You are surprised? Oracle used to make Microsoft look like model corporate citizens - and this was back when MS was still a dangerous monopoly hell bent on choking the industry.
I can't tell if this is superbly crafted flamebait or if you really are that ill informed. Reporters do NOT have the right to break the law. Employer's can absofuckinglutely NOT "authorize" an employee to break the law. They would be up on conspiracy/RICO charges.
Do you also believe what happened to News of the World was a great injustice? 'Cause I know about 60 million people who would strongly disagree with you.
I've seen street buskers become national stars running their own indie studios within in the space of a couple of years. Multiple times. It just doesn't make the news because it happens relatively slowly.
So if you enjoy huge corporations getting huger with no danger of challenge from below, if you enjoy the war on drugs and criminalization of people who have done nothing truly wrong, if you enjoy destroying the fabric of the internet through SOPA - then by all means continue to tout how awesome regulations are for everyone.
Don't be absurd. Some regulation is bad (enforced monopolies, war on drugs), some is good (consumer protection, workplace safety). On balance society benefits much more from the good stuff then it is harmed by the bad stuff. A society without regulation is not a society.
...first they DDOS mid-east countries for trying to stop free speech, then they DDOS this guy when he exercises it?
Maybe they think free speech trumps copyright? Maybe they saw Gene's outburst as a direct attack against their freedoms? I don't know their motivations, but in any case I don't see anything inconsistent about their actions in your example. If somebody uses their freedom of speech to be a dick they have to live with the consequences. That has nothing to do with censorship.
No. Neither did my carrier install one on my phone for that matter, but the thing is that these two services are provided by the SAME COMPANY.
You mean when the software is being hidden from you, and when you cannot disable it without hacking your own phone? "Secure your shit" in that context means "don't use a cell phone."
No it don't. Secure your shit means do whatever it takes to be confident you know what your phone is doing. If that means "hacking" it (and I think it does) then so be it.
They could upload their entire catalogue to an open website, it doesn't mean that you have *permission* to copy it, view it, burn it to a DVD - that's not how copyright licensing works.
Hang on. If the owner chooses to upload the content to a open website you absolutely have the right to download it. You do not require permission to download it or view it. That's not how copyright licensing works.
It is possible that an employee of a studio is downloading via torrents without permission
Well yes, naturally. The thing is these companies are the same ones telling courts that an IP address connected to a swarm constitutes positive identification and proof of guilt for whoever the IP address was assigned to at the time.
If someone from the legal/copyright department is doing so to verify that their content is on the internet, that's well within the scope of their jobs.
Again, true. And more evidence that an IP address does not equal proof of infringement.
They deserve to squirm on the hook for this one. Totally a newsworthy story.
So your answer to being beholden to mobile carriers is to remain beholden to ISPs? The same ISP's that run all the mobile services? How is a wireline going to make any difference if the provider is the same?.
The answer, as always, is to 1) secure your shit. 2) hold carriers to a higher standard. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater
Legal, useful, and morally-sound? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a paid comment. It IS a rootkit, by definition (does it hide from your process list, can you remove it?). The EFF thinks it HAS been used as a keylogger, even if unintentionally. No matter what the customer agreed this functionality is morally reprehensible. If anything, the carriers deserve some credit for showing restraint in the use of this application, but CarrierIQ itself deserves all the criticism it is getting.
There is actually an apt car analogy in this case. It's EXACTLY like you found a GPS device attached to your chassis, and the Fed turns up asking for it back.
As long as there are other countries gaining an economic advantage at the cost of environmental damage then I don't see that another country should pick up their crap and decrease their export because it's so cheap to produce in such "dirty" countries.
Because that way we all fail. It's called a tragedy of the commons.
BTW: Has Canada been given the favor they their trees are eating up a lot of the world's carbon dioxide and producing oxygen?
Okay, so if you either planted or felled a whole bunch of trees then maybe I can see an argument for a credit or sanction to reflect your impact on the global system. But if you just have a bunch of trees already they are already accounted for. Those trees don't have Canadian citizenship, they don't give a crap about tariffs or borders or about who's carbon they sequester.
Funny, Nokia for me have always stood for seasonal rehashes of last years cheap models... but build it cheaper this time! Their 3x10 series exemplified this half-assed attitude.
They made nice phones too, but Siemans, Ericsson and Motorola were making the proper stuff.
Apple don't want a share of Android's profits - they don't want Android to exist. Driving up the cost of bringing an Android device to market is part of that.
Also on the iPhone, you are slightly better off since there's a centralized non-Apple store - Cydia.
Better off? Do you realize that there are a whole range of non-Google stores available for Android (ranging from strictly OSS to strictly warez), and that many of them are installable directly from Google's market without even requiring root?
And here I thought "Internet Time" was based on the UNIX epoch. After all, POSIX time has been employed by Internet infrastructure since before the World Wide Web, whereas Swatch Internet Time is displayed on wrist-watches that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet and are used by nobody.
Anywho, Swatch Time does not seem to include a date component, so you probably won't find it used for expiration warnings. Or anything else.
If you have an ocean in your car then I don't imagine fitting a few of these bad boys will be a problem. Otherwise the closest you'll get is just using the power from them in your plug-in electric.
So it really boils down to trust -- at some point you have to either trust your cell phone provider not to screw you, or stop using a cell phone
I don't see it that way. I have complete faith that my mobile provider will try to screw me, just like my ISP. A phone is just like any other equipment you connect to the Internet - you just consider networks that you do not control as hostile and go from there.
If you've read through the details of the ruling, the judge essentially says that it's likely that Samsung infringes on Apple's patents, but that it's unlikely that allowing Samsung to continue to sell their products will cause any significant damage to Apple, hence that there's no need for an injunction.
Even better then that: In sum, the Court found that Samsung was successful in raising substantial questions as to the validity of Apple’s D’087 patent and that Apple was unable to persuade the Court that it would likely succeed at trial in its efforts to uphold the validity of said patent.
Slashdot Mirror
You are surprised? Oracle used to make Microsoft look like model corporate citizens - and this was back when MS was still a dangerous monopoly hell bent on choking the industry.
I can't tell if this is superbly crafted flamebait or if you really are that ill informed. Reporters do NOT have the right to break the law. Employer's can absofuckinglutely NOT "authorize" an employee to break the law. They would be up on conspiracy/RICO charges.
Do you also believe what happened to News of the World was a great injustice? 'Cause I know about 60 million people who would strongly disagree with you.
I've seen street buskers become national stars running their own indie studios within in the space of a couple of years. Multiple times. It just doesn't make the news because it happens relatively slowly.
So if you enjoy huge corporations getting huger with no danger of challenge from below, if you enjoy the war on drugs and criminalization of people who have done nothing truly wrong, if you enjoy destroying the fabric of the internet through SOPA - then by all means continue to tout how awesome regulations are for everyone.
Don't be absurd. Some regulation is bad (enforced monopolies, war on drugs), some is good (consumer protection, workplace safety). On balance society benefits much more from the good stuff then it is harmed by the bad stuff. A society without regulation is not a society.
...first they DDOS mid-east countries for trying to stop free speech, then they DDOS this guy when he exercises it?
Maybe they think free speech trumps copyright? Maybe they saw Gene's outburst as a direct attack against their freedoms? I don't know their motivations, but in any case I don't see anything inconsistent about their actions in your example. If somebody uses their freedom of speech to be a dick they have to live with the consequences. That has nothing to do with censorship.
Did your ISP install a rootkit on your PC?
No. Neither did my carrier install one on my phone for that matter, but the thing is that these two services are provided by the SAME COMPANY.
You mean when the software is being hidden from you, and when you cannot disable it without hacking your own phone? "Secure your shit" in that context means "don't use a cell phone."
No it don't. Secure your shit means do whatever it takes to be confident you know what your phone is doing. If that means "hacking" it (and I think it does) then so be it.
You didn't say anything about copying. Giving away the copy that was given to me is perfectly legal.
They could upload their entire catalogue to an open website, it doesn't mean that you have *permission* to copy it, view it, burn it to a DVD - that's not how copyright licensing works.
Hang on. If the owner chooses to upload the content to a open website you absolutely have the right to download it. You do not require permission to download it or view it. That's not how copyright licensing works.
Beg to differ. Unless you have signed some sort of NDA that is perfectly legal.
It is possible that an employee of a studio is downloading via torrents without permission
Well yes, naturally. The thing is these companies are the same ones telling courts that an IP address connected to a swarm constitutes positive identification and proof of guilt for whoever the IP address was assigned to at the time.
If someone from the legal/copyright department is doing so to verify that their content is on the internet, that's well within the scope of their jobs.
Again, true. And more evidence that an IP address does not equal proof of infringement.
They deserve to squirm on the hook for this one. Totally a newsworthy story.
So your answer to being beholden to mobile carriers is to remain beholden to ISPs? The same ISP's that run all the mobile services? How is a wireline going to make any difference if the provider is the same?.
The answer, as always, is to 1) secure your shit. 2) hold carriers to a higher standard. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater
Legal, useful, and morally-sound? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a paid comment. It IS a rootkit, by definition (does it hide from your process list, can you remove it?). The EFF thinks it HAS been used as a keylogger, even if unintentionally. No matter what the customer agreed this functionality is morally reprehensible. If anything, the carriers deserve some credit for showing restraint in the use of this application, but CarrierIQ itself deserves all the criticism it is getting.
There is actually an apt car analogy in this case. It's EXACTLY like you found a GPS device attached to your chassis, and the Fed turns up asking for it back.
As long as there are other countries gaining an economic advantage at the cost of environmental damage then I don't see that another country should pick up their crap and decrease their export because it's so cheap to produce in such "dirty" countries.
Because that way we all fail. It's called a tragedy of the commons.
BTW: Has Canada been given the favor they their trees are eating up a lot of the world's carbon dioxide and producing oxygen?
Okay, so if you either planted or felled a whole bunch of trees then maybe I can see an argument for a credit or sanction to reflect your impact on the global system. But if you just have a bunch of trees already they are already accounted for. Those trees don't have Canadian citizenship, they don't give a crap about tariffs or borders or about who's carbon they sequester.
Funny, Nokia for me have always stood for seasonal rehashes of last years cheap models... but build it cheaper this time! Their 3x10 series exemplified this half-assed attitude.
They made nice phones too, but Siemans, Ericsson and Motorola were making the proper stuff.
It's a form of hacker koan. In your eagerness to be a smartass you failed to reach enlightenment.
Yes. Code is up on github, a link to it cleverly hidden right there in the summary.
Apple don't want a share of Android's profits - they don't want Android to exist. Driving up the cost of bringing an Android device to market is part of that.
Also on the iPhone, you are slightly better off since there's a centralized non-Apple store - Cydia.
Better off? Do you realize that there are a whole range of non-Google stores available for Android (ranging from strictly OSS to strictly warez), and that many of them are installable directly from Google's market without even requiring root?
And here I thought "Internet Time" was based on the UNIX epoch. After all, POSIX time has been employed by Internet infrastructure since before the World Wide Web, whereas Swatch Internet Time is displayed on wrist-watches that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet and are used by nobody.
Anywho, Swatch Time does not seem to include a date component, so you probably won't find it used for expiration warnings. Or anything else.
We are also far more likely to want to trade/compete/fight/have sex with 'habitable zone' aliens.
Of course - but it is still smarter to start looking in places where we know life can exist then it is to start with all the places that we don't.
If you have an ocean in your car then I don't imagine fitting a few of these bad boys will be a problem. Otherwise the closest you'll get is just using the power from them in your plug-in electric.
So it really boils down to trust -- at some point you have to either trust your cell phone provider not to screw you, or stop using a cell phone
I don't see it that way. I have complete faith that my mobile provider will try to screw me, just like my ISP. A phone is just like any other equipment you connect to the Internet - you just consider networks that you do not control as hostile and go from there.
If you've read through the details of the ruling, the judge essentially says that it's likely that Samsung infringes on Apple's patents, but that it's unlikely that allowing Samsung to continue to sell their products will cause any significant damage to Apple, hence that there's no need for an injunction.
Even better then that: In sum, the Court found that Samsung was successful in raising substantial questions as to the validity of Apple’s D’087 patent and that Apple was unable to persuade the Court that it would likely succeed at trial in its efforts to uphold the validity of said patent.