Only google claims to want to "organize all the worlds information", including the information *you* no longer value, like old emails you've deleted. They have value to them for their profiling/advertising efforts.
A supposition. What's the point of matching ads to messages you've already deleted; meaning you will never display them again? If they wanted to process them for their "profile" they would already have done that. It seems more likely to me that Google does intend to delete trashed messages, but just doesn't want to promise exactly when they'll get around to it. Maybe a scheduled garbage collection once an hour/week/month. Anyway, this case may reveal just how it works.
Ah, the Achilles and the Tortoise defence. Good luck with that.
What is the intent of a bot that crawls the net and copies copyrighted content to google's servers to be reposted by Google?
You seem to assume that "copying copyrighted content" is necessarily illegal. Not a given, most especially when it comes to a web page that by necessity and design of the web must be copied and cached all over the place to be seen at all as the poster intended.
Google retains far too much information to make the use of Gmail anything less than a full-blown privacy nightmare
Why more so than Hotmail, Yahoo, or any other webmail? I'm sure all their "privacy" promises are at least as loose as Google's. It only remains a question how much data Google has actually retained. Though they don't guarantee to delete mail when trashed, in practice they probably do eventually, and the case concerns events two or three years ago.
Call me a jackass, but if Apple pulls out of France, can't people still easily get iPods and iTunes
iPods yes, iTunes no. Many countries still can't buy from iTunes, France would go back on that list. French credit card and/or IP and you'd be rejected.
are you saying customers need to be able to buy Windows software with loggers and viruses pre-installed, or that they're demanding software that can't be upgraded and patched?
That's mostly FUD. I've never heard of any malicious stuff in bootlegs, except in articles like this sourced from the BSA.
If some guy is trying to sell me "new" "never-out-of-the-box" software that's not, he deserves to be caught and punished.
I'm confused--are you trying to make a legal argument? A technical argument? Or what? Because I'm not. I'm saying: USENET was used by its users with the expectation...
I'm not making a legal argument. RFCs aren't legally binding. But they would give you the expectation that implementors would follow them. So if you weren't relying on documented rules, what was the basis for your expectation?
That's the ground rules most people assumed,
Maybe you did. How do you know "most people" did? I didn't. I used an ancestor of Usenet back about 1979, and the modern version since the early 1990s. For one thing, individuals have always kept their own archives of groups that interested them. Hardened trolls and flame warriors delight in digging up ancient posts and quoting them back, preferably out of context.
Clearly, companies have wide latitude in archiving, repurposing, and republishing anything individuals put on the web or on USENET, without the permission of those individuals. I think that's bad
Why is this "bad"? I think it's excellent. Usenet archived messages have solved uncountable problems for me. You have plenty of options: you can post under a pseudonym (which I do mostly to avoid spammers); you can use the "X-No-archive" header which Google and some others (but not of course the NSA et al) will honour; or ask Google to delete your message from their archive. But once you publish something, whether on paper or the web, you can't unpublish it.
Right. So I set up a machinegun outside my house to fire automatically at anyone who passes by on the street and it works and kills a few people. I haven't committed murder becuase I set up an "automatic" gun so the requisite "intent" is missing?
You stated your "intent" was "to fire automatically at anyone".
Now take CSI, and remove all credibility, depth, and attempts at grounding in real-world accuracy that's still left.
You now have Without a Trace.
CSI is about as realistic and "real world accurate" as Star Trek. Aside from the magical science, there's the beautiful laboratories; the absurdity and impossibility of lab geeks tooling around in SUVs, interrogating suspects, and frequent gunfights. Though all shows suffer from the "cops who look like models" syndrome, NYPD Blue was fairly believable most of the time.
On WaT specifically, the only real credibility problem I have is wondering if the FBI really would so readily leap into action when someone is a few hours late for work.
Let's see... several months ago he offered to supply a custom build of Windows free of charge for this machine. I don't see how he'd make any money off that venture.
Through not losing his monopoly. If the one-laptop catches on, it will destroy the Windows/Office monoculture that is even more pervasive in poor countries (though most of their software is pirated, those that move up eventually buy MS becasue it's the only thng anyone knows.) The same reason MS gives steep discounts to schools and colleges; to build and maintain market and mind share.
Gates had contempt for the Internet. He thought that free content was for hippies. He has contempt for free software for the same reason. Gates' contempt is simply an indicator of somethng he either doesn't get or sees as a threat.
What happens when the only one close enough to you to mesh with is switched off? They're hand-cranked, remember; are you going to keep cranking after you've finished using it, just to maintain the mesh?
They've got a fucking battery. Some have a crank to charge it up. They'll also have a power plug. Don't follow Gates' putdown.
True, they won't be ideal for viewing streaming porn, but if you store it locally you can survive till the network comes back.
This is not private citizens electing to fund a private charity. This is the United Nations No, it IS NOT the UN.
http://laptop.org/faq.en_US.html The $100 laptop is being developed by One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a Delaware-based, non-profit organization created by faculty members from the MIT Media Lab to design, manufacture, and distribute laptops that are sufficiently inexpensive to provide every child in the world access to knowledge and modern forms of education. OLPC is based on constructionist theories of learning pioneered by Seymour Papert and later Alan Kay, as well as the principles expressed in Nicholas Negroponte's book Being Digital. The founding corporate members are Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Brightstar, Google, News Corporation, Nortel, and Red Hat.
The majority of users of this laptop will NOT be in ultrapoor countries. I've heard China and Massachusetts.
Of course not. People who are actually starving have more urgent needs.
We're not being told exactly what support hardware, technology and support will be needed
The ideal is none. Thus the crank on some models (not all) to charge the battery, that Gates thought was for losers. Otherwise, connectivity, "When these machines pop out of the box, they will make a mesh network of their own, peer-to-peer."
(and for two years, my early student days, I had a laptop at 800x600, so I know what small means).
No you don't. I worked in an office all day for 5 years on a 286 with a 12" monochrome (restful orange and black) at 640x480. (Doing desktop publishing!) And I had to walk uphill barefoot through the snow... but that's another story.
if China/Russia/India combine to produce a joint stealth fighter project.
China and India have been at war a few times in living memory; they've still got unresolved border issues and are not about to integrate their weapons systems.
While it's true that Australians have made enemies out of their muslims neighbors to the north i highly doubt any of them are planning on launching fighter jets in your direction.
Fighter jets aren't for Top-Gun duels; they're for protecting your bombers, attacking enemy ones, and also taking out ships. The latter being most relevant considering the geography.
I'm not saying they would invade, but two countries that come to mind with the potential to attack are Singapore and Indonesia.
Singapore? That's ridiculous. Their air force is to defend themselves from Malaysia or Indonesia, which could roll over them in a minute otherwise. If their prime minister went insane he could order an airstrike, as could half the countries in the world, but they have no capacity to actually "invade". Indonesia is a whole other story, of course. It could become a huge threat in a short time.
So tell me, who is going to be attacking Australia? Who is going to attack them from the air
Look at a map for God's sake. Do you notice a large archipelago just over a narrow strait? A nation with 10 times the population of Australia that has invaded neighbours several times in my memory. They could ship troops over by the million without a strong air and naval capacity to stop them. If Muslim fundamentalists came into power it could get very hostile overnight, considering our PM has sent out trops into Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention putting tropps in East Timor when it seceded from Indonesia (that was the right thing to do, though it pissed off the Indonesians).
I realize you're probably at least in part groping (pun intended) to make an analogy
I know; argument by analogy is inherently flawed; analogies illustrate, thay don't prove anything. But people do it nevertheless and sometimes you have to play the game by introducing a contrary one. I still think mine is closer to the actual situation though; the dispute is ultimately about who gave permission, and was (s)he authorised to do so if (s)he did; did the person who gained access know he did not have legitimate permission.
In my analogy of course these days while a parent mught have a responsibility or even a duty to prevent access to a 16-year-old, (depending on local laws) he does not have the right to allow access in any situation.
By this logic, if your roommate lends me the key...
Another hokey analogy. If the Coroner did pass on his password as alleged, he's given access to HIS OWN information, though his employers obviously would not like him to have. Analogy? Okay: You're 16 and your 16-year-old girlfriend lets you get to second base. Her father finds out and calls the cops on you -- you say she authorised access; the father says she had no right to.
Whereas with an offering like S3, you could simply setup a cron job to zip, crypt, and send your critical files each night. This is obviously only good when only a reasonably small amount of data needs to be transferred - even good connections are going to have trouble sending 10 gig of data each night.
Also, TFA goes on to say: "Apart from the storage fee, you pay $0.20 per gigabyte transferred". That would add up quickly to pay for redundant physical storage of your own. It also mentions the various ways you can access the data. It's not meant to be simple backup; more a way to make your data more accessible.
If you want to backup safely on the cheap, get a buddy in a different building, (or city or country if you're really paranoid), and store each others' data (encrypted).
"But there will always be clay tablets."-Babalyonian Historian 5000B,
Almost literally true (3000 BC, but who's counting).
Tablets... Vast quantities of these have been excavated in the Near East, of which about a half million are yet to be read. It is estimated that 99 percent of the Babylonian tablets have yet to be dug. The oldest ones go back to 3000 B.C. They are practically imperishable; fire only hardens them more.
Get back to me on how good your CDR backup is after 5000 years.
>>Copyrighted work would seem less likely to be preserved via redundancy in media than content that can be shared freely without any fear of litigation. >If this is true, why is it that the Disney archieves are complete, and Disney films in pristine digital restoration, can be purchased anywhere in the world, at nominal cost. Something that can be said aboult almost no other studio or production house.
That would make sense if Disney were unique in being copyright protected. The problem is almost EVERYTHING produced since the 1920s is. And that includes many movies and books produced by long-gone companies, long-dead authors, but no one dares reproduce their work for fear of litigation should an heir pop up. There is no danger of losing access to Disney's Snow White. Many obscure works are gone even from memory; a fairly well-known example of works lost forever are many early Doctor Who episodes. Those we have were preserved by accidental, or deliberate, flouting of rules that the prints were to be destroyed after airing.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you want to record. I still use my VCR to time shift. A DVD burner or hard disk recorder still costs several times that; besides it works....
A supposition. What's the point of matching ads to messages you've already deleted; meaning you will never display them again? If they wanted to process them for their "profile" they would already have done that. It seems more likely to me that Google does intend to delete trashed messages, but just doesn't want to promise exactly when they'll get around to it. Maybe a scheduled garbage collection once an hour/week/month. Anyway, this case may reveal just how it works.
Ah, the Achilles and the Tortoise defence. Good luck with that.
What is the intent of a bot that crawls the net and copies copyrighted content to google's servers to be reposted by Google?
You seem to assume that "copying copyrighted content" is necessarily illegal. Not a given, most especially when it comes to a web page that by necessity and design of the web must be copied and cached all over the place to be seen at all as the poster intended.
Why more so than Hotmail, Yahoo, or any other webmail? I'm sure all their "privacy" promises are at least as loose as Google's. It only remains a question how much data Google has actually retained. Though they don't guarantee to delete mail when trashed, in practice they probably do eventually, and the case concerns events two or three years ago.
iPods yes, iTunes no. Many countries still can't buy from iTunes, France would go back on that list. French credit card and/or IP and you'd be rejected.
It's not. You can't mention something in a serious manner
You can.
That's mostly FUD. I've never heard of any malicious stuff in bootlegs, except in articles like this sourced from the BSA.
If some guy is trying to sell me "new" "never-out-of-the-box" software that's not, he deserves to be caught and punished.
Yes, if they've misrepresented it.
I'm not making a legal argument. RFCs aren't legally binding. But they would give you the expectation that implementors would follow them. So if you weren't relying on documented rules, what was the basis for your expectation?
That's the ground rules most people assumed,
Maybe you did. How do you know "most people" did? I didn't. I used an ancestor of Usenet back about 1979, and the modern version since the early 1990s. For one thing, individuals have always kept their own archives of groups that interested them. Hardened trolls and flame warriors delight in digging up ancient posts and quoting them back, preferably out of context.
Clearly, companies have wide latitude in archiving, repurposing, and republishing anything individuals put on the web or on USENET, without the permission of those individuals. I think that's bad
Why is this "bad"? I think it's excellent. Usenet archived messages have solved uncountable problems for me. You have plenty of options: you can post under a pseudonym (which I do mostly to avoid spammers); you can use the "X-No-archive" header which Google and some others (but not of course the NSA et al) will honour; or ask Google to delete your message from their archive. But once you publish something, whether on paper or the web, you can't unpublish it.
Really? And this was stated in which RFC or other authoritative document?
Archiving was certainly never required, but conversely it was never forbidden, as far as I know.
You stated your "intent" was "to fire automatically at anyone".
CSI is about as realistic and "real world accurate" as Star Trek. Aside from the magical science, there's the beautiful laboratories; the absurdity and impossibility of lab geeks tooling around in SUVs, interrogating suspects, and frequent gunfights. Though all shows suffer from the "cops who look like models" syndrome, NYPD Blue was fairly believable most of the time.
On WaT specifically, the only real credibility problem I have is wondering if the FBI really would so readily leap into action when someone is a few hours late for work.
Through not losing his monopoly. If the one-laptop catches on, it will destroy the Windows/Office monoculture that is even more pervasive in poor countries (though most of their software is pirated, those that move up eventually buy MS becasue it's the only thng anyone knows.) The same reason MS gives steep discounts to schools and colleges; to build and maintain market and mind share.
Gates had contempt for the Internet. He thought that free content was for hippies. He has contempt for free software for the same reason. Gates' contempt is simply an indicator of somethng he either doesn't get or sees as a threat.
They've got a fucking battery. Some have a crank to charge it up. They'll also have a power plug. Don't follow Gates' putdown.
True, they won't be ideal for viewing streaming porn, but if you store it locally you can survive till the network comes back.
This is not private citizens electing to fund a private charity. This is the United Nations
No, it IS NOT the UN.
http://laptop.org/faq.en_US.html
The $100 laptop is being developed by One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a Delaware-based, non-profit organization created by faculty members from the MIT Media Lab to design, manufacture, and distribute laptops that are sufficiently inexpensive to provide every child in the world access to knowledge and modern forms of education. OLPC is based on constructionist theories of learning pioneered by Seymour Papert and later Alan Kay, as well as the principles expressed in Nicholas Negroponte's book Being Digital. The founding corporate members are Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Brightstar, Google, News Corporation, Nortel, and Red Hat.
The majority of users of this laptop will NOT be in ultrapoor countries. I've heard China and Massachusetts.
Of course not. People who are actually starving have more urgent needs.
We're not being told exactly what support hardware, technology and support will be needed
The ideal is none. Thus the crank on some models (not all) to charge the battery, that Gates thought was for losers.
Otherwise, connectivity, "When these machines pop out of the box, they will make a mesh network of their own, peer-to-peer."
No you don't. I worked in an office all day for 5 years on a 286 with a 12" monochrome (restful orange and black) at 640x480. (Doing desktop publishing!) And I had to walk uphill barefoot through the snow... but that's another story.
China and India have been at war a few times in living memory; they've still got unresolved border issues and are not about to integrate their weapons systems.
Fighter jets aren't for Top-Gun duels; they're for protecting your bombers, attacking enemy ones, and also taking out ships. The latter being most relevant considering the geography.
Singapore? That's ridiculous. Their air force is to defend themselves from Malaysia or Indonesia, which could roll over them in a minute otherwise. If their prime minister went insane he could order an airstrike, as could half the countries in the world, but they have no capacity to actually "invade". Indonesia is a whole other story, of course. It could become a huge threat in a short time.
Look at a map for God's sake. Do you notice a large archipelago just over a narrow strait? A nation with 10 times the population of Australia that has invaded neighbours several times in my memory. They could ship troops over by the million without a strong air and naval capacity to stop them. If Muslim fundamentalists came into power it could get very hostile overnight, considering our PM has sent out trops into Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention putting tropps in East Timor when it seceded from Indonesia (that was the right thing to do, though it pissed off the Indonesians).
I know; argument by analogy is inherently flawed; analogies illustrate, thay don't prove anything. But people do it nevertheless and sometimes you have to play the game by introducing a contrary one. I still think mine is closer to the actual situation though; the dispute is ultimately about who gave permission, and was (s)he authorised to do so if (s)he did; did the person who gained access know he did not have legitimate permission.
In my analogy of course these days while a parent mught have a responsibility or even a duty to prevent access to a 16-year-old, (depending on local laws) he does not have the right to allow access in any situation.
Another hokey analogy. If the Coroner did pass on his password as alleged, he's given access to HIS OWN information, though his employers obviously would not like him to have. Analogy? Okay: You're 16 and your 16-year-old girlfriend lets you get to second base. Her father finds out and calls the cops on you -- you say she authorised access; the father says she had no right to.
Also, TFA goes on to say: "Apart from the storage fee, you pay $0.20 per gigabyte transferred". That would add up quickly to pay for redundant physical storage of your own. It also mentions the various ways you can access the data. It's not meant to be simple backup; more a way to make your data more accessible.
If you want to backup safely on the cheap, get a buddy in a different building, (or city or country if you're really paranoid), and store each others' data (encrypted).
Almost literally true (3000 BC, but who's counting).
Get back to me on how good your CDR backup is after 5000 years.>If this is true, why is it that the Disney archieves are complete, and Disney films in pristine digital restoration, can be purchased anywhere in the world, at nominal cost. Something that can be said aboult almost no other studio or production house.
That would make sense if Disney were unique in being copyright protected. The problem is almost EVERYTHING produced since the 1920s is. And that includes many movies and books produced by long-gone companies, long-dead authors, but no one dares reproduce their work for fear of litigation should an heir pop up. There is no danger of losing access to Disney's Snow White. Many obscure works are gone even from memory; a fairly well-known example of works lost forever are many early Doctor Who episodes. Those we have were preserved by accidental, or deliberate, flouting of rules that the prints were to be destroyed after airing.