Which is exactly why the U.S. government is against it.
There's no evil conspiracy, never was...please, stop the crazy talk...
Open source projects often have a complicated business model, and some open source projects are for-profit.
It makes a lot of sense to check business with complicated business models. Especially, if some of them claim tax exception as non-profit.
In any event, if there are issues it's better that they are discovered and remedied now, than 5 years later.
I'm sure it's fine for some projects to claim to be non-profit organizations, but if the organization:
1. hires developers,
2. is funded by donations from companies,
3. has representatives from same companies on the board, and
4. the same companies generate revenue with open source project.
Then it's hard to see the difference between, open source commercial collaboration between companies, and non-profit open source organizations.
(Just like how it's hard to see the difference between a tea-party related organization and an organization with a political agenda).
To be fair, on paper at least, anyone within the borders of the US is supposed to have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they have available.
I'm not sure I'd call it a "right", but self-defense is allowed in just about all countries:)
I cannot think of a more basic human right than the right to defend yourself from violence
Ironic, consider the fact that there is no such human right (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).
You do however have right to free speech (article 19), a right protection from violence (article 3) and a right to privacy (article 12).
I cannot think of a more basic human right...
Please think harder, there are 30 articles covering things such as liberty, free speech, discrimination, etc... and none of them gives you a right to defend yourself.
I'm not saying that self defense shouldn't be allowed, but it's not a human right, and we have many human rights that are far more important.
Yes, all free... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version".
I believe this is only a problem in Germany and France... And I think you're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but you're not a allowed to claim it as the truth.
If you have a differing opinion, and can prove it, I'm sure the European court of human rights is willing to hear your case.
Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.
These claimed freedoms are not human rights. You have a right to be protected, but not to defend yourself, and certainly not by any means you wish...
Note, you don't have that right in the U.S. either, at least I don't hope people are operating guided missile systems from their backyard:)
If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim.
I'm living in a random European country and would certainly make that claim.
There's a degree of logging, but the logs are held by the ISPs and may only be queried with normal court order.
Granted I'm actually in the process of relocating to the US (why? don't know), but I'm not afraid of the NSA. I'm sure they couldn't care less about my personal correspondence...
I'm not saying I don't think it is a serious violation of human rights, only that it probably has limited practical implications for me.
There always differences, also in healthcare, but given that I'm not poor or ill, it'll probably have few implications for me.
while the project is held up they arent making money. yet they still have to pay their workers. or they can lay them off. and they (the company) has to pay the cost of the research too.
its a double jeapardy burden on the company, effectively punishing them for "doing the right thing"... and you think that's right and fair?
It might be better with a bigger government that would then pay for the excavations... Or if you prefer small governments make a law such as this... And if companies can't deal with the risk of the business environment they operate in then either they shouldn't operate there or they should ensure themselves against such eventualities...
I don't think it is unusual to ensure against building on a toxic ground, fire or one of the many other things that only goes wrong occasionally, but incurs a big cost when they do. That's what insurance is for... If people isn't responsible enough to ensure, when necessary, a bigger government is a possible the solution.
Other solution is to make a law that an insurance is required, and so forth...
It ought to be feasible to make proper public transport both safer and cleaner in big citites.
(Eletric == Clean, self-driving on tracks == safer, how hard can it be)
This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.
I doubt civil war will solve anything... and talk like that only makes it easier for the government to say: look it's only criminals and lunatics who has something to hide.
Please do sign the petition. It's not enough but it's better than talk.
I'm not a US citizen, so I don't have a say: it's your mess, your government and your responsibility!
Oh, well... I suppose I'll never be voting for any politicians who are found of the US.
And finally who is actually clamoring for "smart gun" weaponry, besides the anti-gun nuts?
Anti-gun nut here (though I'm not really sure I'm the nut), and I certainly wouldn't want "smart" gun either...
IMO, smart most things aren't smart...
Smart guns, no thanks, just ban guns (for anything but recreational use).
Smart cars, no thanks, drop research in energy storage and smart driving, just layout electric tracks.
Smart glasses, no thanks, if I needed glasses, simple glasses, contacts or laser surgery would be smarter;)
Smart cards, smart maybe, if there weren't so slow and not secure,
Smart phones, not really, it's a small tablet with an overpriced phone app:)
In the interest of entertainment: what smart tech don't you like?:)
I can think of a few reasons. A device whose sole purpose is to bombard you with ads...
I think Glass is a good idea... But at least give them the benefit of the doubt when they've clearly said, it won't do ads...
In any event, it's a toy... I don't mind Google experimenting... I seriously doubt they'll get this one right:)
Let worry about potential problems, when they become relevant. I'm fairly confident the EU has the backbone required to protect my privacy, should it come to that.
So why not chill?
A modest suggestion: if the virus which is of your property kills someone you go to jail. Discounts granted if you own only a few genes. Let's see how long intellectual property lasts once it faces responsibility.
You call that "A Modest suggestion" ?:)
I thought it was quite funny, but insightful or modest doesn't really fit...
<sarcasm> by the same arguments, if someone commits a crime with a 3D printed gun or knife for which you hold copyright, you go to jail.
On the topic of all 3D printed guns stories we've seen lately: I think it is the saddest most horrific thing in recent slashdot history. Why do people buy the idea that the ability to make guns have anything to do with freedom. It makes me so sad...
Seriously, a company does something nice for a group of people with a serious disability, and your first thought is that they want to exploit them.
Drop the paranoia... Some news is just good...
I have sadly had to work with SAP twice, there software is crap and most of their developers are Indians paid like maids (in Sweden).
Are you sure? I don't know what maids in Sweden make, but I'd imagine they make a pretty decent salary (easily 3-4000 USD / month).
Not taking a stand in the abstract, means that the paper is not concerned with this issue.
It doesn't mean that the author has no opinion on the subject.
I don't think many scientists spends much time on the question, as there's clearly a consensus that global warming is man made, so papers are more likely trying to predict and/or document effects.
almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field
No, only a few scientific advances has be been by "rogue" scientists... The vast majority of scientific advancement in any field today happens by lots of people working hard publishing papers, attending conferences, talking to each other and trying a lot of different experiments.
Most scientific advancement, and in particular the big advancements, are done one step at the time, but a large collective of scientists working hard.
We notice the few cases in history when a few "rogue" scientists changes the world, because it is unusual and we like to celebrate the individual. It's the exception that makes the rule. Science happens by hard work, not by a sudden moment of clarity (or in this case campaign contributions).
I think that's why the court required the "when notified" part. I don't agree, but at least it is feasible to implement.
Actually, I don't understand why Google just doesn't says thanks for reporting the problem, and take a small administrative fee for fixing it (just to cover the 10 min. of fact checking the fix would require to apply).
On topic, I see the problem that you can be sued for things that an automated system says... On the other hand "when notified" it really shouldn't be hard to fix, certainly not for a company with the resources such as Google. Furthermore, as these are every day tools for millions of people the impact on the individual who is misrepresented is significant.
having friends maimed is pretty sure what scared me. I could have easily been there....But some middle class person gets maimed, it is scary.
True, but middle class people are hurt in car accidents, injured in gun accidents and neglected by their health insurance every day, yet this doesn't scare you.
My point, more people are hurt by irrational fear, [Citation provided].
if some jackass can use bold to mark something up and look smart, well kudos to you. I just say fuck you I can use more than html effects than just bold
I know this is the internet, but that's no reason to chicken out of a discussion with profanities (normally I would respond to that)...
But I think that using text formatting to emphasize my point makes sense, in a world here I rarely bother read more than bullet points:)
By the way, next time you rant about your HTML skills you might want to emphasize your skills:)
No DRM means no income for the artist. No income for the artist, no new art.
Unfortunately content is rarely available legally, even with DRM... In a country like Denmark, netflix only came last year, still has very little content...
FYI Denmark was ranked on a shared first place in boardband connection penetration amongst OECD countries in 2009. So it's not for lack of fiber:)
Anyways, even if the content was easily available with DRM, which it is not, it would be more of a hassle to run netflix under Linux, than just pirate content. If content was available and not limited by DRM only a small minor would bother with piracy.
(I haven't pirated music since DRM-free music became available).
I am not happy with DRM – but I can’t figure out a better idea.
How about just selling the content:)
I'm not happy with piracy. In fact it's gotten to the point where I don't bother, I just don't consume as much content anymore...
(But I'd be happy to watch and pay for TV-series if it easily and legally available).
That's funny. I have a plan to not watch a new Star Wars movie every year.
If that's all you plan to do, I must say I salute your resolve:)
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I will be watching them... Yes, they'll probably be bad compared to the old star wars, but a bad star wars is still a very good movie:)
Besides, there is the odd chance they might actually make something interesting.
Maybe, but notice that the fear was created, not by terrorist, but by:
1) Politicians scoring a cheap leadership point, and
2) The media pushing ads with a "good" story,
This might very well have been way out of proportions.
I think the politicians eat it because it was great chance to show leadership, and the media loved the idea of doing live coverage for hours on end...
End result, more fear... but I'm not sure it was the terrorist who scared you.
I didn't hear about any threats or demands. So it looks so far like he's a mass murderer, but not a terrorist.
Well, at least the caught him alive, so there's a reasonable chance we get to know why... Assuming of course it was these guys...
Btw, I noticed that the article said they weren't read their rights, "citing national security exceptions". What I don't understand is that even though these exceptions to human rights exists in the US, why use them unless strictly necessary?
If this guy just turns out only to be guilty of robbery, accomplish to murder and resisting arrest using a deadly weapon, you might just have to let him go due to process error... Why take that risk? Can you guys just ignore process errors?
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause", Padmé Amidala - Star Wars:)
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly why the U.S. government is against it.
There's no evil conspiracy, never was...please, stop the crazy talk...
Open source projects often have a complicated business model, and some open source projects are for-profit.
It makes a lot of sense to check business with complicated business models. Especially, if some of them claim tax exception as non-profit.
In any event, if there are issues it's better that they are discovered and remedied now, than 5 years later.
I'm sure it's fine for some projects to claim to be non-profit organizations, but if the organization:
1. hires developers,
2. is funded by donations from companies,
3. has representatives from same companies on the board, and
4. the same companies generate revenue with open source project.
Then it's hard to see the difference between, open source commercial collaboration between companies, and non-profit open source organizations.
(Just like how it's hard to see the difference between a tea-party related organization and an organization with a political agenda).
To be fair, on paper at least, anyone within the borders of the US is supposed to have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they have available.
I'm not sure I'd call it a "right", but self-defense is allowed in just about all countries :)
I cannot think of a more basic human right than the right to defend yourself from violence
Ironic, consider the fact that there is no such human right (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).
You do however have right to free speech (article 19), a right protection from violence (article 3) and a right to privacy (article 12).
I cannot think of a more basic human right...
Please think harder, there are 30 articles covering things such as liberty, free speech, discrimination, etc... and none of them gives you a right to defend yourself.
I'm not saying that self defense shouldn't be allowed, but it's not a human right, and we have many human rights that are far more important.
Yes, all free ... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version".
I believe this is only a problem in Germany and France... And I think you're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but you're not a allowed to claim it as the truth.
If you have a differing opinion, and can prove it, I'm sure the European court of human rights is willing to hear your case.
Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.
These claimed freedoms are not human rights. You have a right to be protected, but not to defend yourself, and certainly not by any means you wish... :)
Note, you don't have that right in the U.S. either, at least I don't hope people are operating guided missile systems from their backyard
If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim.
I'm living in a random European country and would certainly make that claim.
There's a degree of logging, but the logs are held by the ISPs and may only be queried with normal court order.
Granted I'm actually in the process of relocating to the US (why? don't know), but I'm not afraid of the NSA. I'm sure they couldn't care less about my personal correspondence...
I'm not saying I don't think it is a serious violation of human rights, only that it probably has limited practical implications for me.
There always differences, also in healthcare, but given that I'm not poor or ill, it'll probably have few implications for me.
Please mod parent insightful...
while the project is held up they arent making money. yet they still have to pay their workers. or they can lay them off. and they (the company) has to pay the cost of the research too.
its a double jeapardy burden on the company, effectively punishing them for "doing the right thing"... and you think that's right and fair?
It might be better with a bigger government that would then pay for the excavations... Or if you prefer small governments make a law such as this... And if companies can't deal with the risk of the business environment they operate in then either they shouldn't operate there or they should ensure themselves against such eventualities...
I don't think it is unusual to ensure against building on a toxic ground, fire or one of the many other things that only goes wrong occasionally, but incurs a big cost when they do. That's what insurance is for... If people isn't responsible enough to ensure, when necessary, a bigger government is a possible the solution.
Other solution is to make a law that an insurance is required, and so forth...
Define "problems".
How about cars, can we get rid of them?
It ought to be feasible to make proper public transport both safer and cleaner in big citites.
(Eletric == Clean, self-driving on tracks == safer, how hard can it be)
This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.
I doubt civil war will solve anything... and talk like that only makes it easier for the government to say: look it's only criminals and lunatics who has something to hide.
Please do sign the petition. It's not enough but it's better than talk.
I'm not a US citizen, so I don't have a say: it's your mess, your government and your responsibility!
Oh, well... I suppose I'll never be voting for any politicians who are found of the US.
Recreational self defense anyone?
I some how think Trayvon Martin would disagree...
And finally who is actually clamoring for "smart gun" weaponry, besides the anti-gun nuts?
Anti-gun nut here (though I'm not really sure I'm the nut), and I certainly wouldn't want "smart" gun either...
;) :)
:)
IMO, smart most things aren't smart...
Smart guns, no thanks, just ban guns (for anything but recreational use).
Smart cars, no thanks, drop research in energy storage and smart driving, just layout electric tracks.
Smart glasses, no thanks, if I needed glasses, simple glasses, contacts or laser surgery would be smarter
Smart cards, smart maybe, if there weren't so slow and not secure,
Smart phones, not really, it's a small tablet with an overpriced phone app
In the interest of entertainment: what smart tech don't you like?
Switching to GIMP, my productivity is about to go through the roof!
Hmm... If you script everything in Python, that might actually be possible... Would be interesting to try...
I can think of a few reasons. A device whose sole purpose is to bombard you with ads...
I think Glass is a good idea... But at least give them the benefit of the doubt when they've clearly said, it won't do ads...
:)
In any event, it's a toy... I don't mind Google experimenting... I seriously doubt they'll get this one right
Let worry about potential problems, when they become relevant. I'm fairly confident the EU has the backbone required to protect my privacy, should it come to that.
So why not chill?
I simply can't believe that contracts are awarded without any sort of penalty clause that covers errors like this, delays in completion dates
What makes you think there aren't any penalties? You don't hear about it because the news only reports bad news...
:)
In fact, there usually is penalty clauses in such contracts, even in IT, but that doesn't mean both parties doesn't loose when something fails.
Yes, governments (well, democracy) is inefficient, but the alternatives are a lot worse
A modest suggestion: if the virus which is of your property kills someone you go to jail. Discounts granted if you own only a few genes. Let's see how long intellectual property lasts once it faces responsibility.
You call that "A Modest suggestion" ? :)
I thought it was quite funny, but insightful or modest doesn't really fit...
<sarcasm> by the same arguments, if someone commits a crime with a 3D printed gun or knife for which you hold copyright, you go to jail.
On the topic of all 3D printed guns stories we've seen lately: I think it is the saddest most horrific thing in recent slashdot history. Why do people buy the idea that the ability to make guns have anything to do with freedom. It makes me so sad...
SAP want them cause they are easily exploitable.
Seriously, a company does something nice for a group of people with a serious disability, and your first thought is that they want to exploit them.
Drop the paranoia... Some news is just good...
I have sadly had to work with SAP twice, there software is crap and most of their developers are Indians paid like maids (in Sweden).
Are you sure? I don't know what maids in Sweden make, but I'd imagine they make a pretty decent salary (easily 3-4000 USD / month).
I just thought it was ironic when you make fun of the author who wrote "government ordered its partner" :)
Not taking a stand in the abstract, means that the paper is not concerned with this issue.
It doesn't mean that the author has no opinion on the subject.
I don't think many scientists spends much time on the question, as there's clearly a consensus that global warming is man made, so papers are more likely trying to predict and/or document effects.
almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field
No, only a few scientific advances has be been by "rogue" scientists... The vast majority of scientific advancement in any field today happens by lots of people working hard publishing papers, attending conferences, talking to each other and trying a lot of different experiments.
Most scientific advancement, and in particular the big advancements, are done one step at the time, but a large collective of scientists working hard.
We notice the few cases in history when a few "rogue" scientists changes the world, because it is unusual and we like to celebrate the individual. It's the exception that makes the rule. Science happens by hard work, not by a sudden moment of clarity (or in this case campaign contributions).
In Norway:
1. the govt has a partner
2. the jelly fish have govt protection only a few hours each year.
Exactly how did you deduce that from an article about a data center in Sweden ?
I think that's why the court required the "when notified" part. I don't agree, but at least it is feasible to implement.
Actually, I don't understand why Google just doesn't says thanks for reporting the problem, and take a small administrative fee for fixing it (just to cover the 10 min. of fact checking the fix would require to apply).
On topic, I see the problem that you can be sued for things that an automated system says... On the other hand "when notified" it really shouldn't be hard to fix, certainly not for a company with the resources such as Google. Furthermore, as these are every day tools for millions of people the impact on the individual who is misrepresented is significant.
having friends maimed is pretty sure what scared me. I could have easily been there....But some middle class person gets maimed, it is scary.
True, but middle class people are hurt in car accidents, injured in gun accidents and neglected by their health insurance every day, yet this doesn't scare you.
My point, more people are hurt by irrational fear, [Citation provided].
if some jackass can use bold to mark something up and look smart, well kudos to you. I just say fuck you I can use more than html effects than just bold
I know this is the internet, but that's no reason to chicken out of a discussion with profanities (normally I would respond to that)... :) :)
But I think that using text formatting to emphasize my point makes sense, in a world here I rarely bother read more than bullet points
By the way, next time you rant about your HTML skills you might want to emphasize your skills
No DRM means no income for the artist. No income for the artist, no new art.
Unfortunately content is rarely available legally, even with DRM... In a country like Denmark, netflix only came last year, still has very little content... :)
FYI Denmark was ranked on a shared first place in boardband connection penetration amongst OECD countries in 2009. So it's not for lack of fiber
Anyways, even if the content was easily available with DRM, which it is not, it would be more of a hassle to run netflix under Linux, than just pirate content.
If content was available and not limited by DRM only a small minor would bother with piracy.
(I haven't pirated music since DRM-free music became available).
I am not happy with DRM – but I can’t figure out a better idea.
How about just selling the content :)
I'm not happy with piracy. In fact it's gotten to the point where I don't bother, I just don't consume as much content anymore...
(But I'd be happy to watch and pay for TV-series if it easily and legally available).
That's funny. I have a plan to not watch a new Star Wars movie every year.
If that's all you plan to do, I must say I salute your resolve :)
:)
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I will be watching them... Yes, they'll probably be bad compared to the old star wars, but a bad star wars is still a very good movie
Besides, there is the odd chance they might actually make something interesting.
Maybe, but notice that the fear was created, not by terrorist, but by:
1) Politicians scoring a cheap leadership point, and
2) The media pushing ads with a "good" story,
This might very well have been way out of proportions.
I think the politicians eat it because it was great chance to show leadership, and the media loved the idea of doing live coverage for hours on end...
End result, more fear... but I'm not sure it was the terrorist who scared you.
I didn't hear about any threats or demands. So it looks so far like he's a mass murderer, but not a terrorist.
Well, at least the caught him alive, so there's a reasonable chance we get to know why... Assuming of course it was these guys...
:)
Btw, I noticed that the article said they weren't read their rights, "citing national security exceptions". What I don't understand is that even though these exceptions to human rights exists in the US, why use them unless strictly necessary?
If this guy just turns out only to be guilty of robbery, accomplish to murder and resisting arrest using a deadly weapon, you might just have to let him go due to process error... Why take that risk? Can you guys just ignore process errors?
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause", Padmé Amidala - Star Wars