This is a fact, and is extremely convincing evidence of inten
No it isn't. It's evidence that the software has multiple ways it can be configured and has multiple uses, like any other piece of software. It's evidence that someone configured it to do something that lead to this PR disaster, but it says nothing about intent. The fact that you regularly make claims to intent, and not the facts of what actually happened, including the specific information gathered and whether it could be in any way useful considering such short periods of data collection indicates how much of an agenda you have in pursuing this.
In fact, the history of the program used even indicates the issue is in configuration, not development/code review.
3) Skyhook describes 2 different methods of data collection (already addressed by another poster further down), that's about it. This doesn't show anything about intent, in fact Skyhook itself notes the issue with using the other method, being you miss access points if they're busy (which is likely for public Wi-Fi spots).
From the article:
Nor would it be possible for Google to record such data completely by accident, Morgan says. “At the engineering level it’s very easy to know whether you are capturing this data or not,” he says. So the error at Google, he says, probably happened “higher up the food chain…An engineer doesn’t care, and grabs whatever he can. But when there’s no one looking at it who’s got the broader perspective to understand the implications, that’s where the breakdown happens.”
Even Skyhook understands that there's a difference between coed review and how the software is setup.
2) No it doesn't. Code review != configuration review. Not to mention you're referring to what is effectively marketing material - I highly doubt any claim that every individual line is reviewed, especially to the degree that this particular configuration would be caught.
3) My point is that the skyhook example was irrelevant. There was no detail in that link at all as to how Skyhook gains its database of Wi-Fi hot spots. All it was an advert for a location service/technology that happened to use Wi-Fi hot spot information, nothing about the specifics of their data collection software, their policy regarding retention of data gained from unencrypted networks as they gather hot spot info, or anything else that might be of use.
Skyhook provides a location service, but I have no idea as to the methods they use to gather hot spot info nor whether their software retains unencrypted info. In fact the real link to info about their Wi-FI information gathering is here:
Oh yeah, Google wanted the Wi-Fi hot spot information, skyhook is aimed at finding your more general position based on Wi-Fi hot spot information (alongside GPS and such). Completely irrelevant example.
2) Just because Google claims they have high QA standards does not suddenly mean they never have problems. Especially in situations like this where the type and amount of data you can get is effectively useless for nefarious purposes, which makes that particular change less important. It's a (small) configuration issue, not badly written code.
3) Skyhook does not appear to be aimed at the same situation that google was in, where cars were passing by and were far more pressed in the time and information they could get at any one place.
Perhaps the fact that ACTA is fundamentally wrong in various aspects has something to do with that.
And you lie. All the damn time. It's all you ever do, and it will never change. Your entire existence is based around creating baseless memes about Techdirt you can endlessly repeat so as to never deal with the facts of any issue that's ever presented. Your entire presence revolves around essentially nothing except feeble attempts at trolling and misrepresentation.
Until you actually make a point worth considering, peoples attitude and posts towards you will never change. But you won't, because that's not why you're here.
Your relation to Mano in regards to claims he was nothing more than a source despite a seemingly fairly close relationship, whether various parts of the emails are being held back for seemingly little reason (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html), and the potential involvement in turning Manning in.
Even if he indeed did go to other journalists, this does not gloss over the fact he seemed to regularly go through first you on many occasions. Perhaps you didn't see it in this way, but his own view on the relationship as a means to get publicity may have been very different. I don't think amount of articles is a very convincing argument when the issue is the nature of the relationship.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: at least make up a damn name.
Multiple people pointing out factual and logical inaccuracies in your arguments has more to do with your lack of ability to form any coherent point.
You've even confirmed the points Techdirt has been making all along without realising it http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100616/1038269856#c286. There's more than likely more occasions of this happening, but right now I'm not that bothered to go searching through your terrible posts.
Kinda like how instead of advancing a productive discussion, you set up the freeloader straw man for you to knock down, side stepping real discussion of business and economic ideas and implications of file sharing to move straight to moral arguments, including your use of the term freeloader as a means to describe people who take part in file sharing, bunched with other classic stereotypes such as teenagers and moral lacking thieves.
All of which to peddle a book via a free blogging service, posting on commenting for free on others websites and other freeloader means. But don't let that stop you from advancing a productive discussion based around strawmen.
"Content is finite, there is a finite number of movies"
Whether a product is scarce/finite is defined by its cost to reproduce it, not by its particular story, actors and so on.
Toyota may have a novel car design, but it's not scarce because it's the only company with that design, its scarcity is defined by how many reproductions of that car exist and whether they beat out demand.
I still haven't heard from Techdirt nor your lawyers about what you stated that one time about that thing that I was offended by at some point. Consider this official notification, see you in court tomorrow.
Any movie is infinitely reproducible. So no, it is not scarce, as it can be easily reproduced for near zero cost to the producer.
When the same content is available via multiple means, then there is no competition via content. The competition happens via delivery method and the advantages/disadvantages of it. No one has denied content has value, but it works as part of a larger equation that involves the values that the medium it is delivered by as well.
The theatre provides value by having comfier seats and better sound/audio, along with a social experience. TV provides value via convenience (watch at home, and cheaper). iTunes provides value via convenience. If there is no benefit in the delivery method, then the price drops to marginal cost, which is 0 for anything that can be transmitted digitally.
I can pay hundreds of dollars for a book, that contains the same amount of paper and the $1.20 local news paper. The value of my expensive book is in the contents of the book and not the media. Is that so hard to understand, Mike... ?
Except that no one has stated that content has no value. It can be used to increase the value of other goods. But it alone is easily reproducible to the point where supply easily outpaces demand, ergo has a cost of 0 (or close to it).
In fact, Mikes entire point is about using non-scarce goods (digital copies of media and the content itself) to increase the value or market size of other offerings, like this exact example which shows precisely this concept.
Good of you to reconfirm the point, just to make sure. Now I know for definite that the fact that these articles and writings were widely available elsewhere did not reduce and in fact furthered the incentive to buy a book of his, mainly thanks to the addition of other reasons to buy like convenience.
It's something that more old farts like yourself should know.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't. It's evidence that the software has multiple ways it can be configured and has multiple uses, like any other piece of software. It's evidence that someone configured it to do something that lead to this PR disaster, but it says nothing about intent. The fact that you regularly make claims to intent, and not the facts of what actually happened, including the specific information gathered and whether it could be in any way useful considering such short periods of data collection indicates how much of an agenda you have in pursuing this.
In fact, the history of the program used even indicates the issue is in configuration, not development/code review.
3) Skyhook describes 2 different methods of data collection (already addressed by another poster further down), that's about it. This doesn't show anything about intent, in fact Skyhook itself notes the issue with using the other method, being you miss access points if they're busy (which is likely for public Wi-Fi spots).
From the article:
Even Skyhook understands that there's a difference between coed review and how the software is setup.
On the post: Sunday Times: Pay Up To Have Us Tell You How We Were Totally Wrong In Our Climate Change Story
Re:
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re: Re:
3) My point is that the skyhook example was irrelevant. There was no detail in that link at all as to how Skyhook gains its database of Wi-Fi hot spots. All it was an advert for a location service/technology that happened to use Wi-Fi hot spot information, nothing about the specifics of their data collection software, their policy regarding retention of data gained from unencrypted networks as they gather hot spot info, or anything else that might be of use.
Skyhook provides a location service, but I have no idea as to the methods they use to gather hot spot info nor whether their software retains unencrypted info. In fact the real link to info about their Wi-FI information gathering is here:
http://www.skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/coverage.php
But again, carries no real information. It's general promotional material, not specific details.
Practically none of what you have presented goes against Google.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re:
2) Just because Google claims they have high QA standards does not suddenly mean they never have problems. Especially in situations like this where the type and amount of data you can get is effectively useless for nefarious purposes, which makes that particular change less important. It's a (small) configuration issue, not badly written code.
3) Skyhook does not appear to be aimed at the same situation that google was in, where cars were passing by and were far more pressed in the time and information they could get at any one place.
On the post: Indian Politicians Caught Watching Unauthorized Copy Of Film About Politics
Re: Re: Re:
And you lie. All the damn time. It's all you ever do, and it will never change. Your entire existence is based around creating baseless memes about Techdirt you can endlessly repeat so as to never deal with the facts of any issue that's ever presented. Your entire presence revolves around essentially nothing except feeble attempts at trolling and misrepresentation.
Until you actually make a point worth considering, peoples attitude and posts towards you will never change. But you won't, because that's not why you're here.
On the post: Is The Arrest Of Bradley Manning Part Of A Coordinated Effort To Discredit Wikileaks?
Re: Re: Greenwald
Even if he indeed did go to other journalists, this does not gloss over the fact he seemed to regularly go through first you on many occasions. Perhaps you didn't see it in this way, but his own view on the relationship as a means to get publicity may have been very different. I don't think amount of articles is a very convincing argument when the issue is the nature of the relationship.
On the post: Is The Arrest Of Bradley Manning Part Of A Coordinated Effort To Discredit Wikileaks?
Re: Greenwald
On the post: Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US
Re: Re: Re:
Well done sir. Well done.
On the post: A Recommendation Is Not The Same As Corruption
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: at least make up a damn name.
You've even confirmed the points Techdirt has been making all along without realising it http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100616/1038269856#c286. There's more than likely more occasions of this happening, but right now I'm not that bothered to go searching through your terrible posts.
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
All of which to peddle a book via a free blogging service, posting on commenting for free on others websites and other freeloader means. But don't let that stop you from advancing a productive discussion based around strawmen.
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite wisdom - finite knowledge - confused 'consultants'
Whether a product is scarce/finite is defined by its cost to reproduce it, not by its particular story, actors and so on.
Toyota may have a novel car design, but it's not scarce because it's the only company with that design, its scarcity is defined by how many reproductions of that car exist and whether they beat out demand.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Everything else I've read from you seems like pure speculation.
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
On the post: Is Libel Dead... Or Is It Just Changing?
Re: For the love of all things holy....
On the post: Documentary Filmmakers Want DMCA Exemption; But Almost Definitely Won't Get It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: produce/duplicate not same thing
When the same content is available via multiple means, then there is no competition via content. The competition happens via delivery method and the advantages/disadvantages of it. No one has denied content has value, but it works as part of a larger equation that involves the values that the medium it is delivered by as well.
The theatre provides value by having comfier seats and better sound/audio, along with a social experience. TV provides value via convenience (watch at home, and cheaper). iTunes provides value via convenience. If there is no benefit in the delivery method, then the price drops to marginal cost, which is 0 for anything that can be transmitted digitally.
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Is it so hard to understand?
Except that no one has stated that content has no value. It can be used to increase the value of other goods. But it alone is easily reproducible to the point where supply easily outpaces demand, ergo has a cost of 0 (or close to it).
In fact, Mikes entire point is about using non-scarce goods (digital copies of media and the content itself) to increase the value or market size of other offerings, like this exact example which shows precisely this concept.
Is it so hard to understand Darryl...?
On the post: How The NY Times Hides Behind Copyright Law To Hoard Information And Weaken Its Journalism
RtB
It's something that more old farts like yourself should know.
Next >>