The thing is, the vast majority of people have no way to verify that their software is secure, even if it's open source. And even the people who do have the ability aren't going to. That is probably true on an individual basis, but open source software allows and encourages many other people, including hobbyists and other interested parties, to maintain official "good" builds of the software complete with hashing and other security measures. While you might not find scanning the Linux kernel for bugs or backdoors to be interesting there are people around the world who will do this for entertainment and personal interest and improvement. These hackers, in the classic sense of one who seeks out knowledge and is willing to learn how things work, and the work they do by collaborating with the developers, monitoring check-ins, and posting comments or suggestions on the forums improves both the quality of the software and confidence about its security from both flaws and backdoors. It is not necessary to personally check every piece of software when many others are all watching things closely which cannot occur in closed source software (or at least not in the same way) because of the money involved and political pressure (many companies sell you down the river in a New York minute if they think that standing up to a subpoena or going to bat for you their customer will cost them a single red cent).
Cindy Sheehan is an far left idealogue with an axe to grind, so anything that she says about the Iraq war or even war in general must not be taken as if it comes from a disinterested party (you might argue that nobody is really completely disinterested when it comes to Iraq but she is more personally involved and interested than most).
Obama knows that talks with Iran will not produce anything substantial (if talks could have resolved the problems in the Middle East they would have been resolved a long time ago) and there is really nothing to be gained at this point by talking to Iran or even North Korea for that matter. The best that we can hope for is to stave of immediate misunderstandings that could lead to cross border shooting. Bush was right about one thing when he spoke to the Israeli parliament and said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." There is every reason to believe that Ahmadinejad will negotiate in bad faith merely to wring concessions from America and Israel while eventually breaking any promises that he makes (and probably intending to break them from the start). The real power behind the government of Iran, the Ayatollahs, would probably not agree to sit in the same room with western envoys in any case so speaking directly with them will probably be impossible.
The problem with the Iranians is that they are not pragmatists like the Soviets were, but rather Islamic theocrats who are willing to put their interpretation of Islam before the welfare, prosperity, and even the lives of their people. Neither the Soviets or the Americans were going to deliberately "push the button" first during the Cold War no matter how poor relations got, but it is likely that someone like Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs would "push the button" to destroy Israel , even though they were certain of being wiped out according to MAD.
Finally, what if you talk to them and they simply say "we are taking our ball and going home" (or , less politely, f*** you America and Israel) and they develop the bomb anyway? Life is already pretty austere in Iran so sanctions are probably not going to make things much worse than they already are for the economy (which is still in shambles despite high oil prices). What then? Do you call their bluff and attack? If you don't, then they know that there is a line that the United States and Israel will not cross and so they just do what they want and dare us to stop them.
Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. Barack cannot select Hillary as his running mate without undermining his message, it would make his change talk ring hollow to select a veteran and experienced Washington DC insider like Hillary. The change voters voted for him because they wanted change and NOT Hillary so how could he be taken seriously if he continued to talk about change, but with Hillary (and by extension Bill because the two really are a package deal) on the ticket? No, Barack would do better to select a retired 4-star general, like Wesley Clark, to burnish the military credentials of his ticket and prove that he takes national security seriously (which is where McCain is very strong). Clinton could still render a service to her party by convincing her blue collar base to vote for the Barack Obama ticket, but it would be better for the party to have someone else on the actual ticket.
Looks bad to reply to my own comment, but I had to post a clarification. The definitions section of GPL v3 defines "the program" as follows:
"The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and "recipients" may be individuals or organizations. It would therefore be necessary for the protocol itself to also be licensed under the same version of the GPL (possible I suppose, but free software usually implements an existing standard rather than inventing and licensing a new one of their own creation) to trigger the share and share alike rules for proprietary programs which implement the protocol to communicate with the server program. Unlikely perhaps, but still theoretically possible.
There is a potential problem in the wording, which the author legitimately points out. The following excerpt from the article (with the quoted portion excerpted from GPL v3) illustrates the problem:
Under the new version of the GPL, the proprietary characteristics of software that step into the ring with open source software are knocked out, unless the proprietary components are "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the [open source] work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program." Suppose, for example that a certain open source server program implements some sort of network protocol such that custom client software can communicate with the server and exchange data. Now, it could be argued that even though the programs are completely separate and communicate only over the network via a protocol that they are "combined in such as way as to form a larger program" thus triggering the GPL source code sharing requirements (even though both programs remain entirely separate). The final interpretation depends upon how one defines "program". Is it defined from the point of view of the user, the operating system, the compiler? I admit that I have not read the entire V3 license, but I cannot recall whether or not "program" is explicitly defined in the license in such a way as to make the above clause unambiguous (that is the problem with natural languages and why we don't program in them, there is more than one derivation of meaning for context sensitive grammars, they are or can be ambiguous).
From what I can see it is not uncommon for people to be members of political groups or pontificate on controversial subjects in their journal all while using their real name for their profile complete with pictures. Now obviously some people, a perspective employer for example, might decide that they would rather not be associated with a "flaming liberal" or a "right wing nutcase" and since job candidates never find out why they were not hired these days, because of discrimination lawsuits, it would be difficult to prove that you were denied the position because your Facebook journal contained controversial ideas or you had the "wrong friends" or that picture of you passed out in college shows "questionable judgment". You may be careful about what you post, but many young people are not so careful and they are too young to understand that Facebook doesn't have a real "delete" button (i.e. they may remove it from the view but I doubt that the actually purge any potentially useful information from their database once they get their claws on it).
i mean yes, it is a technology villain from a movie, not a villainous movie tech, i mean... Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
One is very safe walking around, even late at night. Try that in Philly, or Miami, or any large American city. There are probably very few people who would take the position that a Police State is completely devoid of any possible benefits, fringe or otherwise. However, most of us who live in Europe and the United States are of the opinion that those benefits, which are probably few and far between, are not worth the costs of giving up what we regard as essential rights and freedoms. I for one will take a little crime any day if the alternative is effectively unlimited secret police powers to search, seize, and detain at will. I would rather have my freedoms and take my chances with those other people who might abuse theirs than see everyone stripped of their freedoms in the name of public safety.
as long as the language doesn't cross the line, i.e., overthrowing the government, nobody cares. Nobody cares as long as the person saying it is a nobody and remains obscure. However, it is convenient for those in power to have the ability to go back and dig up dirt on anyone who becomes a "trouble maker" or problem to somebody in power in the future. The fact that governments have these powers is dangerous, whether or not the actually use them, because they *could* use them if they wanted to against their political opponents. The mere suggestion or threat that the powers could be used or abused is enough to create fear and control. In fact, this was part of the original theory behind the Panopticon, it was not necessary to actually monitor the prisoners at all times because the prisoners could not tell when they were being monitored or when a previously made recording (once recording and database technology became practical) might be reviewed. The mere threat or possibility of monitoring created fear and control.
It is ironic isn't it that during the Cold War the Soviet block governments employed armies of agents to compile and maintain paper dossiers on their citizens (particularly in the former East Germany) and now people do the government's work for them by posting every detail of their lives on websites where any intelligence agency can easily find them. The kids who are doing this are apparently completely naïve about the possible long term consequences of what they are doing.
Why does an application developer (read: everyone interested in your personal data) need to have access to all your data? Because you gave it to him directly under terms (probably allowing them to share the data with advertisers) that you agreed to. This is not quite the same thing as a third party giving your information to another third party since all Facebook users signed themselves up for the service themselves. Facebook is an American corporation so if you want to dispute the terms of service (TOS) as violating privacy (and collect actual damages when and if you win) then you would have to do it in an American court and the United States has very weak or non-existent privacy laws.
However, Facebook claims otherwise and therefore they should be liable for this. Yes, except the terms of service (TOS) included the, "we reserve the right to change the agreement at any time, including retroactively, and you agree to any and all changes by continuing to use the service" clause so they are not actually liable because you agreed to their terms by continuing to use the service after they changed the terms of service.
it is becoming more and more apparent that governments don't care where the website comes from. They might not like it, but there is not much that they can do about it unless they want to cut off trade, end normalized diplomatic relations, or go to war (not really a viable option anymore these days). They can block the website in question, but that will probably be the end of it.
but it's not like you can throw rubbish over the neighbour's fence and get away with it so easily on the Internet. Sure you can. What are they going to do about it? Facebook is an American corporation with (as far as I know) no business operations in Canada. The Facebook executives just have to avoid entering Canada personally and never invest any capital there. The De Beers diamond cartel thumbed its nose at the United States for decades in just this way and their executives simply avoided visiting the United States. Canada can try and block Facebook, ala the great firewall of China, but that is about it.
Those of us who actually believe in free markets suggest that you Republicans and Democrats should just unilaterally end your socialism and allow for the free movement of people as well as goods. Nothing would please me more, that is precisely what I want.
When my great-grandmother came to the USA, you got citizenship after two years of residency. Let's go back to that (the "conservative thing to do"...) Yes, but that was before social-security, medi-care, medic-aid, and innumerable other government entitlement programs were passed under pressure from progressives and new-deal agitators in the first half of the twentieth century. They took advantage of the Great Depression, which was caused almost entirely by poor Federal Reserve (the government) policies and NOT market failure, to push through sweeping changes in line with their socialist agenda and we have been paying the consequences ever since. If you want to go back to the original immigration requirements then you have to roll back all of the entitlement programs as well, otherwise you will find that there a nearly unlimited number of people around the world who would love to move to the United States and sign up for their "fair share" of the entitlements.
Well, if she is hot and you love her then why not consider getting a visa to live in her country for a while when she goes back? You might be able to get residency there more easily than she can here.
Nah. If you want a free trade Republican to show his true colors, just ask him, why should money and goods cross borders freely, but not people? The answer is quite simple: there cannot be uncontrolled immigration into a welfare state. The United States is not as bad as Europe in this regard, but we are still at least 40% socialist in terms of expenditure of national income once all of the taxes and entitlement programs are added up. In fact, we are already seeing the consequences in western states, like California, Arizona, and Texas with large populations of recent immigrants who place tremendous strains on public education, hospital emergency room care, and even law enforcement. If the Democrats are willing to cut the entitlements and reform the citizenship laws (i.e. only children of citizens are citizens at birth) then us free trade Republicans are willing to let more people have a shot at coming to the United States. However, if you want to allow people to cross borders freely then there have to be few (preferably zero) entitlements to keep them here if they fail (i.e come in and succeed at standing on your own two feet or else go back where you came from). So lets trade (pun intended).
It is the same thing with job candidates who are interviewed but not hired, they never find out why because the HR department is afraid of being hit with a discrimination lawsuit. It is interesting or shocking, depending upon how one looks at it, to consider just how much the United States has changed since the end of WWII because of lawyers and lawsuits. It is hard to find any part of American life that has not been altered by the ever present threat of litigation. In the long run the lawsuit society plays right into the hands of the nanny state as people abandon personal responsibility and surrender their rights and freedoms to the state in exchange for the illusions of security and prosperity.
There's no evil entity here to blame and there are no victims: just some folks who don't know how to mange their money and were too optimistic about the economy and the real estate market. That is exactly right. I grow weary of hearing our politicians and activists bemoan the problems of "predatory lenders" and the plights of their "victims". Have they not heard the saying, "If you think that education is expensive then try ignorance"? People want to live in this world as adults and be treated as adults, but they want the government and their fellow taxpayers to bail them out of risky financial transactions, which they willingly engaged in, when their debts get called in. Those of us who are prudent with our money and make educated financial decisions would not have shared in the profits if their risky decisions had paid off so why should we share in their losses? They signed the paper and the responsibility for the loan is theirs and stupidity, ignorance, and wishful thinking are not excuses. If they didn't understand the consequences then they shouldn't have signed the note and if they were not able to understand then they should have hired a CPA and or lawyers to evaluate the loan papers on their behalf before they signed. There should be NO TAXPAYER BAILOUT for sub prime borrowers or anyone else who gets into trouble on their mortgage or any other individual financial transaction. If they have to walk away, declare bankruptcy, and start over then so be it, perhaps they will learn a lesson by the school of hard knocks, but it is time and PAST TIME to stop rewarding the spendthrifts and punishing the savers in this country.
Google is not in court, because the RIAA/MPAA doesn't have enough money to beat them. That's all. Given that it is now possible (or at least somewhat more common) to Invest in Lawsuits the fact that Google has not been served with a lawsuit probably has more to do with the present cases either not establishing a generic enough precedent OR not being litigated high enough into the court system to be a strong precedent AND not lack of funds on the part of the RIAA/MPAA (or the ability to raise them with lawsuit investors). If Google perceives a credible threat to their business then they will certainly act to mitigate that threat either directly (support for defendants against the RIAA/MPAA) or indirectly with lobbying and friend of the court briefs. It all depends upon how the cases wind their way through the courts, money is a secondary concern for both sides.
One would think that NASA engineers had watched enough Star Trek to realize that if one does not reverse the polarity of the intermix injectors into the flow matrix before the plasma coolant leaks after a power surge then the warp core will breach...amateurs.
That is the same goddamn argument as any moral crusader who has heard of a computer game that involves shooting people who are not ragheads or slanties or whichever enemy du jour you yanks are chasing right now.
No, it is not. Say and do what you wish in your own home or on your own private property so long as you don't harm anyone else, but YouTube can reasonably be defined as a public forum and so the appropriate laws apply (i.e. limiting certain narrowly defined types of speech) since YouTube is incorporated and located in the United States.
Perhaps an analogy will clear things up a bit here. Suppose that you owned a billboard located in a public area of a major city and somebody put up a message stating that they were going to bomb the subway at 3:00pm next Tuesday. If you, the billboard owner, allowed the message to remain once you became aware of its existence then it would be like saying, "well, that is free speech", when in fact you are providing a venue for making specific threats of criminal activity against the public. I would not describe myself as a moral crusader, but even the most pragmatic judges in both the US and the UK have ruled that there are *some* limitations (albeit very few) to absolute freedom to say absolutely anything. It is not moral crusading to suggest that the laws as they presently exist be enforced. If you don't like that then lobby to have the laws changed, but rule of law is what separates us from the religious fanatics.
No, what I was trying to say is that free speech is not absolute freedom to say *anything* you want to without consequences. It is important to distinguish between protected speech and specific threats or the "fire" in the crowded theater case among selected others.
Slashdot Mirror
Cindy Sheehan is an far left idealogue with an axe to grind, so anything that she says about the Iraq war or even war in general must not be taken as if it comes from a disinterested party (you might argue that nobody is really completely disinterested when it comes to Iraq but she is more personally involved and interested than most).
Obama knows that talks with Iran will not produce anything substantial (if talks could have resolved the problems in the Middle East they would have been resolved a long time ago) and there is really nothing to be gained at this point by talking to Iran or even North Korea for that matter. The best that we can hope for is to stave of immediate misunderstandings that could lead to cross border shooting. Bush was right about one thing when he spoke to the Israeli parliament and said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." There is every reason to believe that Ahmadinejad will negotiate in bad faith merely to wring concessions from America and Israel while eventually breaking any promises that he makes (and probably intending to break them from the start). The real power behind the government of Iran, the Ayatollahs, would probably not agree to sit in the same room with western envoys in any case so speaking directly with them will probably be impossible.
The problem with the Iranians is that they are not pragmatists like the Soviets were, but rather Islamic theocrats who are willing to put their interpretation of Islam before the welfare, prosperity, and even the lives of their people. Neither the Soviets or the Americans were going to deliberately "push the button" first during the Cold War no matter how poor relations got, but it is likely that someone like Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs would "push the button" to destroy Israel , even though they were certain of being wiped out according to MAD.
Finally, what if you talk to them and they simply say "we are taking our ball and going home" (or , less politely, f*** you America and Israel) and they develop the bomb anyway? Life is already pretty austere in Iran so sanctions are probably not going to make things much worse than they already are for the economy (which is still in shambles despite high oil prices). What then? Do you call their bluff and attack? If you don't, then they know that there is a line that the United States and Israel will not cross and so they just do what they want and dare us to stop them.
From what I can see it is not uncommon for people to be members of political groups or pontificate on controversial subjects in their journal all while using their real name for their profile complete with pictures. Now obviously some people, a perspective employer for example, might decide that they would rather not be associated with a "flaming liberal" or a "right wing nutcase" and since job candidates never find out why they were not hired these days, because of discrimination lawsuits, it would be difficult to prove that you were denied the position because your Facebook journal contained controversial ideas or you had the "wrong friends" or that picture of you passed out in college shows "questionable judgment". You may be careful about what you post, but many young people are not so careful and they are too young to understand that Facebook doesn't have a real "delete" button (i.e. they may remove it from the view but I doubt that the actually purge any potentially useful information from their database once they get their claws on it).
.org
It is ironic isn't it that during the Cold War the Soviet block governments employed armies of agents to compile and maintain paper dossiers on their citizens (particularly in the former East Germany) and now people do the government's work for them by posting every detail of their lives on websites where any intelligence agency can easily find them. The kids who are doing this are apparently completely naïve about the possible long term consequences of what they are doing.
Facebook doesn't have any offices in Canada and the ads on their website are served to whomever no matter where they are from. They don't care.
Well, if she is hot and you love her then why not consider getting a visa to live in her country for a while when she goes back? You might be able to get residency there more easily than she can here.
or perhaps it was the cane toads?
It is the same thing with job candidates who are interviewed but not hired, they never find out why because the HR department is afraid of being hit with a discrimination lawsuit. It is interesting or shocking, depending upon how one looks at it, to consider just how much the United States has changed since the end of WWII because of lawyers and lawsuits. It is hard to find any part of American life that has not been altered by the ever present threat of litigation. In the long run the lawsuit society plays right into the hands of the nanny state as people abandon personal responsibility and surrender their rights and freedoms to the state in exchange for the illusions of security and prosperity.
I wonder, how long it would take either Spirit or Opportunity to drive there from their present locations if something interesting was found?
One would think that NASA engineers had watched enough Star Trek to realize that if one does not reverse the polarity of the intermix injectors into the flow matrix before the plasma coolant leaks after a power surge then the warp core will breach...amateurs.
No, it is not. Say and do what you wish in your own home or on your own private property so long as you don't harm anyone else, but YouTube can reasonably be defined as a public forum and so the appropriate laws apply (i.e. limiting certain narrowly defined types of speech) since YouTube is incorporated and located in the United States.
Perhaps an analogy will clear things up a bit here. Suppose that you owned a billboard located in a public area of a major city and somebody put up a message stating that they were going to bomb the subway at 3:00pm next Tuesday. If you, the billboard owner, allowed the message to remain once you became aware of its existence then it would be like saying, "well, that is free speech", when in fact you are providing a venue for making specific threats of criminal activity against the public. I would not describe myself as a moral crusader, but even the most pragmatic judges in both the US and the UK have ruled that there are *some* limitations (albeit very few) to absolute freedom to say absolutely anything. It is not moral crusading to suggest that the laws as they presently exist be enforced. If you don't like that then lobby to have the laws changed, but rule of law is what separates us from the religious fanatics.
No, what I was trying to say is that free speech is not absolute freedom to say *anything* you want to without consequences. It is important to distinguish between protected speech and specific threats or the "fire" in the crowded theater case among selected others.