We need to allow app makers to do the things and offer the services we can't, the really intrusive stuff that we need plausible deniability over, and by monetizing our data via licensed app services which perform tasks which we find morally ambiguous we can keep our new and desperate shareholders happy in both ways.
But it's not really intrusive. People can change their privacy settings. Also big corporations are allowed to do it, so why not let everyone else in on it?
Such as the political positions of our friends, how useful is that? What products our friends might want in the future, how useful is that? How our friends feel about certain things and who in the social network have feelings in common, how useful is that? The job prospects and career prospects of our friends, how useful is that?
When all the data points are connected and social network analysis properly conducted you can learn a lot of the mysteries about people that wouldn't ordinarily be easily known. This is incredibly important and can make Facebook actually useful to me.
We need the ability to run any algorithm we want, we need an API to build apps to take advantage of it, we need the full range and capabilities of social network analysis, we need to be able to use intelligent agents to regularly collect opinion and other analytic information about our friends to help us make better decisions.
How many of my friends like X is important, but that's not going deep enough in my opinion. How many of my friends use certain phases, now we are getting somewhere useful. How popular are certain phrases in my social network? Useful. What are the common attitudes and trends of my social network? Useful. What about location data? How many hours do my friends spend on the road or are they mostly at home? What about even deeper? Specific topics like say how many of my friends like violence, and then it can show that certain friends like violent movies, video games, books, are members of the NRA, etc.
There is more, such as associations the ability to find correlations, do regression analysis, and even make predictions on what my friends might like or what topics they might dislike.
Right now it's just a toy. They need to expand on it greatly so that we can do legitimate social network analysis research with it and even use it to make decisions.
Just like there are no moral rights or moral responsibilities. Your terse statement is impetuous, repugnant and highly inflamnatory. God will punish you for this.
Mac hardware today is no better or worse than a PC. It's the same goddamn components.
A PC running OSX on a virtual machine is better than a Mac and cheaper.
No, it's not better. For one thing, running OS X in a virtual machine on a non-Apple PC is a license violation. For another, you get to deal with Windows, the avoidance of which is a big reason why many people migrate to Macs in the first place.
But not for the same price. On the Mac you end up paying for the Apple brand. Macbooks cost x3 the cost of a PC Laptop.
I got a Mac Mini about 6 months ago to work on software for OS X which also runs on Linux and Windows. My software uses Qt and I figured that I would try using OS X as my main computer and connect to Linux and Windows using ssh, vnc and/or rdesktop. I gave OS X about 6 weeks and it was OK for many things. I did not find myself relieved that things "just worked" on OS X. Instead I found that quite a few programs I used under Linux were difficult to get to work on OS X. I had troubles with kile and ksudoku. I had problems using X applications over ssh to Linux. Apparently OS X supports the connection for about an hour or so. Overall I found it mildly frustrating compared to Linux, through better than Windows.
A little later I tried Windows as the main machine using vnc to connect to Linux and OS X. This was marginally smoother than using OS X as my main system, but after a few months of trying alternatives I am back to using Linux as my main system using vnc to connect to OS X and Windows.
Now I certainly don't care if Miguel likes OS X better. Whatever works best for him should be his choice. OS X could have been totally Linux friendly if Apple wanted to be more cooperative. If they had, I might have been a convert. As is, it is not nearly as easy to get software to work on OS X as Ubuntu.
Try running OSX from Linux as a virtual machine. Get the benefits of a PC power and openness with the ability to run all Mac software.
Linux could have dominated the Desktop in 2006 or perhaps even sooner but he was pushing Mono and talking about how Microsoft was just better. He kept trying to morph Linux into another version of Windows. Then when it had all the problems associated with Windows thats when he goes over to OSX?
What's the problem with that? Icaza is not a member of linux community since many years ago. He was an important fellow, but not anymore. Also, THIS IS A FREE WORLD, if he decided to change, he is completely free to do that. No problem, really. There always will be people, like me and *many* others, who enjoys the liberty of FOSS community. Everybody is free to use the OS of their choice.
The problem is he's trying his best to make Linux and the PC uncool. The PC and Linux represent openness. Finally the PC and Linux are the BEST for the Desktop and he chooses now to say this? He didn't say this 10 years ago when he was pushing Linux on the Desktop with Mono and all that crap. The fact that he named it Mono was bad enough. It's almost like he wanted to infect the Linux community with it.
"Machine would suspend and resume without problem, WiFi just worked, audio did not stop working, I spend three weeks without having to recompile the kernel to adjust this or that, nor fighting the video drivers,"
Interesting, that is identical to the experience that I have with Debian. Even people on Arch don't need to "recompile the kernel to adjust this or that." But I hope he enjoys his Mac.
So he wants us to believe he's a newbie now? I've been using Linux since 2000 and he's one of the guys who was writing Gnome and all that and I'm supposed to believe he's annoyed at compiling kernels? That is BS.It makes me think he was paid to say it.
It's like Bill Gates saying how easy to use Windows 8 is.
So I cannot make sense of him switching from the superior PC hardware to the inferior overpriced crippleware of Apple. I've owned an Apple laptop and it just stopped working one day. Unlike a PC I couldn't just open it up and repair it. It's expensive to repair, required special screwdrivers just to open it up, it's harder and more expensive to upgrade and in many cases it's limited in how much it can be upgraded.
It's better to run a PC running Linux on state of the art hardware and then load up a VMWare virtual machine. Someone with the money of that guy should have enough money to build a state of the art Virtual Data Center. There is no reason why someone with his expertise and money would be using standalone platforms anymore because he should be using his own personal cloud at home, his own personal datacenter, and run virtual machines of any OS he wants to all on the PC.
So why would he run Mac hardware? Mac hardware can't do as much.
To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, the multiple incompatible distros
So he chooses to get his hardware and software from one vendor. Okay thats very neat and simple but he could get it from Canonical as well, or one of the BSD projects.
He could run OSX FROM LINUX under a Virtual Machine. This move is entirely the move of a paid shill. Only a paid shill would actually switch platforms from a superior set of hardware to an inferior set of hardware at a loss. He's going to actually waste money literally on the Apple brand hardware? It makes NO SENSE for someone with his level of computational understand unless he's a shill.
I respect his knowledge and skill, but the man has acted like a shill for Microsoft in the past and he's now acting like a shill for Apple. I can even respect him acting like a shill but does he have to announce it like this? It makes me sick to my stomach to read that.
He makes moves which look and smell like the moves of someone who truly hates Free Software or just someone who doesn't get it. If your goal is to use OSX because OSX works better then you'd run Virtualbox or even VMware and then run OSX on that.
Why would you run OSX on the Apple hardware unless you actually believe in Apples philosophy and if you believe in that philosophy then you're opposed to Free Software because it's the exact opposite philosophy. Apple releases crippleware hardware, and they lock you in with their software like Itunes.
And the PC is objectively better than the Mac hardware. You can run OSX on the PC. I know because I've done it. You can run OSX as a virtual machine and it runs faster because it can run on PC hardware. Who the hell would run OSX on Mac hardware? That is suspect for someone with as much knowledge as him.
He could run Linux and then run OSX as a virtual machine and it would actually run faster than running it on the crippled Mac Hardware. The title doesn't say he switched to OSX. No one would care. It says he switched to Mac.
Mac hardware sucks compared to the PC. A PC running OSX on a virtual machine is better than a Mac and cheaper. Why would he do this? I always suspected he was selling out, and he's fueling these rumors with his behavior. Remember him pushing Mono/.Net? Remember him defending Microsoft?
When you're called before a Grand Jury in the US, you don't have the right to remain silent. The prosecution can effectively force you to answer questions, and if you refuse, you can be jailed for years.
It's still good advice to say absolutely nothing, but it's not as simple as most of you seem to believe. By saying nothing, you are condemning yourself to jail.
This is why pretty much only anarchists refuse to cooperate with Grand Juries, because they have a fundamental ideological opposition to the legal system and will never cooperate with the prosecution, even when their right not to cooperate is suspended. It's one thing to legally exercise your rights, it's another to be willing to go to jail for them.
Then go to jail in protest if its something you believe in strongly. Don't help the prosecutor if its something you don't believe in.
To be an activist is to be a warrior. Nothing is gained by activism except for a lengthy FBI file and informants spreading lies about you, rumors, and trying to entrap you into crimes for their bosses.They do this because they committed a crime and agreed with police to become informants to help bring down the enemies of the police through entrapment.
That is the system and it's corrupt by design. If you support Wikileaks then don't be surprised if your friends from years stop talking to you. Look at what a government investigation can do here http://www.jbhfile.com/harm_examples.html and think twice about supporting Wikileaks.
"anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you (and others)"
Obviously not.
Even stuff you didnt say or do could be used against you if an informant says you said it or did it and enough people believe it. The justice system is rotten to the core.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are smart enough for MIT then perhaps that can be your charm. Whether or not you can wear a suit and tie is irrelevant in 2013.
We need to allow app makers to do the things and offer the services we can't, the really intrusive stuff that we need plausible deniability over, and by monetizing our data via licensed app services which perform tasks which we find morally ambiguous we can keep our new and desperate shareholders happy in both ways.
But it's not really intrusive. People can change their privacy settings. Also big corporations are allowed to do it, so why not let everyone else in on it?
Such as the political positions of our friends, how useful is that?
What products our friends might want in the future, how useful is that?
How our friends feel about certain things and who in the social network have feelings in common, how useful is that?
The job prospects and career prospects of our friends, how useful is that?
When all the data points are connected and social network analysis properly conducted you can learn a lot of the mysteries about people that wouldn't ordinarily be easily known. This is incredibly important and can make Facebook actually useful to me.
We need the ability to run any algorithm we want, we need an API to build apps to take advantage of it, we need the full range and capabilities of social network analysis, we need to be able to use intelligent agents to regularly collect opinion and other analytic information about our friends to help us make better decisions.
How many of my friends like X is important, but that's not going deep enough in my opinion. How many of my friends use certain phases, now we are getting somewhere useful. How popular are certain phrases in my social network? Useful. What are the common attitudes and trends of my social network? Useful. What about location data? How many hours do my friends spend on the road or are they mostly at home? What about even deeper? Specific topics like say how many of my friends like violence, and then it can show that certain friends like violent movies, video games, books, are members of the NRA, etc.
There is more, such as associations the ability to find correlations, do regression analysis, and even make predictions on what my friends might like or what topics they might dislike.
Right now it's just a toy. They need to expand on it greatly so that we can do legitimate social network analysis research with it and even use it to make decisions.
Just like there are no moral rights or moral responsibilities. Your terse statement is impetuous, repugnant and highly inflamnatory. God will punish you for this.
Then he doesn't really believe in Open Source or Free Software. Why did he use Linux at all?
Mac hardware today is no better or worse than a PC. It's the same goddamn components.
No, it's not better. For one thing, running OS X in a virtual machine on a non-Apple PC is a license violation. For another, you get to deal with Windows, the avoidance of which is a big reason why many people migrate to Macs in the first place.
But not for the same price. On the Mac you end up paying for the Apple brand. Macbooks cost x3 the cost of a PC Laptop.
Isn't that what he always does?
Not legally.
You can run it on a Virtual Machine and be running Linux at the same time.
I got a Mac Mini about 6 months ago to work on software for OS X which also runs on Linux and Windows. My software uses Qt and I figured that I would try using OS X as my main computer and connect to Linux and Windows using ssh, vnc and/or rdesktop. I gave OS X about 6 weeks and it was OK for many things. I did not find myself relieved that things "just worked" on OS X. Instead I found that quite a few programs I used under Linux were difficult to get to work on OS X. I had troubles with kile and ksudoku. I had problems using X applications over ssh to Linux. Apparently OS X supports the connection for about an hour or so. Overall I found it mildly frustrating compared to Linux, through better than Windows.
A little later I tried Windows as the main machine using vnc to connect to Linux and OS X. This was marginally smoother than using OS X as my main system, but after a few months of trying alternatives I am back to using Linux as my main system using vnc to connect to OS X and Windows.
Now I certainly don't care if Miguel likes OS X better. Whatever works best for him should be his choice. OS X could have been totally Linux friendly if Apple wanted to be more cooperative. If they had, I might have been a convert. As is, it is not nearly as easy to get software to work on OS X as Ubuntu.
Try running OSX from Linux as a virtual machine. Get the benefits of a PC power and openness with the ability to run all Mac software.
Thanks to Miguel De Icaza.
Linux could have dominated the Desktop in 2006 or perhaps even sooner but he was pushing Mono and talking about how Microsoft was just better. He kept trying to morph Linux into another version of Windows. Then when it had all the problems associated with Windows thats when he goes over to OSX?
At least he's not involved with Android.
What's the problem with that? Icaza is not a member of linux community since many years ago. He was an important fellow, but not anymore. Also, THIS IS A FREE WORLD, if he decided to change, he is completely free to do that. No problem, really. There always will be people, like me and *many* others, who enjoys the liberty of FOSS community. Everybody is free to use the OS of their choice.
The problem is he's trying his best to make Linux and the PC uncool. The PC and Linux represent openness. Finally the PC and Linux are the BEST for the Desktop and he chooses now to say this? He didn't say this 10 years ago when he was pushing Linux on the Desktop with Mono and all that crap. The fact that he named it Mono was bad enough. It's almost like he wanted to infect the Linux community with it.
"Machine would suspend and resume without problem, WiFi just worked, audio did not stop working, I spend three weeks without having to recompile the kernel to adjust this or that, nor fighting the video drivers,"
Interesting, that is identical to the experience that I have with Debian. Even people on Arch don't need to "recompile the kernel to adjust this or that." But I hope he enjoys his Mac.
So he wants us to believe he's a newbie now? I've been using Linux since 2000 and he's one of the guys who was writing Gnome and all that and I'm supposed to believe he's annoyed at compiling kernels? That is BS.It makes me think he was paid to say it.
It's like Bill Gates saying how easy to use Windows 8 is.
So I cannot make sense of him switching from the superior PC hardware to the inferior overpriced crippleware of Apple.
I've owned an Apple laptop and it just stopped working one day. Unlike a PC I couldn't just open it up and repair it. It's expensive to repair, required special screwdrivers just to open it up, it's harder and more expensive to upgrade and in many cases it's limited in how much it can be upgraded.
It's better to run a PC running Linux on state of the art hardware and then load up a VMWare virtual machine. Someone with the money of that guy should have enough money to build a state of the art Virtual Data Center. There is no reason why someone with his expertise and money would be using standalone platforms anymore because he should be using his own personal cloud at home, his own personal datacenter, and run virtual machines of any OS he wants to all on the PC.
So why would he run Mac hardware? Mac hardware can't do as much.
To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, the multiple incompatible distros
So he chooses to get his hardware and software from one vendor. Okay thats very neat and simple but he could get it from Canonical as well, or one of the BSD projects.
He could run OSX FROM LINUX under a Virtual Machine. This move is entirely the move of a paid shill. Only a paid shill would actually switch platforms from a superior set of hardware to an inferior set of hardware at a loss. He's going to actually waste money literally on the Apple brand hardware? It makes NO SENSE for someone with his level of computational understand unless he's a shill.
I respect his knowledge and skill, but the man has acted like a shill for Microsoft in the past and he's now acting like a shill for Apple. I can even respect him acting like a shill but does he have to announce it like this? It makes me sick to my stomach to read that.
He makes moves which look and smell like the moves of someone who truly hates Free Software or just someone who doesn't get it.
If your goal is to use OSX because OSX works better then you'd run Virtualbox or even VMware and then run OSX on that.
Why would you run OSX on the Apple hardware unless you actually believe in Apples philosophy and if you believe in that philosophy then you're opposed to Free Software because it's the exact opposite philosophy. Apple releases crippleware hardware, and they lock you in with their software like Itunes.
And the PC is objectively better than the Mac hardware. You can run OSX on the PC. I know because I've done it. You can run OSX as a virtual machine and it runs faster because it can run on PC hardware. Who the hell would run OSX on Mac hardware? That is suspect for someone with as much knowledge as him.
He could run Linux and then run OSX as a virtual machine and it would actually run faster than running it on the crippled Mac Hardware.
The title doesn't say he switched to OSX. No one would care. It says he switched to Mac.
Mac hardware sucks compared to the PC. A PC running OSX on a virtual machine is better than a Mac and cheaper. Why would he do this? I always suspected he was selling out, and he's fueling these rumors with his behavior. Remember him pushing Mono/.Net? Remember him defending Microsoft?
When you're called before a Grand Jury in the US, you don't have the right to remain silent. The prosecution can effectively force you to answer questions, and if you refuse, you can be jailed for years.
It's still good advice to say absolutely nothing, but it's not as simple as most of you seem to believe. By saying nothing, you are condemning yourself to jail.
This is why pretty much only anarchists refuse to cooperate with Grand Juries, because they have a fundamental ideological opposition to the legal system and will never cooperate with the prosecution, even when their right not to cooperate is suspended. It's one thing to legally exercise your rights, it's another to be willing to go to jail for them.
Then go to jail in protest if its something you believe in strongly. Don't help the prosecutor if its something you don't believe in.
Everyone who is a suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Anyone can be made into a suspect with enough time and effort.
To be an activist is to be a warrior. Nothing is gained by activism except for a lengthy FBI file and informants spreading lies about you, rumors, and trying to entrap you into crimes for their bosses.They do this because they committed a crime and agreed with police to become informants to help bring down the enemies of the police through entrapment.
That is the system and it's corrupt by design. If you support Wikileaks then don't be surprised if your friends from years stop talking to you. Look at what a government investigation can do here http://www.jbhfile.com/harm_examples.html and think twice about supporting Wikileaks.
"anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you (and others)"
Obviously not.
Even stuff you didnt say or do could be used against you if an informant says you said it or did it and enough people believe it. The justice system is rotten to the core.