It is nuts, but not new. And since you mentioned PB, which is an example of exactly the same; metadata but no content. Unfortunately, that did not shield them from attack, eventually conviction, and lately censorship.
Judges, politicians, and governments everywhere are starting to catch up on the technology. Unsurprisingly, they twist it in their favour, and use it to survival, censor, and control.
It is time to build a new network: Decentralized, anonymous, encrypted, and free.
Can they pay more? Probably not. But for Guido it must feel better to work with people who actually appreciates his contribution. AFAIK, with a few exceptions, Google was never big on Python.
But if I did that, you might not catch those diseases, thus be able to work harder than me, and possibly perform better than me. I wouldn't want that to happen. Therefore, when I'm sick, I make sure I drag myself in, and sneeze on everybody.
PS.
I also drink a lot, both on and off work, but that's another story.
Please, can we get over the "OMG! Encryption is difficult, it is not meant for mere mortals". That mantra is completely counter productive.
Any security solution has to be aligned to the enemy you are facing. In this case, we are up against dragnet surveillance. We are not defending against James Bond style keyloggers, nor other directed attacks, or even automated malware. The fact is that even the most basic encryption settings would have been enough to render the current dragnets cost ineffective, perhaps with the exception of China's systems. Yet, we are still sending all e-mails on open postcards, because security "experts" want to defend against James Bond and other completely unlikely attacks.
Regarding the MIM DPI routers, they are not widely deployed, again perhaps with the exception of China. How do I know? Well, because if they were, your hand-shake would trip over constantly, as you moved your laptop from network to network. There are currently no widespread claims that that is the case.
The current danger is that western "democracies" are still deploying their surveillance in a fly-by-night manner. This can easily be countered through basic levels of encryption. Once they are forced out in the open, and everybody are aware what is happening, like China's great firewall, then we can start upgrading our countermeasures. However, first we have to get the basics installed and in widespread use. Putting people off through FUD is not helpful.
Even RMS admits that (final paragraph) the Android project is a huge step in the right direction. However, the binary blobs are still a big problem. You have no control over what's going on there, cannot use the device to its full potential without them, and have no guarantee that the code is not used against you (if you are of the paranoid kind; which many of us on Slashdot are, after all..;-)
In the same paragraph, he recommends the Android derivative Replicant, which just last week announced a new version matching Android 4.0. Depending on your use-case and point of view, you might or might not miss the Google specific applications, which are not under any free or open source license. That includes the GMail reader, the native Google Maps app, the Youtube app, and a few others.
> Look at the free-software GNU/Linux desktops. Still for the most part free. Now look at android with its open-source userland, locked down almost as bad as the iphones. The difference couldn't be starker.
This is a good example, and I had a similar experience at the recent LinuxCon Europe in Barcelona. Of all the talk from companies benefiting from GNU/Linux, none, NONE AT ALL, mentioned the freedom aspect. It was all about the colabrative model through open source, and how businesses could use and benefit.
The word free was merely used as a joke: "Free as in beer is waiting in the lobby". I didn't percive it as hostile, but rather somewhat ignorant; at a Linux conferance one would expect people to know better.
Spot on! A multi-user platform is a solved problem. However, some people always have to over-engineer.
A different question is if I as an employee would trust my company to control the device I have for personal use, or even blur the line between work and play. My current answer to that is: No! Thus, I have two mobile phones, two phone numbers, two e-mail inboxes. Work and play are two different spheres, and it stays that way.
I don't know what crapware the telephone companies install these days, but last I checked, the Nexus phones also had their share of unwanted software, which was impossible to remove. For third-party that included an app for Amazon MP3 Store, Facebook, a newsreader. And if you don't want to be a Google serf with a logged in account, all these apps are also simply resource hogs: GMail, Calendar, GTalk, Maps, YouTube. The last two would actually be interesting to use, and it is a shame you can't without a logged-in account. But to say that Nexus phones have no unwanted non-removable apps is demonstrably wrong.
Of course, personally I have installed the OS image I prefer, just like I've done with any other device I've ever owned where that is possible. I don't see why today's pocket PCs, aka. phones, should be any different.
> Islam is like it is stuck 1000 years in the past.
Or rather, they are 600 years behind. Wikipedia mentions the first Muslim traditions dating from around 630 AD.
As you said yourself, only some 50 years ago, Christianity in the US had a bit of an ugly face to it. Give Muslims a couple of hundred years, and they'll sort it out as well.
If they are going to put on a tax like that, then it has to be because copying and downloading for personal use is allowed. However, as far as I'm aware, Holland has been on the forefront in blocking PirateBay, and prosecuting downloaders (with a couple of U-turns, if I'm not mistaken).
It is of course not surprising that the music industry want to have their cake and eat it, however, that seems to be the logic argument the those tech companies should go for; choose only one: Media tax or no fair use.
We had the exact same discussion a week ago, so I'll repost what I quoted from RMS. As usual, he cuts right to the point, and clarifies where others gets confused:
"Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think "Linux" refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as "Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux". If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different."
It's taken from his September 2011 essay "Android and Users' Freedom", written while the Android 3.x source was still withheld by Google.
A special style indeed. However, here at Slashdot, we should be careful with pointing fingers. It was only a few days ago an article on the front-page proclaimed that the Nexus 4 had been "rooted". At least the ones with RAM timings in their signature have a clue.
Well, there was that antitrust case which went exactly nowhere. However, 12 years later we got a the browser ballot. So, around 2024 we can expect a similar ballot for the content delivery system / market place / FOSS repository for Windows.
Add to that the UK questionnaire about adult content filtering, and by 2050 I expect the post unboxing experience of a new PC (or the equivalent of that time) to be a two hour session with all kinds choices, cross examination, iris scanning and automatic lie detection, authentication, identification, cross government DB lookups, and to keep it all in place, a completely looked down system. Pretty much what Richard Stallman warned us of in 'The Right to Read' fifteen years ago.
Debian has had package management for 19 years, and I believe the repositories were not far behind. The whole process of 1) browse to some site, 2) search for the download link, 3) wait to download, 4) execute locally, 5) click through some "install wizard", and 6) watch a useless progress bar seems very old school. Add to that a 2b) part: pay $25 for a random utility which the rest of the world uses for free as in gratis and as in freedom.
This tedious process is in part why there are software "markets" everywhere you look know. They cover all the steps above. However, when all software on the market is free software, you don't need a transactional based market, you just select a package, and let the package and repository manager do the rest. Which also includes the resolving of dependencies; none of the commercial markets have got that covered, AFAIK.
Why anybody would stick to the old-school ineffective way, boggles the mind.
Furthermore, non of those three laws mention or create a legal basis for the fluffy term "Intellectual Property". It is a misnomer, tacked on in later years, to attempt to frame the debate in a direction we would be better off without.
Again, by RMS: (this seems to be my refrain this week)
"It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. "
Some people get very confused about the kernel vs. user space applications. RMS said it best:
“Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it isn’t Linux”. If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different.“
Why is that? Because he's a stubborn old man who stays on message, not drinking the kool aid of anyone? Or do you say that just because "everybody else thinks so", or you don't want to be associated with "them freetards".
If you're going to quote or credit the guy, acknowledging that his predictions and warnings have been spot on for decades, at least have the decency to avoid name-calling and scorn.
Slashdot Mirror
It is nuts, but not new. And since you mentioned PB, which is an example of exactly the same; metadata but no content. Unfortunately, that did not shield them from attack, eventually conviction, and lately censorship.
Judges, politicians, and governments everywhere are starting to catch up on the technology. Unsurprisingly, they twist it in their favour, and use it to survival, censor, and control.
It is time to build a new network: Decentralized, anonymous, encrypted, and free.
Indeed, Slashdot has become a rat's nest for astroturfers and shills. Mod parent up!
Can they pay more? Probably not. But for Guido it must feel better to work with people who actually appreciates his contribution. AFAIK, with a few exceptions, Google was never big on Python.
But if I did that, you might not catch those diseases, thus be able to work harder than me, and possibly perform better than me. I wouldn't want that to happen. Therefore, when I'm sick, I make sure I drag myself in, and sneeze on everybody.
PS.
I also drink a lot, both on and off work, but that's another story.
Well said!
Interesting. Any links would be useful. And yes, this definitely falls within the level of escalation I mentioned in the previous post.
Skynet? Am I the only one around here who watched Airwolf? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwolf
Please, can we get over the "OMG! Encryption is difficult, it is not meant for mere mortals". That mantra is completely counter productive.
Any security solution has to be aligned to the enemy you are facing. In this case, we are up against dragnet surveillance. We are not defending against James Bond style keyloggers, nor other directed attacks, or even automated malware. The fact is that even the most basic encryption settings would have been enough to render the current dragnets cost ineffective, perhaps with the exception of China's systems. Yet, we are still sending all e-mails on open postcards, because security "experts" want to defend against James Bond and other completely unlikely attacks.
Regarding the MIM DPI routers, they are not widely deployed, again perhaps with the exception of China. How do I know? Well, because if they were, your hand-shake would trip over constantly, as you moved your laptop from network to network. There are currently no widespread claims that that is the case.
The current danger is that western "democracies" are still deploying their surveillance in a fly-by-night manner. This can easily be countered through basic levels of encryption. Once they are forced out in the open, and everybody are aware what is happening, like China's great firewall, then we can start upgrading our countermeasures. However, first we have to get the basics installed and in widespread use. Putting people off through FUD is not helpful.
Don't know about good ones, but there's many bad:
http://www.arcfn.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html
"Nothing for you to see here, please move along, folks"
Why would you remote admin anything at all through a GUI? Can't you just use the shell you already have through SSH?
Even RMS admits that (final paragraph) the Android project is a huge step in the right direction. However, the binary blobs are still a big problem. You have no control over what's going on there, cannot use the device to its full potential without them, and have no guarantee that the code is not used against you (if you are of the paranoid kind; which many of us on Slashdot are, after all.. ;-)
In the same paragraph, he recommends the Android derivative Replicant, which just last week announced a new version matching Android 4.0. Depending on your use-case and point of view, you might or might not miss the Google specific applications, which are not under any free or open source license. That includes the GMail reader, the native Google Maps app, the Youtube app, and a few others.
> Look at the free-software GNU/Linux desktops. Still for the most part free. Now look at android with its open-source userland, locked down almost as bad as the iphones. The difference couldn't be starker.
This is a good example, and I had a similar experience at the recent LinuxCon Europe in Barcelona. Of all the talk from companies benefiting from GNU/Linux, none, NONE AT ALL, mentioned the freedom aspect. It was all about the colabrative model through open source, and how businesses could use and benefit.
The word free was merely used as a joke: "Free as in beer is waiting in the lobby". I didn't percive it as hostile, but rather somewhat ignorant; at a Linux conferance one would expect people to know better.
Spot on! A multi-user platform is a solved problem. However, some people always have to over-engineer.
A different question is if I as an employee would trust my company to control the device I have for personal use, or even blur the line between work and play. My current answer to that is: No! Thus, I have two mobile phones, two phone numbers, two e-mail inboxes. Work and play are two different spheres, and it stays that way.
I don't know what crapware the telephone companies install these days, but last I checked, the Nexus phones also had their share of unwanted software, which was impossible to remove. For third-party that included an app for Amazon MP3 Store, Facebook, a newsreader. And if you don't want to be a Google serf with a logged in account, all these apps are also simply resource hogs: GMail, Calendar, GTalk, Maps, YouTube. The last two would actually be interesting to use, and it is a shame you can't without a logged-in account. But to say that Nexus phones have no unwanted non-removable apps is demonstrably wrong.
Of course, personally I have installed the OS image I prefer, just like I've done with any other device I've ever owned where that is possible. I don't see why today's pocket PCs, aka. phones, should be any different.
> Islam is like it is stuck 1000 years in the past.
Or rather, they are 600 years behind. Wikipedia mentions the first Muslim traditions dating from around 630 AD.
As you said yourself, only some 50 years ago, Christianity in the US had a bit of an ugly face to it. Give Muslims a couple of hundred years, and they'll sort it out as well.
If they are going to put on a tax like that, then it has to be because copying and downloading for personal use is allowed. However, as far as I'm aware, Holland has been on the forefront in blocking PirateBay, and prosecuting downloaders (with a couple of U-turns, if I'm not mistaken).
It is of course not surprising that the music industry want to have their cake and eat it, however, that seems to be the logic argument the those tech companies should go for; choose only one: Media tax or no fair use.
We had the exact same discussion a week ago, so I'll repost what I quoted from RMS. As usual, he cuts right to the point, and clarifies where others gets confused:
"Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think "Linux" refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as "Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux". If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different."
It's taken from his September 2011 essay "Android and Users' Freedom", written while the Android 3.x source was still withheld by Google.
A special style indeed. However, here at Slashdot, we should be careful with pointing fingers. It was only a few days ago an article on the front-page proclaimed that the Nexus 4 had been "rooted". At least the ones with RAM timings in their signature have a clue.
Well, there was that antitrust case which went exactly nowhere. However, 12 years later we got a the browser ballot. So, around 2024 we can expect a similar ballot for the content delivery system / market place / FOSS repository for Windows.
Add to that the UK questionnaire about adult content filtering, and by 2050 I expect the post unboxing experience of a new PC (or the equivalent of that time) to be a two hour session with all kinds choices, cross examination, iris scanning and automatic lie detection, authentication, identification, cross government DB lookups, and to keep it all in place, a completely looked down system. Pretty much what Richard Stallman warned us of in 'The Right to Read' fifteen years ago.
Debian has had package management for 19 years, and I believe the repositories were not far behind. The whole process of 1) browse to some site, 2) search for the download link, 3) wait to download, 4) execute locally, 5) click through some "install wizard", and 6) watch a useless progress bar seems very old school. Add to that a 2b) part: pay $25 for a random utility which the rest of the world uses for free as in gratis and as in freedom.
This tedious process is in part why there are software "markets" everywhere you look know. They cover all the steps above. However, when all software on the market is free software, you don't need a transactional based market, you just select a package, and let the package and repository manager do the rest. Which also includes the resolving of dependencies; none of the commercial markets have got that covered, AFAIK.
Why anybody would stick to the old-school ineffective way, boggles the mind.
Furthermore, non of those three laws mention or create a legal basis for the fluffy term "Intellectual Property". It is a misnomer, tacked on in later years, to attempt to frame the debate in a direction we would be better off without.
Again, by RMS: (this seems to be my refrain this week)
"It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. "
The complete essay:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
Some people get very confused about the kernel vs. user space applications. RMS said it best:
“Android is very different from the GNU/Linux operating system because it contains very little of GNU. Indeed, just about the only component in common between Android and GNU/Linux is Linux, the kernel. People who erroneously think “Linux” refers to the entire GNU/Linux combination get tied in knots by these facts, and make paradoxical statements such as “Android contains Linux, but it isn’t Linux”. If we avoid starting from the confusion, the situation is simple: Android contains Linux, but not GNU; thus, Android and GNU/Linux are mostly different.“
> two of Law Enforcement's twelve asks
Also known as questions in plain English. Or in this instance, possibly requirements.
> stallman is crazy, in some ways
Why is that? Because he's a stubborn old man who stays on message, not drinking the kool aid of anyone? Or do you say that just because "everybody else thinks so", or you don't want to be associated with "them freetards".
If you're going to quote or credit the guy, acknowledging that his predictions and warnings have been spot on for decades, at least have the decency to avoid name-calling and scorn.