The moment a number of users started to turn on DNT ad networks would find a reason to not honor it anyway. It seems DNT was a privacy standard built on the peculiar premise that it only works as long as it stays unknown to most users ('if few enough know about enabling DNT then maybe the ad networks will leave us that do alone').
Yes, and we saw the same reaction with the AdBlock Plus detection/counter-measures hoopla. Advertisers can tolerate a small percentage of blocking, but it can't become to popular.
DNT is just an Evil-Bit with better marketing, so I'm not sure what concessions the advertisers can make to continue the pretense that DNT is an effective option.
This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.
Then whats the practical significance of this? Is it just the secrecy/security during transmission? The Wikipedia page also says 2 'classical' bits would have to be transmitted through a 'classical' way, which seems to remove any advantage of speed or bandwidth.
Apple made a logical, obvious, iteration to a decades old technology. I don't see how this is possibly a point of contention, and the fact the jurors went the other way on this leads me to believe the headline is 100% correct, or something else fishy is going on.
I saw a race/xenophobia explanation: US citizens living close to Apple HQ and loving Apple products, want to punish the Korean company that stole from Apple. Seems consistent with the way many people think: issues of race unacknowledged, people self-identifying with a corporation or their products, desire for a simplistic accounting of right vs wrong, acting extremely vengeful and calling it justice, etc...
Defining digital freedom isn't new, so maybe the GOP should look to the four freedoms of the GPL:
* the freedom to use the software for any purpose, * the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, * the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and * the freedom to share the changes you make.
what kind of dipshit is afraid of a t-shirt? obviously this guy is being pushed around because of his name and genetic background. i smell LAWSUIT.
IANAL, but all of this has happened before (and it will all happen again):
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a disturbing the peace conviction of a man wearing a jacket bearing the phrase, "Fuck the Draft."
Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. Court of Appeal of California reversed.
While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place. Yet people want to start selecting away from it, or better still, excising it from our genetic code?... They're essentially playing with fire, and the nearest bucket of water is someplace in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.
While I personally agree, this argument could also be made against GMO foods and nobody seems very convinced by it.
As others have pointed out, any and all businesses that depend on copyright in the US at one time or another (mostly in their beginnings but some even now) depend upon some form of IP infringement. The movie industry moved from the east coast to the west in order to escape Edison and his patents over the motion picture, for example.
The USA changes the rules to maximize business. Right now, extreme copyright enforcement and radical extensions will make more money for US businesses. As evidence in favor of this, I would suggest that (a) businesses think they know how to maximize their own profits better than outsiders (wise-crowds not withstanding), and (b) the US government does what businesses want, consistently and with vigor. If we want copyright laws changed, those are the important points to argue against. The fact that business historically depended on copyright infringement doesn't speak financially to modern big businesses, except to suggest that new competition could benefit from copyright infringement just as they did. It also suggests a moral argument against strong copyright, but that's largely ignored by business and government.
We shouldn't try fighting (b) directly given it's long history and the amount of money involved. Instead, I'd argue that strong copyright will destroy US businesses by denying them incentive to adjust to new technology and giving a huge advantage to new businesses in nations that don't have strong copyright laws. Strong copyright will be irrelevant because it unfairly supports US businesses against businesses in other countries. The rest of the world will either reject strong copyright directly or subvert it (for example, through lack of enforcement.)
Therefore, US Government policy is not in the best economic interests of individual businesses because businesses advocate for their own profits, not for an overall healthy industry. Ironically, it's a shared-commons problem where US businesses depending on strong copyright will find themselves unable to make the radical adjustments needed for a new market environment brought about by nations without strong copyright. US business depending on strong copyright will fail in a global market dominated by new businesses from outside the US. I'm sure businesses will argue (a) that they can enjoy the high profits of strong copyright today and still adjust when they need to, but history shows otherwise and government policy should diverge from what businesses advocate to protect the industry.
When benefits (such as health care and pensions) are subsidized by the taxpayers, it makes sense for a company to provide those benefits. But for things like life insurance, where the company bears the full cost, it makes little sense. They should just pay the money to the employees, and let them decide for themselves what to spend it on.
It makes sense if Google is holding life insurance policies against its employees; policies that pay Google upon death. Part of the payout could be an annuity for any surviving spouse or domestic partner and children. Since Google employees are well paid with high earning potentials, the money paid to Google could cover the cost of the program or even make money for Google. Having very generous benefits would lessen any feelings of resentment over the company profiting from employees dying, while also demonstrating that they do actually care about their employees.
He thinks that "really highly ranked officers" have the money and make the decisions, so RIM needs to keep that market. Which is stupid, but at least it's not crazy-denial-stupid.
RIM should make secure apps for Android/iPhone/WP7/etc... that connect with the next version of their BIS/BES (corporate server.) The market for secure company-controlled communications will adjust to incorporate all the new phones, but it won't have the profit margins RIM is used to.
It seems quite likely that the Koch brothers actually don't / didn't think anthropogenic global warming was real, and thus funded the study with that assumption thinking it would support their position.
It seems quite likely to me that the Koch brothers can't win the political fight, and so have abandon anti-global warming.
The bankers at Morgan Stanley applied all the lessons of the last 15 years and priced the IPO at $38, which was very aggressive, in an attempt to avoid leaving any money on the table and the embarrassment that a huge IPO pop would represent.
That's not how it works: FB sold its stock at $38 to the underwriters (the banks), who assume the market risk and sell the stock on the market. It's in the underwriters interests to pay the company a low amount, and see the valuation rise in the market. Companies want a higher valuation, and a jump in the stock price does NOT profit them. When the valuation was raised to $38 at the last minute, it was good for FB and bad for the banks.
I can only assume this fundamental aspect of IPOs is ignored because it doesn't make for a good story.
He (Eric) replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information.
If you think about it, the Internet would be better if we had an accurate notion that you were a real person as opposed to a dog, or a fake person, or a spammer or what have you So if we knew that it was a real person, then we could sort of hold them accountable, we could check them, we could give them things, we could you know bill them, you know we could have credit cards and so forth.
Anyway, if they insist on stack ranking, then hire (or transfer) someone in to be the bottom of the pile. Game theory is the only way to play silly games.
"The first rule of any game is to know you're playing one" -Sandy Lerner, co-founder of CISCO, about being pushed out of the company
Upgrading software and replacing hardware is a great strategy for the telecoms -- both are dirt cheap compared to their service contracts. I think they could easily sell a "never-ending upgrades" premium contract that gave new hardware with the latest software, say, once a year. That would make everyone happy: Google because Android fragmentation would be fixed, and in basically the same way iPhone fragmentation is fixed: massive turnover. Hardware manufacturers could sell in much greater volume, which would stabilize revenue, enhance the barrier to enter the hardware market, and relieve the pressure of competing on features. Telecoms would be selling an expensive "premium" product in addition to the cheapest phones.
The customer would pay more but would have great service (unlimited voice/text, generous net access) and new hardware and software. Further, this could eventually kill the low-end market as everyone (developers, Google, telecoms, and hardware manufacturers) moves forward and abandons the old hardware and software.
That's the last thing manufacturers want. They saw what happened to the PC hardware market, which was basically a race to the bottom on price.
You mean the explosive corporate growth and decades of massive profits? Being the next HP, Dell or IBM/Levano would be an amazing success for any phone manufacturer.
Reconfigure the server to use a faster disk. MemSQL exclusively relies on sequential (not random) disk writes, so using an SSD will dramatically improve durability write performance.
Are SSDs better at sequential writes? I thought their advantage was random reads, and they weren't any faster at writes then HDDs. Also, the data would become hopelessly out of order by only doing sequential writes, unless they're periodically re-writing all the data in order, which would mean lots more I/O then a typical DB.
The trolls don't know which patents are being 'violated'.
They know which patents they own, and can make a reasonable guess as to which apply. That's all they need for discovery. Trolls don't have to present evidence prior to filing suit. Think of SCO or Oracle v. Google, all it takes is money and time, and then they're in discovery.
Using discovery as 'fishing trip' is about finding new, unrelated information or issues, which trolls don't need to do.
Trolls can just use legal discovery. The companies don't gain anything by keeping the spec's secret, since they'd have to give whatever was asked for in a patent trial anyway. It may be sealed (non-public) but the companies can't hide it, or refuse to provide it.
The standard answer is that they're violating thousands of patents six ways to Sunday, and the more open they are about their hardware the more risk they expose on these being found out.
I don''t see how making it public would encourage trolls. If everyone already knows then the trolls do too. Uncertainty about hardware specifications is not holding back the trolls, it's the millions of dollars for multi-year trials that have uncertain payouts.
He's a smart guy and that's a good talk, but his arguments about simplicity are a little weird. Trying to use the etymology of the word 'simple' as a justification for design choices? I found Clojure to be a language where first you had to make the leap-to-lisp before it was easy, and making that transition wasn't helped by having the JVM/standard lib/Java syntax as prerequisites (not to mention lein/ant/maven/ide configs/etc...).
Heh, consider what this description says about clojures simplicity: "Leiningen is for automating Clojure projects without setting your hair on fire."
You get the apps at the iPhone/Android store, so does it just use a password? Where's the 2/3 factor authentication, or a security quiz from the system before you can start using it? Can you set an 'alarm' password that tells everyone you're under duress, or an innocuous password that only shows fake data?
Trying to make it easy to use is commendable, but trading ease for security would be better.
(self-reply) I just noticed that the iframes are "image/svg+xml" so maybe it's the content-type that's the problem, not that they're in a separate iframe.
It would be nice if Readability had page numbers and links to the original page, for problems like this.
I was impressed that it gets the first 11 pages, and then it includes a 'Next Page' link to in-line the remaining pages. The problem is it didn't get the performance images, which are in separate iframes.
If you have license to patents that cover the same thing you are being sued for, you have a much stronger defense.
First, drop-in replacements for patents don't always exist (think gif). Second, it wouldn't matter to a patent troll if they did, because they're gambling on extortion anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Summary is both Funny and Insightful: But what's in it for users? ...uhmm they'll tolerate it, because they're young, broke and already trained.
The moment a number of users started to turn on DNT ad networks would find a reason to not honor it anyway. It seems DNT was a privacy standard built on the peculiar premise that it only works as long as it stays unknown to most users ('if few enough know about enabling DNT then maybe the ad networks will leave us that do alone').
Yes, and we saw the same reaction with the AdBlock Plus detection/counter-measures hoopla. Advertisers can tolerate a small percentage of blocking, but it can't become to popular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#Advert_filtering_controversy_and_.22acceptable.22_ads
DNT is just an Evil-Bit with better marketing, so I'm not sure what concessions the advertisers can make to continue the pretense that DNT is an effective option.
This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.
Then whats the practical significance of this? Is it just the secrecy/security during transmission? The Wikipedia page also says 2 'classical' bits would have to be transmitted through a 'classical' way, which seems to remove any advantage of speed or bandwidth.
Apple made a logical, obvious, iteration to a decades old technology. I don't see how this is possibly a point of contention, and the fact the jurors went the other way on this leads me to believe the headline is 100% correct, or something else fishy is going on.
I saw a race/xenophobia explanation: US citizens living close to Apple HQ and loving Apple products, want to punish the Korean company that stole from Apple. Seems consistent with the way many people think: issues of race unacknowledged, people self-identifying with a corporation or their products, desire for a simplistic accounting of right vs wrong, acting extremely vengeful and calling it justice, etc...
Defining digital freedom isn't new, so maybe the GOP should look to the four freedoms of the GPL:
* the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
* the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
* the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
* the freedom to share the changes you make.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
Of course that doesn't fit with controlling your neighbors morality or allowing corporations to own the internet.
what kind of dipshit is afraid of a t-shirt? obviously this guy is being pushed around because of his name and genetic background. i smell LAWSUIT.
IANAL, but all of this has happened before (and it will all happen again):
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a disturbing the peace conviction of a man wearing a jacket bearing the phrase, "Fuck the Draft."
Holding
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. Court of Appeal of California reversed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place. Yet people want to start selecting away from it, or better still, excising it from our genetic code? ... They're essentially playing with fire, and the nearest bucket of water is someplace in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.
While I personally agree, this argument could also be made against GMO foods and nobody seems very convinced by it.
As others have pointed out, any and all businesses that depend on copyright in the US at one time or another (mostly in their beginnings but some even now) depend upon some form of IP infringement. The movie industry moved from the east coast to the west in order to escape Edison and his patents over the motion picture, for example.
The USA changes the rules to maximize business. Right now, extreme copyright enforcement and radical extensions will make more money for US businesses. As evidence in favor of this, I would suggest that (a) businesses think they know how to maximize their own profits better than outsiders (wise-crowds not withstanding), and (b) the US government does what businesses want, consistently and with vigor. If we want copyright laws changed, those are the important points to argue against. The fact that business historically depended on copyright infringement doesn't speak financially to modern big businesses, except to suggest that new competition could benefit from copyright infringement just as they did. It also suggests a moral argument against strong copyright, but that's largely ignored by business and government.
We shouldn't try fighting (b) directly given it's long history and the amount of money involved. Instead, I'd argue that strong copyright will destroy US businesses by denying them incentive to adjust to new technology and giving a huge advantage to new businesses in nations that don't have strong copyright laws. Strong copyright will be irrelevant because it unfairly supports US businesses against businesses in other countries. The rest of the world will either reject strong copyright directly or subvert it (for example, through lack of enforcement.)
Therefore, US Government policy is not in the best economic interests of individual businesses because businesses advocate for their own profits, not for an overall healthy industry. Ironically, it's a shared-commons problem where US businesses depending on strong copyright will find themselves unable to make the radical adjustments needed for a new market environment brought about by nations without strong copyright. US business depending on strong copyright will fail in a global market dominated by new businesses from outside the US. I'm sure businesses will argue (a) that they can enjoy the high profits of strong copyright today and still adjust when they need to, but history shows otherwise and government policy should diverge from what businesses advocate to protect the industry.
When benefits (such as health care and pensions) are subsidized by the taxpayers, it makes sense for a company to provide those benefits. But for things like life insurance, where the company bears the full cost, it makes little sense. They should just pay the money to the employees, and let them decide for themselves what to spend it on.
It makes sense if Google is holding life insurance policies against its employees; policies that pay Google upon death. Part of the payout could be an annuity for any surviving spouse or domestic partner and children. Since Google employees are well paid with high earning potentials, the money paid to Google could cover the cost of the program or even make money for Google. Having very generous benefits would lessen any feelings of resentment over the company profiting from employees dying, while also demonstrating that they do actually care about their employees.
He thinks that "really highly ranked officers" have the money and make the decisions, so RIM needs to keep that market. Which is stupid, but at least it's not crazy-denial-stupid.
RIM should make secure apps for Android/iPhone/WP7/etc... that connect with the next version of their BIS/BES (corporate server.) The market for secure company-controlled communications will adjust to incorporate all the new phones, but it won't have the profit margins RIM is used to.
It seems quite likely that the Koch brothers actually don't / didn't think anthropogenic global warming was real, and thus funded the study with that assumption thinking it would support their position.
It seems quite likely to me that the Koch brothers can't win the political fight, and so have abandon anti-global warming.
The bankers at Morgan Stanley applied all the lessons of the last 15 years and priced the IPO at $38, which was very aggressive, in an attempt to avoid leaving any money on the table and the embarrassment that a huge IPO pop would represent.
That's not how it works: FB sold its stock at $38 to the underwriters (the banks), who assume the market risk and sell the stock on the market. It's in the underwriters interests to pay the company a low amount, and see the valuation rise in the market. Companies want a higher valuation, and a jump in the stock price does NOT profit them. When the valuation was raised to $38 at the last minute, it was good for FB and bad for the banks.
I can only assume this fundamental aspect of IPOs is ignored because it doesn't make for a good story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering#Pricing_of_IPO
You only think that because you're thinking in english rather than the newspeak.
Of course we all have unique names and faces and Google images contains only correctly tagged photos so this won't cause any confusion at all.
I thought Google was running an identity service?
(Sorry to spoil the joke by beating a dead horse, but this deserves it.)
http://gigaom.com/2011/08/29/its-official-google-wants-to-own-your-online-identity/
He (Eric) replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they’re going to build future products that leverage that information.
If you think about it, the Internet would be better if we had an accurate notion that you were a real person as opposed to a dog, or a fake person, or a spammer or what have you So if we knew that it was a real person, then we could sort of hold them accountable, we could check them, we could give them things, we could you know bill them, you know we could have credit cards and so forth.
Anyway, if they insist on stack ranking, then hire (or transfer) someone in to be the bottom of the pile. Game theory is the only way to play silly games.
"The first rule of any game is to know you're playing one" -Sandy Lerner, co-founder of CISCO, about being pushed out of the company
from Something Ventured
Upgrading software and replacing hardware is a great strategy for the telecoms -- both are dirt cheap compared to their service contracts. I think they could easily sell a "never-ending upgrades" premium contract that gave new hardware with the latest software, say, once a year. That would make everyone happy: Google because Android fragmentation would be fixed, and in basically the same way iPhone fragmentation is fixed: massive turnover. Hardware manufacturers could sell in much greater volume, which would stabilize revenue, enhance the barrier to enter the hardware market, and relieve the pressure of competing on features. Telecoms would be selling an expensive "premium" product in addition to the cheapest phones.
The customer would pay more but would have great service (unlimited voice/text, generous net access) and new hardware and software. Further, this could eventually kill the low-end market as everyone (developers, Google, telecoms, and hardware manufacturers) moves forward and abandons the old hardware and software.
That's the last thing manufacturers want. They saw what happened to the PC hardware market, which was basically a race to the bottom on price.
You mean the explosive corporate growth and decades of massive profits? Being the next HP, Dell or IBM/Levano would be an amazing success for any phone manufacturer.
They're durable and synchronously log all changes to disk, so what makes them faster? They do say this, from: http://developers.memsql.com/docs/1b/durability.html
Reconfigure the server to use a faster disk. MemSQL exclusively relies on sequential (not random) disk writes, so using an SSD will dramatically improve durability write performance.
Are SSDs better at sequential writes? I thought their advantage was random reads, and they weren't any faster at writes then HDDs. Also, the data would become hopelessly out of order by only doing sequential writes, unless they're periodically re-writing all the data in order, which would mean lots more I/O then a typical DB.
The trolls don't know which patents are being 'violated'.
They know which patents they own, and can make a reasonable guess as to which apply. That's all they need for discovery. Trolls don't have to present evidence prior to filing suit. Think of SCO or Oracle v. Google, all it takes is money and time, and then they're in discovery.
Using discovery as 'fishing trip' is about finding new, unrelated information or issues, which trolls don't need to do.
Trolls can just use legal discovery. The companies don't gain anything by keeping the spec's secret, since they'd have to give whatever was asked for in a patent trial anyway. It may be sealed (non-public) but the companies can't hide it, or refuse to provide it.
The standard answer is that they're violating thousands of patents six ways to Sunday, and the more open they are about their hardware the more risk they expose on these being found out.
I don''t see how making it public would encourage trolls. If everyone already knows then the trolls do too. Uncertainty about hardware specifications is not holding back the trolls, it's the millions of dollars for multi-year trials that have uncertain payouts.
He's a smart guy and that's a good talk, but his arguments about simplicity are a little weird. Trying to use the etymology of the word 'simple' as a justification for design choices? I found Clojure to be a language where first you had to make the leap-to-lisp before it was easy, and making that transition wasn't helped by having the JVM/standard lib/Java syntax as prerequisites (not to mention lein/ant/maven/ide configs/etc...).
Heh, consider what this description says about clojures simplicity: "Leiningen is for automating Clojure projects without setting your hair on fire."
You get the apps at the iPhone/Android store, so does it just use a password? Where's the 2/3 factor authentication, or a security quiz from the system before you can start using it? Can you set an 'alarm' password that tells everyone you're under duress, or an innocuous password that only shows fake data?
Trying to make it easy to use is commendable, but trading ease for security would be better.
(self-reply) I just noticed that the iframes are "image/svg+xml" so maybe it's the content-type that's the problem, not that they're in a separate iframe.
It would be nice if Readability had page numbers and links to the original page, for problems like this.
http://www.readability.com/articles/sagdka0j
I was impressed that it gets the first 11 pages, and then it includes a 'Next Page' link to in-line the remaining pages. The problem is it didn't get the performance images, which are in separate iframes.
What if we did a reverse-troll, so either companies join DPL or DPL files troll lawsuits until they join. It's like MPEG LA but not just for video.
If you have license to patents that cover the same thing you are being sued for, you have a much stronger defense.
First, drop-in replacements for patents don't always exist (think gif). Second, it wouldn't matter to a patent troll if they did, because they're gambling on extortion anyway.