hypothetical because we will never know until/unless someone tries it) had the cited personage actually been Michelle Obama, would the courts have rendered the decision the same way, and would the public opinion be similar (though likely with political affiliation swapped) or outraged?
Admittedly I'm cynical, but having watched how certain media outlets handle certain people with kid gloves because they are black or because they are republican or because they are democrat or because they are christian or because they are whatever... (and this happens on both sides of the aisle, so don't get your panties in a bunch because I'm maligning your "objective" news source -- they all do this)...
I honestly don't think the courts would have backed this, had it been MO, but I admit that's a feeling of mine, not something I'm claiming as a "fact". And I think, had the judges ruled the same way, some of the justices would see their death threat numbers go up...
We as a nation are NOT objective and fair, and in all honesty, we don't even really try to be...
--
Huh?
Ive never bought anything using Bing Cashback, but the balance of my account is $2080.06. Apparently, I placed two $1 orders on January 24th of this year, and spent another $104,000 on October 24th. Lets see how these transactions might have accidentally got credited to my account.
Also the guy who posted this is an idiot for placing a $100,000 transaction which would result in a $2,000 payment, and then bragging about it. His two $1 transactions proved the vulnerability and the $0.06 payment generated is easily ignored. The $100k transaction with $2k payment is just flat out wire fraud asking for federal PMITA prison.
Has anyone here actually read the words he has posted at the begining of his post? At face value it looks like he "discovered" this when he noticed he had an account balance for SOMETHING HE CLAIMS TO HAVE NEVER USED.
But no, it's so much more fun for everyone here to ignore the words Ive never bought anything using Bing Cashback and Apparently, I placed... and call him an idiot for posted about committing a crime.
--
not wort it...
I'll second this... my daughter thinks when I talk of BBS's from my past, I'm referring to web sites. I have to remind her constantly that we only had one modem into the BBS at a time (ok, a few may have had as much as 10, but until CompuServer and Prodigy become nationwide, most didn't...)
She's 15 and can't imagine what she'd do without the internet and vacations where her cell phone doesn't have coverage are a challenge because she can't text her friends... I want her to look at the scenery and she's bitching about not getting a text.
Almost makes me understand my parents when they didn't think I needed a phone in my room... almost ;-)
--
I Drank What?
Such ignorance of facts on slashdot is really astounding.
That's the funniest thing I've read all day! Thanks for the laugh!
--
I drank what?
Read the fine print on Apple's descriptions at Apple's online store... what they are selling is clearly labeled and referred to as the Snow Leopard Upgrade. That it happens to be ABLE to install on a clean machine is irrelevant. They are selling it as an upgrade to your existing Apple hardware and software.
The only exception I think is the OS X Server package... it doesn't use the word Upgrade in it's description (but also goes for something like $499 or so...).
Does Apple's installer check to see if you are truly upgrading? No, and I actually like that cause it means I don't have to dig around for old DVD's or keep an old hard drive plugged in when I want to upgrade the one my laptop. But it doesn't change the fact that I bought an UPGRADE, not a licensed stand alone piece of software.
--
I drank what?
This is a troll?
I think the entire digression is offtopic, but not a troll...
And the tweet comment was stupid, not funny.
The fact is, we without are becoming more and more disenfranchised... either it's because we don't care (likely, as Survivor is about to start...) or because we're losing our voice in politics to large money (which can come from large action groups or corporations, so don't get all "you hate corporations" on me here... it's the fact that money talks loudly that I'm noting here)
I don't know how the "revolution" will occur... I hope it's through votes to politicians that change policies and practices, but violence isn't out of the question... look at history. Disenfranchisement of a large portion of your population has never "gone away"... it always has a revolt, though not always violent, and not always successful.
--
I drank what?
You mean I might actually have to leave the basement (not my moms, but...) and see people in real life?!?!?!?
I'd crack in a week!
On the other hand, playing GTA with real people and real weapons could be fun... in an OW! OW! I'm Bleeding, You Fu..... kind of way...
But we'd have no more lost carrier jokes, so it might balance out.
--
I drank what?
Nah, the T1000 was a wimp... it's the terminatrix from the third movie that makes me feel funny in certain areas I'm not supposed to talk about...
--
I drank what?
I agree that all of these are valid issues, and I do think the 15 year estimate someone above posited is optimistic, however none of these are insurmountable. I think we probably will see wide-spread acceptance of ebooks/readers but it's gonna take a generation or two of people for whom online services like facebook, etc. have been with them practically since birth.
My daughter can't believe my parents bought me an encyclopedia set when I was in high school... in her world, if it's not online, then it's gotta be somewhere "special" -- to her encyclopedias belong in a library.
As technology gets better and more pervasive, as publishers realize they can cut costs, perhaps after existing contracts for suppliers, etc. are up for renewal, they will migrate, though I doubt the printed word will disappear completely.
As to the issues with sharing a book, if an ebook cost me $1, I can easily see me buying it multiple times throughout my life if it's one I like or use a lot. And since I'm assuming that most of these services have a site where I can track and re-download stuff I've purchased, it's not that hard of a step to allow me to temporarily assign my rights to a given product to another user... after all, it's just data.
As to data recovery, I will admit we haven't done to well with that, what with tapes and floppies that can't even be read anymore, but we (the geeks) also know this is a concern... it CAN be dealt with, if planned for. I mean, how many DVD drives can't read CD-Roms? (I know, very similar tech in terms of physical characteristics, etc, but the point is newer methods don't HAVE to break older technologies unless it truly is a fundamental change in mechanism/methodology.
We'll get there, but when the next couple of generations expect it and think we're crazy for "reading asynchronous BBS postings at 300 baud" (Daddy, what's a "baud"?), not when you and I think it's ready.
--
I drank what?
Wait, are you saying that the chinese can make mini-blackholes with a lunchbox? No wonder we're losing the world to them!
--
Everyone needs a sig now and then...
A former Toyota I had worked that way, but the Ford I currently drive leaves the socket live all the time... I've killed a battery before because I forgot this.
--
I drank what?
The real problems happen when, as in the case of Professor Gates, police ignore the requirement for a warrant and just ram their way into homes/car where they don't belong. (Oh and no a phone call is not probable cause according to the supreme court.)
OK, I'm probably gonna lose karma for this, but...
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident (and yes I know how flawed Wikipedia can be, but it does seem to fit with what I remember in articles from the time and I don't feel like digging further), The police met Gates at his door and indicated that they were investigating a possible breaking and entering. When asked for ID, Gates entered his house AND LEFT HIS DOOR OPEN so the officer followed.
Now, IANAL, but if my memory serves from what I've read (and no, I don't want to look it up right now, I'm avoiding work and don't have much time...)
(1) Not officially requesting a warrant or explicitly requesting that the officer wait outside DOES give them permission to follow you into your house, especially if you leave the door open.
(2) If a crime is suspected to be in progress, a warrant is not required, though it might result in censure of the officer if they can't properly justify it later.
Now, a possible breaking and entering, a door with obvious damage, and a man who is leaving the officers sight because he "needs to get his ID" is suspicious enough that I suspect that point 2 would be enough.
As to who said what to whom and was it racial blah blah blah... I haven't commented on that. I'm only saying that the observable facts suggest that the officer had reasonable justification to proceed without a warrant, at least until identification was provided.
--
I drank what?
They're not talking about criminalizing computing so thats a poor analogy. They are talking about 'licensing' computing. Like getting a drivers license. Honestly, would you prefer everyone on the roads just do what they want without being educated to following 'procedures' that would make the rest of us safer??
Uh... what? If I have to be licensed to compute, then refusing/failing to be licensed while computing becomes a crime... otherwise, wtf is the license for?
If it's just for identification, then it's not a license, it's more like an ID or passport. Drivers licenses HAPPEN to be a form of ID, but that's not why they're issued. You can just as easily get a state ID from the DMV (in America... I admit to not knowing about other countries) that is JUST the ID and conveys no status what-so-ever about you as a licensed or unlicensed driver.
Try driving without a drivers license and telling the officer you're not committing a crime, you're just failing to be 'licensed'.
--
I drank what?
How easily one can suspend their disbelief is also a function of what you go into the story expecting...
I was 10 when I saw the first movie -- lack of knowledge and a love of a good light show made the movie cool to me at the time; now, not so much, though I can still enjoy it as an epic tale of Good versus Evil.
If I try to watch it as "hard science fiction", I'll agree it's an epic fail, but is that Lucas's failure in what he presented, or my failure in expecting something that he never intended to provide?
If you want to insist on hard science in your science fiction, then be very selective and expect to be disappointed a lot. If you want a good story, well some of these didn't do too badly on that score.
--
I Drank what?
Having worked as consultant helping companies prepare for Sarbanes and HIPPA compliance, I can tell you that both require regular reports and testing to be performed by management ensuring that their controls are in place to prevent (preferred) and/or identify an IT guy who leaks such data. With Sarbanes-Oxley, an external auditor also performs the testing and the results are sent tot he SEC and included in any public inquiry about the financial status of your company. I assume something similar is done WRT to HIPPA, but so far I haven't actually had to work on the final reports, just the initial testing we perform to help the company figure out what they have to do to become compliant.
With proper controls in place, said IT guy would be prevented (ideal) or detected during such a disclosure, even if not immediately. Impossible for IT to get around? No, but damn difficult to do with leaving a trace, assuming proper controls concerning segregation of duties, isolation of production data from development teams, and proper system reporting.
Adding Google Apps brings in a whole separate entity for which you can employ NO controls, and who have publicly stated they won't guarantee the safety of your data. There are outsourcing companies that meet the requirements for SOX and HIPPA, and they can provide documentation (SAS70 comes to mind, but others exist too) generated by outside federally licensed auditors reporting on their status regarding such controls over their access to YOUR data and access to YOUR sensitive information. From Google's public stance on your data security, I sincerely doubt that they have undergone such auditing (or if they have, failed miserably).
So, if you trust Google more than your IT staff, then it's clear you've never undergone an external audit.
That said, if you have undergone an audit and failed it in any significant way, then the risk may be similar. But properly controlled environments are VERY difficult to steal or leak data from without leaving some sort of trail.
The audits aren't perfect but they're a hell of lot better than what Google has so far provided.
--
I drank what?
From a cursory reading of the article, this isn't about copyright but about a contract the studio had signed years ago.
AFAIK & IANAL, but I don't think a contract, freely signed, expires just because copyright does, unless of course there is a clause in there stipulating it.
--
I drank what?
I'll agree that it's arbitrary... but note that I said it has this meaning with MY code; with others code, a major version of zero might discourage me, but it won't necessarily stop me if the code verifiably does something I need... (though I might check to see if other options exist first -- it may be a psychological hangup, but it's MY psychological hangup!)
But I think the whole point of this entire thread is that version numbers ARE pretty much arbitrary...
To developers they mean one thing (and even developers on the same project may differ in what they mean)
To marketers they mean something else...
To consumers yet something else.
Now, if you want to argue that there should be some standard, good luck getting everyone to agree, though I'll concede that it might make judging a software's state easier. I just don't think you'll get enough of a consensus for it to be anything more than a fad.
My point is just that, in my mind (and I realize it's in MY mind, though amicusNYCL seems to suggest I'm not the only one) a 0 suggests "unready"... or at least "incomplete".
To be honest, I dislike installing stuff that ends in a .0 as well... anything with a version of 1.0 or 2.0...etc. suggests to me that it hasn't had any bug fixes applied yet. Of course that's because we've been shown time and time again that software is released when there is pressure to do so, not when it is "completed" to the developers and QA teams satisfaction.
--
I Drank What?
Generally, I agree that I dislike using other peoples code that isn't even complete enough to a have a 1 (or greater) in the "major" position...
However, I have used a 0 for the major number in my own code before it was first released, even to beta testers... In my mind, if it's version 0.x.y, then it's not ready for others to see yet... version 1.x.y means that others have seen or are using it...
Just my $.02.
--
I Drank What?
no, but it would make them "Persons of Interest" until they can be interviewed...
honestly, any "proof" that relies on the ip address alone should be laughed at; however, to deny it is suggestive of a deeper look is also disingenuous...most people wouldn't know how to spoof it, and it does narrow down a geographical area, once you rule out proxy servers and the like. Of course we all know that ARIN records are kept meticulously current by all the ISPs out there...
--
I drank what?
I will concede that my use of the word "right" in this sentence: "A share holder of a company that uses it's CEO as one of it's primary selling points does have a right to know if that PR asset is about to kack." implies something stronger than may be legally or morally correct.
But you've exaggerated the issue as well... accidents happen, workers strike, epidemics occur, laws change, manufacturing plants suffer catastrophe's, people die, economies shrink... basically sh^t happens. And a lot of it happens with little to no warning.
But when publicly held company chooses to let it's CEO become an integral part of it's PR strategy, that CEO becomes more than just "a person"... he is an asset (or at least considered as one if you don't hate Apple reflexively... and before the comments, I have on occasion, so this isn't fan-boyism) Certainly, an unexpected death is just that... unexpected. So is an earthquake that takes out your largest materials supplier.
To the extent that he can, he owes the people he works for (the shareholders) a reasonable amount of information about his ability to do his job, ESPECIALLY since he is such a major PR asset for the company. Read my post again... I never said he should tell them the exact ailment and the exact treatment and the exact effects it will have on him. I said he owed them an outline that gives them the information necessary to determine if he should/needs to be replaced temporarily (or permanently) because he WORKS FOR THEM.
If I get sick, my boss expects to know how long and to what degree this is going to affect my ability to work, even if laws or a contract prevent him from outright firing me.
The fact that anything Steve might tell the shareholders will become public knowledge (i.e. newsworthy) is irrelevant. He is their employee, and if he becomes unable to do his job, even temporarily, they deserve to know because they also have a job to do, and that is, ensure their funding and direction (for the majority stakeholders) keeps the company profitable.
--
I drank what?
Having worked in IT Admin for an ISP in the past, I have to to tell you're positioning yourself as exactly the type of customer I used to tell our sales staff we didn't want.
If you weren't willing to work with our support staff and provide us the necessary information to understand where our efforts were failing, you are useless. The threats on the internet change daily (sometimes hourly) and what works today is broken tomorrow... I had enough trouble keeping up with the obvious threats that, unless a customer worked WITH me, his problems really didn't bother me.
And before you respond telling me that I lost our company business, let me just say that the one time a sales person tried to have management fire me over this, I had them check recent sales and showed that 70% of the people who left because "we weren't addressing their concerns", came back... because our support team did respond -- when utilized correctly and not through the sales filter which amounts to a bunch of commission based telemarketer monkeys screaming "it doesn't work and I can't make a sale!"
You want support, then talk to the support people and give them the details they need. Otherwise take your business to AOL or Comcast...
--
I drank what?
Where I might slightly disagree with you is that the Apple, Inc. image is very closely tied to the public illusion that IS Steve Jobs... people don't wait with baited breath for the next press release from Apple... they wait for the next PR demonstration from Steve himself. And yes, to an extent, Steve (though not his family) did agree to be an open book when he allowed himself to become such a big part of Apple's advertising and promotions.
Because of this, I think the shareholders might be due more than "medical problems"... certainly his specific medical records aren't for the public consumption, and obviously don't violate HIPPA (we have enough precedents breaking things like that), but the shareholders probably do have a right in this case to more than just "medical problems". Maybe something to the effect of "on-going treatment with an expected return to his post in 6 months, and full health within the year" kind of thing.
A cold is medical problems... so is cancer. A share holder of a company that uses it's CEO as one of it's primary selling points does have a right to know if that PR asset is about to kack.
--
I drank what?
While I don't have a real problem with the fact that a classified system that provides data is being further restricted, other, useful research will be hindered by this.
Maybe the researchers were warned that this was a perk that could go away at any time, maybe not... they should have been at any rate; however, my question (and, no, I didn't read the article, so if it's spelled out I apologize in advance, for what good that may do...)is what kind of lead time were the researches given for the cessation of data sharing?
Since it has become an important source of information, common decency argues that they should be warned and given time to come up with an alternative. Maybe the researchers (and institutions funding them) would conclude that the costs of arranging to use or build other satellites is prohibitive (let's be honest, it probably is) but they should have the time to figure out the cost of the loss against the costs of other options.
Which would likely mean a change in appropriations from congress which would mean more taxes, but come on... Think of the Children, man!
(And for the record, I wouldn't mind my taxes so much if I knew more of it went into research and science. I want the most powerful military and the best scientific data available for my tax dollars... everything else should be reviewed with a fine toothed comb and 90% of it should probably be thrown out.)
--
I drank what?