Many modern criminal investigations require specialists. Rape, murder, arson, and so forth -- commonly investigated by specialists. Why should a crime that involves computers suddenly have a special category, when other forms of crime do not?
Well, let's see. The United States does business with Saudi Arabia, despite the abysmal human rights record of that country. The United States has installed several cruel dictators in South America, to help protect corporate interests there. The list of cruel, tyrannical governments that the United States has provided direct aid to or has kept open trade with is long. Why should China be any different, I wonder? What interest does the USA have in free speech or free press, or dismantling firewalls?
Chinese Government: If you want to do business in our country, you need to prevent people from accessing certain websites on their Kindles
Amazon: Oh, yes, that is already a feature, we just have not used it yet. Are there any books that we should delete from Kindles in China?
you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...which is what this is all about. The App Store policies, the mandatory DRM, are the problem here.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides
When last I checked, you had to pay Apple for this privilege; that seems to run afoul of the GPL in and of itself, at least in spirit. Again, though, the point here is about the App Store which has policies that are inherently incompatible with the GPL.
Nor do I recall reading anywhere else about Apple requiring DRM be included in products sold via the App Store
All the software distributed through the Apple App Store is subject to iOS DRM; the devices are built to prevent any code that Apple has not approved from running. That is the DRM we are talking about here.
This serves no purpose than to shove more OSS software out of the public's eye.
Yes, because the goal of the free software movement is to gain users at any expense, even if it means that those users do not actually enjoy any of the benefits of free licensing. It is easy to forget that, in fact, just having more people use this software is not the ultimate goal; the goal is for people to have the freedoms that are granted with free licenses like the GPL. Look at TiVo if you want to see how lots of people can use free software without being able to enjoy any of the benefits and freedoms that come with it.
Apple would have to allow anyone to run anything on the iPhone, which has security implications
Only under the definition of security that means, "The customer is the adversary, and the goal of the security system is to protect cash flow." This is admittedly a commonly used definition, intended to mislead people into thinking that these restriction systems are a good thing for them.
participation is entirely voluntary, involving purchase of an Apple device.
Voluntary until schools start handing out iPads and mandating that students use them. I doubt that there will be an exception to the restrictions for students who are required to use iPads.
As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile
No, that is not what the GPL has ever required. It has required that you make the source code of GPL software available to anyone you distribute that software to, and that you distribute it under the same license, including any changes you make to the software that you distribute (assuming it is not your original work).
why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL.
The GPLv3 includes an anti-Tivoization clause, which basically requires that if GPL software is going to be locked down by a restriction system (DRM), the user has to be able to bypass/disable that restriction system so that they can enjoy the other benefits of the GPL, like the ability to modify the software. Since the iOS restriction system does not allow users to enjoy the benefits of the GPL (cannot modify code without paying Apple, cannot redistribute, etc.), it is incompatible with GPLv3.
only a handful of people get pat downs - the ones who fail the metal detector
This is not true -- my travel companion was once stopped for a pat down for no reason at all, right after walking through the metal detector without setting off anything.
You could always just not be on Facebook -- that strategy has been working just fine for me. I am still in touch with my family, I am still in touch with my friends, and I still get invited to parties.
When was the last time the president -- any president in recent memory -- ever listened to what scholars had to say, except when what they say supports his policy?
As I understand it, the entire point of the system of nuclear launch codes and the enormous system built around the nuclear arsenal is to ensure that accidental or unauthorized launches will not happen. Any failure mode of the system should result in an inability to launch -- how is that not obvious? Any other design seems to run counter to the purpose of the system itself.
I think that this really shows that tying your game to the most popular social networking website in the entire world is a profitable thing to do. I seriously doubt that any of Zygna's games would be popular without Facebook, even if Zygna took the time to set up their own system of social networking for the games.
Competitive in what, exactly? We have many supercomputers in the USA; we have no idea what to do with them, though, and many of them are spending a lot of time idle. Some supercomputers are now being rented out to investors, because the people the computers were built for -- the scientists -- are not using enough computer time.
What we really need to do is look at the state of research in this country. Also, maybe if we had a more solid economic base, one in which we solve the trade imbalance by exporting real goods rather than copyrights, we could spend more money on science and supercomputing. Oh well, in your words, "who am I kidding?"
How the hell does how somebody use Facebook in a way that there's no risk of serious damage?
By not choosing it as your primary communications tool? If your girlfriend thinks you are breaking up with her because of a message you sent on Facebook, then something is wrong. Seriously, I could just as easily register a Facebook account in your name, then send friend requests to all the people I want to have see your undying love for Scientology.
The real problem is that people are taking Facebook seriously. If you receive an important-looking or surprising message on Facebook, you should request (not on Facebook) that the person who sent it (a) confirm what it says and (b) never use Facebook for such messages again. Like I said, using Facebook as anything other than a toy is a really stupid thing to do.
As Internet becomes more liberated and experimental
Which Internet are you using? The Internet we have now is just a mishmash of businessmen and scam artists looking to make a quick buck, with a couple barely noticeably rays of hope coming from the hacker community.
Oh the horror! You might look like an idiot on Slashdot of all places!
In all seriousness, people should not be using Facebook in a way that could cause any damage to them if their accounts are hijacked. Facebook is a toy, and treating it like anything other than a toy is asking for trouble.
Hey, I like my phone to work like a phone also. Of course, the way things are right now, I cannot fall back on GSM dialup (this is disabled by my carrier), nor can my computer even dial a number for me to make a voice call, but my phone does feature an MP3 player, Java, and games!
Read it more closely. If I write a program that would enable you to run other programs -- the other programs not being approved -- then my program is not allowed. There is no tautology here, that is just how things work when you choose iDevices.
Really, are they so threatened by a 30-year-old operating system that they have to kill it?
Anything that would allow a user to run a non-Apple-approved program, anything at all, even a DOS emulator, is against the rules. After all, the users might start thinking that they have some kind of right to run software that was not approved, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting to write programs without paying the fee, or worse yet, they might start wanting to use libre software! None of this, of course, is allowable in Steve Jobs' world, where people are just sheep who are in desperate need of a shepherd.
Remember, the Apple ideology is that people should not have any desire to hack their systems; they should simply use them, and rely on Apple to take care of technical details. This has been the case for a very long time now, and as long as Steve Jobs is in charge, you can bet that there won't be any change.
All corporations lean to the right. The article is a troll piece, based on the misinformed notion that the Democrat party is "left wing" as opposed to "right of center." Both Democrats and Republicans have been receiving enormous corporate campaign contributions for the past 4 decades, and unsurprisingly, both parties have drifted further to the right. The Republicans are just more honest about being right wing; the Democrats continue to present a public face that says, "Hey, we're the left wing! Really, we swear!" I would guess that this is part of an effort to ensure that the actual left wing parties in America never get enough votes to make a difference. The mainstream media -- big corporate contributors to the Democrat party -- work to further the "Democrats are the left wing" image as well, probably because the real left wing parties might not be as friendly toward business interests.
In case you have any doubt, remember that it was a Democrat president who signed the DMCA into law, it is Democrats who are pushing for ever stronger copyrights, and that like the Republicans, Democrats continue to push forward an agenda of "corporate interests first," and continue to try to spread that agenda to other countries. As for the media, well, when a left wing group wanted to pay NBC to run an advertisement that encouraged people to spend no money for just one day, as part of a general anti-corporation campaign, NBC refused to air the ad -- despite the fact that the group was willing to pay the same price as every other advertiser -- because the ad ran counter to US economic policy.
Not that any of this should come as a surprise. After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?
Slashdot Mirror
Many modern criminal investigations require specialists. Rape, murder, arson, and so forth -- commonly investigated by specialists. Why should a crime that involves computers suddenly have a special category, when other forms of crime do not?
Well, let's see. The United States does business with Saudi Arabia, despite the abysmal human rights record of that country. The United States has installed several cruel dictators in South America, to help protect corporate interests there. The list of cruel, tyrannical governments that the United States has provided direct aid to or has kept open trade with is long. Why should China be any different, I wonder? What interest does the USA have in free speech or free press, or dismantling firewalls?
It will happen like this:
Chinese Government: If you want to do business in our country, you need to prevent people from accessing certain websites on their Kindles
Amazon: Oh, yes, that is already a feature, we just have not used it yet. Are there any books that we should delete from Kindles in China?
you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...which is what this is all about. The App Store policies, the mandatory DRM, are the problem here.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides
When last I checked, you had to pay Apple for this privilege; that seems to run afoul of the GPL in and of itself, at least in spirit. Again, though, the point here is about the App Store which has policies that are inherently incompatible with the GPL.
Nor do I recall reading anywhere else about Apple requiring DRM be included in products sold via the App Store
All the software distributed through the Apple App Store is subject to iOS DRM; the devices are built to prevent any code that Apple has not approved from running. That is the DRM we are talking about here.
This serves no purpose than to shove more OSS software out of the public's eye.
Yes, because the goal of the free software movement is to gain users at any expense, even if it means that those users do not actually enjoy any of the benefits of free licensing. It is easy to forget that, in fact, just having more people use this software is not the ultimate goal; the goal is for people to have the freedoms that are granted with free licenses like the GPL. Look at TiVo if you want to see how lots of people can use free software without being able to enjoy any of the benefits and freedoms that come with it.
Apple would have to allow anyone to run anything on the iPhone, which has security implications
Only under the definition of security that means, "The customer is the adversary, and the goal of the security system is to protect cash flow." This is admittedly a commonly used definition, intended to mislead people into thinking that these restriction systems are a good thing for them.
participation is entirely voluntary, involving purchase of an Apple device.
Voluntary until schools start handing out iPads and mandating that students use them. I doubt that there will be an exception to the restrictions for students who are required to use iPads.
As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile
No, that is not what the GPL has ever required. It has required that you make the source code of GPL software available to anyone you distribute that software to, and that you distribute it under the same license, including any changes you make to the software that you distribute (assuming it is not your original work).
why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL.
The GPLv3 includes an anti-Tivoization clause, which basically requires that if GPL software is going to be locked down by a restriction system (DRM), the user has to be able to bypass/disable that restriction system so that they can enjoy the other benefits of the GPL, like the ability to modify the software. Since the iOS restriction system does not allow users to enjoy the benefits of the GPL (cannot modify code without paying Apple, cannot redistribute, etc.), it is incompatible with GPLv3.
only a handful of people get pat downs - the ones who fail the metal detector
This is not true -- my travel companion was once stopped for a pat down for no reason at all, right after walking through the metal detector without setting off anything.
I thought that had changed a while back, so that an account count be permanently deleted?
Or you could delete it, and stop passively encouraging others to be Facebook users.
You could always just not be on Facebook -- that strategy has been working just fine for me. I am still in touch with my family, I am still in touch with my friends, and I still get invited to parties.
s/Internet/web/g
Private communications have been possible on the Internet for a long time now: http://www.gnupg.org/
(Not that anyone can deal with the inconvenience of that sort of thing...)
When was the last time the president -- any president in recent memory -- ever listened to what scholars had to say, except when what they say supports his policy?
As I understand it, the entire point of the system of nuclear launch codes and the enormous system built around the nuclear arsenal is to ensure that accidental or unauthorized launches will not happen. Any failure mode of the system should result in an inability to launch -- how is that not obvious? Any other design seems to run counter to the purpose of the system itself.
I think that this really shows that tying your game to the most popular social networking website in the entire world is a profitable thing to do. I seriously doubt that any of Zygna's games would be popular without Facebook, even if Zygna took the time to set up their own system of social networking for the games.
To be fair, it is not like the US government is not also involved in corporate espionage:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do;jsessionid=392426F8AEF3E495934CBA3FB0007F30.node1?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+NOT+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
Competitive in what, exactly? We have many supercomputers in the USA; we have no idea what to do with them, though, and many of them are spending a lot of time idle. Some supercomputers are now being rented out to investors, because the people the computers were built for -- the scientists -- are not using enough computer time.
What we really need to do is look at the state of research in this country. Also, maybe if we had a more solid economic base, one in which we solve the trade imbalance by exporting real goods rather than copyrights, we could spend more money on science and supercomputing. Oh well, in your words, "who am I kidding?"
How the hell does how somebody use Facebook in a way that there's no risk of serious damage?
By not choosing it as your primary communications tool? If your girlfriend thinks you are breaking up with her because of a message you sent on Facebook, then something is wrong. Seriously, I could just as easily register a Facebook account in your name, then send friend requests to all the people I want to have see your undying love for Scientology.
The real problem is that people are taking Facebook seriously. If you receive an important-looking or surprising message on Facebook, you should request (not on Facebook) that the person who sent it (a) confirm what it says and (b) never use Facebook for such messages again. Like I said, using Facebook as anything other than a toy is a really stupid thing to do.
As Internet becomes more liberated and experimental
Which Internet are you using? The Internet we have now is just a mishmash of businessmen and scam artists looking to make a quick buck, with a couple barely noticeably rays of hope coming from the hacker community.
Oh the horror! You might look like an idiot on Slashdot of all places!
In all seriousness, people should not be using Facebook in a way that could cause any damage to them if their accounts are hijacked. Facebook is a toy, and treating it like anything other than a toy is asking for trouble.
Hey, I like my phone to work like a phone also. Of course, the way things are right now, I cannot fall back on GSM dialup (this is disabled by my carrier), nor can my computer even dial a number for me to make a voice call, but my phone does feature an MP3 player, Java, and games!
Read it more closely. If I write a program that would enable you to run other programs -- the other programs not being approved -- then my program is not allowed. There is no tautology here, that is just how things work when you choose iDevices.
Really, are they so threatened by a 30-year-old operating system that they have to kill it?
Anything that would allow a user to run a non-Apple-approved program, anything at all, even a DOS emulator, is against the rules. After all, the users might start thinking that they have some kind of right to run software that was not approved, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting to write programs without paying the fee, or worse yet, they might start wanting to use libre software! None of this, of course, is allowable in Steve Jobs' world, where people are just sheep who are in desperate need of a shepherd.
Remember, the Apple ideology is that people should not have any desire to hack their systems; they should simply use them, and rely on Apple to take care of technical details. This has been the case for a very long time now, and as long as Steve Jobs is in charge, you can bet that there won't be any change.
All corporations lean to the right. The article is a troll piece, based on the misinformed notion that the Democrat party is "left wing" as opposed to "right of center." Both Democrats and Republicans have been receiving enormous corporate campaign contributions for the past 4 decades, and unsurprisingly, both parties have drifted further to the right. The Republicans are just more honest about being right wing; the Democrats continue to present a public face that says, "Hey, we're the left wing! Really, we swear!" I would guess that this is part of an effort to ensure that the actual left wing parties in America never get enough votes to make a difference. The mainstream media -- big corporate contributors to the Democrat party -- work to further the "Democrats are the left wing" image as well, probably because the real left wing parties might not be as friendly toward business interests.
In case you have any doubt, remember that it was a Democrat president who signed the DMCA into law, it is Democrats who are pushing for ever stronger copyrights, and that like the Republicans, Democrats continue to push forward an agenda of "corporate interests first," and continue to try to spread that agenda to other countries. As for the media, well, when a left wing group wanted to pay NBC to run an advertisement that encouraged people to spend no money for just one day, as part of a general anti-corporation campaign, NBC refused to air the ad -- despite the fact that the group was willing to pay the same price as every other advertiser -- because the ad ran counter to US economic policy.
Not that any of this should come as a surprise. After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?