It does make business sense to drop financial support for Kubuntu when you think about it. Ubuntu has been around for 7 years and Canonical still has yet to make a profit, so the purse strings undoubtedly have to be tightened so that the focus of attention can be put towards things that are more likely to succeed. It's not like they took Kubuntu seriously anyway - it was generally one of the least polished KDE distros available (though it has been getting better).
An alternative for Canonical would have been to put more effort into Kubuntu, then for those who truly dislike Unity, they could have provided a modern option other than the person going to a different distro.
The American automakers tried the same thing by dropping less profitable brands with a loyal following (for instance Oldsmobile, Saturn, etc.). GM figured they would just switch to Chevy. Instead they switched to Toyota, Honda and Lexus.
What Canonical needs to realize, from lessons learned in the auto industry, is that people very often have a good reason not to use the flagship product and dropping alternative choices does not mean they will switch to the flagship.
Ubuntu is supposed to mean "Humanity towards othersl." I guess it really means "Humanity towards others who agree with us."
Every time the subject of Ubuntu comes up on Slashdot I see a slew of comments complaining about how bad Unity is and what they've done to Gnome and how they're jumping ship for Mint I think "OK, so why not just use Kubuntu instead?", but now they've dropping funding for Kubuntu it looks like even more people will be moving over to Mint too.
I only update to the LTS versions of Kubuntu but if Precise is going to be the last one then why bother? Mint 12 came out a few days ago so maybe I'll just move over to that instead.
By reading slashdot comments, it seems many will be abandoning Kubuntu because of this decision. Of course, that would play right into Canonical's hands, assuming their goal is to only emphasize Ubuntu/Unity.
Instead of abandoning Kubuntu in protest of this, people should flock to it. Now that it is a community only distribution, the community will have more freedom to implement things differently than Canonical wants them to (for instance switching to LightDM to stay compatible with Ubuntu). The best way to "punish" Canonical/Ubuntu over this is to ensure Kubuntu is even more popular than before.
Kubuntu is not the only way to get KDE on Ubuntu. There are also full, standard and minimal KDE packages available to any Ubuntu variant from the standard repositories. Just like the equivalent Debian packages, you get a standard desktop without all the Kubuntu customisations. The same applies to Xfce and LXDE, which are also available in vanilla forms without the Xubuntu or Lubuntu tweaks or alternative packages.
Of course, that brings in a lot of dependencies and extra apps that you would then need to remove manually. It's not as bad when doing this with Xfce or LXDE because they don't provide a lot of extras by themself, but KDE does.
Electrical production does not equate to use. If every power plant in the NW was hydroelectric that electricity is dumped on the grid and goes to wherever the grid goes, which is very far away from the location of the production. Unless you want to create your own isolated grid, the electricity you use is produced proportionately as to how it is produced on the grid. Unless the Northwest has found a way to route the electrons generated to only those people in the Northwest, the electricity they use is produced proportionately as to how it is produced on the grid, not in their locale.
A grid is a grid is a grid. It doesn't matter if the dam is in the Pacific Northwest and the usage is in New Mexico. If somebody is using an additional X amount of megawatts, then somebody has to produce an extra X amount of megawatts and it won't be coming from the hydroelectric dam unless it is grossly under utilized.
I'm not sure how California fits into the discussion on what Facebook is doing in Oregon. California already imports most of their energy. Still doesn't change the equation that if somebody wants 23megawats of power, somebody, somewhere has to produce it and dump it on the grid -- and that production is most likely a coal fired plant.
Isn't this datacenter powered from hydroelectric power? I think everyone is against burning fossil fuels for power (yay environment!), but whatever environmental damage damming the columbia river did happened 70 years ago. In terms of cleanest, cheapest power, there are few places better suited for a datacenter.
Except that power is dumped onto a grid. If Facebook pulls 32megawatts from the grid, and the hydroelectric dam is providing it, then somebody else's coal plant (or nuclear) is making up the difference. Wasted electricity is wasted electricity.
Before trying anything, two questions: First, is your soon-to-be-significant-other going to agree and feel comfortable with your idea? Remember that the wedding isn't about yourself, it's about you and your partner. If your wife is also geeky, fine. Go nuts. If not, I don't think your partner will feel comfortable with your idea, and I don't think the wedding will go well without both of you being comfortable.
Second, is your wedding guests be comfortable with your geeky invitation? When I got married, we had a fairly wide range of demographic ranging from 3 year olds to 80 year olds. There were people like my grandma who doesn't even own a cellphone, let alone a PC. My mom still doesn't know how to load new MP3s on her MP3 player, so I have to do that for her every couple of months. Anything with a URL or a QR code would be completely useless to people like them.
Well, what I did was printed out a bunch of invitation cards with the usual stuff, and added a URL with a hand-crafted webpage with a separate domain name specifically for the wedding. Maybe not so geeky, but I used my geek skills to impress my wife and the other non-tech-savvy people.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
But, if I'm invited, then an invitation displayed on a free iPad would be great!
What some people spend on weddings could very well be considered irrational. But as to the wedding, itself, being irrational, well that would be nor more irrational than any other celebration of an event in one's life (ie. birthday, graduation, retirement, etc.)
Google's new policy also coordinates your user id with your ip address, so even if you don't log in before going to YouTube, they can still tell it's you by cross referencing the IP address to when you are logged in.
There is more than one different person with a Google account that logs on from the same address, so, no, they can't tell its me by my IP address (they can tell its someone using the same IP that multiple Google Account holders also use, but they can't tell that its one of the people with those accounts, or, if it is, which one.)
And, since most of the individual devices on my home network are shared in much the same way, the same would be true even if I went to IPv6 with each device having a stable, unique address.
I have a feeling that neither of those situations are particularly uncommon.
Technically, you are correct, but your argument is like arguing in traffic court that you weren't driving your car when the red light camera took the picture. You can use that argument and get off, once you name who was driving your car. Likewise, if you have inappropriate material transferred to/from YouTube, you can always argue that you yourself didn't do it, just your spouse or kids. BTW, that argument didn't work when the RIAA sued the grandmother for her grand daughter's infraction.
Sounds like a great reason not to choose an Android based phone.
Google mail + Microsoft/Bing search + Apple iPhone seems the way to go for privacy, and arguably gives you the best of each cataegory, especially since Google search seems now to be emphasizing social media / personal search vs generic web search.
Using Google Mail means you are agreeing to Google's new privacy policy.
When you access Google services via a browser, application or other client our servers automatically record certain information. These server logs may include information such as your web request, your interaction with a service, Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser or your account.
It is very possible to access Google services without actually being logged into a Google account. Searching, via Google, using a Google toolbar or any number of Google gadgets and of course, using Google Chrome.
Google's new policy also coordinates your user id with your ip address, so even if you don't log in before going to YouTube, they can still tell it's you by cross referencing the IP address to when you are logged in.
That's not so. If you have an Android phone, which Google includes in this new policy, you are giving away your location, who you call, what you search for via the phone, etc. etc. If you phone has the facebook app, then Google also has access to all of that data.
The courts just said that the police can't use a gps device without a court order. Google just change their privacy policy to allow them to track you via your phone wherever you go.
Cell phone companies lock you into multi-year contracts. Since Google is including Android in all of this and tells people if they don't like it, don't use the service, does that mean I can cancel my cell phone contract without early termination fees? Otherwise, my carrier is forcing me to divulge information that was not part of my original agreement with the carrier!
The eye is a very complex organ though, so we would be behind. I'm glad to see progress, but even so, 4 months is a little short-term to say "no bad health effects". Given the cells are embryonic stem cells, I'm more concerned with the 10-20 year range.
I have one of the issues listed, and I seriously hope that they can do something about it, I'd prefer a biological rather than mechanical solution, however, four months is not a lot of time, especially when you are messing with something as important as the sense of sight.
From the actual researchers, they have two major concerns - 1) whether the treatment is permanent and 2) rejection issues. Both are long term concerns like the 10-20 year range you worry about. With regards for the rejection issues, they are quite confident that they will be able to repeat the results using stem cells derived from the patient's skin.
They say they didn't go this route, even though less risky to the patient, because their grant was specifically to use embryonic stem cells in the treatment.
If I rot13 Chinese in the latin alphabet, and used that to keep notes in a diary, would I have to decrypt that for the police? Why is doing it on a computer any different?
Nope, since to decrypt it you would have to incriminate yourself. However, since it is in a diary, the police could take it and try and decipher it without your assistance. In this case, the police need access to the contents of the computer that is locked from them (encrypted). Think of the computer being a strongbox. If the strongbox is secured with a padlock, they could simply cut the lock off and have access to the contents. If, however, the strongbox is secured with a built in lock, like a safe, then they either need the key or the combination.
Being forced to give up the key has already been shown to not be a violation of one's 5th amendment rights. Giving up the combination, either verbally or in writing, is a violation. However, making the person unlock the safe (thus giving access to the contents) has been shown not to be a violation.
The court is trying to apply the same principle to a locked computer. If access required a physical key, such as a retina scanner or finger print scanner, that would not violate the 5th amendment against testifying against oneself. However, in this case, it is a password, not a physical key. The court is holding that the password is like the combination on a lock. A person cannot be forced to divulge it without a violation of their 5th amendment right. They, can, just like a combination lock, be forced to unlock it to make the contents accessible, at least that is what the court is saying.
An important distinction is that it is the court that is giving the order, not the police. That is why, if the person refuses, they are held in contempt of court. So back to your original question, since the police would already have access to the contents of your diary, you could not be compelled, in a legal sense, to decode it as the only way to do so would be verbally or in writing. Such an action would be a violation of your 5th amendment right.
However, if you simply refused to give the police the diary, and kept it hidden, then the court could order you to turn it over or be held in contempt (and go to jail until you do turn it over). That is basically what is going on in this case. The suspect is being commanded by the court to turn over the files. Something that can't be done when the entire drive is encrypted.
An interesting side note would be what if the drive were encrypted AND the individual files were also encrypted or password protected. Decrypting the drive gives the court access to the files. Making you decrypt the actual files, could well be argued as a violation against testifying against oneself. One is about turning over evidence, the other is about explaining the evidence. You are only required to turn over the evidence, not explain it. But, then, that is not what the current case is about.
And so the difference between writing it out on a piece of paper verses writing it out on a computer screen is...?
Granted, that is the crux of the issue -- where does it become self-incrimination -- and it's not an easy answer.
Writing it on a piece of paper and giving it to them to type in violates the 5th amendment by forcing you to divulge something that will incriminate you. Having you type it in directly to the computer, means you have not divulged the information (the password or combination if a safe). You have just given access to the contents, which is the same thing you must do when served a search warrant.
Granted, the above is super simplified and there are many nuances that could factor in.
Actually, the defendant is specifically not being asked to talk (verbally give up her password). That would be a 5th amendment violation. She is also not being asked to write it out, which would again be a 5th amendment violation. She is, however, being asked to type it into the computer, without being watched. That is not a 5th amendment violation as she is not being required to actually divulge the password.
At least that is the argument. Basically, it is treating an encrypted hard drive like a safe. You can be forced to divulge the combination of a safe, but you can be required to open it yourself. The password is being treated like the combination. She can't be forced to divulge it, but can be compelled to enter into the system.
Slashdot Mirror
It does make business sense to drop financial support for Kubuntu when you think about it. Ubuntu has been around for 7 years and Canonical still has yet to make a profit, so the purse strings undoubtedly have to be tightened so that the focus of attention can be put towards things that are more likely to succeed. It's not like they took Kubuntu seriously anyway - it was generally one of the least polished KDE distros available (though it has been getting better).
An alternative for Canonical would have been to put more effort into Kubuntu, then for those who truly dislike Unity, they could have provided a modern option other than the person going to a different distro.
The American automakers tried the same thing by dropping less profitable brands with a loyal following (for instance Oldsmobile, Saturn, etc.). GM figured they would just switch to Chevy. Instead they switched to Toyota, Honda and Lexus.
What Canonical needs to realize, from lessons learned in the auto industry, is that people very often have a good reason not to use the flagship product and dropping alternative choices does not mean they will switch to the flagship.
Ubuntu is supposed to mean "Humanity towards othersl." I guess it really means "Humanity towards others who agree with us."
It appears that Kubuntu hasn't been a commercial success for Canonical despite 7 years of funding.
Neither has Ubuntu.
Every time the subject of Ubuntu comes up on Slashdot I see a slew of comments complaining about how bad Unity is and what they've done to Gnome and how they're jumping ship for Mint I think "OK, so why not just use Kubuntu instead?", but now they've dropping funding for Kubuntu it looks like even more people will be moving over to Mint too.
I only update to the LTS versions of Kubuntu but if Precise is going to be the last one then why bother? Mint 12 came out a few days ago so maybe I'll just move over to that instead.
By reading slashdot comments, it seems many will be abandoning Kubuntu because of this decision. Of course, that would play right into Canonical's hands, assuming their goal is to only emphasize Ubuntu/Unity.
Instead of abandoning Kubuntu in protest of this, people should flock to it. Now that it is a community only distribution, the community will have more freedom to implement things differently than Canonical wants them to (for instance switching to LightDM to stay compatible with Ubuntu). The best way to "punish" Canonical/Ubuntu over this is to ensure Kubuntu is even more popular than before.
You could use debian.
You could use Ubuntu.
Kubuntu is not the only way to get KDE on Ubuntu. There are also full, standard and minimal KDE packages available to any Ubuntu variant from the standard repositories. Just like the equivalent Debian packages, you get a standard desktop without all the Kubuntu customisations. The same applies to Xfce and LXDE, which are also available in vanilla forms without the Xubuntu or Lubuntu tweaks or alternative packages.
Of course, that brings in a lot of dependencies and extra apps that you would then need to remove manually. It's not as bad when doing this with Xfce or LXDE because they don't provide a lot of extras by themself, but KDE does.
Kubuntu is not Ubuntu with KDE pasted on top.
Electrical production does not equate to use. If every power plant in the NW was hydroelectric that electricity is dumped on the grid and goes to wherever the grid goes, which is very far away from the location of the production. Unless you want to create your own isolated grid, the electricity you use is produced proportionately as to how it is produced on the grid. Unless the Northwest has found a way to route the electrons generated to only those people in the Northwest, the electricity they use is produced proportionately as to how it is produced on the grid, not in their locale.
A grid is a grid is a grid. It doesn't matter if the dam is in the Pacific Northwest and the usage is in New Mexico. If somebody is using an additional X amount of megawatts, then somebody has to produce an extra X amount of megawatts and it won't be coming from the hydroelectric dam unless it is grossly under utilized.
I'm not sure how California fits into the discussion on what Facebook is doing in Oregon. California already imports most of their energy. Still doesn't change the equation that if somebody wants 23megawats of power, somebody, somewhere has to produce it and dump it on the grid -- and that production is most likely a coal fired plant.
Isn't this datacenter powered from hydroelectric power? I think everyone is against burning fossil fuels for power (yay environment!), but whatever environmental damage damming the columbia river did happened 70 years ago. In terms of cleanest, cheapest power, there are few places better suited for a datacenter.
Except that power is dumped onto a grid. If Facebook pulls 32megawatts from the grid, and the hydroelectric dam is providing it, then somebody else's coal plant (or nuclear) is making up the difference. Wasted electricity is wasted electricity.
Translation: Because we made some bad business decisions, we have decided to past the consequences on to our customers instead of our shareholders.
Didn't Penny already create an app for this?
Before trying anything, two questions:
First, is your soon-to-be-significant-other going to agree and feel comfortable with your idea? Remember that the wedding isn't about yourself, it's about you and your partner. If your wife is also geeky, fine. Go nuts. If not, I don't think your partner will feel comfortable with your idea, and I don't think the wedding will go well without both of you being comfortable.
Second, is your wedding guests be comfortable with your geeky invitation? When I got married, we had a fairly wide range of demographic ranging from 3 year olds to 80 year olds. There were people like my grandma who doesn't even own a cellphone, let alone a PC. My mom still doesn't know how to load new MP3s on her MP3 player, so I have to do that for her every couple of months. Anything with a URL or a QR code would be completely useless to people like them.
Well, what I did was printed out a bunch of invitation cards with the usual stuff, and added a URL with a hand-crafted webpage with a separate domain name specifically for the wedding. Maybe not so geeky, but I used my geek skills to impress my wife and the other non-tech-savvy people.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
But, if I'm invited, then an invitation displayed on a free iPad would be great!
Weddings are irrational.
What some people spend on weddings could very well be considered irrational. But as to the wedding, itself, being irrational, well that would be nor more irrational than any other celebration of an event in one's life (ie. birthday, graduation, retirement, etc.)
Why bother? It's not like you can fly a train into a building.
health care != health insurance
True, but in the United States, without health insurance, you cannot get adequate health care.
There is more than one different person with a Google account that logs on from the same address, so, no, they can't tell its me by my IP address (they can tell its someone using the same IP that multiple Google Account holders also use, but they can't tell that its one of the people with those accounts, or, if it is, which one.)
And, since most of the individual devices on my home network are shared in much the same way, the same would be true even if I went to IPv6 with each device having a stable, unique address.
I have a feeling that neither of those situations are particularly uncommon.
Technically, you are correct, but your argument is like arguing in traffic court that you weren't driving your car when the red light camera took the picture. You can use that argument and get off, once you name who was driving your car. Likewise, if you have inappropriate material transferred to/from YouTube, you can always argue that you yourself didn't do it, just your spouse or kids. BTW, that argument didn't work when the RIAA sued the grandmother for her grand daughter's infraction.
Sounds like a great reason not to choose an Android based phone.
Google mail + Microsoft/Bing search + Apple iPhone seems the way to go for privacy, and arguably gives you the best of each cataegory, especially since Google search seems now to be emphasizing social media / personal search vs generic web search.
Using Google Mail means you are agreeing to Google's new privacy policy.
From Google's site:
When you access Google services via a browser, application or other client our servers automatically record certain information. These server logs may include information such as your web request, your interaction with a service, Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser or your account.
It is very possible to access Google services without actually being logged into a Google account. Searching, via Google, using a Google toolbar or any number of Google gadgets and of course, using Google Chrome.
Google's new policy also coordinates your user id with your ip address, so even if you don't log in before going to YouTube, they can still tell it's you by cross referencing the IP address to when you are logged in.
That's not so. If you have an Android phone, which Google includes in this new policy, you are giving away your location, who you call, what you search for via the phone, etc. etc. If you phone has the facebook app, then Google also has access to all of that data.
The courts just said that the police can't use a gps device without a court order. Google just change their privacy policy to allow them to track you via your phone wherever you go.
Cell phone companies lock you into multi-year contracts. Since Google is including Android in all of this and tells people if they don't like it, don't use the service, does that mean I can cancel my cell phone contract without early termination fees? Otherwise, my carrier is forcing me to divulge information that was not part of my original agreement with the carrier!
That should have read: You "can't" be forced to divulge the combination....
"I do not recall" that password. Hey, it worked for Reagan!
That is certainly a valid stance, however, it won't keep you from being held in contempt and associated jail time.
The eye is a very complex organ though, so we would be behind. I'm glad to see progress, but even so, 4 months is a little short-term to say "no bad health effects". Given the cells are embryonic stem cells, I'm more concerned with the 10-20 year range.
I have one of the issues listed, and I seriously hope that they can do something about it, I'd prefer a biological rather than mechanical solution, however, four months is not a lot of time, especially when you are messing with something as important as the sense of sight.
From the actual researchers, they have two major concerns - 1) whether the treatment is permanent and 2) rejection issues. Both are long term concerns like the 10-20 year range you worry about. With regards for the rejection issues, they are quite confident that they will be able to repeat the results using stem cells derived from the patient's skin.
They say they didn't go this route, even though less risky to the patient, because their grant was specifically to use embryonic stem cells in the treatment.
If I rot13 Chinese in the latin alphabet, and used that to keep notes in a diary, would I have to decrypt that for the police? Why is doing it on a computer any different?
Nope, since to decrypt it you would have to incriminate yourself. However, since it is in a diary, the police could take it and try and decipher it without your assistance. In this case, the police need access to the contents of the computer that is locked from them (encrypted). Think of the computer being a strongbox. If the strongbox is secured with a padlock, they could simply cut the lock off and have access to the contents. If, however, the strongbox is secured with a built in lock, like a safe, then they either need the key or the combination.
Being forced to give up the key has already been shown to not be a violation of one's 5th amendment rights. Giving up the combination, either verbally or in writing, is a violation. However, making the person unlock the safe (thus giving access to the contents) has been shown not to be a violation.
The court is trying to apply the same principle to a locked computer. If access required a physical key, such as a retina scanner or finger print scanner, that would not violate the 5th amendment against testifying against oneself. However, in this case, it is a password, not a physical key. The court is holding that the password is like the combination on a lock. A person cannot be forced to divulge it without a violation of their 5th amendment right. They, can, just like a combination lock, be forced to unlock it to make the contents accessible, at least that is what the court is saying.
An important distinction is that it is the court that is giving the order, not the police. That is why, if the person refuses, they are held in contempt of court. So back to your original question, since the police would already have access to the contents of your diary, you could not be compelled, in a legal sense, to decode it as the only way to do so would be verbally or in writing. Such an action would be a violation of your 5th amendment right.
However, if you simply refused to give the police the diary, and kept it hidden, then the court could order you to turn it over or be held in contempt (and go to jail until you do turn it over). That is basically what is going on in this case. The suspect is being commanded by the court to turn over the files. Something that can't be done when the entire drive is encrypted.
An interesting side note would be what if the drive were encrypted AND the individual files were also encrypted or password protected. Decrypting the drive gives the court access to the files. Making you decrypt the actual files, could well be argued as a violation against testifying against oneself. One is about turning over evidence, the other is about explaining the evidence. You are only required to turn over the evidence, not explain it. But, then, that is not what the current case is about.
And so the difference between writing it out on a piece of paper verses writing it out on a computer screen is...?
Granted, that is the crux of the issue -- where does it become self-incrimination -- and it's not an easy answer.
Writing it on a piece of paper and giving it to them to type in violates the 5th amendment by forcing you to divulge something that will incriminate you. Having you type it in directly to the computer, means you have not divulged the information (the password or combination if a safe). You have just given access to the contents, which is the same thing you must do when served a search warrant.
Granted, the above is super simplified and there are many nuances that could factor in.
Actually, the defendant is specifically not being asked to talk (verbally give up her password). That would be a 5th amendment violation. She is also not being asked to write it out, which would again be a 5th amendment violation. She is, however, being asked to type it into the computer, without being watched. That is not a 5th amendment violation as she is not being required to actually divulge the password.
At least that is the argument. Basically, it is treating an encrypted hard drive like a safe. You can be forced to divulge the combination of a safe, but you can be required to open it yourself. The password is being treated like the combination. She can't be forced to divulge it, but can be compelled to enter into the system.