"Working" with the Chinese government here would involve negotiating away some of the censorship. Perhaps that is represented by the notice that some search results are censored.
"Walking away" in this case would be plain caving, in the way they appear to have.
This is not some cooky startup. This is Google. They have tremendous value to offer the Chinese people, and with that value comes an equally tremendous leverage to make change. Did Google even use any of that leverage? It's hard to say.
My question is this: Was Google being completely censored in China prior to this? If not, then this is Google giving ground. Otherwise, this is China giving ground.
Perhaps, in the future, Google's visibility for non-censored results will lead to it's popularity as a search standard in China just like it is elsewhere. THEN would be a better time to threaten to wihtdraw. Unfortunately, that would be illegal, as it would dry up Google's Chinese revenue stream. Such an action would open its executors to shareholder lawsuits.
If "a lot of businesses" saw rounding up dissidents and executing them as "the future", would you lament that the OSS community would be "limiting it's growth in the business world" if it took a stand against that, too?
I would still argue that an "expert" cathedral would not really offer much assurance that the code was secure. There's really no significant advantage to releasing the code to an "independent third party" if they don't release it further. At that rate, you might as well just let the vendor evaluate it.
A market would also evolve for certification, and CAs that release would naturally be considered more trustworthy than those that don't.
Interesting that in the rationale, they decided against taking action to close the web services/remote execution loophole.
It's doubly interesting that, while they made some changes to combat DRM, they said nothing at all about Trusted/Treacherous Computing, which is the foundational layer enabling most modern DRM.
I think that's good, because I believe you can use the latter to combat the former, just by leveraging existing terms in GPLv2, combined with the public's natural interest in retaining privacy.
The industry wants to lock up all their content behind encrypted DRM formats. Only new TVs will understand them. It's hard enough getting manufacturers to agree on a standard, so they lobby government to mandate one. More importantly, it's hard to push the consuming public into a forced upgrade - so, like geniuses, they//lobby government to buy it for them//.
$1.5 Billion dollars Divided by 300 million Americans = ** $5,000 ** PER PERSON (not just per household!)...that's gonna be one HUGE flatscreen in 2009!
The copyright cartel is constantly threatening to withdraw all their content if they can't force us to pay for it, taking their marbles and going home. They're always prophesying shrilly that if creators can't make livings, there will be NO content. The same applies to folks who claim that ad blockers will destroy free content on the web.
When I remember what I used to watch on TV, on movie screens, and on commercial radio, and on spam web sites though, I just can't find any sympathy for them. When they "threaten" to take all this//crap// out of my mediasphere, all I can respond with is "promise?"
I'm not that naive, though. I know better than to think that our media elites will simply abandon the airwaves if they can't collect content license fees. Political advertising alone is far too valuable, and the fact that they're prompting government to subsidize their transition costs by spending a bil and a half on TELEVISIONS is evidence.
I can't get health care, but Big Brother will buy me a telescreen? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?
We need a common name for the fallacy that everyone on Slashdot thinks alike. Just because the other side has an opportunity to express their differences with other Slashdotters doesn't mean "we" should be//faulted// for being inconsistent.
News flash: groups composed of many people from all over the world don't all think alike! What a concept!
//Another blog search engine will release a list of top 100 bloggers. Every blogger on the list will blog the news in the form of: "Wow, I'm honored to have made it onto the top 100 list" with a link back to the list maintainer's blog. The list maintainer will in return blog: "I'm honored to see that the list has been covered by such a high-profile blogger" with a link back to the winner's blog. The link incest will continue for weeks until it has propelled the list maintainer himself into the top 100, at which point the list will be declared a sham and the blogosphere will erupt in outrage.//
I saw this yesterday on Ars Technica. It wasn't slashdotted then!:)
The blog by the CTO was actually quite extensive and open, leading me to believe that this is legit, just not ready yet.
The app uses bittorrent protocol, but simply integrates a "buddy list" style private network, such that you can't share with the public. I'll be interested to see how (or if) it traverses NATs. The copyright cartel doesn't have much to worry about, unless public sharing can be hacked into this through some kind of re-broadcast mechanism. I doubt Allpeers will put it in there, as that's clearly not what it's targeted at.
You are right of course, if by "touching", you mean intentionally and laboriously incorporated into your own source code files. The disingenuous implication is that developers will wake up one morning and find a surprise in their code. "Oh my! How did THAT get in there!"
GPL code is never made open by default, but by choice.
It comes part and parcel with having a choice of applications. When you're locked in, there's only on choice anyway, so there's not so much competition in the namespace.
When everybody can deploy an application, a funny thing happens: they do. Is it any wonder the namespaces are so awkward and crowded?
Personally, this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make for freedom.
Then again, that same freedom let's you rename pretty much any software application to something better, ala Linspire.
Does declining a EULA actually mean declining the installation, or does it mean you're not bound by the license?
Software users are used to not being granted any rights to use software without a license, but that doesn't mean some license or other is required in order to receive & install software.
Of course, if there's no license, then all the usual protections - waiver of liability from damages, merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, etc. - don't apply. All they've got is straight copyright protection.
No wonder they're getting sued. What idiot allows users to install software without indemnifying the hell out of themselves?
Not good enough. I'd rather change the law so that it's prohibitively difficult for people to treat me like that.
For a while, I was thinking it might actually be refreshing to simply stop buying DRM'd media, and watch "civilization" disappear behind crypto over the next 5-10 years. Finally, I'd be free of it! Hollywood tries to threaten us by saying if their output wasn't protected, they'd stop making it. It backfired in my case, because all I said was "REALLY?! Promise?"
Then I realized I was being naive. Advertising will not be DRM'd. As much as the copyright cartel would like, reviewers and my friends and neighbors won't stop talking about movies, tv, and music I can't afford (money, or timewise).
When you stop buying products to protest the beahviousr of the manufacturer, that's a a boycott. When you stop buying products because they suck, that's just market choice.
Right; This is also what firefox does (when you turn it on) with the "Master Password" for remembering website login passwords.
That's a case that's potentially justified by large numbers of passwords (I have dozens). I also use gaim with about 20 accounts, so it would be a good idea there, too. Most users, however, will probably only have one or two, so trading two passphrases for one may seem like too much hassle for the added security (for some).
I compromise by using encfs to encrypt my ~/.gaim/ directory (among others), but that has its own limitations. Other users (including root) can't read the files, but any app running as my user can, while the fs is mounted.
If there's one thing that would simple to implement, yet have a huge impact on desktop usage, it would have to be having two separate mouse cursors.
The mouse was a great idea; it was like giving people back their hand when they used a computer. They could point, indicate, grab, and do most of things people do when they DO things with their hands. Typing is generally a substitute for speaking.
But having only one mouse is like trying to cook with three fingers and one hand tied behind your back. There are so many things we could do in many applications just by having an extra mouse with an extra cursor - holding things, rotating them, extending and retracting... there's an entire vocabulary of interface metaphor that would be opened up with it.
This would be especially easy for modern PCs to support as well. most computers only had two ps/2 ports not long ago, one of which was reserved for the keyboard. Today, however, it's not hard to use a free USB port, or buy a $30 hub to make room for an extra mouse. Plug it in, and in most cases it's *already* autorecognized and hooked up to the monolithic mouse cursor.
It might be confusing to figure out how existing applications that were designed for only one mouse cursor should interface with the extra cursor, but ignoring it shouldn't be difficult, at the very least. meanwhile, both new and old applications can build in support for it as they go.
This is just one of those things that would be so useful, I can't understand why it hasn't been done already. Maybe it has - I'd love to see it, if so.
Slashdot Mirror
"Working" with the Chinese government here would involve negotiating away some of the censorship. Perhaps that is represented by the notice that some search results are censored.
"Walking away" in this case would be plain caving, in the way they appear to have.
This is not some cooky startup. This is Google. They have tremendous value to offer the Chinese people, and with that value comes an equally tremendous leverage to make change. Did Google even use any of that leverage? It's hard to say.
My question is this: Was Google being completely censored in China prior to this? If not, then this is Google giving ground. Otherwise, this is China giving ground.
Perhaps, in the future, Google's visibility for non-censored results will lead to it's popularity as a search standard in China just like it is elsewhere. THEN would be a better time to threaten to wihtdraw. Unfortunately, that would be illegal, as it would dry up Google's Chinese revenue stream. Such an action would open its executors to shareholder lawsuits.
It's free - except I need iTunes, and iTunes needs Windows or Mac OS X.
Oh. So it's NOT free.
I guess I'll stick with MIT, then.
Data goes "missing" when it gets deleted. What we're talking about here is when it gets copied, right? Captain obvious says hello!
If "a lot of businesses" saw rounding up dissidents and executing them as "the future", would you lament that the OSS community would be "limiting it's growth in the business world" if it took a stand against that, too?
Very astute. It took me a while to think of this.
I would still argue that an "expert" cathedral would not really offer much assurance that the code was secure. There's really no significant advantage to releasing the code to an "independent third party" if they don't release it further. At that rate, you might as well just let the vendor evaluate it.
A market would also evolve for certification, and CAs that release would naturally be considered more trustworthy than those that don't.
Interesting that in the rationale, they decided against taking action to close the web services/remote execution loophole.
It's doubly interesting that, while they made some changes to combat DRM, they said nothing at all about Trusted/Treacherous Computing, which is the foundational layer enabling most modern DRM.
I think that's good, because I believe you can use the latter to combat the former, just by leveraging existing terms in GPLv2, combined with the public's natural interest in retaining privacy.
Man. You can't buy promotion like this. Especially for something that hasn't been released yet.
Of course! Why didn't I see it before?
//lobby government to buy it for them//.
The industry wants to lock up all their content behind encrypted DRM formats. Only new TVs will understand them. It's hard enough getting manufacturers to agree on a standard, so they lobby government to mandate one. More importantly, it's hard to push the consuming public into a forced upgrade - so, like geniuses, they
Brilliant!
$1.5 Billion dollars ...that's gonna be one HUGE flatscreen in 2009!
Divided by 300 million Americans
=
** $5,000 ** PER PERSON (not just per household!)
You know, you're right.
//crap// out of my mediasphere, all I can respond with is "promise?"
The copyright cartel is constantly threatening to withdraw all their content if they can't force us to pay for it, taking their marbles and going home. They're always prophesying shrilly that if creators can't make livings, there will be NO content. The same applies to folks who claim that ad blockers will destroy free content on the web.
When I remember what I used to watch on TV, on movie screens, and on commercial radio, and on spam web sites though, I just can't find any sympathy for them. When they "threaten" to take all this
I'm not that naive, though. I know better than to think that our media elites will simply abandon the airwaves if they can't collect content license fees. Political advertising alone is far too valuable, and the fact that they're prompting government to subsidize their transition costs by spending a bil and a half on TELEVISIONS is evidence.
I can't get health care, but Big Brother will buy me a telescreen? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?
We need a common name for the fallacy that everyone on Slashdot thinks alike. Just because the other side has an opportunity to express their differences with other Slashdotters doesn't mean "we" should be //faulted// for being inconsistent.
News flash: groups composed of many people from all over the world don't all think alike! What a concept!
//Another blog search engine will release a list of top 100 bloggers. Every blogger on the list will blog the news in the form of: "Wow, I'm honored to have made it onto the top 100 list" with a link back to the list maintainer's blog. The list maintainer will in return blog: "I'm honored to see that the list has been covered by such a high-profile blogger" with a link back to the winner's blog. The link incest will continue for weeks until it has propelled the list maintainer himself into the top 100, at which point the list will be declared a sham and the blogosphere will erupt in outrage.//
r -the-new-year/
-- http://blakeross.com/2005/12/26/my-predictions-fo
I saw this yesterday on Ars Technica. It wasn't slashdotted then! :)
The blog by the CTO was actually quite extensive and open, leading me to believe that this is legit, just not ready yet.
The app uses bittorrent protocol, but simply integrates a "buddy list" style private network, such that you can't share with the public. I'll be interested to see how (or if) it traverses NATs. The copyright cartel doesn't have much to worry about, unless public sharing can be hacked into this through some kind of re-broadcast mechanism. I doubt Allpeers will put it in there, as that's clearly not what it's targeted at.
Everything it touches is also made open by default.
Why, hello, Mr Ballmer! Welcome to Slashdot.
You are right of course, if by "touching", you mean intentionally and laboriously incorporated into your own source code files. The disingenuous implication is that developers will wake up one morning and find a surprise in their code. "Oh my! How did THAT get in there!"
GPL code is never made open by default, but by choice.
It comes part and parcel with having a choice of applications. When you're locked in, there's only on choice anyway, so there's not so much competition in the namespace.
When everybody can deploy an application, a funny thing happens: they do. Is it any wonder the namespaces are so awkward and crowded?
Personally, this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make for freedom.
Then again, that same freedom let's you rename pretty much any software application to something better, ala Linspire.
Just have them write an "X-No-Archive:" header on their lawn, specifiying the dimensions not to include.
Hey, it works for Google web search and Groups!
Move away from California. ;p
Does declining a EULA actually mean declining the installation, or does it mean you're not bound by the license?
Software users are used to not being granted any rights to use software without a license, but that doesn't mean some license or other is required in order to receive & install software.
Of course, if there's no license, then all the usual protections - waiver of liability from damages, merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, etc. - don't apply. All they've got is straight copyright protection.
No wonder they're getting sued. What idiot allows users to install software without indemnifying the hell out of themselves?
This new site differs from Wikipedia by inviting acknowledged experts in a range of subjects to review material contributed by the general public.
As opposed to Wikipedia, who expressly bar experts from contributing or reviewing material.
Ummmm.... no.
Actually, what's happening here is that DU will bar the public from contributing further, after the experts have their say.
Not good enough. I'd rather change the law so that it's prohibitively difficult for people to treat me like that.
For a while, I was thinking it might actually be refreshing to simply stop buying DRM'd media, and watch "civilization" disappear behind crypto over the next 5-10 years. Finally, I'd be free of it! Hollywood tries to threaten us by saying if their output wasn't protected, they'd stop making it. It backfired in my case, because all I said was "REALLY?! Promise?"
Then I realized I was being naive. Advertising will not be DRM'd. As much as the copyright cartel would like, reviewers and my friends and neighbors won't stop talking about movies, tv, and music I can't afford (money, or timewise).
When you stop buying products to protest the beahviousr of the manufacturer, that's a a boycott.
When you stop buying products because they suck, that's just market choice.
So - simply reproduce the "signal" , and foil anyone taking pictures of you with "consumer" equipment.
This Gaim 2.0 beta supports Bonjour, btw. I just added it to my accounts list (haven't tested it yet, but will soon).
Right; This is also what firefox does (when you turn it on) with the "Master Password" for remembering website login passwords.
That's a case that's potentially justified by large numbers of passwords (I have dozens). I also use gaim with about 20 accounts, so it would be a good idea there, too. Most users, however, will probably only have one or two, so trading two passphrases for one may seem like too much hassle for the added security (for some).
I compromise by using encfs to encrypt my ~/.gaim/ directory (among others), but that has its own limitations. Other users (including root) can't read the files, but any app running as my user can, while the fs is mounted.
If there's one thing that would simple to implement, yet have a huge impact on desktop usage, it would have to be having two separate mouse cursors.
The mouse was a great idea; it was like giving people back their hand when they used a computer. They could point, indicate, grab, and do most of things people do when they DO things with their hands. Typing is generally a substitute for speaking.
But having only one mouse is like trying to cook with three fingers and one hand tied behind your back. There are so many things we could do in many applications just by having an extra mouse with an extra cursor - holding things, rotating them, extending and retracting... there's an entire vocabulary of interface metaphor that would be opened up with it.
This would be especially easy for modern PCs to support as well. most computers only had two ps/2 ports not long ago, one of which was reserved for the keyboard. Today, however, it's not hard to use a free USB port, or buy a $30 hub to make room for an extra mouse. Plug it in, and in most cases it's *already* autorecognized and hooked up to the monolithic mouse cursor.
It might be confusing to figure out how existing applications that were designed for only one mouse cursor should interface with the extra cursor, but ignoring it shouldn't be difficult, at the very least. meanwhile, both new and old applications can build in support for it as they go.
This is just one of those things that would be so useful, I can't understand why it hasn't been done already. Maybe it has - I'd love to see it, if so.