Yes, because governments are only capable of focusing on one single thing at a time, right? Why do people still use this retarded argument today? It has never made sense in any context it's used. It's likes saying if a policeman pulls you over for running a red light, they're obviously to busy to solve murders.
I can't help think you're only defending this because it's Google...
That's not it whatsoever. That's a retarded argument that pretends all other functions of a government shut down to focus on one or two issues at a time.
If this was Microsoft, I don't think anybody would be defending them. It's only because it's Google. Never mind that Eric Schmidt says you're a criminal if you care about privacy.
Because every other law ceases to exist if there is a war on drugs, a war in a foreign country, or a bad budget?
Slashdotters will defend everything Google does to the bitter end, it seems. Google's own CEO said that only people who have something to hide worry about privacy. If this wasn't Google, nobody would be defending this.
By your logic, if somebody unknowingly (people don't knowingly make their WiFi networks accessible) undresses in front of an open curtain, I have the right to take pictures and post them on the internet because it's being publicly broadcast via rays of light to my retinas. Consumers don't understand WiFi technology completely and aren't aware that they're broadcasting anything.
The second part of the issue is that Google SAVED the data, not just scanned it. They claim this archiving was accidental, which is really odd.
It's interesting how many Slashdotters don't like unnecessary data collection or phoning home, except when it's Google. When it's Google, suddenly user data is fair game and not a big deal. I don't really understand the discrepancy there. I remember the massive uproar when you had to activate Windows XP (and re-activate when your hardware changed too much). Now, we have an enormous company with a powerful internet presence driving vans through neighborhoods around the world, scanning and archiving WiFi networks and MAC addresses, and Google supporters are okay with it.
There's some level of integrity Google is supposed to maintain. It doesn't matter if you think Google didn't collect data that an individual with a WiFi card and scanning software could obtain. Google is not an individual, and it didn't scan just one house. This is a massive scanning process of hundreds of thousands of WiFi networks around the world from countless households, all collected and archived by one internet advertising company. It's a completely different scale and level of organization.
Just because Google gets investigated doesn't mean competitors won't be happy to pick up the slack. It's not like Google is all that exists and that nobody else could do it.
This is Google's fault for making bizarre mistakes with its scanning software. It deserves a little smackdown to remind it of how careful it needs to be.
Your the logic is silly. Just because there's nothing saying it won't be used for anything else, doesn't mean it is going to be used for everything else. It also suggests your complete lack of experience with Apple products, because Apple would never force ads on anyone. It would be against their snobby design aesthetic.
This is most likely for Apple TV and also for free, ad-supported OS X apps, just as there are free, ad-supported iOS apps. Apple files crazy patents all the time with crazy mock-ups, and if you've been following Apple sites for a few years, you'd know that a lot of these never show up in released products anyway, but if this sees the light of day, Apple TV is in all likelihood where it will show up.
The contrived scenario the grandparent post was describing was the leap from assumption to assumption made by the submitter to reach the conclusion that people would somehow be driven to open source. It's an arbitrary appeal to the Slashdot crowd when open source has nothing at all to do with the topic.
The problem with the iPhone is that the simple act of holding it normally can cause it to completely lose all signal....No other phones have this problem, that is why it has never come up before.
There are countless videos on YouTube submitted by users demonstrating the same effect with non-iPhones, and Apple has posted their own antenna page with videos of competing phones losing signal. It seems to be an issue in low-signal areas and is a fact of life for all smartphones.
Yeah, the recent advertising from Apple has been unlike Apple. In the past, they usually acted too cool to describe their products that way and would use a simple tagline to let the product speak for itself (e.g., "Introducing Mac mini" or "240 songs. A million different ways." for the iPod shuffle).
Calling it magical is really corny, and so are the video interviews of Apple employees talking about how amazing it is. I liked the faceless, too-cool-for-the-room advertising from the time before the iPad.
The issue was the death grip affecting signal strength. You even used Apple's "physics" defense to state that it affects all phones. What does a bare metal antenna have to do with it if all phones are affected?
One of the things I've wondered about is that Apple said the iPhone 4 does drop more calls than the 3GS. However, the iPhone 4 gets reception in locations the 3GS doesn't, so if iPhone 4 is dropping calls in situations where the 3GS wouldn't even have bars in the first place, it makes it look worse than it is.
What MegacorpX leaks may or may not be useful. It could even be downright crap. You're leaving it up to MegacorpX to decide, but under copyright law and the GPL, it's not up to them.
Laws make guarantees of things all the time. As a software license, the GPL cites copyright law to make a guarantee that source code be accessible, with legal consequences for violators.
Theft? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Theft of intellectual property. You've never seen a "GPL code theft" story on Slashdot before?
Code review, my boy, code review. How do we know any submitted patch to a GPL project is "the real thing"? This doesn't create any additional vulnerabilities which weren't already there.
That doesn't make any sense. What I was talking about is a decoy source release "leaked" from the company itself via a fake anonymous source that contains inefficient or misleading code which isn't the code being used to compile the binary release. Your scenario in which we wait on anonymous sources to leak code is fraught with problems like these.
Really? You'd rather rely on some percentage chance of good will from an anonymous leaker who would be risking their jobs instead of having a law that 100% guarantees source code access and legal options in cases of theft? How would you even know the anonymous leak was the real thing and not a decoy?
Anyway, the thing about copyright is that it protects things that aren't necessities. We're not entitled to movies and music. They're entertainment we are able to enjoy. Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society. If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.
I never understood the complaint when Slugboat Willy was about to fall into public domain. We have a right to Mickey Mouse? Who cares about it? If Disney is still making money off of it, why shouldn't they still own it? We live in a different era than when copyright was first created, an era in which media is far more pervasive and long-term than before, so it makes sense to extend copyrights to reflect today's media reality.
The GPL exists to ensure source code is available to the user. Without copyright, companies would use your volunteer code in their own binaries without contributing back. You may be able to pirate the binaries, but you wouldn't have the freedom of source code access that the GPL is supposed to protect.
I take issue with something in the coverage of these groups on Slashdot--why label them "anti-copyright" instead of "pro-piracy?" There's not exactly a question of intent when the groups have the word "pirate" right in their names, and since there is a difference between having some issues with current copyright law and outright ripping artists off, it's blurring the distinction to label these groups as anti-copyright groups. In fact, it hurts the movement to modify copyright law. You can't get rid of copyright completely and wouldn't want to. Without copyright, companies could steal GPL code without consequence because the GPL is a copyright license and is thus protected by copyright law.
I'm curious why you don't ascribe that to bad parenting. There are plenty of people in the world not diagnosed with Aspergers who lack a sense morality until caught.
Those behaviors would not be due to Asperger's and are very liked related to some other illness. Studies have been done dismissing a link between Asperger's and violent behavior. The condition is essentially an inability to infer meaning which makes it difficult to maintain social interaction beyond literal cues. Being extremely violent and threatening to stab people is something else.
In other words, having Asperger's--if he really does at all--is not going to make you forget that hacking another country's military computers is not a severe crime.
Those three things listed apply just as equally to Democrats:
a. Democrats really believe it and always will, no matter how much you point out facts that prove them wrong. b. When said facts disagree with their worldview, they will accuse the source of being right wing and biased ("neo-con") and therefore by definition incorrect c. Somewhere, they are actually doing the same thing they are accusing the right of, except much more efficiently and effectively (the current Congress has been a shining example).
However, I would add a fourth item for Democrats:
d. Democrats are the ones who constantly position themselves as the superior, enlightened intellectuals, yet they do all the same bad things they accuse Republicans of doing. In effect, they use moral superiority as an argument to justify being just as evil. (e.g., Obama and other Democrats criticizing recess appointments under Bush, yet when in power, they do the same thing and claim it's for the good of the country).
The left and the right are exactly the same in that their political views are their religions. However, the embezzlement claim isn't a "Republican talking point." It really happened.
Your "almighty dollar" statement makes you dangerously close to sounding like a stereotype. I can even hear you saying "maaaaan" at the end of it!
The NAACP passed a resolution to "condemn racist elements in the Tea Party." It is an accusation that the group is grounded on racist ideals. The NAACP is also planning a march on October 2, closer to the election, to try to drive momentum against the Tea Party movement. They've called the group a "threat to democracy and a threat to human rights."
They were pressured to denounce Shirley Sherrod by the White House. You may or may not be aware that they're currently in emergency mode because of a massive drop in support among whites going into the mid-term elections.
They did not denounce the New Black Panthers and have in fact been tied to the dismissal of their voter intimidation case, and they also didn't denounce Harry Reid for his "negro dialect" comment. You tell me why.
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly. Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong, if in fact he really has the condition at all considering the ridiculous amount of self-diagnosis out there. Genuine Asperger's is a form of autism and deeply impacts your life. The guy left a threat on one of the computers promising future hacks--he knew what he was doing.
This is starting to sound like another "Free Mitnick" movement, where people support a guy who legitimately deserves legal punishment just to make themselves feel compassionate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because governments are only capable of focusing on one single thing at a time, right? Why do people still use this retarded argument today? It has never made sense in any context it's used. It's likes saying if a policeman pulls you over for running a red light, they're obviously to busy to solve murders.
I can't help think you're only defending this because it's Google...
That's not it whatsoever. That's a retarded argument that pretends all other functions of a government shut down to focus on one or two issues at a time.
If this was Microsoft, I don't think anybody would be defending them. It's only because it's Google. Never mind that Eric Schmidt says you're a criminal if you care about privacy.
Because every other law ceases to exist if there is a war on drugs, a war in a foreign country, or a bad budget?
Slashdotters will defend everything Google does to the bitter end, it seems. Google's own CEO said that only people who have something to hide worry about privacy. If this wasn't Google, nobody would be defending this.
By your logic, if somebody unknowingly (people don't knowingly make their WiFi networks accessible) undresses in front of an open curtain, I have the right to take pictures and post them on the internet because it's being publicly broadcast via rays of light to my retinas. Consumers don't understand WiFi technology completely and aren't aware that they're broadcasting anything.
The second part of the issue is that Google SAVED the data, not just scanned it. They claim this archiving was accidental, which is really odd.
It's interesting how many Slashdotters don't like unnecessary data collection or phoning home, except when it's Google. When it's Google, suddenly user data is fair game and not a big deal. I don't really understand the discrepancy there. I remember the massive uproar when you had to activate Windows XP (and re-activate when your hardware changed too much). Now, we have an enormous company with a powerful internet presence driving vans through neighborhoods around the world, scanning and archiving WiFi networks and MAC addresses, and Google supporters are okay with it.
There's some level of integrity Google is supposed to maintain. It doesn't matter if you think Google didn't collect data that an individual with a WiFi card and scanning software could obtain. Google is not an individual, and it didn't scan just one house. This is a massive scanning process of hundreds of thousands of WiFi networks around the world from countless households, all collected and archived by one internet advertising company. It's a completely different scale and level of organization.
So why was Google collecting and archiving MAC addresses?
Just because Google gets investigated doesn't mean competitors won't be happy to pick up the slack. It's not like Google is all that exists and that nobody else could do it.
This is Google's fault for making bizarre mistakes with its scanning software. It deserves a little smackdown to remind it of how careful it needs to be.
Your the logic is silly. Just because there's nothing saying it won't be used for anything else, doesn't mean it is going to be used for everything else. It also suggests your complete lack of experience with Apple products, because Apple would never force ads on anyone. It would be against their snobby design aesthetic.
This is most likely for Apple TV and also for free, ad-supported OS X apps, just as there are free, ad-supported iOS apps. Apple files crazy patents all the time with crazy mock-ups, and if you've been following Apple sites for a few years, you'd know that a lot of these never show up in released products anyway, but if this sees the light of day, Apple TV is in all likelihood where it will show up.
The contrived scenario the grandparent post was describing was the leap from assumption to assumption made by the submitter to reach the conclusion that people would somehow be driven to open source. It's an arbitrary appeal to the Slashdot crowd when open source has nothing at all to do with the topic.
There are countless videos on YouTube submitted by users demonstrating the same effect with non-iPhones, and Apple has posted their own antenna page with videos of competing phones losing signal. It seems to be an issue in low-signal areas and is a fact of life for all smartphones.
Yeah, the recent advertising from Apple has been unlike Apple. In the past, they usually acted too cool to describe their products that way and would use a simple tagline to let the product speak for itself (e.g., "Introducing Mac mini" or "240 songs. A million different ways." for the iPod shuffle).
Calling it magical is really corny, and so are the video interviews of Apple employees talking about how amazing it is. I liked the faceless, too-cool-for-the-room advertising from the time before the iPad.
The issue was the death grip affecting signal strength. You even used Apple's "physics" defense to state that it affects all phones. What does a bare metal antenna have to do with it if all phones are affected?
One of the things I've wondered about is that Apple said the iPhone 4 does drop more calls than the 3GS. However, the iPhone 4 gets reception in locations the 3GS doesn't, so if iPhone 4 is dropping calls in situations where the 3GS wouldn't even have bars in the first place, it makes it look worse than it is.
What MegacorpX leaks may or may not be useful. It could even be downright crap. You're leaving it up to MegacorpX to decide, but under copyright law and the GPL, it's not up to them.
Laws make guarantees of things all the time. As a software license, the GPL cites copyright law to make a guarantee that source code be accessible, with legal consequences for violators.
Theft of intellectual property. You've never seen a "GPL code theft" story on Slashdot before?
That doesn't make any sense. What I was talking about is a decoy source release "leaked" from the company itself via a fake anonymous source that contains inefficient or misleading code which isn't the code being used to compile the binary release. Your scenario in which we wait on anonymous sources to leak code is fraught with problems like these.
At last. Decades of networking research and software engineering have led to this moment. Thank you, Facebook, for proving the internet was worth it!
Really? You'd rather rely on some percentage chance of good will from an anonymous leaker who would be risking their jobs instead of having a law that 100% guarantees source code access and legal options in cases of theft? How would you even know the anonymous leak was the real thing and not a decoy?
"Sheeple." Ugh.
Anyway, the thing about copyright is that it protects things that aren't necessities. We're not entitled to movies and music. They're entertainment we are able to enjoy. Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society. If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.
I never understood the complaint when Slugboat Willy was about to fall into public domain. We have a right to Mickey Mouse? Who cares about it? If Disney is still making money off of it, why shouldn't they still own it? We live in a different era than when copyright was first created, an era in which media is far more pervasive and long-term than before, so it makes sense to extend copyrights to reflect today's media reality.
The GPL exists to ensure source code is available to the user. Without copyright, companies would use your volunteer code in their own binaries without contributing back. You may be able to pirate the binaries, but you wouldn't have the freedom of source code access that the GPL is supposed to protect.
I take issue with something in the coverage of these groups on Slashdot--why label them "anti-copyright" instead of "pro-piracy?" There's not exactly a question of intent when the groups have the word "pirate" right in their names, and since there is a difference between having some issues with current copyright law and outright ripping artists off, it's blurring the distinction to label these groups as anti-copyright groups. In fact, it hurts the movement to modify copyright law. You can't get rid of copyright completely and wouldn't want to. Without copyright, companies could steal GPL code without consequence because the GPL is a copyright license and is thus protected by copyright law.
I'm curious why you don't ascribe that to bad parenting. There are plenty of people in the world not diagnosed with Aspergers who lack a sense morality until caught.
Those behaviors would not be due to Asperger's and are very liked related to some other illness. Studies have been done dismissing a link between Asperger's and violent behavior. The condition is essentially an inability to infer meaning which makes it difficult to maintain social interaction beyond literal cues. Being extremely violent and threatening to stab people is something else.
In other words, having Asperger's--if he really does at all--is not going to make you forget that hacking another country's military computers is not a severe crime.
Why?
Those three things listed apply just as equally to Democrats:
a. Democrats really believe it and always will, no matter how much you point out facts that prove them wrong.
b. When said facts disagree with their worldview, they will accuse the source of being right wing and biased ("neo-con") and therefore by definition incorrect
c. Somewhere, they are actually doing the same thing they are accusing the right of, except much more efficiently and effectively (the current Congress has been a shining example).
However, I would add a fourth item for Democrats:
d. Democrats are the ones who constantly position themselves as the superior, enlightened intellectuals, yet they do all the same bad things they accuse Republicans of doing. In effect, they use moral superiority as an argument to justify being just as evil. (e.g., Obama and other Democrats criticizing recess appointments under Bush, yet when in power, they do the same thing and claim it's for the good of the country).
The left and the right are exactly the same in that their political views are their religions. However, the embezzlement claim isn't a "Republican talking point." It really happened.
Your "almighty dollar" statement makes you dangerously close to sounding like a stereotype. I can even hear you saying "maaaaan" at the end of it!
The NAACP passed a resolution to "condemn racist elements in the Tea Party." It is an accusation that the group is grounded on racist ideals. The NAACP is also planning a march on October 2, closer to the election, to try to drive momentum against the Tea Party movement. They've called the group a "threat to democracy and a threat to human rights."
They were pressured to denounce Shirley Sherrod by the White House. You may or may not be aware that they're currently in emergency mode because of a massive drop in support among whites going into the mid-term elections.
They did not denounce the New Black Panthers and have in fact been tied to the dismissal of their voter intimidation case, and they also didn't denounce Harry Reid for his "negro dialect" comment. You tell me why.
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly. Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong, if in fact he really has the condition at all considering the ridiculous amount of self-diagnosis out there. Genuine Asperger's is a form of autism and deeply impacts your life. The guy left a threat on one of the computers promising future hacks--he knew what he was doing.
This is starting to sound like another "Free Mitnick" movement, where people support a guy who legitimately deserves legal punishment just to make themselves feel compassionate.