Comment Re:Assume it (Score 1) 572
Mine never has.
Mine never has.
Well, if I was really into industrial espionage I might do something like bring a USB stick loaded with my zipper program, but instead of storage set to look like a keyboard. Plug it in, open Notepad and have it type the executable out into a file.
I've noticed that a lot of places disable USB storage but don't disable file execution from writable directories.
Sounds like the real answer to this problem is an improved USB to serial dongle. If this is a serious problem for electronics engineers, they are the perfect people to fix it. Whatever the problem with the USB to serial interface is, fix it. Then sell your improved serial port adapter for $100. Profit!
Windows 8 doesn't slow anything down. Check some benchmarks. It is faster than XP in most things. Here's one from a casual Google: http://itnews2day.com/2013/02/...
Windows XP is 32-bit only. Windows XP does not like hyperthreading or quad core CPUs. XP doesn't perform well on high bandwidth WAN connections. Its old SMB file transfer speeds are atrocious on gigabit LANs. It doesn't allow threaded GPU accesses and only supports old DirectX versions. It doesn't understand Advanced Format hard drives or SSDs. USB 3 on XP is buggy as hell. (in my experience)
If you installed a super modern GPU with 3 GB video RAM on XP, it would fall over and die because it has to map those 3 GB into 4 GB of space.
So, in at least this case, the OS didn't slow down. And without it new hardware wouldn't work at all.
Sure you can. But what is Chrome on iOS? It is a user interface skin over Safari is all it is. Not actually Chrome.
Of course you have rights. So does your employer. And using your employer's network gives your employer the right to see what is traveling over his network.
They shouldn't. A simple second level of encryption such as an encrypted ZIP file defeats any automatic scanning for confidential keywords or anything similar.
Wow - I'm not sure you should be using the sample of bad existing code as an argument against PHP and FOR perl. Yikes.
Eh. Except that a blue screen or if you have to do a forced power-off will lose data and require a chkdsk run. I ran my desktop that way for a little while (with a UPS) but it had problems.
"White Flight"
What a racist term. As if it is white people that keep an area valuable and crime free.
It's actually middle class and upper class flight, as well-off black, asian and hispanic people don't want to live in a blighted crime-ridden area either.
Classification as common carrier, and true net neutrality rules (the level of net neutrality most people actually want) based on that are two different things.
And what, exactly, is the difference?
There is the classification of ISPs as common carriers - which we don't have.
Once you have the classification, you have the rules that govern common carrier ISPs - which we also do not have.
We need both. Simply reclassifying them as common carriers isn't going to do much, because we need the rules that govern them to specify exactly what they are and aren't allowed to do, and how to measure and enforce this, and what the penalties are for violations.
Until ISPs are classified as common carriers, the FCC will not have the authority to enforce any level of net neutrality - which a former FCC chairman has recently stated. I have not said, and do not believe, that we have ever had any level of net neutrality.
We had exactly that until 2005 when the FCC reclassified DSL and CATV ISPs as "information services" (not common carrier) from their previous classification of "telecommunications service" (common carrier) which they had held since the inception of the internet.
Classification as common carrier, and true net neutrality rules (the level of net neutrality most people actually want) based on that are two different things. We've never had both of those at the same time. And unless and until they're reclassified as common carriers, net neutrality is a non-starter.
I very much disagree that simply because we don't now, and have never had true net neutrality, that means we can't ever have it. We can have it, but we have to fight for it.
Because it would be illegal
Why?
What was the rule or regulation or law from Net Neutrality that made what Verizon is doing illegal?
I want someone to be specific because my point is this Verizon action has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality, and would not be stopped by any Net Neutrality rules that the FCC put forth before they were told to stop.
So I repeat; HOW WOULD VERSION NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING?
There is no current authority by the FCC (which they recently admitted) that allows them to enforce net neutrality. Even before that admission, what they had in place would not have worked as net neutrality, and was certainly never legally challenged and upheld in any court to cement it. Until ISPs are classified as common carriers, the FCC will not have the authority to enforce any level of net neutrality - which a former FCC chairman has recently stated. I have not said, and do not believe, that we have ever had any level of net neutrality. I am advocating FOR true net neutrality. That doesn't mean that what Verizon is supposedly doing doesn't violate the spirit of what people want net neutrality protection against, however.
Because it would be illegal, and they would be subject to legal repercussions, unlike now. What part of this do you find confusing?
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]
