Now, loads of disconnected information can be connected together. No one used to sit and watch what you read in a library or the privacy of your own home, but Internet accessibility is quite well tracked. Ask Fox News.
A "fucktard" is an epithet, one that's all too commonly used on Slashdot as an ambiguous denigration. "They" is intentionally left ambiguous. "They" are whoever gets the information, to be unintentionally used against you.
Their privacy is their own, as is yours. I assert my responsibility to those that don't realize that their privacy is capitulated. And I speak freely so as to add my voice to those that believe that privacy has currency. Their rights, human rights, one of which is privacy, needs protections from those that would usurp and manipulate it to ends not understood by those individuals robbed of it.
Facebook I'm not worried about; although its correlations are juicy for someone, I suppose. My criticism is about Google and tracking cookies and http_referrer manipulation, and so forth.
Civilians deserve the same protection that geeks know how to navigate by lessons learned. There are toads out there that compile information, then push all of the data to one edge to distort reality. Privacy has real currency; some don't see it that way. That view diminishes the privacy view of others by assent.
Actually, there are some pretty stupid criminals out there, but we'll leave that to one side for now.
Having the attitude of living freely is ok. Saying what you want is free speech. You may not be right, but you might be. Same here.
The capacity to protect your personal privacy from those that would abuse it is an important human right. For those that don't give a shit, it won't make any sense as they've subjugated the currency of their privacy and rationalized it away. To others, it warrants respect because THEY believe in it, and it's part of THEIR currency. They deserve the protection. You might not need it or care for its possible outcomes. But there are others that do, and if you devalue your sense of the currency of privacy as an issue, you also devalue their currency but not by their choosing. You may not needed. Maybe they do, and you subvert theirs by not caring about yours.
That's the point. No one walks on water unless it's frozen. Everyone deserves anonymity, but none of us get it. Google and others can read my cookies and figure out any little dark secret they want. Maybe they'll get http_referrers and keep appending the list. The method doesn't matter, the ad-based economy is designed to optimize selling to you at the price of your privacy. They'll put 2+2 together, however, and come out with 44.13833.
But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
The law of transitivity doesn't apply here. You and I as civilians have no means, and little nexus to take Android's defense. Google does, as they're primary contributors to the development and the fact that they have more money than Ford, GM, United Airlines, and FedEx--combined. They can afford the lawyering.
But they don't.
Instead, they leave their OEMs to individually pay Microsoft's patent trolling. And so, Google takes the works of others, advances them, but lets their business partners battle the thugs of hidden patents (remember: the actual patents in questions are unexposed, so that FOSS developers can't code around the problems).
Microsoft extracts an undeserved tax; Google could and should stop them, but doesn't. Because they're scared, even cowardly.
MS hasn't done much innovation. Google innovated on the shoulders of Yahoo and Altavista, among others. Google Docs is an online version of a number of "office-like" apps. Google Voice is a VoIP app. Google+ is a refinement of several ideas, all not invented at Google. I didn't say they weren't clever.
Microsoft has been shaking down OEMs, waving patent litigation threats. The problem with that is that they don't sue Google. If they did, they'd have to expose what patents are in play, and the FOSS community would write new stuff right around them, then challenge the legality and prior art of the ones that are dubious..... and many are likely dubious but we don't know. Google can sue because of the nexus of tortious interference based on the usury that Microsoft imposes on the OEMs, and force Microsoft's hand open. They'd have to lay down the patent cards, and then the games would begin.
Google instead, claims others are bothering them, without getting involved in yet another litigation. They don't defend Android, just complain that everyone's pissing on their customers. But they don't sue. That's because they're currently in a lot of hot water themselves over market dominance and privacy issues, not to mention data collection techniques that are questionable not only in the US, but in the EU and other jurisdictions. Put your heel on their dataflow, and you screw up their business model at its core, as the core is to use the data for marketing ads. That's why they mine personal gmail accounts, that's why they keep very specific track of what you surf, etc. Adwords is their oil well.
But they could make Microsoft really unhappy, and cause an enormous ruckus to defend Android and FOSS development. But they don't. For that, and other reasons described above and not mentioned, I don't find Google particularly a role model for modern moral corporate governance.
As regards IE, just disabling a good chunk of it was all you needed to get around it. You don't need to remove some of the dlls, and some of the dlls have functions outside of IE that have only side-purposes in doing things like rendering HTML and so forth. The "it's a fundamental part of the OS" ruse has been FUD to justify putting it in the forefront of default apps on Windows. Indeed it's not a fundamental part. No, you can't simply wipe the whole thing, but the whole thing isn't just IE parts. The browser can be eliminated. Other elements serve other functions within the OS. The kernel still runs if you excise the entire thing; other stuff won't be happy. But it can be done. Each OS version has a different set of criteria to change to disable IE functionality so much as another browser can be put in its place successfully. Save for ME, I've done it for each version, not that it was any fun. The COM and DCOM functionality that I think you're referring to can be left inside and still carve away IE as we know it.
Don't like Mueller myself. And PJ has my address. But my reply stands. You've got a serious prejudice against the facts going there.
I'm not sticking up for Microsoft, but IE wasn't superglued to their OS. They lied about the fact that it was.
As far as Google is concerned, they're no saints. If you think their competitive efforts against Microsoft gives them a "get out of hell free" card, it doesn't. They've become a bit like Microsoft; no new real ideas, just knock-offs of other innovators.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that I'm in no way an MS worshipper of any kind. And I'm well aware of the ostensible consequences of moving/removing certain DLLs. And I'm sure you'll agree that you can live very happily in the old dead versions of Windows and not use IE once-- all the way back to Windows 95. Not everything that Microsoft called IE was in fact part of the browser. That's your first clue. There are two distinct registry changes in Win98, four in 98SE, I don't care about ME, and by the time we get to Windows 2000, it's really easy.
As far as Gates is concerned, that's his business and not mine. As far as your inference is concerned, it's shameful.
Excellent articulation. Your researched arguments make a lot of sense.
GCC makes things; it's a tool kit. In and of itself, it does nothing. What a coder makes that compiles using GCC into something that then does something is where patent litigation might start. What GCC makes would be the crux of an action that a patent might cover. Android has actions that others claim are patented. Google is the sponsor and principal contributor to Android. Because of this, they have nexus to bring forth litigation.
Google can indeed protect Android; they're one of the few organizations that has nexus to do so. That they let everyone else become a target for Microsoft usury is the problem here-- they don't.
As regards your question, I've learned that people that use scatalogical inference usually lack the vocabulary to do a better job. Calling people names isn't a very good substitute for a cogent argument. Perhaps it makes you feel better.
Let's dissect your questions because they're not presented in a rational method for reply.
>>How is not defending Android.... evil?
Google is one of the few organizations to have nexus to sue Microsoft over the extortion; OEMs are used to paying extortion but Google has the basis as the origin of, and beneficiary of Android development to litigate (IANAL).
>>....but evil?
Worse: cowardly.
>>Does linux offer patent protection?
Linux is the kernel of the OS, and I'll abstract that from the rest of OS payloads to answer your questions: in some cases, Linux distro makers can indemnify you from litigation; this isn't patent protection, but few patent complaints have been foisted directly at the Linux kernel.
>>Does Apache?
Similar answer.
>>Does GCC?
This gets more complicated; GCC is a compendium and "patent protection" doesn't really apply here; it's object code that has to do something so GCC is exempt because it's a screwdriver, not a functional object.
>>Any open source project whatsoever? Does that make them evil?
If you haven't seen the point by now, I'm not going to be able to bring you to an understanding that Google's cowardly act of not defending Android means that most of their OEMs have had to pay Microsoft's perfectly legal fees. Until you take down the patent argument against FOSS items one by one, you feed the troll-- Microsoft.
IE was no more a part of the OS than fdisk. Remove either and the OS would be FINE. The entire thing was a RUSE! The browser had fuck-all to do with the kernel. Two registry entry changes, and the machine behaved like a sleeping baby.
Those who cite the cooked-facts of Wikipedia are doomed to live with their results: a fabrication. See citation #10 for one individual that did it in the article you cite. I got bent. I removed it and used Netscape, then Opera's early versions.
Look you Google Lover and fact-hater, get the facts straight. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts. I lived through the MS BS. I'm now watching Google shed crocodile tears over everyone beating up on them. They should have been in US Federal court or in the EU 18 months ago-- but they're scared and for good reason. Google's privacy stance and business practices plainly have deep problems and they're frightened of litigation, IMHO.
And it was a lie; it was removable and not intrinsic to the operation of the OS. Microsoft just *wanted* it that way after standing on the shoulders (and farting on the head) of Netscape.
The overall argument doesn't hold water. Free is fine. There are other Linux derivates on smartphones and tablets NOW with a similar price. Does Google do other evil stuff? Yeah, including not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEMs.
They need the $$, and current law allows them to sequester profits offshore, when they ought to be under US tax jurisdiction. It's a legal tax dodge, as in corporate welfare.
Mark my words: most of this "deal" will be undone, fought over, dragged on, until a minority government becomes a majority government again-- for purposes of budget. While budgets are initiated in the House, it doesn't mean they'll glide thru the Senate and Prez.
Look for some Tea Party vilification, and undoing of most of the cuts. Just watch. This ain't over.
Case 1: you're war driving, like the instance recently cited by Google and Bing. As the 802.11 MAC layer is pretty much exposed, one simply twigs reassociation and captures the addresses.
Case 2: in a wired routed segment, you can use a) XSS code in a vulnerable browser to simply rob ARP cache. b) use one of a number of methods to get the last router to dump its ARP tables. c) get the user to execute your favorite code, usually twigged based on what OS and platform the browser told you. d) other router exploit code best not revealed in this conversation, but think fuzzing.
Sure. We have no external enemies. Nobody has the guts to hack the good ole USA. Nah.
OTOH, this is a general that blew lots of calls, and is essentially clueless regarding modern threats. Blackwater is a Grand Caymans organization now; why use them when we have lots of great hackers in the US? Better still, let's organize them into their own military branch that might have better logistics to suit the medium of battle.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, loads of disconnected information can be connected together. No one used to sit and watch what you read in a library or the privacy of your own home, but Internet accessibility is quite well tracked. Ask Fox News.
A "fucktard" is an epithet, one that's all too commonly used on Slashdot as an ambiguous denigration. "They" is intentionally left ambiguous. "They" are whoever gets the information, to be unintentionally used against you.
Their privacy is their own, as is yours. I assert my responsibility to those that don't realize that their privacy is capitulated. And I speak freely so as to add my voice to those that believe that privacy has currency. Their rights, human rights, one of which is privacy, needs protections from those that would usurp and manipulate it to ends not understood by those individuals robbed of it.
Sadly, I am. I'm my brother's guardian, and also for my mother, who suffers from dementia. I have a responsibility to others: it's called civility.
Facebook I'm not worried about; although its correlations are juicy for someone, I suppose. My criticism is about Google and tracking cookies and http_referrer manipulation, and so forth.
Civilians deserve the same protection that geeks know how to navigate by lessons learned. There are toads out there that compile information, then push all of the data to one edge to distort reality. Privacy has real currency; some don't see it that way. That view diminishes the privacy view of others by assent.
Actually, there are some pretty stupid criminals out there, but we'll leave that to one side for now.
Having the attitude of living freely is ok. Saying what you want is free speech. You may not be right, but you might be. Same here.
The capacity to protect your personal privacy from those that would abuse it is an important human right. For those that don't give a shit, it won't make any sense as they've subjugated the currency of their privacy and rationalized it away. To others, it warrants respect because THEY believe in it, and it's part of THEIR currency. They deserve the protection. You might not need it or care for its possible outcomes. But there are others that do, and if you devalue your sense of the currency of privacy as an issue, you also devalue their currency but not by their choosing. You may not needed. Maybe they do, and you subvert theirs by not caring about yours.
That's the point. No one walks on water unless it's frozen. Everyone deserves anonymity, but none of us get it. Google and others can read my cookies and figure out any little dark secret they want. Maybe they'll get http_referrers and keep appending the list. The method doesn't matter, the ad-based economy is designed to optimize selling to you at the price of your privacy. They'll put 2+2 together, however, and come out with 44.13833.
But wait until you try and do something about the world. Maybe you'll run for political office. Or want to help out at child care center down the street. Wanted that teacher's license? Maybe someone will find out that people that google Cheerios, fucktards, and pantyhose are statistically proven to be terrorists and need to be rounded up and vilified. They'll look around for a while until that one row in one table in one database outs you. Then you're toast.
The law of transitivity doesn't apply here. You and I as civilians have no means, and little nexus to take Android's defense. Google does, as they're primary contributors to the development and the fact that they have more money than Ford, GM, United Airlines, and FedEx--combined. They can afford the lawyering.
But they don't.
Instead, they leave their OEMs to individually pay Microsoft's patent trolling. And so, Google takes the works of others, advances them, but lets their business partners battle the thugs of hidden patents (remember: the actual patents in questions are unexposed, so that FOSS developers can't code around the problems).
Microsoft extracts an undeserved tax; Google could and should stop them, but doesn't. Because they're scared, even cowardly.
MS hasn't done much innovation. Google innovated on the shoulders of Yahoo and Altavista, among others. Google Docs is an online version of a number of "office-like" apps. Google Voice is a VoIP app. Google+ is a refinement of several ideas, all not invented at Google. I didn't say they weren't clever.
Microsoft has been shaking down OEMs, waving patent litigation threats. The problem with that is that they don't sue Google. If they did, they'd have to expose what patents are in play, and the FOSS community would write new stuff right around them, then challenge the legality and prior art of the ones that are dubious..... and many are likely dubious but we don't know. Google can sue because of the nexus of tortious interference based on the usury that Microsoft imposes on the OEMs, and force Microsoft's hand open. They'd have to lay down the patent cards, and then the games would begin.
Google instead, claims others are bothering them, without getting involved in yet another litigation. They don't defend Android, just complain that everyone's pissing on their customers. But they don't sue. That's because they're currently in a lot of hot water themselves over market dominance and privacy issues, not to mention data collection techniques that are questionable not only in the US, but in the EU and other jurisdictions. Put your heel on their dataflow, and you screw up their business model at its core, as the core is to use the data for marketing ads. That's why they mine personal gmail accounts, that's why they keep very specific track of what you surf, etc. Adwords is their oil well.
But they could make Microsoft really unhappy, and cause an enormous ruckus to defend Android and FOSS development. But they don't. For that, and other reasons described above and not mentioned, I don't find Google particularly a role model for modern moral corporate governance.
As regards IE, just disabling a good chunk of it was all you needed to get around it. You don't need to remove some of the dlls, and some of the dlls have functions outside of IE that have only side-purposes in doing things like rendering HTML and so forth. The "it's a fundamental part of the OS" ruse has been FUD to justify putting it in the forefront of default apps on Windows. Indeed it's not a fundamental part. No, you can't simply wipe the whole thing, but the whole thing isn't just IE parts. The browser can be eliminated. Other elements serve other functions within the OS. The kernel still runs if you excise the entire thing; other stuff won't be happy. But it can be done. Each OS version has a different set of criteria to change to disable IE functionality so much as another browser can be put in its place successfully. Save for ME, I've done it for each version, not that it was any fun. The COM and DCOM functionality that I think you're referring to can be left inside and still carve away IE as we know it.
Don't like Mueller myself. And PJ has my address. But my reply stands. You've got a serious prejudice against the facts going there.
I'm not sticking up for Microsoft, but IE wasn't superglued to their OS. They lied about the fact that it was.
As far as Google is concerned, they're no saints. If you think their competitive efforts against Microsoft gives them a "get out of hell free" card, it doesn't. They've become a bit like Microsoft; no new real ideas, just knock-offs of other innovators.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that I'm in no way an MS worshipper of any kind. And I'm well aware of the ostensible consequences of moving/removing certain DLLs. And I'm sure you'll agree that you can live very happily in the old dead versions of Windows and not use IE once-- all the way back to Windows 95. Not everything that Microsoft called IE was in fact part of the browser. That's your first clue. There are two distinct registry changes in Win98, four in 98SE, I don't care about ME, and by the time we get to Windows 2000, it's really easy.
As far as Gates is concerned, that's his business and not mine. As far as your inference is concerned, it's shameful.
Excellent articulation. Your researched arguments make a lot of sense.
GCC makes things; it's a tool kit. In and of itself, it does nothing. What a coder makes that compiles using GCC into something that then does something is where patent litigation might start. What GCC makes would be the crux of an action that a patent might cover. Android has actions that others claim are patented. Google is the sponsor and principal contributor to Android. Because of this, they have nexus to bring forth litigation.
Google can indeed protect Android; they're one of the few organizations that has nexus to do so. That they let everyone else become a target for Microsoft usury is the problem here-- they don't.
As regards your question, I've learned that people that use scatalogical inference usually lack the vocabulary to do a better job. Calling people names isn't a very good substitute for a cogent argument. Perhaps it makes you feel better.
Let's dissect your questions because they're not presented in a rational method for reply.
>>How is not defending Android.... evil?
Google is one of the few organizations to have nexus to sue Microsoft over the extortion; OEMs are used to paying extortion but Google has the basis as the origin of, and beneficiary of Android development to litigate (IANAL).
>>....but evil?
Worse: cowardly.
>>Does linux offer patent protection?
Linux is the kernel of the OS, and I'll abstract that from the rest of OS payloads to answer your questions: in some cases, Linux distro makers can indemnify you from litigation; this isn't patent protection, but few patent complaints have been foisted directly at the Linux kernel.
>>Does Apache?
Similar answer.
>>Does GCC?
This gets more complicated; GCC is a compendium and "patent protection" doesn't really apply here; it's object code that has to do something so GCC is exempt because it's a screwdriver, not a functional object.
>>Any open source project whatsoever? Does that make them evil?
If you haven't seen the point by now, I'm not going to be able to bring you to an understanding that Google's cowardly act of not defending Android means that most of their OEMs have had to pay Microsoft's perfectly legal fees. Until you take down the patent argument against FOSS items one by one, you feed the troll-- Microsoft.
Dude, with all full respect, you're full of it.
IE was no more a part of the OS than fdisk. Remove either and the OS would be FINE. The entire thing was a RUSE! The browser had fuck-all to do with the kernel. Two registry entry changes, and the machine behaved like a sleeping baby.
Those who cite the cooked-facts of Wikipedia are doomed to live with their results: a fabrication. See citation #10 for one individual that did it in the article you cite. I got bent. I removed it and used Netscape, then Opera's early versions.
Look you Google Lover and fact-hater, get the facts straight. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts. I lived through the MS BS. I'm now watching Google shed crocodile tears over everyone beating up on them. They should have been in US Federal court or in the EU 18 months ago-- but they're scared and for good reason. Google's privacy stance and business practices plainly have deep problems and they're frightened of litigation, IMHO.
They'd have to jail a lot of people. A LOT.
Intent to embarrass isn't a crime. Of course, only sociopaths don't feel embarrassment. Oh, wait.....
And it was a lie; it was removable and not intrinsic to the operation of the OS. Microsoft just *wanted* it that way after standing on the shoulders (and farting on the head) of Netscape.
The overall argument doesn't hold water. Free is fine. There are other Linux derivates on smartphones and tablets NOW with a similar price. Does Google do other evil stuff? Yeah, including not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEMs.
They need the $$, and current law allows them to sequester profits offshore, when they ought to be under US tax jurisdiction. It's a legal tax dodge, as in corporate welfare.
Mark my words: most of this "deal" will be undone, fought over, dragged on, until a minority government becomes a majority government again-- for purposes of budget. While budgets are initiated in the House, it doesn't mean they'll glide thru the Senate and Prez.
Look for some Tea Party vilification, and undoing of most of the cuts. Just watch. This ain't over.
Two cases.
Case 1: you're war driving, like the instance recently cited by Google and Bing. As the 802.11 MAC layer is pretty much exposed, one simply twigs reassociation and captures the addresses.
Case 2: in a wired routed segment, you can use a) XSS code in a vulnerable browser to simply rob ARP cache. b) use one of a number of methods to get the last router to dump its ARP tables. c) get the user to execute your favorite code, usually twigged based on what OS and platform the browser told you. d) other router exploit code best not revealed in this conversation, but think fuzzing.
Sure. We have no external enemies. Nobody has the guts to hack the good ole USA. Nah.
OTOH, this is a general that blew lots of calls, and is essentially clueless regarding modern threats. Blackwater is a Grand Caymans organization now; why use them when we have lots of great hackers in the US? Better still, let's organize them into their own military branch that might have better logistics to suit the medium of battle.
Epic. Didn't RTFA.
And by using an ICMP trick, you get the end node MAC. There are also ARP tricks that can be used to cough the MAC.