Matt Cutts has always been Google's little PR-whore.
Back in the days, you'd always see him spring into action whenever Google was talked about in a negative light. Any doubts about "Don't Be Evil", or the sincerity of their "openness" or whatever, Matt would always be there, filling HN threads with his pro-Google propaganda.
You should just ignore his bullshit here. It's obvious that the leak is true - not because I say so, but take a look at "adsenseclient"'s posts and dig up some material and you'll see.
"Welcome to France, entrepreneurs! It's a wonderful place to do business in, what with the lax regulation and light bureaucracy and all. Oh, and far be it from our economy to be drowning in taxes. Very far.
But don't you fucking DARE to become 'rich', you bastard! -If you earn more than our socialist overlords deem appropriate, we'll just confiscate 75% of the 'excess'. Fuck you, slave. But, you know.. welcome."
> Hence the US is entitled to listen to everything non-US people say, read everything non-US people write, search data not stored on US soil, monitor non-US financial transactions, etc. All without having to respect any law of any other country.
I hope you realize that the US most definitely does all of that inside the US too! The NSA's pretending to only target "Outsiders" only serves to make the all-encompassing surveillance more abstract, and thus somewhat more palatable to the local masses.
I don't expect them to support Windows, you misunderstand the whole concern.
The concern is that OpenBSD fellas are fragmenting the project and they are also asserting that OpenSSL team was doing things wrong for a long time. This is not a start of a beautiful friendship. Throw in a bit of crowd lynching (to the tune of "OpenBSD is showing OpenSSL how to do security right") and we can end up with OpenSSL devs showing a finger and throwing in a towel. At best, we'll have to related SSL implementations, devs of which don't really talk to each other. That's the issue.
People have been saying that OpenSSL has been of poor quality [1], that the documentation is bad [2], and the developers don't really listen [3] for years. Heartbleed was just the straw that broke the camel's back. OpenSSL really was one of those pieces of software that was Just Good Enough that people tolerated it, but at the same time, filled them with a desire to punch kittens whenever they had to code with it.
The devs can probably at least be mature enough to use each others code where it is compatible. More to the point, there's really only a couple of full time OpenSSL devs, and the others are more contributors, for whom I'd imagine switching to a better laid out, less buggy, less spaghetti-codey, more practical implementation would be an advantage.
> The concern is that OpenBSD fellas are fragmenting the project and they are also asserting that OpenSSL team was doing things wrong for a long time.
Fragmenting? Aren't they making a separate, alternative implementation?
Either way, the whole open source field is chock-full of "fragmentation", with countless precious little snowflakes rushing to fork and re-implement anything and everything under the sun to get it just the way they want it. I doubt whatever fragmentation might happen with OpenSSL is a cause for concern, especially when the OpenSSL codebase is objectively bad.
Why is this comment downvoted? Is it because of the <i> in probably? I've never researched this personally but have heard evidence supporting this from people who have.
> Someone has probably taken it upon himself to threaten these devs in a nasty (and perhaps illegal) way.
Someone, you say? How about just stating the fucking obvious: That "someone" is The US Government, and this is just standard gag-order fare. "Stop developing the app, or we will fuck up your life. Oh, and don't say a word about this to anyone, or we'll fuck up your life."
This insanity is obviously unconstitutional (for starters), but since the USG obviously doesn't give a fuck anyway, what with the all-encompassing surveillance and all, this has become just business as usual.
What video is that, "how to completely not understand the way a society works and that you are part of a society"?
Edit: The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws".
That's like not getting your children vaccinated - a benefit for you in the short term, assuming nothing everything else stays the same. All other people are vaccinated so there's nobody you can catch the disease from anyway. Most people pay taxes so there's no degradation in the local life, but you have more money and more choices.
But if there were no taxes and no law for everyone, you wouldn't be able to do that. Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment.
How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust?
And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat? Who will take your money if they have no guarantee anyone else values it?
> The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws".
I agree that telling people not to pay taxes is a bit silly when doing that will get you hauled to jail. But that brings us to the video's point: we should not have rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U
> Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment.
There's too much to unpack there. But having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no rules. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, the so-called rule of law only applies to us little folks, not Wall Street banksters, for example.
If you commit fraud, you go to jail. If a banker commits fraud, he will face no negative consequences. He'll just be collecting massive bonuses for wrecking the economy.
As for the other stuff, if you build a shit airplane and it crashes, you'll have a hard time convincing people to buy more of your airplanes. No one is more motivated to make sure Boeing's aircrafts are safe than Boeing itself.
The same applies to food. If your food products harm people, no one will want to buy them, and you won't get any money.
But this only works all the way in a free market, where all exchanges are voluntary, and thus, everything is subject to competition.
> How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust?
This is a common sticking point, and I was stuck too. But then I realized that whenever someone wants to hurt you somewhere, a police officer will not materialize there to protect you. The government doesn't actually prevent any crimes, it only discourages (ordinary) people from committing them. The same kind of discouragement can be arranged without a government, and will work a lot better because it's based on voluntary co-operation, and therefore can't be bribed to look the other way.
> And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat?
Gold was happily used as a currency for ages, without anyone decreeing that it has value. Money just doesn't work that way. Gold was used exactly because everyone wanted it (ie. it had universal value), it was durable, divisible, and so on.
Our fiat currencies only have value because governments force us to pay taxes in them. Otherwise no one would use such unreliable currencies.
Besides, in case you haven't noticed, the so-called rule of law only applies to us little folks, not Wall Street banksters, for example.
Life's unfair. Rule of law applies in some sense - if I put my savings in a bank (UK), the government guarantees them even in the event of the bank going bankrupt. Why not apply the law more carefully and thoroughly instead of throwing it away?
The same applies to food. If your food products harm people, no one will want to buy them, and you won't get any money.
You say this as if con-artists and careless people have never hurt anyone ever, and it's just an imaginary situation. Why do we even have the concept of "snake oil" if people aren't tempted to buy things that don't work? Why do people today buy and sell harmful foods that taste nice, and "alternative medicines" that cost a lot and do nothing?
Why do we need environmental regulation stopping companies dumping neurotoxins in local waterways?
If your idea worked, it would already work and there would never have been any need for these laws to be enacted in the first place.
Instead, we got awful unsafe mines and factories, that people died and got mutilated by. After that, people gradually fought for laws to make companies make them safer.
Why do we hear about problems in Foxconn factories? Surely if your idea worked, people would stop buying devices made in Foxconn factories, the factories would make everything hunky dory, and then we wouldn't hear anything. Yet that isn't happening. Why did we have to have laws to stop people smoking in public - why do people smoke at all? Why aren't we all rushing to be first countries to move to nuclear power plants? Why is there such a thing as an obesity epidemic, if people stop buying things that hurt them?
People don't buy harmful things? People won't make harmful things? As if!
Maybe you could argue that it works in a sense... it only took Korean Airways 16 aircraft losses, 700 deaths, thirty years, being kicked out of SkyTeam, having a safety record 17x worse than other companies, a quarter billion dollars per year losses, having a USDoD ban on employees flying with it, and an FAA ban on Korean Air expanding service to the USA, before they started to change their safety practises.
Oh wait, thirty years of needlessly killing passengers, but after four months of US Government intervention they sorted things out to be high in the safety rankings, back in the code sharing, have restrictions lifted and be back in profit all in two years? Guess you can't really argue that people wouldn't buy their dangerous service or that the market would make them fix it after all.
Gold was happily used as a currency for ages, without anyone decreeing that it has value. Money just doesn't work that way. Gold was used exactly because everyone wanted it (ie. it had universal value), it was durable, divisible, and so on.
At its highest ever price, all gold ever mined put together would be worth ~8 trillion dollars. The USA GDP is 17 trillion dollars, for the USA alone. (Both Wikipedia). Where are you going to get enough gold to back the entire economy?
"Since the 1950s, annual gold output growth has approximately kept pace with world population growth of around 2x, although far less than world economic growth of some 8x"
There are ~192 countries in the world. How many use a gold standard now? 0.
It was workable a hundred years ago. Now it isn't.
>> we should not have rulers
> Explain "should not"?
It’s a violation of our rights, for starters. Second, it doesn’t benefit society at large. A ruler’s rule only benefits himself, and his cronies. And finally, as the “If You Were King” video explained, you can’t be a “good ruler” - there’s no such thing, because whatever good you’d like to accomplish, is financed by the immorality of robbing people for taxes. Besides, whatever you wanted to accomplish would require people doing something to that end, and they’d either do it voluntarily (and your rule would be unnecessary), or you’d have to force them and then you’re just being a thug.
> Life's unfair. Rule of law applies in some sense - if I put my savings in a bank (UK), the government guarantees them even in the event of the bank going bankrupt.
That’s irrelevant, and not even a net benefit to society, again, because those guarantees cause people not to care which bank they put their money in. Without such guarantees, people would only use trustworthy banks, and banks would have to show trustworthiness through their actions. Besides, any deposit guarantee by the government is paid from money that’s been forcefully confiscated from everyone. Oh, and there’s a limit to how many deposit guarantees they can actually carry out without the economy imploding from inflation etc.
> Why not apply the law more carefully and thoroughly instead of throwing it away?
Again, no rulers doesn’t mean no rules. You’re thinking of laws in a positive way, and there they represent common rules for people to follow, for the benefit of everyone. And that’s exactly the kind of laws/rules that would exist in a free society.
But the laws in our societies today are commands issued to us by governments. It’s always either: “You’re not allowed to do X”, or “You must do X”, and if you’re found to disobey the command, you will be punished. It’s important to realize that the vast majority of laws have nothing to do with our morals, they’re all about controlling/fleecing/ruling us and benefiting the rulers’ corporate buddies.
>> ”There are multiple classes of people, but it boils down to the connected, and the not connected. Just as in pre-Revolutionary France, there is a very strict class hierarchy, and the very idea that we are equal before the law is a laughable nonsequitur.”
Speaking of laws, what if I write down on a piece of paper that everyone must eat Surströmming ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=31... ) at least once per day. Does that mean everyone has to obey my command to eat it? No? -What if me and a couple of buddies convene around a table and formulate the rule in a more “official” way, maybe something like “all citizens shall be required to partake in Surströmming at least once per day”? -Would that be enough? Still no? -Well what if we make it a piece of parchment instead, and use a high quality fountain pen, and maybe even stamp a couple of pictures of eagles on top? Would my Surströmming decree turn into a rule that everyone is morally obligated to follow then?
Of course not, people would just laugh at my insanity. But what if I declared that I’ve got an army, a police force, and prisons and that anyone who disobeys my Surströmming rule will be thrown in jail? .. Funny how that works, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ng...
> You say this as if con-artists and careless people have never hurt anyone ever, and it's just an imaginary situation.
Nope, I’m just talking about the incentives involved. Sure, there are some snake-oil salesmen around, but they’re rare.
But we’re getting sidetracked here, and I’m trying to wrap this up some time soon. You’re thinking that governments protect us as consumers, and make sure our flights reach their destinations and that we’re not sold toxic crap for food and so on. But the reality is that no government bureaucrat needs to tell Boeing to make airplanes that don’t fall down and kill people, and that governments don’t, in fact, make sure everything we consume is safe.
Boeing wants to make money through manufacturing and selling airplanes. Boeing’s customers, the airlines, want to make money by selling flights to people. Airlines need airplanes, but both need customers to make any money. It’s crucial to both that the planes are as safe as humanly possible. I have no idea what happened in Korea, but there’s no way around what I just said there. Korean Air does not need a US government bureaucrat to order them to do whatever they can to keep receiving money from their customers.
> Why do people today buy and sell harmful foods that taste nice
Well why do they? We’ve got governments to protect us from harmful food, right?
> Why do we need environmental regulation stopping companies dumping neurotoxins in local waterways?
I don’t know. Why do we need regulation to prevent BP from spilling a shit-ton of oil in the Gulf of Mexico? -Oh wait.. :p
> Why do we hear about problems in Foxconn factories?
>> Given that Chinese government prohibits independent trade labor unions, and that the sole official union, All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) has done little to represent workers, it appears that human rights and labor organizations have stepped up to fill that gap.
In other words, the Chinese government is preventing Chinese workers from forming effective unions.
> Why is there such a thing as an obesity epidemic, if people stop buying things that hurt them?
That’s a separate issue. I meant food that’s actively harmful, in a way that gets noticed. But people can stuff themselves with fast food for ages before suffering any permanent damage from their lifestyle.
> People don't buy harmful things? People won't make harmful things? As if!
Of course they do. But governments don’t protect us from ourselves either! That's our job regardless of whether we have rulers.
> At its highest ever price, all gold ever mined put together would be worth ~8 trillion dollars. The USA GDP is 17 trillion dollars, for the USA alone. (Both Wikipedia). Where are you going to get enough gold to back the entire economy?
We’ve got astounding numbers of “nominal wealth” floating around, but that doesn’t mean precious metals wouldn’t do just fine as a foundation for a sound currency.
>” Since the 1950s, annual gold output growth has approximately kept pace with world population growth of around 2x, although far less than world economic growth of some 8x"
There are ~192 countries in the world. How many use a gold standard now? 0.
Of course they don’t, because a gold standard places limits on what governments can do. That’s exactly why the world’s governments got rid of it.
It was probably Hollywood's lawyers, and it is likely constitutional.
They can't shut somebody up for their opinions. But if you do something illegal or actionable (in this case, contributory copyright infringement), you may prefer shutting up to accepting the full legal consequences of your actions.
Exactly because the fraudulent bans are actually a widespread phenomenon, but that goes against what Matt's been telling us here.