Gimme a tasty weak hash and I'll have you in about 20min. Less if you did something stupid. About several million years if you used a thick seed and 256 (now 251) bit encryption.
It's pretty freshmen-ish stuff. FTP hasn't been used in a long time. Glass-screen protocols went the way of the 386 long ago. I'm surprised these guys don't understand various secure protocols, key exchange methods, and so forth. Nice fluffy stuff, but very dated for the reality check. Show me someone using ftp and I'll show you a password theft followed by a crack. Ye gawds.
Politically-oriented? WIthout a doubt, not that I disagree with their politics, rather their execution. They're using the Wikileaks formula, and using it to their advantage. They're fighting government, ranging from simple stuff like BART to embarrassing astroturfers like the USCoC. I'm guessing that they operate in a cellular-like structure that tends to isolate the group to keep it from being easily cracked. That said, at some point, even THEIR trail can be picked up. Small mistakes will eventually out them. They can out me in seconds, I'm guessing. But when they find out it's just me, they'll be disappointed. Juicier targets, however, are vulnerable.
Bad management and labor relations caused huge quality problems. Product lifecycles became stretched, rather than market-sensitive. Complexity started to become difficult to maintain, let alone engineer. Supply chain was horrible in the US, but like a quartz watch in Japan, then Taiwan/Singapore/HK.
People gave a shit what the outcomes were, and consumers tired of buying trash from US vendors. Now US tech and automotive products and components are largely made overseas. Greed won, then greed lost, as it always has, as it always will.
It's better to have a ReallyPedia than one that's censored, or needs opt-in or "I'm 18, show me the image". To get around the age of majority problem, it ought to be vetted for access. Images are, and history is, what it was. Those that fear history don't learn from it.
Yes, I understand that Moto makes more than phones. Google didn't have to own the overhead, the design engineering staff, the factories, before. Now they do. Takes a lot of organizational energy to run that kind of operation.
Apple has a vast ecosystem where their products work together and developers and business partners benefit. I think Google is jealous of that. But Moto isn't known for state-of-the-art consumer electronics entertainment equipment. They're a poor fifth in world phone makers. They are, however, a US company and one of the few left. I think you'll find that distributed whitespace broadband is a big problem to actually deploy and frequency-hopping radios are expensive, tough to program, have hand-off problems, and will be much like WiMAX-- usurped by better technology and wider bandwidth allocations across the land.
Ad revenue and capture is their oil well business. It's what they make their dough with. They bake it, and you get served targeted ads with a better chance of you clicking on something, or using a service that has a toll on it. It's the Apple revenue model, with a few twists, which is a mature service provider model.
So far as I know, they pay Microsoft NOTHING. The OEMs pay a fee to Microsoft. The activations cost them zero. And the telcos are happy, because the cash register rang again with another 24 month contract, just like those Apple/AT&T (and now Verizon) guys. If you play Angry Birds, Google gets money. If you use G+, Google will get smarter and make better money. It's an ecosystem with a number of revenue sources, the biggest of which is Adwords revenue.
Do they get any money? Ask the OEMs what they pay to use Google's modified (for their phones) Android 2.3 loads. Not much, but there's money in it. But that's not the oil well. The oil well is Adwords.
And other smartphone makers might be up for grabs, too. We haven't heard from the cowboys at HP yet. I'm sure they're just waiting for the dust to settle.
Pride is a human emotion. These are not humans, they're profit making entities, and so they will stand in a game that lawyers play. Google upped the ante. There's a war on, certainly, but now Google can make Microsoft tip their hand. Apple will go at them with actual patents. Deals will be done. John and Jane Citizen and their children will be safe from the smartphone and tablet kerfuffle.
Yet HTC isn't scared of Samsung, who isn't scared of LG, who isn't scared of Moto, who isn't scared of the rest of them. They're hardware guys, not software guys. When hardware guys become software guys, you get Nokia, who surrendered. Each of these, except Moto, will take on Windows Mobile when it comes out in its next incarnation. So will Sony, Sharp, or whomever is left in smartphone manufacturing. They'll sell based on small incremental market advantages, just as they do now. Seems silly, but it works for them.
I don't think they paid that much $$ to become a Droid maker-- there are many less expensive ones to deal with. But it does put a red flag in front of Microsoft.
It's a game of chicken, where Google says, ok, lay off my pals that are making Android phones, or you have to sue, us, too-- and you don't REALLY want to do that, do you?
Moto can have flat revenues for the next decade but at a half-million new Androids registered a DAY, Google won't care. Apple knows that once you get users, they hate to leave and have to learn something new, get new contracts, and so forth. So unlike the junk they sold before, telcos get much more customer "glue" with affinity-based purchases based on operating system preference, and they know Apple and they know Android, and to a lesser extent, RIM and WebOS/Palm/HP. Windows? I guess we find out next month.
Monetization is part of the process for some ideas, and the desire to milk the idea for revenue. Some ideas are only partially controlled-- if at all-- by the need to have money in the equation at all.
Look at craigslist to see one idea that doesn't greedily go after every nickel dime cent etc. Wikipedia needs money to house servers and so forth. Money can be a part of a lot of ideas, but confining the scope to those ideas that are anchored on the Internet as the access methodology is also silly, just like believing that money must be an integral component of "success". Implementation of some ideas might need money. Others don't- and shouldn't. Technology as a nipple works so long as you're not weaned.
When the context is greed, then the author is unwittingly lamenting the fact that he/she can make no cash from their own ideas.
Others are doing very well, even when the ideas are not their own. The fact that the author hasn't the zeal, tenacity, luck, mettle, or whatever else it takes to put his/her brain into zenith mode seems a problem. Ideas, you see, are cheap currency; everyone has them. The actual beneficiaries are the ones that can take a big idea and put it into practice or process. Monetizing is a goal for those that need to get rich; not all of us need to get rich at all. "Rich" has its own problems.
When you click, do you consider cratering the site? If it's cratered, do you feel guilty? Did you think you might crater it? There are no standards for these intentions.
And a further read of the post (I'm guilty: I scanned) says that the appeals court seemed to weight a lot more than I had thought. Will it go higher? Who knows? Not a lot of issues were settled, but the court wasn't asked to address several items that might have produced salient criteria to understand their thinking.
Does picketing slow down a business? Is picketing free speech? How does one picket electronically and what are the characteristics of picketing? What's the intent of free speech to both qualifying employees versus non-qualifying employees? The judge makes no distinction here, except that he finds sufficient cause under the act to find guilt. Where does the NRLB draw its lines for acceptable versus unacceptable behavior? Is a computer operation as valuable as say, preventing or slowing down employees from parking in a company lot?
I'm still not so sure that the findings are right. Undoubtedly, Pulte has the right to be in business, and LIUNA has the right to organize and protest. Not much good, in terms of boundary definition came from the ruling.
It does beg the question of what are and aren't legitimate tactics. I can see the company's side now that I've pondered this, but also the union's side, which needs to also support their agenda.
Yet there are no standards of behavior for either. You could be slothlike and lead to your own systems crash through inattention.
OTOH, the union might have intentionally overloaded the email system, causing it to crash. I don't have the evidence needed and am not a judge; rather there are no standards of behavior that would pass the "preponderance of evidence" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" given the info in the post.
Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not. If they can't do the normal thing and empty their mailboxes in a reasonable manner, then the onus is on the company. The judge will have his ruling overturned.
The information is collected. It's open to DHS, or whoever is cajoling google that day. Who knows whom the data will be sold to, or what malicious app might coerce your browser into coughing the wrong readable cookie.
Oh yeah. Period. Full Stop. Fuck off! Google and the telcos dump more info in one day than will go through your self-assured brain in a month of Sundays.
If you actually believe what you've written, you've been sold down the river.
Slashdot Mirror
Gimme a tasty weak hash and I'll have you in about 20min. Less if you did something stupid. About several million years if you used a thick seed and 256 (now 251) bit encryption.
Go on, gimme that loaded .357 so that I can swing it around. And you give it to them.
SFTP is one idea. SCP. Notice the S?
It's pretty freshmen-ish stuff. FTP hasn't been used in a long time. Glass-screen protocols went the way of the 386 long ago. I'm surprised these guys don't understand various secure protocols, key exchange methods, and so forth. Nice fluffy stuff, but very dated for the reality check. Show me someone using ftp and I'll show you a password theft followed by a crack. Ye gawds.
Politically-oriented? WIthout a doubt, not that I disagree with their politics, rather their execution. They're using the Wikileaks formula, and using it to their advantage. They're fighting government, ranging from simple stuff like BART to embarrassing astroturfers like the USCoC. I'm guessing that they operate in a cellular-like structure that tends to isolate the group to keep it from being easily cracked. That said, at some point, even THEIR trail can be picked up. Small mistakes will eventually out them. They can out me in seconds, I'm guessing. But when they find out it's just me, they'll be disappointed. Juicier targets, however, are vulnerable.
But there was more.
Bad management and labor relations caused huge quality problems. Product lifecycles became stretched, rather than market-sensitive. Complexity started to become difficult to maintain, let alone engineer. Supply chain was horrible in the US, but like a quartz watch in Japan, then Taiwan/Singapore/HK.
People gave a shit what the outcomes were, and consumers tired of buying trash from US vendors. Now US tech and automotive products and components are largely made overseas. Greed won, then greed lost, as it always has, as it always will.
It's better to have a ReallyPedia than one that's censored, or needs opt-in or "I'm 18, show me the image". To get around the age of majority problem, it ought to be vetted for access. Images are, and history is, what it was. Those that fear history don't learn from it.
Yes, I understand that Moto makes more than phones. Google didn't have to own the overhead, the design engineering staff, the factories, before. Now they do. Takes a lot of organizational energy to run that kind of operation.
Apple has a vast ecosystem where their products work together and developers and business partners benefit. I think Google is jealous of that. But Moto isn't known for state-of-the-art consumer electronics entertainment equipment. They're a poor fifth in world phone makers. They are, however, a US company and one of the few left. I think you'll find that distributed whitespace broadband is a big problem to actually deploy and frequency-hopping radios are expensive, tough to program, have hand-off problems, and will be much like WiMAX-- usurped by better technology and wider bandwidth allocations across the land.
Yet HP owns a lot of Palm intellectual property and I don't see them 1) suing people or 2) getting sued. That's my point. They've been quiet.
Ad revenue and capture is their oil well business. It's what they make their dough with. They bake it, and you get served targeted ads with a better chance of you clicking on something, or using a service that has a toll on it. It's the Apple revenue model, with a few twists, which is a mature service provider model.
So far as I know, they pay Microsoft NOTHING. The OEMs pay a fee to Microsoft. The activations cost them zero. And the telcos are happy, because the cash register rang again with another 24 month contract, just like those Apple/AT&T (and now Verizon) guys. If you play Angry Birds, Google gets money. If you use G+, Google will get smarter and make better money. It's an ecosystem with a number of revenue sources, the biggest of which is Adwords revenue.
Do they get any money? Ask the OEMs what they pay to use Google's modified (for their phones) Android 2.3 loads. Not much, but there's money in it. But that's not the oil well. The oil well is Adwords.
Pride? Testosterone and greed (called Shareholder Value). Ego? See pride.
And other smartphone makers might be up for grabs, too. We haven't heard from the cowboys at HP yet. I'm sure they're just waiting for the dust to settle.
Pride is a human emotion. These are not humans, they're profit making entities, and so they will stand in a game that lawyers play. Google upped the ante. There's a war on, certainly, but now Google can make Microsoft tip their hand. Apple will go at them with actual patents. Deals will be done. John and Jane Citizen and their children will be safe from the smartphone and tablet kerfuffle.
I'm the wrong person to ask.
Yet HTC isn't scared of Samsung, who isn't scared of LG, who isn't scared of Moto, who isn't scared of the rest of them. They're hardware guys, not software guys. When hardware guys become software guys, you get Nokia, who surrendered. Each of these, except Moto, will take on Windows Mobile when it comes out in its next incarnation. So will Sony, Sharp, or whomever is left in smartphone manufacturing. They'll sell based on small incremental market advantages, just as they do now. Seems silly, but it works for them.
I don't think they paid that much $$ to become a Droid maker-- there are many less expensive ones to deal with. But it does put a red flag in front of Microsoft.
It's a game of chicken, where Google says, ok, lay off my pals that are making Android phones, or you have to sue, us, too-- and you don't REALLY want to do that, do you?
Moto can have flat revenues for the next decade but at a half-million new Androids registered a DAY, Google won't care. Apple knows that once you get users, they hate to leave and have to learn something new, get new contracts, and so forth. So unlike the junk they sold before, telcos get much more customer "glue" with affinity-based purchases based on operating system preference, and they know Apple and they know Android, and to a lesser extent, RIM and WebOS/Palm/HP. Windows? I guess we find out next month.
Monetization is part of the process for some ideas, and the desire to milk the idea for revenue. Some ideas are only partially controlled-- if at all-- by the need to have money in the equation at all.
Look at craigslist to see one idea that doesn't greedily go after every nickel dime cent etc. Wikipedia needs money to house servers and so forth. Money can be a part of a lot of ideas, but confining the scope to those ideas that are anchored on the Internet as the access methodology is also silly, just like believing that money must be an integral component of "success". Implementation of some ideas might need money. Others don't- and shouldn't. Technology as a nipple works so long as you're not weaned.
When the context is greed, then the author is unwittingly lamenting the fact that he/she can make no cash from their own ideas.
Others are doing very well, even when the ideas are not their own. The fact that the author hasn't the zeal, tenacity, luck, mettle, or whatever else it takes to put his/her brain into zenith mode seems a problem. Ideas, you see, are cheap currency; everyone has them. The actual beneficiaries are the ones that can take a big idea and put it into practice or process. Monetizing is a goal for those that need to get rich; not all of us need to get rich at all. "Rich" has its own problems.
When you click, do you consider cratering the site? If it's cratered, do you feel guilty? Did you think you might crater it? There are no standards for these intentions.
And a further read of the post (I'm guilty: I scanned) says that the appeals court seemed to weight a lot more than I had thought. Will it go higher? Who knows? Not a lot of issues were settled, but the court wasn't asked to address several items that might have produced salient criteria to understand their thinking.
Does picketing slow down a business? Is picketing free speech? How does one picket electronically and what are the characteristics of picketing? What's the intent of free speech to both qualifying employees versus non-qualifying employees? The judge makes no distinction here, except that he finds sufficient cause under the act to find guilt. Where does the NRLB draw its lines for acceptable versus unacceptable behavior? Is a computer operation as valuable as say, preventing or slowing down employees from parking in a company lot?
I'm still not so sure that the findings are right. Undoubtedly, Pulte has the right to be in business, and LIUNA has the right to organize and protest. Not much good, in terms of boundary definition came from the ruling.
It does beg the question of what are and aren't legitimate tactics. I can see the company's side now that I've pondered this, but also the union's side, which needs to also support their agenda.
Interesting quandary.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of flashmobbing as the crux of civil litigation, but I suppose there's something to that.
Given that goal of cratering their email system, I'd say it appears like malicious behavior, possibly meeting the test of the law for guilt.
Yet there are no standards of behavior for either. You could be slothlike and lead to your own systems crash through inattention.
OTOH, the union might have intentionally overloaded the email system, causing it to crash. I don't have the evidence needed and am not a judge; rather there are no standards of behavior that would pass the "preponderance of evidence" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" given the info in the post.
Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not. If they can't do the normal thing and empty their mailboxes in a reasonable manner, then the onus is on the company. The judge will have his ruling overturned.
Ok.
You start.
The information is collected. It's open to DHS, or whoever is cajoling google that day. Who knows whom the data will be sold to, or what malicious app might coerce your browser into coughing the wrong readable cookie.
Oh yeah. Period. Full Stop. Fuck off! Google and the telcos dump more info in one day than will go through your self-assured brain in a month of Sundays.
If you actually believe what you've written, you've been sold down the river.