PUBLIC MARKS with search legal

karl says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

January 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm

When someone says ideology, I often, think « church » and all its derivatives : zealots, blasphemy, etc. An healthy ecosystem has diversity is hackable and makes it possible to have different outcomes.

1. Prehistory: « Open » being a kind of underground culture for a very long time became finally famous. Circumstances of the society, new priorities, new generation of people (geeks) helped to achieve that.

2. The age of iron: For anything which is successful at a macro level in the society come the second generation of people who want benefits of it. First they are the initial « believers » who were living from another activity and wants to live accordingly with their beliefs. It is the first shock and the first softener of the ideology. They have to make compromise with the other markets of the ecosystem. It’s when we start to hear *pragmatic* discourses. Few of them will be successful and then will start bending some rules.

3. The age of industrial revolution: The ecosystem of is here and there are a lot of secondary activities and people. Some people who were not believers but who were just mere employees of the believers. This includes marketers, businessmen, business angels, etc. They want to make a living, they want to invest into it. A lot of tools are available and people using them don’t even know they are the byproduct of this original philosophy. Some people think we have to be careful and keep a minimum of the principles and they organize control organizations (certification, labelling, etc.). It can even reach the legal and political framework of the society.

4. The age of financial market: The original philosophy is gone, the system remains. Some of the original believers think it is a big success for the philosophy. Some getting older became a lot more flexible than when they were young. Some are angry (sometimes very angry) because the principles have been forgotten. They will fork, restart a small group (prehistory) or go on a deserted island and exclude themselves with broken flowers in their dreams.

This happens in many many social groups. Look at organic culture for example, or certain think tanks. It all depends on which levels you want to be, which matters to you. Global or local.

Add a line of code to your pages and choose from hundreds of fonts. Simple, bulletproof, standards compliant, accessible, and totally legal.

It's legal to print your own money in the U.S. as long as you don't re-create or deface the dollar, according to the Treasury Department. The Torch would be subject to the same taxes as the dollar.

Computer scientists have recently undermined our faith in the privacy-protecting power of anonymization, the name for techniques for protecting the privacy of individuals in large databases by deleting information like names and social security numbers. These scientists have demonstrated they can often “reidentify” or “deanonymize” individuals hidden in anonymized data with astonishing ease. By understanding this research, we will realize we have made a mistake, labored beneath a fundamental misunderstanding, which has assured us much less privacy than we have assumed. This mistake pervades nearly every information privacy law, regulation, and debate, yet regulators and legal scholars have paid it scant attention. We must respond to the surprising failure of anonymization, and this Article provides the tools to do so.

Without an applicable encryption standard -- and some boundaries on what's really required -- I think these legal initiatives will do more harm than good. To prevent the various risks, companies will do dumb things. Things that are probably dumber than what they've done that lead to leaks of personal information.

The W3C does not, and never will, publish real standards because it is not a standards organization: It's a CONSORTIUM (you know, that "C" in W3C is there for a reason - look it up!). Standards and Standards Bodies must be endorsed by governments and legally enforceable. W3C recommendations are simply "recommendations". There is no legal consequence to not following or fully conforming to a "recommendation"...

C'est étrange cette manie des participants à la WTF à mélanger tout et n'importe au nom du pragmatisme (plus loin dans son commentaire, Marcos Caceres explique en quoi un "vrai standard" n'est pas pragmatique pour le web). Pour rappel, selon lui l'ISO ne produit pas de standards, pas plus que l'IETF, etc... Sur sa page publique, il indique "I work as a software architect/standards engineer for Opera Software." Selon sa définition, Opera ne supporte aucun standard, donc il est au mieux architecte logiciel. Et en même temps, c'est un hsivoniste, donc il reconnaît qu'il n'y a que les développeurs de moteurs CSS qui savent gérer les mutations d'une structure en arbre, ceux travaillant sur le DOM n'en ayant pas les compétences. Marcos Caceres ne travaillant pas sur le moteur CSS chez Opera, on en déduit qu'il ne sait pas très bien manipuler les structures arborescentes. Donc en fait, selon lui, il est au mieux développeur junior chez Opera.

Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like, gang. And, eventually somebody will figure out (and publicly admit) that Kutiman, and any number of his peers on the “To-Sue” list, should be passed from Legal down to A&R.

Everybody knows the business has moved from legal to binary files. The question now is how much more lead time old media companies and other IP-obsessives can afford to burn by pretending it’s otherwise.