I suppose I should have expected this when I posted the above, ha. The theory of libertarianism should be the things you said, but the party put him as their head representative, so he truly does a grave disservice to their party by his words. All I can say is I was unimpressed by Barr's very un-libertarian like views.
In particular (and to try and return to topic), I wonder what Barr would have said about such policies considering he said he was "unsure" about whole war on terror and DHS stuff (I *believe* he said something to that effect - no time to properly verify my memory). I'm not sure he understands that any law "on the books" but not universally enforceable is essentially a tool for abuse.
The US Libertarian party is marginalized here because they are very socially conservative. Making them rather socially un-liberal. If there is a party that is for social freedom and other reforms, I don't know it. So much for hippies?
I listened to the debate between Bob Barr and Ralph Nader that happened here in DC and IMO Barr did not come off well.
Yeah I agree, it was a public service! But if I wanted to make a case for Google being a monopoly and trying to block other biz from the market, I might make that argument. Personally though, blocking out a known abuser seems like just good sense to me.:-)
They seem to have a whole section of their site made for crowd sourcing out ideas for their game (rather clever of them heh).
I too though couldn't find any screen shots or other game play videos. Their lego creation game was also rather problematic IMO, so I seriously wonder if they will have come up with new ways to actually do the building... And previous stuff has had a lot of issues with only releasing a small set of the blocks which made buildings very annoying.:(
Firefox: while this may be anti-competitive in the browser market, it's not in the advertising market, and the advertising market is where they have a monopoly position. No one can claim that Google has a monopoly position in the browser market, or that supporting a browser produced by a different company that they are enhancing their own position in the browser market unfairly. Moreover, I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with paying for a legitimate service, as Google is funding Mozilla (ostensibly) not out of charity but for the service of prime placement in the search bar, which is 100% legal.
API: I don't recall there being any reason a company, monopoly or not, might be required to open all their APIs to third parties
I don't believe at this point Google is a monopoly.
As to the Firefox thing, the point I was getting at is that it is "evidence" of Google leveraging their search to get into another market (browsers and browsers standards). You could equate this to MS's IE antics. If Chrome ever becomes bigger then we might argue that is a more clear cut case.
In fact there seems to have been a number of direct moves that Google has done to undermine MS, but IMO this is just how companies work, see Intel vs Nvidia for recent fun.
Lastly, APIs are of course optional, no more so then on the web currently, but as we move to a more integrated desktop and cloud computing I think it will become more common for them to have external APIs, it only makes sense. You can also view APIs and following open standards as showing "good faith" toward the computing community - you see a lot of demand for MS to do the same, and maybe more demand for Google to do the same.
Its hard to not sound like a fan boy of google, but I'm currently not understanding why google would be considered as a monopoly, but if I was to play devil's advocate here I might argue the following:
Buying DoubleClick giving google some 70% of the market.
Attempting to buy into Yahoo to block MS (anti-competitive?).
Preference of search orders for choice sites (wiki).
Mozilla support / Firefox integration.
Limited external api to services.
I don't agree with these, but some could argue (if you really didn't like google anyway).
I'm trying to do that exact same thing myself, but haven't been able to get it right. There are just so many neighbors running their own wifi that I think it is causing signal degradation.
Also, the MythVideo plugin *does* not stream, so you have to share (via SMB or NFS) the directory between the Front and Back ends... This makes those sort of files play too slowly as well.
More so, it seems that its embedding firefox in its window, and has a ~/.miro/mozilla directory, so why the hell doesn't it work?
I've been looking around, and others seemed to have flash working in previous versions... Besides that, without flash support it really cuts down on the amount of legal media Linux users can use when it seems entirely reasonable to have it working.
Now it looks like I'm stuck trying to hack their source, sigh.
That sounds like the OpenId system honestly, kind of funny - I'm sure of course that it isn't using that at all, but the idea seems similar.
Considering how many times this always needs to be implemented on so many sites, I wonder how there isn't an OpenSSL, OpenSSh, equivalent library for web-login stuff of a drop in that is that is insanely secure... I guess the whole mess of PHP, JSP, and other bloody scripting frame works is really the problem? And the interaction with the insane user databases that contain too much information in them already?
I've been watching this game on Greenhouse - waiting for it to come out on Linux. It looks extremely cool, its sad that it gets pirated so much, but it seems it made no difference...
It might be that they are really trying to block China from producing better ballistic missile weapons or maybe anti-ballistic weapons? Or maybe its to prevent them from building better bicycles for competition in Tour de France.:-)
Honestly - I think there could be a number of reasons to block them, but you're probably right in that its just a pissing match.
Personally I think Babylon 5 is coming! There isn't much any gov. can do about it.
FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died.
It sounds pretty funny, but its exactly true - the FDA does worry about patients that are removed from a study because they died - if someone is enrolled into a drug/device study and those people die, the why they died is very important and is one way companies try to hide failure of their product. You'd be very upset if their failure rate was actually 10% instead of 5% which would have prevented them from becoming an approved device for use in hospitals and drug stores.
Or worse, wait until your fridge has to phone up to find out if you've paid for the patents used in the food we eat every day...
There are some things which should just *not* be networked.
Or better yet, wait until it is the AC hooked up (as suggested in the summary) and then when someone decides that "this really important document must be sent priority" for some random thing and the network guy unplugs everything in the rack to send it over the T1... Right now we just loose the internet and the phones but now we can loose the AC in the building too! Brilliant!!!!
Funny thing is that when I clicked on Opt-out I got the following error:
DoubleClick DART cookie opt-out error
An error occurred assigning the opt-out cookie. Possible causes include manually rejecting the opt-out cookie when it is assigned or that your web browser is configured to reject cookies automatically. Check your browserâ(TM)s configuration settings, and please try again. Note: you will get this error message if your browser does not support cookies.
Apparently their opt-out is cookie based!
I find that a little ironic that my use of cslite (cookie safe), and noscript prevent my opt-out of their cookie scheme. (I do allow google.com to set cookies and use script for gmail).
I tried this out and I think its a great game. After I finally got it working after upgrading flash, only to get trapped in a map screen with no apparent way out!
I hope this gets a little stronger, it would be a fun way to learn a new language.
I'm of the opinion that the government should be there to hold private industry liable for any breaches of personal data that leads to fraud. If someone steals my credit information and makes purchases with them, the credit card company should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the person who made the purchase. The merchant should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the purchaser. The whole system needs to be changed. Instead of giving out free credit, they need to only give credit to those who ask for it. Turn it from a push to a pull system and validate the hell out of the puller.
Yes! This at least makes sense. Now if only there was some way in which we could get congress to do their jobs and actually regulate something useful instead of declaring that they want to regulate p2p by filename.
Yeah I know - I'm one of them, but people that get all pissy about the "security of the internet" and stuff just gals the hell out of me!
What would they like to do, have a big central server to send everything through? good luck with that.
The best they could do would be to have the seller create a signed pgp receipt of the sale which would be sent to the buyer and would be counter signed with their pgp key, which could be then sent to the bank directly which could then verify their customer pgp key against their on file key. Thats basically what you need to do if you want to secure transactions... It would of course be best if the customer's PGP key was stored on a key device which would do the signing itself and would have some sort of "unlock" code sent to it by the PC being used to talk to the seller...
I still say that its a bunch of virtual stuff and expecting some sort of magic protocol - enforced by the gov even! - is retarded. The gov doesn't actually dictate how CC's work, it was invented by mastercard in the 70s iirc.
I think you miss understand what I'm saying - we're in agreement about everything you said!
What I was saying was that we as programmers haven't spent enough time to make writing secure software as easy as it should be. A lot of my code is still written in C and I spend a considerable time designing and writing said code to be secure and correct.
It would be a lot faster to write that in Java, but even that is really slow to code frankly. I've programmed in just about every major programming language out there and I can think of none which integrate security into the code itself and make it easy to do so.
An ideal language might have a large set of safe libraries like Java, but be easier to code in like Python, but include more validation like Eiffel, and still be somewhat typesafe, it should include easy to use regex to validate strings, and reading files and streams should be safe from interception. It should have good runtime validation and evaluation and shell execution. It should support parallel math calculations and threads without lots of programmer effort. It should include integration in the language to databases (more like Lua, definitely not like Java).
All of these things have been "done" but never as a whole and where doing things correctly was as cheap as doing it wrong. Java goes a long way in this direction, but I've always hated Java's lack of integration of higher level language features like Python or Perl have in the name of "type safety"
I've been in enough places at this point to know that security does not matter.
As much as it pains me to say it, there just isn't a good enough reason to do it. I think thats why its the OpenBSD guys that end up providing OpenSSL and SSH and the like... Cooperate pressure just kills any desire to get security right.
Of course, the languages and libraries do not help the issue. Its just too easy to make stupid mistakes that result in code with security problems. People always argue that security will always make your software more difficult to use and to write - but I don't buy that. I just don't think we've yet invested enough programmer time into the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
In particular (and to try and return to topic), I wonder what Barr would have said about such policies considering he said he was "unsure" about whole war on terror and DHS stuff (I *believe* he said something to that effect - no time to properly verify my memory). I'm not sure he understands that any law "on the books" but not universally enforceable is essentially a tool for abuse.
The US Libertarian party is marginalized here because they are very socially conservative. Making them rather socially un-liberal. If there is a party that is for social freedom and other reforms, I don't know it. So much for hippies?
I listened to the debate between Bob Barr and Ralph Nader that happened here in DC and IMO Barr did not come off well.
Yeah I agree, it was a public service! But if I wanted to make a case for Google being a monopoly and trying to block other biz from the market, I might make that argument. Personally though, blocking out a known abuser seems like just good sense to me. :-)
They seem to have a whole section of their site made for crowd sourcing out ideas for their game (rather clever of them heh).
I too though couldn't find any screen shots or other game play videos. Their lego creation game was also rather problematic IMO, so I seriously wonder if they will have come up with new ways to actually do the building... And previous stuff has had a lot of issues with only releasing a small set of the blocks which made buildings very annoying. :(
Firefox: while this may be anti-competitive in the browser market, it's not in the advertising market, and the advertising market is where they have a monopoly position. No one can claim that Google has a monopoly position in the browser market, or that supporting a browser produced by a different company that they are enhancing their own position in the browser market unfairly. Moreover, I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with paying for a legitimate service, as Google is funding Mozilla (ostensibly) not out of charity but for the service of prime placement in the search bar, which is 100% legal.
API: I don't recall there being any reason a company, monopoly or not, might be required to open all their APIs to third parties
I don't believe at this point Google is a monopoly.
As to the Firefox thing, the point I was getting at is that it is "evidence" of Google leveraging their search to get into another market (browsers and browsers standards). You could equate this to MS's IE antics. If Chrome ever becomes bigger then we might argue that is a more clear cut case.
In fact there seems to have been a number of direct moves that Google has done to undermine MS, but IMO this is just how companies work, see Intel vs Nvidia for recent fun.
Lastly, APIs are of course optional, no more so then on the web currently, but as we move to a more integrated desktop and cloud computing I think it will become more common for them to have external APIs, it only makes sense. You can also view APIs and following open standards as showing "good faith" toward the computing community - you see a lot of demand for MS to do the same, and maybe more demand for Google to do the same.
Its hard to not sound like a fan boy of google, but I'm currently not understanding why google would be considered as a monopoly, but if I was to play devil's advocate here I might argue the following:
I don't agree with these, but some could argue (if you really didn't like google anyway).
Also, the MythVideo plugin *does* not stream, so you have to share (via SMB or NFS) the directory between the Front and Back ends... This makes those sort of files play too slowly as well.
More so, it seems that its embedding firefox in its window, and has a ~/.miro/mozilla directory, so why the hell doesn't it work?
I've been looking around, and others seemed to have flash working in previous versions... Besides that, without flash support it really cuts down on the amount of legal media Linux users can use when it seems entirely reasonable to have it working.
Now it looks like I'm stuck trying to hack their source, sigh.
This post is to get rid of the moderation...
That sounds like the OpenId system honestly, kind of funny - I'm sure of course that it isn't using that at all, but the idea seems similar.
Considering how many times this always needs to be implemented on so many sites, I wonder how there isn't an OpenSSL, OpenSSh, equivalent library for web-login stuff of a drop in that is that is insanely secure... I guess the whole mess of PHP, JSP, and other bloody scripting frame works is really the problem? And the interaction with the insane user databases that contain too much information in them already?
Not just GPL, but GPLv3, because I don't trust M$ not to pull a SCO and try to sue Ubuntu, or Red Hat, or whoever they want to put the squeeze on.
Look - I don't want to be the "GPL is way better troll" here, but I trust those guys about as far as I can throw them.
This is basically my reason for not buying it yet, I want to explicitly support Linux gaming.
I've been watching this game on Greenhouse - waiting for it to come out on Linux. It looks extremely cool, its sad that it gets pirated so much, but it seems it made no difference...
Thats brilliant - truly. Now we just need someone at NASA to put that feature on the next rover :-)
Honestly - I think there could be a number of reasons to block them, but you're probably right in that its just a pissing match.
Personally I think Babylon 5 is coming! There isn't much any gov. can do about it.
FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died.
It sounds pretty funny, but its exactly true - the FDA does worry about patients that are removed from a study because they died - if someone is enrolled into a drug/device study and those people die, the why they died is very important and is one way companies try to hide failure of their product. You'd be very upset if their failure rate was actually 10% instead of 5% which would have prevented them from becoming an approved device for use in hospitals and drug stores.
Or worse, wait until your fridge has to phone up to find out if you've paid for the patents used in the food we eat every day...
There are some things which should just *not* be networked.
Or better yet, wait until it is the AC hooked up (as suggested in the summary) and then when someone decides that "this really important document must be sent priority" for some random thing and the network guy unplugs everything in the rack to send it over the T1... Right now we just loose the internet and the phones but now we can loose the AC in the building too! Brilliant!!!!
A useful link.
Funny thing is that when I clicked on Opt-out I got the following error:
Apparently their opt-out is cookie based!
I find that a little ironic that my use of cslite (cookie safe), and noscript prevent my opt-out of their cookie scheme. (I do allow google.com to set cookies and use script for gmail).
I hope this gets a little stronger, it would be a fun way to learn a new language.
I'm of the opinion that the government should be there to hold private industry liable for any breaches of personal data that leads to fraud. If someone steals my credit information and makes purchases with them, the credit card company should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the person who made the purchase. The merchant should be on the hook for not verifying the identity of the purchaser. The whole system needs to be changed. Instead of giving out free credit, they need to only give credit to those who ask for it. Turn it from a push to a pull system and validate the hell out of the puller.
Yes! This at least makes sense. Now if only there was some way in which we could get congress to do their jobs and actually regulate something useful instead of declaring that they want to regulate p2p by filename.Thats both interesting, and hilarious, thanks!
What would they like to do, have a big central server to send everything through? good luck with that.
The best they could do would be to have the seller create a signed pgp receipt of the sale which would be sent to the buyer and would be counter signed with their pgp key, which could be then sent to the bank directly which could then verify their customer pgp key against their on file key. Thats basically what you need to do if you want to secure transactions... It would of course be best if the customer's PGP key was stored on a key device which would do the signing itself and would have some sort of "unlock" code sent to it by the PC being used to talk to the seller...
I still say that its a bunch of virtual stuff and expecting some sort of magic protocol - enforced by the gov even! - is retarded. The gov doesn't actually dictate how CC's work, it was invented by mastercard in the 70s iirc.
Except the difference is that software IS VIRTUAL. End of story. Next.
What I was saying was that we as programmers haven't spent enough time to make writing secure software as easy as it should be. A lot of my code is still written in C and I spend a considerable time designing and writing said code to be secure and correct.
It would be a lot faster to write that in Java, but even that is really slow to code frankly. I've programmed in just about every major programming language out there and I can think of none which integrate security into the code itself and make it easy to do so.
An ideal language might have a large set of safe libraries like Java, but be easier to code in like Python, but include more validation like Eiffel, and still be somewhat typesafe, it should include easy to use regex to validate strings, and reading files and streams should be safe from interception. It should have good runtime validation and evaluation and shell execution. It should support parallel math calculations and threads without lots of programmer effort. It should include integration in the language to databases (more like Lua, definitely not like Java).
All of these things have been "done" but never as a whole and where doing things correctly was as cheap as doing it wrong. Java goes a long way in this direction, but I've always hated Java's lack of integration of higher level language features like Python or Perl have in the name of "type safety"
I've been in enough places at this point to know that security does not matter.
As much as it pains me to say it, there just isn't a good enough reason to do it. I think thats why its the OpenBSD guys that end up providing OpenSSL and SSH and the like... Cooperate pressure just kills any desire to get security right.
Of course, the languages and libraries do not help the issue. Its just too easy to make stupid mistakes that result in code with security problems. People always argue that security will always make your software more difficult to use and to write - but I don't buy that. I just don't think we've yet invested enough programmer time into the problem.