Even AMD had to fudge the model names back then to get people to buy the processors, which admittedly were faster per Mhz than Intel, but customers looked at raw numbers. I would think that cores would be the same, even with a more sophisticated buyer.
Really? cores == cores? You say this on an article about a line of processors with a bazillion hardware threads. No doubt computer buyers often don't understand what they're getting, but to a person that naive, a T3 has 128 processors. Have fun debating processor vs. core with a core == core luddite, not to mention this processor line is a SoC with four way SMP, four memory channels, PCI-e, and dual 10gbit nics./sigh.. it's just one chip though, and my gaming rig has two, so it's twice as fast. Hopefully those people don't have jobs requiring them to make complex decisions.
I'm sure that each of Apple, HTC, Nokia and Motorola each independently invented the same things, that they wouldn't have invested effort in inventing if they couldn't protect forever with an exclusive monopoly, so now tech progress is protected by these patents instead of being completely logjammed. I'm sure the money spent on lawyers instead of development is promoting tech progress, not scaring away other innovators.
I know the system seems biased, but these companies probably can and do afford more research dollars than most others in the industry, so it's not unreasonable for them to have the larger patent portfolios. What you really have to look at is if these companies had absolutely no incentive to let any innovation in the open for fear of it being jacked. That is a whole lot of research effort being locked up. Money spent defending/attacking patents would be spent reverse engineering, and duplicating research. Probably somewhere in the middle is ideal. These behemoths will always be squabbling over something though, high value patents, or each other's secret sauce.
Not like you can't do original, independent research and sell it to whichever one hates the others most. You'd be competing with really big research budgets though, what would you expect? It's how the game is played.
It's all about establishing a nasty, thick web of patents not covered by RAND to raise the barrier to entry impossibly high.
This is why I criticize Apple's walled garden, despite not owning one. They're very, very interested in making impossible for those of us who don't want to buy in to actually have a choice.
Wow. Apple is the reason there isn't a tidal wave of smart phones smashing on us, and a wall of tablets bearing down in the distance? Or Apple IS the reason? Good luck weaseling out of that one.
"Batman: Arkham Asylum lets unauthorized users play through the game as if it were a normal copy, with a single exception: Batman's cape-glide ability doesn't work, rendering the game impossible to finish -- although you might bash your head against it trying to make what are now impossible jumps. If you pirate Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, brace yourself for an explosion, as your entire base will detonate within 30 seconds of loading the game..."
So how is this different then the purchased, bug-ridden, unfinished versions that are pawned off on us with every release?
Maybe subtlety is exactly the point. They set the bar higher than most crackers would bother for, but low enough for dissatisfaction among users.
If it went too far, they might get bad word of mouth from unscrupulous individuals, but people would eventually get it. More obvious problems like audio/video mismatch, cutscenes not working, wrong audio would be harder for crackers to patch and not mistaken for legitimate bugs by legitimate users. You know, the kind of way too glaring for this to be widespread issues. Yah, I know there are real bugs like THAT too:P but the developers react to them.
Plus, think how much FUN the developers would have working in secret logic bombs like that!
Sometimes I think: fine. All the commercial entities can take the net and turn it into nothing but a big shopping mall with everyone's computer being nothing but a terminal with which they can deposit cash into somebody's pocket. Except for me, and others like me who understand what it was like to a run Fidonet node. For the hell of it, and for free. And I'm sure there's plenty of younger folks who just get tired of this stuff as well. Hell, I'm sure they could do it better than we did back in the day......
You should go start a new on on port 81. I'm only 2/3 joking.
That's not irony. It would be ironic if I _didn't_ do that. What's the first word I used... "everyone"?
Everyone as in yourself too? You admit that you are part of the problem, no wiser than the people you accuse of being stupid?
Then why the hell should we even care what you think?
Stupid is not my choice of words, but I'm like most people, with a limited view of a very big world. I don't know, Jah-Wren Ryel, but probably because I'm right.
Look around the world. China, Russia, Iran, Brazil.. anywhere. Do you really think, if only, if only they were more transparent, they would change? Is there some big ultra-dark secret behind them that would change things if it came to light?
No.
That's a rationale for dictatorship.
So I'm right, aren't I? I'm right, in that big evil dark secrets are not the boogie man you want them to be. Everyone needs a boogie man, he's the dark to your light. You can't shine without the darkness can you?
This is precisely the outcome that Wikileaks was looking for: Assange's plan has been to leak information in order to make those who wish to keep secrets paranoid, so that they clamp down on their own internal communications and become less effective:
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
I'm sorry, but the next time someone pops the question about why so many hate Assange as opposed to Wikileaks, this is it. The man is crazy. So steps will be taken to ensure secret information is even more tightly controlled, which is basically the goal in the first place, and "you win" ? This is the definition of insanity, friends.
"The more secretive or unjust an organization is" He is absolutely convinced that secrets are bad. Wake up folks, that isn't Gotham City out your window.
I, personally, have no problem with these developers being paid. Open source is not always free and vice versa. I think what's important is the code remaining accessible.
Kind of hard to do that and follow these rules. Personally, I think Open Source licenses are crap. You give your work away for free, but acknowledge it has some value at the same time (by preventing others from making private contributions and commercial redistributions). Which is it, really free, or not? If you have confidence in yourself, sell your work. It leads to higher quality than "here is some free crap, don't touch it without giving me all your work for free too". Like a low quality guarantee or something. The quality ceiling is intentionally limited by what people are willing to do for $free.
I would completely understand if Open Source Software were developed at cost, but for free or minimal cost, by non-profit organizations funded by charitable people. That would be true acknowledgment that Open Source is a charity. It really isn't though, it's all about spreading this "stuff should be free" ideology, and that scares me.
Who would go start a project to build homes for the homeless and practically demand all the labor be provided free because the project's leader raised $0 funding, and then go the extra mile and say there are no restrictions on use? So yah, donate your time, bring your own tools, or don't show up, and don't even bother asking if the homes will only go to the needy, or who will maintain them. Not the people in charge for damned sure, because they have $0 funding and completely decentralized labor. They might disappear at any time because they have absolutely zero commitment or obligation to go through with it, and may in fact be totally anonymous. Feel free to maintain it yourself I guess, but you know.. strictly at your own cost. You don't do things for others, you do them for yourself, others being secondary. This isn't a charity, it's a bunch of people communally building things for _themselves_, and you are either in or out.
WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS WORKS FOR SOFTWARE?
1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale....
3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Yeah, like that is really going to make THAT much of a difference. Oh- make sure to remove all printers too, prevent all Email/IRC/IM, cut and paste, CD/DVDRW, etc. I suppose I can't criticize them for trying, but no amount of stuff like that is going to prevent information leaks if someone wants to leak information. It is no different than DRM.
All printers on a secure network are also classified with big colored stickers on them. They may or may not log exactly who did what when on them. You decide. BTW, everything else you said is entirely within the realm of possibility and/or already being done.
I suppose I can't criticize them for trying, but no amount of stuff like that is going to prevent information leaks if someone wants to leak information. It is no different than DRM.
At this level, "leaking" is no different than "spying" You're pretty foolish to think nothing can be done about it. BTW, DRM works, this is why year old console games cost the same as new. PC games depreciate faster not because they are "old" because of piracy concerns. In fact, console games can maintain a steady price until the publisher decides to lower it, to promote a sequel for instance. No, entertainment shouldn't be free. You can buy a lap dance, but if you touch her tits, DRM will punch you in the face. It has a price, but she doesn't have take it just because you feel you deserve to do it.
How does that relate to technology? First, none of this discussion is a technology problem. They are all people problems, like most things. There isn't a mathematical proof for "secure" in the real world. That isn't the same thing as no security. Duh.
Think about the software versions. If it were windows, you could have the latest application as soon as it came out if you wanted to, it isnt tied to the distrobution. Since most people use the packages supplied by thier distro rather than rolling their own, a rolling release means that you can get the newer software while avoiding dependency hell because the package maintainers already took care of that for you.
I kept rolling along with Debian Sid for years, and even though during major changes (such as KDE 3 to 4) it can be trying, it works pretty well. And its fun to get new software on a daily basis.
Microsoft achieves that by not attempting to bundle every possible 3rd party software under the sun with their OS. The core Windows software does remain stable for years, with minor changes in service packs and major changes in new releases.
This is something I wish a Linux distro would do. Not rolling the entire damned thing, just get non essential software out of the damned repo. Make a decree that essential software will be included in the base OS, and other can go into the extras bin repo for sake of convenience. Anything in the extras bin can depend only on thing included with the base OS. Install ALL base OS packages by default. Update the base OS once a year. Encourage industry wide minimum, if not exact, software revisions for "Core Linux".
BAM, I FIXED LINUX.
Ok, truth is, we already pretty much have that. Try to install git on CentOS. Your options are Windows, Mac, and Source. Oh.. RPMs hidden over there. But they have dependencies specific to Fedora. While the Windows and Mac installers just work. Git. Try EPEL. Yay, git 1.5, only two minor revisions behind! Why are binary installs so current for Windows and Mac, but not RHEL? The 1.7 source compiles just fine on Cent 5.5. But no RPM. That's just scratching the surface of the problem though. There is no attempt to maintain stable binary compatibility in Linux, and when people try (RedHat) the OSS community craps all over it (GIT, others). "minimum, if not exact, software revisions" MIGHT pass, but it's silly. Just maintain binary compatibility.
Until that happens, there will be no Linux distro with a stable core, and latest non-essentials. Personally, I vote with my wallet, some things are worth paying for, and some clearly aren't - using "free" as an excuse.
The "put _everything_ in the same repo with intertwined dependencies" kludge exists only because someone has taken a strong stance against binary stability, and most the OSS community looks up to him. If better software repositories are worth more to you than compiling crap for fun, there are options outside of Linux.
While true, it is not in wikileaks interest for this to become commonly known. Assange's job is to be the shit-shield for wikileaks, while everybody wastes their time hurling smear campaigns and arrest warrants against him, wikileaks is able to continue it's mission as before.
Right because there is no shit being thrown at Wikileaks, and when any of this is mentioned in the media, if they even mention a source (why bother?), it's Wikileaks. Go ask anyone on the street if Assange rings a bell. Hell, most people wont even know what the hell you're talking about if you said "those leaks in the news." Don't fool yourself, those who care, they know full well who's involved. I like how you think Wikileaks can magically pull off some public stealth maneuver in light of everything they've done.
I think people are not opposed to whistle blowing. Whatever you call the crap Wikileaks is doing, it's self destructive, and is going to HURT actual whistle blowers in the future. You know, the ones that might actually benefit society.
How ironic that you would over-simply the very people you accuse of over-simplifying.
That's not irony. It would be ironic if I _didn't_ do that. What's the first word I used... "everyone"?
Dismissing public oversight because some people insist on seeing the world as black and white is itself black and white thinking.
Come on, I never said anything about public oversight. Black & white reasoning obscures the mind to the point it doesn't really matter what information goes in.
It's about the creeping corruption that occurs in the shadows.
It's this fear of the dark that irks me. The irrational thinking that what you don't see is bigger/worse than what you do. What grounds do you base that on?
What is public oversight? There is no difference between public as in citizens and public as in the world. Public is public. There is a need for every government to keep certain information secret from other governments, and there always will be. There are points where you have to delegate to your public officials, the ability to keep secrets. It only gets scary when one considers all public officials as a big collective "Them" keeping "dark" secrets from Us. When you break it down, and respect public official's need to keep secrets from the rest of the world, and respect the system of checks and balances keeping them honest, it is not scary.
Extreme public oversight (e.g. diplomatic cables) seems to only makes sense if you have no faith in your government's integrity. If your government really has no integrity, then what exactly does having the "truth" do for you? Don't get me wrong, if there is no need to keep something secret, then don't. If your government says they will do that, and they have integrity, they will. The public is the last check/balance, not the first, of a functional government.
Look around the world. China, Russia, Iran, Brazil.. anywhere. Do you really think, if only, if only they were more transparent, they would change? Is there some big ultra-dark secret behind them that would change things if it came to light?
Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
Nothing but a scare tactic.
These are the bastards that should be losing their jobs, not for anything in the leaks, (nothing there that I can see except gossip), but rather for being so loose with data they seem to value so highly.
I completely agree, we should fire you from Slashdot for fabricating this idea.
Oh, and please write your congressman a "Dear Sir, They said..." letter.
Before we all blow up, the warning was from one alum to their alma mater, and was suggesting not to post links to cables and WL on facebook, twitter, etc. because "engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government" which, honestly, is pretty reasonable. If the State Department is deciding between equally-qualified five candidates, and three have indicated they sympathize with WL, well then the choice is down to two. Just like companies looking at your pictures on facebook before hiring. It sucks but it's true - be responsible with what you say about yourself.
"Before we all blow up" makes the assumption most posters were already in some sane, rational starting point. All you can do is sit back and laugh at them. Watch this.
The email (from an alum acting in a non-official role) warns not to make posts about this on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It didn't say "Don't read them." It's really nowhere near as crazy or interesting as the submitter wishes it were.
They don't need to hear your truth, they already have some.
Honestly, if there is nothing to hide, why all the panic? Its like... Well, I'd think of an analogy but I'm hungry.
Why are you asking us, is there truly bad stuff they haven't leaked yet? I could have sworn the hype the last two times said there was, but we're waiting.
I really don't see how just throwing out a bunch of diplomatic cables "helps" the democratic process. More likely than not these companies just don't want to be associated with a group whose reason for being recently seems to be releasing all the sensitive information they can get their hands on, without any sort of analysis. In my book, that's not journalism, and these diplomatic cable releases is far from whistleblowing (99% of these cables don't reveal much of anything), just spying on the US government.
I'm with you.
But... Wikileaks has what democracy craves. Its got information. Democracy craves information, because.. Wikileaks has information.
Honestly, my favorite part of all this is when people talk in the past tense about Wikileaks exposing corruption, supposing that they had something to leak therefore it MUST be corruption, without reading or comprehending any of it now that it's available. As if even all whistle blower information (as opposed to what WL does) is legitimately "bad" and not slightly personally motivated. Idiocracy craves information.
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.
Isn't that what they tell us when they pry into our affairs...?
They vs. Us ?
How about understand how governments work, AND fight for individual right to privacy? Holy Christ this is strange, it's YOUR COUNTRY, AND IT IS A DEMOCRACY. You can fight to have your voice heard AND not fuck with your country doing the same.
I'm reminded of the "America is about having your cake and eating it too" Southpark episode. YES, I DO think Southpark is quality education, compared to Rush.
Wikileaks, which is revealing the truth about governments and therefore aiding (in a way) the democratic process
How have they done either? What is your truth? Isolationism? What would you do at the reigns of a nation? "Please stop?", "They're all nuts, close all our windows!"
The truth is, most people continue to not understand politics, local and especially international. Just as "assist ugly nation X suppress worse nation Y" doesn't mesh with anyone's rose colored view of the world, "congressman from state X brings huge contract to state X" is met with "gah, teh corruption!!!1"
Everyone wants to believe in some Us vs. Them fantasy world, where Them is fully cognizant, aware and intentionally driving Us in some direction against Our will, unbeknownst to Us, except for You and your favorite radio/TV Host.
Wikileaks can't fix that.
Seriously, how has Wikileaks "aided the democratic process"?
Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret.
Informed of what, the "truth", Truth(TM), Truth, tru dat, teh truf? People are not computers. True/false is not 1 and 0.
I like how this place can have extremely varied, splintered, religious culture well into the "Information Age", but somehow you expect people to put their thinking caps on when it comes to politics.
Selective reasoning is like selective truth. It's not. You might as well just enjoy the bread and circus. Your hosts are not robots, they are avery bit as human as you are, and they like good bread and circus too.
Most people just want to live happy lives. Is that hard to understand?
Julian Assange is fighting against the government's privacy, not ours. The difference? Unlike individual private citizens, the government doesn't deserve privacy!
Where is this in the Constitution? Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?
How do you know anyone's concerns outside of Slashdot? The echo chamber is deafening.
Besides that, who's to say the news outlets involved didn't/wouldn't cooperate with the US government? And if they did/didn't, what leads you to believe they are not as much a concern? Please don't say "we'd hear about it from the media" without giving a second thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Even AMD had to fudge the model names back then to get people to buy the processors, which admittedly were faster per Mhz than Intel, but customers looked at raw numbers. I would think that cores would be the same, even with a more sophisticated buyer.
Really? cores == cores? You say this on an article about a line of processors with a bazillion hardware threads. No doubt computer buyers often don't understand what they're getting, but to a person that naive, a T3 has 128 processors. Have fun debating processor vs. core with a core == core luddite, not to mention this processor line is a SoC with four way SMP, four memory channels, PCI-e, and dual 10gbit nics. /sigh.. it's just one chip though, and my gaming rig has two, so it's twice as fast. Hopefully those people don't have jobs requiring them to make complex decisions.
I'm sure that each of Apple, HTC, Nokia and Motorola each independently invented the same things, that they wouldn't have invested effort in inventing if they couldn't protect forever with an exclusive monopoly, so now tech progress is protected by these patents instead of being completely logjammed. I'm sure the money spent on lawyers instead of development is promoting tech progress, not scaring away other innovators.
I know the system seems biased, but these companies probably can and do afford more research dollars than most others in the industry, so it's not unreasonable for them to have the larger patent portfolios. What you really have to look at is if these companies had absolutely no incentive to let any innovation in the open for fear of it being jacked. That is a whole lot of research effort being locked up. Money spent defending/attacking patents would be spent reverse engineering, and duplicating research. Probably somewhere in the middle is ideal. These behemoths will always be squabbling over something though, high value patents, or each other's secret sauce.
Not like you can't do original, independent research and sell it to whichever one hates the others most. You'd be competing with really big research budgets though, what would you expect? It's how the game is played.
It's all about establishing a nasty, thick web of patents not covered by RAND to raise the barrier to entry impossibly high.
This is why I criticize Apple's walled garden, despite not owning one. They're very, very interested in making impossible for those of us who don't want to buy in to actually have a choice.
Wow. Apple is the reason there isn't a tidal wave of smart phones smashing on us, and a wall of tablets bearing down in the distance? Or Apple IS the reason? Good luck weaseling out of that one.
"Batman: Arkham Asylum lets unauthorized users play through the game as if it were a normal copy, with a single exception: Batman's cape-glide ability doesn't work, rendering the game impossible to finish -- although you might bash your head against it trying to make what are now impossible jumps. If you pirate Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, brace yourself for an explosion, as your entire base will detonate within 30 seconds of loading the game..."
So how is this different then the purchased, bug-ridden, unfinished versions that are pawned off on us with every release?
Maybe subtlety is exactly the point. They set the bar higher than most crackers would bother for, but low enough for dissatisfaction among users.
If it went too far, they might get bad word of mouth from unscrupulous individuals, but people would eventually get it. More obvious problems like audio/video mismatch, cutscenes not working, wrong audio would be harder for crackers to patch and not mistaken for legitimate bugs by legitimate users. You know, the kind of way too glaring for this to be widespread issues. Yah, I know there are real bugs like THAT too :P but the developers react to them.
Plus, think how much FUN the developers would have working in secret logic bombs like that!
if they can tell it's pirated... why all the crazy piracy schemes in the first place? Why even LAUNCH the game? how can they tell?
Clever logic bombs are harder to circumvent.
Sometimes I think: fine. All the commercial entities can take the net and turn it into nothing but a big shopping mall with everyone's computer being nothing but a terminal with which they can deposit cash into somebody's pocket. Except for me, and others like me who understand what it was like to a run Fidonet node. For the hell of it, and for free. And I'm sure there's plenty of younger folks who just get tired of this stuff as well. Hell, I'm sure they could do it better than we did back in the day......
You should go start a new on on port 81. I'm only 2/3 joking.
That's not irony. It would be ironic if I _didn't_ do that. What's the first word I used... "everyone"?
Everyone as in yourself too? You admit that you are part of the problem, no wiser than the people you accuse of being stupid?
Then why the hell should we even care what you think?
Stupid is not my choice of words, but I'm like most people, with a limited view of a very big world.
I don't know, Jah-Wren Ryel, but probably because I'm right.
Look around the world. China, Russia, Iran, Brazil.. anywhere. Do you really think, if only, if only they were more transparent, they would change? Is there some big ultra-dark secret behind them that would change things if it came to light?
No.
That's a rationale for dictatorship.
So I'm right, aren't I? I'm right, in that big evil dark secrets are not the boogie man you want them to be. Everyone needs a boogie man, he's the dark to your light. You can't shine without the darkness can you?
This is precisely the outcome that Wikileaks was looking for: Assange's plan has been to leak information in order to make those who wish to keep secrets paranoid, so that they clamp down on their own internal communications and become less effective:
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
I'm sorry, but the next time someone pops the question about why so many hate Assange as opposed to Wikileaks, this is it. The man is crazy.
So steps will be taken to ensure secret information is even more tightly controlled, which is basically the goal in the first place, and "you win" ?
This is the definition of insanity, friends.
"The more secretive or unjust an organization is"
He is absolutely convinced that secrets are bad. Wake up folks, that isn't Gotham City out your window.
I, personally, have no problem with these developers being paid. Open source is not always free and vice versa. I think what's important is the code remaining accessible.
Kind of hard to do that and follow these rules. Personally, I think Open Source licenses are crap. You give your work away for free, but acknowledge it has some value at the same time (by preventing others from making private contributions and commercial redistributions). Which is it, really free, or not? If you have confidence in yourself, sell your work. It leads to higher quality than "here is some free crap, don't touch it without giving me all your work for free too". Like a low quality guarantee or something. The quality ceiling is intentionally limited by what people are willing to do for $free.
I would completely understand if Open Source Software were developed at cost, but for free or minimal cost, by non-profit organizations funded by charitable people. That would be true acknowledgment that Open Source is a charity. It really isn't though, it's all about spreading this "stuff should be free" ideology, and that scares me.
Who would go start a project to build homes for the homeless and practically demand all the labor be provided free because the project's leader raised $0 funding, and then go the extra mile and say there are no restrictions on use? So yah, donate your time, bring your own tools, or don't show up, and don't even bother asking if the homes will only go to the needy, or who will maintain them. Not the people in charge for damned sure, because they have $0 funding and completely decentralized labor. They might disappear at any time because they have absolutely zero commitment or obligation to go through with it, and may in fact be totally anonymous. Feel free to maintain it yourself I guess, but you know.. strictly at your own cost. You don't do things for others, you do them for yourself, others being secondary. This isn't a charity, it's a bunch of people communally building things for _themselves_, and you are either in or out.
WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS WORKS FOR SOFTWARE?
1. Free Redistribution ...
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Yeah, like that is really going to make THAT much of a difference. Oh- make sure to remove all printers too, prevent all Email/IRC/IM, cut and paste, CD/DVDRW, etc. I suppose I can't criticize them for trying, but no amount of stuff like that is going to prevent information leaks if someone wants to leak information. It is no different than DRM.
All printers on a secure network are also classified with big colored stickers on them. They may or may not log exactly who did what when on them. You decide.
BTW, everything else you said is entirely within the realm of possibility and/or already being done.
I suppose I can't criticize them for trying, but no amount of stuff like that is going to prevent information leaks if someone wants to leak information. It is no different than DRM.
At this level, "leaking" is no different than "spying"
You're pretty foolish to think nothing can be done about it. BTW, DRM works, this is why year old console games cost the same as new. PC games depreciate faster not because they are "old" because of piracy concerns. In fact, console games can maintain a steady price until the publisher decides to lower it, to promote a sequel for instance. No, entertainment shouldn't be free. You can buy a lap dance, but if you touch her tits, DRM will punch you in the face. It has a price, but she doesn't have take it just because you feel you deserve to do it.
How does that relate to technology? First, none of this discussion is a technology problem. They are all people problems, like most things. There isn't a mathematical proof for "secure" in the real world. That isn't the same thing as no security. Duh.
Think about the software versions. If it were windows, you could have the latest application as soon as it came out if you wanted to, it isnt tied to the distrobution. Since most people use the packages supplied by thier distro rather than rolling their own, a rolling release means that you can get the newer software while avoiding dependency hell because the package maintainers already took care of that for you.
I kept rolling along with Debian Sid for years, and even though during major changes (such as KDE 3 to 4) it can be trying, it works pretty well. And its fun to get new software on a daily basis.
Microsoft achieves that by not attempting to bundle every possible 3rd party software under the sun with their OS. The core Windows software does remain stable for years, with minor changes in service packs and major changes in new releases.
This is something I wish a Linux distro would do. Not rolling the entire damned thing, just get non essential software out of the damned repo. Make a decree that essential software will be included in the base OS, and other can go into the extras bin repo for sake of convenience. Anything in the extras bin can depend only on thing included with the base OS. Install ALL base OS packages by default. Update the base OS once a year. Encourage industry wide minimum, if not exact, software revisions for "Core Linux".
BAM, I FIXED LINUX.
Ok, truth is, we already pretty much have that. Try to install git on CentOS. Your options are Windows, Mac, and Source. Oh.. RPMs hidden over there. But they have dependencies specific to Fedora. While the Windows and Mac installers just work. Git. Try EPEL. Yay, git 1.5, only two minor revisions behind! Why are binary installs so current for Windows and Mac, but not RHEL? The 1.7 source compiles just fine on Cent 5.5. But no RPM. That's just scratching the surface of the problem though. There is no attempt to maintain stable binary compatibility in Linux, and when people try (RedHat) the OSS community craps all over it (GIT, others). "minimum, if not exact, software revisions" MIGHT pass, but it's silly. Just maintain binary compatibility.
Until that happens, there will be no Linux distro with a stable core, and latest non-essentials. Personally, I vote with my wallet, some things are worth paying for, and some clearly aren't - using "free" as an excuse.
The "put _everything_ in the same repo with intertwined dependencies" kludge exists only because someone has taken a strong stance against binary stability, and most the OSS community looks up to him. If better software repositories are worth more to you than compiling crap for fun, there are options outside of Linux.
WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national?
LMAOROFL, the question is "how many?"
While true, it is not in wikileaks interest for this to become commonly known. Assange's job is to be the shit-shield for wikileaks, while everybody wastes their time hurling smear campaigns and arrest warrants against him, wikileaks is able to continue it's mission as before.
Right because there is no shit being thrown at Wikileaks, and when any of this is mentioned in the media, if they even mention a source (why bother?), it's Wikileaks. Go ask anyone on the street if Assange rings a bell. Hell, most people wont even know what the hell you're talking about if you said "those leaks in the news." Don't fool yourself, those who care, they know full well who's involved. I like how you think Wikileaks can magically pull off some public stealth maneuver in light of everything they've done.
I think people are not opposed to whistle blowing. Whatever you call the crap Wikileaks is doing, it's self destructive, and is going to HURT actual whistle blowers in the future. You know, the ones that might actually benefit society.
What corruption has been exposed thus far?
Sign the files and tell the key publicly?
So you know you got the right data if you get the right key. You know you got the the right key when... ?
How ironic that you would over-simply the very people you accuse of over-simplifying.
That's not irony. It would be ironic if I _didn't_ do that. What's the first word I used... "everyone"?
Dismissing public oversight because some people insist on seeing the world as black and white is itself black and white thinking.
Come on, I never said anything about public oversight. Black & white reasoning obscures the mind to the point it doesn't really matter what information goes in.
It's about the creeping corruption that occurs in the shadows.
It's this fear of the dark that irks me. The irrational thinking that what you don't see is bigger/worse than what you do. What grounds do you base that on?
What is public oversight? There is no difference between public as in citizens and public as in the world. Public is public. There is a need for every government to keep certain information secret from other governments, and there always will be. There are points where you have to delegate to your public officials, the ability to keep secrets. It only gets scary when one considers all public officials as a big collective "Them" keeping "dark" secrets from Us. When you break it down, and respect public official's need to keep secrets from the rest of the world, and respect the system of checks and balances keeping them honest, it is not scary.
Extreme public oversight (e.g. diplomatic cables) seems to only makes sense if you have no faith in your government's integrity. If your government really has no integrity, then what exactly does having the "truth" do for you? Don't get me wrong, if there is no need to keep something secret, then don't. If your government says they will do that, and they have integrity, they will. The public is the last check/balance, not the first, of a functional government.
Look around the world. China, Russia, Iran, Brazil.. anywhere. Do you really think, if only, if only they were more transparent, they would change? Is there some big ultra-dark secret behind them that would change things if it came to light?
No.
Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
Nothing but a scare tactic.
These are the bastards that should be losing their jobs, not for anything in the leaks, (nothing there that I can see except gossip), but rather for being so loose with data they seem to value so highly.
I completely agree, we should fire you from Slashdot for fabricating this idea.
Oh, and please write your congressman a "Dear Sir, They said ..." letter.
Before we all blow up, the warning was from one alum to their alma mater, and was suggesting not to post links to cables and WL on facebook, twitter, etc. because "engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government" which, honestly, is pretty reasonable. If the State Department is deciding between equally-qualified five candidates, and three have indicated they sympathize with WL, well then the choice is down to two. Just like companies looking at your pictures on facebook before hiring. It sucks but it's true - be responsible with what you say about yourself.
"Before we all blow up" makes the assumption most posters were already in some sane, rational starting point. All you can do is sit back and laugh at them. Watch this.
ZOMG US GOVERNMENT IS SUPPRESSING WIKILEAKS READ IT HERE
http://www.us-cert.gov/current/#potential_wiki_leaks
Enjoy the Olympic scale conclusion jumping and tin foil hat craft fair.
The email (from an alum acting in a non-official role) warns not to make posts about this on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It didn't say "Don't read them." It's really nowhere near as crazy or interesting as the submitter wishes it were.
They don't need to hear your truth, they already have some.
Honestly, if there is nothing to hide, why all the panic? Its like... Well, I'd think of an analogy but I'm hungry.
Why are you asking us, is there truly bad stuff they haven't leaked yet? I could have sworn the hype the last two times said there was, but we're waiting.
I really don't see how just throwing out a bunch of diplomatic cables "helps" the democratic process. More likely than not these companies just don't want to be associated with a group whose reason for being recently seems to be releasing all the sensitive information they can get their hands on, without any sort of analysis. In my book, that's not journalism, and these diplomatic cable releases is far from whistleblowing (99% of these cables don't reveal much of anything), just spying on the US government.
I'm with you.
But... Wikileaks has what democracy craves. Its got information. Democracy craves information, because.. Wikileaks has information.
Honestly, my favorite part of all this is when people talk in the past tense about Wikileaks exposing corruption, supposing that they had something to leak therefore it MUST be corruption, without reading or comprehending any of it now that it's available. As if even all whistle blower information (as opposed to what WL does) is legitimately "bad" and not slightly personally motivated. Idiocracy craves information.
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.
Isn't that what they tell us when they pry into our affairs...?
They
vs.
Us
?
How about understand how governments work, AND fight for individual right to privacy?
Holy Christ this is strange, it's YOUR COUNTRY, AND IT IS A DEMOCRACY. You can fight to have your voice heard AND not fuck with your country doing the same.
I'm reminded of the "America is about having your cake and eating it too" Southpark episode. YES, I DO think Southpark is quality education, compared to Rush.
Wikileaks, which is revealing the truth about governments and therefore aiding (in a way) the democratic process
How have they done either? What is your truth? Isolationism? What would you do at the reigns of a nation? "Please stop?", "They're all nuts, close all our windows!"
The truth is, most people continue to not understand politics, local and especially international. Just as "assist ugly nation X suppress worse nation Y" doesn't mesh with anyone's rose colored view of the world, "congressman from state X brings huge contract to state X" is met with "gah, teh corruption!!!1"
Everyone wants to believe in some Us vs. Them fantasy world, where Them is fully cognizant, aware and intentionally driving Us in some direction against Our will, unbeknownst to Us, except for You and your favorite radio/TV Host.
Wikileaks can't fix that.
Seriously, how has Wikileaks "aided the democratic process"?
Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret.
Informed of what, the "truth", Truth(TM), Truth, tru dat, teh truf? People are not computers. True/false is not 1 and 0.
I like how this place can have extremely varied, splintered, religious culture well into the "Information Age", but somehow you expect people to put their thinking caps on when it comes to politics.
Selective reasoning is like selective truth. It's not. You might as well just enjoy the bread and circus. Your hosts are not robots, they are avery bit as human as you are, and they like good bread and circus too.
Most people just want to live happy lives. Is that hard to understand?
Julian Assange is fighting against the government's privacy, not ours. The difference? Unlike individual private citizens, the government doesn't deserve privacy!
Where is this in the Constitution? Where does our Constitution compel the Federal Government to be fully transparent?
States protecting their secrets is old as dirt.
http://suntzusaid.com/book/13
Secrets are important for national security, PERIOD, END OF LINE
Why is the focus on Wikileaks and it's leader?
How do you know anyone's concerns outside of Slashdot? The echo chamber is deafening.
Besides that, who's to say the news outlets involved didn't/wouldn't cooperate with the US government? And if they did/didn't, what leads you to believe they are not as much a concern? Please don't say "we'd hear about it from the media" without giving a second thought.