Sign in / up

* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

Page:

IBM's tools give Big Data a good seeing to

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

Do you trust IBM?

I don't.

In preparation for a talk I gave on Hadoop, I asked my contacts within IBM's Information Management pillar about who/what is driving IBM's Hadoop effort. In the Hadoop world, Cloudera and IBM offer support. (Well IBM says that they offer support but getting information is like pulling teeth.)

IBM's consultants that grok Hadoop are in their Emerging Tech group. IBM offer's a free version of their Hadoop release however its only 32bit and their 'up value' enhancement is a cloud configurator which is less than useless. (Hint: You don't need a cloud configurator tool.)

Emerging Tech isn't part of SWG's Information Management pillar, so that any consulting being done is on IBM Information Management paper, but isn't done by IM lab services staff. IBM's sales staff are not capable of talking to customers about Hadoop/HBase/Hive/Pig etc so they cannot effectively explain the value add and risks of choosing Hadoop.

There is no Hadoop Product Manager or someone who handles the business/marketing side of IBM's offering.

There is no IBM pointy haired exec who handles 'Big Data' as part of their growing IM portfolio. IBM acquired SPSS yet they are not in charge of this and are probably the closest things to gurus on analytics.

So how can you trust IBM to deliver something when they have no actual product offering or core center of competence?

You'd be better off hiring someone like myself who'll cost you less than half of what IBM would charge for my skill set. (Yes I do know IBM's Information Management rates for lab services consultants. ) The reason you pay higher rates to IBM lab services is that if something goes wrong, IBM will make you whole. But how can they do that if their in-house talent isn't capable of doing that?

Sorry while IBM is slowly putting their toe in the water, they are still far from being a trusted source of providing services.

I hope that IBM's takeaway is that until they jump in and develop a 'Big Data' strategy... they shouldn't be taken as a serious player.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but I'm getting sick of all of the big companies like IBM and Microsoft that jump on the 'Cloud' bandwagon because its the latest popular buzz words. To the CLOUDS!

:-(

The flame, for IBM and not El Reg.

0 0

Street View hits 20 German cities

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Building blocked out on one image only...

The AC is correct. The building is only blocked out from that single street. If you move down and look back? Or what happens if you have a tall building and then go around the block to the next street where there's a shorter building. Is the building blocked out of that background?

And the larger question... Did they also ditch their wi-fi data too? Not the stuff they slurped up, but also the wi-fi SSIDs they also slurped. After all, if they are going to allow opt-out, then they should also opt-out all of the data references to that location. (Hint. They can pinpoint the source of the wi-fi signal so if its in a building opt-d out, they can remove that too.)

0 0

Oracle Java submission hastens Apache showdown

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

@ Kevin

Yes, I stand corrected. You are right, Apache only said that the offending code wasn't based on their release. The key is that the code examples (and I'm sure Oracle will find more) are enough to condemn Google.

I do disagree with your theory about Google's defense. Google created Android and its too late in the ball game to try and say otherwise. In hindsight were Google to have help create a company that developed Android and set it up as a separate company... that would merely slow Oracle down and Oracle would have had to sue the shell company first and then Google.

If/when Oracle is successful against Google, they could then sue the Moto and HTCs in the OHA. Those cases would never go to court because the members of the OHA would rather settle than fight a losing battle. Note: Depending on the licensing agreement, they could in fact sue Google if their agreements contain any sort of indemnification language.

1 1
Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Yawn...

Look, Java isn't boned or going anywhere.

The interesting thing is that Google claims their JVM is based on Apache, and thus its clean.

Apache says otherwise... that Google's JVM isn't based on their code.

Oracle says... tough shit, its on a mobile device and its a ripoff because Google doesn't want to pay for licensing Java ME.

Oracle wins, Google pays out, then Oracle and Apache can talk.

The problem is in Apache's Open Source license. Derivative works (all derivative works) are fair game. Its really the anti-license. So if Oracle says ok... Apache gets certified for SE, anyone can then take it and put it *anywhere* so that Oracle loses mega amounts of money on Java ME. (Which is why Sun left it out and forces everyone to license it on mobile devices.)

Now do you start to see the problem?

Apache is plain stupid for threatening to walk away from the JCP.

Its a bluff and if they actually do it, then the only ones to lose is Apache.

4 4

Google Voice gets going on iPhone

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Hmmm.

Ok,

So now you have Google Voice.

3G? Hows the quality? Wi-Fi? The quality is much better.

So one has to ask... why was Google looking for all of the unsecured wi-fi's and mapping them out?

Sure you can argue that they are just using them as reference points as an alternative to SATNAV.

(You can assume that the wi-fi points are stationary and as you drive around, you can triangulate the fixed position based on your known location (SATNAV) and the signal strength. Do this for enough 'open' wi-fis and even if a point moves, you could use them to triangulate your position.

Now IANAL, but that would be a gray area. Actually one shouldn't care of the wi-fi was open or secured, you're just looking at the SSID which is being broadcast.

But Google was mapping 'open' or rather unsecured wi-fi.

If you believe in Occam's Razor, the only reason to do this would be to hop a free ride.

While one may try to justify their own 'freetard' views of 'borrowing' an open wi-fi connection, it is in fact illegal to actually do so.

I realize that this is slightly off topic, but if one were to make a call using Google Voice, using wi-fi would mean no charges to AT&T for data plan usage.

Of course that assumes that the android phone or the google iPhone app would automatically turn on this feature since wi-fi networks tend to offer better throughput than 1G and 3G on AT&T.

I wasn't sure by what the author meant in ... "Google Voice will do that by intercepting outgoing calls and connecting you instead to Google's servers, which then connect to your destination using VoIP for the longer part of the journey. Callers get your Google Voice number on the caller ID and you pay Google if the call goes outside the USA."

Intercepting outgoing calls and connecting to Google's servers? How? Wi-fi/3G data, or routing cell call to a local google voice switch? (That would make Google a telco).

I think that those in charge (FCC) should take a closer look.

It would be interesting to run a 'Honey Pot' and see what happens...

0 0

Multi-colour e-ink to splash down in six months?

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Color is important...

Ok, so you look at the people who have e-readers.

Those that want a portable way of carrying a couple of novels as they ride the train to and from work, and those computer geeks that want to be able to carry a bunch of manuals in .pdf as well as e-books.

Then there's power points as .pdf which many are in color. Diagrams in color.

Sure there's gray scale. (I've done enough B&W photography to be comfortable) But color makes life easier.

What I'm looking at is the next gen iPad to see if it has the ~300 dpi display, and seeing 300+ color dpi i e-ink.

I think if you can get the resolution high enough and the refresh fast enough, e-ink is very viable.

Also I'd love to see e-ink on different substrates.

1 0

ICO insists on scrutiny for laws invading privacy

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

@SuperTim

I think you missed the point.

Understanding the technology isn't the hard part.

Its understanding on how to apply the laws that is the issue.

In order for a good law to stand the test of time, it has to be at times vague and allow room for interpretation. Its because of this that when a new use of technology pops up, it becomes difficult to determine if the law(s) should apply and if the use of the technology infringes on the law.

So when you take a new technology or a new spin on use of technology, you have to determine (after the fact) if the use violates the law as it stands. This takes time and not just a single lawyer, but a group of lawyers.

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

"Graham said: “We’ve done a lot - we’ve achieved a lot. Getting Google to accept that the ICO has a right to audit their compliance with the UK data protection act is a huge achievement that the ICO ought to get some credit for.”"

I'm sorry, you Brits have politicians and career public servants who are just as dumb, inept, and pretty much ineffective as our American ones.

Google is a corporation. If they want to operate within the confines of your country, they have to adhere to *your* laws.

So how is it a *huge* *achievement* to get them to accept your laws which call for compliance?

Hint: If Google doesn't want to comply, you wall them off and refuse them access to the UK.

Another company will take their place. ;-) (Hint: What happens if no one can?)

2 0

Google: Oracle doctored that 'copied Java code'

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Re: Sniff Test.

Actually in practice it holds true. Unfortunately the law is vague enough and under tort law, you end up having to go to court to prove/disprove the assertions raised.

But if a case goes forward and clearly it was bogus, the plaintiff's lawyer will face sanctions up to and including disbarment.

Of course there's a defense about this. A plaintiff's lawyer takes what his plaintiff says at face value. So if the lawyer assumes the plaintiff is telling the truth, and its enough to take a case forward... the lawyer is ok.

Its a misconception that one can sue anyone for anything.

What we dont have but the UK has is a law that says that the loser pays court costs. That is what stops a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Shirley you jest!

Sorry for the bad joke at your expense.

Fortunately you're wrong.

First, in the US you can't sue anyone over anything. It has to pass a sniff test otherwise the lawyer bringing the lawsuit can be disbarred.

Removing the copyright notice which is a comment isn't doctoring the code.

The issue is exposing the similarities to show that the code was indeed copied. Oracle admits to reformatting the code to help highlight the similarities.

The code snippets shown are clear enough to the developer community here that the code was indeed copied. (We are probably a good jury of peers.)

Were your assertions correct, then Google would have had grounds to dismiss this case instead of continuing to raise affirmative defenses.

Sorry sad but true, Google screwed themselves once again.

Wi-fi snooping?

Android skirting Java ME licensing?

Letting Eric Schmidt speak in public?

Whatever happened to the 'three strikes' rule?

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

No misunderstanding...

There's a couple of things that we're seeing in the news blips...

1) Google - if we copied it, we did so under fair use.

2) Google - its not just Google, but the OHA.

Both of these could qualify again as 'affirmative defenses'. That is... if what Oracle says is true, we're still not guilty of anything.

The first is the misapplication of the copyright law. Enough people have looked at the code and real developers are convinced that its a copy of Oracle/Sun's code.

The second is that Google is attempting to deflect the code breach by saying that there are others involved and it wasn't them, thus the burden of proof that the offending code came from Google is being laid on Oracle's doorstep because Oracle is suing Google and not the other OHA members.

What Google is attempting to do is a bit of misdirection and 'smoke and mirrors'. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar...

1 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
WTF?

@Magnus Huh?

What you wrote doesn't make a lot of sense. Google also has their patents pool and of course if you're following their other legal issues on wi-fi slurping... they are also in deep do do because they filed for a patent which they claimed was a mistake.

Google is attempting to misdirect and deflect the attention from them.

Yes they are attempting to say that they didn't 'develop' the code in a vacuum, so the offending code could have come from someone else. (BS excuse, but we're not at trial yet.)

Does Oracle have to sue everyone at the same time? No. They can pick and choose who they want to sue and when. Suing Google first is the clear cut winner. If /when Oracle wins, they have case history to go after HTC and Motorola. And more than likely they will settle outside of a lawsuit.

Does Google want to get rid of software patents and overhaul the 'business process' patents?

Not when it suits them to keep it in place.

Oracle is no patent troll.

Sorry but your post is so patently wrong, I wonder what you've been smoking and if you're willing to share?

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

@Anton ... you must be new around here...

I suggest you talk with a bunch of Silicon Valley survivors from the late 80's and 90's. There are enough people who can tell you horror stories. ;-)

Microsoft has a nasty reputation because of their past actions before being found guilty of being a monopoly.

If they got caught pulling the stunts they did... they would be very expensive mistakes because they are now recognized as a monopoly by the courts.

4 1
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

@AC Nope...

There must be a reason you posted your comment as an AC. ;-)

Understanding the law isn't one of your strengths now is it? :-)

Google can call their version of Java 'Tim' for all anyone cares, but its still a derivative of Java.

Clearly not a clean room version either.

Oracle is correct in their assertions. Note this doesn't mean Oracle will win, or that they have a slam dunk of a case. The law is intentionally more confusing and ambiguous so that each case is decided on their merits and arguments raised in courts.

Oracle is correct that Google did in fact copy code. They have their smoking gun.

0 0

Apache threatens Oracle with Java exit

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

@AC re Wrong about Stallman

And that's my point.

Stallman is smart, really smart. But he live in a fluffy world.

I totally agree with your post. Stallman's theory came about 20+ years ago. Long before the offshore paradigm went in to effect and his theories were hatched in a different era. They are not sustainable.

1 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Pint

C++

Then you must not understand the problem with C++. You need real coders and not code monkeys like you have in the c# and .net world. (And include Java even though we're talking about alternatives to java)

There's objective-c which is better than C++ but you need to teach people OO theory. ;-)

1 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Wrong about Stallman

His idea is to give things away for free but then charge for the consulting services. ;-)

(Yeah seriously)

1 1
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

Polysorbate 486?

Sorry I haven't read a zippy comic book since the late 70's early 80's. ;-)

I think you missed the point. And no I'm not talking about your head. :-)

How do you think Oracle got to be the 800lb Gorilla? Hence they have the credibility.

You don't get fired for choosing Oracle. (And they used to say that about IBM)

If Larry thinks that something can make him money, he'll do it.

If it doesn't make him money, he'll stop.

You can read that as directly or indirectly making him money.

Does that help clear things up?

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

@Steven Knox

I hate this little blips, I guess I should clarify.

To Oracle, certifying Apache would open the doors to Google and or others from doing a clean room version of ME. This would result in a huge potential loss on future revenue from Java.

Apache has no economic incentive to either stay or leave the JCP.

By Apache staying on the JCP there's a sense of openness. However if you take a cynical view as some of the other posters... (re Star Wars reference), This openness is more of Oracle saying that if they wanted the JCP's opinion they would have given it to them.

If you are less cynical, the JCP offers a bit of some feedback to help keep Oracle 'honest'.

But if you look at the bigger picture... Without Apache on the JCP, you still have Oracle kept in check by IBM. So you have big corporations and their customers who get to decide what they think should be in the next release(s) of Java.

Market factors still keep things moving in a positive direction. So there's no great loss in losing Apache. Someone else will fill that spot if it gets to that point.

Larry isn't evil like Google. He's revenue driven and doesn't pretend to be anything but a capitalist out to make a buck.

2 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Apache won't walk.

What you're watching is a billion dollar game of chicken. Whoever blinks first loses.

Oracle wont' blink first and will call Apache's bluff. Oracle is the one who stands to lose billion(s) if they grant certification to Apache. This will open the door for Google to do a real clean room and bypass paying Oracle licensing fees for Java ME.

Apache?

IMHO this is a stupid move on their part. They gain nothing but can lose a valuable seat on the JCP. Oracle doesn't need the JCP.

Is Apache going to walk away from all things Java? Highly unlikely.

Individuals can afford to walk away from the JCP. Organizations can't.

With respect to Oracle's credibility... hello! They *ARE* the 800lb Gorilla sitting in the room. They don't need 'credibility' because they already have it.

2 2

US comms watchdog probes Google Street View Wi-Fi slurp

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

No harm no foul?

Lets be clear. Google wants to delete the data right away so that there is no evidence of their crime. They are being told not to delete the evidence because of the allegations of a crime. (How serious we don't know until the investigation is completed.)

In the US, if a class action lawsuit occurs before Google can delete the data, then those impacted by the 'slurp' will be able to sue Google in civil court. If Google can delete the evidence, Google walks away clean.

So please try and keep up with the fact that Google wants to bury this ASAP and avoid millions in legal fees, fines and payouts. Were the rest of the world up to speed those millions could be billions since the breach happened on a global scale.

Due to US whistle blower laws, the person who tipped off the US Government could stand to collect a pretty penny and couldn't be fired from Google for blowing the whistle.

2 1
Ian Michael Gumby
Jobs Horns

Google is guilty.

In the US, people have been arrested for using their cell phones to record a traffic stop. Depending on the wire tapping laws, even in a public place, they can be arrested. You want a good example, just ask Linda Tripp. ;-) (And yes, I love SNL's John Goodman skits ) :-)

So what Google did was illegal.

They copped to it once it because apparent that there was someone who was going to blow the whistle on them.

Google attempted to get out in front of this by trying to say that they lacked mens rea ?sp? which means they lacked a 'guilty mind'. This is legalese used to set up an affirmative defense that even if they committed the act, no crime was committed because they lacked the 'guilty mind' that it was an unintentional action.

This is pure bunk because Google also filed a patent on the technology to do exactly what they did. Not to mention that using 'open wi-fi' connection points is also illegal. If they are merely measuring the strength of a wi-fi broadcast of their SSID along with a captured geo spatial location, it becomes a 'gray area'.

So for all of the Google Fanbois... Google is definitely on thin ice and also this goes to say that they are truly evil.

Evil Ballmer because he looks more sinister than evil gates.

1 0

GCHQ goes Google

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

LOL...

Big Table... == HBase.

As to qualified leads... you need to pass a security clearance for this organization, no?

As to the pay... yeah it sucks.

0 0

Phosphor World Time Curved E Ink watch

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Actually you are judged by your watch.

Yes,

For many, the phone is how they check time.

For some, the watch is a man's jewelry. So unless you're wearing a 'French Cuffed' shirt, you really have no jewelry to show your status in life. (And unless you're part of the mob, no pinky rings. )

I have a Breitling Colt Automatic for workouts and daily wear. An AP Royal Oak for work, and my father's old watches as a backup. (And I still have my cheap Timex for when I go out in to the field.)

So yeah, those who know watches will see what's on your wrist and will judge you based on it.

(Certain people gravitate toward certain watch brands.)

Face it, we're just like women who look and admire other womens' jewelry.

1 3

Aircraft bombs may mean end to in-flight Wi-Fi, mobile

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

I think many have missed the point...

There are two methods of having a wi-fi connection... One via Satellite the other via communication with the cell infrastructures on the ground.

Those are closed systems where one would have to subscribe to the service. Meaning you can call out or get connected to the 'net without first going through the subscription page. That is, your ip traffic will be dropped before entering or leaving the plane.

With respect to scanning for the device. In order to receive calls, the phone has to be on and communicating with a cell infrastructure. That is, you can set up a pico cell so that any cell in the area of the cargo/baggage screening would use the pico cell and you'd know that a device was active where is shouldn't be.

The point is that the fears of an in flight detonation are a bit over blown.

0 0

No wonder CompSci grads are unemployed

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Grenade

C++ Blows...

Sorry, my first language was 6502 assembler and a couple of different flavors of basic.

Add to this Fortran, Cobol, C, all in college. (Ok, this was before Java and C++ was still relatively new).

But my point was that the language didn't matter. (There's a class for that.)

Java, Objective-C all came later.

Yeah I do know C++, which is why I can make the statement that C++ blows. Sure its my opinion, and there are others that would disagree with me.

The key is that I can defend my opinion. Any decent programmer should be able to defend their opinion. When you interview for a developer, you should ask questions based on their stated experience that required a detailed response. Not only will it show their technical expertise, but also their communication skills which are also just as important.

PS. Sorry I dislike C++ because as a consultant, I'm called in to fix projects have gone wrong. Cleaning up bad C++ is a hell of its own... ;-)

11 0

Google sues US gov for picking Microsoft

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Security? Google? In the same senence?

I'd say it was a joke, but c'mon. Seriously?

Guess they didn't pay off their buddies in the White House.

Either that, or the deal didn't percolate to White House CTO's desk before the deal was baked.

3 3

Spamhaus blocks fellow antispam outfit

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

Beat me to the punch...

"The dispute points up the darker side of ad hoc net police."

Spamhaus has no powers except those that people on the net give them.

They have no police authority or powers except that they do assist law enforcement.

You don't like Spamhaus, you don't have to use them to filter sites. If enough people do this... Spamhaus becomes irrelevant. Only one small problem... Spamhaus does a good job. So people will continue to use them. Its that simple.

1 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Grenade

LOL...

Anybody who sits out on Usenet's N.A.N.A.E can guess who this Anonymous poster is. :-P

Sorry folks he's a loon.

2 0

Google's 'copied Java code' disowned by Apache

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

Its irrelevant.

Did you bother to take a look at the code itself?

I think that Oracle is making their case. (Not that I'm a fan of either company.)

Larry doesn't pretend to 'do no evil'. He's just in it for the money.

2 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Pint

You must not be a good coder.

Sorry,

If I saw this on a class assignment from two different students, I'd haul their arses in to my office to explain how this happened.

Too many similarities in the code. Its easier to suggest that they cut n pasted the code and then tried to make it look different.

And you also make Oracle's point. The Java API is copyrighted material. ;-)

Like I said, Oracle's got Google by the short hairs on this one. The only question is how much is it going to cost Google to get out of it.

5 2

PayPal hardware failure fingered for worldwide outage

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Its one thing to put in a DR plan in place.

Its another to actually test it.

Yeah... no joke. To test a D/R plan, you have to set up and schedule the down time and then have the risk if it fails and something then goes wrong.

0 0

Oracle goes in hard on Google Java suit

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

You must not be a software engineer...

Look,

Yes you are correct. Given an AP, there are only a finite ways in which the underlying code can be written and written efficiently.

However, if the code was written by two different developers, there will be noticeable differences in coding styles, naming conventions and comments.

Since Oracle is claiming that the code was pilfered and not developed in a clean room, and the fact that the original code is open source and available... Occam's Razor would dictate that there is merit to Oracle's claim.

And yes, I am a software engineer...

Note: This isn't an anti-google position, but I have noticed a lot of code being developed where GPL code had been pilfered. Developers are cutting corners knowing that it would take a lawsuit to get found out.

1 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Pint

Surely you jest.

In today's climate, the 'skilled' IT workers merely cut-n-pasted the code because after all, it was open source code and free. ;-)

2 1

MP slams ICO for 'lily-livered' Google probe

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Hmmm must be an election year.

Sorry, but its sad that it isn't until there is enough public outrage and in this case globally, that the governments may actually consider doing anything.

With respect to this incident, my bet is that the stuffed shirts will rant and rave, yet do nothing to curtail Google. I would doubt that they would even get fined.

Maybe the turn around is due to Schmidt's ass-in-nine (emphatic asinine) rants about getting a new identity after your friends post pictures of you doing something stupid on the web.

Or that Google's retention policies are also questionable?

3 0

Judge tosses lawsuit from copyright troll

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

@Ray Simard

You're getting in to a gray area...

Suppose I have a page for a restaurant and I cut excerpts and links to positive reviews done by restaurant critics.

You would have a hard time arguing that I violated the fair use doctrine of copyright because I didn't add any of my own commentary. One could reasonably argue that the fact that I created the page of links was in and of itself commentary.

Or one could ask how many words do I have to write for one to consider that I added my own commentary.

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Fair Use vs Republication...

"“The case shows that judges will pay close attention to fair use defenses, especially when it's simply not credible that the republications had any detrimental effect on the newspapers,” Goldman explained. “The case also shows that judges will tolerate partial quotations of articles.”"

I believe Goldman misspoke.

It is one thing under the 'fair use doctrine' to take a portion of a document as part of a commentary, especially if it include attribution to the cited work. Its another to take the entire document and republish it without compensating the initial author.

Here's an example... A company is selling their product and they include a copy of a positive review that was written for a consumer product magazine. It is one thing to include a reprint of the article because the company is paying for the rights to the reprint, its another to just include a copy of the article that they made on their own. This would be a 'republication' of the work and not covered under the fair use doctrine.

Goldman is correct in that it is a good thing for the courts to uphold the fair use doctrine.

1 0

Big Blue's Big Sam gets $10bn for bonus stock boost

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Thumb Up

I won't be anonymous...

Yes, I have escaped the blue pig aka borg.

Thumbs up for the author's article which is very well written and spot on.

IBM is treating their employees like crap because they can. Go ahead and leave. They will replace you with an offshore resource, if they can, or they'll hire in someone more desperate for a job that has a pulse. Since you left, they don't have to worry about giving you a package as you exit, where they would if they made you redundant.

The problem with share buybacks is that its an artificial pop in price. But if the street doesn't buy it, then your share prices will still take a hit. (A double screw to the employee who didn't get a bonus and holds IBM stock.)

As to IBM's mystery source of money... its out there... where the US Tax Man can't get it. IBM is run by bean counters and they will play accounting tricks when they can.

0 0

US builds net privacy brains trust

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
WTF?

Steven Walker for CEO of Google...

At least his intentional jokes make more sense than Schmidt's sound bites. :-)

1 0

Google: Street View cars grabbed emails, urls, passwords

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

Can you say 'obstruction of justice'?

You break the law, allegedly. You destroy the evidence before the lawyers say you can.

That's obstruction and while you won't be found guilty of the initial alleged act, you will be found guilty of obstruction.

Once the news leaked out... the fun began and until the Countries say you can delete it. you can't legally do so.

In terms of a civil suit... if they destroy the data after the Courts say you can, but before a civil case can be brought, its a stay out of jail free card.

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Send in the clowns!

Er... I mean class action lawyers.

They need to file a lawsuit and get a TRO to stop Google from deleting the data.

If Google is allowed to delete the data prior to a lawsuit being filed, they will get a free pass unless one of the foreign governments charges them first.

A fail to Google admitting that they did wrong and getting a free pass.

0 0

Google says hardly any Germans opt out of Street View

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Google math for the masses

What sounds smaller... < 3% or 581,858?

Or rather 97+% of the people *didn't* opt-out.

That's spin for you. :-(

The truth is that Google made the promise to honor the opt-out request, however they cite reasons why they can't comply and would rather not honor their promise for their own commercial gain.

'Do no evil' ? I guess the expression 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' is also true if you replace the word Beauty with evil. Then in Google's mind, they are truly not evil.

0 2

Nokia to cut 1,800 jobs

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Alert

Uhm... hello Meego?

I could have sworn that Nokia and Intel entered a partnership and invested in Meego? ?sp?

0 0

Google ends all Street View Wi-Fi data collection

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

@Trevor... it depends.

Note, I'm definitely not a fan of google, but if you have your phone w wi/fi turned on, and gps turned on, Google can capture your lat/long and the SSID of networks and their relative strength.

Do this enough times with enough different phones, you can pinpoint the wi/fi hot spots and also help to narrow down your location using this info in addition to GPS.

Because the SSID information is being broadcast there is no expectation of privacy so its not against the law to use this information to help determine your location within the 10-100m that you can expect from using GPS alone. (Number of sats, clocks, etc all will affect your phone's accuracy.)

I am deeply saddened but not surprised by the lack of prosecution of the countries involved in the wi-fi snag of Google.

Give them credit though... their lawyers learned from Gates and Microsoft. ;-)

0 0

Google's Street View broke Canadian privacy laws

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Lawyer I'm not...

Sorry you are correct, and I didn't take the time to spell check Latin phrases.

Actus Reus means that you didn't think about committing a crime, you had actually taken some physical steps to perform the crime.

I disagree that Actus Reus is enough to convict.

The reason mens rea is required for a conviction is that one has to show that Google acted with intent. That is to say that the data capture was an intentional act.

Google claims otherwise and their publishing that this was an 'accidental capture' is to establish that there was no mens rea. That while they may have committed a crime, it was an unintentional act, that is... they lacked the guilty mind.

I agree with you that they should be charged and then based on the evidence produced, convicted, however, I'm trying to explain that Government AGs (Attorney Generals) are less likely to take on a very expensive and public lawsuit against a company whose public mantra is 'do no evil'. Lot of money , lots of risk, little return. Could be political suicide.

It sucks but its a reality of life. Politicos need to grow a pair. (Ladies included)

0 0
Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

Can you say Illegal Wiretap

The laws of various countries deal with what constitutes an illegal wire tap.

Shouting out your window of your car, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Make that same call on an old 900Mhz phone... and someone listens in? That's an illegal wiretap.

0 1
Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Nobody wants to sue a very large, powerful and rich US company.

Google bluffed with their 'lone gunman error' excuse and it gave governments an easy out.

Clearly this set up their defense, a lack of mend rea. (Lack of a guilty mind).

Take the excuse or be forced to spend lots of money on a very expensive case where the average citizen hasn't a clue of the law and the guilt of the company involved.

This is clearly a failure on the parts of the governments where action could have been taken, yet the took an easy way out.

As a software professional I know that Google did intentionally slurp the data. They even tried to patent it.

Definitely a fail for the Canadians.

0 0

Oracle: no license for Android's Harmony friend

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon

TANSTAAFL

'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch'

Of course Oracle and Sun were in it for the money. Sun saw Java as a loss leader for their hardware. They didn't understand how to monetize Java but weren't stupid enough to leave everything open.

Its the attitude that corporations are going to give away free stuff with no strings attached is insanely naive.

IBM helped to create Eclipse under Apache's license because it allowed them to slurp up all of the contributed software and use what they want in their paid for software.What IBM didn't realize was that in doing so, people would rather use the free Eclipse rather than the extra add on kit that cost $$$.

Why do you think that IBM only gives away a 'free' version of Hadoop on 32bit Linux requiring a 32 bit JVM?

0 0

Futuristic Judge Dredd smartguns issued to 101st Airborne

Ian Michael Gumby
Reply Icon
Boffin

Exacto is more than just a 'box cutter'

Exacto is a brand of disposable knife blades and not just 'box cutters'.

They are used for smaller precision cuts. Used by hobbyists to build model airplanes, cutting pieces out of balsa wood.

0 0

Page: