GMail? Any ajax-like page that they dont like? or worse, in general, web site they dont like?
A lot of privacy/security products (proxies/plugins/extensions/etc) had or could had problems in a moment or another with that kind of sites advanced functionality, but in this case how much will be bugs and how much intended "feature" for the ones that built it?
From other point of view, they are shielding a problem in a product of them, maybe really solving the problem without breaking functionality is a bit hard, so the easy option could be having an optional shield so the user can choose between having broken functionality or broken security (i.e. for internal lans or very trusted sites). But still, they will be the referees of the sites you go in without troubles (i.e. all microsoft owned sites), and the sites where if have some advanced functionality, you get a warning, or will not be able to access, or will have to search on how to enable it, or just drop all your protection.
Just love to read this. No matter how much he contributed with debian, open source movement, the much needed cdrtools, etc. He watches with simpaty for a moment an open license that is not GPL compatible (for his own reasons, maybe he still have the right of have his own toughts) and became a traitor, someone that must be kicked, expelled and blamed all over internet.
If his new license is not compatible with Debian goals, ideals, etc, and they cant agree in a common point, ok, substitute his package for another with a more Debian-like license in that particular distribution, but is not like he became the evil lord of darkness and must be despised by everyone. We all have too much to thank to him for all what he did already.
The article starts from the base that someone publishes to the world where and when will be some day. That it is in google calendar is just accidental. I dont see headlines saying "death by blog", "death by mailing list", "death by irc", "death by MySpace", "death by YouTube", "death by Flickr", and so on... whatever way you have to publish information about yourself, if you use it to publish in a way or another when and where, can be used to kill you.
Several of the latest google products have "collaboration" as one of their strong points (not only the spreadsheet, the er... "wordprocessor" too, and of course the calendar that is already considered), I wonder when they will add those services to the "for your domain" tools collection, or at least if they will have shortcuts to quickly add the domain you belong (if managed there) to the people enabled to view/edit/whatever your work.
In the game you have accounts. Each account can create as much as 3 characters in an ocean, and the game have 6 oceans (3 related to subscribed users, 3 to the ones that uses micropayment/doubloons, but you can have characters in all oceans). You must be subscribed to create a char in the testing ocean, so the amount of people/characteres there is far lower than in the other/production oceans, so for each account/real person behind, you can have 15 characters in the game.
But also, you can create (and discard later or not) any amount of accounts, sometimes enables you to get some economic (in game) advantage, sometimes gives you more possibilities, sometimes it could be used as a way of cheating, and all of this is valid specially in the oceans that use micropayments,
2 millon characters is a big number. But is pretty far from the number of real people that actually plays the game (my estimation is below 50k, maybe less than 20k even)
Is not like microsoft never did that kind of things. I think that was 3.1 the Windows version that had an specific check to avoid being run under DrDOS.
Mostly the same argument could be used against firefox and pro internet explorer/flash/whatever propietary/windows only technology that have a toe over the web, just that instead "open standard" they could have used "de facto standard" as word.
Of course, we know that the difference between open and de facto is that anyone can implement an open standard (even in propietary products) while that dont happens usually in some de facto "standards" (and worse, or you cant implement them in free/open products or you depend on a company for releasing that product for your OS)... ActiveX, some pdf extensions, flash, to name a few on different fields.
For me the "real" strategy goes a bit more in this line: Google specializes in searching, and is pretty much the top there (at least combining criterias). But the problem is that not all info is in internet, nor not all info in internet have meaning. If people move the info to internet (because there they have it more integrated, shareable at the point they choose, maybe more consolidated, etc) and give more meanings to it, the better will be, both for google and for the user.
Think in the conceptual change that was mixing chat with mail, searching in both as it were just one, and extend that concept to all your info, and add to the mix the rest of internet info.
Lots of the new services of google seems to go around this idea, both acquiring more data, and giving more meaning to the data. And personal data is, for the owner, data that could worth to be searched as all the other.
Ads, and more important, targetted ads, are a good way of profit of those companies. But that implies a privacy loss? The targetted ads on google mail were discussed in the past, same for google search, and there is no personal info going from google to the advertiser, just mix and matches inside google with the information to give relevant ads to the search/mail is being read. Is something that improves the ad value/visibility without harming privacy.
IF MySpace, Digg, Flickr or whatever "web 2.0" company gives costumer info to the advertisers is up to them, much like it was with Web 1.0, Web 0.95 and Web 0.001. I dont think that must be a correlation between Web 2.0, targetted ads and massive loss of privacy.
... and very generic field. And, what you call a "scientist"?
Spiderman or Hulk are examples of scientists that were not even hinted here. Withouth even leaving the comics area, Batman could qualify as scientist too (bah, in last movie he delegated his scientist abilities to people that looked more like ones).
Science fiction and terror movies (good, old, bad or new) have also very good chances of having someone that enters in that category, so there are plenty of chars to choose on in that kind of fields.
If is to pick an actor think Jeff Goldblum could be it. He did good roles in some of scientific roles in The Fly, Jurassic Park or even Independence Day. But those are a few examples in the top of my head, i bet someone will put here better candidates.
Was about to comment on the same lines... too much effort to put a bright, shiny and new label to a problem instead of worrying on solving/curing/fixing it,
Of course, you can say, oh, but a trojan is a different beast than a worm, so must be treated different by future development. Or better yet, this is a future-cool-name-that-implies-user-interaction that is really different from a future-cooler-name-that-implies-exploiting-net-ser vices-vulnerabilities. But i bet that will make things more confusing than the actual practice of putting a known label and a description of what it does or how it spread, there are a lot of virus/worms/etc that use several ways for spreading already, so thinking that this special name will solve something looks wrong.
The future is not what is used to be. All the "the next 50 years" of 50 years ago predictions (on almost everything) were something wrong, something right, but if you read that you dont feel like being there (oh, we have some sort flying cars in a way or another, or civilians in space, to put 2 examples, but is not like for everyone, or everyday).
Wonder how many of those will become obsolete in 10 years only, not because the problem stopped to exist, just because terms of the problem changed giving little meaning for that to normal people. Today computing security is a tangible problem, even normal users have to worry about virus, trojans, worms, spyware, not having trivial keys, etc, but how much of that problems could remain for users in 20-50 years from here, or how they will be perceived?
We can be here discussing war strategy with sticks and stones while in 50 years (to be a bit exaggerated:) they use rayguns, but some of the things discussed now could remain valid then, some could work if some fallback must be done to something similar to stick and stones, and other things could had no meaning anymore.
My candidate of 5.0 (maybe i would not call the step 4.1, but maybe 5.0 beta or preview) is the consolidation of those somewhat separate services. There is some already (i.e. talk in mail or maps in calendar) but still there is a needed bit more of integration to reach something that could be called the final 5.0 version.
Integration is the key, and gmail calendar just saw the light. As with gtalk, maybe in few time we could see it integrated in ways we didnt expect into gmail or google services in general.
Is not what actually have what matters me more, is the potential future, so doing raw comparisions right now could be unfair. With future integration in mind, i think that either yahoo or gmail will be the best for their respective mail users.
Like in that movie, I can visualize badly cloned, mutant penguins in that lab, suffering and asking for death. Someone must stop Microsoft to do those evil experiments.
Integration with other (actual and future) google services
... is a BIG factor. You already have there web search, gtalk, maps, rss, etc, and probably could have much more (i.e. is a calendar on closed beta already). And is just not there as side decoration, i.e. you can manage your past chat conversations as mail messages. Pine could be a great mail client, but gmail can be for you far more than just that.
Maybe we can use the bird flu approach. Kill, burn and bury all windows machines suceptibles to this vulnerability. The world will be a safer place after that.
Some people dont worry about low priviledges remote vulnerabilities, even if there could potentially be local vulnerabilities that could scale your priviledges. Also, what could do your current user (supposing there are no local vulnerabilities) could be enough damages to be worried (from deleting or corrupting all your documents to sending spam or spreading virus, all are easy and frequent options that dont requires high priviledges).
In linux, assuming no local vulnerabilities you are mostly in the same situation, but never heard of a forced program with so much vulnerabilies in all during all his story that widely used in that platform (not even sendmail).
Not only actual content, but also how it is displayed. A fancy full flash dinamic website could be far less harder to find than a plain ugly mostly text website.
Also, AdSense revenues are not about how flashy looks a site, or even how good is the content, but how attractive is the text or easy to get is the ad of the site, not the site itself.
One word: integration. A good standalone calendar is ok. But if you can get the map where you have an appointment, the exact text of the email that triggered it, a fast search to find anything remotely related to the topic, instant chatting with the people in the meeting if you need to ask something, etc as pale examples of what all combined could be used, you have far more.
Of course, google based means that you must access internet to access all of this. A portable pda could be superior if you are on the run and without that access. But now even cellphones have access to gmail and related sites, so in many places access to that information can be done in several ways, and for all will be the same.
I would love to see Daryl Hannah doing a similar role than in Kill Bill, but impersonating again the 50ft woman, this time vs King Kong. 3 Sequels in one, that should be great (or at least, gigantic).
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of privacy/security products (proxies/plugins/extensions/etc) had or could had problems in a moment or another with that kind of sites advanced functionality, but in this case how much will be bugs and how much intended "feature" for the ones that built it?
From other point of view, they are shielding a problem in a product of them, maybe really solving the problem without breaking functionality is a bit hard, so the easy option could be having an optional shield so the user can choose between having broken functionality or broken security (i.e. for internal lans or very trusted sites). But still, they will be the referees of the sites you go in without troubles (i.e. all microsoft owned sites), and the sites where if have some advanced functionality, you get a warning, or will not be able to access, or will have to search on how to enable it, or just drop all your protection.
If his new license is not compatible with Debian goals, ideals, etc, and they cant agree in a common point, ok, substitute his package for another with a more Debian-like license in that particular distribution, but is not like he became the evil lord of darkness and must be despised by everyone. We all have too much to thank to him for all what he did already.
The article starts from the base that someone publishes to the world where and when will be some day. That it is in google calendar is just accidental. I dont see headlines saying "death by blog", "death by mailing list", "death by irc", "death by MySpace", "death by YouTube", "death by Flickr", and so on... whatever way you have to publish information about yourself, if you use it to publish in a way or another when and where, can be used to kill you.
"In cyberspace, anyone can hear you scream"
Several of the latest google products have "collaboration" as one of their strong points (not only the spreadsheet, the er... "wordprocessor" too, and of course the calendar that is already considered), I wonder when they will add those services to the "for your domain" tools collection, or at least if they will have shortcuts to quickly add the domain you belong (if managed there) to the people enabled to view/edit/whatever your work.
Resistance is futile, your browser will be assimilated
But also, you can create (and discard later or not) any amount of accounts, sometimes enables you to get some economic (in game) advantage, sometimes gives you more possibilities, sometimes it could be used as a way of cheating, and all of this is valid specially in the oceans that use micropayments,
2 millon characters is a big number. But is pretty far from the number of real people that actually plays the game (my estimation is below 50k, maybe less than 20k even)
Is not like microsoft never did that kind of things. I think that was 3.1 the Windows version that had an specific check to avoid being run under DrDOS.
Of course, we know that the difference between open and de facto is that anyone can implement an open standard (even in propietary products) while that dont happens usually in some de facto "standards" (and worse, or you cant implement them in free/open products or you depend on a company for releasing that product for your OS)... ActiveX, some pdf extensions, flash, to name a few on different fields.
Think in the conceptual change that was mixing chat with mail, searching in both as it were just one, and extend that concept to all your info, and add to the mix the rest of internet info.
Lots of the new services of google seems to go around this idea, both acquiring more data, and giving more meaning to the data. And personal data is, for the owner, data that could worth to be searched as all the other.
In space, no one can hear balloons exploding (and you screaming inside)
IF MySpace, Digg, Flickr or whatever "web 2.0" company gives costumer info to the advertisers is up to them, much like it was with Web 1.0, Web 0.95 and Web 0.001. I dont think that must be a correlation between Web 2.0, targetted ads and massive loss of privacy.
Sam Neil played scientist too in Event Horizon, even if was in a bit more evil role.
Spiderman or Hulk are examples of scientists that were not even hinted here. Withouth even leaving the comics area, Batman could qualify as scientist too (bah, in last movie he delegated his scientist abilities to people that looked more like ones).
Science fiction and terror movies (good, old, bad or new) have also very good chances of having someone that enters in that category, so there are plenty of chars to choose on in that kind of fields.
If is to pick an actor think Jeff Goldblum could be it. He did good roles in some of scientific roles in The Fly, Jurassic Park or even Independence Day. But those are a few examples in the top of my head, i bet someone will put here better candidates.
Of course, you can say, oh, but a trojan is a different beast than a worm, so must be treated different by future development. Or better yet, this is a future-cool-name-that-implies-user-interaction that is really different from a future-cooler-name-that-implies-exploiting-net-ser vices-vulnerabilities. But i bet that will make things more confusing than the actual practice of putting a known label and a description of what it does or how it spread, there are a lot of virus/worms/etc that use several ways for spreading already, so thinking that this special name will solve something looks wrong.
Wonder how many of those will become obsolete in 10 years only, not because the problem stopped to exist, just because terms of the problem changed giving little meaning for that to normal people. Today computing security is a tangible problem, even normal users have to worry about virus, trojans, worms, spyware, not having trivial keys, etc, but how much of that problems could remain for users in 20-50 years from here, or how they will be perceived?
We can be here discussing war strategy with sticks and stones while in 50 years (to be a bit exaggerated :) they use rayguns, but some of the things discussed now could remain valid then, some could work if some fallback must be done to something similar to stick and stones, and other things could had no meaning anymore.
My candidate of 5.0 (maybe i would not call the step 4.1, but maybe 5.0 beta or preview) is the consolidation of those somewhat separate services. There is some already (i.e. talk in mail or maps in calendar) but still there is a needed bit more of integration to reach something that could be called the final 5.0 version.
Is not what actually have what matters me more, is the potential future, so doing raw comparisions right now could be unfair. With future integration in mind, i think that either yahoo or gmail will be the best for their respective mail users.
Like in that movie, I can visualize badly cloned, mutant penguins in that lab, suffering and asking for death. Someone must stop Microsoft to do those evil experiments.
... is a BIG factor. You already have there web search, gtalk, maps, rss, etc, and probably could have much more (i.e. is a calendar on closed beta already). And is just not there as side decoration, i.e. you can manage your past chat conversations as mail messages. Pine could be a great mail client, but gmail can be for you far more than just that.
Maybe we can use the bird flu approach. Kill, burn and bury all windows machines suceptibles to this vulnerability. The world will be a safer place after that.
In linux, assuming no local vulnerabilities you are mostly in the same situation, but never heard of a forced program with so much vulnerabilies in all during all his story that widely used in that platform (not even sendmail).
Also, AdSense revenues are not about how flashy looks a site, or even how good is the content, but how attractive is the text or easy to get is the ad of the site, not the site itself.
One word: integration. A good standalone calendar is ok. But if you can get the map where you have an appointment, the exact text of the email that triggered it, a fast search to find anything remotely related to the topic, instant chatting with the people in the meeting if you need to ask something, etc as pale examples of what all combined could be used, you have far more. Of course, google based means that you must access internet to access all of this. A portable pda could be superior if you are on the run and without that access. But now even cellphones have access to gmail and related sites, so in many places access to that information can be done in several ways, and for all will be the same.
I would love to see Daryl Hannah doing a similar role than in Kill Bill, but impersonating again the 50ft woman, this time vs King Kong. 3 Sequels in one, that should be great (or at least, gigantic).