He starts by condeming browsers and proxies that help people browse the internet anonymously. Then he jumps to saying that anonymous browsing leads to trading drugs, weapons, and pornography. Then he commends the USA NSA for spying on Americans but is concerned that now that they have been caught Americans might do something about it.
Red Hat offers 10 years of support. And new versions of Red Hat are generally better than previous versions, so there isn't as much need to hold on to old versions.
Source: http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/red-hat-extends-linux-support.html
Did calling home really throw off the results? Since that is something that ordinary users would have to put up with, I would think it should be part of the test. It might be difficult to get an average, but testing Intel's compiler only when it is at its fastest doesn't seem fair.
How exactly would one steal a public domain work, even for a loose definition of "steal?"
But then how would Googlebot know that Phoronix is really great and popular and they should rank it higher in searches?
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants â" in their own words â" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable. Anyone with an intermediate understanding of computers and the internet would be able to publish something silently. Create an account with a seedbox, upload file, upload torrent to thepiratebay.sx.
It looks like all they did with the "hacker" identification is determine that they were intermediate level with computers and networking.
Judging from the summary, this is a standard courtroom procedure, and the submitter is trying to sensationalize it by leaving out all of the other evidence.
History is ripe with companies that built a product that does something different, and in ways better, than the competition. And once their product is successful, they try to emulate something that somebody else does, and their product share slowly declines as their users realize there is no longer anything special about the product.
Look at Firefox. It was a faster, lighter, less annoying and extensible browser. Over time, it slowly got bulkier, slower, and in some ways buggier. They annoy users by panicing any time a certificate is signed by an authority not on the list. When Google released Chrome, Firefox decided they wanted to have a Chrome-like super fast release cycle, which hurt extensions. Users are slowly leaving Firefox for other browsers, especially Chrome, as Firefox becomes less and less special.
If Google locks down the OS and prevents users from installing their own applications, then Android will no longer be special. People will still use it, since it's still a smart phone and devices will be cheaper than Apple. But as soon as a competitor comes along that offers what Google used to offer, users will quickly leave, and within several years Android will be a memory.
No evidence has yet been presented to back the claims...
Is it fearmongering?
Or is there some legitimate basis for the ban?
How would we know whether or not evidence exists? All we know is that we haven't seen any. Time will tell. If no evidence is preseneted in the next month or so, then we'll know that it's just fearmongering, and not a legitmate basis for a ban.
Obviously the previous reports were wrong. Anybody familiar with computers and storage space knew that the numbers reported by NPR and other "news" outlets were ridiculous. They were saying that the center would hold 5 zetabytes, and would only cost $1.2 billion! That's about 25 cents per TB.
Best I could tell, NPR et al misunderstood a Wired article from over a year ago. In the Wired article, somebody said that they would eventually like the processing power in the center to exceed 1 exaflops, and then maybe someday after that 1 zetaflops.
the fact that Google can read them (and disclose them if forced by 'law') is a bit surprising, too put it nicely.
That's not just nice, that's outright flattery. Seriously, who is surprised by this? Lots of cloud backup storage services don't let you encrypt data (or make it hard to do so), so why would it be surprising that Google, the mother of all data hoarders, would want to store and read this stuff?
Find old versions right here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/previous/Pages/radeonaiw_xp.aspx
I went to AMD's driver site, which I found with the google search, "amd catalyst download". I clicked on "Windows XP (32 bit)". Then I clicked on "Previous Drivers and Software."
Block the whole internet by default. Customers have to submit a list of checkmarks letting the ISP know what they would like to have unblocked.
This reminds me of a female blogger several years ago after that tennager suicide case. She reported that she heard match.com didn't allow married people to use their site. She said that couldn't risk confirming this herself, since she was happily married.
The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
