Sorry but that argument is lame and totally inappropriate. Google drop the ball on this one. If an application needs to transfer sensitive information back to a server then the application should ensure that it is done securely. It is bad practice to assume that the path to the server is secure.
Why are we only taking Wifi into account? I remember a while back talk about an exploit in GSM that allowed femtocells to eavesdrop on a cellphone's transmissions. Don't assume that wifi is the only weak link.
How does Microsoft letting you use.NET on a XBox, both of which are made by Microsoft, apply to bl8m8r's assertion that it may be a bad idea to spread the use of.NET on other platforms? I can only infer that the dangers he warns us about are:
1. Using a non-Microsoft product to develop.NET applications may open yourself to litigation from Microsoft or Oracle. Microsoft has a cross licensing agreement with Oracle that resulted from a court settlement with Sun. Novell had a patent deal with Microsoft, I assume Xamian does not.
2. You risk vendor lock in with.NET because of #1.
Anyway I don't understand your point because your example doesn't address the above dangers. Personally I think Java vs..NET is a better example than bl8m8r's Microsoft vs. Netscape.
The cross-platform aspect just lets a developer share the game logic between the Xbox 360/Windows version of a game and the version for other platforms. Otherwise, a port to or from the platform is a complete line-by-line rewrite that introduces errors and requires subsequent changes to be made twice.
Officially.NET is only cross platform with Microsoft products (eg. Windows and XBox). If my goal was to really be cross platform with other OS, using a language rather than a toolkit such as QT, I would pick Java or.NET since it is officially supported on Windows, Linux, and OSX by Oracle, and other OS through OpenJDK.
I know Australia doesn't, but they swabbed me for explosives and illegal drugs. No worries! TSA did make up for the lack of pat downs when I reached the US. I think chemical detection may be more accurate and less invasive than backscatter anyway.
To be fair, Canada, Germany, Belgium, China, Japan, and Australia aren't on the top of the extremist target list either. More to the point, Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that we need to watch out for homegrown extremists too.
I think it's a nice political stunt for the local politicians, but I think you'll find out that the states probably don't have jurisdiction to dictate how the federal government should screen passengers at the airport.
Glad you brought that up. I just thought the Windows Everywhere was more applicable, since X10 was mostly a remote control system. There were computer interfaces for X10. My uncle had one for his Tandy Color Computer, but they were slave devices (dumb switches). I assumed Android@Home would be "smart" appliances therefore "Windows Everywhere" was the better comparison.
What brought you to that non-sequitor? poptones didn't even mention the government.
My point was that unlike the US government, the innovators are mobile and can move to a different country. Poptone asserted that the innovators of "US technology" weren't mobile or this technology was somehow tied to the US.
BTW while we are nitpicking... it's spelled "non sequitur" and I did not state a logical fallacy.
You're swallowing his kool aid. The fact is without US technology and US raw materials China would have a LOT less to produce.
US technology doesn't originate from the US government. It originates from bright individuals that live in the US. They can migrate to other countries, just like they have all their technology mass produced in other countries.
China is two decades away (at least) from having trees to support its production of lumber, furniture and other such goods, They're also dependant upon western (often american) technology which they essentially clone and sell domestically. They have demonstrated a great ability to produce but little in the way of useful original ideas when it comes to those gadgets and geegaws.
Lumber is available from Russia. As for technology, you have South Korea, Japan, Great Britain, and Germany to name a few. I think you don't grasp the gravity of the situation.
Android has an extremely vast community of amateurs that create custom builds of AOSP. These are people with little to no coding experience, distributing specialized "ROMs" to an even greater amount of curious users who are barely a shade above the average user. So what would happen if Honeycomb were opened? There'd be a very quick uptake by those users and, given the Tablet oriented state of Honeycomb, a really really bad user experience. As pretty as Honeycomb is, that would have reflected badly on Google -- worse than what many jumping the gun on/. thought when Google initially delayed the source release.
If you are right then maybe we need to close the source to the Linux kernel, BSD kernel, Firefox, and other projects right away. They have amateurs that compile their code and make specialized versions of them too. Just think if a bunch of amateurs decided to take a product like OpenOffice and fork their own version and call it LibreOffice instead?
Can you really consider an operating system open sourced if the source code is only released when Google thinks it's okay?
Maybe it's unfair to measure Google's "open source" OS against other high profile open source projects like Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Linux, Firefox, MySQL, and etc.
Google offered a vision of been more open to set itself apart and draw in mindshare.
I think you may have imagined that Google offered a vision of being more open, but in reality they are just as open or marginally more open than their contemporaries. AOL, Sun, Apple, and even Microsoft had large profile open source projects. Google was just better at marketing their "Do no evil" motto.
Google is a corporation and in the end Google needs to do what they think will protect their market value.
But if the Honeycomb source is as fucked up as they say it is, and as fucked up as the comments in this post have said it is, then your modifications would certainly break almost beyond repair in their massive refactoring for the next version.
I don't think you understand the open source development model. If the source code is as bad as you think it is then you'd think Google would be eager to get more "eyes" on the code to fix the situation. I think this is just Google closing their source.
I think it had more to do with diplomacy. US needs Pakistan's cooperation to stabilize the region, and the terrorists are still active even after Bin Laden is dead.
OS X now has enough market share to attract the attention of Malware!
Seriously, all OSes have malware. It's just a matter of someone creating a toolkit.
I'm amazed that people know about the dangers of accepting food or drink from strangers at a bar (or party) or having unprotected sex with strangers, but they will download a strange program from the internet without hesitation. It doesn't matter what OS you use, the computer can't do all the thinking for you.
I think a weird coincidence would be that after the trees were poisoned in Auburn, the trees in Tuscaloosa were blown away. Now that's a weird coincidence. What you described is a natural phenomena that occurs around this time of year.
My thoughts and well wishes to all those that were affected by that storm system.
Um. Go to your phonebook and look at the number of people with McDonald as their surname. Now imagine how many McDonalds in the US (Just to limit the scope) are restaurateurs. McDonald (not including MacDonald) being a pretty generic Scottish surname did not prevent Richard and Maurice McDonald from trademarking their surname as a name of a restaurant.
There are also company names that have one or more generic english words in their title. This did not prevent them from holding a trademark. The idea behind a registered trademark is to create some regulation on the use of that word or phrase to describe a product, service, or entity. When you go to a "McDonald's" restaurant in the US, odds are pretty damn good that you are going to an official franchise of the McDonald's Corporation. If it wasn't then McDonald's Corporation would have the legal right to ask for a cease and desist order to be issue that would force the unaffiliated store from continuing to use that name.
The phrase "App Store" was not in use as a name of a product nor considered generic when Apple filed for and was granted trademark protection for the term "App Store". Apple has spent millions developing the brand "App Store" and I can see where Amazon's naming their app "Appstore for Android" will cause confusion, since it misleads the consumer into believing they will have access to Apple's App Store on their Android device.
Actually this is the equivalent of claiming that "Bob's Toys R Us" infringes on the trademark for "Toys R Us". "App Store" was not generic and not in general use prior to Apple naming their online software store.
Thanks for the republican talking points (aka bullshit). BTW I was referring to the need to pay for the expensive war. Go ahead spend money on a war that isn't defending our borders while not making up for the expense with additional taxes. Let's see how long the US will continue to have a good credit rating on the international market... O wait too late.
Couldn't do any better than the minority view from GMU?
The trouble is not the technology, but rather that the good old US of A loves importing deflation and writing bad checks. Much easier to have a dumb populace of consumers who spend money they don't have, and then import deflation to counter it and blame a random fad technology than get to the actual issue.
Did you expect them to place blame on free trade agreements? Or on the corporations that pushed for them and benefit from the increased profit margins from off shoring of labor? They defend their actions by telling us scary sounding things like "trade war" or inflation from purchasing goods made with local labor.
The number one reason for the US government's problems is the reluctance to tax. More importantly the reluctance to tax people who can afford it. The republicans made no hesitations to get us involved in two wars. While they tell middle class families to make sacrifices by sending their love ones overseas to fight. There is no sacrifice being made to actually pay for the war. The upper class are not having to make any sacrifice.
Any mention of increasing taxes to stem the rising deficit due to the war, and they call Obama a socialist and accuse him of wanting to "redistribute the wealth". Yet they show no remorse for redistributing the jobs overseas. They accuse the democrats of wanting to start a class war. The truth is the republicans had already waged "war" on the middle and lower class, the democrats are just trying to counter the assault. Or at least the democrats are pretending to look out for the "little guy", but politicians on both sides of the aisle look after each other and create a partisan drama to keep the populace distracted and entertained.
Until we start talking about taxes and tariffs, we are just pissing in the wind.
I think the recent film Moon with Sam Rockwell did an interesting take on the topic of mortality as a plot device. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It's not blockbuster material, but it's not a cookie-cutter sci-fi film that Hollywood seems to always spit out.
Of course, I watched the movie while I was working abroad for 3 months and only had contact with friends and family with Skype. So my boss took great pleasure in doing quotes from the film.
I'm not fixated on cost, but I realize that the commercialization of the Internet is what has fueled its growth. Literally fueled it with money.
The consumer use of the Internet is fueled by the growth you are describing. The research part has benefitted some from the larger number of educational institutions that are able to now afford access. However, these smaller institutions normally don't participate in research that requires the bandwidth that Internet2 offers.
The institutions that use Internet2 aren't receiving much benefit (if any) from the commercial Internet.
Ironically it was the commercialization of the Internet that created the need for a seperate Internet2. This is the main reason I have doubts on how much the commercial Internet has benefitted the member institutions.
And I do recognize that I pay essentially $70/mo for Internet access, both static and mobile. It ain't cheap.
While $70/month isn't cheap for an individual, most of it goes to your ISP and not to the infrastructure being used by Internet2. Also $70/month is a miniscule amount of money compared to the costs associated with Internet2 and doesn't rise to the level of justifying your access to it. The "I'm a tax payer" meme tends to be overused. On the bright side you are reaping the benefits of the "commercial Internet". I remember when I had to pay much more than that a month for simular level of service and it was from a backbone provider that knew they were the only game in town.
I know it sounds elitist, but one of the reasons Internet2 benefit the member institution is that it is deliberately kept seperate from the more general Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but that argument is lame and totally inappropriate. Google drop the ball on this one. If an application needs to transfer sensitive information back to a server then the application should ensure that it is done securely. It is bad practice to assume that the path to the server is secure.
Why are we only taking Wifi into account? I remember a while back talk about an exploit in GSM that allowed femtocells to eavesdrop on a cellphone's transmissions. Don't assume that wifi is the only weak link.
"Java or .NET" should have said "Java over .NET". The "ve" was omitted and I didn't catch it until after submit.
How does Microsoft letting you use .NET on a XBox, both of which are made by Microsoft, apply to bl8m8r's assertion that it may be a bad idea to spread the use of .NET on other platforms? I can only infer that the dangers he warns us about are:
1. Using a non-Microsoft product to develop .NET applications may open yourself to litigation from Microsoft or Oracle. Microsoft has a cross licensing agreement with Oracle that resulted from a court settlement with Sun. Novell had a patent deal with Microsoft, I assume Xamian does not.
2. You risk vendor lock in with .NET because of #1.
Anyway I don't understand your point because your example doesn't address the above dangers. Personally I think Java vs. .NET is a better example than bl8m8r's Microsoft vs. Netscape.
Officially .NET is only cross platform with Microsoft products (eg. Windows and XBox). If my goal was to really be cross platform with other OS, using a language rather than a toolkit such as QT, I would pick Java or .NET since it is officially supported on Windows, Linux, and OSX by Oracle, and other OS through OpenJDK.
The supreme court may only rule on the jurisdiction of Texas' law not the constitutionality of TSA searches.
I know Australia doesn't, but they swabbed me for explosives and illegal drugs. No worries! TSA did make up for the lack of pat downs when I reached the US. I think chemical detection may be more accurate and less invasive than backscatter anyway.
To be fair, Canada, Germany, Belgium, China, Japan, and Australia aren't on the top of the extremist target list either. More to the point, Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that we need to watch out for homegrown extremists too.
I think it's a nice political stunt for the local politicians, but I think you'll find out that the states probably don't have jurisdiction to dictate how the federal government should screen passengers at the airport.
Glad you brought that up. I just thought the Windows Everywhere was more applicable, since X10 was mostly a remote control system. There were computer interfaces for X10. My uncle had one for his Tandy Color Computer, but they were slave devices (dumb switches). I assumed Android@Home would be "smart" appliances therefore "Windows Everywhere" was the better comparison.
My point was that unlike the US government, the innovators are mobile and can move to a different country. Poptone asserted that the innovators of "US technology" weren't mobile or this technology was somehow tied to the US.
BTW while we are nitpicking... it's spelled "non sequitur" and I did not state a logical fallacy.
US technology doesn't originate from the US government. It originates from bright individuals that live in the US. They can migrate to other countries, just like they have all their technology mass produced in other countries.
Lumber is available from Russia. As for technology, you have South Korea, Japan, Great Britain, and Germany to name a few. I think you don't grasp the gravity of the situation.
If you are right then maybe we need to close the source to the Linux kernel, BSD kernel, Firefox, and other projects right away. They have amateurs that compile their code and make specialized versions of them too. Just think if a bunch of amateurs decided to take a product like OpenOffice and fork their own version and call it LibreOffice instead?
Can you really consider an operating system open sourced if the source code is only released when Google thinks it's okay?
Maybe it's unfair to measure Google's "open source" OS against other high profile open source projects like Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Linux, Firefox, MySQL, and etc.
I think you may have imagined that Google offered a vision of being more open, but in reality they are just as open or marginally more open than their contemporaries. AOL, Sun, Apple, and even Microsoft had large profile open source projects. Google was just better at marketing their "Do no evil" motto.
Google is a corporation and in the end Google needs to do what they think will protect their market value.
I don't think you understand the open source development model. If the source code is as bad as you think it is then you'd think Google would be eager to get more "eyes" on the code to fix the situation. I think this is just Google closing their source.
The 90's called and they want their "Windows Everywhere" back.
I think it had more to do with diplomacy. US needs Pakistan's cooperation to stabilize the region, and the terrorists are still active even after Bin Laden is dead.
OS X now has enough market share to attract the attention of Malware!
Seriously, all OSes have malware. It's just a matter of someone creating a toolkit.
I'm amazed that people know about the dangers of accepting food or drink from strangers at a bar (or party) or having unprotected sex with strangers, but they will download a strange program from the internet without hesitation. It doesn't matter what OS you use, the computer can't do all the thinking for you.
I think a weird coincidence would be that after the trees were poisoned in Auburn, the trees in Tuscaloosa were blown away. Now that's a weird coincidence. What you described is a natural phenomena that occurs around this time of year.
My thoughts and well wishes to all those that were affected by that storm system.
Um. Go to your phonebook and look at the number of people with McDonald as their surname. Now imagine how many McDonalds in the US (Just to limit the scope) are restaurateurs. McDonald (not including MacDonald) being a pretty generic Scottish surname did not prevent Richard and Maurice McDonald from trademarking their surname as a name of a restaurant.
There are also company names that have one or more generic english words in their title. This did not prevent them from holding a trademark. The idea behind a registered trademark is to create some regulation on the use of that word or phrase to describe a product, service, or entity. When you go to a "McDonald's" restaurant in the US, odds are pretty damn good that you are going to an official franchise of the McDonald's Corporation. If it wasn't then McDonald's Corporation would have the legal right to ask for a cease and desist order to be issue that would force the unaffiliated store from continuing to use that name.
The phrase "App Store" was not in use as a name of a product nor considered generic when Apple filed for and was granted trademark protection for the term "App Store". Apple has spent millions developing the brand "App Store" and I can see where Amazon's naming their app "Appstore for Android" will cause confusion, since it misleads the consumer into believing they will have access to Apple's App Store on their Android device.
Actually this is the equivalent of claiming that "Bob's Toys R Us" infringes on the trademark for "Toys R Us". "App Store" was not generic and not in general use prior to Apple naming their online software store.
Thanks for the republican talking points (aka bullshit). BTW I was referring to the need to pay for the expensive war. Go ahead spend money on a war that isn't defending our borders while not making up for the expense with additional taxes. Let's see how long the US will continue to have a good credit rating on the international market... O wait too late.
Couldn't do any better than the minority view from GMU?
A better solution is just stay out of Michigan. I'm sure there are at least 49 better states you can visit.
Did you expect them to place blame on free trade agreements? Or on the corporations that pushed for them and benefit from the increased profit margins from off shoring of labor? They defend their actions by telling us scary sounding things like "trade war" or inflation from purchasing goods made with local labor.
The number one reason for the US government's problems is the reluctance to tax. More importantly the reluctance to tax people who can afford it. The republicans made no hesitations to get us involved in two wars. While they tell middle class families to make sacrifices by sending their love ones overseas to fight. There is no sacrifice being made to actually pay for the war. The upper class are not having to make any sacrifice.
Any mention of increasing taxes to stem the rising deficit due to the war, and they call Obama a socialist and accuse him of wanting to "redistribute the wealth". Yet they show no remorse for redistributing the jobs overseas. They accuse the democrats of wanting to start a class war. The truth is the republicans had already waged "war" on the middle and lower class, the democrats are just trying to counter the assault. Or at least the democrats are pretending to look out for the "little guy", but politicians on both sides of the aisle look after each other and create a partisan drama to keep the populace distracted and entertained.
Until we start talking about taxes and tariffs, we are just pissing in the wind.
I think the recent film Moon with Sam Rockwell did an interesting take on the topic of mortality as a plot device. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It's not blockbuster material, but it's not a cookie-cutter sci-fi film that Hollywood seems to always spit out.
Of course, I watched the movie while I was working abroad for 3 months and only had contact with friends and family with Skype. So my boss took great pleasure in doing quotes from the film.
The consumer use of the Internet is fueled by the growth you are describing. The research part has benefitted some from the larger number of educational institutions that are able to now afford access. However, these smaller institutions normally don't participate in research that requires the bandwidth that Internet2 offers. The institutions that use Internet2 aren't receiving much benefit (if any) from the commercial Internet.
Ironically it was the commercialization of the Internet that created the need for a seperate Internet2. This is the main reason I have doubts on how much the commercial Internet has benefitted the member institutions.
While $70/month isn't cheap for an individual, most of it goes to your ISP and not to the infrastructure being used by Internet2. Also $70/month is a miniscule amount of money compared to the costs associated with Internet2 and doesn't rise to the level of justifying your access to it. The "I'm a tax payer" meme tends to be overused. On the bright side you are reaping the benefits of the "commercial Internet". I remember when I had to pay much more than that a month for simular level of service and it was from a backbone provider that knew they were the only game in town.
I know it sounds elitist, but one of the reasons Internet2 benefit the member institution is that it is deliberately kept seperate from the more general Internet.
You seem to be fixated on cost. Internet2 gives the original Internet the ability to have unrestricted growth.