Yes, he really is being jailed for his actual wrongdoings. You are not allowed to use aliases on probation.
Or, at least, he wasn't by the specific terms of his probation.
He used an alias and did something infamous with it.
Something that involved making a posting to the internet without prior consultation with the Probation Officer which was, also, prohibited by his probation terms.
Ok, I can see lying to probation officials...I can see lack of trust..but danger to community???
Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable on very current events, and this is a good example.
"Lying to probation officials" is one of the probation violations at issue.
"Lack of trust" and "danger to the community" are not violations at issue, they are the basis for the decision not to set bail.
This guy exercises free speech
Posting a video online in a manner which would violate the terms of his probation is not an exercise of free speech. Nor are the violations actually charged, which occurred during the investigation of whether or not he was the person who posted the video, which would have violated the terms of his probation.
This guy exercises free speech, and now is accused of being a danger to his community because of how some insane extremists might react
No, a convicted fraudster is considered a untrustworthy regarding promises to appear and a danger to the community based on his history of frauds, and the apparent additional deceptions he committed when questioned about law enforcement about his possible involvement in an act which may have involved additional frauds and which would also, frauds aside, have violated his probation for his past frauds in at least two respects -- one by use of the internet without approval of his probation officer, and another by using a name other than his true legal name.
This is selective prosecution that wouldn't occur but for the outrage. As such it should be thrown out as government doesn't (in theory anyway) get to hold in reserve violations and then arrest when the person gets uppity in perfectly legal ways.
That would make sense...except that the violations at issue occurred during the investigation of whether or not he posted the video, which itself would have violated the terms of his probation.
Its not about violations known in advance and held in reserve and then used as retribution for a "perfectly legal" act, "uppity" or otherwise.
Paying money to a direct competitor to use their products is not always the best plan, even if it makes sense when looking only at dollars.
Neither is replacing a data supplier on an established product (for which updates will be pushed out to existing customers) without assuring that what you are getting from a replacement supplier at least matches the features and quality from the supplier you are replacing, even if it makes sense when looking only at your late founders stated intent to wage nuclear war against the existing data supplier.
Apple gets its mapping data from third parties, primarily Tom Tom. I'm not trying to be an Apple apologist--they still need to take responsibility for the performance of the final product, data used and all--but wouldn't this suggest that Tom Tom's dataset is largely to blame?
Apple actively chose to replace its existing maps data supplier (Google) with new suppliers (including TomTom). If there are problems with the new version of Maps resulting from that choice of data suppliers, the blame is 100% with Apple. The map data is the heart of the Maps app, so its a pretty key decision in the app. Not insisting on -- and verifying -- quality on that piece is not a minor issue.
Pretty hard to modify for people that work collaboritivly.
You know, if people want to collaborate with you on a document you use in Google Docs, there is a free web-based tool that lets them do that that doesn't require using any import or export filters.
We used it at work because so many of our customers could read what we created.
I find it hard to believe that there is a large group of people out there that can read legacy Microsoft Office formats but none of the export formats that GDocs supports after Oct. 1
e-books are a phenomenon primarily restricted to the fictive publishing arena
ePub and similar formats may be most popular for that, but electronic books more generally, well, tech publishers were all over that even before fiction publishers got into it.
But, I mean, if this was a tech-focussed forum, I'd expect everyone to know that already.
Was it expensive to maintain this functionality? It seems like the.doc format shouldn't be changing much these days, making it fairly cheap to keep around.
The old Microsoft formats may not be changing, but GDocs features are, and when adding new features, you need to update the export filters to account for the new features (even, in many cases, for features that can't be exported to that format, since simply ignoring the feature won't always work.)
So, if there's a relatively low perceived use of export in the old MS formats (which they can probably tell from usage data), it may make sense to drop the export filter rather than continue maintaining it.
Customers send doc files and expect you to read them since almost everyone else uses Office. Sending a reply back to your clients or people at other companies saying, "Hey, install this addon and send it back in DOCX format" will only make *you* seem to be incompetent and a waster of time compared to your competition using MS Office.
That's a nice complaint, but could you please explain to me precisely how it is relevant to Google announced removal of the option to export files from Google Docs in the legacy Microsoft Office formats while explicitly retaining existing import functionality for "Microsoft Office files of any format"?
If you need to purchase a copy of Office to read the old formats anyway, you might as well not go the Google Apps route at all.
"Read" and "export" aren't the same thing, at all.
Dave, I think that's the whole point. Google was the map provider for Droid and iOS, but they weren't keeping the iOS version up-to-date in terms of functionality like the were the Droid versions. That's exactly why Apple told them to take a hike.
That's a nice story. The problem with it is that, in the real world, the Maps app on iOS was maintained (such as it, which was not very much) by Apple. Google wasn't the app supplier, it was the map data provider.
So, if anyone was responsible for the UX experience of the iOS Maps app not keeping up with the UX of the equivalent Android app, it was Apple. (Well, I guess you can blame Google for working more on the Android app than Apple was willing to bother working on the iOS app.)
If Apple's concern was UX rather than continuing Jobs promised nuclear war with Google, they would have spent their resources making UX improvements (and not faced the blowback from dropping popular features that depended on Google's data resources) rather than on purchasing other companies so that they could replace Google as the backend data supplier.
So when someone makes a video attacking Islam, he's called "far right" and it is the moderates who make his film illegal and ban him from their country (as the UK did to Geert Wilders). But when someone makes a facebook page attacking Orthodox Christians, he's a moderate and the people who want the facebook banned are called "far right".
Just trying to make sure I understand the definition of "far right".
Conservatism (and thus "right", including "far right"), because it includes defense of traditional institutions, differs in detail based on local tradition. So, in a historically predominantly Christian country, exclusionary Christian extremism is a right-wing activity.
Sometimes that manifests in mockery directed against religions other than the locally-dominant form of Christianity. Sometimes it manifests in using the power of the State against those directing mockery at the locally-dominant form of Christianity.
Note that, because such actions (wherever there originators are located) can have broader visibility than the context in which they originate, you can produce conflicts where both the provocation and the response are far-right, despite being opposed to each other -- such as where a mockery against Islam created in a dominantly-Christian country triggers a violent response in dominantly-Islamic areas.
Not that I am agreeing with your characterization of the general portrayals (I think your "far right" bits are on point in terms of how things have been portrayed, I think your "moderate" bits are not.)
If either the pepper or the database is leaked, you have to change the pepper value (as soon as you have closed the hole, which allowed the leak in the first place). But until all passwords have been changed, you still have to support the old pepper value. That means to properly use this, you need to have a hardcoded array of pepper values in the application, and store an array index in the user entry in the password database.
Or you drop support for the old pepper and mass-expire all the passwords and require users to use a password reset mechanism (equivalent to the "lost password" functionality you should have) after the breach before they can log in.
This is somewhat less convenient to users, but simpler and -- assuming the security of your password reset mechanism -- more secure than continuing to support passwords with the old pepper until they are changed.
Besides, what happened to HTML5 being a versionless "living standard"
WHATWG manages the HTML "living standard". WHATWG HTML living standard is basically the venue in which interested parties, most notably all of the major browser vendors, hash out agreements on what will be supported in the future.
W3C has HTML5 (and apparently now plans for HTML5.1, etc.) which seems certain to trail far behind the WHATWG living standard.
If you think of the W3Cs standards as appropriate targets for relatively conservative web developers while WHATWG standards are for people building browsers and other infrastructure to work toward (plus, with a lot of caution as to particular browsers support status for individual features, more cutting edge web developers), it kind of makes sense.
I can't disagree with the logic, but something still stinks about how deeply into one's personal life and activities a judge can go.
There are avenues for addressing overreaching judicial orders. Agreeing without qualification to an offered alternative and then ignoring the requirements you agreed to generally isn't the best avenue. Indeed, its usually the one that leaves you in the worst position.
Have you read the Supreme Court's Bilski decision? Unfortunately, I had to. It didn't say anything useful about software patents.
Whether it actually did so or not is irrelevant to the fact that Google is using it (among other cases) to criticize the approach the Federal Circuit has taken subsequently and to argue that the Federal Circuit is improperly applying patent law to allow improper patents to stand. That is, the point is that Google (along with others) are very strenuously making the case the Federal Circuit -- in cases where they are not a party -- that the Federal Circuit's current approach to patentability is to broad given both the text of the Patent Act and the precedent of the Supreme Court. This was offered as part of an illustration of Google's present opposition to the current status quo regarding software patents, not as an argument that the Federal Circuit is, in fact, incorrect or that Bilski does, in fact, limit patentability in a way that the Federal Circuits subsequent decisions conflict with.
That being said, in fact, the Supreme Court in Bilski -- in its characterization of the rule extracted from Flook (which is not a quote of a rule explicitly stated in Flook) which was part of its basis for ruling that the patent before it was invalid -- did state a rule that is important in the area of both business method and software patents, "limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components [does] not make the concept patentable". This rule, along with the Mayo test for determining if a claim is abstract, are the two pillars of the argument Google, et al., have made at the Federal Circuit.
And we still don't know if a general-purpose computer is enough to meet the "machine" prong.
Actually, we know that limiting the use of an otherwise-abstract idea to a general purpose computer (or any other particular technological environment) doesn't make it patentable, because Bilski (internally quoting Diehr characterizing Flook) states explicitly that "the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.'" (And, in case anyone missed it in Bilski and Diehr, this passage from Bilski is quoted in Mayo.)
The thread is about who was wronged first, not just court cases.
No, its not. Pay attention.
Its about filing lawsuits based on software patents, which the post that started this subthread took to be wrong a priori, and criticized both Google and Apple for, suggesting that instead of pursuing that course of action they should be lobbying against software patents. Following that, it was suggested (by me) that there was a difference, in that Google was lobbying against the current software patent regime, and that its use of software patent lawsuits was retaliatory and defensive, with Apple having initiated the exchange.
After that, you've tried to shift the discussion to be about the perception of infringement making Apple feel justified, but in the context of software patents as an a priori wrong that's irrelevant, since whether or not Apple's legal privileges under such patents were infringed is not an issue since the existence of those privileges at all is the wrong that is being complained about.
I suggest that you go back one post at a time and review the thread leading up to this point, because it is you that's missed the point and tried to change the subject.
I'm interested to know how it is you see Apple as firing first. Because... well, they didn't.
Actually, they did; they fired at Android device manufacturers. The major ones were HTC and then Samsung. While with Apple the hardware and software pieces of the ecosystem are all in the same company, with Android the handset manufacturers and the mobile OS developer are separate companies (but they depend on each other with regard to the success of Android products).
The way these companies are going, it will not take much longer before people start realizing the current system is no longer viable.
Google's position -- even before Apple started filing the lawsuits against Android manufacturers that were the opening shot in the Apple-Google patent war -- was that the current patent regime, particularly in regards to software patents, was harmful to innovation and unmaintainable.
OTOH, Google -- as they are trying to run a business that has to operate in the real world -- doesn't have the luxury of pretending it lives in the world as it would prefer it to be, and so, until the people writing laws come around to the view that Google has been advocating, has to do its best to work in the patent regime we have.
Stop this bullshit and direct your lawyers to lobby to change the laws on software patents instead.
Google is doing all of the following: 1) Lobbying against the existing software patent regime, 2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit, and 3) Using its existing patent portfolio against Apple so long as the existing patent regime is in place, and given that Apple started the patent war against Android.
Given the existing patent situation -- both the laws on the books and the way the federal courts apply them -- Google will be foolish not to aggressively use its patent portfolio against firms that are aggressively using their own portfolios against Google and Google partners, even while they are working to reshape the rules in a way which would eliminate or vastly reduce the opportunity for such warfare.
But what percentage of people who actually buy iPhones lost these features?
People who buy iPhones may well use those features in more than one country -- I live in the USA, but I've used the features Street View and Traffic on my iPhone in Mexico (which is on the list of countries in which all three features are lost with the iOS 6 "update".)
And, for 2 of the 3 features (Street View and Transit) one of the countries they were lost in -- from the lists in TFA -- is "USA". I think a fair percentage of iPhone users are affected by that.
To this day, Access has no alternatives, no competitors.
That's not true. There's plenty of competitors: Kexi, Gambas, LibreOffice/OOo Base.
I really wonder why none of the free software makers have ever taken on the challenge of doing an Access clone.
Probably the same reason that most of the commercial alternative desktop database programs are dead (I think FileMaker is the only one that is still being actively marketed.) The use of Access and similar desktop databases as an application platform is contracting, and almost entirely around legacy applications with most new development using different models and applications that use the desktop database model gradually moving off of it, and the use of desktop database programs as query/report tools for knowledge workers is likewise fading, with use shifting to either custom applications with the necessary query/report functionality or dedicated BI tools.
The problem is, since JavaScript explicitly disallows XSS, I couldn't figure out a way to contact a separate key authority server.
JavaScript doesn't "explicitly disallow XSS". Most browsers (through implementations of the still-in-draft Content Security Policy, and, for IE, additionally through its own "XSS filter") include means of restricting XSS, but those browsers also allow pages to control whether and how those XSS-limiting features are applied.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, at least, he wasn't by the specific terms of his probation.
Something that involved making a posting to the internet without prior consultation with the Probation Officer which was, also, prohibited by his probation terms.
Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable on very current events, and this is a good example.
"Lying to probation officials" is one of the probation violations at issue.
"Lack of trust" and "danger to the community" are not violations at issue, they are the basis for the decision not to set bail.
Posting a video online in a manner which would violate the terms of his probation is not an exercise of free speech. Nor are the violations actually charged, which occurred during the investigation of whether or not he was the person who posted the video, which would have violated the terms of his probation.
No, a convicted fraudster is considered a untrustworthy regarding promises to appear and a danger to the community based on his history of frauds, and the apparent additional deceptions he committed when questioned about law enforcement
about his possible involvement in an act which may have involved additional frauds and which would also, frauds aside, have violated his probation for his past frauds in at least two respects -- one by use of the internet without approval of his probation officer, and another by using a name other than his true legal name.
That would make sense...except that the violations at issue occurred during the investigation of whether or not he posted the video, which itself would have violated the terms of his probation.
Its not about violations known in advance and held in reserve and then used as retribution for a "perfectly legal" act, "uppity" or otherwise.
Neither is replacing a data supplier on an established product (for which updates will be pushed out to existing customers) without assuring that what you are getting from a replacement supplier at least matches the features and quality from the supplier you are replacing, even if it makes sense when looking only at your late founders stated intent to wage nuclear war against the existing data supplier.
Apple actively chose to replace its existing maps data supplier (Google) with new suppliers (including TomTom). If there are problems with the new version of Maps resulting from that choice of data suppliers, the blame is 100% with Apple. The map data is the heart of the Maps app, so its a pretty key decision in the app. Not insisting on -- and verifying -- quality on that piece is not a minor issue.
You know, if people want to collaborate with you on a document you use in Google Docs, there is a free web-based tool that lets them do that that doesn't require using any import or export filters.
I find it hard to believe that there is a large group of people out there that can read legacy Microsoft Office formats but none of the export formats that GDocs supports after Oct. 1
ePub and similar formats may be most popular for that, but electronic books more generally, well, tech publishers were all over that even before fiction publishers got into it.
But, I mean, if this was a tech-focussed forum, I'd expect everyone to know that already.
The old Microsoft formats may not be changing, but GDocs features are, and when adding new features, you need to update the export filters to account for the new features (even, in many cases, for features that can't be exported to that format, since simply ignoring the feature won't always work.)
So, if there's a relatively low perceived use of export in the old MS formats (which they can probably tell from usage data), it may make sense to drop the export filter rather than continue maintaining it.
That's a nice complaint, but could you please explain to me precisely how it is relevant to Google announced removal of the option to export files from Google Docs in the legacy Microsoft Office formats while explicitly retaining existing import functionality for "Microsoft Office files of any format"?
"Read" and "export" aren't the same thing, at all.
That's a nice story. The problem with it is that, in the real world, the Maps app on iOS was maintained (such as it, which was not very much) by Apple. Google wasn't the app supplier, it was the map data provider.
So, if anyone was responsible for the UX experience of the iOS Maps app not keeping up with the UX of the equivalent Android app, it was Apple. (Well, I guess you can blame Google for working more on the Android app than Apple was willing to bother working on the iOS app.)
If Apple's concern was UX rather than continuing Jobs promised nuclear war with Google, they would have spent their resources making UX improvements (and not faced the blowback from dropping popular features that depended on Google's data resources) rather than on purchasing other companies so that they could replace Google as the backend data supplier.
Also, Christian. See, e.g., Romans 12:19.
Conservatism (and thus "right", including "far right"), because it includes defense of traditional institutions, differs in detail based on local tradition. So, in a historically predominantly Christian country, exclusionary Christian extremism is a right-wing activity.
Sometimes that manifests in mockery directed against religions other than the locally-dominant form of Christianity. Sometimes it manifests in using the power of the State against those directing mockery at the locally-dominant form of Christianity.
Note that, because such actions (wherever there originators are located) can have broader visibility than the context in which they originate, you can produce conflicts where both the provocation and the response are far-right, despite being opposed to each other -- such as where a mockery against Islam created in a dominantly-Christian country triggers a violent response in dominantly-Islamic areas.
Not that I am agreeing with your characterization of the general portrayals (I think your "far right" bits are on point in terms of how things have been portrayed, I think your "moderate" bits are not.)
Or you drop support for the old pepper and mass-expire all the passwords and require users to use a password reset mechanism (equivalent to the "lost password" functionality you should have) after the breach before they can log in.
This is somewhat less convenient to users, but simpler and -- assuming the security of your password reset mechanism -- more secure than continuing to support passwords with the old pepper until they are changed.
While its true that Facebook's customers are those purchasing ads, the rest is not quite right.
Facebook users are suppliers, not products. Their attention is the raw material for the product, which demographically targetted advertising.
The utility (in the economic system) provided by Facebook's system to the users is the payment from the product vendor to its suppliers.
WHATWG manages the HTML "living standard". WHATWG HTML living standard is basically the venue in which interested parties, most notably all of the major browser vendors, hash out agreements on what will be supported in the future.
W3C has HTML5 (and apparently now plans for HTML5.1, etc.) which seems certain to trail far behind the WHATWG living standard.
If you think of the W3Cs standards as appropriate targets for relatively conservative web developers while WHATWG standards are for people building browsers and other infrastructure to work toward (plus, with a lot of caution as to particular browsers support status for individual features, more cutting edge web developers), it kind of makes sense.
There are avenues for addressing overreaching judicial orders. Agreeing without qualification to an offered alternative and then ignoring the requirements you agreed to generally isn't the best avenue. Indeed, its usually the one that leaves you in the worst position.
Whether it actually did so or not is irrelevant to the fact that Google is using it (among other cases) to criticize the approach the Federal Circuit has taken subsequently and to argue that the Federal Circuit is improperly applying patent law to allow improper patents to stand. That is, the point is that Google (along with others) are very strenuously making the case the Federal Circuit -- in cases where they are not a party -- that the Federal Circuit's current approach to patentability is to broad given both the text of the Patent Act and the precedent of the Supreme Court. This was offered as part of an illustration of Google's present opposition to the current status quo regarding software patents, not as an argument that the Federal Circuit is, in fact, incorrect or that Bilski does, in fact, limit patentability in a way that the Federal Circuits subsequent decisions conflict with.
That being said, in fact, the Supreme Court in Bilski -- in its characterization of the rule extracted from Flook (which is not a quote of a rule explicitly stated in Flook) which was part of its basis for ruling that the patent before it was invalid -- did state a rule that is important in the area of both business method and software patents, "limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components [does] not make the concept patentable". This rule, along with the Mayo test for determining if a claim is abstract, are the two pillars of the argument Google, et al., have made at the Federal Circuit.
Actually, we know that limiting the use of an otherwise-abstract idea to a general purpose computer (or any other particular technological environment) doesn't make it patentable, because Bilski (internally quoting Diehr characterizing Flook) states explicitly that "the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.'" (And, in case anyone missed it in Bilski and Diehr, this passage from Bilski is quoted in Mayo.)
No, its not. Pay attention.
Its about filing lawsuits based on software patents, which the post that started this subthread took to be wrong a priori, and criticized both Google and Apple for, suggesting that instead of pursuing that course of action they should be lobbying against software patents. Following that, it was suggested (by me) that there was a difference, in that Google was lobbying against the current software patent regime, and that its use of software patent lawsuits was retaliatory and defensive, with Apple having initiated the exchange.
After that, you've tried to shift the discussion to be about the perception of infringement making Apple feel justified, but in the context of software patents as an a priori wrong that's irrelevant, since whether or not Apple's legal privileges under such patents were infringed is not an issue since the existence of those privileges at all is the wrong that is being complained about.
I suggest that you go back one post at a time and review the thread leading up to this point, because it is you that's missed the point and tried to change the subject.
Actually, they did; they fired at Android device manufacturers. The major ones were HTC and then Samsung. While with Apple the hardware and software pieces of the ecosystem are all in the same company, with Android the handset manufacturers and the mobile OS developer are separate companies (but they depend on each other with regard to the success of Android products).
Google's position -- even before Apple started filing the lawsuits against Android manufacturers that were the opening shot in the Apple-Google patent war -- was that the current patent regime, particularly in regards to software patents, was harmful to innovation and unmaintainable.
OTOH, Google -- as they are trying to run a business that has to operate in the real world -- doesn't have the luxury of pretending it lives in the world as it would prefer it to be, and so, until the people writing laws come around to the view that Google has been advocating, has to do its best to work in the patent regime we have.
Google is doing all of the following:
1) Lobbying against the existing software patent regime,
2) Working very hard (e.g., via amicus filings in cases to which it is not a party) to get the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop blatantly ignoring Supreme Court decisions (particularly, Bilski) limiting patentability under the existing patent laws, so that patents that are invalid -- under the standards set by the Supreme Court interpreting existing law -- don't keep getting upheld by the Federal Circuit, and
3) Using its existing patent portfolio against Apple so long as the existing patent regime is in place, and given that Apple started the patent war against Android.
Given the existing patent situation -- both the laws on the books and the way the federal courts apply them -- Google will be foolish not to aggressively use its patent portfolio against firms that are aggressively using their own portfolios against Google and Google partners, even while they are working to reshape the rules in a way which would eliminate or vastly reduce the opportunity for such warfare.
People who buy iPhones may well use those features in more than one country -- I live in the USA, but I've used the features Street View and Traffic on my iPhone in Mexico (which is on the list of countries in which all three features are lost with the iOS 6 "update".)
And, for 2 of the 3 features (Street View and Transit) one of the countries they were lost in -- from the lists in TFA -- is "USA". I think a fair percentage of iPhone users are affected by that.
That's not true. There's plenty of competitors: Kexi, Gambas, LibreOffice/OOo Base.
Probably the same reason that most of the commercial alternative desktop database programs are dead (I think FileMaker is the only one that is still being actively marketed.) The use of Access and similar desktop databases as an application platform is contracting, and almost entirely around legacy applications with most new development using different models and applications that use the desktop database model gradually moving off of it, and the use of desktop database programs as query/report tools for knowledge workers is likewise fading, with use shifting to either custom applications with the necessary query/report functionality or dedicated BI tools.
JavaScript doesn't "explicitly disallow XSS". Most browsers (through implementations of the still-in-draft Content Security Policy, and, for IE, additionally through its own "XSS filter") include means of restricting XSS, but those browsers also allow pages to control whether and how those XSS-limiting features are applied.