Comment Re:Corrupt. (Score 1) 77
Get in line.
If they connect anything that lives inside your network, at any time, or that even has a VPN connection your internal networks at any time, you have a security problem.
If they can physically do that, then you have a problem. I hear even Windows comes with IPSEC, maybe you could do something about that.
Note that you would not be able to charge the tablet at the same time.
Sure you can, just use an OTG Y-Cable.
Anyone else *kinda* sick of hearing about drones? And 3d printing... Don't get me wrong. It's cool stuff, but we've kinda beaten it to death at this point.
Hmmm... *skims summary* I know, let's talk systemd!
I'm gonna insert my reply to an earlier comment of yours here to save me time and space, and because it's a good preface to my reply to this comment anyway:
in other words, they are taxed on the stuff they should be taxed on,
No, these dodges should not exist.
and they are smart enough to not pay taxes they dont have to
Yes, you have this part right.
And now, my reply to this comment:
and if you burden corporations with higher taxes, the consumer pays more as the costs are passed down to the consumer
in the end, the people pay the taxes one way or another
No, you have this badly wrong. If you make corporations pay their taxes, then the costs are passed down to the consumers of their products. But if you don't, then the costs are passed down to every citizen.
I think you have to give a lot of the credit credit to high-quality software.
I think you have to give basically all of the credit to the people who do the interfaces. That's the only place where Apple ever seems to have a clear advantage, the very early G5 era aside.
GPL and Creative Commons aren't public domain licenses.
Technically that is correct, which was the point of this whole topic. But that is the basic intent and they are about as close as it comes.
is Vivaldi intended for a small group of developers only? no? you want non-developers to use it?
I don't understand your gripe with that name in particular. It's not an obscure name, and it evokes some sense of classical grace (as well as being an extension of the Opera name in a sense). There are any number of other projects out there, both successful and otherwise, that have much more ridiculous names. Firefox is a great example. What does "Firefox" have to do with being a web browser? Or SeaMonkey, or Chrome for that matter? What about Twitter? Or Flickr? What about LibreOffice, which I have to actually spell for people who haven't heard of it? How about "The Gimp?" But you're choosing to go on a rant over the name of a classical composer, as if no one has heard of this person?
In the first place, people are obviously fine with using things with names that don't have an obvious connection to the product. In the second place, plenty of people have actually heard of Vivaldi (the man). It's not as obscure as you apparently think it is.
The greatest income inequality in the developed world can be found in probably the least statist country, the US.
Just two comments here, though there are many I could make.
First, income inequality is NOT the real issue. Why should you care who is or is not rich? The PROBLEM is poverty.
Second, my whole point was that it is very easy to show that income inequality has become WORSE, the more statist the U.S has become. I'm not saying that correlation proves causation, but the existence of a correlation is indisputable.
I'm very hesitant to download it much less sign up for it...the amount of info they seem to get from you is pretty bad.
Waze wasn't bad about collecting information until it was acquired by Google.
hint: there's no such thing as a public domain "license"
This is a patently ridiculous assertion. A copyright holder can voluntarily place a work in the public domain (that's what GPL and Creative Commons are all about, for example). In fact that's what this whole discussion is ABOUT. Have you read any of it?
There is no law in the US that allows something to be appropriated from the public domain without modification
Another patently ridiculous assertion. There doesn't have to be a law "allowing" it. That's not how the law works. It would not be possible only if there were a law against it.
The FACT is, not many years ago Congress passed a law that put millions of works that were formerly in the public domain back under copyright. That is the incident that caused EFF to start pushing for a law that would make that no longer possible.
So you are WAY out in left field.
Ummm. Are you saying that the peoples' will is to keep the skies over the White House open to drones of all sorts? Really?
Or are you just looking for any vaguely political story onto which to dump your anti-government bullshit...
Don't be a jerk. The question is whether all drones should be restricted just because the President is a candy-ass.
A Federal court has already ruled that the FAA does not have authority to regulate drones, except those that enter "navigable airways". REGARDLESS of whether their use is commercial. Their regulatory authority is limited to interstate commerce, which is the basis for the definition of navigable airways.
The solution to the Whitehouse problem is simply to make it illegal to fly drones THERE. Not to regulate them everywhere else.
The FAA has appealed the court's ruling, but based on evidence and precedent it is pretty clear the FAA will lose that appeal.
Apparently not.
Ah, Americans and their "mammoth snowstorms" - try living on a rock in the middle of the North Atlantic. You know what we call a snowstorm with gale-force winds and copious precipitation? Tuesday
Here's what the job of someone dispatched to maintain antennae for air traffic control services has to deal with here.
Apparently going through the FCC is the only way to get anyone to fix anything.
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?
