|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
Full analysis Nokia past & current strategy explained simple, even for dumb
people, by Tomi Ahonen
href="http://www.communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/10/the-there-pillars
-of-nokia-strategy-have-all-failed-why-nokia-must-fire-ceo-elop-now.html">Link
a>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
TechDirt (again) has an article entitled
Hacking The Future:
Anonymity Matters that will be of
interest to many on
Groklaw, as it covers a topic that is discussed here
frequently.
They refer to a book entitled Hacking the
Future: Privacy,
Identity, and Anonymity on the Web, by
Cole Stryker.
On
the face of it, we recognize cyber bullying, faceless
slander, and data theft
to be universally recognized evils,
and we should therefore do what we can to
mitigate them. The
simple, obvious solution is to force everyone to wear a name
tag in cyberspace, so that everyone is responsible for their
actions online,
just like in the real world. Evildoers use
anonymity as both a shield and a
weapon. If we rob them of
both, we'll have less evil.
My position: It's
just not that simple. Throughout
Hacking
the Future I trace the rich
heritage of anonymous speech
in
a free society and examine its most popular
current
manifestations. I explore the bits and bytes behind the
argument. I
use the technology and come face-to- face with
unspeakable evils in dark places
I'd prefer never to return
to. I consult the men who shaped the Internet and
the
soldiers toiling in the trenches of network security who
intimately
recognize the terrifying potential of the Wild
Wild Web daily. I talk to code
breakers, whistle- blowers,
researchers, hacktivists, and mothers.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 11:14 PM EDT |
Why does it matter if the thread is started by an Anonymous user anyways? It's
not like it is less usefull or anything...
Signed: Anonymous User[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
This is an amazing fact. We had this product. It was designed for
business executives. And the biggest obstacle, one of the biggest obstacles, we
had for selling the product was the fact -- believe it or not -- that it had a
keyboard. I was in sales and marketing. I saw this first-hand. At that time,
1982, business people, who were in their 40s and 50s, did not have any computer
or keyboard in their offices. And it was associated with being part of the
secretarial pool or the word processing (remember that industry?) department.
And so you'd put this thing in their office and they'd say, "Get that out of
here." It was like getting a demotion. They really were uncomfortable with
it.
[..]
The second reason they were uncomfortable with it is that none
of them knew how to type. And it wasn't like they said, "Oh, I'll have to learn
how to type." They were very afraid -- I saw this first-hand -- they were very
afraid of appearing inept. Like, "You give me this thing, and I'm gonna push the
wrong keys. I'm gonna fail."
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/why-the-first-laptop-had-s
uch-a-hard-time-catching-on-hint-sexism/262220/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- Ah - the good ol' days - true madness. Some places women are not allowed to drive (today) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: hans on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: soronlin on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Typeing classes - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: ChrixOne on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
| Groklaw has a long history of supporting Anonymity and those
who choose not to
disclose an identity that can be tracked
in the comment posts (there is a
reason).
One of the best written reasons why this needs to be
protected on
the web is explained by the Electronic Freedom
Foundation (see below from a
Creative Commons Copyrighted -
Attribution - web page why it
is important to
support anonymity). Oh - the US
Supreme Court has repeatedly supported
it... and, many of
the lives of our founding fathers depended on being able to
speak, with ONLY their ideas, not their identities, being
exposed
. For all
the obvious reasons, this ability to write, or
speak, freely, is as important
today, as was at any time in history.
See:
Electronic Frontier
Foundation - Protecting your rights in
the digital world.
Anonymity |
Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.or
g/issues/anonymity<
/a>
(EFF Copyright Policy - Creative Commons - Attribution -
see:
https://www.eff.org/cop
yright ) -
Any and all original material on the EFF
website may be freely distributed at
will under the Creati
ve Commons
Attribution License, unless otherwise noted.
All material that is not
original to EFF may require
permission from the copyright holder to
redistribute.
Exact Quote (source is EFF web
page):
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say
online to be
connected with their offline identities. They may be
concerned
about political or economic retribution harassment
or even threats to their
lives. Whistleblowers report news
that companies and governments would prefer
to suppress;
human rights workers struggle against repressive
governments;
parents try to create a safe way for children
to explore; victims of domestic
violence attempt to rebuild
their lives where abusers cannot
follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate these
people
choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or
anonymously (no name at
all). For these individuals and the
organizations that support them secure
anonymity is
critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous
communications have an important place in our
political and social discourse.
The Supreme Court has ruled
repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech
is
protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme
Court ruling in
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for
anonymous speech are vital to democratic
discourse. Allowing dissenters to
shield their identities
frees them to express critical minority views . . .
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . .
. It thus
exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights
and of the First Amendment in
particular: to protect
unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand
of
an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous
speech is older than the United
States. Founders Alexander Hamilton James
Madison and John
Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius
" and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US
Supreme Court has
repeatedly recognized rights to speak
anonymously derived from the First
Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond
the
printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down
a law requiring
proselytizers to register their true names
with the Mayor's office before going
door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections
it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the
Supreme Court has
recognized the Internet offers a new and
powerful democratic forum in which
anyone can become a
"pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates
farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
has been involved in the
fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers
online. As
one court observed in a case handled by EFF along with the
ACLU of
Washington "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the
Internet is driven in large
part by the ability of Internet
users to communicate anonymously."
We've
challenged many efforts to impede anonymous
communication both in the courts or
the legislatures. We
also previously provided financial support to the
developers
of Tor an anonymous Internet communications system. By
combining
legal and policy work with technical tools we hope
to maintain the Internet's
ability to serve as a vehicle for
free expression.
So,
Groklaw is right to protect folks who otherwise could
not write what they write
here at all (as they could not
dare to speak). Hopefully, the Supreme Court
will continue
to support this FULLY during this modern digital age of free
speech as well.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Designer and developer Faruk Ateş, the man behind Modernizr,
says that sexism is hurting our industry in more significant ways than most
people realise. Here he explains what it's all about and what we can do to
address this issue.
[...]
For our industry, many proposed solutions are
emerging:
Our industry is quickly becoming
one of the biggest and most widely influential ones in the world, but to serve
the needs of people everywhere most effectively, we must exhibit great
inclusivity within our own ranks. That, perhaps, could be our proudest
moment.
Faruk
Ateş, .net magazine[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
| Apple has inked a deal with the the Swiss Federal Railway (SBB) to license the
use of the railway's iconic clock on iOS devices.
PCmag [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Intellectual Ventures, the company run by Nathan Myhrvold, the
former Microsoft CTO and alleged p
atent troll, has been iss
ued a patent on a system that could prevent people from printing objects
using designs they haven’t paid for.
The patent, issued Tuesday by the
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, is titled “Manufacturing control system” and
describes methods for managing “object production rights.”
The patent
basically covers the idea of digital rights management, or DRM, for 3-D
printers.
Antonio Regalado, Technology Review[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
| Link Lots of code,
presumably good, but not a single copyright notice or license statement
anywhere. That means that, as far as large parts of the world are concerned, it
is protected by implied copyright, just because it has been written, so it can't
be used by anyone except the author because there is nothing giving explicit
permission. They should have made clear copyright statements in the code, and
invoked a suitable license, preferably GPL so that any improvements would be
contributed back, but even BSD would have resolved the problem. I think that
the intention is for the code to be used, but right now there is no legal way of
doing that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Just wondering - why can't Groklaw's site be modified so that
the "canonical threads" are automatically created when PJ (or
whoever) posts a new story? Not that the current system is a
big problem or anything, but from a tech perspective, it seems
odd to require human intervention for something so repetitive.
DSB[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
Was this really a thing or are we being trolled by some antiMS
fudista?
It [IE] was integrated into the kernel so deeply,
there were special undocumented APIs only for IE functionality. That meant
faster startup times and faster rendering back then. But it opened the system to
a whole bank of security holes. There were whole websites dedicated to its
security holes that went unfixed for years and allowed full access to to the
system. Those holes basically were the whole reason those first trojans and
Internet viruses succeeded. (Remember that Outlook used IE’s engine internally
too. So an e-mail was enough.)
seen on Reddit[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:43 AM EDT |
No, just an old copy of Vanity Fair I
tripped over.
When the Internet was
created, decades ago, one thing was inevitable: the war today
over how (or
whether) to control it, and who should have that power. Battle lines have been
drawn
between repressive regimes and Western democracies, corporations and
customers, hackers and law
enforcement. Looking toward a year-end negotiation
in Dubai, where 193 nations will gather to revise
a U.N. treaty concerning the
Internet, Michael Joseph Gross lays out the stakes in a conflict that could
split the virtual world as we know it.
See also.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:54 AM EDT |
zdnet.com
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Fascinating! - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Fascinating! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Justice Elaine Adair has dismissed a defamation case launched by the
salmon-farming company Mainstream Canada against Don Staniford over a 2011
campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as
"Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking."
In her ruling published Friday, Adair
said while the statements were defamatory and Staniford was motivated by malice,
the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn't his
dominant purpose.
The Canadian Press, CBC.ca
---
A
few more articles on this
Lessons from a fish farm defamation lawsuit
Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental
Law
Rafe Mair's Landmark Free Speech Case Credited in Salmon Activist
Staniford's Victory
Damien Gillis, The Common
Sense Canadian
---
The decisions
SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation:
Mainstream Canada v. Staniford,
2012 BCSC 1433
Docket:
S111908
Date: 20120928
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: WIC
Radio Ltd. v. Simpson,
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, 2008 SCC 40
Docket: 31608
Date: 20080627 [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
