Heh. I had to write an IoC container that would run on CLDC 1.1. Fun fun fun. No Serializable meant I had to re-compile all my code. Love that fragile base-class problem.
That's one theory. However, if you are not sending them a letter, but sending it to someone by means of them, then they are closer to a common carrier, without an interest in your content. That's a model that would work without all the ick factor, at least from my perspective, and I'm happy to read the ads and buy the occasional thing I care about to support this functionality.
Nope. You warranted that you had rights to grant such license, so Disney will issue a DMCA take-down notice, FB will remove it and suspend your account, and Disney will then sue Your ass for having claimed rights to their work, etc.
This is fine with me - if they never show or publish my content because my account is flagged "deleted", then it is the same to me. I object to their asking for more rights to re-license and create derivative works beyond the obvious purpose of my uploading.
It's not about cheap, it's about convenient. Even if FB were for pay, it allows for a central point of contact with content-management capabilities oriented around sharing with specific friends and communities. It's built for this sort of application. Throwing up a custom website isn't. And the user's laziness notwithstanding, it doesn't relieve FB from an expectation that if they offer the service for communication in this way, that they take care with people's data. They bill themselves as an infrastructure, a sort of application-level service provider. They're not a media broker, at least that's not how they presented themselves to me when I joined.
Technically, this would fall under the terms where the poster (your "friend") warrants that he has the legal right to post. So essentially, FB goes beyond their requirement by giving you means of unlinking such images from your account, so it's just that user's say-so. And you can use a DMCA take-down notice / copyright violation report to get Facebook to remove it from others' profile. That's not relevant to your own use of FB under their TOS. There are existing legal remedies for others posting your pictures, depending on context, no different from someone posting your picture on their own personal website.
This is irrelevant. They already had a clause in the privacy policy that excludes backups as technically infeasible to delete. "your data may persist..." yadda yadda. That was always true. Backup tapes and archives are quite different than accessible, saleable content.
But they did promise this. There's a whole section where they except backups from your content privacy, in that they can't reasonably technically un-persist your stuff. But until this, they were actually expected to remove the content. And it's not analogous to removing your pictures from other people's pages as if this was some laborious process. Those pictures are references, and if they remove the core item from their database, it simply won't show up in the database requests anymore, and therefore won't show up. And if that's not how they implmeneted it, then that's still their problem, because the technical solution could be easy.
Because you are keeping your private/personal information and selectively showing it to others. The fact that I have a private (physical) photo album doesn't mean I don't show it to friends, but I don't expect Kodak (for instance) to have the rights to use and/or sell and/or indirectly profit from the content they processed.
Private doesn't mean not-shown, it means I, the content owner gets to choose.
The problem I have with this, is that it's a tool that enables a lot of funny games with branches, because the developers liked to work that way. SVN was developed in another direction, based on their philosophies around development (largely drawn from painful lessons in CVS).
I have this argument a lot, and the truth is - pick your development, integration, and release philosophies, THEN pick the tool that works for that way. I've worked using SVN on hundred-developer projects with lots of changes. We organized the work in such a way that branching was a very small and rare activity. I've been in other places where there was one-branch-per-new-feature.
SVN isn't better or worse than GIT, except perhaps when examining a given feature. But overall, one isn't better than the other, because they are built around very different approaches. I've seen both approaches work well, and fail miserably. You can't rescue a failing approach with a good tool, because you're not solving the root-cause.
Bahá'ís (a recent religion with origins in 19th century Iran) are encouraged not to keep pictures of their founder, Bahá'u'lláh (there are actually two passport photos and one painting in existence), because such images should be respectfully viewed, and not casually treated. Posting them on the web has generally not been considered to be a terribly reverent presentation. Their leadership, however, made it clear that non-Bahá'í-owned/operated sites are not subject to Bahá'í rules, so Bahá'ís should not generally attempt to coerce such sites to remove the pictures. Wikipedia isn't a Bahá'í site, so while some well-meaning Bahá'ís kept taking the picture down, neutral parties as well as some Bahá'ís who understood the nature of Wikipedia as a neutral site put the picture back and worked out a compromise - don't put the picture front-and-centre. They put it at the bottom of the page, with the equivalent of a "spoiler alert" so that Bahá'ís whose sensibilities would be trampled by an unexpected viewing could simply avoid that part of the page, without having to avoid the whole article.
I think the problem with the attempt to censor mentioned in the article is that members of a religion are attempting to enforce their rules for themselves on others. In this case, it's a prohibition by several Muslim sects. Not all sects do, as pointed out elsewhere - Shi'ah Muslims often revere icons of the Imams much as Catholic or Orthodox Christians keep icons of the Saints. But the rules of a sect or religion don't apply to non-members (no matter how much that group would like it to). So sites that are public are in a different space. Academics have had this sort of difficulty as well with respect to religious, cultural, and other social issues where they need a space to openly examine a cultural taboo, but the members of that cultural group need to not have the taboo busted right in their faces. And it's even harder when people that live in a homogenous society (say, an entirely Muslim or Christian country) start to interact with a global human civilization which is diverse and must handle hundreds of views and practices and taboos.
There are some good examples of... well not really compromise, but rather groups of disagreeing folk examining basic principles and coming up with a solution that takes everyone into account. It could be a compromise in some situations, but often it can result in a more respectful (but not pandering) treatment of a subject. Perhaps the best rule of thumb anyone can use in this increasingly complex global society is, "Do not give or take offence".
Wow. I love knee-jerk ideology. Left or right, it's so devoid of content, and so full of jingoistic jargon. "socialized internet" Jeez. I think it's lovely that you can just apply the word "socialized" to anything and make it an epithet.
Government is inefficient not because there is something inherently wrong with government per-se, but because it's not held to account and because our electorate is lazy, apathetic, uneducated, and manipulated . TANSTAAFL is a good principle as a personal ethic, but it's incorrect at an economic level. Heck, externalization of resource extraction and waste is a great "Free Lunch" that business has been getting for centuries. This attitude I often hear expressed is just a load of Ayn-Rand readin', chicago-school of business nonsense. Private industry (and I mostly work for banks, mind you) are no more efficient because, contrary to so-called market discipline theories, larger companies are not held to account on any terms but short term quarterly profits. Often, due to asymmetry of information, they are not so held for years. (Enron) Sure they fall, but at great cost to society. And large companies that have near monopolies exhibit exactly the same bureaucratic paralysis as governments, and are, in my experience, often worse, though not always. Certainly the Bells (and their heirs) do. They are usually completely outmoded by small and mid-size profit-making or not-for-profit ventures. Oh, and the ISP from the article? Small member-corporation. (i.e. members are shareholders).
Nothing wrong with capitalism in moderation, but there's a lot wrong with capitalist ideological demagoguery, just as with socialism. I'm for a complete ban on -isms.
I got this for a contract I was working on, and we regularly got dumps of "representative test data" against which we wrote our software integration tests. At least every couple of days, they would push out a 300MB file. Add to that the fact that I was building our automated software build infrastructure using a tool (maven) that downloads dependencies from central repositories (about 80MB for a full pull of all dependencies), and because I was creating the infrastructure I had to blow my system away to test cleanly several times a day.
I bought it for work, and was presumed to have just been file sharing. I had unpleasant conversations with Verizon. Didn't even have an appeal process, nor an opportunity to demonstrate my situation, nor even the right to ask for a manager. I seriously thought about lodging a small claims court claim for damages, as their cutting me off cost me $1500 in demonstrable lost receipts (i'm paid by the hour) in that week while I tried to research an alternative.
I finally went with Cingular on their unlimited data plan and they never had a problem with any limits. I also made sure we researched the policies and they said they didn't give even the slightest care how much I downloaded, or if I used it for "broadband services" like music/movie downloads, 'cause that's what Broadband usually means. Other than switching to a Mac and having a bit of irritation geting an ExpressCard device to support the service initially, I've had no problems with it.
> I'm sure that works great in Canada, but we have more than 4 people who live here. Also, we have electricity, so we can power our counting-machines.
Ok, yuk yuk. Very funny. However, compare Canada with an equivalent population, say, Florida (remember 2000). Some 10,000,000+ votes cast in our election, all on paper, counted within 8 hours. We knew who our government was the same day. No supreme-court injunctions.
Part of the problem is resolved by a simple paper vote with a clear big circle to mark an X, but a large part of the differences between our countries are two-fold:
Canada has an arms-length, non-partisan elections commission. It draws boundaries, elimintating almost all gerrymandering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering), and organizes electioneers, ballot-counters, and other people and processes necessary for elections in each electoral district (riding). Parties get no special recognition or representation and are not allowed to interfere or influence the process.
Canada has federal electoral standards and laws, so one province doesn't vary widely from another. The USA has state legislation to cover elections, so a given state can decide for itself how it wasnt to elect its representatives to Congress. While this fits with the original concept of the United States, it creates a very large variance in process which is really hard to audit and guarantee that one American's voice is as valid as another's.
I think this will increase the proliferation of encryption technologies which provide a certain level of plausible deniability. Things like TrueCrypt (http://truecrypt.org/) provide an encrypted container which has a basic access and a secondary access. The container cannot be detected as being an encrypted anything - it is just a bunch of random data. If you use the basic access mechanism, you get your data. If you use the secondary access, you get an alternate contents, which can be seemingly important, but relatively benign data you put there to look like soemone got something important. However, you cannot tell which one is which, or even that the alternate access isn't the primary one.
TrueCrypt lets you mount the container as a filesystem, which is a convenient way to go. This sort of thing allows you to:
a) Deny that there is anything encrypted for which you have not proffered a key. "Oh yeah, show me what I have encrypted and I'll show you the key."
b) If that's not enough, proffer the false key that gives them the alternative access. "Ok, here you go. Let me know if you find anything incriminating. (tee hee)"
Lastly, if you use things like encrypted swap on a unix device, you can plausably say that what is there is just an encrypted swap file, and you don't have a key because the key is never saved to the disk. Why isn't it mounted now? You only set it up temporarily and forgot to delete the file when it was done. (for 1Gb files or larger...) If you have a 20Gb file, you're probably going to have to explain it... and go for option (b) above.
Of course, if your 20Gb file is not a file, but is just an "empty" partition... well there you go.
Please note - I'm not advocating breaking any law here - just outlining what this will drive people who care enough to do.
... describing religious fundamentalist XP. XP, applied sanely is a set of engineering practices that can highly charge a team's productivity. If the "xp" team is delivering crap every week, then it's not xp, it's bad customer relations wearing an XP skin. Typically, however, I see a scrum wrapper around an XP team, where scrum is the main process control and xp activates the team itself.
You're not describing xp, you're describing...
on
Microsoft Lauds Scrum
·
· Score: 1
... religious fundamentalist XP. XP, applied sanely is a set of engineering practices that can highly charge a team's productivity. If the "xp" team is delivering crap every week, then it's not xp, it's bad customer relations wearing an XP skin. Typically, however, I see a scrum wrapper around an XP team, where scrum is the main s
... and automated testing is, while not mandated by scrum, a software best practice that helps make it function.
The thing about scrum is that scrum is the process control part. It shapes the team's interface with the customer, and with the workload. XP provides several practices that work well within the team itself. Things like test-driven-development and continuous integration and other such things are practices that can be used at the team's discretion to maximize their productivity. Scrum isolates the team from scope interference during the iteration.
Except that agile methods were developed...
on
Microsoft Lauds Scrum
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
... by developers, for the most part, based on what works, not on what management thought SHOULD work. It's not a management fad, it's a simple empirical process. The whole point of scrum is to get away from management-induced fantasy, and rather to go with plan-try-measure-reflect-try-measure. It applies the scientific method to software development control.
Mostly what's pissing me off about this slashdot crap is that people who have never tried it are weighing in with opinions on how it can't possibly work, or how it's obviously just a fad. Sheesh.
... or maybe not. Joke all you want, the description quoted above is about one small features. It's like joking about programming because "they use if's". If that was all there was to it, of course it'd be rediulous. .
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. I had to write an IoC container that would run on CLDC 1.1. Fun fun fun. No Serializable meant I had to re-compile all my code. Love that fragile base-class problem.
George Lucas has done OK, who did he rip off?
Kurosawa?
That's one theory. However, if you are not sending them a letter, but sending it to someone by means of them, then they are closer to a common carrier, without an interest in your content. That's a model that would work without all the ick factor, at least from my perspective, and I'm happy to read the ads and buy the occasional thing I care about to support this functionality.
Facebook will be supplanted by someone or something that doesn't try to take over the world.
In this I sincerely hope you are correct. The service is incredibly useful to me, but I want it for the purpose I signed up for it, and no more.
Nope. You warranted that you had rights to grant such license, so Disney will issue a DMCA take-down notice, FB will remove it and suspend your account, and Disney will then sue Your ass for having claimed rights to their work, etc.
This is fine with me - if they never show or publish my content because my account is flagged "deleted", then it is the same to me. I object to their asking for more rights to re-license and create derivative works beyond the obvious purpose of my uploading.
It's not about cheap, it's about convenient. Even if FB were for pay, it allows for a central point of contact with content-management capabilities oriented around sharing with specific friends and communities. It's built for this sort of application. Throwing up a custom website isn't. And the user's laziness notwithstanding, it doesn't relieve FB from an expectation that if they offer the service for communication in this way, that they take care with people's data. They bill themselves as an infrastructure, a sort of application-level service provider. They're not a media broker, at least that's not how they presented themselves to me when I joined.
Technically, this would fall under the terms where the poster (your "friend") warrants that he has the legal right to post. So essentially, FB goes beyond their requirement by giving you means of unlinking such images from your account, so it's just that user's say-so. And you can use a DMCA take-down notice / copyright violation report to get Facebook to remove it from others' profile. That's not relevant to your own use of FB under their TOS. There are existing legal remedies for others posting your pictures, depending on context, no different from someone posting your picture on their own personal website.
This is irrelevant. They already had a clause in the privacy policy that excludes backups as technically infeasible to delete. "your data may persist..." yadda yadda. That was always true. Backup tapes and archives are quite different than accessible, saleable content.
woosh.
But they did promise this. There's a whole section where they except backups from your content privacy, in that they can't reasonably technically un-persist your stuff. But until this, they were actually expected to remove the content. And it's not analogous to removing your pictures from other people's pages as if this was some laborious process. Those pictures are references, and if they remove the core item from their database, it simply won't show up in the database requests anymore, and therefore won't show up. And if that's not how they implmeneted it, then that's still their problem, because the technical solution could be easy.
Because you are keeping your private/personal information and selectively showing it to others. The fact that I have a private (physical) photo album doesn't mean I don't show it to friends, but I don't expect Kodak (for instance) to have the rights to use and/or sell and/or indirectly profit from the content they processed.
Private doesn't mean not-shown, it means I, the content owner gets to choose.
Tell that to 90% of my Fortune 100 customers. I'm not arguing... I'm just saying that if you're right, the dinosaurs are taking a long time to die.
The problem I have with this, is that it's a tool that enables a lot of funny games with branches, because the developers liked to work that way. SVN was developed in another direction, based on their philosophies around development (largely drawn from painful lessons in CVS).
I have this argument a lot, and the truth is - pick your development, integration, and release philosophies, THEN pick the tool that works for that way. I've worked using SVN on hundred-developer projects with lots of changes. We organized the work in such a way that branching was a very small and rare activity. I've been in other places where there was one-branch-per-new-feature.
SVN isn't better or worse than GIT, except perhaps when examining a given feature. But overall, one isn't better than the other, because they are built around very different approaches. I've seen both approaches work well, and fail miserably. You can't rescue a failing approach with a good tool, because you're not solving the root-cause.
Bahá'ís (a recent religion with origins in 19th century Iran) are encouraged not to keep pictures of their founder, Bahá'u'lláh (there are actually two passport photos and one painting in existence), because such images should be respectfully viewed, and not casually treated. Posting them on the web has generally not been considered to be a terribly reverent presentation. Their leadership, however, made it clear that non-Bahá'í-owned/operated sites are not subject to Bahá'í rules, so Bahá'ís should not generally attempt to coerce such sites to remove the pictures. Wikipedia isn't a Bahá'í site, so while some well-meaning Bahá'ís kept taking the picture down, neutral parties as well as some Bahá'ís who understood the nature of Wikipedia as a neutral site put the picture back and worked out a compromise - don't put the picture front-and-centre. They put it at the bottom of the page, with the equivalent of a "spoiler alert" so that Bahá'ís whose sensibilities would be trampled by an unexpected viewing could simply avoid that part of the page, without having to avoid the whole article.
I think the problem with the attempt to censor mentioned in the article is that members of a religion are attempting to enforce their rules for themselves on others. In this case, it's a prohibition by several Muslim sects. Not all sects do, as pointed out elsewhere - Shi'ah Muslims often revere icons of the Imams much as Catholic or Orthodox Christians keep icons of the Saints. But the rules of a sect or religion don't apply to non-members (no matter how much that group would like it to). So sites that are public are in a different space. Academics have had this sort of difficulty as well with respect to religious, cultural, and other social issues where they need a space to openly examine a cultural taboo, but the members of that cultural group need to not have the taboo busted right in their faces. And it's even harder when people that live in a homogenous society (say, an entirely Muslim or Christian country) start to interact with a global human civilization which is diverse and must handle hundreds of views and practices and taboos.
There are some good examples of... well not really compromise, but rather groups of disagreeing folk examining basic principles and coming up with a solution that takes everyone into account. It could be a compromise in some situations, but often it can result in a more respectful (but not pandering) treatment of a subject. Perhaps the best rule of thumb anyone can use in this increasingly complex global society is, "Do not give or take offence".
i.
Wow. I love knee-jerk ideology. Left or right, it's so devoid of content, and so full of jingoistic jargon. "socialized internet" Jeez. I think it's lovely that you can just apply the word "socialized" to anything and make it an epithet.
Government is inefficient not because there is something inherently wrong with government per-se, but because it's not held to account and because our electorate is lazy, apathetic, uneducated, and manipulated . TANSTAAFL is a good principle as a personal ethic, but it's incorrect at an economic level. Heck, externalization of resource extraction and waste is a great "Free Lunch" that business has been getting for centuries. This attitude I often hear expressed is just a load of Ayn-Rand readin', chicago-school of business nonsense. Private industry (and I mostly work for banks, mind you) are no more efficient because, contrary to so-called market discipline theories, larger companies are not held to account on any terms but short term quarterly profits. Often, due to asymmetry of information, they are not so held for years. (Enron) Sure they fall, but at great cost to society. And large companies that have near monopolies exhibit exactly the same bureaucratic paralysis as governments, and are, in my experience, often worse, though not always. Certainly the Bells (and their heirs) do. They are usually completely outmoded by small and mid-size profit-making or not-for-profit ventures. Oh, and the ISP from the article? Small member-corporation. (i.e. members are shareholders).
Nothing wrong with capitalism in moderation, but there's a lot wrong with capitalist ideological demagoguery, just as with socialism. I'm for a complete ban on -isms.
I got this for a contract I was working on, and we regularly got dumps of "representative test data" against which we wrote our software integration tests. At least every couple of days, they would push out a 300MB file. Add to that the fact that I was building our automated software build infrastructure using a tool (maven) that downloads dependencies from central repositories (about 80MB for a full pull of all dependencies), and because I was creating the infrastructure I had to blow my system away to test cleanly several times a day.
I bought it for work, and was presumed to have just been file sharing. I had unpleasant conversations with Verizon. Didn't even have an appeal process, nor an opportunity to demonstrate my situation, nor even the right to ask for a manager. I seriously thought about lodging a small claims court claim for damages, as their cutting me off cost me $1500 in demonstrable lost receipts (i'm paid by the hour) in that week while I tried to research an alternative.
I finally went with Cingular on their unlimited data plan and they never had a problem with any limits. I also made sure we researched the policies and they said they didn't give even the slightest care how much I downloaded, or if I used it for "broadband services" like music/movie downloads, 'cause that's what Broadband usually means. Other than switching to a Mac and having a bit of irritation geting an ExpressCard device to support the service initially, I've had no problems with it.
i.
Um... wasn't this case already dramatized on Boston Legal?
> I'm sure that works great in Canada, but we have more than 4 people who live here. Also, we have electricity, so we can power our counting-machines.
Ok, yuk yuk. Very funny. However, compare Canada with an equivalent population, say, Florida (remember 2000). Some 10,000,000+ votes cast in our election, all on paper, counted within 8 hours. We knew who our government was the same day. No supreme-court injunctions.
Part of the problem is resolved by a simple paper vote with a clear big circle to mark an X, but a large part of the differences between our countries are two-fold:
Cheers,
I think this will increase the proliferation of encryption technologies which provide a certain level of plausible deniability. Things like TrueCrypt (http://truecrypt.org/) provide an encrypted container which has a basic access and a secondary access. The container cannot be detected as being an encrypted anything - it is just a bunch of random data. If you use the basic access mechanism, you get your data. If you use the secondary access, you get an alternate contents, which can be seemingly important, but relatively benign data you put there to look like soemone got something important. However, you cannot tell which one is which, or even that the alternate access isn't the primary one.
TrueCrypt lets you mount the container as a filesystem, which is a convenient way to go. This sort of thing allows you to:
a) Deny that there is anything encrypted for which you have not proffered a key. "Oh yeah, show me what I have encrypted and I'll show you the key."
b) If that's not enough, proffer the false key that gives them the alternative access. "Ok, here you go. Let me know if you find anything incriminating. (tee hee)"
Lastly, if you use things like encrypted swap on a unix device, you can plausably say that what is there is just an encrypted swap file, and you don't have a key because the key is never saved to the disk. Why isn't it mounted now? You only set it up temporarily and forgot to delete the file when it was done. (for 1Gb files or larger...) If you have a 20Gb file, you're probably going to have to explain it... and go for option (b) above.
Of course, if your 20Gb file is not a file, but is just an "empty" partition... well there you go.
Please note - I'm not advocating breaking any law here - just outlining what this will drive people who care enough to do.
... describing religious fundamentalist XP. XP, applied sanely is a set of engineering practices that can highly charge a team's productivity. If the "xp" team is delivering crap every week, then it's not xp, it's bad customer relations wearing an XP skin. Typically, however, I see a scrum wrapper around an XP team, where scrum is the main process control and xp activates the team itself.
... religious fundamentalist XP. XP, applied sanely is a set of engineering practices that can highly charge a team's productivity. If the "xp" team is delivering crap every week, then it's not xp, it's bad customer relations wearing an XP skin. Typically, however, I see a scrum wrapper around an XP team, where scrum is the main s
... and automated testing is, while not mandated by scrum, a software best practice that helps make it function.
The thing about scrum is that scrum is the process control part. It shapes the team's interface with the customer, and with the workload. XP provides several practices that work well within the team itself. Things like test-driven-development and continuous integration and other such things are practices that can be used at the team's discretion to maximize their productivity. Scrum isolates the team from scope interference during the iteration.
... by developers, for the most part, based on what works, not on what management thought SHOULD work. It's not a management fad, it's a simple empirical process. The whole point of scrum is to get away from management-induced fantasy, and rather to go with plan-try-measure-reflect-try-measure. It applies the scientific method to software development control.
Mostly what's pissing me off about this slashdot crap is that people who have never tried it are weighing in with opinions on how it can't possibly work, or how it's obviously just a fad. Sheesh.
... or maybe not. Joke all you want, the description quoted above is about one small features. It's like joking about programming because "they use if's". If that was all there was to it, of course it'd be rediulous.
.