Comment Re:Are you ritawded? (Score 2) 116
Ummm, Chrome
This article discusses Chrome/Chromium , Google's browser-centric operating system. Google owns trademarks on "Chromium" (the contested word).
Ummm, Chrome
This article discusses Chrome/Chromium , Google's browser-centric operating system. Google owns trademarks on "Chromium" (the contested word).
New Hampshire was one of the first states to reject "Real-ID", and to hell with the (then-threatened) restrictions on air travel. I was one of the people that campaigned actively for this; one of my friends was a co-sponsor of the bill that did the opt-out, not only from Real-ID, but from "any national identification card system that may follow"
If that sounds good to you, you should check us out: http://freestateproject.org//intro/real-id
Yeah, a social security number is way better than an actual state-issued ID. Face it, one way or another you will be uniquely identified via government-issued credentials. They might as well be strong ones... I'd prefer a well-implemented national ID over the weakly-implemented insecure one we have right now any day.
Somebody needs to write the iPad apps, and they're not exactly going to "pinch to malloc". This alone would keep Mac OS X alive.
You're saying they'll maintain an entirely separate OS just for development? Seems a bit like overkill.
If only there were an already-maintained cheap (or free) OS that was capable of high-end development. It would be significantly easier to port Cocoa / XCode to Linux, use that as a development platform, and test against an emulator.
+1 ironic for misspelling moron.
Please stop calling every single person who is tinkering with code a 'researcher'...
Researcher: One who conducts research.
Did he conduct research? Yes.
Then he is a researcher.
reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.
Not to be pedantic, but it's still OSS (Open-source Software)
I work for a college, and we shape / police traffic to / from the Internet.
This was a necessity on our 3Mb link of many years ago, but has still been useful on our 1Gb link of today.
This policy has greatly improved the user experience. Interactive protocols have low latency, bulk transfer protocols get sent to the end of the line. Where we do slow down things, it isn't really noticed by most folks. After first implementing this many years ago, we immediately got positive feedback. Now it is just "how things are."
Hell, I shape / police traffic at home to my cable modem. VOIP and interactive ssh are still usable even with huge downloads going on now, and users hammering the public wifi I provide to my neighborhood.
You make a good case, and I agree. I'd like to know whether or not you told your customers how you were shaping their traffic.
I have no issue with enforcing (your idea of) quality of service on a network. What bothers me about Comcast is the general lack of transparency behind it all. Their policies should be public and open to scrutiny, minimally so I know what's going on with the service I'm paying for and ideally so they can be held directly accountable if they implement an absurd form of shaping.
The U of Wisconsin researchers developed a method to create these cells from stem cells.
Alright, not trolling here, just genuinely curious. My understanding, at last via information gleaned from Slashdot and other news-oriented sites, was that the US government contributes very little (relatively speaking) to the field of Stem Cell research; not only that, but they have tons of laws in place to complicate and/or hamstring such research, and the research is politically unpopular. It sounds like the USA should more or less fall off the face of the map in terms of groundbreaking Stem Cell research...
Why, then, does it also seem like a significant number of breakthroughs in the Stem Cell research field is still occurring in the States? Is the media overblowing the neglect, does USA research just persevere in the face of adversity, or is there some alternative system (patents, universities, academia, etc.) set up that allows us to sidestep these seemingly-crippling obstacles?
If the political taboo was alleviated and the restrictions removed, would we do even better? Just curious to hear some thoughts on the subject...
Every fanboy is going to post. Apple, Linux, and (yes) Windows.
Eventually every system, connected to other systems and used by humans, will be compromised. It's how those compromises are dealt with that is the measure of the system. Security through obscurity only works until someone realizes you're there.
Fix the holes or be ridiculed for being shite!
Microsoft continuously releases security patches, Linux requires a few patches (including updates), and EVENTUALLY Apple will release security updates to combat this problem.
Apple needs to face reality and fix security holes quickly. When you pander to the "lowest common denominator", you need to treat them as such. Damn! It just dawned on me, that's why there's an "App Store" for Macs. Security via a police state.
Never mind.
Cheers Apple, may you never lose your zealots. (Yes, sarcasm)
This whole "anti-fanboy rant preempting fanboy posts" thing is getting pretty annoying. If you see someone blinded by fandom, feel free to smack them down, but ranting against nobody in particular for something that hasn't been done yet is pretty stupid by all accounts...
Well that just reaffirms my concerns then. Ubuntu's UI is in some areas far less configurable than Windows 7.
I suppose there's a reason the Ubuntu web site barely mentions the word "Linux". The traditional benefit of everything being configurable in Linux does not translate to Ubuntu's philosophy, even if there's very little reason why it should not. Maybe Canonical just doesn't have the manpower/skill?
If you want configurability, you will not find it in Ubuntu, old or new. Neither GNOME nor Unity are highly-configurable user experiences. Granted, GNOME is more configurable than Unity...
No, for the Linux desktop, KDE wins the gold for configurability and integration. If you like the rest of what Ubuntu has to offer (bleeding-edge packages, Debian-based repository, etc.), use Kubuntu, an Ubuntu distribution that defaults to the kubuntu-desktop package instead of the ubuntu-desktop one. If you want a heavyweight desktop environment, the only reason to use GNOME or Unity over KDE is a simplified streamlined experience.
Is it too cynical to mention that the US government has a vested interest in denigrating Bin Laden, and that he's no longer around to deny this claim?
Only if you mention that even if he were around, he'd probably deny it regardless of whether or not it is true.
Then again, the story isn't unbelievable. Just take a look at some interesting Google Trends results:
I suppose, either way, we're going to have to judge for ourselves whether or not we believe the story, and to what extent. I, personally, feel that it's not unlikely or surprising, but also that I don't really case. Who'd have thought someone able to morally justify slaughtering thousands wouldn't also find a way around whatever porn-related barriers they face?
So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate.
My copy of Steam disagrees. The App Store is just another delivery method for software.
You might as well try to make the same complaint about Ubuntu's Package Manager... Is it the dominant method for installing software on a Ubuntu machine? Yes. Is it guarded jealously by Ubuntu managers intent on preventing conflict, but ultimately preventing me from installing the latest and greatest? Yup. Is it the ONLY method? God no.
And now is when you realize that I was responding to a parent, whose projection was that Apple would eventually lock Macs fully down to just the App Store.
This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.
I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.
I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"
And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:
So here's my question: is it really so bad?
So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc. Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.
If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.
The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store. If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.
And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.
This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.
Judge Baker cited a recent child porn case where the US authorities raided the wrong people, because the real offenders were piggybacking on their Wi-Fi connections.
Surely the police raided the right people, the owners of the wireless device that facilitated the downloading. How they handled them after that however is debatable, but how would the police have been expected to solve the crime with out doing that?
Car analogy! If my car is caught on a video camera running over children, shouldn't they be allowed to go to the DMV with my license details, get my address and interview me?
Then again, there is the question of severity. Violation of traffic laws can point to willing risk to other members of society (speeding, running lights) or, in your example, (analogous) murder. File sharing is, more or less, victimless*. I would put it more on par with police going to the DMV, then your house, because they caught you not wearing your seatbelt on camera, and I would think that, legal or no, such a reaction is well out of line.
* Yes, I am aware of the economic impact of a failure to sell a product. However, file sharing is so far removed from actual purposeful purchase, and industry profits and sales have never been higher. I would imagine that if there was a serious impact worthy of putting the act on par with public endangerment or bodily harm, there would be at least some compelling evidence of effects to back it up, and there really isn't.
> Location tracking is part of the spec...
True. The problem, however, is that everyone jumped up and down to give all their personal data to the phone companies with subscription plans.
If my phone is prepaid and the phone company has no clue whatsoever who the phone belongs to, then the towers knowing the location of that phone means nothing.
I was always amazed at how many people were willing to get locked into plans.
Not so; it is easy to de-anonymize tracking information by looking at the heavily-traveled areas. Most likely, those are your workplace and your place of residence. I'll bet that's enough to uniquely identify the vast majority of people.
That's the problem with location information. It's invariably tied to your physical self and your lifestyle, anonymous or not.
Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.
