Its called consistency, and lack of it damages credibility - why the fixation on GM by the anti-GM people when the same thing is going on in other markets? This isn't about 'other' people being stupid, its about the same group of people in both cases. Selective protesting. Selective interest. Selective ignorance.
I'm a BBC licence payer, and my opinion is that you are wrong - we pay the licence fee to watch the BBC, not to own and have unlimited access to every single thing the BBC airs. A not insignificant amount of money is raised by the BBC's product sales divisions, money which goes back into funding the corporation - if that funding source was to disappear, then we would be picking up the tab in a larger licence fee.
If you were right, then my taxes give me the ability to go for a flight in a nice new Eurofighter whenever I want to.
Russia had a better reason than the US did, imho, but they still had significantly more derision and outcry raised over Georgia than the invasion of Iraq did.
Why is a citation needed? Its quite plain to see the lack of protesting against new drugs coming to market, compared to the protesting against GM food.
Does anyone else feel 'citation needed' is becoming overused? Most usage of it these days comes across as 'I don't agree with what you are saying, but I cannot answer your points so I will just try and create doubt on them by pushing the requirement for further validation back on the original poster'.
Also, the people decrying the lack of long term studies about the safety of GM quietly ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that thousands of new artificial drugs enter medical and over-the-counter usage every year without long term studies.
The only thing you need to stop this unstoppable scam is for people to be unwilling to shell out a significant sum of money to some c**t who calls them up out of the blue.
I mean, £185, when you didn't know there was anything wrong with your computer in the first place? You'd need to have more money than brains to shell out for that.
Its no different to being told by a cold calling builder that your roof is sagging and needs several thousands of pounds of repairs done to make it safe. House owner coughs up, builder potters around in the attic for a day and legs it. One house owner that is a lot of money down for no reason other than fraud.
Unfortunately, these seem to be being reported in the news all too often today:(
So you think an automobile scam along similar lines today wouldn't work? Get the list of automobile type ownership from the licensing authority (most sell this information, or its easily available elsewhere), cold call the owner and inform them that a voluntary safety notice has been issued on their vehicle, would they like priority booking for just $99 over the phone...
Uninformed people are still uninformed, regardless of how long the technologies been around.
He is more right than you would like to think - without a Government establishing which rights to protect, you don't have any rights. They aren't some physical law that protects you from crap, they are as intangible as any other legal construct.
Saying 'I have an inalienable right to life' to someone approaching you with a machete and a very evil grin isn't going to stop them killing you.
Its not making a video available that is the issue, its all the other things associated with what a content provider wishes to do with, on and around that video that is the issue.
There's a rather large difference between an election, which is run by independent persons at a designated time and place, and a petition which is handed in by an interested third party at their convenience. An election is much easier to verify, both on the day and at any point there after, and that is what is needed with a petition.
My personal opinion is that a petition should be independently verifiable as to its validity (to make sure there is no petition stuffing going on), and the only way to do that is to make signatory information available to those independent verifiers - and anyone should be able to be an independent verifier.
I don't even think its double standards - taking action against one project, whether its open source or proprietary, does not mean taking action against an entire ethos and it does not conflict with supporting an open standard elsewhere. To try and spin this as a double standard seems very much like someone is trying to market it as a negative toward IBM as a whole.
If the T&C gave legal standing, then Amazon would not have been in hot water with regard to 1984 - just because there is a clause in there doesn't make it valid, it just makes it covered in the T&C.
And to answer your initial question - no, it would never be OK for Google to disable any app, malicious or not, remotely. Remember, the definition of malicious depends on who is defining it - if an app does harm, then Google should bring that to users attention, but they should not reach out and make changes.
Whether payment was made or not is actually irrelevant as it doesn't alter the ethical, moral or legal consideration in this - Google altered a device it does not own, and has no legal standing to touch.
This is exactly the same as the Kindle 1984 issue, and it most certainly is news - Google removed an installed app from an end user phone without their permission, and that is a bad thing regardless of why they did it.
If the app violated the terms of service, then Google should have ceased to supply it (if the author hadn't removed it first), but they should most certainly not have altered an installed application.
I think you misunderstand the situation with regard to the Goldman Sachs story - the code that was taken ran the Goldman Sachs automated trading system, not the entire market, and as such anyone who had it now had Goldman Sachs business rules for trading, as well as something to analyze for bugs and shortcomings that could be exploited for a better trade.
That is how the market could be manipulated - prior knowledge of how some traders will react to a given situation or trade, and thus prior ability to determine a proper strategy. That puts some people at an unfair advantage.
Even when following standards to the letter, not all browsers produce the same result - there are plenty of examples where both Firefox and Safari 'get it right' according to the standard, and yet produce different results. Accommodating these sorts of things is also covered under the term cross-browser compatibility.
Should MS really cover every violation of common sense? I don't really consider this to be a defect - the XBox360 was not designed as a portable platform, and as such there is a reasonable expectation that the unit should never be moved when in operation.
Every time this comes up in discussion I actually wonder to myself who is actually using Java, where do these statistics come from?
I have had good exposure to two fairly large UK web design/development and bespoke software markets in the UK (South West/West/Bristol and South East/East/London/Anglia) and I have to say its all either PHP, Python or Perl, or its.Net. Out of all of our actual competitors, not one is offering Java as a platform.
I think the statistics being used by people like yourselves are portraying a false sense of what the market place actually looks like - when it comes to earning money,.Net will certainly bring in the pennies with no issues, we aren't struggling for business and we certainly aren't seeing a larger market wanting or asking for Java based solutions.
You limited it to Afghanistan, not me and not anyone else in the thread - and you were wrong to do so since the topic is about war spending, not Afghanistan singularly. Nuclear submarines can most certainly be offensive and part of a war spending budget, especially when they are used in the support of an invasion.
Also, nice to see you were very quick to jump to the insults, quite immature.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but your post breaks, not fixes, my post.
Its called consistency, and lack of it damages credibility - why the fixation on GM by the anti-GM people when the same thing is going on in other markets? This isn't about 'other' people being stupid, its about the same group of people in both cases. Selective protesting. Selective interest. Selective ignorance.
I'm a BBC licence payer, and my opinion is that you are wrong - we pay the licence fee to watch the BBC, not to own and have unlimited access to every single thing the BBC airs. A not insignificant amount of money is raised by the BBC's product sales divisions, money which goes back into funding the corporation - if that funding source was to disappear, then we would be picking up the tab in a larger licence fee.
If you were right, then my taxes give me the ability to go for a flight in a nice new Eurofighter whenever I want to.
Russia had a better reason than the US did, imho, but they still had significantly more derision and outcry raised over Georgia than the invasion of Iraq did.
How is this different to pesticide use, feed use, treatments, preparations et al? You aren't told about any of those either.
Why is a citation needed? Its quite plain to see the lack of protesting against new drugs coming to market, compared to the protesting against GM food.
Does anyone else feel 'citation needed' is becoming overused? Most usage of it these days comes across as 'I don't agree with what you are saying, but I cannot answer your points so I will just try and create doubt on them by pushing the requirement for further validation back on the original poster'.
Also, the people decrying the lack of long term studies about the safety of GM quietly ignore (or are ignorant of) the fact that thousands of new artificial drugs enter medical and over-the-counter usage every year without long term studies.
The only thing you need to stop this unstoppable scam is for people to be unwilling to shell out a significant sum of money to some c**t who calls them up out of the blue.
I mean, £185, when you didn't know there was anything wrong with your computer in the first place? You'd need to have more money than brains to shell out for that.
Its no different to being told by a cold calling builder that your roof is sagging and needs several thousands of pounds of repairs done to make it safe. House owner coughs up, builder potters around in the attic for a day and legs it. One house owner that is a lot of money down for no reason other than fraud.
Unfortunately, these seem to be being reported in the news all too often today :(
So you think an automobile scam along similar lines today wouldn't work? Get the list of automobile type ownership from the licensing authority (most sell this information, or its easily available elsewhere), cold call the owner and inform them that a voluntary safety notice has been issued on their vehicle, would they like priority booking for just $99 over the phone...
Uninformed people are still uninformed, regardless of how long the technologies been around.
He is more right than you would like to think - without a Government establishing which rights to protect, you don't have any rights. They aren't some physical law that protects you from crap, they are as intangible as any other legal construct.
Saying 'I have an inalienable right to life' to someone approaching you with a machete and a very evil grin isn't going to stop them killing you.
Its not making a video available that is the issue, its all the other things associated with what a content provider wishes to do with, on and around that video that is the issue.
There's a rather large difference between an election, which is run by independent persons at a designated time and place, and a petition which is handed in by an interested third party at their convenience. An election is much easier to verify, both on the day and at any point there after, and that is what is needed with a petition.
My personal opinion is that a petition should be independently verifiable as to its validity (to make sure there is no petition stuffing going on), and the only way to do that is to make signatory information available to those independent verifiers - and anyone should be able to be an independent verifier.
Otherwise the petition isn't worth anything.
I don't even think its double standards - taking action against one project, whether its open source or proprietary, does not mean taking action against an entire ethos and it does not conflict with supporting an open standard elsewhere. To try and spin this as a double standard seems very much like someone is trying to market it as a negative toward IBM as a whole.
If the T&C gave legal standing, then Amazon would not have been in hot water with regard to 1984 - just because there is a clause in there doesn't make it valid, it just makes it covered in the T&C.
And to answer your initial question - no, it would never be OK for Google to disable any app, malicious or not, remotely. Remember, the definition of malicious depends on who is defining it - if an app does harm, then Google should bring that to users attention, but they should not reach out and make changes.
Whether payment was made or not is actually irrelevant as it doesn't alter the ethical, moral or legal consideration in this - Google altered a device it does not own, and has no legal standing to touch.
This is exactly the same as the Kindle 1984 issue, and it most certainly is news - Google removed an installed app from an end user phone without their permission, and that is a bad thing regardless of why they did it.
If the app violated the terms of service, then Google should have ceased to supply it (if the author hadn't removed it first), but they should most certainly not have altered an installed application.
I think you misunderstand the situation with regard to the Goldman Sachs story - the code that was taken ran the Goldman Sachs automated trading system, not the entire market, and as such anyone who had it now had Goldman Sachs business rules for trading, as well as something to analyze for bugs and shortcomings that could be exploited for a better trade.
That is how the market could be manipulated - prior knowledge of how some traders will react to a given situation or trade, and thus prior ability to determine a proper strategy. That puts some people at an unfair advantage.
Even when following standards to the letter, not all browsers produce the same result - there are plenty of examples where both Firefox and Safari 'get it right' according to the standard, and yet produce different results. Accommodating these sorts of things is also covered under the term cross-browser compatibility.
I'd love to know how you think you are 'getting screwed'.
Should MS really cover every violation of common sense? I don't really consider this to be a defect - the XBox360 was not designed as a portable platform, and as such there is a reasonable expectation that the unit should never be moved when in operation.
Nice post, but you seemed to have missed my inclusion of 'bespoke software' in the markets I have experience of.
Why aren't you running? Why should there always be a candidate who shares your views and opinions?
Every time this comes up in discussion I actually wonder to myself who is actually using Java, where do these statistics come from?
.Net. Out of all of our actual competitors, not one is offering Java as a platform.
.Net will certainly bring in the pennies with no issues, we aren't struggling for business and we certainly aren't seeing a larger market wanting or asking for Java based solutions.
I have had good exposure to two fairly large UK web design/development and bespoke software markets in the UK (South West/West/Bristol and South East/East/London/Anglia) and I have to say its all either PHP, Python or Perl, or its
I think the statistics being used by people like yourselves are portraying a false sense of what the market place actually looks like - when it comes to earning money,
So could Google - but no one seems to be bitching about Google Code.
You limited it to Afghanistan, not me and not anyone else in the thread - and you were wrong to do so since the topic is about war spending, not Afghanistan singularly. Nuclear submarines can most certainly be offensive and part of a war spending budget, especially when they are used in the support of an invasion.
Also, nice to see you were very quick to jump to the insults, quite immature.