Fair point, but the argument could also be made that the hacking article was a self-defense article. Maybe they gussied it up a bit to give it an edgy appeal, talking about how they'd teach you how to be a "hacker", but I'm sure the original motivation of the article was to teach about potential insecurities in your server. Then again, perhaps they share some of the blame for muddying up the point of the article by talking about teaching you how to crack server passwords.
The bigger question is--people still buy print magazines, and Linux magazines at that?
Pulling the issue is stupid, but the article does start with "Hacking is the art of gaining access to a computer system that you’re not supposed to access" and "Attack servers, crack passwords, exploit services, beat encryption - everything you need to protect yourself from evil", so to claim that they used the term in any other sense than what most people assume the term means is a bit misleading.
Can I use a sensitive scientific microphone aimed at the front window of your house and record everything going on inside?
Not my fault you publicly broadcasted those sound waves.
At some point, there is an expectation of privacy. Wi-fi technology is confusing to people, and they don't understand how to protect them, which is unfortunate, but it's not an excuse for someone else to do whatever they want with their emails, passwords, and other private information. Honestly, if this was any other company, there would be more outrage in the comments.
I guess if you're okay with the idea of Google secretly gathering people's emails and passwords for three years "accidentally", then this article isn't going to do much to persuade you.
If this was Microsoft or Apple, nobody would be buying that explanation.
Even if you were right, Google isn't any less exempt from blame, because it would mean there is so little oversight over handling of user data that one engineer can put into place a program that indexes emails and passwords under everyone's nose for three years. If an individual had done this, authorities would have punished them.
I don't understand how you can claim that FCC report is being mischaracterized. It cites the original proposal written by the engineer, and it reveals that other engineers had knowledge of the project. One of the managers claimed he signed off on the design document without even reading it, which is scary on its own.
There was never any intent do use this data, it was merely one engineer's pipe dream to do so.
The program's proposal explicitly states that the intent was to collect payload data to "be analyzed offline for use in other initiatives." Then the program ran for three years. I think you should take your own advice and read the FCC report.
If the source film is at 48 fps, yet most theaters will be showing it at 24 fps, there's already going to be selective post-processing and motion blurring going on to make high-motion scenes look correct. Dynamic fps isn't that far off.
Facebook doesn't want Bing. They don't want people to search the web and click away from Facebook. They want to replace the web and keep people on Facebook. This is why Google views them as such a danger.
I would sell it just to never see that stupid logo. It drives me nuts how its stretched so that the horizontal lines are thinner than the vertical lines. Seriously, if you're trying to create a brand name, you would pick a better name and make a better logo that doesn't look like some high school kid's pirated Illustrator output.
What a fluff piece from the Verge. It doesn't compare the exact wording of the policies. Instead, it justifies Google's policy by saying abuse is "unlikely" (which isn't the point) and explains that rival services need certain delivery permissions to run the service, but it doesn't cite any examples from the policies of those rivals that are equivalent to the content license that Google Drive grants.
The article also claims that "public" refers to the user and their actions regarding their own data. But that is NOT what Google Drive's policy states--it explicitly states that the content is licensed to Google as well as anyone Google works with.
Google's motivation, in all that it does, is to index your data an sell you to advertisers. Advertisers are the customers, and you are the product. Android, Gmail, the search engine, Google Drive, Google+, and so on--they all exist solely to index people's data and serve them ads. 96% of Google's revenue comes from advertising. It is their core business.
In fact, that's not actually bad in and of itself, up to the point where it crosses into creepy territory, like in this case. Just by uploading your personal files, you are licensing them to Google to do whatever they want with them. And not just Google--note the parenthetical "(and those we work with)". So you don't even know who is going to be using your personal data. I mean, these policies actually give Google and other strangers the right to publicly display and distribute your files. One wonders if that absolves them from any consequences from security intrusions too, since a hacker getting hold of your files that would count as publicly distributing them, even if accidentally.
I've never bought into the image of benevolence Google always presents to the public, and that's cost me Slashdot karma over the years, but I don't care. It will be very interesting to see who defends this. It would be difficult not to see them as sellouts of themselves, all too happy to trash their own privacy rights, eager to please the advertising megacorp and defend them from attack. Wake up!
You claim the summary and article are misleading, but the article didn't make a claim about the absolute number of projects using the GPL. It made a claim about the usage of the GPL, which is what is in decline compared to other licenses:
The GPL family now accounts for about 57% of all open source software, compared to 61% in June.... [I]f the current rate of decline continues, we project that the GPL family of licenses will account for only 50% of all open source software by September 2012.
The information is hardly "worthless". It's indicative of a trend toward community-led projects with more permissive licenses.
The headline I submitted with was "GPL Usage Declining Faster Than Ever", based on the title of the linked article. The editor, Timothy, loves to rewrite headlines, and he changed this one too.
While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.
"We don't actually know what the link is--but we're convinced one is there anyway."
Moderation exists so that comments are properly tagged and scored based on their characteristics.
That is not at all what moderation is used for. It's used to drown out arguments that people don't like, regardless of their merit.
You'll notice my karma is currently terrible. I had excellent karma, and then I made the mistake of defending Reddit's decision to ban child porn, which drew out the "children are sexual beings too" creeps. I regularly have comments in stories that aren't even on the front page get modded down.
I've criticized Google in the past. Because I bought subscription pages, I see articles before they're public. This means I often get the first post. Seeing Google criticism in the first post drives fanboys crazy, and now I have people who follow all my posts accusing me of being a shill running about 20 puppet accounts. The site's community totally sucks now and has gone off the deep end.
The down mod that gets abused the most by far is overrated.
The one that's most damaging, however, is Funny. Getting voted up with Funny doesn't add to your karma, but subsequently getting downvoted does. Slashdot's -1 to +5 scale completely sucks, especially because it gives each moderator's vote so much power. You can have a +2 post, and it only takes three assholes to put you into -1 territory where most people won't see you, even if 100 non-moderators agree with you.
This place already cratered out years ago. I remember when Slashdot regularly got 200-500 comments per story. Not sure where some people are getting the idea that Slashdot is still relevant today. It's become so irrelevant that when tech sites reported that Rob Malda left, most of the reaction outside of Slashdot was "Slashdot is still around?"
Your search for a replacement? Have you missed the internet for the last five years? Sites like Digg (though it sucks now), Hacker News, Reddit, TechCrunch, and so on replaced Slashdot YEARS ago. I don't get how you couldn't already be aware of them. That's where tech news is now.
Slashdot has only lasted this long because it caters to a niche of hardcore Linux/Google enthusiasts who apparently don't read the other sites and don't even realize the majority of stories on the front page appeared on other sites as much as a week prior. If you read Hacker News regularly, you'll see most of Slashdot's front page for the rest of the week.
The worst part is when a story gets posted that not only appeared elsewhere days before but was already debunked--and when you submit the debunk story, Slashdot's editors reject it.
Slashdot has long considered its readers to be complete tools. They intentionally post easy stories that cater to the demographic of pro-Linux, pro-piracy, anti-DRM, etc. If you just scroll through the headlines, there's an obvious bias and a filtering out of stories that contradict the conventional wisdom that the Slashdot readership wants to assume for ideological reasons.
The site's been going downhill for years, but the final red flag for everyone should have been when Rob Malda left. I mean, we're in the post-Digg era of everyone-votes social sites, and Slashdot is still using a slow, archaic editor system with a limited comment moderator pool. Stories get posted that are days old, sometimes a week, that were already discussed, responded to, debunked, etc. on other sites.
Hell, you can't even offer a differing opinion around here without getting crushed by moderation. Don't like something Google did? Don't you dare mention it or prepare to get stalked by anonymous accusers calling you a "shill" in every discussion. In my case, I had excellent karma until I dared defend Reddit's decision to ban child porn from its site--I got modbombed like hell.
The site sucks, the readership sucks...Slashdot is just an amusing relic I visit to kill time these days. It's amazing to remember when it was actually considered to be at the forefront of social media and news. People like John Carmack used to post here (before the site descending into a pro-piracy mouthpiece that drove him away).
Will probably get modded down again for this, or maybe not. Who cares? The site is completely done now. Full-on slashvertisements on the front page--fucking hilarious.
BREAKING--Trolls Left Homeless After Website Ruled Illegal
Tech site Slashdot was ruled illegal today, leaving hundreds of trolls without a home. Slashdot, founded in the late 90s by master troll Rob Malda, has provided shelter for countless trolls over the years.
"It leaves me feeling naked. And petrified," said Slashdot user PortmanHotGrits. "Slashdot was once a thriving troll community due to its rigid ideology, biased editors, and broken moderation system."
"Where am I going to hate Apple now?" asked one anonymous user. "I hate Reddit, and my real life friends bought Macs years ago. Slashdot was the last place my puppet accounts could go to vent their frustration at iSheep Crapple fans. Android4Lyfe! Hang on, my custom ROM just crashed."
Reaction in other internet communities was mixed.
"Slashdot is still around?" asked several Twitter users. Said one IT administrator: "Whoa, Slashdot? I used to post there when I ran Linux on my desktop back in 2001. I used to write 'Micro$oft' non-ironically. I was an embarrassing idiot. Farewell, Slashdot."
Rob Malda, who ran screaming from Slashdot earlier in the year with half his body engulfed in flames, could not be reached for comment.
The TSA sucks, but I can't say I disagree with their response in this case. The device is described as a robot-like device with exposed wires, resembling a handmade explosive device. According to the statement in the article, the TSA determined that the device was not harmful, the airport reopened, and everything went back to normal. That seems like what is supposed to happen.
The Dallas City Hall statement in the article:
A commercial flight which originated in Kansas City arrived at Love Field this afternoon and unloaded passengers. The next flight crew boarded to prep the aircraft for the next flight when a robotic device was discovered on the plane and the crew notified authorities. Air Marshals along with Dallas Love Field officers detained 11 passengers related to the device. It was determined that the device was not dangerous and was a student’s science project. The student was traveling with fellow students and a professor. That student told authorities the robot was accidentally left on the plane. The airport was temporarily shut down until the device could be determined it was not a threat. Gate #12 has reopened and airport operations are returning to normal.
That doesn't change my opposition to the groping and scanning, of course. But this story seems just a little overblown. I think an airport would have reacted this way regardless of the existence of the TSA.
You're trolling, but there is truth to the point that many of the people at the protests didn't even know why they were there. Literally, when asked on camera, they couldn't give an answer. They just wanted to be part of an anti-authority movement. It ended up becoming another generic anti-capitalism movement, like what the Iraq War protests became after a few days. A certain element was defecating on police cars, committing sexual assault, and littering parks with tons of garbage.
It's so much easier to blend into a crowd and yell with them at the top of your lungs to make yourself feel better about a general anger you have toward society. It's so much harder to actually effect change by contacting politicians, convincing the public, studying the law, and generally having an impact on the legislative process so that something actually comes out of any of it.
It's one of the reasons I'm irritated by anyone with a bullhorn, even when they say things I would normally agree with. It comes off like a pushy way for them to vent. They're aware of the image of themselves as a protestor with a bullhorn, and they get hooked on that image. Then it's over, and they go back to the office job they were trying to get away from in the first place.
Actually change something--then I'll be impressed!
Doesn't it come off as a bit silly? The protests were hardly that historic or even effective. No change occurred in the world as a result of them. There are certain people in the world who are bored with their daily lives and need to feel like they are part of a revolutionary movement. I was amused when I saw the issue of Time magazine that intentionally printed photos of the protests in black-and-white to hearken to the Vietnam protests. In other words, the protest were typical of most of the so-called movements in the world today--cynical, self-aware, and more of an outlet to vent rather than a positive force for change.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point, but the argument could also be made that the hacking article was a self-defense article. Maybe they gussied it up a bit to give it an edgy appeal, talking about how they'd teach you how to be a "hacker", but I'm sure the original motivation of the article was to teach about potential insecurities in your server. Then again, perhaps they share some of the blame for muddying up the point of the article by talking about teaching you how to crack server passwords.
The bigger question is--people still buy print magazines, and Linux magazines at that?
Pulling the issue is stupid, but the article does start with "Hacking is the art of gaining access to a computer system that you’re not supposed to access" and "Attack servers, crack passwords, exploit services, beat encryption - everything you need to protect yourself from evil", so to claim that they used the term in any other sense than what most people assume the term means is a bit misleading.
Can I use a sensitive scientific microphone aimed at the front window of your house and record everything going on inside?
Not my fault you publicly broadcasted those sound waves.
At some point, there is an expectation of privacy. Wi-fi technology is confusing to people, and they don't understand how to protect them, which is unfortunate, but it's not an excuse for someone else to do whatever they want with their emails, passwords, and other private information. Honestly, if this was any other company, there would be more outrage in the comments.
It's an ethics issue.
I guess if you're okay with the idea of Google secretly gathering people's emails and passwords for three years "accidentally", then this article isn't going to do much to persuade you.
If this was Microsoft or Apple, nobody would be buying that explanation.
Even if you were right, Google isn't any less exempt from blame, because it would mean there is so little oversight over handling of user data that one engineer can put into place a program that indexes emails and passwords under everyone's nose for three years. If an individual had done this, authorities would have punished them.
I don't understand how you can claim that FCC report is being mischaracterized. It cites the original proposal written by the engineer, and it reveals that other engineers had knowledge of the project. One of the managers claimed he signed off on the design document without even reading it, which is scary on its own.
The program's proposal explicitly states that the intent was to collect payload data to "be analyzed offline for use in other initiatives." Then the program ran for three years. I think you should take your own advice and read the FCC report.
If the source film is at 48 fps, yet most theaters will be showing it at 24 fps, there's already going to be selective post-processing and motion blurring going on to make high-motion scenes look correct. Dynamic fps isn't that far off.
Facebook doesn't want Bing. They don't want people to search the web and click away from Facebook. They want to replace the web and keep people on Facebook. This is why Google views them as such a danger.
I would sell it just to never see that stupid logo. It drives me nuts how its stretched so that the horizontal lines are thinner than the vertical lines. Seriously, if you're trying to create a brand name, you would pick a better name and make a better logo that doesn't look like some high school kid's pirated Illustrator output.
What a fluff piece from the Verge. It doesn't compare the exact wording of the policies. Instead, it justifies Google's policy by saying abuse is "unlikely" (which isn't the point) and explains that rival services need certain delivery permissions to run the service, but it doesn't cite any examples from the policies of those rivals that are equivalent to the content license that Google Drive grants.
The article also claims that "public" refers to the user and their actions regarding their own data. But that is NOT what Google Drive's policy states--it explicitly states that the content is licensed to Google as well as anyone Google works with.
Google's motivation, in all that it does, is to index your data an sell you to advertisers. Advertisers are the customers, and you are the product. Android, Gmail, the search engine, Google Drive, Google+, and so on--they all exist solely to index people's data and serve them ads. 96% of Google's revenue comes from advertising. It is their core business.
In fact, that's not actually bad in and of itself, up to the point where it crosses into creepy territory, like in this case. Just by uploading your personal files, you are licensing them to Google to do whatever they want with them. And not just Google--note the parenthetical "(and those we work with)". So you don't even know who is going to be using your personal data. I mean, these policies actually give Google and other strangers the right to publicly display and distribute your files. One wonders if that absolves them from any consequences from security intrusions too, since a hacker getting hold of your files that would count as publicly distributing them, even if accidentally.
I've never bought into the image of benevolence Google always presents to the public, and that's cost me Slashdot karma over the years, but I don't care. It will be very interesting to see who defends this. It would be difficult not to see them as sellouts of themselves, all too happy to trash their own privacy rights, eager to please the advertising megacorp and defend them from attack. Wake up!
You claim the summary and article are misleading, but the article didn't make a claim about the absolute number of projects using the GPL. It made a claim about the usage of the GPL, which is what is in decline compared to other licenses:
The information is hardly "worthless". It's indicative of a trend toward community-led projects with more permissive licenses.
The headline I submitted with was "GPL Usage Declining Faster Than Ever", based on the title of the linked article. The editor, Timothy, loves to rewrite headlines, and he changed this one too.
Android users just download ad blockers anyway. You can't make money on the Android platform.
"We don't actually know what the link is--but we're convinced one is there anyway."
That is not at all what moderation is used for. It's used to drown out arguments that people don't like, regardless of their merit.
You'll notice my karma is currently terrible. I had excellent karma, and then I made the mistake of defending Reddit's decision to ban child porn, which drew out the "children are sexual beings too" creeps. I regularly have comments in stories that aren't even on the front page get modded down.
I've criticized Google in the past. Because I bought subscription pages, I see articles before they're public. This means I often get the first post. Seeing Google criticism in the first post drives fanboys crazy, and now I have people who follow all my posts accusing me of being a shill running about 20 puppet accounts. The site's community totally sucks now and has gone off the deep end.
The one that's most damaging, however, is Funny. Getting voted up with Funny doesn't add to your karma, but subsequently getting downvoted does. Slashdot's -1 to +5 scale completely sucks, especially because it gives each moderator's vote so much power. You can have a +2 post, and it only takes three assholes to put you into -1 territory where most people won't see you, even if 100 non-moderators agree with you.
This place already cratered out years ago. I remember when Slashdot regularly got 200-500 comments per story. Not sure where some people are getting the idea that Slashdot is still relevant today. It's become so irrelevant that when tech sites reported that Rob Malda left, most of the reaction outside of Slashdot was "Slashdot is still around?"
Your search for a replacement? Have you missed the internet for the last five years? Sites like Digg (though it sucks now), Hacker News, Reddit, TechCrunch, and so on replaced Slashdot YEARS ago. I don't get how you couldn't already be aware of them. That's where tech news is now.
Slashdot has only lasted this long because it caters to a niche of hardcore Linux/Google enthusiasts who apparently don't read the other sites and don't even realize the majority of stories on the front page appeared on other sites as much as a week prior. If you read Hacker News regularly, you'll see most of Slashdot's front page for the rest of the week.
The worst part is when a story gets posted that not only appeared elsewhere days before but was already debunked--and when you submit the debunk story, Slashdot's editors reject it.
Slashdot has long considered its readers to be complete tools. They intentionally post easy stories that cater to the demographic of pro-Linux, pro-piracy, anti-DRM, etc. If you just scroll through the headlines, there's an obvious bias and a filtering out of stories that contradict the conventional wisdom that the Slashdot readership wants to assume for ideological reasons.
The site's been going downhill for years, but the final red flag for everyone should have been when Rob Malda left. I mean, we're in the post-Digg era of everyone-votes social sites, and Slashdot is still using a slow, archaic editor system with a limited comment moderator pool. Stories get posted that are days old, sometimes a week, that were already discussed, responded to, debunked, etc. on other sites.
Hell, you can't even offer a differing opinion around here without getting crushed by moderation. Don't like something Google did? Don't you dare mention it or prepare to get stalked by anonymous accusers calling you a "shill" in every discussion. In my case, I had excellent karma until I dared defend Reddit's decision to ban child porn from its site--I got modbombed like hell.
The site sucks, the readership sucks...Slashdot is just an amusing relic I visit to kill time these days. It's amazing to remember when it was actually considered to be at the forefront of social media and news. People like John Carmack used to post here (before the site descending into a pro-piracy mouthpiece that drove him away).
Will probably get modded down again for this, or maybe not. Who cares? The site is completely done now. Full-on slashvertisements on the front page--fucking hilarious.
What do you mean, what can you do about it? You can stop visiting Slashdot.
BREAKING--Trolls Left Homeless After Website Ruled Illegal
Tech site Slashdot was ruled illegal today, leaving hundreds of trolls without a home. Slashdot, founded in the late 90s by master troll Rob Malda, has provided shelter for countless trolls over the years.
"It leaves me feeling naked. And petrified," said Slashdot user PortmanHotGrits. "Slashdot was once a thriving troll community due to its rigid ideology, biased editors, and broken moderation system."
"Where am I going to hate Apple now?" asked one anonymous user. "I hate Reddit, and my real life friends bought Macs years ago. Slashdot was the last place my puppet accounts could go to vent their frustration at iSheep Crapple fans. Android4Lyfe! Hang on, my custom ROM just crashed."
Reaction in other internet communities was mixed.
"Slashdot is still around?" asked several Twitter users. Said one IT administrator: "Whoa, Slashdot? I used to post there when I ran Linux on my desktop back in 2001. I used to write 'Micro$oft' non-ironically. I was an embarrassing idiot. Farewell, Slashdot."
Rob Malda, who ran screaming from Slashdot earlier in the year with half his body engulfed in flames, could not be reached for comment.
That's a pretty subjective argument. I'd say there are tons of movies worth buying each year.
There have always been movie remakes and re-releases; that is not a new trend. Doing things for money is what a business is supposed to do.
The TSA sucks, but I can't say I disagree with their response in this case. The device is described as a robot-like device with exposed wires, resembling a handmade explosive device. According to the statement in the article, the TSA determined that the device was not harmful, the airport reopened, and everything went back to normal. That seems like what is supposed to happen.
The Dallas City Hall statement in the article:
That doesn't change my opposition to the groping and scanning, of course. But this story seems just a little overblown. I think an airport would have reacted this way regardless of the existence of the TSA.
You're trolling, but there is truth to the point that many of the people at the protests didn't even know why they were there. Literally, when asked on camera, they couldn't give an answer. They just wanted to be part of an anti-authority movement. It ended up becoming another generic anti-capitalism movement, like what the Iraq War protests became after a few days. A certain element was defecating on police cars, committing sexual assault, and littering parks with tons of garbage.
It's so much easier to blend into a crowd and yell with them at the top of your lungs to make yourself feel better about a general anger you have toward society. It's so much harder to actually effect change by contacting politicians, convincing the public, studying the law, and generally having an impact on the legislative process so that something actually comes out of any of it.
It's one of the reasons I'm irritated by anyone with a bullhorn, even when they say things I would normally agree with. It comes off like a pushy way for them to vent. They're aware of the image of themselves as a protestor with a bullhorn, and they get hooked on that image. Then it's over, and they go back to the office job they were trying to get away from in the first place.
Actually change something--then I'll be impressed!
Doesn't it come off as a bit silly? The protests were hardly that historic or even effective. No change occurred in the world as a result of them. There are certain people in the world who are bored with their daily lives and need to feel like they are part of a revolutionary movement. I was amused when I saw the issue of Time magazine that intentionally printed photos of the protests in black-and-white to hearken to the Vietnam protests. In other words, the protest were typical of most of the so-called movements in the world today--cynical, self-aware, and more of an outlet to vent rather than a positive force for change.