So perhaps the answer is to now 'lobby' for more filtering, along the lines of what you suggest.
No, I am not suggesting more filtering. I am saying that to achieve what they claim they are trying to do they are going after the wrong targets. It should be the parents who know what their kids are up to.
This is, supposedly, what this is all about. So why not ban the ones that really cause damage: violent sites (people shooting people, stories about murder), religious sites (think of the guilt complex that many catholics have, islamic fundamentalist sites,
We will never agree on what causes damage, the current list has more to do with the daily mail tory electorate than any rational sense.
Putting it in a form that people are familiar with can make it an easier or more entertaining read. I first read Henry Spencer's 10 commandments for C programmers some 30 years ago. It was good then; it is still largely relevant with a few changes, eg: in commandment 10 substitute 'Intel' for 'VAX'; commandment 1: well the 'lint' function is usually available as a high warning level in most compilers.
Why didn't anyone else think of it before Apple? Well, the fryer pan people did.
Did Apple cite the deep pan use on their patent application ? If not then should they not be prosecuted for submitting a fraudulent patent application ? Use with 'electronic equipment' is hardly a reason for considering it novel
One problem with this is that some laptops take much more juice to run than others. So will the standard charger have to be powerful enough to feed the biggest laptop or will we get a range of, say, 3 -- which would be a good advance on what we have today if the same plug was used, so the most powerful PSU could be used with a light laptop, as long as a light PSU had a cutout to protect it from overload?
The specifications are protected from download by a password, so I can't check
I doubt that the likes of Apple would adopt this.
I have just received the 3rd copy of his December newsletter - all to the one email address that he has for me. I don't know what is happening.
If it is not an asset and I were to sell some bitcoin, would I need to charge VAT (I am VAT registered as I am self employed) ? VAT is 20% in the UK at the moment, so it is a large cut. The person buying the bitcoin could reclaim VAT but only if they are VAT registered
As that is my main browser; I have plenty of plugins, eg: noscript, ghostery. However I also use opera for those sites where it is too much of a pain to work out what scripts/references to allow, etc -- and then get it to forget everything once I have viewed the site. The combination works well at maintaining privacy.
Firefox has good plugins that help with web development, but Opera's Dragonfly is very much worth using as a complimentary tool. I also use Lynx to check pages, partly because it shows me how spiders see the site -- good for SEO.
Of course, this would be somewhat complex, and require some fancy software architecture since ARMs aren't binary-compatible with x86-64s.
Make all the CPUs ARM and use Big.Little that allows you to seamlessly switch to a low power CPU on the same chip when not much is happening.
You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. He might not have been an angel 100% of the time, but overall he did the right things. He did much more good with his life than I have in mine, and more good that I suspect you have done.
Saying that it is encrypted is one thing, but a whole lot more is needed to be confident in security. What if the encyption algorithms have problems, or the key generation produces an effective length of less than 2048, etc, etc.
Microsoft would be really smart if it released its security related code under some ''you can view this and try to break it but cannot sell/... license''. This need not be incompatible with keeping the rest of its code base proprietary. It would really boost confidence if people could independently rebuild the security DLLs. On the other hand if Microsoft does not do this we need to ask the question: what has it got to hide ?
Can someone tell me how the cost of an Internet connection breaks down. As I see it there are 3 components:
- 1) consumer residence to ISP point of presence (PoP) ''the last mile''
- 2) PoP to ISP core infrastucture
- 3) ISP links to elsewhere
I do realise that my breakdown is somewhat simplistic; net neutrality is all about the cost of (3) compared to the cost of (1)+(2). If (3) really is much greater than there might be an argument for not streaming lots of data (eg video) round the globe. If (3) is not the lion's share of the cost then attempts to prevent net neutrality are more about controlling access to the consumer for the ISP's commercial gain.
I assume that any cost in paying for a free consumer broadband modem, installation costs, and similar, have been amortised (ie not part of the above calculation)
The USA pursued Gary McKinnon for a decade for cracking some USA military and NASA computers, mainly those where incompetent sysadmins had not changed default passwords. What Gary McKinnon was wrong; but this is also wrong and worse by an order of magnitude.
Do we assume that the USA gov't will hand over those responsible as it wanted the UK to hand over Gary McKinnon ? I would eat all of my hats if the USA gov't even talked about the possibility.
I am just wondering who will empty the cup of tea and find Gallifrey. It will make it more interesting if a few Time Lords can be brought into future plots.