Try rereading my sentence, genius. I said "the people that care" will stop using that company. Obviously, most people don't care. I guess your solution is for government to make them care, yes?
They aren't trying to steer anyone. You are reading way too much into it. And if I happen to be wrong, so what? If they have a good idea, why not run with it? What the FUCK does their newness in the Linux world matter? They can't force anyone else to play along, so where's the harm in them trying?
You seem like an arrogant prick who hates change just because.
Actually, I just finished emailing someone telling them I can't wait to try the next version of Ubuntu because I want to see all of the new changes in action. What I'm concerned about is that Ubuntu is letting their popularity get the best of them. What I don't want to see is them make a bunch of changes that results in people dumping them for some other distribution that is more familiar. My fear is that Ubuntu thinks that because they have such a large share of the Linux desktop market, they can make whatever changes they want and their user base will accept it.
It would never dawn on me to use a Mac for anything other than the desktop. While I'm sure that they make perfectly capable server products, I would wager that the perception that Apple is primarily suited for making products that target the end user rather than the enterprise is a substantial hurdle for Apple. Frankly, I think that this is one of the hurdles that keeps Linux from being as widely adopted as a desktop platform. People hear *nix and, if they think anything at all, they think "server."
As I pointed out in a separate comment, I'm not criticizing Ubuntu for what they're doing. Rather, I'm being critical of their approach and frankly for the attitude that they appear to have about it. I'm an avid Ubuntu user and have been for years. However, in terms of Linux development, they're one of the relatively new kids on the block and have achieved success largely on the back of Fedora. To now be trying to steer the entire free desktop market in their direction as they make major changes seems to me a bit presumptive.
I'm not attacking them. It's just that coming on the heels of their announcement to move away from Gnome, it seems like Ubuntu is using their large install base to try to steer the free desktop market in their direction. I'm not even necessarily commenting on whether or not this is good or bad...just that I'm not certain that they're doing it with the right attitude to be successful.
I've been an Ubuntu user for years and have a great deal of respect for what they've done for the Linux desktop. I just don't want to see them overreach and fail.
I'm wondering if the Ubuntu crowd isn't letting their success go to their heads just a tad. Just because they're the most popular distribution doesn't mean that they can start changing everything around and have everyone else follow their lead. It's one thing to make some incremental changes that you think are best for the distribution or for Linux as an operating system. But to be making statements like this:
We'll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there's no reason for them not to be there on day one either.
says to me that Ubuntu wants to make substantive changes to the free desktop environment and have everyone follow their lead. As a long-time Ubuntu user, I wish them well. But with the attitude with which they seem to be approaching things, I suspect that we will start to see Ubuntu's share of the desktop start to decline in future years as some other distribution steps up to the plate.
One of the jobs of the government is to lend a helping hand to people who don't want to read pages and pages of legal language for every new website they go to.
By whose standard? The post is about Europe, so maybe that's accurate over there. I live in the U.S. and that is most certainly NOT one of the jobs of the (federal) government. It is precisely thinking like that that has resulted in the massive, unsustainable government that we have here in America. Again, I know that this post is talking about Europe, and maybe that is certainly within their legal purview. But that doesn't mean that it should be.
The unregulated market will certainly fail to provide a reasonable solution to that problem,
Again, says who? While it may take a little bit, eventually a company's reputation for abusing the data that it collects will spread and the people that care about how having their data abused will stop using that company. The elitist BS thinking that everyone in the world is too dumb to figure this stuff out so the government has to take over is precisely what is wrong with so much today.
Let the damn companies have whatever policies they want, force them to be open about those policies, and then let the people decide which companies they will deal with. Hell, even create a public forum for people to share their experiences with the companies so that others can be educated. But don't pass laws that could very easily make life hell for those that might actually WANT their information online (but not necessarily shared).
I'm gonna have to agree with you here. This sounds, once again, like government trying to solve the problem of people that are too dumb to understand what they're doing. While there should definitely be policies in place to prevent people from collecting and/or storing data on you without your permission, in most cases permission was probably given and the consumer was just too dumb to realize it.
I can delete my Facebook account but I can't delete the photos someone else took with me in them.
While I believe that the EU is targeting the corporate world with these rules, it would be interesting to see an attempt to enforce this against individuals. For example, if you're at a company picnic and I snap a photo that happens to have you in the background. I then post said photo to my Facebook account. Should I be required to take down a photo that incidentally has you in if you request me to do so? Whose interest will win out in this scenario? Your interest in remaining anonymous online or my interest to share photos with friends and family?
This also brings up another salient point: in most cases, this is data that was collected with the consumer's consent. If you RTFA, the EU intends to strengthen the informed consent rules to make sure that when someone gives consent to have data collected and stored they actually mean it, but that doesn't negate the fact that in most cases data is collected as the result of some action taken by the consumer/user. There is a big difference between complaining about data being collected/stored without your consent and complaining about data being collected/stored after you have consented.
"A computer security researcher says he plans to release code Thursday that could be used to attack some versions of Google's Android phones over the Internet. The attack targets the browser in older, Android 2.1-and-earlier versions of the phones.
How can he be permitted to release something, which when used as intended, does harm to others? This is insane...and he does it "in the light of day!"
Other tools that folks have used to harm others have dual use...but for this code, I do not see any use save for harm. What am I missing?
He is publishing code that can be used to exploit a vulnerability. This could be used for malicious purposes, or it could be used for security demonstrations, as an example to be taught to infosec students or any of a ton of other academic and/or security-related purposes. He is not actually using the code to do anything malicious. Please tell me exactly what statute he is in violation of? Are you saying that no one should ever publish code for exploits?
Um, I don't think that you understand the issue. Net neutrality is the principle that ISPs should not be able to prioritize data, that all data should be treated equally. What the previous poster is basically saying is that at some point, ISPs are going to have to prioritize data at different speeds or else all of the bandwidth is going to be chewed up by people watching movies online. Either that, or we're going to need more bandwidth. It is not in the ISPs financial interest to provide more bandwidth to accomodate NetFlix and other companies that are making money off of products that require large amounts of bandwidth. If an ISP increases the amount of bandwidth to accomodate Netflix, there is no additional revenue in it for them. Therefore, as the previous poster asked, who pays for the additional bandwidth? I agree that there is no easy answer, but net neutrality and the fact that a handful of bandwidth-hogging services are consuming the bandwidth for everyone are directly linked.
Wow, yeah. Obscenity. As defined by who? What if someone finds the word "the" obscene? Does that not count because others would deem it 'silly'? The only opinions that count are those of the majority or a few judges? Such a great idea!
Most obscenity statutes specify that something is obscene of the majority of the people in society might reasonably consider it to be obscene. It's actually interesting because as some words have become more prevalent, courts have ruled them no longer obscene.
no govt provider, just govt lines, that they lease at a small amount above cost(tax) to anyone that wants it, at publicly announced rates.
So you think that now that the private sector has spent billions paying to have these lines installed, the government should just take them over?
Holy hell, at least say that you want your tax money to go to pay for new lines, as opposed to just outright stealing them from companies that have already paid for them.
Libertarians think everything is the government's fault, even blaming them for monopolies. But the fact is, this is a natural monopoly. You are not going to have half a dozen companies laying competing fiber networks do your door. (And without the government imposing eminent domain, you won't even have ONE). The choice isn't between a government-regulated monopoly vs a thriving marketplace, it's between a government-regulated monopoly vs. an unregulated monopoly. Free markets are great for most things, but the government must be involved with infrastructure at some level. Maybe better wireless technology will help the situation, one day.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you're also not telling the whole story. In many cases, these are private companies that have invested literally billions of dollars in infrastructure. While governments have granted some concessions along the way in order to facilitate the build out of these networks, to now turn around and take these billion-dollar investments over and tell these companies what they can and cannot do with them...it's tantamount to robbery. And why? Look at all of the posts on this. It all boils down to selfishness.
I want to be able to...
I don't want to pay more...
No one anywhere is proposing charging you more to look at Slashdot. What they are saying is that to provide quality services they're going to have to be able to control the speed at which various services are delivered. Frankly, this whole "net neutrality" debate is a total red herring being thrown up because the government has for years been trying to take over this industry unsuccessfully. Now, they've finally scared enough people into thinking that someone is going to be charging them more to surf their favorite web site and they think they have a winner.
These companies paid money to build this infrastructure. It's theirs. You don't like it? Pony up and build your own damn billion-dollar network.
And how is this any different than Apple pretending that all of the "new" features that they're putting into the iPhone weren't on Android phones first?
I have met the man, you can not help but like him when you meet him and talk to him.
\
What does this have to do with anything? I know tons of people that have met George W. Bush and say the same thing. I've met Dick Cheney and he's a very likeable guy. Does this change your opinion of either of them?
Ah, but here we have another issue: whose account? For example, my wife's phone is on my cell phone account, which I pay for. Is it illegal for me to covertly monitor what she does on a phone that I'm paying for? Whose phone is it really, hers or mine?
I think that this could raise some interesting legal issues. Does the old principle, "possession is 9/10ths of the law" apply here? Meaning, if my wife is in possession of the phone then it is her property and I cannot legally monitor her text messages?
Parents should just be parents. We're not supposed to have complete trust in our children...they're children! They do dumb stuff!
Does this mean that we should sneak around and covertly monitor everything that they do? Absolutely not. However, my children (who are not quite teenagers yet but will be sooner than I would like) will be made fully aware that their right to privacy ends the second that I think that there might be a problem. They will know that at any time I reserve the right to pick up their phone and go through it, sift through browser history or whatever.
Kids should not be subject to constant covert monitoring, but it doesn't mean that parents should give up their authority entirely, either.
Actually, you're both right. Big business would much prefer that there not be any government regulation of their actions. However, they have accepted the reality that this is never going to happen and so have decided to try to manipulate the process to ensure that the regulations benefit them and harm their competitors.
But I certainly wouldn't contribute to campaign funds. Politics is all administrative overhead... something most businesses and organizations try to minimize. You don't necessarily get more out of it the more you feed it.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I don't even know where you came up with this...?
The majority of campaign contributions go directly into voter contact: mail, phone calls, television and radio advertising. At least, that's what happens in campaigns that win.
Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag.
We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through.
The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.
This is yet another problem with the TSA, government-run airport security. A private security company couldn't afford to tolerate employees that steal, as they would likely lose the airline's business if there were too many complaints. Now that the government runs it and there's no competition, though, there's no motivation for TSA to aggressively pursue these complaints and handle the thieving employees appropriately.
That's not to say that there was no theft prior to TSA, but I would imagine that it was far less and probably resulted in more disciplinary action.
Okay, most people wouldn't have your attitude about it, but you're probably right: this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Unfortunately, lots of people in America today view civil suits as a way to make some quick cash. I doubt that anyone really cares if someone does this to their property, but I could see someone using this to try to make a buck.
I agree that this is essentially a bi-partisan issue. However, I wonder if you would have posted this comment if the governor proposing the tax had been a Republican...
Slashdot Mirror
Try rereading my sentence, genius. I said "the people that care" will stop using that company. Obviously, most people don't care. I guess your solution is for government to make them care, yes?
They aren't trying to steer anyone. You are reading way too much into it. And if I happen to be wrong, so what? If they have a good idea, why not run with it? What the FUCK does their newness in the Linux world matter? They can't force anyone else to play along, so where's the harm in them trying?
You seem like an arrogant prick who hates change just because.
Actually, I just finished emailing someone telling them I can't wait to try the next version of Ubuntu because I want to see all of the new changes in action. What I'm concerned about is that Ubuntu is letting their popularity get the best of them. What I don't want to see is them make a bunch of changes that results in people dumping them for some other distribution that is more familiar. My fear is that Ubuntu thinks that because they have such a large share of the Linux desktop market, they can make whatever changes they want and their user base will accept it.
It would never dawn on me to use a Mac for anything other than the desktop. While I'm sure that they make perfectly capable server products, I would wager that the perception that Apple is primarily suited for making products that target the end user rather than the enterprise is a substantial hurdle for Apple. Frankly, I think that this is one of the hurdles that keeps Linux from being as widely adopted as a desktop platform. People hear *nix and, if they think anything at all, they think "server."
As I pointed out in a separate comment, I'm not criticizing Ubuntu for what they're doing. Rather, I'm being critical of their approach and frankly for the attitude that they appear to have about it. I'm an avid Ubuntu user and have been for years. However, in terms of Linux development, they're one of the relatively new kids on the block and have achieved success largely on the back of Fedora. To now be trying to steer the entire free desktop market in their direction as they make major changes seems to me a bit presumptive.
I'm not attacking them. It's just that coming on the heels of their announcement to move away from Gnome, it seems like Ubuntu is using their large install base to try to steer the free desktop market in their direction. I'm not even necessarily commenting on whether or not this is good or bad...just that I'm not certain that they're doing it with the right attitude to be successful.
I've been an Ubuntu user for years and have a great deal of respect for what they've done for the Linux desktop. I just don't want to see them overreach and fail.
Since when is /. journalism??!
We'll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there's no reason for them not to be there on day one either.
says to me that Ubuntu wants to make substantive changes to the free desktop environment and have everyone follow their lead. As a long-time Ubuntu user, I wish them well. But with the attitude with which they seem to be approaching things, I suspect that we will start to see Ubuntu's share of the desktop start to decline in future years as some other distribution steps up to the plate.
One of the jobs of the government is to lend a helping hand to people who don't want to read pages and pages of legal language for every new website they go to.
By whose standard? The post is about Europe, so maybe that's accurate over there. I live in the U.S. and that is most certainly NOT one of the jobs of the (federal) government. It is precisely thinking like that that has resulted in the massive, unsustainable government that we have here in America. Again, I know that this post is talking about Europe, and maybe that is certainly within their legal purview. But that doesn't mean that it should be.
The unregulated market will certainly fail to provide a reasonable solution to that problem,
Again, says who? While it may take a little bit, eventually a company's reputation for abusing the data that it collects will spread and the people that care about how having their data abused will stop using that company. The elitist BS thinking that everyone in the world is too dumb to figure this stuff out so the government has to take over is precisely what is wrong with so much today.
Let the damn companies have whatever policies they want, force them to be open about those policies, and then let the people decide which companies they will deal with. Hell, even create a public forum for people to share their experiences with the companies so that others can be educated. But don't pass laws that could very easily make life hell for those that might actually WANT their information online (but not necessarily shared).
I'm gonna have to agree with you here. This sounds, once again, like government trying to solve the problem of people that are too dumb to understand what they're doing. While there should definitely be policies in place to prevent people from collecting and/or storing data on you without your permission, in most cases permission was probably given and the consumer was just too dumb to realize it.
I can delete my Facebook account but I can't delete the photos someone else took with me in them.
While I believe that the EU is targeting the corporate world with these rules, it would be interesting to see an attempt to enforce this against individuals. For example, if you're at a company picnic and I snap a photo that happens to have you in the background. I then post said photo to my Facebook account. Should I be required to take down a photo that incidentally has you in if you request me to do so? Whose interest will win out in this scenario? Your interest in remaining anonymous online or my interest to share photos with friends and family?
This also brings up another salient point: in most cases, this is data that was collected with the consumer's consent. If you RTFA, the EU intends to strengthen the informed consent rules to make sure that when someone gives consent to have data collected and stored they actually mean it, but that doesn't negate the fact that in most cases data is collected as the result of some action taken by the consumer/user. There is a big difference between complaining about data being collected/stored without your consent and complaining about data being collected/stored after you have consented.
"A computer security researcher says he plans to release code Thursday that could be used to attack some versions of Google's Android phones over the Internet. The attack targets the browser in older, Android 2.1-and-earlier versions of the phones.
How can he be permitted to release something, which when used as intended, does harm to others? This is insane...and he does it "in the light of day!"
Other tools that folks have used to harm others have dual use...but for this code, I do not see any use save for harm. What am I missing?
He is publishing code that can be used to exploit a vulnerability. This could be used for malicious purposes, or it could be used for security demonstrations, as an example to be taught to infosec students or any of a ton of other academic and/or security-related purposes. He is not actually using the code to do anything malicious. Please tell me exactly what statute he is in violation of? Are you saying that no one should ever publish code for exploits?
Except that eventually she's going to have to pay her attorneys...
Um, I don't think that you understand the issue. Net neutrality is the principle that ISPs should not be able to prioritize data, that all data should be treated equally. What the previous poster is basically saying is that at some point, ISPs are going to have to prioritize data at different speeds or else all of the bandwidth is going to be chewed up by people watching movies online. Either that, or we're going to need more bandwidth. It is not in the ISPs financial interest to provide more bandwidth to accomodate NetFlix and other companies that are making money off of products that require large amounts of bandwidth. If an ISP increases the amount of bandwidth to accomodate Netflix, there is no additional revenue in it for them. Therefore, as the previous poster asked, who pays for the additional bandwidth? I agree that there is no easy answer, but net neutrality and the fact that a handful of bandwidth-hogging services are consuming the bandwidth for everyone are directly linked.
Wow, yeah. Obscenity. As defined by who? What if someone finds the word "the" obscene? Does that not count because others would deem it 'silly'? The only opinions that count are those of the majority or a few judges? Such a great idea!
Most obscenity statutes specify that something is obscene of the majority of the people in society might reasonably consider it to be obscene. It's actually interesting because as some words have become more prevalent, courts have ruled them no longer obscene.
no govt provider, just govt lines, that they lease at a small amount above cost(tax) to anyone that wants it, at publicly announced rates.
So you think that now that the private sector has spent billions paying to have these lines installed, the government should just take them over?
Holy hell, at least say that you want your tax money to go to pay for new lines, as opposed to just outright stealing them from companies that have already paid for them.
Libertarians think everything is the government's fault, even blaming them for monopolies. But the fact is, this is a natural monopoly. You are not going to have half a dozen companies laying competing fiber networks do your door. (And without the government imposing eminent domain, you won't even have ONE). The choice isn't between a government-regulated monopoly vs a thriving marketplace, it's between a government-regulated monopoly vs. an unregulated monopoly. Free markets are great for most things, but the government must be involved with infrastructure at some level. Maybe better wireless technology will help the situation, one day.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you're also not telling the whole story. In many cases, these are private companies that have invested literally billions of dollars in infrastructure. While governments have granted some concessions along the way in order to facilitate the build out of these networks, to now turn around and take these billion-dollar investments over and tell these companies what they can and cannot do with them...it's tantamount to robbery. And why? Look at all of the posts on this. It all boils down to selfishness.
I want to be able to...
I don't want to pay more...
No one anywhere is proposing charging you more to look at Slashdot. What they are saying is that to provide quality services they're going to have to be able to control the speed at which various services are delivered. Frankly, this whole "net neutrality" debate is a total red herring being thrown up because the government has for years been trying to take over this industry unsuccessfully. Now, they've finally scared enough people into thinking that someone is going to be charging them more to surf their favorite web site and they think they have a winner.
These companies paid money to build this infrastructure. It's theirs. You don't like it? Pony up and build your own damn billion-dollar network.
And how is this any different than Apple pretending that all of the "new" features that they're putting into the iPhone weren't on Android phones first?
I have met the man, you can not help but like him when you meet him and talk to him.
\ What does this have to do with anything? I know tons of people that have met George W. Bush and say the same thing. I've met Dick Cheney and he's a very likeable guy. Does this change your opinion of either of them?
Ah, but here we have another issue: whose account? For example, my wife's phone is on my cell phone account, which I pay for. Is it illegal for me to covertly monitor what she does on a phone that I'm paying for? Whose phone is it really, hers or mine? I think that this could raise some interesting legal issues. Does the old principle, "possession is 9/10ths of the law" apply here? Meaning, if my wife is in possession of the phone then it is her property and I cannot legally monitor her text messages?
Parents should just be parents. We're not supposed to have complete trust in our children...they're children! They do dumb stuff! Does this mean that we should sneak around and covertly monitor everything that they do? Absolutely not. However, my children (who are not quite teenagers yet but will be sooner than I would like) will be made fully aware that their right to privacy ends the second that I think that there might be a problem. They will know that at any time I reserve the right to pick up their phone and go through it, sift through browser history or whatever. Kids should not be subject to constant covert monitoring, but it doesn't mean that parents should give up their authority entirely, either.
Actually, you're both right. Big business would much prefer that there not be any government regulation of their actions. However, they have accepted the reality that this is never going to happen and so have decided to try to manipulate the process to ensure that the regulations benefit them and harm their competitors.
But I certainly wouldn't contribute to campaign funds. Politics is all administrative overhead... something most businesses and organizations try to minimize. You don't necessarily get more out of it the more you feed it.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I don't even know where you came up with this...? The majority of campaign contributions go directly into voter contact: mail, phone calls, television and radio advertising. At least, that's what happens in campaigns that win.
Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag. We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through. The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.
This is yet another problem with the TSA, government-run airport security. A private security company couldn't afford to tolerate employees that steal, as they would likely lose the airline's business if there were too many complaints. Now that the government runs it and there's no competition, though, there's no motivation for TSA to aggressively pursue these complaints and handle the thieving employees appropriately. That's not to say that there was no theft prior to TSA, but I would imagine that it was far less and probably resulted in more disciplinary action.
Okay, most people wouldn't have your attitude about it, but you're probably right: this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Unfortunately, lots of people in America today view civil suits as a way to make some quick cash. I doubt that anyone really cares if someone does this to their property, but I could see someone using this to try to make a buck.
I agree that this is essentially a bi-partisan issue. However, I wonder if you would have posted this comment if the governor proposing the tax had been a Republican...