Ultimately, I think the main difference between GMail and spyware, is information, (informed) consent and control. Spyware is about a lack of these things: you don't know what it's doing, you would most likely not want to install it it you knew what it's doing, it takes care to cover its proverbial ass, sometimes even going so far as to disable blockers like Ad-Aware etc., and you do not actually consent to it being installed (because it's either being installed through browser holes etc., like other malware, or because the fact that it is being installed is hidden in section 517.24 (B) of an EULA long enough to fill a book). Furthermore, spyware usually just sends whatever data it's gathering back to the manufacturer, who is then (practically) free to use it in any way they want to.
GMail is just the opposite. You do explicitely opt-in, so consent is given (or did you ever catch a GMail account by accident, like you catch spyware? ^_~); the terms of service are pretty clear, and it's made clear that your emails are automatically parsed to display advertising deemed relevant to their content (so it's informed consent, too - they don't try to deliberately obscure what's being done); and the data gathered from the automatic parsing is used in a clearly-defined way and for the purpose of automatic selection of ads to display only, so you know that your data is not being used for goodness knows what (that is, you retain control).
For some reason, that is something that privacy organizations don't seem to understand, which I find rather sad. I am very interested in privacy myself, but that does not mean that I cannot opt out of it if I want to, and I don't see why GMail should be outlawed, for example.
Inform people and make sure they understand what the implications of their actions are? By all means, yes. Take away people's ability to make informed decisions for themselves? I don't think so.
Do you honestly think that they will allow you to opt out of it, or that they will ignore it if you refuse to get the device installed or rip it out again after it's been put in?
That, while unfortunate, is a side effect of the immunity granted to diplomats and MPs (members of parliament - I guess that means congresspeople and senators in the USA). And if you think about it, immunity does make sense, too; the ability of MPs to vote on laws, give speeches on political issues and all that without having to fear repercussions of any kind is an important aspect of democracy.
Yeah, it unfortunately means that some (?) of them will abuse that by parking on the sidewalk and so on. But as long as they're only doing that and not - say - robbing banks, it's a small price to pay.
Y'know, there IS a world outside of the USA, and in fact, the majority of humankind is from out there. It may seem strange to you, but some of these foreign freaks even browse Slashdot. Amazing, isn't it?
Actually, in Germany, many parts of the motorways do have speed limits, so it's not like you can drive as fast as you want *all* the time. ^_~
That being said, though, you're quite right, and in fact, it seems to me that often enough, speed limits that really should be raised aren't, because not doing so means the state can make more money by occasionally handing out tickets to everyone.
For example, over here, the (basic) speed limit for towns is 50 KPH (it can be lower (or sometimes higher) in certain areas of towns, of course, but if nothing else is said, it's 50 KPH); the actual speed at which everyone's driving is about 60, though. The logical thing to do would be for the government (no matter on which level) to say "OK, everyone's driving at 60, anyway, so we'll just raise the speed limit to that); however, that doesn't happen, as it'd mean that they couldn't cash in on anymore.
To get back to the original topic, though, considering that the UAE apparently plan to ticket people *every* time they go above the speed limit, I'm not sure whether they really just want to cash in - after all, if you do have a cash cow, you're better of in the long term milking it instead of slaughtering it (which I think explains nicely why governments, no matter how often they say they only give out tickets to prevent accidents, usually don't do so *too* often - if they did, they'd risk that people *actually* change their driving habits).
No - call me cynical, but I think the real purpose is a different one. I'd say it's more likely that they do want to get an infrastructure into place that allows them to automatically track every vehicle etc.; the "we want to enforce the speed limit" is just a strawman, just like "we want to crack down on accidents" is with other governments.
What never ceases to amaze me is how people don't realize that systems like that would only produce more criminality.
I mean, look at it. You're forced to work, you don't get warm food, you don't get medical care (regarding organ transplants, have you ever considered that these aren't done for the fun of it? they're done because people would die otherwise), you don't get any so-called luxuries (try living without all the things you mentioned for a week, then tell me they really are luxuries!), and even for a book, you have to bend over and let the warden fuck your ass because it's their decision whether you'll get it or not.
I don't know about you, but I think I can say that *I* would become quite bitter and hateful really if subjected to that. Hateful towards the wardens, of course, towards the company running the facility and so on; but also hateful towards politicians who allow this, towards people like you who support this, and towards the general public. In other words, I would emerge as an unscrupulous and highly motivated person looking for revenge.
Somehow, I think that's not what a prison is supposed to do. I always thought prisons were about teaching people that crime is wrong/doesn't pay and that you can lead a good life even without resorting to crime, as well as about giving people the skills they need to live a normal life - teaching them skills they need to work in a certain job afterwards, for example, teaching them social competence, and all that. But maybe I'm wrong, and prisons really are just about revenge and a perverse kind of fun that you're having with those people who can't even defend themselves.
Just pray that you never find yourself among them.
The big problem with taking away anyone's right to vote is that you essentially deprive them of their only means to make themselves heard, influence the system and fight for what they think needs to be changed. The ability to put pressure on politicians by voting for or against them is what makes a democracy work, and it's more or less the only thing that makes sure that certain groups are not treated overly unfairly.
For example, if a law was passed that allowed only people with a yearly income of at least - say - $100,000 to vote, don't you think that politicians would start caring less and less about the wants/needs of those with a lower income? If only white people were allowed to vote, don't you think that everyone who happened to have a different skin colour would suffer?
The same thing is true with prisoners - if you don't allow them to vote, then you essentially say "we're going to do whatever we want with you and you can't do anything about it", which is fundamentally undemocratic, and what's worse, it opens the door to just about anything - after all, no matter what you do with prisoners, you can always justify it by saying "but they are only criminals, they don't deserve $fundamental_human_right".
Yeah, I can see why you're posting as an AC. That being said - wtf? Have you ever heard of things like the 8th amendment (which states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted")? The fact that someone went to prison (and thus most likely did something wrong, although given the american court system, it probably just means he couldn't pay a lawyer who would get him out without a prison sentence) does not mean that they are a second-class person, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just chain them to the wall in the darkness and flog them everyday? They're only criminals, right? Right?
Outside of that, not allowing prisoners to actually keep themselves occupied and then complaining about how they will use their time thinking about other things (like "how can I get out of here?") is outright stupid, as is treating them like shit and then wondering why they hate you and treat you like shit in what little ways they can, too.
But I doubt you have the intelligence to even understand that.
From what I understand, Bill Gates' foundation does not have anything to do with Microsoft, though, does it (other than being funded by money that Gates earned due to his job at M$)?
That being said, there's another, more important point, too: the fact that someone (whether a person, company or any other entity) does some good things does not mean that all the bad things they do have to be overlooked. Even if M$ would directly fund charitable causes, I still would reserve the right to criticise them for the bad things they do - and there's plenty of stuff to criticise them for.
If I was more cynical, I might even say that a thief who uses part of his loot to fund charitable causes is still a thief, but I'm not *that* cynical yet.;)
This story is a non-story, like many of the Google stories lately. Google.org has a bit of text promising to be philanthropic, in some undetermined manner, at some undetermined point in the future. How in $DEITY's name is this a news story? If I were to buy the.org version of my company's domain, and erect a similar site claiming that I want to do great things, would it be worthy of an entry on Slashdot's front page? Of course not.
That highly depends on how big/well-known your company is, I'd say. If you've just set up joe-bluecollar-the-carpenter.org, then it's probably not newsworthy; if the company in question is a major player, though, and ESPECIALLY if it's a major player in the IT sector, then it is news.
Here's another test: give me the names of five companies that have similar foundations (or plans to establish them). Can't think of a single one without Googling or otherwise searching for them[1]? That's just another reason why this is news.
1. No, Bill Gates' foundation does not count, as it's not related to Microsoft.
Does OSDN get a kickback from Google for every Google article posted here? I really want to know, because it's getting ridiculous, and if Slashdot doesn't provide a way to opt-out of the multitude of unnecessary Google articles, there's no way that I'm going to start paying for this.
That's pretty silly, too - you're complaining because there's TOO MUCH news? It's not as if there'd magically appear other news stories if this (or others) were not published.:)
I don't think anybody's really opposed to Bill Gates (or anyone) donating money to good causes - but on the other hand, most people (or most Slashdotters/geeks/etc. at least) also reserve the right to criticize Bill Gates for everything else he does. The fact that he's doing good things does not mean that we suddenly have to overlook all the bad things he's also doing.
You say that as if reverse-engineering is something bad, though. I say the opposite is true - it's a good thing, as it furthers interoperability between different products and prevents vendor lock-in (which, incidentally, is just the stunt that Larry seems to be trying to pull now by claiming that the metadata of projects hosted on BK is somehow copyrighted to BitMover). Maybe you'd argue that being "100% original" is better, but again - welcome to the real world, kid. Interoperability *is* a real concern.
To give an example... has anyone ever sent you something as a Word document instead of (say) a PDF? If yes, then (unless you actually paid for a copy of Word) you probably were quite happy that you could open that Word document with OOo, too, especially if you happened to be running something other than Windows. Would you argue that the OOo developers did something wrong by allowing you to do that?
Why would "morally right" be equivalent to "does not mess with the business model of $company who'd obviously prefer if there was no competition and everyone would be forced to pay for their own products"? That doesn't make sense, at all.
And as for Bruce thinking he can "dethrone" anyone, I doubt that's true, either - but why disagreeing with someone and pointing out flaws in their reasoning would be an attempt at "dethroning" (or "slinging mud", for that matter) is beyond me, too.
Strange question. Linus says (in essence) "reverse engineering the over-the-wire protocol employed by a closed-source application is morally wrong". Bruce says "that's not true, and FWIW, you didn't seem to have a problem when the same thing was done for Samba, either".
How could that NOT be pertinent to FOSS? Open source / free software is not just about writing code; unfortunately, maybe, but that's the way things are, so it's better to deal than to ignore.
They made up a quote, but they also said right afterwards that it was, in fact, not real, so while it's debatable whether that really is good journalistic style, they did not attempt to actually mislead people, and there is no reason to assume that they're doing so now, either.
After having followed all this (and especially Linus' attacks on Tridge, which, as Bruce points out, are entirely unjustifed), I'm really wondering about one thing - just how many BitMover shares does Linus own? ^_~
Despite its name, Adblock is not just about ads - rather, it's a relatively general means to block embedded objects (images, IFRAMEs, scripts etc.) that appear in a page based on their URL. Blocking ads is one obvious use, sure, but there are others.
For example, I personally have found that it works perfectly for removing offensive (to me) user avatars from web forums and the like. I also use it to block web bugs that automatically log my surfing habits to third-party servers, unnecessary flash / shockwave that just slows down my box and distracts from a page's contents and other such things.
And, of course, I use it to block ads, too. But that's just one thing it does.
The tech started here in the US, so that made us #1. But the rural spread of our population makes market penetration quite difficult, thus resulting in countries with higher population densities pulling ahead.
Light always moves at the speed of light, but "the speed of light" really means "the speed of light in a specific medium". What's typically referred to as THE speed of light is the speed of light in a vaccuum.
Is liquid helium even enough to cool down the whole thing to the required temperature? IANAP, but I'd be surprised if in order to get to the 2 millikelvins mentioned by another commenter, you didn't need some advanced technique like laser cooling or so that's not really feasible to implement outside of a research lab (yet).
Read the paper. The opening paragraph alone should make you VERY suspicious; if you read beyond that, it becomes clear that it's been generated by an (admittedly sophisticated) tool that combines random buzzwords to form english sentences.
In other words, your job doesn't really get much harder due to this, especially since those who review papers generally only do so for their own area of research, where they (should) have some expertise at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, I think the main difference between GMail and spyware, is information, (informed) consent and control. Spyware is about a lack of these things: you don't know what it's doing, you would most likely not want to install it it you knew what it's doing, it takes care to cover its proverbial ass, sometimes even going so far as to disable blockers like Ad-Aware etc., and you do not actually consent to it being installed (because it's either being installed through browser holes etc., like other malware, or because the fact that it is being installed is hidden in section 517.24 (B) of an EULA long enough to fill a book). Furthermore, spyware usually just sends whatever data it's gathering back to the manufacturer, who is then (practically) free to use it in any way they want to.
GMail is just the opposite. You do explicitely opt-in, so consent is given (or did you ever catch a GMail account by accident, like you catch spyware? ^_~); the terms of service are pretty clear, and it's made clear that your emails are automatically parsed to display advertising deemed relevant to their content (so it's informed consent, too - they don't try to deliberately obscure what's being done); and the data gathered from the automatic parsing is used in a clearly-defined way and for the purpose of automatic selection of ads to display only, so you know that your data is not being used for goodness knows what (that is, you retain control).
For some reason, that is something that privacy organizations don't seem to understand, which I find rather sad. I am very interested in privacy myself, but that does not mean that I cannot opt out of it if I want to, and I don't see why GMail should be outlawed, for example.
Inform people and make sure they understand what the implications of their actions are? By all means, yes. Take away people's ability to make informed decisions for themselves? I don't think so.
Do you honestly think that they will allow you to opt out of it, or that they will ignore it if you refuse to get the device installed or rip it out again after it's been put in?
That, while unfortunate, is a side effect of the immunity granted to diplomats and MPs (members of parliament - I guess that means congresspeople and senators in the USA). And if you think about it, immunity does make sense, too; the ability of MPs to vote on laws, give speeches on political issues and all that without having to fear repercussions of any kind is an important aspect of democracy. Yeah, it unfortunately means that some (?) of them will abuse that by parking on the sidewalk and so on. But as long as they're only doing that and not - say - robbing banks, it's a small price to pay.
Y'know, there IS a world outside of the USA, and in fact, the majority of humankind is from out there. It may seem strange to you, but some of these foreign freaks even browse Slashdot. Amazing, isn't it?
Actually, in Germany, many parts of the motorways do have speed limits, so it's not like you can drive as fast as you want *all* the time. ^_~
That being said, though, you're quite right, and in fact, it seems to me that often enough, speed limits that really should be raised aren't, because not doing so means the state can make more money by occasionally handing out tickets to everyone.
For example, over here, the (basic) speed limit for towns is 50 KPH (it can be lower (or sometimes higher) in certain areas of towns, of course, but if nothing else is said, it's 50 KPH); the actual speed at which everyone's driving is about 60, though. The logical thing to do would be for the government (no matter on which level) to say "OK, everyone's driving at 60, anyway, so we'll just raise the speed limit to that); however, that doesn't happen, as it'd mean that they couldn't cash in on anymore.
To get back to the original topic, though, considering that the UAE apparently plan to ticket people *every* time they go above the speed limit, I'm not sure whether they really just want to cash in - after all, if you do have a cash cow, you're better of in the long term milking it instead of slaughtering it (which I think explains nicely why governments, no matter how often they say they only give out tickets to prevent accidents, usually don't do so *too* often - if they did, they'd risk that people *actually* change their driving habits).
No - call me cynical, but I think the real purpose is a different one. I'd say it's more likely that they do want to get an infrastructure into place that allows them to automatically track every vehicle etc.; the "we want to enforce the speed limit" is just a strawman, just like "we want to crack down on accidents" is with other governments.
What never ceases to amaze me is how people don't realize that systems like that would only produce more criminality.
I mean, look at it. You're forced to work, you don't get warm food, you don't get medical care (regarding organ transplants, have you ever considered that these aren't done for the fun of it? they're done because people would die otherwise), you don't get any so-called luxuries (try living without all the things you mentioned for a week, then tell me they really are luxuries!), and even for a book, you have to bend over and let the warden fuck your ass because it's their decision whether you'll get it or not.
I don't know about you, but I think I can say that *I* would become quite bitter and hateful really if subjected to that. Hateful towards the wardens, of course, towards the company running the facility and so on; but also hateful towards politicians who allow this, towards people like you who support this, and towards the general public. In other words, I would emerge as an unscrupulous and highly motivated person looking for revenge.
Somehow, I think that's not what a prison is supposed to do. I always thought prisons were about teaching people that crime is wrong/doesn't pay and that you can lead a good life even without resorting to crime, as well as about giving people the skills they need to live a normal life - teaching them skills they need to work in a certain job afterwards, for example, teaching them social competence, and all that. But maybe I'm wrong, and prisons really are just about revenge and a perverse kind of fun that you're having with those people who can't even defend themselves.
Just pray that you never find yourself among them.
The big problem with taking away anyone's right to vote is that you essentially deprive them of their only means to make themselves heard, influence the system and fight for what they think needs to be changed. The ability to put pressure on politicians by voting for or against them is what makes a democracy work, and it's more or less the only thing that makes sure that certain groups are not treated overly unfairly. For example, if a law was passed that allowed only people with a yearly income of at least - say - $100,000 to vote, don't you think that politicians would start caring less and less about the wants/needs of those with a lower income? If only white people were allowed to vote, don't you think that everyone who happened to have a different skin colour would suffer? The same thing is true with prisoners - if you don't allow them to vote, then you essentially say "we're going to do whatever we want with you and you can't do anything about it", which is fundamentally undemocratic, and what's worse, it opens the door to just about anything - after all, no matter what you do with prisoners, you can always justify it by saying "but they are only criminals, they don't deserve $fundamental_human_right".
You do realize that just about anyone would go completely insane from that kind of treatment after even a week, don't you?
Yeah, I can see why you're posting as an AC. That being said - wtf? Have you ever heard of things like the 8th amendment (which states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted")? The fact that someone went to prison (and thus most likely did something wrong, although given the american court system, it probably just means he couldn't pay a lawyer who would get him out without a prison sentence) does not mean that they are a second-class person, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just chain them to the wall in the darkness and flog them everyday? They're only criminals, right? Right?
Outside of that, not allowing prisoners to actually keep themselves occupied and then complaining about how they will use their time thinking about other things (like "how can I get out of here?") is outright stupid, as is treating them like shit and then wondering why they hate you and treat you like shit in what little ways they can, too.
But I doubt you have the intelligence to even understand that.
You don't have to see the license. If you don't accept it, then it's simply a copyrighted work that you (basically) have no right to use. :)
From what I understand, Bill Gates' foundation does not have anything to do with Microsoft, though, does it (other than being funded by money that Gates earned due to his job at M$)?
;)
That being said, there's another, more important point, too: the fact that someone (whether a person, company or any other entity) does some good things does not mean that all the bad things they do have to be overlooked. Even if M$ would directly fund charitable causes, I still would reserve the right to criticise them for the bad things they do - and there's plenty of stuff to criticise them for.
If I was more cynical, I might even say that a thief who uses part of his loot to fund charitable causes is still a thief, but I'm not *that* cynical yet.
That highly depends on how big/well-known your company is, I'd say. If you've just set up joe-bluecollar-the-carpenter.org, then it's probably not newsworthy; if the company in question is a major player, though, and ESPECIALLY if it's a major player in the IT sector, then it is news.
Here's another test: give me the names of five companies that have similar foundations (or plans to establish them). Can't think of a single one without Googling or otherwise searching for them[1]? That's just another reason why this is news.
1. No, Bill Gates' foundation does not count, as it's not related to Microsoft.
That's pretty silly, too - you're complaining because there's TOO MUCH news? It's not as if there'd magically appear other news stories if this (or others) were not published. :)
I don't think anybody's really opposed to Bill Gates (or anyone) donating money to good causes - but on the other hand, most people (or most Slashdotters/geeks/etc. at least) also reserve the right to criticize Bill Gates for everything else he does. The fact that he's doing good things does not mean that we suddenly have to overlook all the bad things he's also doing.
You say that as if reverse-engineering is something bad, though. I say the opposite is true - it's a good thing, as it furthers interoperability between different products and prevents vendor lock-in (which, incidentally, is just the stunt that Larry seems to be trying to pull now by claiming that the metadata of projects hosted on BK is somehow copyrighted to BitMover). Maybe you'd argue that being "100% original" is better, but again - welcome to the real world, kid. Interoperability *is* a real concern.
To give an example... has anyone ever sent you something as a Word document instead of (say) a PDF? If yes, then (unless you actually paid for a copy of Word) you probably were quite happy that you could open that Word document with OOo, too, especially if you happened to be running something other than Windows. Would you argue that the OOo developers did something wrong by allowing you to do that?
Why would "morally right" be equivalent to "does not mess with the business model of $company who'd obviously prefer if there was no competition and everyone would be forced to pay for their own products"? That doesn't make sense, at all.
And as for Bruce thinking he can "dethrone" anyone, I doubt that's true, either - but why disagreeing with someone and pointing out flaws in their reasoning would be an attempt at "dethroning" (or "slinging mud", for that matter) is beyond me, too.
Strange question. Linus says (in essence) "reverse engineering the over-the-wire protocol employed by a closed-source application is morally wrong". Bruce says "that's not true, and FWIW, you didn't seem to have a problem when the same thing was done for Samba, either".
How could that NOT be pertinent to FOSS? Open source / free software is not just about writing code; unfortunately, maybe, but that's the way things are, so it's better to deal than to ignore.
They made up a quote, but they also said right afterwards that it was, in fact, not real, so while it's debatable whether that really is good journalistic style, they did not attempt to actually mislead people, and there is no reason to assume that they're doing so now, either.
After having followed all this (and especially Linus' attacks on Tridge, which, as Bruce points out, are entirely unjustifed), I'm really wondering about one thing - just how many BitMover shares does Linus own? ^_~
Despite its name, Adblock is not just about ads - rather, it's a relatively general means to block embedded objects (images, IFRAMEs, scripts etc.) that appear in a page based on their URL. Blocking ads is one obvious use, sure, but there are others.
For example, I personally have found that it works perfectly for removing offensive (to me) user avatars from web forums and the like. I also use it to block web bugs that automatically log my surfing habits to third-party servers, unnecessary flash / shockwave that just slows down my box and distracts from a page's contents and other such things.
And, of course, I use it to block ads, too. But that's just one thing it does.
Countries like Canada?
Light always moves at the speed of light, but "the speed of light" really means "the speed of light in a specific medium". What's typically referred to as THE speed of light is the speed of light in a vaccuum.
Not just not without destroying them, but really not at all (if you do assume that all the properties really *are* the same).
Is liquid helium even enough to cool down the whole thing to the required temperature? IANAP, but I'd be surprised if in order to get to the 2 millikelvins mentioned by another commenter, you didn't need some advanced technique like laser cooling or so that's not really feasible to implement outside of a research lab (yet).
Read the paper. The opening paragraph alone should make you VERY suspicious; if you read beyond that, it becomes clear that it's been generated by an (admittedly sophisticated) tool that combines random buzzwords to form english sentences.
In other words, your job doesn't really get much harder due to this, especially since those who review papers generally only do so for their own area of research, where they (should) have some expertise at least.
Doesn't the DMCA explicitely allow reverse engineering? Or am I confusing it with something else?
I don't know any licenses specifically designed with hardware in mind, but why not use one of the Creative Commons licenses?