I don't see many posts defending the defendant, most posts are about the ruling that a certificate of authenticity, the piece of paper that MS and the BSA have for years been telling us is proof of our licence isn't, in English law, proof of a licence. So now there is a lot of confusion about what exactly is proof.
I am one of the privileged few who have been granted access.
Then spill the beans man! What's it like? (Google NDAs not withstanding):-)
My biggest questions is does it have any macro capability - I take it from "not much functioanlity to test" then it's probably lacking that (I didn't see many mention of it on the preview pages).
Just remember that the day your health insurance goes up because they bought your profile from google and see you are too fat...
The day Google is intelligent enough to understand that your weight loss spreadsheet is your weight loss spreadsheet and not your stock portfolio or club events list, is a day that you'll have a hell of lot more things to worry about than your medical insurance going up.
Why would anyone store their documents on any outside corporation's server,
Because they keep thier offsite backups with a 3rd party company? Having another company looking after your data is nothing new. Hell, when computers were new, that's exactly how most companies accessed computers, they rented processing and storage from a 3rd party data processing company.
No business is going to trust google to store it documents and spreadsheets.
Why? Plenty of business trust 3rd parties to look after thier backups, so how is this that much different? For most small/medium businesses having your data located at Google's data center is probably going to be a better option than having the data locally - no need to worry about backups and Google are generally really good with uptime. It's not going to be a solution for the Fortune 500, but it doesn't mean that it's not a solution for some businesses.
or internet access becomes really ubiquitious. (No, EVDO doesn't cut it -- I'm talking about something that every junior consultant and secretary can have, wireless internet is still too expensive for that.)
But a secretary would be using it from an office, most likely from a desktop (or if she/he is using a laptop, it would be a laptop that never actually leaves the desk) and would therefore be constantly online.
I understand how keeping your data with a third party company is a concern, but a lot of companies keep there backup data offsite with a 3rd party company already - so companies are already used to having 3rd parties look after thier data. It would also be a great way to avoid users taking data out of the company on easily looseable/stealable devices, such as ipods and laptops. They can work on work from home, with no need to worry about licencing issues if they're using thier own equipment. No need to worry about secured VPN's back to the office to get the spreadsheet files off the company file server. And google will be taking care of the backups, so it's one less thing to worry about.
I think there are a lot more business reasons for a solution like Google's offering than most people are giving it credit for. Sure, it won't be for every business, but I think a lot of business will find it to be of some use.
I know this is taking the discussion a little off track, but your experimental data and notes may not be yours to disclose.
Isn't that more of an issue with post-graduate research, as oppossed to undergraduate homework (ie, if everybody in the class is doing the exact same experiment, there probably isn't going to be that much patentable invention going on, is there)? And it's not as if the homework is being particularly "disclosed" anyway - it's assumed to private (as I assume Google Spreadsheets will have private as well as public sheets, exactly like they have private and public calendars), it's just that some unscrupulous cheater might hack into his google account somehow - and I don't see this as being that much different from a cheater hacking into his uni account and copying an XLS file from the file server. Hell, when I was at uni home directories were world readable by default and a lot of "inspiration" was going on - so Google would be more secure in that case.
There is so little functionality that there is very little to actually test.
Umm, how do you know? Are you one of the priviliged few who's been granted access, or are you just going by the screenshots (of which there are what, 3)? Until people actually get a chance to play with Google Spreadsheets, then it's all just speculation as to what it's capable of.
If "Interpersonal and group work skills" are so important, why aren't they taught? They are not really taught at school - the sports field is not the office environment (sports metaphors not withstanding) and where the environment is closest to the office (ie, classwork) working together can bring allegations of plagarism and cheating. They're not a part of any university classes I've seen either.
I think IT workers get unfairly lumped as people with "poor interpersonal and group work skills", simply because people with a more introverted dispostion are attracted to it than to other professions. A lot people assume that just because you're quiet, you lack interpersonal skills, completely ignoreing the fact that a lot of extroverts aren't actually that good when it comes to interpersonal skills - all that talking is assumed to be an example of "good interpersonal skills" when it's actually a lot of BS and politics (with a good amount of backstabbing). Most introverts where I know work really well with other people, while a lot of I know extroverts (and especially the ones I know at work) are great at blowing hot air but don't work at all well with other people.
Why don't they work on infusing more real world type projects into their comp sci majors instead?
Because that might make a comp sci degree that actually has some use in the real world (and thus require real work from the lecturers), as oppossed to comp sci degrees that are really only for "professionalism" checklists(Degree? check, Suit? check, ability to use sports metaphors for "interpersonal communication skills"? check) - which are a lot easier to teach.
Although I'm not particularly paranoid, I have no loyalty cards, only one credit card, frequently pay with cash and never borrow.
It's because of people like you that we're getting identity cards. Would it have killed you to join Tesco's loyalty programme?;-)
renting to avoid local government records
How does renting help? You still need to be on the electoral register and you need to pay council tax - in both cases it doesn't matter if you're renting or owning. And what about TV Licencing? Not having a TV License is almost as likely to land you on a government database as having one is.
generally finding ways to disappear
Good luck to them, but life as a blank has got to suck, and it's just going to get worse as time goes by.
Throw in some ultra-aggression born from having to compete in a male world, and if you can't reach the goal they expect, well...
But if she's a power secretary and not the CEO, then she's not really competing in "a man's world", is she? She's competeting in what is traditionally a woman's world.
There's really no call for such bitch-queen behaviour anymore - if they really want power, why don't they get it for themselves instead of riding on somebody's coattails?
The Ken Lays of the world didn't get the big bucks from playing by the rules.
There was a TV programme on a while back that pitted self made millionaires versus ordinary office staff in various challenges (to see what the pychological differences were) - the biggest difference was the amount of stretching, bending and breaking of the rules done by the millionaires (they would cheat at the first opprotunity). So it does seem that in order to be really successful you have to not play by the rules.
You need a commitment to freedom and liberty codified in that country's legal principles, so no power hungry leader can take them away . . . like a constitution or something that clearly limits government power.
Of course, a constitution is a piece of paper (except in the UK, where's it's not even that). So it really affords you no protection. Guns won't help you, as the government is bound to have bigger, better guns than you can hope to afford (the joys of taxation). Peaceful protest may or may not work - it's effectiveness seems to be related to how likely the military are to shoot thier own citizens (so if the government can make the military believe that the population are the enemy, you're probably going to loose). Voting might work, if people can be bothered.
Based on this, France is probably the place to go - it has a consitution (not that it matters much), popular protest does appear to work (as has been recently demonstrated) and the French do occasionly get out and vote (much to the chagrin of the European Elite).
The other option is "if you can't beat'em, join'em". If you're thinking of leaving, you've already made a step in the right direction - you are definatly thinking of youself first. So, why bother about people's freedoms being trampled if you can be one of those doing the trampling?
Bin Laden is a rather singular counter argument. Loosely affiliated Al_Qaida terror cells like those that attacked Madrid and London still need electronic communications to function. They also certainly need them to operate in North America.
But it doesn't take much sophistication to use electronic communications that are not picked up by these sweeping measures. So the terrorist's electronic communications will not be monitored, but mine and everyone else's will.
In fact, the ability to communicate with whoever you want without surveillance is probably FAR more important to any potential citizen resistance to an oppressive government than handguns are, and you can see which way that right is going.
That would make a great conspiracy. Make people believe that having guns is "the ultimate example of citizen rights", all while eroding any rights that could actually be effectivly used against the government. So people believe they're free, as they can "overthrow the government at anytime" - even though they can't. And if having guns makes the country more violent then that's even better as it means the government can be "tough on crime".
Having a gun in my hand is an excellent deterrant to those who might want to take advantage of me or my property
Are there a lot of people out there looking to take advantage of you or your property? All the pro gun arguments here make it sound like the US is a third world nation, where somebody's going to rob you as soon as they get the chance (let alone the whole "corrupt and tyrannical" government thing).
Its extremely important that we don't forget the Holocaust so that it never happens again.
But you shouldn't have to curtail free speech to do it. If some idiot wants to spout lies about the holocost then you point out how wrong the person is. You don't stop the person from saying it.
The right to keep and bear arms is indeed an acknowledgement that a mere 200+ years ago this country was won with arms used to rise up against an oppresive government (you've gotten much better, UK;) and that the time may come again when action is necessary.
If some people in the US really did try an revolt against the US government, do you honestly believe that their right to keep and bear arms is going to help them in any way? The government is going to have more and better guns than the populace. The government and the US itself is orders of magnitude larger than the colonial government and the colonies - so a group who feel that the government is tyrannical is going to have one hell of a job on it's hands. And I somehow doubt that any of the media will be on the side of the "terrorists", so good luck trying to win hearts and minds. So you have a bunch of guns around that are of absolutly no use for thier intended purpose, but their easy supply only ends up harming your society.
There are a lot of cops out there who can't shoot worth a damn and police departments are legendary for resistance to change. Do you trust them with your daily safety? I don't.
What I don't understand about this is argument is that if the police really are so bad that you (and a large amount of the population) don't trust them with your daily safety, why have them at all? If the police are so incompetent/corrupt that you don't feel safe without access to guns, why pay thier wages? These arguments give the impression that the police are not worth the money spent on them. But I rarely see people campaigning for fewer cops.
I'm from the UK where we are pretty fierce about our privacy
Since when? We're getting not just this, but all emails sent via an ISP's mail servers recorded as well (and they've convinced the rest of the EU to go along with it). Where's the public uproar?
Slashdot Mirror
You are actually defending organized crime here.
I don't see many posts defending the defendant, most posts are about the ruling that a certificate of authenticity, the piece of paper that MS and the BSA have for years been telling us is proof of our licence isn't, in English law, proof of a licence. So now there is a lot of confusion about what exactly is proof.
This ruling was made in another country,
yeah, in the country I live in. You do realize that slashdot is read by people who live outside the US, don't you?
I am one of the privileged few who have been granted access.
:-)
Then spill the beans man! What's it like? (Google NDAs not withstanding)
My biggest questions is does it have any macro capability - I take it from "not much functioanlity to test" then it's probably lacking that (I didn't see many mention of it on the preview pages).
Just remember that the day your health insurance goes up because they bought your profile from google and see you are too fat...
The day Google is intelligent enough to understand that your weight loss spreadsheet is your weight loss spreadsheet and not your stock portfolio or club events list, is a day that you'll have a hell of lot more things to worry about than your medical insurance going up.
Why would anyone store their documents on any outside corporation's server,
Because they keep thier offsite backups with a 3rd party company? Having another company looking after your data is nothing new. Hell, when computers were new, that's exactly how most companies accessed computers, they rented processing and storage from a 3rd party data processing company.
No business is going to trust google to store it documents and spreadsheets.
Why? Plenty of business trust 3rd parties to look after thier backups, so how is this that much different? For most small/medium businesses having your data located at Google's data center is probably going to be a better option than having the data locally - no need to worry about backups and Google are generally really good with uptime. It's not going to be a solution for the Fortune 500, but it doesn't mean that it's not a solution for some businesses.
or internet access becomes really ubiquitious. (No, EVDO doesn't cut it -- I'm talking about something that every junior consultant and secretary can have, wireless internet is still too expensive for that.)
But a secretary would be using it from an office, most likely from a desktop (or if she/he is using a laptop, it would be a laptop that never actually leaves the desk) and would therefore be constantly online.
I understand how keeping your data with a third party company is a concern, but a lot of companies keep there backup data offsite with a 3rd party company already - so companies are already used to having 3rd parties look after thier data. It would also be a great way to avoid users taking data out of the company on easily looseable/stealable devices, such as ipods and laptops. They can work on work from home, with no need to worry about licencing issues if they're using thier own equipment. No need to worry about secured VPN's back to the office to get the spreadsheet files off the company file server. And google will be taking care of the backups, so it's one less thing to worry about.
I think there are a lot more business reasons for a solution like Google's offering than most people are giving it credit for. Sure, it won't be for every business, but I think a lot of business will find it to be of some use.
I know this is taking the discussion a little off track, but your experimental data and notes may not be yours to disclose.
Isn't that more of an issue with post-graduate research, as oppossed to undergraduate homework (ie, if everybody in the class is doing the exact same experiment, there probably isn't going to be that much patentable invention going on, is there)? And it's not as if the homework is being particularly "disclosed" anyway - it's assumed to private (as I assume Google Spreadsheets will have private as well as public sheets, exactly like they have private and public calendars), it's just that some unscrupulous cheater might hack into his google account somehow - and I don't see this as being that much different from a cheater hacking into his uni account and copying an XLS file from the file server. Hell, when I was at uni home directories were world readable by default and a lot of "inspiration" was going on - so Google would be more secure in that case.
What would prevent Google from licensing this application to businesses as something that can be run on local web-servers?
Nothing at all - especially as they already sell servers with thier search engine on it.
There is so little functionality that there is very little to actually test.
Umm, how do you know? Are you one of the priviliged few who's been granted access, or are you just going by the screenshots (of which there are what, 3)? Until people actually get a chance to play with Google Spreadsheets, then it's all just speculation as to what it's capable of.
If "Interpersonal and group work skills" are so important, why aren't they taught? They are not really taught at school - the sports field is not the office environment (sports metaphors not withstanding) and where the environment is closest to the office (ie, classwork) working together can bring allegations of plagarism and cheating. They're not a part of any university classes I've seen either.
I think IT workers get unfairly lumped as people with "poor interpersonal and group work skills", simply because people with a more introverted dispostion are attracted to it than to other professions. A lot people assume that just because you're quiet, you lack interpersonal skills, completely ignoreing the fact that a lot of extroverts aren't actually that good when it comes to interpersonal skills - all that talking is assumed to be an example of "good interpersonal skills" when it's actually a lot of BS and politics (with a good amount of backstabbing). Most introverts where I know work really well with other people, while a lot of I know extroverts (and especially the ones I know at work) are great at blowing hot air but don't work at all well with other people.
Why don't they work on infusing more real world type projects into their comp sci majors instead?
Because that might make a comp sci degree that actually has some use in the real world (and thus require real work from the lecturers), as oppossed to comp sci degrees that are really only for "professionalism" checklists(Degree? check, Suit? check, ability to use sports metaphors for "interpersonal communication skills"? check) - which are a lot easier to teach.
Although I'm not particularly paranoid, I have no loyalty cards, only one credit card, frequently pay with cash and never borrow.
;-)
It's because of people like you that we're getting identity cards. Would it have killed you to join Tesco's loyalty programme?
renting to avoid local government records
How does renting help? You still need to be on the electoral register and you need to pay council tax - in both cases it doesn't matter if you're renting or owning. And what about TV Licencing? Not having a TV License is almost as likely to land you on a government database as having one is.
generally finding ways to disappear
Good luck to them, but life as a blank has got to suck, and it's just going to get worse as time goes by.
Throw in some ultra-aggression born from having to compete in a male world, and if you can't reach the goal they expect, well ...
But if she's a power secretary and not the CEO, then she's not really competing in "a man's world", is she? She's competeting in what is traditionally a woman's world.
There's really no call for such bitch-queen behaviour anymore - if they really want power, why don't they get it for themselves instead of riding on somebody's coattails?
The Ken Lays of the world didn't get the big bucks from playing by the rules.
There was a TV programme on a while back that pitted self made millionaires versus ordinary office staff in various challenges (to see what the pychological differences were) - the biggest difference was the amount of stretching, bending and breaking of the rules done by the millionaires (they would cheat at the first opprotunity). So it does seem that in order to be really successful you have to not play by the rules.
You need a commitment to freedom and liberty codified in that country's legal principles, so no power hungry leader can take them away . . . like a constitution or something that clearly limits government power.
Of course, a constitution is a piece of paper (except in the UK, where's it's not even that). So it really affords you no protection. Guns won't help you, as the government is bound to have bigger, better guns than you can hope to afford (the joys of taxation). Peaceful protest may or may not work - it's effectiveness seems to be related to how likely the military are to shoot thier own citizens (so if the government can make the military believe that the population are the enemy, you're probably going to loose). Voting might work, if people can be bothered.
Based on this, France is probably the place to go - it has a consitution (not that it matters much), popular protest does appear to work (as has been recently demonstrated) and the French do occasionly get out and vote (much to the chagrin of the European Elite).
The other option is "if you can't beat'em, join'em". If you're thinking of leaving, you've already made a step in the right direction - you are definatly thinking of youself first. So, why bother about people's freedoms being trampled if you can be one of those doing the trampling?
Bin Laden is a rather singular counter argument. Loosely affiliated Al_Qaida terror cells like those that attacked Madrid and London still need electronic communications to function. They also certainly need them to operate in North America.
But it doesn't take much sophistication to use electronic communications that are not picked up by these sweeping measures. So the terrorist's electronic communications will not be monitored, but mine and everyone else's will.
In fact, the ability to communicate with whoever you want without surveillance is probably FAR more important to any potential citizen resistance to an oppressive government than handguns are, and you can see which way that right is going.
That would make a great conspiracy. Make people believe that having guns is "the ultimate example of citizen rights", all while eroding any rights that could actually be effectivly used against the government. So people believe they're free, as they can "overthrow the government at anytime" - even though they can't. And if having guns makes the country more violent then that's even better as it means the government can be "tough on crime".
Having a gun in my hand is an excellent deterrant
to those who might want to take advantage of me or my property
Are there a lot of people out there looking to take advantage of you or your property? All the pro gun arguments here make it sound like the US is a third world nation, where somebody's going to rob you as soon as they get the chance (let alone the whole "corrupt and tyrannical" government thing).
Its extremely important that we don't forget the Holocaust so that it never happens again.
But you shouldn't have to curtail free speech to do it. If some idiot wants to spout lies about the holocost then you point out how wrong the person is. You don't stop the person from saying it.
The right to keep and bear arms is indeed an acknowledgement that a mere 200+ years ago this country was won with arms used to rise up against an oppresive government (you've gotten much better, UK ;) and that the time may come again when action is necessary.
If some people in the US really did try an revolt against the US government, do you honestly believe that their right to keep and bear arms is going to help them in any way? The government is going to have more and better guns than the populace. The government and the US itself is orders of magnitude larger than the colonial government and the colonies - so a group who feel that the government is tyrannical is going to have one hell of a job on it's hands. And I somehow doubt that any of the media will be on the side of the "terrorists", so good luck trying to win hearts and minds. So you have a bunch of guns around that are of absolutly no use for thier intended purpose, but their easy supply only ends up harming your society.
There are a lot of cops out there who can't shoot worth a damn and police departments are legendary for resistance to change. Do you trust them with your daily safety? I don't.
What I don't understand about this is argument is that if the police really are so bad that you (and a large amount of the population) don't trust them with your daily safety, why have them at all? If the police are so incompetent/corrupt that you don't feel safe without access to guns, why pay thier wages? These arguments give the impression that the police are not worth the money spent on them. But I rarely see people campaigning for fewer cops.
very uncomfortable. It's something I campaign against.
You might feel uncomfortable, but you know that most people have been sold on the CCTV idea and even feel uncomfortable without them. Myself included.
..the United States does better than other countries. The UK for example, does not allow its citizens to own handguns.
You do realize that most people in the UK would feel that you have that one backwards? - Not allowing handgins is seen as a good thing.
I'm from the UK where we are pretty fierce about our privacy
Since when? We're getting not just this, but all emails sent via an ISP's mail servers recorded as well (and they've convinced the rest of the EU to go along with it). Where's the public uproar?