As a European commenter said in the last story on this issue (exactly how many do we need?), they have these weird ideas about privacy over there. Apparently it's not enough that something was visible or broadcast in public. Under the rules Google didn't have the right to collect this stuff.
Stupid, restrictive, fascist even, but there ya go.
Umm.. it's called elitism. The public are for grunt work and the important NASA scientists are doing the terribly complicated math.
I, for one, would love them to release a small portion of their results immediately so I could see if this is a task that could be easily automated. It really *looks* like a task that could be easily automated.. using SVMs for example..
A: They're stored with those provided by everyone who comes to Moon Zoo. The Moon Zoo team will carefully analyse the results to make sure that collectively we're producing results that are useful to scientists -- keep an eye on the Moon Zoo blog for details. All results will eventually be made public for anyone to use.
I think the problem here is that it is all take and no give. Categorize our images for us! We'll give you the data "eventually". Crazy idea, how about doing the statistical correlation of multiple contributors in realtime and display that information on an overall map of the Moon so there's some sense of progress at the task.
This is all stuff we discussed in the '90s. What it comes down to is: will the copyright holder sue? (typically the author). If he will, chances are he'll win in court, and more likely get a settlement before getting to court. That's the way copyright law works, for good or bad.
This is why back when Linus said he'd never sue anyone people were seriously shouting at him. Thankfully some kernel devs with spines came out of the woodwork. The busybox guys have shown the most spine to-date.
Dude, people go to court (or better yet, settle out of court) every year. The result is always the same: what the copyright owner says goes, even if the law isn't on their side. Why? Because it costs a fortune to *defend* against a lawsuit. Send a cease and desist is cheap. Filing papers is cheap.
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
It's a straight up violation. Go find the author of the software... any author of any part of the software will do.. and invite them to sue the manufacturer. Direct them to the Software Freedom Law Center.
I have no idea what Finnish law defines "privacy" or "non-public" as but most every case I've heard on the matter has defined any place that is visible from a public street as being public. Otherwise, ya know, people would be breaking the law just by accidentally taking pictures from the street.
And it's not too much to ask is it? If you want privacy, close the curtains. One might say it's so simple and natural that it's a natural law.
Which sucks. There's no -1 Disagree. There's no -1 Wrong. In a civil discussion we use words not censorship to argue our positions. The best remedy for speech you don't like is more speech.
We *still* don't get what your point is.. if you're broadcasting ANYTHING, even if it is just random numbers, people are FREE to collect that information. There's a little button on the side your router that lets you turn it OFF, do that if you just can't stand the idea of people receiving what you're sending.
Slashdot Mirror
yah! Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
"Vote with your wallet" should be reserved for consumer activities.
Uhhhh.. the religious right wanna take away our porn.
Someone taking a snapshot of me while I walk down the street is perfectly legal and fine.
Until you decide you don't like it, then you want another law.
Someone following me with a camera is creepy and possibly illegal.
Ohhh, it's creepy, better make it illegal. That's the problem with the world today.
Someone following me with a disguised camera, talking pictures while pretending to do something else?
Could be a private detective and make his living that way. You're in public, people can see you, get over it.
As a European commenter said in the last story on this issue (exactly how many do we need?), they have these weird ideas about privacy over there. Apparently it's not enough that something was visible or broadcast in public. Under the rules Google didn't have the right to collect this stuff.
Stupid, restrictive, fascist even, but there ya go.
And you'll note that every image has already been tagged with each of those variables, so all you need to do is train a model for each.
Umm.. it's called elitism. The public are for grunt work and the important NASA scientists are doing the terribly complicated math.
I, for one, would love them to release a small portion of their results immediately so I could see if this is a task that could be easily automated. It really *looks* like a task that could be easily automated.. using SVMs for example..
From the faq (http://www.moonzoo.org/faq):
Q: What happens to the classifications I provide?
A: They're stored with those provided by everyone who comes to Moon Zoo. The Moon Zoo team will carefully analyse the results to make sure that collectively we're producing results that are useful to scientists -- keep an eye on the Moon Zoo blog for details. All results will eventually be made public for anyone to use.
I think the problem here is that it is all take and no give. Categorize our images for us! We'll give you the data "eventually". Crazy idea, how about doing the statistical correlation of multiple contributors in realtime and display that information on an overall map of the Moon so there's some sense of progress at the task.
This is all stuff we discussed in the '90s. What it comes down to is: will the copyright holder sue? (typically the author). If he will, chances are he'll win in court, and more likely get a settlement before getting to court. That's the way copyright law works, for good or bad.
This is why back when Linus said he'd never sue anyone people were seriously shouting at him. Thankfully some kernel devs with spines came out of the woodwork. The busybox guys have shown the most spine to-date.
Dude, people go to court (or better yet, settle out of court) every year. The result is always the same: what the copyright owner says goes, even if the law isn't on their side. Why? Because it costs a fortune to *defend* against a lawsuit. Send a cease and desist is cheap. Filing papers is cheap.
That's the author of the software's decision. Great thing about copyright law, the copyright holders get to pick and choose who they sue.
Yes, because compilers are usually distributed with embedded operating systems. (not)
The part in question is the installation scripts.
As if we don't know it's Cisco.
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
It's a straight up violation. Go find the author of the software... any author of any part of the software will do.. and invite them to sue the manufacturer. Direct them to the Software Freedom Law Center.
hahaha, I was thinking exactly the same thing.
I'd like to throw in the word "interpreter" just to annoy you.
Do we need to explain to you how a hyperlink works too? hint: it's the first one in the summary.
There's no difference. I should have the right to point my eyes or my camera at anything I want. Close your blinds.
So why are you replying to me idiot? Look at the parent post.. or do you not understand how threads work?
Wow, a law the obligates you to "look away". I guess all those stereotypes of care-free sexuall liberated Europeans are a little overstated.
I have no idea what Finnish law defines "privacy" or "non-public" as but most every case I've heard on the matter has defined any place that is visible from a public street as being public. Otherwise, ya know, people would be breaking the law just by accidentally taking pictures from the street.
And it's not too much to ask is it? If you want privacy, close the curtains. One might say it's so simple and natural that it's a natural law.
Which sucks. There's no -1 Disagree. There's no -1 Wrong. In a civil discussion we use words not censorship to argue our positions. The best remedy for speech you don't like is more speech.
NetStumbler is way too slow. Capturing every packet you see and doing offline processing for SSIDs is a lot more effective.
We *still* don't get what your point is.. if you're broadcasting ANYTHING, even if it is just random numbers, people are FREE to collect that information. There's a little button on the side your router that lets you turn it OFF, do that if you just can't stand the idea of people receiving what you're sending.
I hate to tell you this, but in many jurisdictions it is perfectly acceptable to peer in windows without curtains.
Hopefully this will go to court and Google will establish a good precedent.
I prefer to just start talking to them. And when they say "I'm not talking to you" I get to do the whole Taxi Driver bit.