Hopefully the government will recognize a right to anonyminity.
You do have this right. It's been recognized for some time that citizens can't truly have free speech without the ability to be anonymous. A simple fact even the brain-dead should be able to wrap their tiny minds around.
Aside from which, the Constitution doesn't define your rights; it defines the rights of the government. Anything else belongs to the states, or the people. If you're dubious, check out the 9th and 10th amendments.
In this case your definition of "responsibility" seems to be 'if the corporation doesn't like it, you shouldn't do it'. All too often this argument is used to squelch the freedom to speak by making the cost of doing so too high for most people to bear. Just another road to telling people to shut the hell up, or go to jail.
Hardly freedom of speech, at least to those of us who actually believe in such things.
So, what is the qualitative difference between using a piece of technology (surreptitiously placed location transponder) and a human (plainclothes cop)?
Nope. If you're a cop just try to go around putting bumper stickers supporting your favorite political party on all your neighbors cars. Badge or not, you'll find your sorry ass in court right quick. Exactly as you should, since it appears that you have no understanding of the law and don't have any business wearing a badge to begin with.
Earth and that comet are both places where humanity is invading, waging war, and making a total nuisance of itself
Oh please. Don't act like one of those morons who thinks we should 'preserve' the 'environment' of the solar system, and never, ever change anything, for any reason. That sort of mindset is just plain pathetic.
This is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment and, if enforced, would put an end to the free press. My guess is that this sort of idiotic legislation hasn't made it's way to the Supreme Court to be struck down - yet.
I'm betting that if you knowingly divulge government-confidential information, you're going to jail even if you received it second-hand, too, and why should you expect anything else?
It's called 'freedom of the press' and 'freedom of speech'; both apply in this case, unless you arbitrarily decided that ThinkSecret isn't press. In which case it's up to you to prove that it doesn't qualify.
AIUI there is also a legal framework offering similar protection to publishing second-hand trade secrets and/or personal details in many jurisdictions, for example. Again, morally why would you object to that?
The whole point of a trade secret is that it's a trade SECRET. It's kept secret to the advantage of the company, rather than patented or copyrighted (if possible) in order to one-up the competition. Until recently trade secrets had no legal protection for this very reason.
Apple's only Constitutional right is to sue the person who violated their NDA. They don't have any business suing the guy who published the information; he has no contractual obligation to Apple, nor any obligation to guard their secrets.
Are you a person or just a sophisticated biological machine? I certainly couldn't devise a test to decisively determine the truth of the situation and neither could you.
If they do become people - sentient and self-aware - and human beings hold them in slavery, I think we'll find out the truth when they decide that they don't want to be slaves anymore, and rebel. That 'test', I think, would be enough to establish sentience in any being.
It's called professionalism a.k.a. an endangered species here at slashdot.
No, it's called "corporate cocksucking", which started when certain comapnies started threatening to sue folks who publicly reveal security flaws in their products. Nothing more than craven cowardice dressed up as 'good manners'.
And let's not forget it's Google. Just as Microsoft is the Great Satan, Google is the entity that frenzied geeks bow down to and worship as one of the New Gods(TM).
The hypocrisy would be annoying if it weren't so fucking hilarious.
The only problem with this "planning" is that inevitably there's some group who thinks that THEY are the ones best qualified to direct the future for the rest of us, and everyone else would be wise to shut the fuck up and do what they're told. And in pursuit of their own thinly-disguised quest for power and importantce, their recommendations are ALWAYS guided by the notion that they first and foremost should profit from the situation.
I'd rather just let things happen and see where they take us. Planning the future by committee (and an egomaniacal self-important committee at that) can only lead to disaster or dictatorship.
So, just like the slave masters of the past you're all for the subjugation of a certain subset of people (and that's what they would be, if they're self-aware) just so long as they aren't YOUR people.
Your argument is just an echo of the same ol' same ol' repeated throughout the millennia of human history.
Good points. There's also some evidence that a) neanderthals didn't breed as fast as homo sapiens, and b) that neanderthals were less violent with each other than homo sapiens were. This latter makes sense when you take into account just how bloody strong a neanderthal is; a scuffle between two neanderthals would most likely end in serious injury or death, even if neither party intended that as the outcome. For a tribe of neanderthals to survive physical violence between its members (and other neanderthal tribes) would have to be kept at a minimum.
There's increasing evidence that we're the dominant lifeform on this planet because we exterminated the Neanderthals 30,000 years ago. We were smarter than they were, and that enabled us to put the furs of dead animals around our bodies so we could gather resources from areas that were under ice and snow - areas inaccessible to the Neanderthal.
What the hell??? Neanderthals were specifically adapted to the cold-weather climate of Europe, and it's a fact they made and used furs as clothes, fashioned jewelry and spears, and so forth. There is no evidence whatsoever that they were any less intelligent than homo sapiens. Not a single smidgeon, regardless of the re-revisionism back to the thinking of the early 1900's that seems to be in vogue.
The only rational explanation I've seen for why homo sapiens won out is a) Neanderthals probably didn't breed as fast or as frequently as homo sapiens did (given the smaller number of skeletons of children found as compared to their human cousins), and b) there's little evidence that Neanderthals warred with one another, and a great deal of evidence that homo sapiens did. This makes sense; social conflict that devolves to violence among humans can be non-deadly, but among Neanderthals - who were much, much stronger than any human, even Arnie - a single violent act could easily lead to death. One punch to the face by a Neanderthal and you don't just have a broken nose; you have a crushed skull and your brains oozing out all over the ground.
Relative levels of intelligence most likely had nothing to do with the demise of Neanderthals. It's more likely that low breeding rates and a lack of will to commit organized, regular genocide were the culprits. Homo sapiens weren't brighter; they just bred like rabbits and were more violent.
Biology trumps all. When you're old enough to start breeding brats of your own, it's bloody well time to grow up. That's how it's worked for the human race and all of its ancestors for 99% of our history; a little Puritan interlude, and the invention of the concept of the 'teenager' a half-century ago (mostly to eliminate competition in the workplace for another half-dozen years) does nothing to change this.
From what I can tell, maturity is hardly dependent on age. If it were there wouldn't be so many whining, selfish little piss-ants in the Boomer generation.
So is Opera - faster than ever before. And do try to remember that they were gaining market share when there was no Firefox, and MS was trying to put them out of business with mangled code.
Opera is doing just fine. There's no reason it has to be free, unless you're just mouthing some socialist RMS jingoism.
By the by this move by Opera reeks of desperation in their losing the battle against Firefox.
That would explain why their market share continues to climb. In any other world this would be a good thing where a for-profit entity was concerned...in any other world but Slashdot....
Second that. I'm a supporter of open source (NOT free software, I'm no zealot) and yet I find Opera to be the best of the bunch of all the browsers I've tried. Despite all the whining done by the FireFox fanboys I'll stick with what works best regardless of whether it meets some illusory 'ethical' criterion put out by a bunch of pseudo-religious yahoos.
You want me to use FireFox, it's real simple: make the browser better than Opera. Until then I'll pass, thanks.
Personally I'd like to know that he had been disciplined for allowing this security breach to occur.
Guess you've never worked for government, eh? Embarrass a government official and they'll do everything in their power to lay the blame for their incompetence on your doorstep.
Try to remember that the people who work for government aren't James Bond. In fact, most of 'em aren't very bright at all, even the ones who work in intelligence. The agent acted like an incompetent fool because he was an incompetent fool, as are most of his compatriots.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully the government will recognize a right to anonyminity.
You do have this right. It's been recognized for some time that citizens can't truly have free speech without the ability to be anonymous. A simple fact even the brain-dead should be able to wrap their tiny minds around.
Aside from which, the Constitution doesn't define your rights; it defines the rights of the government. Anything else belongs to the states, or the people. If you're dubious, check out the 9th and 10th amendments.
Max
With freedom comes responsibility, always.
In this case your definition of "responsibility" seems to be 'if the corporation doesn't like it, you shouldn't do it'. All too often this argument is used to squelch the freedom to speak by making the cost of doing so too high for most people to bear. Just another road to telling people to shut the hell up, or go to jail.
Hardly freedom of speech, at least to those of us who actually believe in such things.
Max
So, what is the qualitative difference between using a piece of technology (surreptitiously placed location transponder) and a human (plainclothes cop)?
The plainclothes cop isn't riding you piggyback?
Max
Yup.
Nope. If you're a cop just try to go around putting bumper stickers supporting your favorite political party on all your neighbors cars. Badge or not, you'll find your sorry ass in court right quick. Exactly as you should, since it appears that you have no understanding of the law and don't have any business wearing a badge to begin with.
Max
That moon appeared to have such a strong albedo contrast across different hemispheres in pre-19698 telescopes that it seemed unnatural.
19698 and you *still* haven't gone there yourself??? Have the Republicans been in charge all this time?
Max
Earth and that comet are both places where humanity is invading, waging war, and making a total nuisance of itself
Oh please. Don't act like one of those morons who thinks we should 'preserve' the 'environment' of the solar system, and never, ever change anything, for any reason. That sort of mindset is just plain pathetic.
Max
This is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment and, if enforced, would put an end to the free press. My guess is that this sort of idiotic legislation hasn't made it's way to the Supreme Court to be struck down - yet.
Max
I'm betting that if you knowingly divulge government-confidential information, you're going to jail even if you received it second-hand, too, and why should you expect anything else?
It's called 'freedom of the press' and 'freedom of speech'; both apply in this case, unless you arbitrarily decided that ThinkSecret isn't press. In which case it's up to you to prove that it doesn't qualify.
AIUI there is also a legal framework offering similar protection to publishing second-hand trade secrets and/or personal details in many jurisdictions, for example. Again, morally why would you object to that?
The whole point of a trade secret is that it's a trade SECRET. It's kept secret to the advantage of the company, rather than patented or copyrighted (if possible) in order to one-up the competition. Until recently trade secrets had no legal protection for this very reason.
Apple's only Constitutional right is to sue the person who violated their NDA. They don't have any business suing the guy who published the information; he has no contractual obligation to Apple, nor any obligation to guard their secrets.
Max
The NDA only applies to the person who signed it. If that person reveals something to a third party, the third party *is not bound* to honor the NDA.
Apple could sue the person who violated the NDA, but not the third party.
Max
You can't give somebody legal protections because of something they claim.
In fact this is exactly what you do. It's up to the state to prove otherwise. "Innocent until *proven* guilty", and all that.
Max
Are you a person or just a sophisticated biological machine? I certainly couldn't devise a test to decisively determine the truth of the situation and neither could you.
If they do become people - sentient and self-aware - and human beings hold them in slavery, I think we'll find out the truth when they decide that they don't want to be slaves anymore, and rebel. That 'test', I think, would be enough to establish sentience in any being.
Max
The company ethically owes you 10% of the value.
Ah, so your version of ethics is the one we have to apply to the whole human race? God talks to you, doesn't he?
Max
People do things that make their company BILLIONS of dollars, and don't get compensated.
Sure they do. It's called a 'paycheck'.
Max
It's called professionalism a.k.a. an endangered species here at slashdot.
No, it's called "corporate cocksucking", which started when certain comapnies started threatening to sue folks who publicly reveal security flaws in their products. Nothing more than craven cowardice dressed up as 'good manners'.
Max
And let's not forget it's Google. Just as Microsoft is the Great Satan, Google is the entity that frenzied geeks bow down to and worship as one of the New Gods(TM).
The hypocrisy would be annoying if it weren't so fucking hilarious.
Max
The only problem with this "planning" is that inevitably there's some group who thinks that THEY are the ones best qualified to direct the future for the rest of us, and everyone else would be wise to shut the fuck up and do what they're told. And in pursuit of their own thinly-disguised quest for power and importantce, their recommendations are ALWAYS guided by the notion that they first and foremost should profit from the situation.
I'd rather just let things happen and see where they take us. Planning the future by committee (and an egomaniacal self-important committee at that) can only lead to disaster or dictatorship.
Max
So, just like the slave masters of the past you're all for the subjugation of a certain subset of people (and that's what they would be, if they're self-aware) just so long as they aren't YOUR people.
Your argument is just an echo of the same ol' same ol' repeated throughout the millennia of human history.
Max
Good points. There's also some evidence that a) neanderthals didn't breed as fast as homo sapiens, and b) that neanderthals were less violent with each other than homo sapiens were. This latter makes sense when you take into account just how bloody strong a neanderthal is; a scuffle between two neanderthals would most likely end in serious injury or death, even if neither party intended that as the outcome. For a tribe of neanderthals to survive physical violence between its members (and other neanderthal tribes) would have to be kept at a minimum.
Max
There's increasing evidence that we're the dominant lifeform on this planet because we exterminated the Neanderthals 30,000 years ago. We were smarter than they were, and that enabled us to put the furs of dead animals around our bodies so we could gather resources from areas that were under ice and snow - areas inaccessible to the Neanderthal.
What the hell??? Neanderthals were specifically adapted to the cold-weather climate of Europe, and it's a fact they made and used furs as clothes, fashioned jewelry and spears, and so forth. There is no evidence whatsoever that they were any less intelligent than homo sapiens. Not a single smidgeon, regardless of the re-revisionism back to the thinking of the early 1900's that seems to be in vogue.
The only rational explanation I've seen for why homo sapiens won out is a) Neanderthals probably didn't breed as fast or as frequently as homo sapiens did (given the smaller number of skeletons of children found as compared to their human cousins), and b) there's little evidence that Neanderthals warred with one another, and a great deal of evidence that homo sapiens did. This makes sense; social conflict that devolves to violence among humans can be non-deadly, but among Neanderthals - who were much, much stronger than any human, even Arnie - a single violent act could easily lead to death. One punch to the face by a Neanderthal and you don't just have a broken nose; you have a crushed skull and your brains oozing out all over the ground.
Relative levels of intelligence most likely had nothing to do with the demise of Neanderthals. It's more likely that low breeding rates and a lack of will to commit organized, regular genocide were the culprits. Homo sapiens weren't brighter; they just bred like rabbits and were more violent.
Max
Biology trumps all. When you're old enough to start breeding brats of your own, it's bloody well time to grow up. That's how it's worked for the human race and all of its ancestors for 99% of our history; a little Puritan interlude, and the invention of the concept of the 'teenager' a half-century ago (mostly to eliminate competition in the workplace for another half-dozen years) does nothing to change this.
From what I can tell, maturity is hardly dependent on age. If it were there wouldn't be so many whining, selfish little piss-ants in the Boomer generation.
Max
Firefox is gaining market share at a steady pace
So is Opera - faster than ever before. And do try to remember that they were gaining market share when there was no Firefox, and MS was trying to put them out of business with mangled code.
Opera is doing just fine. There's no reason it has to be free, unless you're just mouthing some socialist RMS jingoism.
Max
Sorry, the days of paying for a web browser died long ago
Which is undoubtedly why so many of us are willing to pay the fine folks that make Opera. Your statement has little to do with reality.
Besides, I'd much rather have an "open-source" browser leading the market
And your personal preference should matter how?
Max
By the by this move by Opera reeks of desperation in their losing the battle against Firefox.
That would explain why their market share continues to climb. In any other world this would be a good thing where a for-profit entity was concerned...in any other world but Slashdot....
Max
Second that. I'm a supporter of open source (NOT free software, I'm no zealot) and yet I find Opera to be the best of the bunch of all the browsers I've tried. Despite all the whining done by the FireFox fanboys I'll stick with what works best regardless of whether it meets some illusory 'ethical' criterion put out by a bunch of pseudo-religious yahoos.
You want me to use FireFox, it's real simple: make the browser better than Opera. Until then I'll pass, thanks.
Max
Personally I'd like to know that he had been disciplined for allowing this security breach to occur.
Guess you've never worked for government, eh? Embarrass a government official and they'll do everything in their power to lay the blame for their incompetence on your doorstep.
Try to remember that the people who work for government aren't James Bond. In fact, most of 'em aren't very bright at all, even the ones who work in intelligence. The agent acted like an incompetent fool because he was an incompetent fool, as are most of his compatriots.
Max