Of course, you've just established why they must be fought. They can ask politicians to erode our rights and dilute our fair use, but since they're not doing it themselves, we can't sue them, either criminally or civilly, for that particular crime(we could sue them for blackmail/extortion/traffic of influence and related, if they resort to that however) but for the act of equating "doing something for the greater good" with "impinging the rights of others to profit, and working to get others to believe that, they get no penalty. That's why they must be fought.
They are inconsistent is that an approved app should stay approved until the app itself changes to make a reevaluation of its status necessary.
It's like if your local authority decided to revoke your driver's license while you're driving the car, and then fines you for driving without a license.
I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store. Is that if, as a developer, you want to develop for the iPhone, you HAVE to use the apple store. Apple specifically, and (IANAL) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you cannot build your own appstore for iphone, even if it is for your own apps. Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem, I'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws, and(I'm in Quebec) with the language thing, I'm sure we could build a case for our own appstore, used only for apps meaningful here.
Most of the hardware problems are tied to hardware capabilities and how apps use them. Java just ensures the code YOU write to support a piece of hardware will work, it says nothing about how to use them. Normally, there is a standard library, but the standard library for J2ME(Java mobile edition) predates even the iphone, AFAIK. Having a standard library that knows about touch/multitouch, cameras, would be nice, but(I'm not a mobile dev, but I've been active in this space for a while) it doesn't again, AFAIK exist.
Now even if it did... When you write an app, if you want to support two phones, each having different features, you have to basically code 1.2 apps(a gross estimate of the work involved), supporting five phones(with a choice matrix of features supported >2) is probably more work than writing two whole apps. The real "beauty" of apple's offerings right now is that as a single manufacturer, they've only released phones with increasing features/screen size. Meaning that current apps rarely have to worry about working on a bigger phone, since almost everything the older phone did is done mostly the same way on the new one, and whatever features are missing, are usually missing on the older equipment, which means the developer can just leave his app as-is, or work to port it on the new equipment to get the sales.
Having a multi-vendor environment is great for avoiding consumer lock-in, however, it means that manufacturers/carriers(depending on country, many a reasoned thesis could be written on this) compete on phone features, which means the person designing the hardware actually wants incomptible hardware(aka apps that will only run on their platform).
I don't think it's so much a failure of android in this case, as a failure of the business model prevalent in the US/Canada, especially. Having the phones seen as a competitive differentiator actually clashes with third party apps developers' wishes. The postitioning of android as open source was great, for getting a lot of people interested in a new platform, but I doubt it can sustain interest in the platform, by itself, and that's likely to be for as long as the platforms are designed by people who don't want to be compatible.
Jesus also [allegedly] said: Do not judge others, lest you be judged by the same measure. If anything should promote tolerance it's that. However, most people seem to forget he said it.
Insurance companies always sound very reasonable when they troll out statistics about how a certain group of people. Because they use after the fact statistics about members of that group, they're not considered biased(in the philosophical sense) just in the economic/statistic sense(just because 96% of people of some origin eat one food, doesn't mean everyone likes it, etc...)
Most racism/ageism/etc..ism is a belief system.
Insurance companies have a statisticsism, which is at least based on empirical evidence, and while IANAL, it passes a lot of "reasonable" tests.
A quicker fix would be to get the vendors to share their corpus of vulnerabilities, probably through the Owasp group. That way at least, they'd all get a complete picture of vulnerabilities to scan for, and they might improve. Right now, it seems the resources applied to getting the vulnerabilities in are so minute, compared to the amounts of effort performed by two groups: a) hackers trying to find vulnerabilities that had been unknown before b) the people paying for their service's expectations(I used to work for such a company, and I would have been scandalised if you had told me ANY company would have sold a product at the prices I saw that didn't get a 90% without training)
And guess what, Google just publicised new domain resolvers...
So... You mean that besides logging all your search requests... they'd like to be able to not just log the dns queries of people, but also know the ultimate requester?
Hmm well that wouldn't be non-evil, but I would see them doing it, they just love having information.
If anything, I think it's a sign that they discovered that between caches and resolvers, their google dns servers aren't serving up crunchy enough data...
The way I read this, net neutrality means they not only can't block traffic without proving that it's unlawful, but traffic not proven unlawful should be allowed to block other presumed lawful traffic(pipe saturation). I mean I've not seen anything in there that's not just a fancy way to call QoS. Of course QoS with a 1kb/s class is no fun, and almost blocking it... but unless the legalese actually defines a minimum QoS as "blocking" it's not legally blocking... Also, if a provider like comcat can give a QoS of 10kb/s, and assign all youtube traffic to it unless youtube pays, we're back to the "paying twice for the same traffic" case.
On the other hand, the FCC cannot do what network neutrality proponents most want it to do: mandate network (mostly backbone, but also edge in some cases) upgrades.
So it's mostly a catch-22.
I think the only thing that would work is a law that says a network cannot discriminate by source, target, protocol or source/target ports without proof of wrongdoing is the only thing that would work. Of course, the providers would scream that they can't. What they mean is that they can't without admitting just how poorly provisioned their networks really are.
As per your arguments they can't block... The idea is for a law to tell them what they can't do to unknown traffic. Known unlawful traffic, well they already have other laws for them, they don't need to QoS it, except to protect other customers. If they send the FBI to the tracker's location, you can be sure the torrent won't be on long, in that case though, they need to have(well so far, although they've been exceptions) a lot more evidence than just an overloaded network...
Especially to find a genuine need, a portable, inexpensive computer to browse wifi from anywhere. Asus et al. love the netbook craze, except the margins on them are nowhere near "luxury item". A wearable computer would be, at least at launch, and that makes them salivate.
Big companies marketing seems driven by the wishful thinking of marketing more and more, and less about what computers want to buy, I predict they will meet with harsh reality's clue-by-four in the near future.
One class has "algorithms" in it, the other is general "hard math" good for just about anything. Discreet math, in general is better "Focused" at the needs of programmers, in my experience, as well. I'd say go with the first one. You're likely to learn the math basis for O(n) notation of algorithms and other computer science underpinnings.
If that's how you choose to read AT&T's request... I see: M. FCC chairman, landlines for consumers make us no money, yet we are legally required to supply them. Can you please make them optional for us? Oh and we'd like not to have to supply fiber-to-the-home at anything less than 10 times the price kthxbai.
But when the packaging system people pick just random parts of the cpan architecture of the package, the cpan people get pissed.
That's why the cpan people have to pick the (minimal) parts that the rest of the system can depend on.
Those parts presumably, would also be more likely not to change between minor versions(and a change to those parts should be considered de-facto major version material).
The parent post had the customer supplying applicable tax info, on top of their address. Not the applicable tax info calculated from their address(which others in the thread have posited to tbe near-impossible). If you only lie about what taxes apply to you, you'll still get the package. And some taxes will be paid, but the audit, that comes later, will find someone fraudulent, might be you, might be the seller.
Not to contradict your point, but it does add to Amazon's argument. We just record the choice the customer makes, if they lie about their tax rates, knowingly or not, there's nothing we can do.
Customer: Amazon charged me that rate, it's an immensely powerful company, it had to be right.
I think it'd be nice if the perl/cpan crowd would release a "ready for production" subset of cpan, that would be built, then packaged into every distro. For the rest of us.
Sure sounds like a good thing we never got Ruby/Perl/Python on parrot. They can't agree on anything, now imagine making it a requirement that they work coherently inside the OS' distribution systems and let modules/programs written in one call the others, and expect it to work, flawlessly.
According to TFA, they considered hardcore someone who played more than 30 hours a week and answered "I don't plan to quit". Males were less hardcore on the second criterion IIRC.
Well the silo houses just a bit more than half(2700sq.ft) compared to the other location(it's apparently a multi-campus project, the other campus has 5000sq.ft) not sure if that's an academic requirement. As per your comment though, haven't met a computer that didn't fear comparison with an office tower....
I suspect, at least in the yearbook plan case, because they were the ones providing the sharing algorithm, and if any, the encryption support.
I think "the cloud" as a term, is being overused, or at least, used without discrimination, when you have the same term for 500 computer instances crunching data, with the result not meant to be public, and 25 people copying a single document, and not expecting it to be private, although they publish it later in another format...
On the other hand, if all of that is meant to be private, you're right, google isn't minding its own goddamn business, it doesn't have to review private data shared between individuals, as long as its legal.
You might want to keep in mind that the civil code inherited from the british would not apply here. I need to research just what version of "privacy" is enshrined myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you've just established why they must be fought. They can ask politicians to erode our rights and dilute our fair use, but since they're not doing it themselves, we can't sue them, either criminally or civilly, for that particular crime(we could sue them for blackmail/extortion/traffic of influence and related, if they resort to that however) but for the act of equating "doing something for the greater good" with "impinging the rights of others to profit, and working to get others to believe that, they get no penalty. That's why they must be fought.
On the CentOS equivalent front...
Wouldn't Nexenta be a possible close match?
They are inconsistent is that an approved app should stay approved until the app itself changes to make a reevaluation of its status necessary.
It's like if your local authority decided to revoke your driver's license while you're driving the car, and then fines you for driving without a license.
I think the real problem is not that you are forced to follow the rules to be on the apple store. Is that if, as a developer, you want to develop for the iPhone, you HAVE to use the apple store. Apple specifically, and (IANAL) dodgily makes you sign an agreement that says you cannot build your own appstore for iphone, even if it is for your own apps. Now if I had a lot of free time/money to throw at the problem, I'd try to challenge this on the basis of the local consumer laws, and(I'm in Quebec) with the language thing, I'm sure we could build a case for our own appstore, used only for apps meaningful here.
Most of the hardware problems are tied to hardware capabilities and how apps use them. Java just ensures the code YOU write to support a piece of hardware will work, it says nothing about how to use them. Normally, there is a standard library, but the standard library for J2ME(Java mobile edition) predates even the iphone, AFAIK. Having a standard library that knows about touch/multitouch, cameras, would be nice, but(I'm not a mobile dev, but I've been active in this space for a while) it doesn't again, AFAIK exist.
Now even if it did... When you write an app, if you want to support two phones, each having different features, you have to basically code 1.2 apps(a gross estimate of the work involved), supporting five phones(with a choice matrix of features supported >2) is probably more work than writing two whole apps.
The real "beauty" of apple's offerings right now is that as a single manufacturer, they've only released phones with increasing features/screen size. Meaning that current apps rarely have to worry about working on a bigger phone, since almost everything the older phone did is done mostly the same way on the new one, and whatever features are missing, are usually missing on the older equipment, which means the developer can just leave his app as-is, or work to port it on the new equipment to get the sales.
Having a multi-vendor environment is great for avoiding consumer lock-in, however, it means that manufacturers/carriers(depending on country, many a reasoned thesis could be written on this) compete on phone features, which means the person designing the hardware actually wants incomptible hardware(aka apps that will only run on their platform).
I don't think it's so much a failure of android in this case, as a failure of the business model prevalent in the US/Canada, especially. Having the phones seen as a competitive differentiator actually clashes with third party apps developers' wishes. The postitioning of android as open source was great, for getting a lot of people interested in a new platform, but I doubt it can sustain interest in the platform, by itself, and that's likely to be for as long as the platforms are designed by people who don't want to be compatible.
Jesus also [allegedly] said: Do not judge others, lest you be judged by the same measure. If anything should promote tolerance it's that. However, most people seem to forget he said it.
Insurance companies always sound very reasonable when they troll out statistics about how a certain group of people. Because they use after the fact statistics about members of that group, they're not considered biased(in the philosophical sense) just in the economic/statistic sense(just because 96% of people of some origin eat one food, doesn't mean everyone likes it, etc...)
Most racism/ageism/etc..ism is a belief system.
Insurance companies have a statisticsism, which is at least based on empirical evidence, and while IANAL, it passes a lot of "reasonable" tests.
We never showed up...
If we had, you can be sure we'd know of at least one case, just one battle, in which we had traded shots...
No, we're looking at people saying they're fighting, but we're NOT taking to the streets demanding privacy back.
We're also NOT promising any politician touching our personal privacy "You'll never work in politics in this country again" and making it stick...
It's like an appendix, we're just hoping the operation to get rid of it won't be too painful.
A quicker fix would be to get the vendors to share their corpus of vulnerabilities, probably through the Owasp group. That way at least, they'd all get a complete picture of vulnerabilities to scan for, and they might improve. Right now, it seems the resources applied to getting the vulnerabilities in are so minute, compared to the amounts of effort performed by two groups:
a) hackers trying to find vulnerabilities that had been unknown before
b) the people paying for their service's expectations(I used to work for such a company, and I would have been scandalised if you had told me ANY company would have sold a product at the prices I saw that didn't get a 90% without training)
Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?
And guess what, Google just publicised new domain resolvers...
So... You mean that besides logging all your search requests... they'd like to be able to not just log the dns queries of people, but also know the ultimate requester?
Hmm well that wouldn't be non-evil, but I would see them doing it, they just love having information.
If anything, I think it's a sign that they discovered that between caches and resolvers, their google dns servers aren't serving up crunchy enough data...
The way I read this, net neutrality means they not only can't block traffic without proving that it's unlawful, but traffic not proven unlawful should be allowed to block other presumed lawful traffic(pipe saturation). I mean I've not seen anything in there that's not just a fancy way to call QoS. Of course QoS with a 1kb/s class is no fun, and almost blocking it... but unless the legalese actually defines a minimum QoS as "blocking" it's not legally blocking... Also, if a provider like comcat can give a QoS of 10kb/s, and assign all youtube traffic to it unless youtube pays, we're back to the "paying twice for the same traffic" case.
On the other hand, the FCC cannot do what network neutrality proponents most want it to do: mandate network (mostly backbone, but also edge in some cases) upgrades.
So it's mostly a catch-22.
I think the only thing that would work is a law that says a network cannot discriminate by source, target, protocol or source/target ports without proof of wrongdoing is the only thing that would work. Of course, the providers would scream that they can't. What they mean is that they can't without admitting just how poorly provisioned their networks really are.
As per your arguments they can't block... The idea is for a law to tell them what they can't do to unknown traffic. Known unlawful traffic, well they already have other laws for them, they don't need to QoS it, except to protect other customers. If they send the FBI to the tracker's location, you can be sure the torrent won't be on long, in that case though, they need to have(well so far, although they've been exceptions) a lot more evidence than just an overloaded network...
Especially to find a genuine need, a portable, inexpensive computer to browse wifi from anywhere. Asus et al. love the netbook craze, except the margins on them are nowhere near "luxury item". A wearable computer would be, at least at launch, and that makes them salivate.
Big companies marketing seems driven by the wishful thinking of marketing more and more, and less about what computers want to buy, I predict they will meet with harsh reality's clue-by-four in the near future.
One class has "algorithms" in it, the other is general "hard math" good for just about anything. Discreet math, in general is better "Focused" at the needs of programmers, in my experience, as well. I'd say go with the first one. You're likely to learn the math basis for O(n) notation of algorithms and other computer science underpinnings.
If that's how you choose to read AT&T's request... I see:
M. FCC chairman, landlines for consumers make us no money, yet we are legally required to supply them. Can you please make them optional for us? Oh and we'd like not to have to supply fiber-to-the-home at anything less than 10 times the price kthxbai.
But when the packaging system people pick just random parts of the cpan architecture of the package, the cpan people get pissed.
That's why the cpan people have to pick the (minimal) parts that the rest of the system can depend on.
Those parts presumably, would also be more likely not to change between minor versions(and a change to those parts should be considered de-facto major version material).
The parent post had the customer supplying applicable tax info, on top of their address. Not the applicable tax info calculated from their address(which others in the thread have posited to tbe near-impossible). If you only lie about what taxes apply to you, you'll still get the package. And some taxes will be paid, but the audit, that comes later, will find someone fraudulent, might be you, might be the seller.
Not to contradict your point, but it does add to Amazon's argument. We just record the choice the customer makes, if they lie about their tax rates, knowingly or not, there's nothing we can do.
Customer: Amazon charged me that rate, it's an immensely powerful company, it had to be right.
And then they'd be left with a phone they can't use?
How about they can terminate AND get a free unlock for the phone since AT&T can't give them a network?
I think it'd be nice if the perl/cpan crowd would release a "ready for production" subset of cpan, that would be built, then packaged into every distro. For the rest of us.
Sure sounds like a good thing we never got Ruby/Perl/Python on parrot. They can't agree on anything, now imagine making it a requirement that they work coherently inside the OS' distribution systems and let modules/programs written in one call the others, and expect it to work, flawlessly.
According to TFA, they considered hardcore someone who played more than 30 hours a week and answered "I don't plan to quit". Males were less hardcore on the second criterion IIRC.
Well the silo houses just a bit more than half(2700sq.ft) compared to the other location(it's apparently a multi-campus project, the other campus has 5000sq.ft) not sure if that's an academic requirement. As per your comment though, haven't met a computer that didn't fear comparison with an office tower....
I suspect, at least in the yearbook plan case, because they were the ones providing the sharing algorithm, and if any, the encryption support.
I think "the cloud" as a term, is being overused, or at least, used without discrimination, when you have the same term for 500 computer instances crunching data, with the result not meant to be public, and 25 people copying a single document, and not expecting it to be private, although they publish it later in another format...
On the other hand, if all of that is meant to be private, you're right, google isn't minding its own goddamn business, it doesn't have to review private data shared between individuals, as long as its legal.
You might want to keep in mind that the civil code inherited from the british would not apply here. I need to research just what version of "privacy" is enshrined myself.