There's one big problem with trying to use fitbit data. There's no way to prove that the device was actually attached to a person that is allegedly producing the data. Six months down the road, the witness (alleged wearer) won't remember what he had for dinner, let alone what was on his person. Add to that motives to lie (and people do that on the stand in spite of the penalties) and you have a data source that won't prove anything in most cases.
Besides, who the hell cares whether or not I was moving at any particular time during the day? Can't my level of activity already be determined from my phone, where I eat and what kind of shoes I buy? My privacy isn't being invaded in any substantial way even if these companies release my data. Sheesh!
You know, for places off the grid there are these magical things out there that use solar energy to produce fuels. They're called "plants" and "livestock", they produce such things as wood and waxes, and they don't need any batteries. But for someone urgently needing to justify dumping a lot of non-recyclables somewhere it sure can be made to sound great...
That's really my question here: what is the power return after charging a typical battery pack. If you wind up putting in 10Whrs to get 1 back out, then I'd have to wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient just to burn candles & kerosene. The fact that you're using an LED will be insignificant compared to the wasted power during the charging.
If a cell won't charge, then you're toting around a block of dead weight between the site of charging and the site of usage. (Not efficient.) If a cell won't hold a charge for more than a few hours (due to an internal short usually) then it's worse: you're just wasting energy at the charging site (until the short gets bad enough that the charger shuts down or worse, the battery explodes.)
For the shallow reader wanting to save materials and energy, this looks like a great idea. But, old batteries have been around a long time and if this really were a good idea, someone would have put it into use decades ago. In the dustbin it goes...
Some of them have restrictions on what license you can use to redistribute, but that's not a restriction on use.
If I can't convert software released under a FSF-approved license into a commercial one, then I can't modify and use the software commercially. (I'd have to release the modified source under a non-commercial FSF license, which would ordinarily require that I distribute my software at no charge. I won't be able to charge for my modifications, as everyone will know they can get it for free.) That is a restriction on use.
I don't care who you are, you don't get to redefine a word/term like "horse" to mean a cow unless and until the word/term has been accepted by the community at large. For the term "open source", it does not mean free software in the legal/licensing community. Until this new meaning has been adopted, pejoratives like "openwashing" are just blather without a true context.
The author of this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) agrees with me:
"Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design."
That does not specify a license endorsed by the Free Software Foundation or anyone else. In fact, the licenses endorsed by the FSF restrict the future uses of software to those approved of by the license-holder. A truly free license would be a release into the public-domain. Your claim that "an open source license always guarantees the freedoms to use... the code" however you want is flat wrong. Your claim that "all actual free software is open source" is just plain stupid: the fact that you pay nothing for a piece of software doesn't give you any right to view the source. (Have you ever seen the source code to Adobe Acrobat?)
The fact that OSI has taken it upon themselves to redefine the term "open source" (as per your link) merely proves my point. Their definition is one promoted in that organization's self-interest, and is not authoritative. They can no more provide us with an authoritative definition of the term than I can of any established term such as "compact car".
It seems there's a lot of confusion over the term "open source". All it means is that the end-user gets to review the source code. It doesn't mean that the source code gets to be re-used in someone else's project under the GPL: the original developer(s) still hold the copyrights subject to whatever licenses apply.
What we seem to have hear is a bunch of bloggers speaking to a certain audience who wish to redefine "open source" to mean "everybody gets all rights for free". Their invention of the pejorative "openwashing" against the true meaning of "open source" shows their motives are merely for attention-grabbing.
It is not the corporations that have rights. It is the holders of the corporations that do (who are people). That is why when a corporation brings suit it is captioned "the shareholders of Corp. X". Do you get it?
That would be true, but for the fact that corporations and other legal entities (LLCs, trusts, etc.) are ultimately owned and managed by "persons" of your various forms.
Steven Hawking has posited that the development of artificial intelligence could pose a threat to the existence of the human race.
In a related story, Isaac Asimov posited that the development of natural intelligence could pose a threat to the existence of the human race. Anyone remember Planet of the Apes?
Find a doomsday scenario, attach a famous name to it, get mucho attention and a Slashdot story. Can someone please filter out some of this crap!?
ShanghaiBill: you da man! Obamacare is about to go flop, his illegal orders concerning illegal immigrants will be overturned, and the Great Fuhrer can't leave any room for his opponents to take credit for anything.
Obama hasn't got the money for this: it would have to be authorized by Congress. This is just another invitation to the Congress to tell him "no" and for him to whine that the Republicans are against his version of progress.
Let's see: under the 4th amendment we all have a right against invasions of any of our "persons, houses, papers, and effects"...
Are wireless transmissions "persons"? Obviously not.
Are wireless transmissions "houses"? Well, as those transmissions are floating about freely on the airwaves, that can't be.
Are wireless transmissions "papers"? You might be tempted to say that a radio transmission is an analogue of a paper in that both contain personal information. But the meaning of papers in 1789 was the container that housed information that you could choose to retain private. Wireless transmissions, unless encrypted, are not containers that keep your information secure. Strike three.
Are wireless transmissions effects? Well, effects in the legal sense are objects that can be moved, such as objects that aren't a part of your house that you own. The important part is that these effects are retained in your possession; information is no longer in your possession once it has been transmitted out of your control (over the public airwaves or wires). Strike four.
I know that you might want a right to privacy to be there, but it just isn't. What is there is a right against government intrusions of your space that you act to keep private. There is a huge difference.
Sorry, it's not so clear and simple. The 4th amendment protects against government invasion of your person and your residence: here were talking about snooping information that you're transmitting on the publicly-regulated airwaves or over publicly-managed wires and cables. If you open your window and shout a conversation about your sexual exploits to your neighbor, you shouldn't expect any privacy. You volunteered to put it out there in a form that is easy to snoop upon; the fact that you think you have ultimate privacy is not relevant at all.
The issue of whether law enforcement can listen in on your telephone conversations without a warrant has been decided with the Wiretap Act (legislation). There are lots of people that want that law to be extended to apply to cell phone conversations and Internet traffic, but the Supreme Court hasn't defined what the boundaries of your privacy actually are. I'd welcome more legislation that defines a right to privacy over certain wireless and Internet communications beyond what is guaranteed by the Constitution (which really ain't much).
Until their truly is law that defines such a right to privacy, it is your obligation to secure your communications from outside ears.
Yes, I agree. Even though senators are now voted in by popular vote, they are still supposed to represent the states from which they are elected. I realize that most people don't see the difference, and that's why were probably going to be stuck with that Amendment for a long time. At least a senator's term lasts for 6 rather than 2 years; perhaps that will give a senator some independence against popular opinion.
Oh, yeah. It's the legislative equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his lollipop.
Both parties would be served to remember that Congress is the peoples' House of REPRESENTATIVES and the Senate controlled by the STATES. The Democrats backed themselves into this hole. Let's see if the Republicans can do any better.
Oh, mdsolar, I didn't know the EPA was being managed by the Supreme Court. Yes, indeed, I must be confused...
(You know, there's this funny psychological disfunctional behavior associated with some kinds of disorders where the subject accuses others of the negative qualities they see in themselves. It's called projection. Perhaps you should see a psychologist right away...)
Oh, and if you intended to use 549 U.S. 497 (the decision referred to at the bottom of the webpage you cited) to support your conclusion: that had nothing to do with the enforcement of a treaty or any other kind of foreign agreement. To try to use that to support Obama's "accord" by fiat would be an overreach indeed.
Do you know what an injunction is, mdsolar? (Hint: it's another court order.)
I like how you call everyone else confused, there, while exhibiting an extraordinary amount of ignorance. Why don't you study up on the subject, and then you can make some competent remarks on the subject.
And exactly what Supreme Court order was that, pray tell? I didn't know the Supreme Court was authorized or would issue orders to make binding treaties, or regulations that are the business of the Executive Branch.
Your article admits this is an attempt to "name and shame" opposing parties by the Obama Administration without any legal basis or strategy. They've been jerking on that one for a while now with not much to show. Let them do it one more time at Paris before Obama is cast aside on the road in 2016...
Well, the DoD is considering the effects of climate change a priority, but they're not trying to stop it. They're trying to adapt to it: http://www.defense.gov/Release...
I'm not worried about enforcement at all, because in two years Obama will be nothing more than an unpleasant footnote in the history of the world...
President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
And if you read the rest of this, it agrees with me. Obama is not going to get an enforceable agreement; he's a lame duck trying to do with shame what he can't do fairly with negotiation and logic. The fact that the NYT described this as an "accord" reached with China shows they are happy to bend the facts to appease the feelings of their readers. I expect they'll ride this for two more years...
FTA: "U.S. and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks". The U.S. hasn't agreed to anything, because the Senate isn't going to ratify this. This will serve no purpose but to cast shame upon those who won't follow Der Fuhrer Obama. We know which side of the isle the New York Times favors...
Slashdot Mirror
There's one big problem with trying to use fitbit data. There's no way to prove that the device was actually attached to a person that is allegedly producing the data. Six months down the road, the witness (alleged wearer) won't remember what he had for dinner, let alone what was on his person. Add to that motives to lie (and people do that on the stand in spite of the penalties) and you have a data source that won't prove anything in most cases.
Besides, who the hell cares whether or not I was moving at any particular time during the day? Can't my level of activity already be determined from my phone, where I eat and what kind of shoes I buy? My privacy isn't being invaded in any substantial way even if these companies release my data. Sheesh!
You know, for places off the grid there are these magical things out there that use solar energy to produce fuels. They're called "plants" and "livestock", they produce such things as wood and waxes, and they don't need any batteries. But for someone urgently needing to justify dumping a lot of non-recyclables somewhere it sure can be made to sound great...
That's really my question here: what is the power return after charging a typical battery pack. If you wind up putting in 10Whrs to get 1 back out, then I'd have to wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient just to burn candles & kerosene. The fact that you're using an LED will be insignificant compared to the wasted power during the charging.
If a cell won't charge, then you're toting around a block of dead weight between the site of charging and the site of usage. (Not efficient.) If a cell won't hold a charge for more than a few hours (due to an internal short usually) then it's worse: you're just wasting energy at the charging site (until the short gets bad enough that the charger shuts down or worse, the battery explodes.)
For the shallow reader wanting to save materials and energy, this looks like a great idea. But, old batteries have been around a long time and if this really were a good idea, someone would have put it into use decades ago. In the dustbin it goes...
Some of them have restrictions on what license you can use to redistribute, but that's not a restriction on use.
If I can't convert software released under a FSF-approved license into a commercial one, then I can't modify and use the software commercially. (I'd have to release the modified source under a non-commercial FSF license, which would ordinarily require that I distribute my software at no charge. I won't be able to charge for my modifications, as everyone will know they can get it for free.) That is a restriction on use.
I don't care who you are, you don't get to redefine a word/term like "horse" to mean a cow unless and until the word/term has been accepted by the community at large. For the term "open source", it does not mean free software in the legal/licensing community. Until this new meaning has been adopted, pejoratives like "openwashing" are just blather without a true context.
The author of this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) agrees with me:
"Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design."
That does not specify a license endorsed by the Free Software Foundation or anyone else. In fact, the licenses endorsed by the FSF restrict the future uses of software to those approved of by the license-holder. A truly free license would be a release into the public-domain. Your claim that "an open source license always guarantees the freedoms to use ... the code" however you want is flat wrong. Your claim that "all actual free software is open source" is just plain stupid: the fact that you pay nothing for a piece of software doesn't give you any right to view the source. (Have you ever seen the source code to Adobe Acrobat?)
The fact that OSI has taken it upon themselves to redefine the term "open source" (as per your link) merely proves my point. Their definition is one promoted in that organization's self-interest, and is not authoritative. They can no more provide us with an authoritative definition of the term than I can of any established term such as "compact car".
It seems there's a lot of confusion over the term "open source". All it means is that the end-user gets to review the source code. It doesn't mean that the source code gets to be re-used in someone else's project under the GPL: the original developer(s) still hold the copyrights subject to whatever licenses apply.
What we seem to have hear is a bunch of bloggers speaking to a certain audience who wish to redefine "open source" to mean "everybody gets all rights for free". Their invention of the pejorative "openwashing" against the true meaning of "open source" shows their motives are merely for attention-grabbing.
I can't stop your willful ignorance. Proceed upon your way...
It is not the corporations that have rights. It is the holders of the corporations that do (who are people). That is why when a corporation brings suit it is captioned "the shareholders of Corp. X". Do you get it?
That would be true, but for the fact that corporations and other legal entities (LLCs, trusts, etc.) are ultimately owned and managed by "persons" of your various forms.
Steven Hawking has posited that the development of artificial intelligence could pose a threat to the existence of the human race.
In a related story, Isaac Asimov posited that the development of natural intelligence could pose a threat to the existence of the human race. Anyone remember Planet of the Apes?
Find a doomsday scenario, attach a famous name to it, get mucho attention and a Slashdot story. Can someone please filter out some of this crap!?
ShanghaiBill: you da man! Obamacare is about to go flop, his illegal orders concerning illegal immigrants will be overturned, and the Great Fuhrer can't leave any room for his opponents to take credit for anything.
Obama hasn't got the money for this: it would have to be authorized by Congress. This is just another invitation to the Congress to tell him "no" and for him to whine that the Republicans are against his version of progress.
Let's see: under the 4th amendment we all have a right against invasions of any of our "persons, houses, papers, and effects"...
Are wireless transmissions "persons"? Obviously not.
Are wireless transmissions "houses"? Well, as those transmissions are floating about freely on the airwaves, that can't be.
Are wireless transmissions "papers"? You might be tempted to say that a radio transmission is an analogue of a paper in that both contain personal information. But the meaning of papers in 1789 was the container that housed information that you could choose to retain private. Wireless transmissions, unless encrypted, are not containers that keep your information secure. Strike three.
Are wireless transmissions effects? Well, effects in the legal sense are objects that can be moved, such as objects that aren't a part of your house that you own. The important part is that these effects are retained in your possession; information is no longer in your possession once it has been transmitted out of your control (over the public airwaves or wires). Strike four.
I know that you might want a right to privacy to be there, but it just isn't. What is there is a right against government intrusions of your space that you act to keep private. There is a huge difference.
And what if they are following the existing laws, but keeping secret encroachments upon the prospective laws some people think they deserve?
Sorry, it's not so clear and simple. The 4th amendment protects against government invasion of your person and your residence: here were talking about snooping information that you're transmitting on the publicly-regulated airwaves or over publicly-managed wires and cables. If you open your window and shout a conversation about your sexual exploits to your neighbor, you shouldn't expect any privacy. You volunteered to put it out there in a form that is easy to snoop upon; the fact that you think you have ultimate privacy is not relevant at all.
The issue of whether law enforcement can listen in on your telephone conversations without a warrant has been decided with the Wiretap Act (legislation). There are lots of people that want that law to be extended to apply to cell phone conversations and Internet traffic, but the Supreme Court hasn't defined what the boundaries of your privacy actually are. I'd welcome more legislation that defines a right to privacy over certain wireless and Internet communications beyond what is guaranteed by the Constitution (which really ain't much).
Until their truly is law that defines such a right to privacy, it is your obligation to secure your communications from outside ears.
Yes, I agree. Even though senators are now voted in by popular vote, they are still supposed to represent the states from which they are elected. I realize that most people don't see the difference, and that's why were probably going to be stuck with that Amendment for a long time. At least a senator's term lasts for 6 rather than 2 years; perhaps that will give a senator some independence against popular opinion.
Oh, yeah. It's the legislative equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his lollipop.
Both parties would be served to remember that Congress is the peoples' House of REPRESENTATIVES and the Senate controlled by the STATES. The Democrats backed themselves into this hole. Let's see if the Republicans can do any better.
should know: the NSA still knows who you are........
(I like the sound of shivering from the paranoid in the morning.)
Oh, mdsolar, I didn't know the EPA was being managed by the Supreme Court. Yes, indeed, I must be confused...
(You know, there's this funny psychological disfunctional behavior associated with some kinds of disorders where the subject accuses others of the negative qualities they see in themselves. It's called projection. Perhaps you should see a psychologist right away...)
Oh, and if you intended to use 549 U.S. 497 (the decision referred to at the bottom of the webpage you cited) to support your conclusion: that had nothing to do with the enforcement of a treaty or any other kind of foreign agreement. To try to use that to support Obama's "accord" by fiat would be an overreach indeed.
Do you know what an injunction is, mdsolar? (Hint: it's another court order.)
I like how you call everyone else confused, there, while exhibiting an extraordinary amount of ignorance. Why don't you study up on the subject, and then you can make some competent remarks on the subject.
Actually it's easy. A new president issues a new executive order.
And exactly what Supreme Court order was that, pray tell? I didn't know the Supreme Court was authorized or would issue orders to make binding treaties, or regulations that are the business of the Executive Branch.
Your article admits this is an attempt to "name and shame" opposing parties by the Obama Administration without any legal basis or strategy. They've been jerking on that one for a while now with not much to show. Let them do it one more time at Paris before Obama is cast aside on the road in 2016...
Well, the DoD is considering the effects of climate change a priority, but they're not trying to stop it. They're trying to adapt to it: http://www.defense.gov/Release...
I'm not worried about enforcement at all, because in two years Obama will be nothing more than an unpleasant footnote in the history of the world...
Are you suggesting the U.S. is going to war to enforce this "accord"?
From your article:
President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
And if you read the rest of this, it agrees with me. Obama is not going to get an enforceable agreement; he's a lame duck trying to do with shame what he can't do fairly with negotiation and logic. The fact that the NYT described this as an "accord" reached with China shows they are happy to bend the facts to appease the feelings of their readers. I expect they'll ride this for two more years...
FTA: "U.S. and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks". The U.S. hasn't agreed to anything, because the Senate isn't going to ratify this. This will serve no purpose but to cast shame upon those who won't follow Der Fuhrer Obama. We know which side of the isle the New York Times favors...