Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.
The software *can* be separated from the ideology. BSD (and variations) make this clear. I don't think GNOME would be wise to try abandoning an ideal of freedom, and they're foolish to include Mono/Moonlight.
It seems to me that the amount of ideology that a community brings to a project is proportional to proprietary business involvement when the project starts. I don't have any evidence to back this up.
It's an obvious fallacy. The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice. You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing.
Christians know that Jesus was crucified. Do they think it was justice? How is it that a (so called) nation of Christians can fall for this tired old argument when they *know* that innocent people get punished?
So you're saying that a clear, readable statement about privacy is more suspicious than total and complete silence on the issue? Or am I missing something? That's not really what you meant, right?
The OP wrote that "Their public statements say..." as if it was an answer to the questions and concerns in this thread. It's not, and I tried to explain why.
Google feels the need to do this because every time they offer a new service "privacy" is the very first word off everyone's lips. How many times have we all read diatribes against Latitude, Gmail, etc for lack of a clear disclosure of privacy terms before the service even goes beta? And now that Google has released clear, plain English privacy statements about a new service, it's suspicious behavior? Sounds to me like Google is giving the general public what they asked for.
Google isn't giving the public what they want, but not for lack of trying. What the public want's (as evidenced by this discussion and many similar on other sites) is to not be spied on and have issues of data privacy resolved in a sensible and stable manner. Companies making arbitrary, complicated and changing policies isn't enough. And again, it isn't just what Google does, or says, or if people trust them, but also the environment Google is working in, where others are spying and lying.
Thank you for contributing information on topic, but the defense of Google is wrong. The criticism is not of a narrow technicality, or the particular change to the privacy policy. As others pointed out, Google included privacy statements about DNS when no other ISP or service does this. Why did they feel the need? You can't address this by trying to state simple facts (although appreciated) or citing particular issues. The fear and frustration is broad and stems from many sources in addition to Google, as I tried to point out above.
Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.
Google also has a Privacy Policy, but the thing is, it was "Last modified: March 11, 2009" and "Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time."
The lack of trust that so many people are venting isn't from thin air. The US government is spying on it's own citizens (and everyone else.) Sprint is working hard setting up websites to let local law enforcement to monitor citizens. Also, there are no standards for data privacy, and companies change their own policy whenever they want and change it to whatever they want.
millions of teenagers who are
1. technologically astute
2. media hungry
3. POOR
let them pass any goddamn law they want. who fucking cares?
its nothing more than damage to route around, like the internet was designed to do
Consider the war on drugs before you boast. The US is willing to damage millions of people even if the outcome they want is virtually impossible. (And like the war on drugs, the people will favor harsh treatment for "pirates" also.)
Rules Lawyering and a (seemingly) huge bureaucracy of insiders and rules. [Citation Needed] can be dropped anywhere with no thought by, or consequence to, the person adding it. Wikipedia created the exact opposite of be bold, which shows up everywhere in Wikipedia instructions, but not so much in practice.
It is unfortunate that companies in this situation are caving to the requests of a government that has different ideals about the freedom of information than we do, but honestly, do you expect anything different?
When companies don't like the laws they get them changed, world-wide if needed. (See copyright.) But in China the companies are already getting paid, so why should they try to change anything? Right?
It just occurs to me that, like so many other things, the government is simply incompetent at patents.
Depends on what outcome you want. The patent system in the US is primarily a way to protect large companies from competition (foreign or domestic), and it's doing a good (but expensive) job at that. Ask yourself if Amazon is better off in the US where it gets this extra defense, or in a country without patent protections? And note that the question isn't whether the overall economy is better off, which is a different question.
...the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies
You started by arguing that the Government is incompetent, but that conclusion depends on the goal, and
"the goal" is many different things to different interests. It's like when people look at the devastating effects of the war on drugs and conclude that it's failed. Failed relative to what goal?
Half the Board of Directors, and half of the Advisory Board are from Microsoft. Why should we think that this anything but a Microsoft front?
The about page says "Our Board of Directors is an interim board" and that they will pick the new board but that's no too encouraging given who's doing the picking. CodePlex seems like Microsoft trying to create a community.
Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.
Don't ask me anything. Add-on's and extensions should only be included if you go to a Firefox UI and turn them on. There won't be any stealth additions, and if people really want some plug-in they'll figure it out, and the vendors will help by giving instructions.
Also, don't ask me about upgrades. Just upgrade the plug-in when starting (and restart if you must), and give me a way to lock an add-on at a particular version.
Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.
Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.
Google will announce early, but it'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big.
So can copyright assigned to the Free Software Foundation be taken back? How would that affect the license that the software was released under?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
... some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations (that were created by the various shows' writers) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics?
I wonder what category the author puts himself in.
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."
DRM is a scam. Do you want to do business with people that scam their customers?
Slashdot Mirror
Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.
The software *can* be separated from the ideology. BSD (and variations) make this clear. I don't think GNOME would be wise to try abandoning an ideal of freedom, and they're foolish to include Mono/Moonlight.
It seems to me that the amount of ideology that a community brings to a project is proportional to proprietary business involvement when the project starts. I don't have any evidence to back this up.
It's an obvious fallacy. The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice. You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing.
Christians know that Jesus was crucified. Do they think it was justice? How is it that a (so called) nation of Christians can fall for this tired old argument when they *know* that innocent people get punished?
Herpes is not a crime, but I bet if you had it you would want to keep that fact private.
herpes is foreveryone to know about
So you're saying that a clear, readable statement about privacy is more suspicious than total and complete silence on the issue? Or am I missing something? That's not really what you meant, right?
The OP wrote that "Their public statements say..." as if it was an answer to the questions and concerns in this thread. It's not, and I tried to explain why.
Google feels the need to do this because every time they offer a new service "privacy" is the very first word off everyone's lips. How many times have we all read diatribes against Latitude, Gmail, etc for lack of a clear disclosure of privacy terms before the service even goes beta? And now that Google has released clear, plain English privacy statements about a new service, it's suspicious behavior? Sounds to me like Google is giving the general public what they asked for.
Google isn't giving the public what they want, but not for lack of trying. What the public want's (as evidenced by this discussion and many similar on other sites) is to not be spied on and have issues of data privacy resolved in a sensible and stable manner. Companies making arbitrary, complicated and changing policies isn't enough. And again, it isn't just what Google does, or says, or if people trust them, but also the environment Google is working in, where others are spying and lying.
Thank you for contributing information on topic, but the defense of Google is wrong. The criticism is not of a narrow technicality, or the particular change to the privacy policy. As others pointed out, Google included privacy statements about DNS when no other ISP or service does this. Why did they feel the need? You can't address this by trying to state simple facts (although appreciated) or citing particular issues. The fear and frustration is broad and stems from many sources in addition to Google, as I tried to point out above.
Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.
Google also has a Privacy Policy, but the thing is, it was "Last modified: March 11, 2009" and "Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time."
The lack of trust that so many people are venting isn't from thin air. The US government is spying on it's own citizens (and everyone else.) Sprint is working hard setting up websites to let local law enforcement to monitor citizens. Also, there are no standards for data privacy, and companies change their own policy whenever they want and change it to whatever they want.
versus
millions of teenagers who are
1. technologically astute
2. media hungry
3. POOR
let them pass any goddamn law they want. who fucking cares?
its nothing more than damage to route around, like the internet was designed to do
Consider the war on drugs before you boast. The US is willing to damage millions of people even if the outcome they want is virtually impossible. (And like the war on drugs, the people will favor harsh treatment for "pirates" also.)
Rules Lawyering and a (seemingly) huge bureaucracy of insiders and rules. [Citation Needed] can be dropped anywhere with no thought by, or consequence to, the person adding it. Wikipedia created the exact opposite of be bold, which shows up everywhere in Wikipedia instructions, but not so much in practice.
Oh. And of course, make it subscription based. (I kid...)
I was on Google the other day and right there was Wikipedia! Google is stealing Wikipedia!
Cyber-Ark just happens to have a product that helps prevent this.
Well, they do until they fire one of their employees ;)
Then everyone will have it and the problem will be solved!
(wait.. what was the problem again?)
I don't use AdBlock, I haven't turned off /. adds. I might be OK with a chromeOS machine as long as I can do what I want with it.
Google: Well give you free hardware if you use our software.
Slashdot: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
It is unfortunate that companies in this situation are caving to the requests of a government that has different ideals about the freedom of information than we do, but honestly, do you expect anything different?
When companies don't like the laws they get them changed, world-wide if needed. (See copyright.) But in China the companies are already getting paid, so why should they try to change anything? Right?
Nixon or Obama, China gets a pass. Cuba on the other hand is small, so screw them.
It just occurs to me that, like so many other things, the government is simply incompetent at patents.
Depends on what outcome you want. The patent system in the US is primarily a way to protect large companies from competition (foreign or domestic), and it's doing a good (but expensive) job at that. Ask yourself if Amazon is better off in the US where it gets this extra defense, or in a country without patent protections? And note that the question isn't whether the overall economy is better off, which is a different question.
...the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies
You started by arguing that the Government is incompetent, but that conclusion depends on the goal, and "the goal" is many different things to different interests. It's like when people look at the devastating effects of the war on drugs and conclude that it's failed. Failed relative to what goal?
Half the Board of Directors, and half of the Advisory Board are from Microsoft. Why should we think that this anything but a Microsoft front?
The about page says "Our Board of Directors is an interim board" and that they will pick the new board but that's no too encouraging given who's doing the picking. CodePlex seems like Microsoft trying to create a community.
Every time the browser started, if it found a plugin or extension being loaded via the registry or a plugin directory that wasn't on the list, it'd notify the user what the plugin was and ask whether they wanted it enabled or not.
Don't ask me anything. Add-on's and extensions should only be included if you go to a Firefox UI and turn them on. There won't be any stealth additions, and if people really want some plug-in they'll figure it out, and the vendors will help by giving instructions.
Also, don't ask me about upgrades. Just upgrade the plug-in when starting (and restart if you must), and give me a way to lock an add-on at a particular version.
When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.
Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.
Google will announce early, but it'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big.
The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms
It's the ultimate Embrace, with the Extend built-in... now we just wait for them to Extinguish it? Wait. How does this formula work again?
Maybe even software? I mean, why not?
So can copyright assigned to the Free Software Foundation be taken back? How would that affect the license that the software was released under? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
You know who killed someone? Hitler. That's who.
I wonder what category the author puts himself in.
A.I. researcher.
Just head over to the Verizon website and check out the fine print.
WTF? Are you serious?
Now the catch is if they think you're tethering without a tether plan (which is really easy to do) they'll charge you for tethering.
So they just charge you an outrageous amount ($50/gig) if they feel like it? And you're defending this?
Not hard to see why people believe the worst about cell phone companies and run articles saying so.
Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.
This is a false premise in many environments including slashdot, political rallies, FOX news, and anywhere that kids gather.
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."
DRM is a scam. Do you want to do business with people that scam their customers?
http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/2008-July/000038.html