I think she should pass on the mantle to someone she trusts. That person would not be PJ, and the sites flavor would change, but if the person were any good the coverage would still be there and valuable.
The Groklaw name isn't important. Anyone can pick up the mantle under a new name. Groklaw can settle in its place in history.
I don't delete posts that ask for proof that PJ actually exists. The standards that GL holds everyone else do aren't the same standards they hold themselves up to.
Strange.
I don't find it a bit surprising. You don't grasp that a lack of image is not tantamount to a lack of identity. You think trolling someone's privacy is the same as analyzing press and legal claims. And then you're all beside yourself, perplexed. Well, Skyline Cowboy, around where I'm from we have a saying; that dog don't hunt. Maybe you can shop it around somewhere else after you tack on another 10K to your bounty.
If PJ or someone else so chose, Groklaw could have a mission.
I agree. However, I suspect that the job PJ volunteered for would be taxing after awhile; community wonks, ignorant "journalists" with an axe to grind, opposition trying to detract from the issue by making personal attacks from the shadows, etc. Groklaw could be more than just the SCO threat. But now that SCO seems to be well and finally done, it strikes me as a good time to slip away from the menacing limelight.
Terror alerts are meaningless for just about everybody. An "increased likelyhood" that somebody from Al Qaeda is going to do something in New York? What am I supposed to do with that information in San Francisco? What am I supposed to do with it in New York even?
Useless.
At first I just rolled my eyes at this announcement. But now that you've put it in proper perspective, I understand how appropriate Twitter and Facebook is for this kind of thing.
Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.
Funny you should say that. I was just thinking how militant the BSD fans are getting these days. Every time OSS is even implied, there's some BSD fanatic / troll going on about how the GPL isn't truly open / free / etc.
Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against supporting one's ideology (even if I disagree with the above sentiment - and "troll" is only on the off chance some are tossing this old argument around simply to tweak the GPL camp). But if you're going to start casting stones, you might want to check the ground you're standing on before you start.
Or, do you have a C64 but tire of floppy swapping? Get a 1541-Ultimate, a cycle accurate 1541 emulator that even emits the sounds of a real disk drive.
Around ten years ago, I was interested in building some GUI apps for Linux, but there was no clear path as to which of the two GUI APIs I should learn. I found the lack of a clear path to be enough of a discouragement that I ended up losing interest. I doubt that I'm the only one who has felt that way about it.
You're doing it wrong. Go with whatever API / toolkit you prefer. I'll use your software if its good even if it isn't 100% with my desktop environment of choice. In fact, I'm more likely to continue using your excellent software no matter how much taste might change and motivate me to move to a different environment.
I understand that this seems strange to someone from a different environment. But this is Linux. The chaos is a feature.
Someone is getting paid. Find out who and what that person's connection to the person signing off on that expense is.
Sure. But don't expect to always find some nefarious link. The world of bureaucracy is bigger than just corruption. Although bureaucracies do make a breeding ground for corruption and they become more unwieldy the more the system is adapted to eliminate corruption.
I've had a lot of direct experience dealing with government bureaucracy at various levels and organizations (and some experience with corporate bureaucracy). I've seen relatively simple tasks turned in to months-long projects and couple months worth of thorough effort turned in to a multi-year outsourced contract. This isn't because someone was getting a pay-off. This is because The System, of which every good Bureaucrat serves and follows, demands levels of effort far beyond anything anyone not serving The System would think sane. So while the tasks themselves can be simple, performing the tasks within the bureaucracy requires many more additional steps that require many more man-hours to accomplish.
I should stress that corruption can still rear its ugly head. I haven't viewed it very often myself. But I've dealt with rules that have come in to place to close a loophole exposed by someone who had figured out how to game the system and got caught doing so. There will be people that are gaming the system according to these new rules and the process will repeat itself (as well as the occasional case of someone who thinks they won't get caught doing something others got caught doing).
Point taken - I probably sound like a killjoy (which I take with a personal sense of irony). This is a day for/. to essentially shut down and I'll treat it as such (with the occasional check to see if this particular thread has garnered any interesting discussion:P).
I just loaded the page for my morning coffee crawl and realized the date. Like previous years, I'm going to ignore the fact that/. exists until the date rolls over. The joke is stale.
On the flip side, there HAS been interesting April Fools pranks. This micro-editing has some appeal (I can't say why), OMG Ponies, and the time they coordinated with a slew of other geek culture sites to imply that there was some big, bad IP lawyering hitting everyone stand out. But in.... what.... 10 or so years of April Fools jokes to generate such a short list shows exactly how much signal to noise we see on this date. And that ratio should be telling of the value of this tradition.
I suspect there's a lot of devil-in-the-details to be had here. Even the blog post is Microsoft's view (read: spin) on a high level view of what's going on. My bias is for Google over Microsoft so I'm looking at this with more of a critical eye towards MS' claims. But that doesn't mean they can't be true.
But allowing people to take Google's data and then give it to someone else basically violates Google's terms of service, and more or less says that they expect Google to gather this stuff, but then give it to Microsoft to incorporate into their own stuff. Why should Google be forced to provide their competitors with the stuff they want to use to make money with?
I'm curious as to what exactly this data entails and where it's produced from. If this is raw data being generated by the customer, that's one thing. If this data is output from Google's tools and relys heavily on Google's code to present a usable view then I would think there's a valid question. The next issue would be whether this is customer-centric information or whether there's a larger value to it. That is, whether feeding this data to Microsoft is valuable beyond servicing the customer's needs or whether there's a larger scale value to be gained by simply getting Google customers to feed Microsoft this data whether those customers use Microsoft's advertising network or not.
Well, if you're paying Google for adwords, or using Google to put ads on your site and make money... why should you then be able to have a Bing toolbar? Google pays you to display ads and then you do your searching on Bing?
If I click on the adwords banner and it redirects to Bing, then fair point. If the adwords work as intended (click on adwords banner, get results from Google) but I also decide to plug in a Bing search bar for my content, then I would say that's my prerogative and Google needs to offer me better incentives to pick Google over Bing. I don't see how going with one advertising syndication should tie me to other pieces of content on my site.
Yes, I'm sure they can and will continually tweak the system but it's, well, pretty damn good. What this means is that barring some huge and amazing shift in computing, the best Bing can do is match Google, and in that case, what would be the point in switching?
This is a amazingly short-sighted question. It's never a question of sitting here and now and asking "why would you want to do that?" History has shown us that there are always disruptions in IT - either the incumbent fails to keep improving or something disruptive comes along and changes our perception of what we want / need to do. The ability to switch is insurance against some future disruptive event that we don't know about yet. And that ability to switch is also motivation for the incumbent to keep up their pace.
Here, now, today... I agree. Google does a great job and I have zero interest in Bing. But as the saying goes - never say never.
How they see it in non-important in the end though. They've already made their position clear on the matter. What matters is whether or not they can convince a court that they are being illegally harmed. That's often a whole different reality than how a party wants to "see" an issue.
I'm reminded of when the RIAA's web site claimed that it was illegal to rip a CD to MP3s or make a copy to keep in your car. Granted - their president also went around saying that he believed each player should also have its own copy of any given CD.
This is the only part of your post which is even partly correct. Its the overzealous behavior on both sides which are to blame. Which is exactly what I said. You have idiots stealing on one side and an industry reacting to that theft on the other. Which brings us full circle, back to my original post. I strongly suggest you re-read it and since unknowingly, actually agree with what I said.
No - this is the only part of my post you can twist to agree with your point and, therefore, will not dismiss outright with snarky references to your own perception of reality. I have read your post and fully understand your point. And I absolutely, completely disagree with it. Your premise that we are to blame for draconian policy is absurd. But then, you've already set that tone by constant references to "figuratively or literally kicking a pirate, repeatedly, in the nuts."
Let me be clear on this point. I am not responsible for someone else's possible criminal behavior. Making the claim that we are is very much against fundamental beliefs of our society (with the assumption that you're in the US). Not that you won't find a sympathetic ear elsewhere. I'm sure your argument would play very will within media industry circles; that works well with the vested interest and mindset being expressed from that sector.
While its unpopular, the simple fact is, this is what happens when everyone bends over backwards to support criminal behavior. I've been saying this for years now. People bitch and moan about ever growing draconian laws but are more than happy to turn a blind eye to criminal behavior. You can't have it both ways. When are people going to pull their heads from their ass and realize PIRATES are the direct cause of our freedoms and privileges being eroded.
Bullshit. "Piracy" has existed for decades and has not stopped the growth of any given media industry. All that's changed is the belief in the lie that these draconian laws are going to curb piracy and deliver money in to the hands of media industries. If I am impacted due to overzealous behavior, it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming. Back when I was living in some apartments, the only broadband was a cable company (Ygnition) that does apartment complexes, etc. Little choice for broadband providers. So I went with them. Their TOS forbid bit torrent by name. Thankfully, it was either an empty threat or they knew enough about what was going on to ignore WoW update traffic.
DOJ doesn't know about Assange and Manning? Time to give up the case when DOJ starts looking for meta data because it implies the actual data is not enough to implicate anyone. More proof that it is just a witch hunt.
Really. You have proof that Manning and Assange had a conversation? Or are you just assuming? And even if the Feds know about that conversation, they could be interested in any additional conversations Manning had with other people associated with anything Manning may or may not have handed out.
The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.
It's interesting the meta-data they're looking for. Included in that list is the size of the communication. So not only do they get some information to work out identities of individuals corresponding with their target, but they also get some indication of what specific messages they might want to subpoena or to what extent that communication could be.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's certainly a different take on the old "parent's basement" meme.
I think she should pass on the mantle to someone she trusts. That person would not be PJ, and the sites flavor would change, but if the person were any good the coverage would still be there and valuable.
The Groklaw name isn't important. Anyone can pick up the mantle under a new name. Groklaw can settle in its place in history.
I don't delete posts that ask for proof that PJ actually exists. The standards that GL holds everyone else do aren't the same standards they hold themselves up to. Strange.
I don't find it a bit surprising. You don't grasp that a lack of image is not tantamount to a lack of identity. You think trolling someone's privacy is the same as analyzing press and legal claims. And then you're all beside yourself, perplexed. Well, Skyline Cowboy, around where I'm from we have a saying; that dog don't hunt. Maybe you can shop it around somewhere else after you tack on another 10K to your bounty.
If PJ or someone else so chose, Groklaw could have a mission.
I agree. However, I suspect that the job PJ volunteered for would be taxing after awhile; community wonks, ignorant "journalists" with an axe to grind, opposition trying to detract from the issue by making personal attacks from the shadows, etc. Groklaw could be more than just the SCO threat. But now that SCO seems to be well and finally done, it strikes me as a good time to slip away from the menacing limelight.
Their are zero pictures of PJ on the Net. She didn't even show up to to collect the award the EFF gave her.
I don't have a picture of you. Therefore you are also a IBM manifestation.
Terror alerts are meaningless for just about everybody. An "increased likelyhood" that somebody from Al Qaeda is going to do something in New York? What am I supposed to do with that information in San Francisco? What am I supposed to do with it in New York even?
Useless.
At first I just rolled my eyes at this announcement. But now that you've put it in proper perspective, I understand how appropriate Twitter and Facebook is for this kind of thing.
Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.
Funny you should say that. I was just thinking how militant the BSD fans are getting these days. Every time OSS is even implied, there's some BSD fanatic / troll going on about how the GPL isn't truly open / free / etc.
Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against supporting one's ideology (even if I disagree with the above sentiment - and "troll" is only on the off chance some are tossing this old argument around simply to tweak the GPL camp). But if you're going to start casting stones, you might want to check the ground you're standing on before you start.
Or, do you have a C64 but tire of floppy swapping? Get a 1541-Ultimate, a cycle accurate 1541 emulator that even emits the sounds of a real disk drive.
Wonder if you can make it play music.
We better figure this one quick, seeing as how this is going to be the the year of the Linux desktop...
Again? Whew. Good thing, too. I've been doing this since '97 and I'd hate to give up my Linux desktop environment because it all stopped.
Around ten years ago, I was interested in building some GUI apps for Linux, but there was no clear path as to which of the two GUI APIs I should learn. I found the lack of a clear path to be enough of a discouragement that I ended up losing interest. I doubt that I'm the only one who has felt that way about it.
You're doing it wrong. Go with whatever API / toolkit you prefer. I'll use your software if its good even if it isn't 100% with my desktop environment of choice. In fact, I'm more likely to continue using your excellent software no matter how much taste might change and motivate me to move to a different environment.
I understand that this seems strange to someone from a different environment. But this is Linux. The chaos is a feature.
Follow the money.
Someone is getting paid. Find out who and what that person's connection to the person signing off on that expense is.
Sure. But don't expect to always find some nefarious link. The world of bureaucracy is bigger than just corruption. Although bureaucracies do make a breeding ground for corruption and they become more unwieldy the more the system is adapted to eliminate corruption.
I've had a lot of direct experience dealing with government bureaucracy at various levels and organizations (and some experience with corporate bureaucracy). I've seen relatively simple tasks turned in to months-long projects and couple months worth of thorough effort turned in to a multi-year outsourced contract. This isn't because someone was getting a pay-off. This is because The System, of which every good Bureaucrat serves and follows, demands levels of effort far beyond anything anyone not serving The System would think sane. So while the tasks themselves can be simple, performing the tasks within the bureaucracy requires many more additional steps that require many more man-hours to accomplish.
I should stress that corruption can still rear its ugly head. I haven't viewed it very often myself. But I've dealt with rules that have come in to place to close a loophole exposed by someone who had figured out how to game the system and got caught doing so. There will be people that are gaming the system according to these new rules and the process will repeat itself (as well as the occasional case of someone who thinks they won't get caught doing something others got caught doing).
It's one day to have fun. Relax.
Which is fine if it's fun. It's not.
Point taken - I probably sound like a killjoy (which I take with a personal sense of irony). This is a day for /. to essentially shut down and I'll treat it as such (with the occasional check to see if this particular thread has garnered any interesting discussion :P).
I just loaded the page for my morning coffee crawl and realized the date. Like previous years, I'm going to ignore the fact that /. exists until the date rolls over. The joke is stale.
On the flip side, there HAS been interesting April Fools pranks. This micro-editing has some appeal (I can't say why), OMG Ponies, and the time they coordinated with a slew of other geek culture sites to imply that there was some big, bad IP lawyering hitting everyone stand out. But in.... what.... 10 or so years of April Fools jokes to generate such a short list shows exactly how much signal to noise we see on this date. And that ratio should be telling of the value of this tradition.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find someone sticking Wikileaks and UFOs together without a hint of irony or humor.
But allowing people to take Google's data and then give it to someone else basically violates Google's terms of service, and more or less says that they expect Google to gather this stuff, but then give it to Microsoft to incorporate into their own stuff. Why should Google be forced to provide their competitors with the stuff they want to use to make money with?
I'm curious as to what exactly this data entails and where it's produced from. If this is raw data being generated by the customer, that's one thing. If this data is output from Google's tools and relys heavily on Google's code to present a usable view then I would think there's a valid question. The next issue would be whether this is customer-centric information or whether there's a larger value to it. That is, whether feeding this data to Microsoft is valuable beyond servicing the customer's needs or whether there's a larger scale value to be gained by simply getting Google customers to feed Microsoft this data whether those customers use Microsoft's advertising network or not.
Well, if you're paying Google for adwords, or using Google to put ads on your site and make money ... why should you then be able to have a Bing toolbar? Google pays you to display ads and then you do your searching on Bing?
If I click on the adwords banner and it redirects to Bing, then fair point. If the adwords work as intended (click on adwords banner, get results from Google) but I also decide to plug in a Bing search bar for my content, then I would say that's my prerogative and Google needs to offer me better incentives to pick Google over Bing. I don't see how going with one advertising syndication should tie me to other pieces of content on my site.
Yes, I'm sure they can and will continually tweak the system but it's, well, pretty damn good. What this means is that barring some huge and amazing shift in computing, the best Bing can do is match Google, and in that case, what would be the point in switching?
This is a amazingly short-sighted question. It's never a question of sitting here and now and asking "why would you want to do that?" History has shown us that there are always disruptions in IT - either the incumbent fails to keep improving or something disruptive comes along and changes our perception of what we want / need to do. The ability to switch is insurance against some future disruptive event that we don't know about yet. And that ability to switch is also motivation for the incumbent to keep up their pace.
Here, now, today... I agree. Google does a great job and I have zero interest in Bing. But as the saying goes - never say never.
How they see it in non-important in the end though. They've already made their position clear on the matter. What matters is whether or not they can convince a court that they are being illegally harmed. That's often a whole different reality than how a party wants to "see" an issue.
I'm reminded of when the RIAA's web site claimed that it was illegal to rip a CD to MP3s or make a copy to keep in your car. Granted - their president also went around saying that he believed each player should also have its own copy of any given CD.
Seriously, war is not cheap so why not put the worlds gamers to good use and collect the revenue?
Here's a reason; griefers.
it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
This is the only part of your post which is even partly correct. Its the overzealous behavior on both sides which are to blame. Which is exactly what I said. You have idiots stealing on one side and an industry reacting to that theft on the other. Which brings us full circle, back to my original post. I strongly suggest you re-read it and since unknowingly, actually agree with what I said.
No - this is the only part of my post you can twist to agree with your point and, therefore, will not dismiss outright with snarky references to your own perception of reality. I have read your post and fully understand your point. And I absolutely, completely disagree with it. Your premise that we are to blame for draconian policy is absurd. But then, you've already set that tone by constant references to "figuratively or literally kicking a pirate, repeatedly, in the nuts."
Let me be clear on this point. I am not responsible for someone else's possible criminal behavior. Making the claim that we are is very much against fundamental beliefs of our society (with the assumption that you're in the US). Not that you won't find a sympathetic ear elsewhere. I'm sure your argument would play very will within media industry circles; that works well with the vested interest and mindset being expressed from that sector.
While its unpopular, the simple fact is, this is what happens when everyone bends over backwards to support criminal behavior. I've been saying this for years now. People bitch and moan about ever growing draconian laws but are more than happy to turn a blind eye to criminal behavior. You can't have it both ways. When are people going to pull their heads from their ass and realize PIRATES are the direct cause of our freedoms and privileges being eroded.
Bullshit. "Piracy" has existed for decades and has not stopped the growth of any given media industry. All that's changed is the belief in the lie that these draconian laws are going to curb piracy and deliver money in to the hands of media industries. If I am impacted due to overzealous behavior, it is the overzealous behavior that is to blame.
I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming. Back when I was living in some apartments, the only broadband was a cable company (Ygnition) that does apartment complexes, etc. Little choice for broadband providers. So I went with them. Their TOS forbid bit torrent by name. Thankfully, it was either an empty threat or they knew enough about what was going on to ignore WoW update traffic.
I think 1,000 hackers is a pretty cool guy. eh takes over comodos and doesn't afraid of anything.
Dude. I was in to 1,000 Hackers before they were cool. Now they're just sell-outs.
New infosec meme.... "with experience of 1,000 hackers."
DOJ doesn't know about Assange and Manning? Time to give up the case when DOJ starts looking for meta data because it implies the actual data is not enough to implicate anyone. More proof that it is just a witch hunt.
Really. You have proof that Manning and Assange had a conversation? Or are you just assuming? And even if the Feds know about that conversation, they could be interested in any additional conversations Manning had with other people associated with anything Manning may or may not have handed out.
The DoJ doesn't want the tweets, they want the account info for the users posting the tweets: email addresses, real names, IP addresses, session logs; the types of things that cannot be found with a simple google search.
It's interesting the meta-data they're looking for. Included in that list is the size of the communication. So not only do they get some information to work out identities of individuals corresponding with their target, but they also get some indication of what specific messages they might want to subpoena or to what extent that communication could be.