"Thomas Paine's pamphlet was also anonymous" and today we praise him rather than condemn him. We condemn Benedict Arnold for treason who really, at one point, was a great American hero.
Every American that fought in the Revolutionary War was considered treasonous. Every founding father was guilty of treason. Anyone that wasn't a loyalist that didn't support the British Crown was a treasonous person. The tea party was a treasonous act. So, please, just because he wrote something instead of shooting a gun or dumping tea makes him no more or less a treasonous person than anyone else supporting the rebellion and the Revolutionary War.
The first amendment didn't exist till long after the Revolutionary War was over and treason was no longer a matter for those leaders, founding fathers, revolutionary war warriors, propagandists, etc.
My point was that Facebook has no justification for their speech except for the self motivation of "greed". Ill behavior on the part of the anonymous does not serve to justify dismantling anonymity. Since we know this is the case, and that Facebook is a social networking site that makes its profit from the speech of others, and anonymity equates to privacy, Facebook would make more profit by being able to tie anything said or done to the non-anonymous identifier. And given that most speech on the web is actually anonymous speech (hidden not just by false names, but by distance and time--as I have no idea of any given "John Smith" or "Tom Jefferson" from another, and that I may partake of commentary from someone far away that I have no idea who they are, it is hard for anyone to condemn it). Facebook's motivation isn't about curbing ill behavior, it's about tying information to your name and location.
Thomas Paine anonymously published a pamphlet leading to enough support for the Revolution. That would be classified as unaccounted anonymity qualifying as bad behavior by the British Crown.
There is no justification from Facebook when it attempts to equate anonymity with behavior except as an action of greed. They are protected by various laws guaranteeing them safe harbors. Involvement in behavior modification breeds liability for them.
Ill manered behavior is insufficient justification for dismantling anonymity.
Wrong! Anonimity does not imply bad behavior, and for those who rage in anonymity they do not do it all the time. Anonimity is a necessary protection in some circumstances. Without it we would not have wikileaks, whistleblowers, political and religious dissent.
Posting anonymously does not begat rage posting, nor does it imply bad behavior. Nor does it lead to bad behavior inevitability. Anonymous speech no more implies bad behavior than the right to own a gun means people will go out and shoot others with the one they own.
Anonimity does not create bad behavior. That is already in the minds and hearts of others.
In your post you offended me with your tone. To me that is bad behavior. Did you know you are anonymous?
The next part of the process is to recognize that Facebook has no stake in controlling behavior, thus making discussions about it a dead horse. From their perspective anyway. If you speak about anonymity as it relates to behavior it is easier to motivate others to allow control of one through the other, providing the side benefit of making your already collected mega piles of data all that much more valuable.
The easy answer is that Facebook isn't culpable and thus has no position to want to control behavior, for that is none of their business. Safe harbors protect them from liability. Their attemp to moderate behavior can open them up to liability. Our behavior is none of their business.
It is no more their concern than it is the average person's concern about mine.
Facebook has no other motivation other than greed. Without anonymity they have a better way to tie who you are to what you do. The information becomes much more valuable that way.
Anonimity needs to go away..... Because without it we cannot collect as much money as fast as we would like.
It's greed that is motivating these comments by their executives. Nothing less.
Anonymous speech is a necessary component of free speech. There are many court cases that protect anonymous free speech recognizing it as protected by the first amendment.
These executives speek only for their services. Otherwise they have no reason to voice those comments. Hence profit is their motivation. A business that profits from social networking which relies on speech to generate revenue calling to for the end of "privacy through anonymity" is voicing their opinion based on profit motivation.
Only pundits from the media ever claimed there would be a year of Linux on the desktop. Failure to acknowledge that is not beneficial to the free software community. Some germ of a media rep makes a claim and people forever mock Linux for not achieving it? It's ridiculous on so many levels.
As for the accomplishments of Linux just look to Android. That is Linux. There are 500,000+ new activations of Android every day. The desktop OS itself has significantly improved since those pundits bleeped those words to the general public. The progress Linux has made in all arenas is incredible.
The snag for Linux is still those lock-in technologies that Microsoft built into Windows. I've successfully helped many people switch after they learned that most if not all the things they do day in and day out can be accomplished with Linux (if you aren't set on gaming or MS Office, which the vast majority of people aren't--they just didn't know any better).
This is not correct. You can measure in other ways, as has been done for years and years. The web hits measurement is only used because it is easy. It is also highly inaccurate.
And my point still stands. Their methodology is extremely one sided. It fails to account for an amazing number of reasons why XP boxes would remain unaccounted for. Using web hits is so incredibly jaded because it is so easily manipulated toward their desired goal. For example, it is easy for the likes of Microsoft to claim a high percentage of IE users because to get updates you need IE.
The summary is not accurate. Just because 50% or fewer of those hitting their pages are using XP to browse the web doesn't mean that it has less than 50% of the desktop. I have multiple boxes, of which a few are XP that never hit the web. But that doesn't mean I don't use them. And, again, they imply that everyone that uses a computer uses the web. It's not even a good gauge. When it hits in the low 30% or even 20% then I'll think something of it, and that likely will be that people are upgrading their boxes, not their OS, and that the OS just comes along with it.
Even to postulate such a thing as cyberpolice for email shows the utter moronic mindset of those making the suggestion or agreeing to it.
First we already have laws covering it. Second it is akin to giving poice authority to the illiterate. How on earth can we trust anyone willing to support the likes of ACTA or the PROTECT IP Act. Utter morons. All of them.
The summary is technically incorrect. Near the end it states that Microsoft had years under its belt with MS-DOS and Basic. The mistake in the summary is that they had years of experience with MS-DOS--that didn't even exist as a product at the time.
It had years under its belt with Basic which was written initially by stealing Harvard computing power (Paul Allen wasn't a student and Gates was just a deadbeat about his classes, none of which at the time were computer related). And the language itself was a rip off of the language invented by two other professors from a different school.
Years earlier, as kids, Gates and Allen both had been in trouble with the law for hacking and stealing time-share minutes. Back then those were significant costs to anyone using them. Instead of being prosecuted they were hired to test for faults and weaknesses in security.
It was Allen who knew of the SCP QDOS. Gates essentially lied to IBM knowing that he could gain control of QDOS. In Microsoft taking over QDOS, SCP retained rights to any and all changes made by Microsoft, and were owed royalties. Microsoft failed to pay those and SCP owner who was going bankrupt sued Microsoft and won. He paid his debts and had a little left for retirement. MS-DOS wasn't created till after IBM-DOS had been out for some time.
So, they stole computing time from private companies and were forgiven for being so brilliant. Then later they were to steal computing time again, knowing it was illegal, from Harvard, to write an emulator for the 8086 instruction set so they could write their version of Basic which was stolen from two professors from another major university. They then used that to make a company (pirates benefiting commercially from their theft), and in the process Gates tried to screw Allen by, during his convalescence where he nearly died, by getting Ballmer to connive to gain control of his stock. And, during the negotiation process of deciding how to split the shares upon creation of the new business, Gates decried Allen because he'd become an employee of MITS and thus apparently deserved fewer shares, when after then agreement about the split, a few weeks (months) later, Gates was also an employee of MITS. Then, Gates and Allen had the gall to write open letters to others about stealing software. The reality is, that Gates and Allen had stolen considerable sums by then.
Is twitter rendered obsolete by Facebook? Why would circles be better than following trends or others on twitter? Will it have an impact? Sure. All social networking will. And when the next one comes out Google+ will be impacted. To suggest somehow that twitter has met it's pending end is to be irresponsible and grandstanding-ish in an effort to just gain page hits.
He wasn't modded down. He should have been because he isn't telling the truth by any stretch. Plenty of linux users use HULU. Netflix on android is available, and it is Linux.
And the market share for linux is near 100 million. So please cry me a river.
I'm running netflix on my Android tablet. It is the same drm found on netflix, albeit without silverlight. I am also running it my Barnes and Noble Nook Color with the cyanogenmod nightlies. I am able to run the netflix app without problems. On each linux box I have I am able to play videos from HULU and that has drm.
In each of these scenarios others are doing the same thing. You don't hear them screaming about drm.
So what's your point? You intentionally trying to mislead people?
I read this as a slight against Linux. It is disrespect--they go hide in their igloos and eat the cake in secret?
I think the general philosophy that has clearly been reiterated by the Linux community is there is absolutely no room for trust in Microsoft. They are a convicted monopolist and have called upon everyone to view Linux as a cancer. They continue to use their patents to extort payment from large and small with bogus insubstantiated claims against Linux. They are the company that uses embrace extend extinguish. This animation represents the same underhanded intentions.
Techdirt knows how to deal with the guy. The only thing that they would be worried about is maintaining their safe harbor status, thus they'll react, probably not in the manner this obvious troll expects. I am sure they have been waiting on challenge like this. Mike Masnick isn't even surprised I'd expect.
A couple latte's cost from you, $40 more to fill the tank every week, an increase in the cost of food because they are using corn to make fuel, the price of education rising dramatically...after a while you miss a car payment or a house payment because you don't have the cash or you are forced to put this stuff on credit which costs even more in the long run. Then what? And what's the increase in value for the extra cost?
At least a latte has some nutritional value and coffee had a reported medicinal value. What?
Technically not true. Apple limited Microsoft's use of full screen windows by forcing them to agree that they'd only use tiled windows. IBM forced Microsoft's hands for OS/2. Microsoft then went back an implemented full screen to satisfy IBM. Then of course, with all the changes here, Apple sued Microsoft. They lost. We now have full screen windows.
i won't buy a samsung product as i wont pay money to a company that falls to extortion. I will not buy from them because I do not want any of my money going to microsoft. so samsung just lost $600.00 in sales because of microsoft.
Another problem is that most people do not know how to do a complete wipe. Imagine them fumbling around trying to get this done that they wipe out all their data. Or, imagine them screwing around trying to get their data backed up that it becomes such a task that they give up and live with the virus, or they go out and buy a new machine (which is almost never necessary).
So, once they do get their data backed up and they want to go back to the beginning, they can't find out how. They apparently received no CDs to complete this (due to how Microsoft chooses to deal with Royal OEMs and how a Royal OEM can make even more money off Windows by selling recovery disks separately). How about those self created recovery discs that only allow the customer to do the task one time, yet they miss the fact that the discs can be copied, so what's the point of limiting to a single time? What if they have a recovery partition? It's often not invoked in the same manner (hitting F11). In many cases you have to attempt to boot the computer and go into the repair this computer option and search around till you find the place where the manufacturer hid the recovery option.
Microsoft telling people they have to do this is ridiculous. They make billions every quarter. Doesn't anything think they could write a program that does it all in a single click? What I mean by is that it does it all, it cleans the MBR and every other element of that (including ensuring they don't screw around with dual boot set ups), removes the viruses, examines the system and other related files, and puts the system back without needing to completely wipe? I think it only makes sense that they do this because you know, they do take in billions in profit every quarter.
This is what I mean in by what I said in an earlier post. Microsoft won't put the time in to ensure that we progress the operating system. They are either incompetent or playing out their incremental upgrade path at the expense of the consumer (a serious expense). You know, the malware writers are putting the time in, can't we get Microsoft to do the same thing? Are the employees that were responsible for coding all this leave? Did they alienate their employees to the point that they cut into the meat when they let a bunch of people go?
Slashdot Mirror
"Thomas Paine's pamphlet was also anonymous" and today we praise him rather than condemn him. We condemn Benedict Arnold for treason who really, at one point, was a great American hero.
Every American that fought in the Revolutionary War was considered treasonous. Every founding father was guilty of treason. Anyone that wasn't a loyalist that didn't support the British Crown was a treasonous person. The tea party was a treasonous act. So, please, just because he wrote something instead of shooting a gun or dumping tea makes him no more or less a treasonous person than anyone else supporting the rebellion and the Revolutionary War.
The first amendment didn't exist till long after the Revolutionary War was over and treason was no longer a matter for those leaders, founding fathers, revolutionary war warriors, propagandists, etc.
My point was that Facebook has no justification for their speech except for the self motivation of "greed". Ill behavior on the part of the anonymous does not serve to justify dismantling anonymity. Since we know this is the case, and that Facebook is a social networking site that makes its profit from the speech of others, and anonymity equates to privacy, Facebook would make more profit by being able to tie anything said or done to the non-anonymous identifier. And given that most speech on the web is actually anonymous speech (hidden not just by false names, but by distance and time--as I have no idea of any given "John Smith" or "Tom Jefferson" from another, and that I may partake of commentary from someone far away that I have no idea who they are, it is hard for anyone to condemn it). Facebook's motivation isn't about curbing ill behavior, it's about tying information to your name and location.
Thomas Paine anonymously published a pamphlet leading to enough support for the Revolution. That would be classified as unaccounted anonymity qualifying as bad behavior by the British Crown.
There is no justification from Facebook when it attempts to equate anonymity with behavior except as an action of greed. They are protected by various laws guaranteeing them safe harbors. Involvement in behavior modification breeds liability for them.
Ill manered behavior is insufficient justification for dismantling anonymity.
Wrong! Anonimity does not imply bad behavior, and for those who rage in anonymity they do not do it all the time. Anonimity is a necessary protection in some circumstances. Without it we would not have wikileaks, whistleblowers, political and religious dissent.
Posting anonymously does not begat rage posting, nor does it imply bad behavior. Nor does it lead to bad behavior inevitability. Anonymous speech no more implies bad behavior than the right to own a gun means people will go out and shoot others with the one they own.
Anonimity does not create bad behavior. That is already in the minds and hearts of others.
In your post you offended me with your tone. To me that is bad behavior. Did you know you are anonymous?
Finally someone that makes a solid point.
The next part of the process is to recognize that Facebook has no stake in controlling behavior, thus making discussions about it a dead horse. From their perspective anyway. If you speak about anonymity as it relates to behavior it is easier to motivate others to allow control of one through the other, providing the side benefit of making your already collected mega piles of data all that much more valuable.
Their motivation is greed of money.
Rwven,
The easy answer is that Facebook isn't culpable and thus has no position to want to control behavior, for that is none of their business. Safe harbors protect them from liability. Their attemp to moderate behavior can open them up to liability. Our behavior is none of their business.
It is no more their concern than it is the average person's concern about mine.
Facebook has no other motivation other than greed. Without anonymity they have a better way to tie who you are to what you do. The information becomes much more valuable that way.
Anonimity needs to go away..... Because without it we cannot collect as much money as fast as we would like.
It's greed that is motivating these comments by their executives. Nothing less.
Anonymous speech is a necessary component of free speech. There are many court cases that protect anonymous free speech recognizing it as protected by the first amendment.
These executives speek only for their services. Otherwise they have no reason to voice those comments. Hence profit is their motivation. A business that profits from social networking which relies on speech to generate revenue calling to for the end of "privacy through anonymity" is voicing their opinion based on profit motivation.
Only pundits from the media ever claimed there would be a year of Linux on the desktop. Failure to acknowledge that is not beneficial to the free software community. Some germ of a media rep makes a claim and people forever mock Linux for not achieving it? It's ridiculous on so many levels.
As for the accomplishments of Linux just look to Android. That is Linux. There are 500,000+ new activations of Android every day. The desktop OS itself has significantly improved since those pundits bleeped those words to the general public. The progress Linux has made in all arenas is incredible.
The snag for Linux is still those lock-in technologies that Microsoft built into Windows. I've successfully helped many people switch after they learned that most if not all the things they do day in and day out can be accomplished with Linux (if you aren't set on gaming or MS Office, which the vast majority of people aren't--they just didn't know any better).
This is not correct. You can measure in other ways, as has been done for years and years. The web hits measurement is only used because it is easy. It is also highly inaccurate.
And my point still stands. Their methodology is extremely one sided. It fails to account for an amazing number of reasons why XP boxes would remain unaccounted for. Using web hits is so incredibly jaded because it is so easily manipulated toward their desired goal. For example, it is easy for the likes of Microsoft to claim a high percentage of IE users because to get updates you need IE.
The summary is not accurate. Just because 50% or fewer of those hitting their pages are using XP to browse the web doesn't mean that it has less than 50% of the desktop. I have multiple boxes, of which a few are XP that never hit the web. But that doesn't mean I don't use them. And, again, they imply that everyone that uses a computer uses the web. It's not even a good gauge. When it hits in the low 30% or even 20% then I'll think something of it, and that likely will be that people are upgrading their boxes, not their OS, and that the OS just comes along with it.
Even to postulate such a thing as cyberpolice for email shows the utter moronic mindset of those making the suggestion or agreeing to it.
First we already have laws covering it. Second it is akin to giving poice authority to the illiterate. How on earth can we trust anyone willing to support the likes of ACTA or the PROTECT IP Act. Utter morons. All of them.
The summary is technically incorrect. Near the end it states that Microsoft had years under its belt with MS-DOS and Basic. The mistake in the summary is that they had years of experience with MS-DOS--that didn't even exist as a product at the time.
It had years under its belt with Basic which was written initially by stealing Harvard computing power (Paul Allen wasn't a student and Gates was just a deadbeat about his classes, none of which at the time were computer related). And the language itself was a rip off of the language invented by two other professors from a different school.
Years earlier, as kids, Gates and Allen both had been in trouble with the law for hacking and stealing time-share minutes. Back then those were significant costs to anyone using them. Instead of being prosecuted they were hired to test for faults and weaknesses in security.
It was Allen who knew of the SCP QDOS. Gates essentially lied to IBM knowing that he could gain control of QDOS. In Microsoft taking over QDOS, SCP retained rights to any and all changes made by Microsoft, and were owed royalties. Microsoft failed to pay those and SCP owner who was going bankrupt sued Microsoft and won. He paid his debts and had a little left for retirement. MS-DOS wasn't created till after IBM-DOS had been out for some time.
So, they stole computing time from private companies and were forgiven for being so brilliant. Then later they were to steal computing time again, knowing it was illegal, from Harvard, to write an emulator for the 8086 instruction set so they could write their version of Basic which was stolen from two professors from another major university. They then used that to make a company (pirates benefiting commercially from their theft), and in the process Gates tried to screw Allen by, during his convalescence where he nearly died, by getting Ballmer to connive to gain control of his stock. And, during the negotiation process of deciding how to split the shares upon creation of the new business, Gates decried Allen because he'd become an employee of MITS and thus apparently deserved fewer shares, when after then agreement about the split, a few weeks (months) later, Gates was also an employee of MITS. Then, Gates and Allen had the gall to write open letters to others about stealing software. The reality is, that Gates and Allen had stolen considerable sums by then.
Wrong version of the file system. That came many years after DOS.
G+ allows you to mark your profile so that it won't be indexed by any search engine.
Is twitter rendered obsolete by Facebook? Why would circles be better than following trends or others on twitter? Will it have an impact? Sure. All social networking will. And when the next one comes out Google+ will be impacted. To suggest somehow that twitter has met it's pending end is to be irresponsible and grandstanding-ish in an effort to just gain page hits.
Strawman argument.
He wasn't modded down. He should have been because he isn't telling the truth by any stretch. Plenty of linux users use HULU. Netflix on android is available, and it is Linux.
And the market share for linux is near 100 million. So please cry me a river.
I'm running netflix on my Android tablet. It is the same drm found on netflix, albeit without silverlight. I am also running it my Barnes and Noble Nook Color with the cyanogenmod nightlies. I am able to run the netflix app without problems. On each linux box I have I am able to play videos from HULU and that has drm.
In each of these scenarios others are doing the same thing. You don't hear them screaming about drm.
So what's your point? You intentionally trying to mislead people?
And please remember android is linux.
As far as I know IV does sue. They have sued in the recent past. Remember IV is owned and run by an ex-microsoft big-wig.
Nothing to chill out about. Have a nice day.
I read this as a slight against Linux. It is disrespect--they go hide in their igloos and eat the cake in secret?
I think the general philosophy that has clearly been reiterated by the Linux community is there is absolutely no room for trust in Microsoft. They are a convicted monopolist and have called upon everyone to view Linux as a cancer. They continue to use their patents to extort payment from large and small with bogus insubstantiated claims against Linux. They are the company that uses embrace extend extinguish. This animation represents the same underhanded intentions.
Techdirt knows how to deal with the guy. The only thing that they would be worried about is maintaining their safe harbor status, thus they'll react, probably not in the manner this obvious troll expects. I am sure they have been waiting on challenge like this. Mike Masnick isn't even surprised I'd expect.
A couple latte's cost from you, $40 more to fill the tank every week, an increase in the cost of food because they are using corn to make fuel, the price of education rising dramatically...after a while you miss a car payment or a house payment because you don't have the cash or you are forced to put this stuff on credit which costs even more in the long run. Then what? And what's the increase in value for the extra cost?
At least a latte has some nutritional value and coffee had a reported medicinal value. What?
Technically not true. Apple limited Microsoft's use of full screen windows by forcing them to agree that they'd only use tiled windows. IBM forced Microsoft's hands for OS/2. Microsoft then went back an implemented full screen to satisfy IBM. Then of course, with all the changes here, Apple sued Microsoft. They lost. We now have full screen windows.
combobox lets you type while it searches the list. it is an edit field and dropdown list. otherwise it would not be a combo.
i won't buy a samsung product as i wont pay money to a company that falls to extortion. I will not buy from them because I do not want any of my money going to microsoft. so samsung just lost $600.00 in sales because of microsoft.
Another problem is that most people do not know how to do a complete wipe. Imagine them fumbling around trying to get this done that they wipe out all their data. Or, imagine them screwing around trying to get their data backed up that it becomes such a task that they give up and live with the virus, or they go out and buy a new machine (which is almost never necessary).
So, once they do get their data backed up and they want to go back to the beginning, they can't find out how. They apparently received no CDs to complete this (due to how Microsoft chooses to deal with Royal OEMs and how a Royal OEM can make even more money off Windows by selling recovery disks separately). How about those self created recovery discs that only allow the customer to do the task one time, yet they miss the fact that the discs can be copied, so what's the point of limiting to a single time? What if they have a recovery partition? It's often not invoked in the same manner (hitting F11). In many cases you have to attempt to boot the computer and go into the repair this computer option and search around till you find the place where the manufacturer hid the recovery option.
Microsoft telling people they have to do this is ridiculous. They make billions every quarter. Doesn't anything think they could write a program that does it all in a single click? What I mean by is that it does it all, it cleans the MBR and every other element of that (including ensuring they don't screw around with dual boot set ups), removes the viruses, examines the system and other related files, and puts the system back without needing to completely wipe? I think it only makes sense that they do this because you know, they do take in billions in profit every quarter.
This is what I mean in by what I said in an earlier post. Microsoft won't put the time in to ensure that we progress the operating system. They are either incompetent or playing out their incremental upgrade path at the expense of the consumer (a serious expense). You know, the malware writers are putting the time in, can't we get Microsoft to do the same thing? Are the employees that were responsible for coding all this leave? Did they alienate their employees to the point that they cut into the meat when they let a bunch of people go?