If you guess wrong, you become one more statistic in the Obama Administration's policy of prosecuting whistleblowers (twice as many prosecutions as ALL other Administrations combined so far).
I've read that stat, and don't dispute the truth of it; but I question whether it lacks context. Perhaps there are simply a lot more whistleblowers due to the degree the government has gone so far off he rails? Perhaps there is a peer, where once people started coming forwards, a lot more of them felt emboldened to come forward. (The way rape victims tend to be more inclined to come forward when they know other victims are coming forward.)
Maybe the ratio at which this administration is prosecuting whistleblowers is no higher than previous administrations, there are just so many more of them so the absolute numbers are higher.
Then put YOUR ass on the line and do what you suggest. Suggesting other people put their asses on the line for your benefit just means you're a dick.
Yeah, that's the only possible explanation for the fact that I haven't done everything in life that I think is possible, or could or should be done by someone.
No worst case is that because your infringement is willful they go after your personal assets.
Infringement is not willful. There is a clear good faith argument that the license was being followed.
But prove me wrong, get out there and spend your time and money to fork code you can't legally fork and put your ass on the line that none of the developers will decide they see a payday in your infringement.
What payday? Its a single title, not being sold for money. Actual damages to the original author are ZERO. Theoretical damages to the original author are ZERO. What does that leave?
Statutory damages.
That maxes out at 50k in the US that's if its proven willful.You really telling me that's a risk silicon valley tech companies can't afford?
And that's WORST case. And the odds of that happening are astronomically small. Far far far more probable its a cease and desist and a small fine; assuming you don't settle out of court before it even gets that far.
Insofar as lawyers don't like the wording as its a bit ambiguous on some fine details; but its not as restrictive you seem to think.
Moreover, for the license to actually be a problem someone would have to come forward, establish they actually have copyright standing, and then sue you over making a fork.
So what realistically what are the risks? That some anonymous devs who shutdown the project and have advocated everyone switch to alternative systems is going to come out of the woodwork to sue you for copyright infringment and 'damages' despite your best efforts to follow their license which DOES actually allow for forking, and for which you wouldn't be charging for copies. So there are no profits to sue for then there is the acute impossibility of you 'damaging' their interests given they discontinued the original project and burned it to the ground.
I honestly don't understand the fear. I mean sure there is a risk there, but if you incorporate a nonprofit, continue to give it away for free, and retain the terms of the license; the risk small.
Even if the authors did come out of the woodwork, and sue you, so what? So your non-profit shuts down - worst case. More likely by far to just walk away with little more than a cease and desist and/or a small fine, and that's assuming the court even finds against you (which given the ambiguity of the license, and your attempt to adhere to it as best as possible) isn't all that likely in the first place.
Yet, the lawyers say its 'highly restrictive' and 'dangerous' to anyone who goes near -- same lawyers who approved the non-compete clauses that now have silicon valley under a class action? Where was their sage advice about risk then?
first of all, Ms. Granick didn't start all answers by making an extremely esoteric distinction in terminology that caused more questions and confusion...like Stallman did
Except his distinctions were generally warranted and cleared up things people usually argue over simply because they mean one thing but say something else.
2nd, Stallman thinks anyone who uses a cell phone is a dupe
I choose to use one too. But I think stallman is right. We're dupes. Modern phones are horrific on nearly every front.
Stallman's an idealist who puts his ideals ahead of convenience. You and I put convenience ahead of ideals. I don't see an actual argument here.
Stallman's contextualization of the problem guides his opinions of "how things should be" and what solutions are best for our current problems
Stallman's solutions actually would be solutions if they were implemented.
on the issue of privacy, Ms. Granick's advice on a cell phone privacy issue or her thoughts on what can be done to increase privacy are going to be an order of magnitude more useful,
Sorry, what privacy advice did she actually give that was useful? "I use cookie blockers and if I had more privacy friendly options I'd use them?" is neither advice nor a solution, merely a helpless surrender that privacy right now is hard to do.
So... everything's going to work out in the end, and the 4th amendment is going to evolve in constructive ways; we're going to reform statutes for location privacy... how exactly? And we'll have some assurance big brother isn't behind the scenes slurping up the data anyway because: optimism?
From the same response where she writes " Iâ(TM)ve become even more disillusioned with Congress than I already was. [...] they do not do what the public wants even when there is a general consensus."
Yeah, that sounds like an incubator for constructive policy.
thanks again to Ms. Granick...these are real, value added answers...
Agreed. Excellent read.
i think this interview Q/A was much more enlightening than the Stallman Q/A
I disagree. There were no surprises or new insights for me from Stallman's Q/A, but that's not because he isn't thought provoking or insightful. We've just all heard his views before.
i'd take Jennifer Granicks advice over Stallman's on these issues any day
The Start Menu in 8.1 is crap. Most of the features that were in Win7's start menu don't exist in 8.1.
I actually like the right click start button in 8.1 MORE than windows 7. The ONLY thing I miss from windows 7 is the search widget -- the start screen still supports it, and for actually SEARCHING for something, the full screen UI is actually better too.
But I used the search widget mostly for quick-launching frequently run programs, much like Win+R, but the search widgets autocomplete/suggestions is much better.
That's about it that's about the only thing that the start menu in 7 does better. And from the look of what they were talking about with the next update to 8.1 or now 9? is will bring even that back.
The worst gaffes of 8.0 are already corrected. (putting the 'X' button in metro apps, giving metro apps taskbar icons, making the start button available as a button instead of forcing it to be a hot-corner etc...)
The remaining complaints about 8.1 really are mostly just because a lot of people will complain about anything.
No it wouldn't because the 'real web stuff' you want doesn't even exist yet. So its even less important to consumers than flash, which actually was being widely used.
as people can just install another browser on their devices
Unless they can't, because the locked down platform decides to drop alternative browsers from the app store.
In a way, that is what Microsoft is doing by adopting new features so slowly and their market share is but a fraction of what it used to be.
There is a definite trend towards people liking the newest IE browsers just fine. Its been a long time since the only thing IE was any good for was getting a different browser.
IE marketshare is no longer in freefall falling on windows. I know its still falling overall, due to the flood of non-windows tablets and smartphones where it has no presence; but on windows itself? Its still in slight decline. (And hell that might be motivated by millions XP users needing to migrate away from it because they are stuck on 8 or 9?)
Even then any whistleblower with half a brain would simultaneously release it to the freest presses belonging to America's strongest allies around the world.
He wouldn't select just the Chinese state sponsored paper. That's absurd.
He'd send it to journalists in Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Iceland, the UK, France, Germanly, AND the United States. (even if the US was too afraid to do anything with it itself, it would still be released there, just to establish that it was attempting to reach the US public and the closest friends of the US -- because yes, despite the fact that the US is becoming a xenophobic bully it still has genuine allies)
How do you know that someone else hasn't discovered the flaw and already sold it to Islamistan?
How do you know the flaw isn't a deliberate conspiracy between the corrupt people providing the flawed system.
Now 'Keeping it a secret' is putting your own country at risk (since the enemy potentially already has the flaw through some other channel or may have it shortly, and you are potentially shielding the very people who put it there...)
So you do exactly what Snowden did, you release the story to American journalists. They can verify the story, and report it to the public without revealing the details. They can merely reveal that its flawed.
I highly doubt that. I think the moment a vendor starts shipping a lesser web experience in a world where the web is increasingly more important, they will see a drop in adoption and sales.
That's why the iphone flopped when Apple decided it wouldn't support flash in an era where flash was pretty important.
But the larger view is its a catch-22; most developers won't use features that aren't widely available cross-platform -- so any major closed platform that sees those features as a threat simply can refuse to implement them, and most developers will in turn avoid using those features.
When I'm developing for the web, I don't even bother to look at what new-fangled nonsense Chrome has just released. My baseline is to only use features that are widely supported.
It's simple. You use signed source code instead of signed binaries.
That doesn't really help.
If every executable is different, then I have no information about the binaries i downloaded. I have to download the source, verify that its the 'audited trusted source' by checking its hash and signatures, and then I have to compile it myself. Most people don't want to compile all their own code.
It is good enough that OpenBSD released the source code, trusted auditing group audited the source code, and trusted build validation group verifies that the binaries on the OpenBSD site were generated from the audited source. I can just download the binaries check the hash/signatures and I'm good to go.
And in the case of a corporate IT department, you use the randomizing compiler to build the binary that you push out to your clients. It may be the same throughout your company, but it will be different from anything anyone outside would have access to, which is probably good enough.
The technique can be expanded to the home market; whereby joe-sixpack is running executable whitelist-reputation subscription software that will flag anything on his system that isn't "known good". Antivirus software is starting to head in this direction -- where it maintains databases of 'known good' executables; you've probably even seen them say "this executable is not known... submit it for analysis" -- take that system to its logical conclusion; and we could see community sites maintain executable whitelists that are as effective as adware blockers. (And they'd have no qualms about flagging "technically not illegal malware but nobody actually wants to run this shit" (e.g. toolbar search redirections through popup advertisting portals that the AV guys are currently too scared to just block outright.)
Community managed executable whitelists with operating system level enforcement support could potentially make a serious dent in malware on the average uninformed users computer. It would help close a lot of attack vectors. More effective I think than 'randomizing' variable layout at in the compiled executable.
Also re: Then you use a compiler and linker that does some simple things like randomly ordering variables and functions in the executable and on the stack.
Stronger ASLR and DEP type features in the OS to do executable layout randomization at runtime I think represents a better approach to this than randomization at compile time.
Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public? This is intended as a serious question--I like Snowden's idea,
Its pretty easy to tell the difference between someone selling information to a foreign government in secret, and divulging it to the public publicly.
If you are concerned someone is going to "maliciously" divulge secret information to the public for no personal gain but the satisifcation of causing disruption? So what? I can live with that trade off. Its better than the treat whistlblowers as traitors we have now.
And realistically, most of government secrets shouldn't be secret anyway. If that person releases troop movements, under cover agents identities, and your private health information 'the public' will crucify him regardless of the law.
If he releases the contents of a secret in-the-works treaty and you can't tell whether his intentions were disruptive or public service based on the contents of the treaty, I'm ok with erring on the side of public service. And I don't think treaties should be secret anyway.
That's well and nice if you just want to make a document available through the web. But I want to web to more than just delivering documents, I want it to be a platform for applications.
Your desire that you want the browser to be a 'platform for applications' is fine, but is not related to the release schedule at all. How come your long term desire can't be accomplished in slower bigger steps?
Windows, iOS, Debian Stable, and OS X Mavericks are all "platforms for applications" and none of them need 25 feature updates a year, but fixes yes... but not whole new releases with new features every couple weeks.
I want a future where any applications runs on any device, running any operating system, any browser.
The 'web' is no more going to bring about that future than Java did. Especially in a world where hardware vendors are actively seeking to prevent it. (ie Expect Apple to limit the functionality of its iOS browser the minute it starts to threaten app store revenue in a credible way.)
The problem with this in "Explain like I'm Five" terms:
You can have no idea what the program you are running does.
You cannot trust it. You cannot know it hasn't been tampered with. You cannot know a given copy works the same as another copy. You cannot know your executable has no back doors.
On the security minded front we have a trend towards striving for deterministic build capability; so that we have some confidence and method of validating that a source code to executable transformation hasn't been tampered with, that the binaries you just downloaded were actually generated from the source code in a verifiable way.
Another technique I'm seeing in secure conscious areas is executable whitelisting, where IT hashes and whitelists executables, and stuff not on the whitelist is flagged and/or rejected.
Now this guy comes along and runs headlong in the other direction suggesting every executable should be different. And I'm not sure I see any real benefit, nevermind a benefit that offsets the losses outlined above.
Implicitly by arguing it wasn't a derivative work.
Fair-use does not only include non-profit uses, although they tend to get more leeway
Yes, but a video game walktrhough resembles, more than anything, the performance of a someone elses screenplay, done for profit (ad revenue).
The fair use defense falls flat. It is only minimally educational (in the same sense that watching someone perform Hamlet is instructive to a budding actor, but that character of the performance is still primarily entertainment over eduation. And this is reinforced by the fact that far more of the game is on display than would be requried for education. A few seconds of video to show how to reach a secret, defeat a boss, or show some other technique might be instructive -- but a game walkthrough from start to finish, including game audio, cut scenes, and primarily just showing off the players skill is a performance of the game, for entertainment, and when linked to ad revenue is done for profit.
And how many new features have they introduced in those patches? None. That's the point, they're just plugging the holes in their buggy software instead of enabling developers to fully make use of new features on the web
I'd agree with you to the point that IE isn't moving as fast as I'd like. On the other hand, for most developers, especially enterprise developers, the web needs to be a stable target.
IE is also uniquely challenged because unlike FF and Chrome etc, IE has a lot of pressure to provide backwards compatibility; and needs to support that legacy. In part some of that grief is their own fault by not being standards compliant out of the gate, but its not all their fault, and regardless of whose fault it is it still has to be managed.
I don't really give a shit about new bleeding edge features though, I just want to see the standards met.
And I certainly don't need 25 feature release updates in 2 years. Nobody does.
You are missing half the point of steamOS/steambox. One half is to make the 'PC' platform big-screent tv-living-room gaming friendly.
The other half, is that its Valves hedge against Microsoft destroying their entire business by altering windows.
Valve saw Metro, Microsoft accounts to sign in being the preferred default, and the Windows App Store. They saw Windows RT with complete and total lock down. They heard the rumours of Windows going subscription based, and cloud based.
Steambox/SteamOS is a hedge against Microsoft Windows becoming hostile to Steam.
So... its this done in the 'cloud' with all your conversation recorded, logged, analyzed and then the translation sent back?
Pretty much impossible to have a secure conversation if so. Of course, having a secure conversation of any type on skype is an oxymoron anyway.
I'll be "impressed" when they do real time translation on end-end encrypted connections without an eavesdropping service in the middle. (ie i run the translation locally with nothing leaking out.)
Personally I wouldn't trust any software writen for Microsoft windows.
Depends who you want privacy -from-. If you are using encryption because you don't want the kids (parents?) getting at the files into your computer, bitlocker is fine.
If you are using encryption because your venderA, and you don't want a lost/stolen computer ending up in the hands of VenderB then bitlocker is fine.
If you are a low/mid criminal in small town Z peddling drugs to the local elementary school or supplies the dealers that do, bitlocker is probably fine. While technically the 'government' is your threat vector, the odds that the local sherrif will be able to recruit the NSA to break into your seized computer with their top secret hush-hush back door to bit-locker is pretty low.
If you are foreign vendor A competing against american vendor B for high profile military/industrial/nuclear/security products then yeah, the NSA is a genuine factor and bitlocker is not ok.
If you are a terrorist plotting an attack... then bitlocker is not ok.
Slashdot Mirror
If you guess wrong, you become one more statistic in the Obama Administration's policy of prosecuting whistleblowers (twice as many prosecutions as ALL other Administrations combined so far).
I've read that stat, and don't dispute the truth of it; but I question whether it lacks context. Perhaps there are simply a lot more whistleblowers due to the degree the government has gone so far off he rails? Perhaps there is a peer, where once people started coming forwards, a lot more of them felt emboldened to come forward. (The way rape victims tend to be more inclined to come forward when they know other victims are coming forward.)
Maybe the ratio at which this administration is prosecuting whistleblowers is no higher than previous administrations, there are just so many more of them so the absolute numbers are higher.
Anyone know?
which apps weren't available
The two that annoy me:
Firefox with adblock
HumbleBundle support
I had an iphone; I still think it was the best device on the market at the time. (3GS era); but I wouldn't go back now.
Then put YOUR ass on the line and do what you suggest. Suggesting other people put their asses on the line for your benefit just means you're a dick.
Yeah, that's the only possible explanation for the fact that I haven't done everything in life that I think is possible, or could or should be done by someone.
No worst case is that because your infringement is willful they go after your personal assets.
Infringement is not willful. There is a clear good faith argument that the license was being followed.
But prove me wrong, get out there and spend your time and money to fork code you can't legally fork and put your ass on the line that none of the developers will decide they see a payday in your infringement.
What payday? Its a single title, not being sold for money. Actual damages to the original author are ZERO. Theoretical damages to the original author are ZERO. What does that leave?
Statutory damages.
That maxes out at 50k in the US that's if its proven willful.You really telling me that's a risk silicon valley tech companies can't afford?
And that's WORST case. And the odds of that happening are astronomically small. Far far far more probable its a cease and desist and a small fine; assuming you don't settle out of court before it even gets that far.
Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, and Micron.
I've had nothing but success from Mushkin SSDs; and they generally seem very well reviewed; Is there something wrong with them I should know about?
You can't fork it.
Are you sure.
The license is actually highly restrictive.
Insofar as lawyers don't like the wording as its a bit ambiguous on some fine details; but its not as restrictive you seem to think.
Moreover, for the license to actually be a problem someone would have to come forward, establish they actually have copyright standing, and then sue you over making a fork.
So what realistically what are the risks? That some anonymous devs who shutdown the project and have advocated everyone switch to alternative systems is going to come out of the woodwork to sue you for copyright infringment and 'damages' despite your best efforts to follow their license which DOES actually allow for forking, and for which you wouldn't be charging for copies. So there are no profits to sue for then there is the acute impossibility of you 'damaging' their interests given they discontinued the original project and burned it to the ground.
I honestly don't understand the fear. I mean sure there is a risk there, but if you incorporate a nonprofit, continue to give it away for free, and retain the terms of the license; the risk small.
Even if the authors did come out of the woodwork, and sue you, so what? So your non-profit shuts down - worst case. More likely by far to just walk away with little more than a cease and desist and/or a small fine, and that's assuming the court even finds against you (which given the ambiguity of the license, and your attempt to adhere to it as best as possible) isn't all that likely in the first place.
Yet, the lawyers say its 'highly restrictive' and 'dangerous' to anyone who goes near -- same lawyers who approved the non-compete clauses that now have silicon valley under a class action? Where was their sage advice about risk then?
first of all, Ms. Granick didn't start all answers by making an extremely esoteric distinction in terminology that caused more questions and confusion...like Stallman did
Except his distinctions were generally warranted and cleared up things people usually argue over simply because they mean one thing but say something else.
2nd, Stallman thinks anyone who uses a cell phone is a dupe
I choose to use one too. But I think stallman is right. We're dupes. Modern phones are horrific on nearly every front.
Stallman's an idealist who puts his ideals ahead of convenience. You and I put convenience ahead of ideals. I don't see an actual argument here.
Stallman's contextualization of the problem guides his opinions of "how things should be" and what solutions are best for our current problems
Stallman's solutions actually would be solutions if they were implemented.
on the issue of privacy, Ms. Granick's advice on a cell phone privacy issue or her thoughts on what can be done to increase privacy are going to be an order of magnitude more useful,
Sorry, what privacy advice did she actually give that was useful? "I use cookie blockers and if I had more privacy friendly options I'd use them?" is neither advice nor a solution, merely a helpless surrender that privacy right now is hard to do.
So... everything's going to work out in the end, and the 4th amendment is going to evolve in constructive ways; we're going to reform statutes for location privacy... how exactly? And we'll have some assurance big brother isn't behind the scenes slurping up the data anyway because: optimism?
From the same response where she writes " Iâ(TM)ve become even more disillusioned with Congress than I already was. [...] they do not do what the public wants even when there is a general consensus."
Yeah, that sounds like an incubator for constructive policy.
thanks again to Ms. Granick...these are real, value added answers...
Agreed. Excellent read.
i think this interview Q/A was much more enlightening than the Stallman Q/A
I disagree. There were no surprises or new insights for me from Stallman's Q/A, but that's not because he isn't thought provoking or insightful. We've just all heard his views before.
i'd take Jennifer Granicks advice over Stallman's on these issues any day
Advice on what exactly?
The Start Menu in 8.1 is crap. Most of the features that were in Win7's start menu don't exist in 8.1.
I actually like the right click start button in 8.1 MORE than windows 7. The ONLY thing I miss from windows 7 is the search widget -- the start screen still supports it, and for actually SEARCHING for something, the full screen UI is actually better too.
But I used the search widget mostly for quick-launching frequently run programs, much like Win+R, but the search widgets autocomplete/suggestions is much better.
That's about it that's about the only thing that the start menu in 7 does better. And from the look of what they were talking about with the next update to 8.1 or now 9? is will bring even that back.
The worst gaffes of 8.0 are already corrected. (putting the 'X' button in metro apps, giving metro apps taskbar icons, making the start button available as a button instead of forcing it to be a hot-corner etc...)
The remaining complaints about 8.1 really are mostly just because a lot of people will complain about anything.
It would be very different for real web stuff,
No it wouldn't because the 'real web stuff' you want doesn't even exist yet. So its even less important to consumers than flash, which actually was being widely used.
as people can just install another browser on their devices
Unless they can't, because the locked down platform decides to drop alternative browsers from the app store.
In a way, that is what Microsoft is doing by adopting new features so slowly and their market share is but a fraction of what it used to be.
There is a definite trend towards people liking the newest IE browsers just fine. Its been a long time since the only thing IE was any good for was getting a different browser.
IE marketshare is no longer in freefall falling on windows. I know its still falling overall, due to the flood of non-windows tablets and smartphones where it has no presence; but on windows itself? Its still in slight decline. (And hell that might be motivated by millions XP users needing to migrate away from it because they are stuck on 8 or 9?)
Even then any whistleblower with half a brain would simultaneously release it to the freest presses belonging to America's strongest allies around the world.
He wouldn't select just the Chinese state sponsored paper. That's absurd.
He'd send it to journalists in Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Iceland, the UK, France, Germanly, AND the United States. (even if the US was too afraid to do anything with it itself, it would still be released there, just to establish that it was attempting to reach the US public and the closest friends of the US -- because yes, despite the fact that the US is becoming a xenophobic bully it still has genuine allies)
Taking your example:
How do you know that someone else hasn't discovered the flaw and already sold it to Islamistan?
How do you know the flaw isn't a deliberate conspiracy between the corrupt people providing the flawed system.
Now 'Keeping it a secret' is putting your own country at risk (since the enemy potentially already has the flaw through some other channel or may have it shortly, and you are potentially shielding the very people who put it there...)
So you do exactly what Snowden did, you release the story to American journalists. They can verify the story, and report it to the public without revealing the details. They can merely reveal that its flawed.
That's a pretty contrived situation.
What possible rationale do you have for an American whistleblower selecting to disclose it to the Russian Chinese state sponsored papers?
I highly doubt that. I think the moment a vendor starts shipping a lesser web experience in a world where the web is increasingly more important, they will see a drop in adoption and sales.
That's why the iphone flopped when Apple decided it wouldn't support flash in an era where flash was pretty important.
But the larger view is its a catch-22; most developers won't use features that aren't widely available cross-platform -- so any major closed platform that sees those features as a threat simply can refuse to implement them, and most developers will in turn avoid using those features.
When I'm developing for the web, I don't even bother to look at what new-fangled nonsense Chrome has just released. My baseline is to only use features that are widely supported.
It's simple. You use signed source code instead of signed binaries.
That doesn't really help.
If every executable is different, then I have no information about the binaries i downloaded. I have to download the source, verify that its the 'audited trusted source' by checking its hash and signatures, and then I have to compile it myself. Most people don't want to compile all their own code.
It is good enough that OpenBSD released the source code, trusted auditing group audited the source code, and trusted build validation group verifies that the binaries on the OpenBSD site were generated from the audited source. I can just download the binaries check the hash/signatures and I'm good to go.
And in the case of a corporate IT department, you use the randomizing compiler to build the binary that you push out to your clients. It may be the same throughout your company, but it will be different from anything anyone outside would have access to, which is probably good enough.
The technique can be expanded to the home market; whereby joe-sixpack is running executable whitelist-reputation subscription software that will flag anything on his system that isn't "known good". Antivirus software is starting to head in this direction -- where it maintains databases of 'known good' executables; you've probably even seen them say "this executable is not known... submit it for analysis" -- take that system to its logical conclusion; and we could see community sites maintain executable whitelists that are as effective as adware blockers. (And they'd have no qualms about flagging "technically not illegal malware but nobody actually wants to run this shit" (e.g. toolbar search redirections through popup advertisting portals that the AV guys are currently too scared to just block outright.)
Community managed executable whitelists with operating system level enforcement support could potentially make a serious dent in malware on the average uninformed users computer. It would help close a lot of attack vectors. More effective I think than 'randomizing' variable layout at in the compiled executable.
Also re:
Then you use a compiler and linker that does some simple things like randomly ordering variables and functions in the executable and on the stack.
Stronger ASLR and DEP type features in the OS to do executable layout randomization at runtime I think represents a better approach to this than randomization at compile time.
Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public? This is intended as a serious question--I like Snowden's idea,
Its pretty easy to tell the difference between someone selling information to a foreign government in secret, and divulging it to the public publicly.
If you are concerned someone is going to "maliciously" divulge secret information to the public for no personal gain but the satisifcation of causing disruption? So what? I can live with that trade off. Its better than the treat whistlblowers as traitors we have now.
And realistically, most of government secrets shouldn't be secret anyway. If that person releases troop movements, under cover agents identities, and your private health information 'the public' will crucify him regardless of the law.
If he releases the contents of a secret in-the-works treaty and you can't tell whether his intentions were disruptive or public service based on the contents of the treaty, I'm ok with erring on the side of public service. And I don't think treaties should be secret anyway.
That's well and nice if you just want to make a document available through the web. But I want to web to more than just delivering documents, I want it to be a platform for applications.
Your desire that you want the browser to be a 'platform for applications' is fine, but is not related to the release schedule at all. How come your long term desire can't be accomplished in slower bigger steps?
Windows, iOS, Debian Stable, and OS X Mavericks are all "platforms for applications" and none of them need 25 feature updates a year, but fixes yes... but not whole new releases with new features every couple weeks.
I want a future where any applications runs on any device, running any operating system, any browser.
The 'web' is no more going to bring about that future than Java did. Especially in a world where hardware vendors are actively seeking to prevent it. (ie Expect Apple to limit the functionality of its iOS browser the minute it starts to threaten app store revenue in a credible way.)
The problem with this in "Explain like I'm Five" terms:
You can have no idea what the program you are running does.
You cannot trust it. You cannot know it hasn't been tampered with. You cannot know a given copy works the same as another copy. You cannot know your executable has no back doors.
On the security minded front we have a trend towards striving for deterministic build capability; so that we have some confidence and method of validating that a source code to executable transformation hasn't been tampered with, that the binaries you just downloaded were actually generated from the source code in a verifiable way.
Another technique I'm seeing in secure conscious areas is executable whitelisting, where IT hashes and whitelists executables, and stuff not on the whitelist is flagged and/or rejected.
Now this guy comes along and runs headlong in the other direction suggesting every executable should be different. And I'm not sure I see any real benefit, nevermind a benefit that offsets the losses outlined above.
Where did I ever claim this?
Implicitly by arguing it wasn't a derivative work.
Fair-use does not only include non-profit uses, although they tend to get more leeway
Yes, but a video game walktrhough resembles, more than anything, the performance of a someone elses screenplay, done for profit (ad revenue).
The fair use defense falls flat. It is only minimally educational (in the same sense that watching someone perform Hamlet is instructive to a budding actor, but that character of the performance is still primarily entertainment over eduation. And this is reinforced by the fact that far more of the game is on display than would be requried for education. A few seconds of video to show how to reach a secret, defeat a boss, or show some other technique might be instructive -- but a game walkthrough from start to finish, including game audio, cut scenes, and primarily just showing off the players skill is a performance of the game, for entertainment, and when linked to ad revenue is done for profit.
And how many new features have they introduced in those patches? None. That's the point, they're just plugging the holes in their buggy software instead of enabling developers to fully make use of new features on the web
I'd agree with you to the point that IE isn't moving as fast as I'd like. On the other hand, for most developers, especially enterprise developers, the web needs to be a stable target.
IE is also uniquely challenged because unlike FF and Chrome etc, IE has a lot of pressure to provide backwards compatibility; and needs to support that legacy. In part some of that grief is their own fault by not being standards compliant out of the gate, but its not all their fault, and regardless of whose fault it is it still has to be managed.
I don't really give a shit about new bleeding edge features though, I just want to see the standards met.
And I certainly don't need 25 feature release updates in 2 years. Nobody does.
You are missing half the point of steamOS/steambox. One half is to make the 'PC' platform big-screent tv-living-room gaming friendly.
The other half, is that its Valves hedge against Microsoft destroying their entire business by altering windows.
Valve saw Metro, Microsoft accounts to sign in being the preferred default, and the Windows App Store. They saw Windows RT with complete and total lock down. They heard the rumours of Windows going subscription based, and cloud based.
Steambox/SteamOS is a hedge against Microsoft Windows becoming hostile to Steam.
You mean cloud based streaming gaming. . . like OnLive or Gaikai?
Sort of, except NOT on the cloud.
But rather from, for example, the powerful gaming rig downstairs at your desk, to the less powerful PC upstairs next to the PC.
Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome.
And IE has been patched at least that often as well but doesn't bother incrementing the major version number every time.
So... its this done in the 'cloud' with all your conversation recorded, logged, analyzed and then the translation sent back?
Pretty much impossible to have a secure conversation if so. Of course, having a secure conversation of any type on skype is an oxymoron anyway.
I'll be "impressed" when they do real time translation on end-end encrypted connections without an eavesdropping service in the middle. (ie i run the translation locally with nothing leaking out.)
Personally I wouldn't trust any software writen for Microsoft windows.
Depends who you want privacy -from-.
If you are using encryption because you don't want the kids (parents?) getting at the files into your computer, bitlocker is fine.
If you are using encryption because your venderA, and you don't want a lost/stolen computer ending up in the hands of VenderB then bitlocker is fine.
If you are a low/mid criminal in small town Z peddling drugs to the local elementary school or supplies the dealers that do, bitlocker is probably fine. While technically the 'government' is your threat vector, the odds that the local sherrif will be able to recruit the NSA to break into your seized computer with their top secret hush-hush back door to bit-locker is pretty low.
If you are foreign vendor A competing against american vendor B for high profile military/industrial/nuclear/security products then yeah, the NSA is a genuine factor and bitlocker is not ok.
If you are a terrorist plotting an attack... then bitlocker is not ok.
"less derivative" sure. But still derivative.
And now you are arguing "fair use" which by definition concedes that it is a derivative work; see my reply to your other post.