Here's something to consider... today if somebody steals your laptop they get all of your docs, passwords, email (if you use an email client) and everything else stored locally.
In a cloud-based situation none of your docs were stored locally. So only the physical machine is lost and none of your data was stolen.
On the other hand, in a "cloud" system, all of your documents and passwords are stored somewhere else, under the complete control of someone else. Remember the story about Mark Zuckerberg using Facebook login data to gain access to the email accounts of Harvard Crimson editors? Beyond that, what guarantee is there that you will even be able to access your data tomorrow? Maybe your "cloud" provider will terminate your account, perhaps because you violated their terms of service by voices your political views (yes, this can and does happen). It is one thing to back things up to "the cloud," it is quite another to rely on these companies to store and process your data for you. As others have pointed out, one of the reasons people originally moved from mainframes to PCs was to gain freedom from the sort of control mainframe operators had over their ability to use computers.
However, there is a bigger problem: people who use Facebook may actually lose access to their own data. At any time, Facebook could terminate your account, and suddenly hundreds of pictures and messages become inaccessible. This should not be a problem...except that some people actually do depend on Facebook to store these things for them, and would have no recourse if their access was suddenly terminated. Suddenly, people become beholden to Facebook's rules, which they have no say over.
I mean, with a piece of software that bloated, it could be decrypting your stuff and uploading it to anyone.
You can say that about any software at all; frankly, you can say that about your computer's hardware.
On the other hand, Stallman brings up worthwhile points. You may lose certain legal rights -- in the USA, for example, you may lose your 4th amendment rights. You do not have control over web applications -- the provider can change things, yank out features or add new features you do not want, and you have no recourse (how many times has Facebook done this?). You may even lose your access entirely.
There are different levels of problems. Yes, large programs like Emacs may have malfeatures that have been snuck in, as could a complex CPU or even the cloud programs themselves. Interestingly, if Emacs were trying to communicate your data to others, you could at least detect it; it would be substantially harder to detect if Google was leaking your data to others.
I like having my email available on multiple devices.
Me too...but I have had that for a long time, and it has nothing to do with the "web" or "cloud computing."
I like how easy it is to use web services rather than run my own cloud.
I will not even try to decipher that one, it looks like your definition of "cloud computing" is different than...well, actually, there is not even a standard definition, so I guess the point is moot.
And for most non-technical users who can't figure out how to back-up their data, automatically saving their data in the cloud is better than having no back-ups at all.
Stallman is not referring to backups, he is referring to the situation in which the data only ever exists on Google's servers. Non-technical users may not be aware of the difference until it is too late, when suddenly Google or Microsoft or Amazon is able to dictate if and how they can access their data, and they are powerless to do anything about it because their computer was designed to only store their data remotely.
Sometimes I am left wondering just how much "progress" cloud computing and web apps really represent. So you can edit your documents and photos using a web app instead of a desktop app...where is the progress? We were accessing files remotely years before cloud computing, so what exactly is it about the current methods that represents "progress?"
Just because you are using new methods to accomplish the same thing does not mean that you have made "progress."
Anyone who reads and understands the free software definition can see that web applications and "cloud computing" fail to meet the definition. The users are not free to modify or study the applications, and lacking access to the actual program files, they certainly cannot redistribute the applications to others...
So why would anyone be surprised the RMS takes issue with an OS that is designed to be cloud-centric?
Who, exactly, is supposed to benefit from health care reform? Why punish people who do not want to enrich the very set of corporations that represents one of the most embarrassing problems with our current health care system (which is the fact that it is based on profit, rather than actually helping people)?
Instead of punishing people who do not want to buy their health insurance from a greedy minority of the population that could not care less about whether anyone other than themselves lives or dies, the government should provide health insurance to those people -- health insurance that cannot be denied to anyone. It is really quite simple: if the point of this bill is to benefit Americans by improving our ability to get medical treatment when it is needed, then the most effective measure for doing that (the public option) should be the center piece of the bill.
It does not matter who appointed him or who he gets his money from, this particular decision is the right one. The provision is nothing more than a hand out designed to enrich a small group of already large and powerful corporations, and should not have even been on the table.
Essentially, this is the only way that you can get a system with universal coverage that is entirely based on private insurance.
Which is precisely the problem here: we do not have a public option. The public option would have represented actual progress on getting universal coverage, and we did not pass it. Instead, we decided to pass yet another bill that enriches large corporations, rather than a bill that would have actually benefited America. This provision should never have even been discussed because it only makes sense if the interests of private insurance companies are a priority.
Even if the virus only affected tobacco -- in reality it affects lots of other crops -- if it caused the extinction of tobacco, that would be a bad thing for the world. There are numerous wild tobacco species whose extinction could have all sorts of consequences (like a suddenly rise in the population of insects). Tobacco is often used as a natural insecticide by people who want to be "green."
The tobacco plant is not evil (how can a plant be evil?) and its extinction would not necessarily be a good thing.
I like having the freedom to breathe air that isn't tainted by your smoke.
Then don't stand near me. Seriously, the risks of second hand smoke in an outdoor area are very small compared to the risks indoors. You are willing to tolerate diesel fumes, which are also pretty bad for you (and contain many dangerous carcinogens and heavy metals); tobacco smoke is just a fun punching bag.
it will be interesting to see if this virus will actually spread
This virus has already spread and it causes a lot of crop damage each year, not just to tobacco but to plenty of other nightshade crops: tomatoes, peppers, potatoes. If tobacco is wiped out by this virus, so will a lot of other, not-so poisonous crops. Frankly, even tobacco was the only crop affected, it would impact the growth of healthier crops, because tobacco is commonly used as an all-natural pesticide. If the virus reached a level where tobacco crops were wiped out, it would also wipe out several wild tobacco species, which could damage the ecosystem in unpredictable ways.
Believe it or not, things are not black and white.
Last I checked, nobody was crying over how many "lost sales" resulted from the invention of personal computers -- think of all the typewriter manufacturers that went out of business! So what exactly makes software companies so special? The Internet is here to stay, and it has completely destroyed whatever scarcity software companies were capitalizing on in the past. The companies need to find a new business model or die, just like every other company whose business model was rendered obsolete by new technology.
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Connected half a billion people? When last I checked, we were already connected before Facebook...
"We live in the United States of Amnesia..." - Gore Vidal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex
They said they would not remove books remotely, but they didn't actually remove the capability to do so from the Kindle.
Here's something to consider... today if somebody steals your laptop they get all of your docs, passwords, email (if you use an email client) and everything else stored locally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Disk_Encryption
In a cloud-based situation none of your docs were stored locally. So only the physical machine is lost and none of your data was stolen.
On the other hand, in a "cloud" system, all of your documents and passwords are stored somewhere else, under the complete control of someone else. Remember the story about Mark Zuckerberg using Facebook login data to gain access to the email accounts of Harvard Crimson editors? Beyond that, what guarantee is there that you will even be able to access your data tomorrow? Maybe your "cloud" provider will terminate your account, perhaps because you violated their terms of service by voices your political views (yes, this can and does happen). It is one thing to back things up to "the cloud," it is quite another to rely on these companies to store and process your data for you. As others have pointed out, one of the reasons people originally moved from mainframes to PCs was to gain freedom from the sort of control mainframe operators had over their ability to use computers.
I guess you are not in the group of people who depend on Facebook to store their data for them.
No, I use a lot of software that isn't overly complex and has been security audited.
OK, what about your CPU? What about the compiler that compiled your software? It is fairly difficult to get an entire stack that has been audited.
I'm just wondering if RMS made Emacs clean before running his mouth about the cloud.
His point has little to do with security and more to do with what sort of rights and freedoms you need to give up to use "cloud computing."
However, there is a bigger problem: people who use Facebook may actually lose access to their own data. At any time, Facebook could terminate your account, and suddenly hundreds of pictures and messages become inaccessible. This should not be a problem...except that some people actually do depend on Facebook to store these things for them, and would have no recourse if their access was suddenly terminated. Suddenly, people become beholden to Facebook's rules, which they have no say over.
That sounds an awful lot like the situation (well, former situation) on the PS3...
I mean, with a piece of software that bloated, it could be decrypting your stuff and uploading it to anyone.
You can say that about any software at all; frankly, you can say that about your computer's hardware.
On the other hand, Stallman brings up worthwhile points. You may lose certain legal rights -- in the USA, for example, you may lose your 4th amendment rights. You do not have control over web applications -- the provider can change things, yank out features or add new features you do not want, and you have no recourse (how many times has Facebook done this?). You may even lose your access entirely.
There are different levels of problems. Yes, large programs like Emacs may have malfeatures that have been snuck in, as could a complex CPU or even the cloud programs themselves. Interestingly, if Emacs were trying to communicate your data to others, you could at least detect it; it would be substantially harder to detect if Google was leaking your data to others.
I like having my email available on multiple devices.
Me too...but I have had that for a long time, and it has nothing to do with the "web" or "cloud computing."
I like how easy it is to use web services rather than run my own cloud.
I will not even try to decipher that one, it looks like your definition of "cloud computing" is different than...well, actually, there is not even a standard definition, so I guess the point is moot.
And for most non-technical users who can't figure out how to back-up their data, automatically saving their data in the cloud is better than having no back-ups at all.
Stallman is not referring to backups, he is referring to the situation in which the data only ever exists on Google's servers. Non-technical users may not be aware of the difference until it is too late, when suddenly Google or Microsoft or Amazon is able to dictate if and how they can access their data, and they are powerless to do anything about it because their computer was designed to only store their data remotely.
Sometimes I am left wondering just how much "progress" cloud computing and web apps really represent. So you can edit your documents and photos using a web app instead of a desktop app...where is the progress? We were accessing files remotely years before cloud computing, so what exactly is it about the current methods that represents "progress?"
Just because you are using new methods to accomplish the same thing does not mean that you have made "progress."
Anyone who reads and understands the free software definition can see that web applications and "cloud computing" fail to meet the definition. The users are not free to modify or study the applications, and lacking access to the actual program files, they certainly cannot redistribute the applications to others...
So why would anyone be surprised the RMS takes issue with an OS that is designed to be cloud-centric?
More likely, if any informants are harmed, it will be used to justify an escalation.
Who, exactly, is supposed to benefit from health care reform? Why punish people who do not want to enrich the very set of corporations that represents one of the most embarrassing problems with our current health care system (which is the fact that it is based on profit, rather than actually helping people)?
Instead of punishing people who do not want to buy their health insurance from a greedy minority of the population that could not care less about whether anyone other than themselves lives or dies, the government should provide health insurance to those people -- health insurance that cannot be denied to anyone. It is really quite simple: if the point of this bill is to benefit Americans by improving our ability to get medical treatment when it is needed, then the most effective measure for doing that (the public option) should be the center piece of the bill.
It does not matter who appointed him or who he gets his money from, this particular decision is the right one. The provision is nothing more than a hand out designed to enrich a small group of already large and powerful corporations, and should not have even been on the table.
Essentially, this is the only way that you can get a system with universal coverage that is entirely based on private insurance.
Which is precisely the problem here: we do not have a public option. The public option would have represented actual progress on getting universal coverage, and we did not pass it. Instead, we decided to pass yet another bill that enriches large corporations, rather than a bill that would have actually benefited America. This provision should never have even been discussed because it only makes sense if the interests of private insurance companies are a priority.
Why is it amazing that an analog control system works?
Would this also result in them being charged with conspiracy?
Skein is broken, last I heard...
Even if the virus only affected tobacco -- in reality it affects lots of other crops -- if it caused the extinction of tobacco, that would be a bad thing for the world. There are numerous wild tobacco species whose extinction could have all sorts of consequences (like a suddenly rise in the population of insects). Tobacco is often used as a natural insecticide by people who want to be "green."
The tobacco plant is not evil (how can a plant be evil?) and its extinction would not necessarily be a good thing.
I like having the freedom to breathe air that isn't tainted by your smoke.
Then don't stand near me. Seriously, the risks of second hand smoke in an outdoor area are very small compared to the risks indoors. You are willing to tolerate diesel fumes, which are also pretty bad for you (and contain many dangerous carcinogens and heavy metals); tobacco smoke is just a fun punching bag.
it will be interesting to see if this virus will actually spread
This virus has already spread and it causes a lot of crop damage each year, not just to tobacco but to plenty of other nightshade crops: tomatoes, peppers, potatoes. If tobacco is wiped out by this virus, so will a lot of other, not-so poisonous crops. Frankly, even tobacco was the only crop affected, it would impact the growth of healthier crops, because tobacco is commonly used as an all-natural pesticide. If the virus reached a level where tobacco crops were wiped out, it would also wipe out several wild tobacco species, which could damage the ecosystem in unpredictable ways.
Believe it or not, things are not black and white.
TMV affects many species, some of which are not as poisonous as tobacco like peppers...
This is news? Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?
Last I checked, nobody was crying over how many "lost sales" resulted from the invention of personal computers -- think of all the typewriter manufacturers that went out of business! So what exactly makes software companies so special? The Internet is here to stay, and it has completely destroyed whatever scarcity software companies were capitalizing on in the past. The companies need to find a new business model or die, just like every other company whose business model was rendered obsolete by new technology.
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.