It's not about being right, it's about who contributes most to campaigns, and who offers the most lucrative consulting positions after they leave elected office.
In the US, anyway-- the music and movie industries pump a lot of money into lobbying and campaign cash, and I wouldn't be surprised if they offer nice consulting positions for those who vote for laws they like, such as the Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA.
And for the media business, it's not about the money, it's about dominating the market and the culture through complete control...
Still, allowing personal smartphones to connect to a company's email service is not a good idea, because the IT admins would then need to deal with conundrums like "okay, which data is personal and which isn't?"-- worse still, if the employee is tweeting about his company, that's another can of worms to deal with. Best to not allow this practice by default and have the company provide smartphones to those who absolutely must have 24/7/365 access to company email.
In the meantime, those with the proper skills (IT admins or Exchange devs-- I'm not familiar with Exchange) may want to figure out how to selectively wipe company data off of a smartphone without touching data that isn't related to the company. Again, at a time when social network use is booming, this is probably next to impossible.
If GP or those unfamiliar with information security don't understand why it's a security breach, here's a very helpful question:
What happens if GMail is hacked and GP's account is accessed or has its password stolen?
Now all the emails GP received are in someone else's hands, and since they're business email, they are now incredibly valuable to someone who wants to perform corporate espionage, or get GP's company into a monstrous heap of trouble-- think breach of contract suits. It doesn't even have to be legal trouble, either-- I don't know many companies who need confidentiality that will do business with a company who now has a track record of being unable to maintain it. Depending on the region, a blog or a news outlet might report on the story, destroying any future business further (Japanese press will certainly do this). And all that before GP inevitably loses his job for ultimately causing the leak.
Now, Google-hosted mail as a part of their business contracting is a different story, as the business can now stipulate in the contract that Google is liable if there is a security breach-- and unless they're colossally stupid, they will demand such a provision. But forwarding all of your office email to your GMail account is a Very Bad Idea unless you've got yourself some really good encryption (multi-key, one being a strong password, the other a keyfile in a USB key in a deposit box or some other secure storage-- think KeePass with 2 keys, not 1)-- even then, I wouldn't forward emails into the cloud in the first place, because another security risk is a disgruntled employee with valuable business data. Against that risk, no encryption will mitigate.
My advice to GP? 1. Get that resume polished, unless your employer considers you irreplaceable (not likely in IT, unfortunately). 2. Talk to your employer. You may get fired either way, but it's far more likely if you keep it hidden and something happens that gets traced to your forwarded emails on Google's servers. 3. If you can convince your company (particularly their legal counsel) to help you, you now have more leverage to get Google to permanently delete every last forwarded email-- and even that may take weeks.
That will only happen if every prominent figure in both the GOP and the conservative media say the exact same thing-- which is to say, that will never happen. If he issues such a statement in the next few years, they will use this as a weapon against all Democrats (if you think I'm paranoid or biased, count the number of times Republicans and conservatives called a Democrat or nonconservative "soft on terror" or some variation...).
Of course, I expect them to turn it into a campaign issue for 2012, and I expect libertarians to be suckered into voting for them. Their track record clearly shows that they care about "personal freedom" as much as we care about housefly excrement.
And another thing, who the hell are you going to sue if the original author is dead? The whole US Congress? That's a horrible idea on many precedent-breaking levels, and will have a far greater impact than Citizens United did.
I guarantee you that for most "unconstitutional laws" you sue a legislator under this amendment, there will be several legal rulings that support their constitutionality, and thus provide the legislator with an affirmative defense-- maybe not a good one, but now you not only have to account for the Congresscritter who wrote the bill, but also the President who signed it and the judiciary that didn't strike it down. Instead of 535 originalist legal scholars, you will have 535 legislators who are now so scared of being sued that they won't pass any laws at all-- and given that people in this country will sue over practically anything, you will have a very hard time convincing me or anyone familiar with the judiciary that this won't be the case.
Now if the intent is to bind Congress' constitutional role in a straightjacket and just destroy the entire US legal code aside from the constitution, you might want the amendment to say so explicitly rather than open the legislature up to lawsuits real and imagined-- the appropriate venue, until then, to striking down "unconstitutional laws" is the courts.
Originalism is a very important interpretation of the Constitution, but it is not the only one. To demand that it be the only possible means of interpreting the Constitution is ideological tyranny.
Woz says he gave the De Telegraaf reporter a lengthy demonstration of voice commands on iOS and Android, pointed out that Android offered the ability to say "Navigate to Joe's Diner," and suggested that Apple would catch up through its purchases of Siri and Poly9. According to Steve, that's about it -- he says he'd "never" say that Android was better than iOS, and that "Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone."
Given that the source is a Dutch publication, I bet they lost something in translation for whatever reason (poor command of English or an attempt to troll for hits).
It's a libertarian (or authoritarian) paradox-- You (not personally, in a general sense) want the powerful to leave you alone if you perceive them to be doing something that can potentially harm you (even if it's a completely deserved consequence of what you do wrongly), but you want the powerful to go after the other small fish when they're doing something wrong. In essence, you only want authority to act against everyone else but you.
You can replace "powerful" with "Verizon" or "the US federal government", it doesn't matter; this paradox is why phrases like "smaller government" resonate so much, and why a good deal of people are hardcore libertarians* until they realize they want/need the government to step in and help (Katrina, BP spill).
It's true that many Wikipedia administrators are full of themselves and/or have way too much time on their hands; those demanding action from Verizon need to understand that if they manage to give Verizon the authority to punish users independently, there would be nothing stopping Verizon from "punishing" users for offenses it deems fit-- anything from file sharing to pornography to editing a Wikipedia article critical of Verizon. Given that corporations value profit far more than good governance, I'd say that would be a very bad idea indeed.
If there is criminal activity, then they must convince law enforcement that the user must be identified, indicted, and brought to trial-- given the vast amount of evidence in Wikipedia's logs and edit histories, there's surely something this user violated egregiously. If there are technological means of thwarting this troll, those should be pushed to MediaWiki ASAP. The only thing Verizon needs to see is a subpoena from the US Attorney's office.
* Yeah, I know most libertarians realize a functioning, competent government is essential for basic needs and disaster recovery. I'm talking about the tools who scoff at "big government" in all its manifestations (real and imagined) one day, then scream at the White House for not doing more to fix things the next.
Yes, and if Oracle turns its sights on LibreOffice, LO will just toss the Java-dependent bindings and rework them from another platform (and most of the core binaries will still work-- the wizards and such will have to be rewritten, though).
Meanwhile, such a horribly ill-motivated act will prompt other large-scale projects to come up with plans to migrate away from Java, because if Oracle squeezes LO, they'll squeeze anyone else using Java for free or for profit.
I wouldn't discount the influence of social networks and online (non-spam) marketing-- if a manufacturer is able to produce both quality parts and documentation, and get their stuff out there, I don't think computer geeks will dismiss them so easily. That translates to sales momentum, and sooner or later, the lost 0.1c can translate into thousands of dollars-- those cost-minded execs may find themselves eating crow with their shoes with their words.
Of course, geeks don't read the docs unless they have a problem and they can't find a solution by Googling...
All I hear is motivation for the developer community to make ripping DVDs/BDs to mobile formats easier and faster. Who needs Netflix when you can view your own backup copy for free?
That's because the only "side of the story" they ever hear is from DRM salespeople, and because they only WANT to hear that side of the story. Media industry execs are still cut from the same cloth as the Disney execs who rejected a one-time-use VHS rental cassette because it didn't prevent group viewings-- if they aren't getting the same number of sales as there are eyeballs on the planet, sales are lost, ergo someone is stealing, full stop. They can argue that they're protecting artists and filmmakers until they're blue in the face, and we know they're lying when in reality they're thinking a backup copy of purchased physical media is illegal and that ripping off Peter Jackson for the LotR trilogy is SOP.
Even when it comes to sales and losses due to DRM or online file sharing, they're probably cooking the books anyway, because for some reason they don't want to admit that they are wrong in any respect.
Is it "third parties" as in "anyone remotely connected to Android, including users and developers", or "third parties" as in the Open Handset Alliance which comprises 78 companies?
Methinks Google isn't saying, "Look, don't sue us, you should go after the users", but rather "Oh, you want to sue us? You'd better be prepared to include 77 other defendants with big pockets."
Oh, that's easy-- patent infringement lawsuit on both the Linux kernel dev team and Mozilla. Or if they want to hit absolutely everyone in the OSS/Free Software world, they'd file a patent infringement lawsuit against the FSF.
Of course, that would be like firing the sawdust cannon-- only instead of sawdust, you're firing thermite. Larry might be power-hungry enough to do it, I don't know (given the protracted cost of these lawsuits, it's usually not about the money, but about how much of the market you can deny the defendant).
Very true, but sometimes all it takes is an injunction against Dalvik or Harmony to really kill off even the alternatives in the marketplace (which Oracle would love more than anything). Should that happen, they'll exclusively become the purview of enthusiasts, which neither Google nor any Android handset maker wants.
It'll depend largely on the person teaching the course. Some, like the excellent CS professors at Berkeley and Stanford, care about the fundamentals and concentrate on those regardless of whether they're marketable skills. Chances are, the administration figured that since computer programming is a form of applied math (which it is, but the problem solving skill set is different in a number of ways) and convinced your teacher to do it because it's "easy"-- it's NOT.
Googling for code snippets and cutting/pasting are easy. Identifying the problem class and the appropriate strategy to solve it is hard, which is why architects get the big bucks.
I'm not sure if anyone's saying this stuff would "absorb a large fraction of the energy". If anything, its absorption would probably be rather pitiful compared to even polycrystalline silicon cells.
There are flaws in SC2-- the matchmaking feature and the early game balance isn't one of them.
The places Blizz must address have to do with content creation and distribution, which they currently have locked down to the point where Blizzard has the ultimate control.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about being right, it's about who contributes most to campaigns, and who offers the most lucrative consulting positions after they leave elected office.
In the US, anyway-- the music and movie industries pump a lot of money into lobbying and campaign cash, and I wouldn't be surprised if they offer nice consulting positions for those who vote for laws they like, such as the Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA.
And for the media business, it's not about the money, it's about dominating the market and the culture through complete control...
Still, allowing personal smartphones to connect to a company's email service is not a good idea, because the IT admins would then need to deal with conundrums like "okay, which data is personal and which isn't?"-- worse still, if the employee is tweeting about his company, that's another can of worms to deal with. Best to not allow this practice by default and have the company provide smartphones to those who absolutely must have 24/7/365 access to company email.
In the meantime, those with the proper skills (IT admins or Exchange devs-- I'm not familiar with Exchange) may want to figure out how to selectively wipe company data off of a smartphone without touching data that isn't related to the company. Again, at a time when social network use is booming, this is probably next to impossible.
If GP or those unfamiliar with information security don't understand why it's a security breach, here's a very helpful question:
What happens if GMail is hacked and GP's account is accessed or has its password stolen?
Now all the emails GP received are in someone else's hands, and since they're business email, they are now incredibly valuable to someone who wants to perform corporate espionage, or get GP's company into a monstrous heap of trouble-- think breach of contract suits. It doesn't even have to be legal trouble, either-- I don't know many companies who need confidentiality that will do business with a company who now has a track record of being unable to maintain it. Depending on the region, a blog or a news outlet might report on the story, destroying any future business further (Japanese press will certainly do this). And all that before GP inevitably loses his job for ultimately causing the leak.
Now, Google-hosted mail as a part of their business contracting is a different story, as the business can now stipulate in the contract that Google is liable if there is a security breach-- and unless they're colossally stupid, they will demand such a provision. But forwarding all of your office email to your GMail account is a Very Bad Idea unless you've got yourself some really good encryption (multi-key, one being a strong password, the other a keyfile in a USB key in a deposit box or some other secure storage-- think KeePass with 2 keys, not 1)-- even then, I wouldn't forward emails into the cloud in the first place, because another security risk is a disgruntled employee with valuable business data. Against that risk, no encryption will mitigate.
My advice to GP? 1. Get that resume polished, unless your employer considers you irreplaceable (not likely in IT, unfortunately). 2. Talk to your employer. You may get fired either way, but it's far more likely if you keep it hidden and something happens that gets traced to your forwarded emails on Google's servers. 3. If you can convince your company (particularly their legal counsel) to help you, you now have more leverage to get Google to permanently delete every last forwarded email-- and even that may take weeks.
Try two. Mike Chertoff decided to profit off of scaring Americans about terrorism for 4-6 years (however long he had the DHS office).
That will only happen if every prominent figure in both the GOP and the conservative media say the exact same thing-- which is to say, that will never happen. If he issues such a statement in the next few years, they will use this as a weapon against all Democrats (if you think I'm paranoid or biased, count the number of times Republicans and conservatives called a Democrat or nonconservative "soft on terror" or some variation...).
Of course, I expect them to turn it into a campaign issue for 2012, and I expect libertarians to be suckered into voting for them. Their track record clearly shows that they care about "personal freedom" as much as we care about housefly excrement.
And another thing, who the hell are you going to sue if the original author is dead? The whole US Congress? That's a horrible idea on many precedent-breaking levels, and will have a far greater impact than Citizens United did.
That will never pass convention-- here's why:
I guarantee you that for most "unconstitutional laws" you sue a legislator under this amendment, there will be several legal rulings that support their constitutionality, and thus provide the legislator with an affirmative defense-- maybe not a good one, but now you not only have to account for the Congresscritter who wrote the bill, but also the President who signed it and the judiciary that didn't strike it down. Instead of 535 originalist legal scholars, you will have 535 legislators who are now so scared of being sued that they won't pass any laws at all-- and given that people in this country will sue over practically anything, you will have a very hard time convincing me or anyone familiar with the judiciary that this won't be the case.
Now if the intent is to bind Congress' constitutional role in a straightjacket and just destroy the entire US legal code aside from the constitution, you might want the amendment to say so explicitly rather than open the legislature up to lawsuits real and imagined-- the appropriate venue, until then, to striking down "unconstitutional laws" is the courts.
Originalism is a very important interpretation of the Constitution, but it is not the only one. To demand that it be the only possible means of interpreting the Constitution is ideological tyranny.
Engadget got ahold of Woz himself:
Given that the source is a Dutch publication, I bet they lost something in translation for whatever reason (poor command of English or an attempt to troll for hits).
It's a libertarian (or authoritarian) paradox-- You (not personally, in a general sense) want the powerful to leave you alone if you perceive them to be doing something that can potentially harm you (even if it's a completely deserved consequence of what you do wrongly), but you want the powerful to go after the other small fish when they're doing something wrong. In essence, you only want authority to act against everyone else but you.
You can replace "powerful" with "Verizon" or "the US federal government", it doesn't matter; this paradox is why phrases like "smaller government" resonate so much, and why a good deal of people are hardcore libertarians* until they realize they want/need the government to step in and help (Katrina, BP spill).
It's true that many Wikipedia administrators are full of themselves and/or have way too much time on their hands; those demanding action from Verizon need to understand that if they manage to give Verizon the authority to punish users independently, there would be nothing stopping Verizon from "punishing" users for offenses it deems fit-- anything from file sharing to pornography to editing a Wikipedia article critical of Verizon. Given that corporations value profit far more than good governance, I'd say that would be a very bad idea indeed.
If there is criminal activity, then they must convince law enforcement that the user must be identified, indicted, and brought to trial-- given the vast amount of evidence in Wikipedia's logs and edit histories, there's surely something this user violated egregiously. If there are technological means of thwarting this troll, those should be pushed to MediaWiki ASAP. The only thing Verizon needs to see is a subpoena from the US Attorney's office.
* Yeah, I know most libertarians realize a functioning, competent government is essential for basic needs and disaster recovery. I'm talking about the tools who scoff at "big government" in all its manifestations (real and imagined) one day, then scream at the White House for not doing more to fix things the next.
Yes, and if Oracle turns its sights on LibreOffice, LO will just toss the Java-dependent bindings and rework them from another platform (and most of the core binaries will still work-- the wizards and such will have to be rewritten, though).
Meanwhile, such a horribly ill-motivated act will prompt other large-scale projects to come up with plans to migrate away from Java, because if Oracle squeezes LO, they'll squeeze anyone else using Java for free or for profit.
I wouldn't discount the influence of social networks and online (non-spam) marketing-- if a manufacturer is able to produce both quality parts and documentation, and get their stuff out there, I don't think computer geeks will dismiss them so easily. That translates to sales momentum, and sooner or later, the lost 0.1c can translate into thousands of dollars-- those cost-minded execs may find themselves eating crow with their shoes with their words.
Of course, geeks don't read the docs unless they have a problem and they can't find a solution by Googling...
All I hear is motivation for the developer community to make ripping DVDs/BDs to mobile formats easier and faster. Who needs Netflix when you can view your own backup copy for free?
That's because the only "side of the story" they ever hear is from DRM salespeople, and because they only WANT to hear that side of the story. Media industry execs are still cut from the same cloth as the Disney execs who rejected a one-time-use VHS rental cassette because it didn't prevent group viewings-- if they aren't getting the same number of sales as there are eyeballs on the planet, sales are lost, ergo someone is stealing, full stop. They can argue that they're protecting artists and filmmakers until they're blue in the face, and we know they're lying when in reality they're thinking a backup copy of purchased physical media is illegal and that ripping off Peter Jackson for the LotR trilogy is SOP.
Even when it comes to sales and losses due to DRM or online file sharing, they're probably cooking the books anyway, because for some reason they don't want to admit that they are wrong in any respect.
(And from the other universe...)
*hand wave* You do not wish to be used in another device.
I, uh... I don't wish to be used in another device.
These are not the OS you're looking for.
These aren't the OS I'm looking for.
Move along.
Move along.
Is it "third parties" as in "anyone remotely connected to Android, including users and developers", or "third parties" as in the Open Handset Alliance which comprises 78 companies?
Methinks Google isn't saying, "Look, don't sue us, you should go after the users", but rather "Oh, you want to sue us? You'd better be prepared to include 77 other defendants with big pockets."
Are you kidding? I'm sure you could fill them with individual departments.
Oh, that's easy-- patent infringement lawsuit on both the Linux kernel dev team and Mozilla. Or if they want to hit absolutely everyone in the OSS/Free Software world, they'd file a patent infringement lawsuit against the FSF.
Of course, that would be like firing the sawdust cannon-- only instead of sawdust, you're firing thermite. Larry might be power-hungry enough to do it, I don't know (given the protracted cost of these lawsuits, it's usually not about the money, but about how much of the market you can deny the defendant).
Very true, but sometimes all it takes is an injunction against Dalvik or Harmony to really kill off even the alternatives in the marketplace (which Oracle would love more than anything). Should that happen, they'll exclusively become the purview of enthusiasts, which neither Google nor any Android handset maker wants.
It'll depend largely on the person teaching the course. Some, like the excellent CS professors at Berkeley and Stanford, care about the fundamentals and concentrate on those regardless of whether they're marketable skills. Chances are, the administration figured that since computer programming is a form of applied math (which it is, but the problem solving skill set is different in a number of ways) and convinced your teacher to do it because it's "easy"-- it's NOT.
Googling for code snippets and cutting/pasting are easy. Identifying the problem class and the appropriate strategy to solve it is hard, which is why architects get the big bucks.
To add to PastaLover, Oracle is already doing what you're saying is impossible-- they're suing Google over Android.
I'm not sure if anyone's saying this stuff would "absorb a large fraction of the energy". If anything, its absorption would probably be rather pitiful compared to even polycrystalline silicon cells.
My guess is that he admitted to all of them but got nailed for one because his targets wanted him crushed like an ant.
You're predicting that such a thread may exist on Slashdot, which indicates that you're probably new here...
There are flaws in SC2-- the matchmaking feature and the early game balance isn't one of them.
The places Blizz must address have to do with content creation and distribution, which they currently have locked down to the point where Blizzard has the ultimate control.
The correct interpretation, then, is that net neutrality is one of several casualties of November 2, 2010.