I really wonder if people here (and also Google or Twitter) will remain so supportive if the end result turns out to vaguely (!!) resemble the Iranian Revolution from 3 decades ago...
Whether we like it or not, some of us accept the right of sovereign peoples to self-determination.
That said, most experts are not overly worried about Egypt becoming a theocracy driven by Sharia law. My guess is that the more likely scenario -in the short term, at least- is a muddled mess more reminiscent of Iraq than anywhere else. There are a number of long-repressed factions who are decidedly secular, and who represent important constituencies within the Egyptian population.
... That is, of course, unless the army decides to act 'for the good of the country' and impose its own ruler. Given that this is the way Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all came to power, this possibility should not be underestimated.
Wouldn't a better solution be to break-up the ISP Monopolies, just as we broke-up the AT&T Phone monopoly during the 1980s?
Trying to impose net neutrality is a good idea, but doesn't solve the CORE problem: Lack of choice for customers. They are treating the symptom rather than the root disease.
Seriously: It's times like this that I wish people in the US would get out a little more often, or at least admit that there might be other ways to do things than their own. There are tons of problems with the Internet in different countries around the world, but the US problem is (or rather, should be) the most easily rectified. Given the right conditions, there's no reason why ISPs wouldn't compete themselves back into a world-leading position in Internet services.
I'm a big proponent of Network Neutrality, in fact I'm on my (tiny little developing) country's Internet Governance steering committee. But I find it amusing and disturbing all at once that we're more able to let market forces drive Internet development than the US is.
It appears that the rumors that the Muslim Brotherhood are the main instigators in these protests is coming from the Egyptian government. Don't believe it. This is a populist uprising.
Indeed. I think it might well succeed[*], too, because the uprising is strikingly parallel to the French Revolution: It's the petit bourgoisie, the shopkeepers and tradespeople, who are rising, and all they're asking for is a chance to work for a living wage. This could gain a lot of steam in very little time.
---------
[*] By 'succeed', I mean to say that they might well end up deposing President Mubarak and ensuring that Gamal, his son, doesn't succeed him. Whether they descend into chaos and terror as the French did, or whether the military steps in (quite likely with US assistance[**]), or whether an actual democracy blossoms... well, that remains to be seen. I'm inclined to think that a military junta is the most likely outcome, at least in the short term.
[**] Egypt is a key US asset in the Middle East. America might be able to countenance an Egyptian government without a Mubarak at the head of it, but I'm nearly certain that they would sooner see the military in charge rather than even the chance of Islamist party rule.
The F-117 was used in the Serbian conflict because it had the ability to make quick, stealthy precision strikes on the Serbian air command, paving the way for the heavy cavalry to move in and decimate the ground forces.
When I visited Belgrade some years ago, I was told by someone in a position to know that US planes were actually kept away from the most demanding targets. Apparently, it was mostly the French (gasp!) who accounted for the strikes in downtown Belgrade. Their handiwork was impressive, to say the least: The Ministry of Defence building was completely destroyed, falling in on itself, while neighbouring buildings sported only a few nicks from flying debris.
The US were responsible for at least one raid in Belgrade itself. But more about that in a moment....
As a Hungarian, I'm also pleased that the one and only time the Goblin was downed was at the hands of a Hungarian commander, one Zoltán Dani, who used an old modified Russian radar unit operating at very long wavelengths to defeat the F-117's stealth capability, and used manual guidance on the missiles along with several spotters who reported the flight path.
At least some parts of the wreckage must have made it into the Chinese hands. That would account for the *cough* tragically mistaken bombing of the their Embassy. (The US knew what it was doing. If you don't think that NATO had spotters on the ground, you too are tragically mistaken.)
Could a greasemonkey script be written to update all links to HTTPS?
Ask and you shall receive: HTTPS Everywhere is a Firefox plugin that forces HTTPS not only on Facebook, but Google and numerous other sites, with the ability to configure still more.
Of all of your idiotic claims about the US, only one holds water, that the global meltdown started in the US. But bad crises and wars start somewhere, you can't blame based on where they start. For example, the Second World War started in Poland and the First World War started in Serbia. So are Poland and Serbia responsible for their respective world wars?
Points of fact that doesn't serve your argument very well:
WWI was precipitated by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The war was started when an empire in decline decided to exert its will upon a state it had annexed and occupied for some years.
So, in truth, the lesson to be drawn here is that empires in decline should be wary of unbottling very powerful genies when they try to act in their declining years as they did in their prime. Kind of supports the GP's argument more than yours, I'm afraid to say.
WWII was started, not by Poland, but by Germany in its attempt to build an empire for itself. Here, the parallels are stronger between the US' recent bellicosity and Germany's. In both cases, we see unprovoked attacks against a strategically useful but virtually defenseless nation, resulting in tragic consequences, both the the aggressor and the defender. Yet again, an object lesson again that speaks more to the GP's point than yours.
That is, if I remember correctly how to calculate maximum size. I assume light travels 30 cm in a second, and distances on a chip are measured using the taxi-cab metric.
Light travels 30 cm/sec? You sure about that? If that were true, I expect Einstein could have tested Special Relativity with a watch and a quick trot round the block.
This is a joke, i hope. It sounds elitist and exclusionary. A lot of great hackers are self taught. But, there a many people who learn by seeking the help of of others. There is nothing wrong with that. Who is to say they don't already know what Linux is? Do *you* know what Linux is and how it works? I've been using it for over 12 years, and I sure as heck don't! I still rely on the knowledge of other people to make the best use of the tools I have available. Some might argue that this is what it takes to be "any good".
Great point. I'd say the thing to do would be to leverage that collaborative spirit.
How about a '100 lines' assignment: Every class, a different student spends 5 minutes demonstrating what they've been able to accomplish with no more than 100 lines of Perl/Python/Ruby/Lisp/Whatever. Make half the mark discretionary based on the enthusiasm shown by the class for that particular hack. The value of the grade doesn't have to be high - just enough to put some stakes in the game. Once people see that a little ingenuity is rewarded amply in Linux, they'll have a different attitude toward the environment.
When I look back at all the quick and clever hacks I've worked up over the years, I'm reminded that 'hackability' is what keeps me using Linux. With Widget kits like Screenlets available these days, you'd be amazed what you can do....
Note that "an American expert in nuclear intelligence" would specifically not be someone who works in the gov't- If they could claim an anonymous official source they would.
That doesn't follow. The way in which an anonymous source is characterised is negotiated by the journalist and the source. The journalist typically wants to make the identity (or more to the point, the validity) of the source as clear as possible. The source wants to hide any detail that can identify them. In this case, because we're talking about a level of secrecy that, if breached, would almost certainly get someone killed, the source clearly didn't want any information released except that they knew what they were talking about.
This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.
Absolute nonsense. If you create and give away content online, you don't have to pay a license. If you create and sell content online, you do. The fees are small enough that they are not a realistic barrier.
Also, you are 100% false in claiming that they choice is to "pay or stop distributing the video". They can re-encode in WebM, Theora, or some other codec, if such a choice were actually the case.
Care to dig up some references other than "people have already testified here"? Relying on your memory of what you read on a forum filled with anti-H.264/pro-Open Source posters like here requires a fair bit of skepticism on such a claim.
I didn't use the word 'online' in my post. I'm aware of the exemption. It's not broad enough, in my opinion, because it doesn't cover not-for-profit TV & movies, scientific research, education and countless other use cases.
The license applies to the device with which the video was made, not just the encoding.
As a consumer, H.264 is pretty much perfect. It essentially comes free with everything I own, costs me nothing to use on the web, is universally supported, and runs smoothly and sips power on all my devices. Of those, WebM only does the "costs me nothing to use on the web".
And there is the crux of the issue: Assuming a strong distinction between consumer and producer, there's no problem. But anyone astride the cusp between the two is vulnerable to fees that could stop them from distributing a popular video made with H.264. People have already testified here that once the license regime kicks in (for distribution above a certain number) they suddenly gain the interest of the licensing body and have no choice but to pay or to stop distributing the video.
The idea that video content is made solely for profit is the worm in the middle of this particular apple. And it's likely why Google, with their huge investment in Youtube, want to give their users an alternative.
Open Source, by its very nature, can't be "taken over". It is open for everyone to examine, and for anyone to fix if they find problems.
Until they outlaw compilers.... 8^)
I think muddling the issues of control and Open Source together will lead to little but confusion.
Seriously, I think this analysis is a pretty overt attempt to sully FOSS' reputation by characterising it as a tool of autocrats, yet ignoring the very characteristics that make it resistant to abuse. The unspoken comparison here is that commercial, proprietary software represents Freedom and the American Way while FOSS is the product of greasy hippies who have once again sold out democracy in pursuit of their Leftist ideals.
Yes, I'm overstating the case, but just because the author used genteel language doesn't make his point any more subtle or accurate.
There are a number of things that Morozov might have fit into the space provided that would have made a more nuanced point. Not the least of which is the ability to, uh, view the source, meaning that even if you are using State-sponsored software, at very least you can see what they're doing. The prospect of removing the nasty bits is also left untouched.
It's possible, even likely, that Russia and others actually do think that they can keep the source open for themselves and closed to others. But that's only because they too haven't thought it all the way through.
Lastly, Morozov's point about a 'walled' web is not fundamentally wrong, but he neglects to mention that there's more movement toward a 'walled garden' vision of the Net from the commercial actors than from state actors.
BIG difference if this was all a "for the public/good/mankind" effort.... making money from this stuff makes him look like a bloody spy/traitor/commercial scumbag.
Yeah, because principled people dine on fluffy clouds of candy floss delivered by unicorns. They don't need any of that filthy lucre! How dare that bastard defend Wikileaks' interest like any other business would? For shame!
Look: Assange is a jerk, and an angry one at that. So when he sees the Guardian positioning itself to take Wikileaks out of the decision-making process as to when and how the leaks get released, he pitches a fit. But he's also smart and technically astute, so he consults his lawyer, who tells him that in order to get an injunction stopping publication, Assange needs to demonstrate that he owns the material in question. Furthermore, he can threaten to sue for damages if he claims financial losses.
For Assange, this is a reasonable approximation of the truth, and he's willing to use that line if it will pull the Guardian back into line, so that he can coordinate the release of the US diplomatic cables across 5 different news organisations. So he storms into the Editor's office, attorney by his side, and stakes his claim.
Some of the Guardian staff, who are tired of Assange (because he's a jerk), want to tell him to go get stuffed. But the Editor sees that things could get messy. He gets everyone seated around a table and after a lot of talking (and some wine), everyone calms down.
This is one of the most mundane little bits of newsroom drama imaginable. Egos get out of line, everyone fights over the right to release, and editors do what they do, which is to herd all the cats back into line.
If anyone for a moment thinks that Assange is trying to cash in on this, they really need to learn a little about the guy. The Vanity Fair story itself says that for years he had only two outfits. He sleeps on people's couches, for heaven's sake. The guy can act like a paranoid prick, yes, but there's a hell of a lot more Stallman in him than Zuckerberg.
This really changes the tenor, doesn't it?
No, not at all. Now quick picking at the shiny bits of the story and try seeing what actually happened.
is being spread through Cryptome. The rumor that he is an informant for the Austrlian Federal Police does seem to be backed up by the story about him receiving warnings from Austrlian intelligence about dirty tricks.
That's the funniest thing I've heard so far this year. Congratulations!
Seriously: Could you provide even the slightest corroboration for this?
And while you're at it, I'd appreciate if you could respond to the stories floating around here lately that you're just making these accusations to draw attention away from the fact that you're a serial killer who stuffs live puppies and kittens into the gutted corpses of your victims and then burns them alive in a satanic death cult ritual.
... I'm not saying you actually did that, but now that people are talking, perhaps you could respond to the accusations.
Managers make mistakes. If they are big and frequent, there are much better (and more discreet) ways of bringing this up.
My initial response to this is: "No. Fuck that. Wrong is never right."
While I will be the first to admit that there's no need to ride rough-shod over someone's feelings, I detest situations where people can't distinguish between their intrinsic value as human beings and being wrong about something. Honestly, I have very little respect for someone for whom criticism is always an attack. And in (English-speaking) North American culture, that phenomenon is way, way too common. In fact, it's one of the reasons I stopped working in the North American corporate world.
This may come as a surprise to many, but disagreement does not imply personal conflict.
I'm not a jerk; I don't piss on people just for the hell of it. But I am always honest and straightforward. If I think something is wrong, I will say so in objective, neutral terms. If a superior chooses to interpret such language as an attack, that's their problem, not mine.
A very wise colleague of mine once told me that there are three stages of disagreement:
Apologise - never be too proud to concede that some criticisms hurt;
Ask how to do things better - always be willing to adjust;
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke - past a certain point, the problem is no longer your own.
Sorry, but that's really lame, short-sighted reasoning. Many of the features would be useful to average office workers, and the "confusion" is a very short-term thing. It's transient. It's not big enough to justify never upgrading, given all the other benefits (security, stability, easier to use, easier to support, etc, etc).
Unless you're suggesting a switch to Linux, in which case it's the only reason you'll ever need.
Okay, seriously: I can see the point on both sides of this argument. Change is disruptive, and until the change is accompanied by a perceived reward significant enough to offset the short-term discomfort, it's simply human nature to resist it.
Apple got a lot of people moving in their direction by very successfully leveraging the social benefits. (Snide remarks here and elsewhere about metrosexual hipster-wanna-be Apple users are a not-so-tacit criticism of this effect.) Linux got most of the geeks onside because it rewards technical prowess (or, in some cases, the illusion thereof).
But Windows has been relying on its own inertia^Wmomentum for so long that fear of change is a legitimate argument against upgrading. In short, the Windows XP user base is increasingly self-selected for this trait. My prediction: the first 20% for Windows 7 is the easy one.
This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.
It sounds like savvy business practice, and to some degree it is, but it is not at all the same as what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans do.
The Chinese Government has a great deal more control over their economy than other countries. Well, more to the point, they're willing to exert far greater control over their economy than most other nations are.
This is nothing new. Some of us have been trying to sound the warning about the myth of the China Market for years.
No more worrying if your neighbor is intercepting your calls. No more being paranoid of foreign governments. Conduct insider trading in front of the SEC!
Word on the street is Julian Assange has his very personal Navajo. No proper business man would be caught with out one.
- Paid for by the Navajo Talkers of America
This is insightful in a Haha Only Serious kind of way.
The fact of the matter is that a Personal Navajo is actually a pretty comprehensible way to present Public/Private Key cryptography to non-technical users.
Neither the app nor the methodology is public, and it will NOT be released
Kind of selfish, why should the only other owner of a Windows Phone 7 have to pay for their apps?
Okay, I chuckled, but there's an interesting point here:
This is a good opportunity to validate the argument that Windows' popularity is what makes it so prone to attack. Given that Windows Phone 7 is a minor player in the mobile market, it should be exploited significantly less[*] than Android and IOS, for example. Let's keep an eye on this and see whether that hypothesis is borne out....
--------------
[*] For the sake of this experiment, let's postulate that 'less' means a smaller number of exploits overall affecting a smaller percentage of the Windows Phone 7 user community overall.
There are dozens of organisations around the world who use the Internet to ensure Free Access to Law (Google '+LII +"Montreal Declaration"' for more about the movement). Many of these Legal Information Institutes require the assistance of legal experts in selecting, vetting and editing their online materials. There are new ones starting up right now in Western Africa, for example.
Access to online legal materials is a fundamentally important way to ensure rule of law and to help level the playing field between the state, established interests and the little guy. In my region, it's been extremely effective in helping people to understand the ways the laws are written (i.e. the way things should be) and to compare them to the way things actually are. It's not a panacea, but it's a pretty important tool in helping people protect their rights, both online and in meatspace.
If your friend is interested, have him contact the Cornell School of Law for details. Alternatively, he can contact me through my website.
Slashdot Mirror
What you have said is true. On the other hand, this latest nomination brings the award renewed credibility.
They gave it to the head of a terrorist organization: Yassir Arafat...... they have no credibility, and will never gain any until they revoke his.
Feh, Arafat was a dilettante, Henry Kissinger bombed an entire country illegally and they still gave him a Nobel Prize.
If I said that to my teacher when caught cheating, I doubt it would have had much sway.
Bad analogy. This isn't a test.
Yeah! Everybody knows there's no such thing as cheating in business.
Silly rabbit! Ethics is for kids!
I really wonder if people here (and also Google or Twitter) will remain so supportive if the end result turns out to vaguely (!!) resemble the Iranian Revolution from 3 decades ago...
Whether we like it or not, some of us accept the right of sovereign peoples to self-determination.
That said, most experts are not overly worried about Egypt becoming a theocracy driven by Sharia law. My guess is that the more likely scenario -in the short term, at least- is a muddled mess more reminiscent of Iraq than anywhere else. There are a number of long-repressed factions who are decidedly secular, and who represent important constituencies within the Egyptian population.
... That is, of course, unless the army decides to act 'for the good of the country' and impose its own ruler. Given that this is the way Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all came to power, this possibility should not be underestimated.
All Americans are fat and stupid. There. Can I please have my post modded up again now?
Perfect example of Slashdot groupthink: You just jump on that meme and ride it like a two dollar whore. Sheesh, geeks are so predictable!
Now mod me up, motherfuckers! This post is all meta and ironic and shit!
Wouldn't a better solution be to break-up the ISP Monopolies, just as we broke-up the AT&T Phone monopoly during the 1980s?
Trying to impose net neutrality is a good idea, but doesn't solve the CORE problem: Lack of choice for customers. They are treating the symptom rather than the root disease.
You don't by any chance write for the Economist, do you?
Seriously: It's times like this that I wish people in the US would get out a little more often, or at least admit that there might be other ways to do things than their own. There are tons of problems with the Internet in different countries around the world, but the US problem is (or rather, should be) the most easily rectified. Given the right conditions, there's no reason why ISPs wouldn't compete themselves back into a world-leading position in Internet services.
I'm a big proponent of Network Neutrality, in fact I'm on my (tiny little developing) country's Internet Governance steering committee. But I find it amusing and disturbing all at once that we're more able to let market forces drive Internet development than the US is.
It appears that the rumors that the Muslim Brotherhood are the main instigators in these protests is coming from the Egyptian government. Don't believe it. This is a populist uprising.
Indeed. I think it might well succeed[*], too, because the uprising is strikingly parallel to the French Revolution: It's the petit bourgoisie, the shopkeepers and tradespeople, who are rising, and all they're asking for is a chance to work for a living wage. This could gain a lot of steam in very little time.
---------
[*] By 'succeed', I mean to say that they might well end up deposing President Mubarak and ensuring that Gamal, his son, doesn't succeed him. Whether they descend into chaos and terror as the French did, or whether the military steps in (quite likely with US assistance[**]), or whether an actual democracy blossoms... well, that remains to be seen. I'm inclined to think that a military junta is the most likely outcome, at least in the short term.
[**] Egypt is a key US asset in the Middle East. America might be able to countenance an Egyptian government without a Mubarak at the head of it, but I'm nearly certain that they would sooner see the military in charge rather than even the chance of Islamist party rule.
The F-117 was used in the Serbian conflict because it had the ability to make quick, stealthy precision strikes on the Serbian air command, paving the way for the heavy cavalry to move in and decimate the ground forces.
When I visited Belgrade some years ago, I was told by someone in a position to know that US planes were actually kept away from the most demanding targets. Apparently, it was mostly the French (gasp!) who accounted for the strikes in downtown Belgrade. Their handiwork was impressive, to say the least: The Ministry of Defence building was completely destroyed, falling in on itself, while neighbouring buildings sported only a few nicks from flying debris.
The US were responsible for at least one raid in Belgrade itself. But more about that in a moment....
As a Hungarian, I'm also pleased that the one and only time the Goblin was downed was at the hands of a Hungarian commander, one Zoltán Dani, who used an old modified Russian radar unit operating at very long wavelengths to defeat the F-117's stealth capability, and used manual guidance on the missiles along with several spotters who reported the flight path.
At least some parts of the wreckage must have made it into the Chinese hands. That would account for the *cough* tragically mistaken bombing of the their Embassy. (The US knew what it was doing. If you don't think that NATO had spotters on the ground, you too are tragically mistaken.)
Could a greasemonkey script be written to update all links to HTTPS?
Ask and you shall receive: HTTPS Everywhere is a Firefox plugin that forces HTTPS not only on Facebook, but Google and numerous other sites, with the ability to configure still more.
Points of fact that doesn't serve your argument very well:
WWI was precipitated by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The war was started when an empire in decline decided to exert its will upon a state it had annexed and occupied for some years.
So, in truth, the lesson to be drawn here is that empires in decline should be wary of unbottling very powerful genies when they try to act in their declining years as they did in their prime. Kind of supports the GP's argument more than yours, I'm afraid to say.
WWII was started, not by Poland, but by Germany in its attempt to build an empire for itself. Here, the parallels are stronger between the US' recent bellicosity and Germany's. In both cases, we see unprovoked attacks against a strategically useful but virtually defenseless nation, resulting in tragic consequences, both the the aggressor and the defender. Yet again, an object lesson again that speaks more to the GP's point than yours.
Light travels 30 cm/sec? You sure about that? If that were true, I expect Einstein could have tested Special Relativity with a watch and a quick trot round the block.
What's this google?
Same as that Google, only closer.
This is a joke, i hope. It sounds elitist and exclusionary. A lot of great hackers are self taught. But, there a many people who learn by seeking the help of of others. There is nothing wrong with that. Who is to say they don't already know what Linux is? Do *you* know what Linux is and how it works? I've been using it for over 12 years, and I sure as heck don't! I still rely on the knowledge of other people to make the best use of the tools I have available. Some might argue that this is what it takes to be "any good".
Great point. I'd say the thing to do would be to leverage that collaborative spirit.
How about a '100 lines' assignment: Every class, a different student spends 5 minutes demonstrating what they've been able to accomplish with no more than 100 lines of Perl/Python/Ruby/Lisp/Whatever. Make half the mark discretionary based on the enthusiasm shown by the class for that particular hack. The value of the grade doesn't have to be high - just enough to put some stakes in the game. Once people see that a little ingenuity is rewarded amply in Linux, they'll have a different attitude toward the environment.
When I look back at all the quick and clever hacks I've worked up over the years, I'm reminded that 'hackability' is what keeps me using Linux. With Widget kits like Screenlets available these days, you'd be amazed what you can do....
That doesn't follow. The way in which an anonymous source is characterised is negotiated by the journalist and the source. The journalist typically wants to make the identity (or more to the point, the validity) of the source as clear as possible. The source wants to hide any detail that can identify them. In this case, because we're talking about a level of secrecy that, if breached, would almost certainly get someone killed, the source clearly didn't want any information released except that they knew what they were talking about.
This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.
Absolute nonsense. If you create and give away content online, you don't have to pay a license. If you create and sell content online, you do. The fees are small enough that they are not a realistic barrier.
Also, you are 100% false in claiming that they choice is to "pay or stop distributing the video". They can re-encode in WebM, Theora, or some other codec, if such a choice were actually the case.
Care to dig up some references other than "people have already testified here"? Relying on your memory of what you read on a forum filled with anti-H.264/pro-Open Source posters like here requires a fair bit of skepticism on such a claim.
And there is the crux of the issue: Assuming a strong distinction between consumer and producer, there's no problem. But anyone astride the cusp between the two is vulnerable to fees that could stop them from distributing a popular video made with H.264. People have already testified here that once the license regime kicks in (for distribution above a certain number) they suddenly gain the interest of the licensing body and have no choice but to pay or to stop distributing the video.
The idea that video content is made solely for profit is the worm in the middle of this particular apple. And it's likely why Google, with their huge investment in Youtube, want to give their users an alternative.
Time to go all grammar (well, vocabulary) nazi on you....
The word you want is Disclosure, not Disclaimer.
A disclosure is, in this case, a statement of conflict of interest: "I wrote this thing, so I might be biased about how good it is."
A disclaimer would be: "I wrote this thing and even I don't believe it!"
I'm pretty sure you meant the former, not the latter,
Until they outlaw compilers.... 8^)
Seriously, I think this analysis is a pretty overt attempt to sully FOSS' reputation by characterising it as a tool of autocrats, yet ignoring the very characteristics that make it resistant to abuse. The unspoken comparison here is that commercial, proprietary software represents Freedom and the American Way while FOSS is the product of greasy hippies who have once again sold out democracy in pursuit of their Leftist ideals.
Yes, I'm overstating the case, but just because the author used genteel language doesn't make his point any more subtle or accurate.
There are a number of things that Morozov might have fit into the space provided that would have made a more nuanced point. Not the least of which is the ability to, uh, view the source, meaning that even if you are using State-sponsored software, at very least you can see what they're doing. The prospect of removing the nasty bits is also left untouched.
It's possible, even likely, that Russia and others actually do think that they can keep the source open for themselves and closed to others. But that's only because they too haven't thought it all the way through.
Lastly, Morozov's point about a 'walled' web is not fundamentally wrong, but he neglects to mention that there's more movement toward a 'walled garden' vision of the Net from the commercial actors than from state actors.
Yeah, because principled people dine on fluffy clouds of candy floss delivered by unicorns. They don't need any of that filthy lucre! How dare that bastard defend Wikileaks' interest like any other business would? For shame!
Look: Assange is a jerk, and an angry one at that. So when he sees the Guardian positioning itself to take Wikileaks out of the decision-making process as to when and how the leaks get released, he pitches a fit. But he's also smart and technically astute, so he consults his lawyer, who tells him that in order to get an injunction stopping publication, Assange needs to demonstrate that he owns the material in question. Furthermore, he can threaten to sue for damages if he claims financial losses.
For Assange, this is a reasonable approximation of the truth, and he's willing to use that line if it will pull the Guardian back into line, so that he can coordinate the release of the US diplomatic cables across 5 different news organisations. So he storms into the Editor's office, attorney by his side, and stakes his claim.
Some of the Guardian staff, who are tired of Assange (because he's a jerk), want to tell him to go get stuffed. But the Editor sees that things could get messy. He gets everyone seated around a table and after a lot of talking (and some wine), everyone calms down.
This is one of the most mundane little bits of newsroom drama imaginable. Egos get out of line, everyone fights over the right to release, and editors do what they do, which is to herd all the cats back into line.
If anyone for a moment thinks that Assange is trying to cash in on this, they really need to learn a little about the guy. The Vanity Fair story itself says that for years he had only two outfits. He sleeps on people's couches, for heaven's sake. The guy can act like a paranoid prick, yes, but there's a hell of a lot more Stallman in him than Zuckerberg.
No, not at all. Now quick picking at the shiny bits of the story and try seeing what actually happened.
is being spread through Cryptome. The rumor that he is an informant for the Austrlian Federal Police does seem to be backed up by the story about him receiving warnings from Austrlian intelligence about dirty tricks.
That's the funniest thing I've heard so far this year. Congratulations!
Seriously: Could you provide even the slightest corroboration for this?
And while you're at it, I'd appreciate if you could respond to the stories floating around here lately that you're just making these accusations to draw attention away from the fact that you're a serial killer who stuffs live puppies and kittens into the gutted corpses of your victims and then burns them alive in a satanic death cult ritual.
... I'm not saying you actually did that, but now that people are talking, perhaps you could respond to the accusations.
Managers make mistakes. If they are big and frequent, there are much better (and more discreet) ways of bringing this up.
My initial response to this is: "No. Fuck that. Wrong is never right."
While I will be the first to admit that there's no need to ride rough-shod over someone's feelings, I detest situations where people can't distinguish between their intrinsic value as human beings and being wrong about something. Honestly, I have very little respect for someone for whom criticism is always an attack. And in (English-speaking) North American culture, that phenomenon is way, way too common. In fact, it's one of the reasons I stopped working in the North American corporate world.
This may come as a surprise to many, but disagreement does not imply personal conflict.
I'm not a jerk; I don't piss on people just for the hell of it. But I am always honest and straightforward. If I think something is wrong, I will say so in objective, neutral terms. If a superior chooses to interpret such language as an attack, that's their problem, not mine.
A very wise colleague of mine once told me that there are three stages of disagreement:
Sorry, but that's really lame, short-sighted reasoning. Many of the features would be useful to average office workers, and the "confusion" is a very short-term thing. It's transient. It's not big enough to justify never upgrading, given all the other benefits (security, stability, easier to use, easier to support, etc, etc).
Unless you're suggesting a switch to Linux, in which case it's the only reason you'll ever need.
Okay, seriously: I can see the point on both sides of this argument. Change is disruptive, and until the change is accompanied by a perceived reward significant enough to offset the short-term discomfort, it's simply human nature to resist it.
Apple got a lot of people moving in their direction by very successfully leveraging the social benefits. (Snide remarks here and elsewhere about metrosexual hipster-wanna-be Apple users are a not-so-tacit criticism of this effect.) Linux got most of the geeks onside because it rewards technical prowess (or, in some cases, the illusion thereof).
But Windows has been relying on its own inertia^Wmomentum for so long that fear of change is a legitimate argument against upgrading. In short, the Windows XP user base is increasingly self-selected for this trait. My prediction: the first 20% for Windows 7 is the easy one.
This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.
It sounds like savvy business practice, and to some degree it is, but it is not at all the same as what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans do.
The Chinese Government has a great deal more control over their economy than other countries. Well, more to the point, they're willing to exert far greater control over their economy than most other nations are.
This is nothing new. Some of us have been trying to sound the warning about the myth of the China Market for years.
Rent a Navajo Today!
No more worrying if your neighbor is intercepting your calls. No more being paranoid of foreign governments. Conduct insider trading in front of the SEC!
Word on the street is Julian Assange has his very personal Navajo. No proper business man would be caught with out one.
- Paid for by the Navajo Talkers of America
This is insightful in a Haha Only Serious kind of way.
The fact of the matter is that a Personal Navajo is actually a pretty comprehensible way to present Public/Private Key cryptography to non-technical users.
Neither the app nor the methodology is public, and it will NOT be released
Kind of selfish, why should the only other owner of a Windows Phone 7 have to pay for their apps?
Okay, I chuckled, but there's an interesting point here:
This is a good opportunity to validate the argument that Windows' popularity is what makes it so prone to attack. Given that Windows Phone 7 is a minor player in the mobile market, it should be exploited significantly less[*] than Android and IOS, for example. Let's keep an eye on this and see whether that hypothesis is borne out....
--------------
[*] For the sake of this experiment, let's postulate that 'less' means a smaller number of exploits overall affecting a smaller percentage of the Windows Phone 7 user community overall.
There are dozens of organisations around the world who use the Internet to ensure Free Access to Law (Google '+LII +"Montreal Declaration"' for more about the movement). Many of these Legal Information Institutes require the assistance of legal experts in selecting, vetting and editing their online materials. There are new ones starting up right now in Western Africa, for example.
Access to online legal materials is a fundamentally important way to ensure rule of law and to help level the playing field between the state, established interests and the little guy. In my region, it's been extremely effective in helping people to understand the ways the laws are written (i.e. the way things should be) and to compare them to the way things actually are. It's not a panacea, but it's a pretty important tool in helping people protect their rights, both online and in meatspace.
If your friend is interested, have him contact the Cornell School of Law for details. Alternatively, he can contact me through my website.