Otherwise, expect us to live our lives by any means necessary.
In the context of this discussion, it's very clear that he's saying that "if we don't have the money, we will pirate apps." Since the option to NOT pirate and NOT use the software always exists, he is clearly stating that he considers "living our lives" to only be possible through the use of these apps, be they pirated or purchased.
Thus the apps are the "means" by which he intends us to "live our lives". You and I both know that the apps aren't necessary, but he has specifically stated that these apps are fundamental to living our lives, and so the only option is to either buy them (if we have jobs), or pirate them (if we don't).
Yes, Nixon was unable to get a restraining order preventing the release of that info. (If you're talking about NYTimes v USA, at least).
However, the decision was more nuanced than that - they didn't offer blanket protection of publication of any classified information, they said that there was a heavy burden of proof that the government had to provide to show WHY the information couldn't be published, and that they had to demonstrate that publication of the information could cause "grave and irreparable" harm to US interests.
This has, historically, been interpreted quite narrowly, to be on the order of "posting sailing dates & planned troop movement routes," and things of that nature - actual plans that are (or soon will be) in motion that could give an enemy some sort of additional capability to harm US interests. The court found that the First Amendment creates a strong bias towards saying that "publication of this information is protected by the first amendment," but it did not categorically state that publication of anything is fair game. It's not impossible that the government could prosecute the case, but precedent creates a huge burden of proof they must offer to show why publishing the info caused 'grave and irreparable' harm.
"inKubus can't be insightful. He can't even spell 'ad hominem' right, much less use it correctly in a sentence. And look at that foolish nickname spelling."
Note the formation of the argument: I'm using a completely unrelated mistake you made to say that your proposal or position is untenable - attacking YOU to discredit your POSITION. This is an "ad hominem" fallacy.
Saying "What about the troops?" has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack. It might be a straw man, or a red herring, or some other fallacy, but it has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack.
I have never seen a discussion in slashdot in which one of the participants gets modded to the top and another one stays at low score comments.
Happens all the time, I'd say you're not reading very closely. Perhaps you meant to say "I have never seen a discussion in slashdot in which a participant I disagree with gets modded up, while the person I agree with stays at low score comments." I'd believe that.
But, what you see as evidence of "astroturfing," looks to most of us like Sprocket making cogent, well-argued points, while FriendlyLurker responds with "Nuh-uh, it's all a conspiracy," coupled with assorted paranoid FUD and innuendo.
Yes. At work, the only authorized web browsers are IE6 and FF 3.6.
At home, where I run a Mac, I used Safari, and more and more recently, Chrome.
Being able to sync bookmarks from home to work would be terribly useful, and presently involves a lot of mucking around with mailing exported HTML files back and forth to keep things in sync.
I'm working on getting them to let me install Chrome here, which would help... but I keep hearing the old "but it could be insecure, and nobody above me has approved it," argument.
When there are half a dozen versions of Android (some no doubt customized by the users) running on phones and tablets with varying resolutions and hardware capabilities on 2-3 dozen variations of hardware from different vendors, let's check back and see how easy the process is.
My original response was Flamebaited, and rightly so - it was an obnoxious response to an obnoxious post. But the point stands that bug-fixing and user support is going to get a lot harder for any piece of software that sees widespread adoption in the Android space (i.e., used across a lot of devices.)
I'd say her prognosis is pretty good, considering she's now about the size, weight, and developmental stage as a newborn. The last 11 weeks were the rather critical point, I'd imagine.
Assange asked him directly, "did you speak to Newsweek about this."
Domscheit-Berg responded directly, "I didn't speak to Newsweek or other media representatives about this."
I'd hardly call that weasel language, or refusing to answer the question. As far as him leaking this information for "political and financial advantage," what advantage at all is there for Domscheit-Berg in this? Please explain how he's going to reap rewards out of... leaving Wikileaks?
It's funny, apparently when we criticize Assange we need ironclad proof, and even with video we're not sure that it wasn't heavily doctored by the CIA/MSFT/Barack Obama/UN/UK/Germany/Swedish Prosecutors/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/et. al., but when anybody else is involved, a bit of baseless conspiracy theory and a few twists of innuendo ("I'm not SAYING he leaked it for financial gain, but he's never specifically DENIED it, either!"), and that's good enough to assume the people we disagree with are guilty.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg indicated he intends to do exactly that here.
SPIEGEL: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?
Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.
it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap
Yeah, he totally weasels out of it completely. Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."
For what it's worth, my "spin," as you call it, is entirely accurate. The people who have left that Wired have spoken to have cited differences and disputes, both personally with Julian Assange, and with his -- apparently autocratic -- leadership style. Go RTFA, and you'll see that it's not really me "spinning" the summary, it's a pretty accurate summary of what the Wired story has to say.
You may disagree with their assessment, and feel that Assange is NOT being autocratic and heavy-handed, but that does not change the fact that Wired has reported this to be the opinion of several of the people who have resigned.
I know you're trolling, too, but I see no reason to "hate" Microsoft any more than I see a reason to "hate" Apple, and neither of the companies are going to fold any time soon.
I don't like some MSFT products, and I'd give them overall lower marks for usability and general satisfaction with their product lineup, but Microsoft's business is certainly pretty impressive.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment, aside from getting your MSFT hate on, but the point I made to the GGP poster is valid. Apple, with a small slice of the overall market, has an extremely successful business and, on average, very satisfied customers. I think most businesses would love to be able to say that about their operations.
Why would anyone continue paying him to improve it for the rest of his life?
I see you've never worked in the financial services industry, where I've seen people make entire careers out of endlessly tweaking the same piece of legacy software.
Look at hackel's proposal, and his outrage that somebody wants to "make money from their code." Apparently, we should all be working as wage slaves, where no matter HOW GOOD the code is that we write, we get paid for the amount of hours we sat at a desk writing it.
Imagine if you told your contractor that you would pay them $100 an hour, regardless of the quality of their work? Think you'd see some overruns and slow work? I do. Oh sure, you can fire them if they take too long, and go through all the expense and hassle and frustration of finding someone new to take over the job, with untold hours of your own wasted, as well as significant cost overruns because the new guy has to redo half the shitty stuff that was done by the guy who got fired.
When you set that up as an economic model, you put people in the position where, to quote from Office Space, "my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."
Right, highly profitable markets, with the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry. It's just how Apple's markets work!
I know you're trolling, but you realize that owning a huge percentage of a market while barely being able to make a profit is a problem... right? I'm looking at you, Nokia.
I wish I had a business that was as irrelevant and unsuccessful as Apple's.
You know what's funny? With all this rush to market with tablets, everybody's saying "GOOGLE" is going to take on Apple. Sorry, but it's "Samsung," "HTC," "RIM," "Dell," and the other hardware manufacturers that are going to take on Apple, using their own customized versions of "GOOGLE'S" OS, which will be locked down and as proprietary and restricted as the HARDWARE makers and their CARRIER partners can make it. And that assumes that Google opens up the Marketplace for tablets, as well, instead of restricting them from it.
Which means that Android developers will be writing apps to a dog's dinner of 15-20 different screen sizes & resolutions, hardware capabilities, and UI variants, all of which will probably be locked down and network-locked to various carriers and data plan models where they're 3G. Think the maintenance burden on any useful hardware is going to get steep? I do.
So cry over your Mountain Dew, OSS douchebag.
Enjoy your inevitable market fragmentation and low user satisfaction ratings. Again!
So by this logic, if he wants to have a stable income, he should produce a really shit program that will save nobody any time, but that he can "continuously improve" for the rest of his life, and get paid $100 for every hour he works, resulting in something much more approaching a "net zero" for humanity?
Congratulations, you've just declared government bureaucracy your economic model of choice.
I say again: read their privacy policy which you agree to when you sign up for their service.
They clearly state in there that your data should not be considered safe from public disclosure, and that it may be disclosed to others.
On what do you base your "expectation" of privacy, when Facebook, the provider of the service, explicitly states that your data should not be considered secure and private?
Here's a car analogy: my car is fairly well made, and has so far been quite reliable for the nearly-4-years I've owned it. This reliability does not give me a "reasonable expectation" that it will never break down. Now, I do have an earnest *desire* for it to not break down and leave me stranded somewhere - this is why I have routine maintenance performed on it, in the form of oil changes, tune-ups, inspections, and the like.
In much the same way, if you have an earnest *desire* for your data to not be disclosed to the public, you perform "routine maintenance" on your Facebook profile, and eliminate anything you wouldn't wish to be made public, or avoid posting it up there in the first place.
Yet another word that you use, but don't appear to know the meaning of.
Did you know why I kept going?
Optimism. I like to believe that nobody is so aggressively retarded that they can't be engaged in a reasonable discussion. Thanks for being the exception!
I look forward to reading more of your trolling here, looking at your comment history, it seems I'm not the first person you've trolled. So good luck with that - I'm pretty sure you're going to need a LOT of dumb luck to make it through life.
the point stays valid: your "warriors" are cowards fighting a wrong war for money.
These are your opinions, my friend, not facts. I will gladly concede that they are your opinions, I'm sure you're benighted enough to believe they are true.
What you have failed to do, however, is support your opinions with anything resembling a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you're getting at, though I have to admit that I'm fairly unsympathetic to this argument.
My desire to have something doesn't automatically confer on me the right to take the product of someone else's efforts without paying.
I'd also suggest that "keeping up with the Joneses" is not exactly a situation where "NEED" truly applies.
Original post in question:
In the context of this discussion, it's very clear that he's saying that "if we don't have the money, we will pirate apps." Since the option to NOT pirate and NOT use the software always exists, he is clearly stating that he considers "living our lives" to only be possible through the use of these apps, be they pirated or purchased.
Thus the apps are the "means" by which he intends us to "live our lives". You and I both know that the apps aren't necessary, but he has specifically stated that these apps are fundamental to living our lives, and so the only option is to either buy them (if we have jobs), or pirate them (if we don't).
The "means" he's referring to are the "pirated apps". Reading comprehension fail.
Yes, Nixon was unable to get a restraining order preventing the release of that info. (If you're talking about NYTimes v USA, at least).
However, the decision was more nuanced than that - they didn't offer blanket protection of publication of any classified information, they said that there was a heavy burden of proof that the government had to provide to show WHY the information couldn't be published, and that they had to demonstrate that publication of the information could cause "grave and irreparable" harm to US interests.
This has, historically, been interpreted quite narrowly, to be on the order of "posting sailing dates & planned troop movement routes," and things of that nature - actual plans that are (or soon will be) in motion that could give an enemy some sort of additional capability to harm US interests. The court found that the First Amendment creates a strong bias towards saying that "publication of this information is protected by the first amendment," but it did not categorically state that publication of anything is fair game. It's not impossible that the government could prosecute the case, but precedent creates a huge burden of proof they must offer to show why publishing the info caused 'grave and irreparable' harm.
I'm sorry, a what?
Do you even know what an ad hominem argument is?
Here, I'll help with an example:
"inKubus can't be insightful. He can't even spell 'ad hominem' right, much less use it correctly in a sentence. And look at that foolish nickname spelling."
Note the formation of the argument: I'm using a completely unrelated mistake you made to say that your proposal or position is untenable - attacking YOU to discredit your POSITION. This is an "ad hominem" fallacy.
Saying "What about the troops?" has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack. It might be a straw man, or a red herring, or some other fallacy, but it has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack.
Happens all the time, I'd say you're not reading very closely. Perhaps you meant to say "I have never seen a discussion in slashdot in which a participant I disagree with gets modded up, while the person I agree with stays at low score comments." I'd believe that.
But, what you see as evidence of "astroturfing," looks to most of us like Sprocket making cogent, well-argued points, while FriendlyLurker responds with "Nuh-uh, it's all a conspiracy," coupled with assorted paranoid FUD and innuendo.
Well, then, I suspect you're hosed, and down to mailing HTML exports of your bookmarks around. :)
Yes. At work, the only authorized web browsers are IE6 and FF 3.6.
At home, where I run a Mac, I used Safari, and more and more recently, Chrome.
Being able to sync bookmarks from home to work would be terribly useful, and presently involves a lot of mucking around with mailing exported HTML files back and forth to keep things in sync.
I'm working on getting them to let me install Chrome here, which would help... but I keep hearing the old "but it could be insecure, and nobody above me has approved it," argument.
del.icio.us has plugins for most (all?) major browsers, and syncs bookmarks just fine, last I checked.
It does not, at last check, do all the password/history/tab syncing xmarks did.
If you need a bookmark-only solution, del.icio.us works all right.
It's okay, this is slashdot. "Skimming the article" actually puts you on the high-performing end of the scale. :)
Based on a single tablet...
When there are half a dozen versions of Android (some no doubt customized by the users) running on phones and tablets with varying resolutions and hardware capabilities on 2-3 dozen variations of hardware from different vendors, let's check back and see how easy the process is.
My original response was Flamebaited, and rightly so - it was an obnoxious response to an obnoxious post. But the point stands that bug-fixing and user support is going to get a lot harder for any piece of software that sees widespread adoption in the Android space (i.e., used across a lot of devices.)
TFA states:
and,
I'd say her prognosis is pretty good, considering she's now about the size, weight, and developmental stage as a newborn. The last 11 weeks were the rather critical point, I'd imagine.
That's right, NO.
Assange asked him directly, "did you speak to Newsweek about this."
Domscheit-Berg responded directly, "I didn't speak to Newsweek or other media representatives about this."
I'd hardly call that weasel language, or refusing to answer the question. As far as him leaking this information for "political and financial advantage," what advantage at all is there for Domscheit-Berg in this? Please explain how he's going to reap rewards out of... leaving Wikileaks?
It's funny, apparently when we criticize Assange we need ironclad proof, and even with video we're not sure that it wasn't heavily doctored by the CIA/MSFT/Barack Obama/UN/UK/Germany/Swedish Prosecutors/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/et. al., but when anybody else is involved, a bit of baseless conspiracy theory and a few twists of innuendo ("I'm not SAYING he leaked it for financial gain, but he's never specifically DENIED it, either!"), and that's good enough to assume the people we disagree with are guilty.
Double standard? I think so.
Daniel Domscheit-Berg indicated he intends to do exactly that here.
Yeah, he totally weasels out of it completely. Oh, except for the part where he says: "i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this."
For what it's worth, my "spin," as you call it, is entirely accurate. The people who have left that Wired have spoken to have cited differences and disputes, both personally with Julian Assange, and with his -- apparently autocratic -- leadership style. Go RTFA, and you'll see that it's not really me "spinning" the summary, it's a pretty accurate summary of what the Wired story has to say.
You may disagree with their assessment, and feel that Assange is NOT being autocratic and heavy-handed, but that does not change the fact that Wired has reported this to be the opinion of several of the people who have resigned.
DOH! Godwin'ed. :(
I know you're trolling, too, but I see no reason to "hate" Microsoft any more than I see a reason to "hate" Apple, and neither of the companies are going to fold any time soon.
I don't like some MSFT products, and I'd give them overall lower marks for usability and general satisfaction with their product lineup, but Microsoft's business is certainly pretty impressive.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment, aside from getting your MSFT hate on, but the point I made to the GGP poster is valid. Apple, with a small slice of the overall market, has an extremely successful business and, on average, very satisfied customers. I think most businesses would love to be able to say that about their operations.
I see you've never worked in the financial services industry, where I've seen people make entire careers out of endlessly tweaking the same piece of legacy software.
Look at hackel's proposal, and his outrage that somebody wants to "make money from their code." Apparently, we should all be working as wage slaves, where no matter HOW GOOD the code is that we write, we get paid for the amount of hours we sat at a desk writing it.
Imagine if you told your contractor that you would pay them $100 an hour, regardless of the quality of their work? Think you'd see some overruns and slow work? I do. Oh sure, you can fire them if they take too long, and go through all the expense and hassle and frustration of finding someone new to take over the job, with untold hours of your own wasted, as well as significant cost overruns because the new guy has to redo half the shitty stuff that was done by the guy who got fired.
When you set that up as an economic model, you put people in the position where, to quote from Office Space, "my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."
Right, highly profitable markets, with the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry. It's just how Apple's markets work!
I know you're trolling, but you realize that owning a huge percentage of a market while barely being able to make a profit is a problem... right? I'm looking at you, Nokia.
I wish I had a business that was as irrelevant and unsuccessful as Apple's.
You know what's funny? With all this rush to market with tablets, everybody's saying "GOOGLE" is going to take on Apple. Sorry, but it's "Samsung," "HTC," "RIM," "Dell," and the other hardware manufacturers that are going to take on Apple, using their own customized versions of "GOOGLE'S" OS, which will be locked down and as proprietary and restricted as the HARDWARE makers and their CARRIER partners can make it. And that assumes that Google opens up the Marketplace for tablets, as well, instead of restricting them from it.
Which means that Android developers will be writing apps to a dog's dinner of 15-20 different screen sizes & resolutions, hardware capabilities, and UI variants, all of which will probably be locked down and network-locked to various carriers and data plan models where they're 3G. Think the maintenance burden on any useful hardware is going to get steep? I do.
So cry over your Mountain Dew, OSS douchebag.
Enjoy your inevitable market fragmentation and low user satisfaction ratings. Again!
LOL
So by this logic, if he wants to have a stable income, he should produce a really shit program that will save nobody any time, but that he can "continuously improve" for the rest of his life, and get paid $100 for every hour he works, resulting in something much more approaching a "net zero" for humanity?
Congratulations, you've just declared government bureaucracy your economic model of choice.
Is it too late for "I for one welcome our new Ironing Board-wielding overlords"?
Yes?
How about, "In Soviet Russia, ironing boards iron YOU!"
No?
"All your ironing boards are belong to us?"
Damn.
"I AM an ironing board, you insensitive clod!"
That's better.
I say again: read their privacy policy which you agree to when you sign up for their service.
They clearly state in there that your data should not be considered safe from public disclosure, and that it may be disclosed to others.
On what do you base your "expectation" of privacy, when Facebook, the provider of the service, explicitly states that your data should not be considered secure and private?
Here's a car analogy: my car is fairly well made, and has so far been quite reliable for the nearly-4-years I've owned it. This reliability does not give me a "reasonable expectation" that it will never break down. Now, I do have an earnest *desire* for it to not break down and leave me stranded somewhere - this is why I have routine maintenance performed on it, in the form of oil changes, tune-ups, inspections, and the like.
In much the same way, if you have an earnest *desire* for your data to not be disclosed to the public, you perform "routine maintenance" on your Facebook profile, and eliminate anything you wouldn't wish to be made public, or avoid posting it up there in the first place.
Yet another word that you use, but don't appear to know the meaning of.
Did you know why I kept going?
Optimism. I like to believe that nobody is so aggressively retarded that they can't be engaged in a reasonable discussion. Thanks for being the exception!
I look forward to reading more of your trolling here, looking at your comment history, it seems I'm not the first person you've trolled. So good luck with that - I'm pretty sure you're going to need a LOT of dumb luck to make it through life.
These are your opinions, my friend, not facts. I will gladly concede that they are your opinions, I'm sure you're benighted enough to believe they are true.
What you have failed to do, however, is support your opinions with anything resembling a fact.