To be fair, most of those people do not actually care. There is a small minority of users who do care, but for some reason continue to use those websites; the rest just want to follow the crowd without stopping to question anything.
Just as you have always been able to loan out your Kindle.
Ah yes, so when I loaned my copy of The Cathedral and the Bazaar to a friend of mine, what I really should have done was hand him my entire bookshelf full of books -- you know, because we are supposed to be replacing our bookshelves with our Kindles.
No the real answer to this problem is for book publishers to wake up and realize that their business model is dead, we live in a new world with new rules and they need to adapt or die. Technology is not going to kill books, it is going to make books more available to more people than ever before, without the scarcity that plagues the current paper book distribution model.
Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."
I wouldn't bet on that outcome; most people get their news from traditional news sources right now, and most of them would never perceive the fees that the AP wants to charge. This is a move by the AP to find new ways to extract money, that's all -- it is an attack on newer forms of news delivery, which might threaten the AP, before they become too popular.
Perhaps the city threatened to migrate some departments away from Microsoft -- like, for example, the computers that are used in the city's school system? I bet that would have gotten Microsoft to start begging.
The funny thing is, I have not once received a call for help about that desktop; every so often I check in (over ssh) to make sure updates are installed, and beyond that, I never have to involve myself. For what my mom does with her computer -- which is centered around a web browser -- she requires no support whatsoever, just a system that she can't accidentally fill with malware.
Seriously, we have been able to do that sort of thing for a really long time now with GNU/Linux. That is exactly what I do with my mother's desktop, and there has not been any problems yet.
What makes you think Apple is interested in your privacy? Apple is interested in money, and when it comes to Facebook, you are the product, not the customer.
Those of us who interact with non-techies know that a lot of people still think that "privacy settings" on Facebook translate to "information not being public." They have no concept of the information being used on an ongoing basis by Facebook, without regard to their privacy settings. Most people are surprised to learn that Facebook actually keeps a log of every single action they take on the website, even something as simple as looking at someone's profile, from the very moment they sign up.
Maybe if Facebook were more upfront about it, things would not be as bad. Things would still be bad -- there is also the lack of interoperability with other systems, the fact that Facebook is proprietary software, etc. -- but at least they would be a little more honest with their users.
The real history? Never going to come out; Facebook's PR department is working to bury it, and reconstruct it as being another case of someone having a great idea while in college.
What everything points to is this: around 2003, it was clear that social networking websites were taking off and that we might have a new way to make money with websites. Two brothers at Harvard thought they would get in on the action with ConnectU. Zuckerberg may or may not have agreed to work for them, but somehow he also thought he would get it on the action with TheFaceBook. College students were a better target because Zuckerberg was a college student so he better understood his victims (for lack of a better word -- Facebook users are certainly not the customers or market). I doubt that Zuckerberg believed Facebook would become as popular as it has become, but I wouldn't say that he just thought it was a cool idea -- I strongly doubt that he even came up with the idea.
What allegedly happened was that he use Facebook to gain access to email accounts -- in a sense, Facebook became a security liability for the victims. This actually came out again later, when it was revealed that Facebook records every single action each user takes on their site, and never deletes the records:
As for the choice of sources...well, I just grabbed the first thing that came up on Google. Not the best strategy, but this is not exactly a conference paper...
Perhaps because the boy doesn't believe that privacy is a good thing? He is on the record as saying that anyone who wants privacy must be unethical. He uses Facebook to try to undermine the very concept of privacy in our society, and he is doing that at a time when the 4th amendment is being attacked by the government.
Or maybe we were all perfectly content with communicating with our friends and families using interoperable systems that are not designed to lock us in. Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.
it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool
Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?
The way I see things, he saw how profitable social networking websites were becoming, and thought he would give it a shot. I doubt he knew that it would become so popular, but he certainly knew the concept was popular (or should I say, the people who thought up ConnectU saw the concept was popular, then Zuckerberg ran with the idea).
It is tempting to say, "not many," given the number who are already behind NATs that they installed on their own. However, anyone who configured SSH will certainly notice, which is not necessarily as low a number as you might think...
I would not count on it. ISPs are increasingly consumption-oriented services; I would guess that instead of deploying IPv6, we will start to see ISPs offer lower prices for customers who agree to be NATed (or perhaps, demanding higher prices from those customers who refuse to be NATed).
Maybe there is some hope at the universities, though...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we'll get lucky, and they won't DRM the books.
Oh, wait, I forgot, we live in the real world.
To be fair, most of those people do not actually care. There is a small minority of users who do care, but for some reason continue to use those websites; the rest just want to follow the crowd without stopping to question anything.
Facebook's servers are too busy violating your privacy to handle the extra load of encryption ;)
Just as you have always been able to loan out your Kindle.
Ah yes, so when I loaned my copy of The Cathedral and the Bazaar to a friend of mine, what I really should have done was hand him my entire bookshelf full of books -- you know, because we are supposed to be replacing our bookshelves with our Kindles.
No the real answer to this problem is for book publishers to wake up and realize that their business model is dead, we live in a new world with new rules and they need to adapt or die. Technology is not going to kill books, it is going to make books more available to more people than ever before, without the scarcity that plagues the current paper book distribution model.
Here in America, nobody believes in donating money; we are all supposed to be subverting each other, trying to extract as much money from each other as possible. Anything else is clearly "socialism."
I wouldn't bet on that outcome; most people get their news from traditional news sources right now, and most of them would never perceive the fees that the AP wants to charge. This is a move by the AP to find new ways to extract money, that's all -- it is an attack on newer forms of news delivery, which might threaten the AP, before they become too popular.
Perhaps the city threatened to migrate some departments away from Microsoft -- like, for example, the computers that are used in the city's school system? I bet that would have gotten Microsoft to start begging.
Who modded that post "insightful?"
I don't see what is particularly wrong with that, for an introductory class...
If you're one of those that appreciate quality, you go with Microsoft.
Hmmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSeries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NonStop
Yup, I see your point.
and it's what everyone uses in lower division college courses
Really? I see Eclipse all over the place. Maybe I have not look around enough though...
The funny thing is, I have not once received a call for help about that desktop; every so often I check in (over ssh) to make sure updates are installed, and beyond that, I never have to involve myself. For what my mom does with her computer -- which is centered around a web browser -- she requires no support whatsoever, just a system that she can't accidentally fill with malware.
Ahem haste makes waste...
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://www.mandrivalinux.com/
But if I could buy him a mac, keep the administrator account for myself, and give him a user account that could only install and run app store apps
Hi, you appear to be looking for one of these:
http://www.ubuntu.org/
http://www.fedoraproject.org/
http://www.madrivalinux.com/
http://www.opensuse.org/
Seriously, we have been able to do that sort of thing for a really long time now with GNU/Linux. That is exactly what I do with my mother's desktop, and there has not been any problems yet.
How long until the only way to get software on your Mac desktop is via Apple's store
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/20/apples_new_mac_app_store_coming_to_snow_leopard_within_90_days.html
If that is to be believed, then Mac OS X users are safe...for now.
What makes you think Apple is interested in your privacy? Apple is interested in money, and when it comes to Facebook, you are the product, not the customer.
I think that quote really shows how the customers are viewed here...
(Now why won't my mother join the boycott of the RIAA?)
Those of us who interact with non-techies know that a lot of people still think that "privacy settings" on Facebook translate to "information not being public." They have no concept of the information being used on an ongoing basis by Facebook, without regard to their privacy settings. Most people are surprised to learn that Facebook actually keeps a log of every single action they take on the website, even something as simple as looking at someone's profile, from the very moment they sign up.
Maybe if Facebook were more upfront about it, things would not be as bad. Things would still be bad -- there is also the lack of interoperability with other systems, the fact that Facebook is proprietary software, etc. -- but at least they would be a little more honest with their users.
The real history? Never going to come out; Facebook's PR department is working to bury it, and reconstruct it as being another case of someone having a great idea while in college.
What everything points to is this: around 2003, it was clear that social networking websites were taking off and that we might have a new way to make money with websites. Two brothers at Harvard thought they would get in on the action with ConnectU. Zuckerberg may or may not have agreed to work for them, but somehow he also thought he would get it on the action with TheFaceBook. College students were a better target because Zuckerberg was a college student so he better understood his victims (for lack of a better word -- Facebook users are certainly not the customers or market). I doubt that Zuckerberg believed Facebook would become as popular as it has become, but I wouldn't say that he just thought it was a cool idea -- I strongly doubt that he even came up with the idea.
What allegedly happened was that he use Facebook to gain access to email accounts -- in a sense, Facebook became a security liability for the victims. This actually came out again later, when it was revealed that Facebook records every single action each user takes on their site, and never deletes the records:
http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/
By then, though, network effects had taken over.
As for the choice of sources...well, I just grabbed the first thing that came up on Google. Not the best strategy, but this is not exactly a conference paper...
1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.
Hmm...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255888/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-hacked-emails-rivals-journalists.html
Not that I disagree with you, but I think Zuckerberg, like most tech. billionaires, played on a general ignorance about technology.
So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much?
Perhaps because the boy doesn't believe that privacy is a good thing? He is on the record as saying that anyone who wants privacy must be unethical. He uses Facebook to try to undermine the very concept of privacy in our society, and he is doing that at a time when the 4th amendment is being attacked by the government.
Or maybe we were all perfectly content with communicating with our friends and families using interoperable systems that are not designed to lock us in. Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.
it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool
Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?
The way I see things, he saw how profitable social networking websites were becoming, and thought he would give it a shot. I doubt he knew that it would become so popular, but he certainly knew the concept was popular (or should I say, the people who thought up ConnectU saw the concept was popular, then Zuckerberg ran with the idea).
It is tempting to say, "not many," given the number who are already behind NATs that they installed on their own. However, anyone who configured SSH will certainly notice, which is not necessarily as low a number as you might think...
I would not count on it. ISPs are increasingly consumption-oriented services; I would guess that instead of deploying IPv6, we will start to see ISPs offer lower prices for customers who agree to be NATed (or perhaps, demanding higher prices from those customers who refuse to be NATed).
Maybe there is some hope at the universities, though...