People store information on facebook with the purpose of sharing it. Anyone using facebook for private storage does not understand the purpose of facebook.
You just stated a false dichotomy. There's a difference between sharing your information to the world, and sharing information with your friends. Most people use Facebook to share information with their friends and setup their profiles accordingly. The GP is referring to the fact that on more than one occasion Facebook has changed it's privacy policy and "accidently" set people's information to world viewable.
Your argument would make sense if Facebook didn't offer a method of sharing your information only with your "friends".
Like most other expressions of concern that come from brother Stallman, the geeks hear him, and keep merrily on with technological progress. Not that his concerns are never valid, but he has become the Chicken Little of geekdom.
What I find more disconcerning is how quickly these geeks dismiss his argument while blindly accepting each "innovation" from Google without thinking about the potential consequences. Ironically these Google faithful will yell the meme about Microsoft's evil monopolistic principles.
Sure they will point to how Google uses open source software, but they fail to realize that Google isn't interested in software but rather the personal data accumulated by said software. Sure Android OS, Chrome OS, Google Mail, Google Earth, Google Calendar, Google Voice, and Google Talk is monetarily free, but I agree with Stallman that we are paying a huge price in privacy. You mocking him will not change this fact...
Let's see, in reality clothianidin was granted full approval this year -- April 2010! That's 4 years of a completely Democratically controlled congress and 2 years of a Democratic House+Senate+President. Most politically appointees from the Bush years are LONG gone by now. Turnover in agencies is incredible around election time. I'm very, very glad to see more stuff of this type appear on Wikileaks (though I wish some other government's dirty laundry would start showing up too). The troll part is being so blindly partisan. IMHO, it's that kind of super-polarized partisanship that helps lead to so many of our political problems.
Let me start off by saying that the approval date of clothianidin has no bearing in your argument. Despite your assertion, the executive branch and congress are not privy to the day-to-day operations of its government agencies. What they do control is the budget. The republicans under Bush has made serious cuts in funding for enforcement of regulations. This is intentional and the current republican congressmen boast about how they will underfund regulatory agencies in the coming fiscal year in the name of promoting a more "small business friendly" environment to get us out of the current recession. In addition, since the democrats had control of the congress and the white house, they haven't been able to pass a budget without the republicans filibustering. Just look at all the continuing resolutions.
You're right the GP post sounded partisan, but unfortunately the facts are correct. I will say that "unfunded mandates" are practiced by both parties in order to appear that they are passing "helpful" legislation while not actually budgeting the money required for the legislation to be put into practice.
The Bush administration took the unusual step of killing regulation enforcement by cutting the operating budget of these agencies.
How about NOT approving the Comcast and NBC merger?
How much media content should a single corporation own? What if that corporation also is one of the largest cable providers in the US? What if that corporation has a startup service named Xfinity that competes with other streaming services?
These rhetorical questions should serve as red flags that maybe we should not allow Comcast to own NBC. Anyway when was the last time a pre-merger condition from a government agency was honored and actually benefitted the consumer? Need more evidence, just look at FM radio. How many of those stations on your local radio dial is owned by a single communication company?
I'm full of questions today;)
How about the fact that "former" isn't "current" and the DHS is not a Senator. So that's not pork at all. Just garden-variety self-dealing.
Washington insider with connections to the white house lobbies in 2005 for the use of full body scanners in airports while in the employ of Rapiscan. Twenty five million dollars from the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" was earmarked so that TSA could purchase these machines.
saying things are pork is not sufficient to prove that's the only reason they're being done.
How about the fact that Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security, represented Rapiscan while advocating the need for full body scanners in airports despite the lack of evidence that it's capable of stopping another underwear bomber?
Speaking from experience. The best you can expect is 2G (Edge) if you are using a T-Mobile handset outside of a T-Mobile network. But if you are in the US, you may be able to use a prepaid phone provider that uses T-Mobile's network. I haven't tried it so it may not work...
Yep. T-Mobile sent me unlock codes for my MyTouch 3G while I was in Australia. Thanks to their help, I was able to use a Vodaphone prepaid account while I was TDY for 3 months. I don't know of any other US phone company that would do that for their customer.
If this is nothing but a rebranded Samsung Galaxy S running stock Google Gingerbread OS, then this may be another misstep by Google. This would mean that it wouldn't support T-Mobile's "4G" data network.
No 4G, which is bad since we can get a "4G" phone that runs at 1GHz from HTC called the MyTouch 4G.
Not to mention the less than stellar support Google provided for the Nexus One.
Will it be available at an actual T-Mobile store? Currently it looks like it's exclusively at Best Buy which is also a no go. Apple sells the iPhone in their stores AND AT&T. Google needs to sell the phones at the carrier's retail store too.
An even better ideal would be for people to walk around their car before backing out of their parking place, and parents not letting their 5 years olds play unattended behind an automobile.
Of course it does. You introduced hyperbole into the discussion and assume everybody is sheep and no preliminary checks are done prior to sending out a bomb squad. Based on your assumptions you decided that the best course of action is inaction.
Are you suggesting that we call the bomb squad for anything and everything that looks even vaguely suspicious?
I made no such suggestion. I stated that if we start trivializing judgment calls made by police in the field, we risk letting a real bomb detonate without detection. I never said we should treat every piece of litter as a potential bomb. You introduced that hypothesis in order to make it easier for you to argue that security concerns are being overblown.
Some kid gets bored and superglues his sister's lunchbox to a wall, are we going to call the bomb squad?
If he does it in his own home then no. If he did it in an alleyway with little to no foot traffic then no. If he did it in at a high traffic area and no one saw him do it and someone felt concerned enough to call the police then maybe yes. If he did it to a supporting structure of a footbridge then yes.
Some artist gets creative and sticks some kind of magnetic LCD to something, are we going to call the bomb squad?
Wow you brought up a single very public incident in 2007 by the Boston police department. Congratulations! Now how many similar events happened since?
Some guy forgets his luggage on the side of the road as he rushes to make a flight on time, are we going to call the bomb squad?
Happens all the time and there's a TSA agent nearby to make that judgment call.
Denver Police Spokesman Matt Murray said that a citizen called police at 3:27 p.m. to report the presence of the plastic white toy robot cemented to the base of a pillar supporting a footbridge near the intersection of 20th and Wazee streets...
Murray said that the bomb squad couldn't be sure if the robot was safe or not, and so remotely detonated it at about 5:30 p.m. to "render it safe." The robot exploded into several chunks.
"It was cemented in. That's odd," Murray said.
Murray said that suspicious objects do not automatically warrant a call to the bomb squad if patrol officers are able to determine that there is no threat. He said that the robot was strange enough to warrant precautionary measures. In the end, it proved harmless.
Are you suggesting that we call the bomb squad for anything and everything that looks even vaguely suspicious?
I think the fact that the plastic toy was cemented to the base of a pillar supporting a footbridge was what made it suspicious.
FTA: "It was cemented in. That's odd," Murray said. Murray said that suspicious objects do not automatically warrant a call to the bomb squad if patrol officers are able to determine that there is no threat. He said that the robot was strange enough to warrant precautionary measures. In the end, it proved harmless.
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
Modding an XBox may run afoul of the DMCA, where customizing a Ford doesn't
While we're comparing apples to oranges, selling modified Fords may run afoul of some local obscure emissions law. Milage may vary. Local restrictions may apply. See your local dealer for more information. No animals were harmed in the making of this comment. No representation is made on the quality of this comment, nor the quality of the comments of others. While supply lasts.;P
Slashdot Mirror
You just stated a false dichotomy. There's a difference between sharing your information to the world, and sharing information with your friends. Most people use Facebook to share information with their friends and setup their profiles accordingly. The GP is referring to the fact that on more than one occasion Facebook has changed it's privacy policy and "accidently" set people's information to world viewable.
Your argument would make sense if Facebook didn't offer a method of sharing your information only with your "friends".
There's a difference between hating Google and having a healthy dose of skepticism about their motives.
What I find more disconcerning is how quickly these geeks dismiss his argument while blindly accepting each "innovation" from Google without thinking about the potential consequences. Ironically these Google faithful will yell the meme about Microsoft's evil monopolistic principles.
Sure they will point to how Google uses open source software, but they fail to realize that Google isn't interested in software but rather the personal data accumulated by said software. Sure Android OS, Chrome OS, Google Mail, Google Earth, Google Calendar, Google Voice, and Google Talk is monetarily free, but I agree with Stallman that we are paying a huge price in privacy. You mocking him will not change this fact...
Let me start off by saying that the approval date of clothianidin has no bearing in your argument. Despite your assertion, the executive branch and congress are not privy to the day-to-day operations of its government agencies. What they do control is the budget. The republicans under Bush has made serious cuts in funding for enforcement of regulations. This is intentional and the current republican congressmen boast about how they will underfund regulatory agencies in the coming fiscal year in the name of promoting a more "small business friendly" environment to get us out of the current recession. In addition, since the democrats had control of the congress and the white house, they haven't been able to pass a budget without the republicans filibustering. Just look at all the continuing resolutions.
You're right the GP post sounded partisan, but unfortunately the facts are correct. I will say that "unfunded mandates" are practiced by both parties in order to appear that they are passing "helpful" legislation while not actually budgeting the money required for the legislation to be put into practice.
The Bush administration took the unusual step of killing regulation enforcement by cutting the operating budget of these agencies.
How about NOT approving the Comcast and NBC merger?
How much media content should a single corporation own? What if that corporation also is one of the largest cable providers in the US? What if that corporation has a startup service named Xfinity that competes with other streaming services?
These rhetorical questions should serve as red flags that maybe we should not allow Comcast to own NBC. Anyway when was the last time a pre-merger condition from a government agency was honored and actually benefitted the consumer? Need more evidence, just look at FM radio. How many of those stations on your local radio dial is owned by a single communication company? I'm full of questions today ;)
I think its in WebKit because Safari has the same problem now.
You can still cut-n-paste if you don't use HTML in your comment box. Meaning, do all the cut and paste first then do the HTML markup.
Still a stupid bug, but I assume it was put there to stop a vulnerability.
It exists, and companies that offer it call it "Earned Time Off".
BTW, what is the deal with both Safari and Chrome not performing cut-n-paste in slashdot?
Except that the iPod Touch is not a phone, requires no contract, and plays the same games as the iPhone.
Price is what is killing the game consoles. You can by a much cheaper game on iOS or Android than you can on PSP.
More developers for the iOS and Android creates competition that do not exist on either the PSP or DS.
Washington insider with connections to the white house lobbies in 2005 for the use of full body scanners in airports while in the employ of Rapiscan. Twenty five million dollars from the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" was earmarked so that TSA could purchase these machines.
Looks like pork spending to me...
How about the fact that Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security, represented Rapiscan while advocating the need for full body scanners in airports despite the lack of evidence that it's capable of stopping another underwear bomber?
Stoping a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.
Nothing prevents the magazine from offering a pay-wall version of their magazine online using good old HTML. They can even provide RSS updates.
However, if they want to make an app then they will have to play by Apple's rules...
Speaking from experience. The best you can expect is 2G (Edge) if you are using a T-Mobile handset outside of a T-Mobile network. But if you are in the US, you may be able to use a prepaid phone provider that uses T-Mobile's network. I haven't tried it so it may not work...
Yep. T-Mobile sent me unlock codes for my MyTouch 3G while I was in Australia. Thanks to their help, I was able to use a Vodaphone prepaid account while I was TDY for 3 months. I don't know of any other US phone company that would do that for their customer.
If this is nothing but a rebranded Samsung Galaxy S running stock Google Gingerbread OS, then this may be another misstep by Google. This would mean that it wouldn't support T-Mobile's "4G" data network.
No 4G, which is bad since we can get a "4G" phone that runs at 1GHz from HTC called the MyTouch 4G.
Not to mention the less than stellar support Google provided for the Nexus One.
Will it be available at an actual T-Mobile store? Currently it looks like it's exclusively at Best Buy which is also a no go. Apple sells the iPhone in their stores AND AT&T. Google needs to sell the phones at the carrier's retail store too.
Sounds too complicated, and probably wouldn't garner public support anyway.
A faster method is to slam on the brakes, and let his insurance rate increase... :P
An even better ideal would be for people to walk around their car before backing out of their parking place, and parents not letting their 5 years olds play unattended behind an automobile.
He meant Bing which Yahoo now uses.
Of course it does. You introduced hyperbole into the discussion and assume everybody is sheep and no preliminary checks are done prior to sending out a bomb squad. Based on your assumptions you decided that the best course of action is inaction.
I made no such suggestion. I stated that if we start trivializing judgment calls made by police in the field, we risk letting a real bomb detonate without detection. I never said we should treat every piece of litter as a potential bomb. You introduced that hypothesis in order to make it easier for you to argue that security concerns are being overblown.
If he does it in his own home then no. If he did it in an alleyway with little to no foot traffic then no. If he did it in at a high traffic area and no one saw him do it and someone felt concerned enough to call the police then maybe yes. If he did it to a supporting structure of a footbridge then yes.
Wow you brought up a single very public incident in 2007 by the Boston police department. Congratulations! Now how many similar events happened since?
Happens all the time and there's a TSA agent nearby to make that judgment call.
How many toy robots have been cemented to a pillar supporting a foot bridge?
From the article:
Denver Police Spokesman Matt Murray said that a citizen called police at 3:27 p.m. to report the presence of the plastic white toy robot cemented to the base of a pillar supporting a footbridge near the intersection of 20th and Wazee streets...
Murray said that the bomb squad couldn't be sure if the robot was safe or not, and so remotely detonated it at about 5:30 p.m. to "render it safe." The robot exploded into several chunks.
"It was cemented in. That's odd," Murray said.
Murray said that suspicious objects do not automatically warrant a call to the bomb squad if patrol officers are able to determine that there is no threat. He said that the robot was strange enough to warrant precautionary measures. In the end, it proved harmless.
I think the fact that the plastic toy was cemented to the base of a pillar supporting a footbridge was what made it suspicious.
FTA: "It was cemented in. That's odd," Murray said. Murray said that suspicious objects do not automatically warrant a call to the bomb squad if patrol officers are able to determine that there is no threat. He said that the robot was strange enough to warrant precautionary measures. In the end, it proved harmless.
The problem with trivializing the bomb squad's action is the next suspicious object may not be a innocent little toy.
This was probably a prank, but it could also be a test to see what security measures are in place (probing).
Will "go screw yourself and the horse you rode in on" make you feel better? :P
Modding an XBox may run afoul of the DMCA, where customizing a Ford doesn't
While we're comparing apples to oranges, selling modified Fords may run afoul of some local obscure emissions law. Milage may vary. Local restrictions may apply. See your local dealer for more information. No animals were harmed in the making of this comment. No representation is made on the quality of this comment, nor the quality of the comments of others. While supply lasts. ;P