Same reason they decided to support avi and mp3, and that's their wide spread use. If you have a bunch of people using a different player just because you didn't support those formats or made it difficult to play them, why would they stick with your eco system. Yeah it's probably not a big deal to Microsoft if you use VLC over WMP but it's nice if you can keep people in your eco system as much as possible. FLAC has been around for ages and while it's probably not something that's used as much as MKV is likely used it's also not so difficult to support it.
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters.
Slashdot used to be the news aggregator and they would have info faster than anyone(I know right). It was the first of it's kind and as such slashdot did cover major events in great detail. Look back at Sept 11 http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?... the news on the site was amazing for the time. Ask CmdrTaco what he thought were some of the highlights of slashdot and I'm sure he would say that in his time here that this was one of the sites shining moments. Not news for nerds, but stuff that mattered.
So when you see a headline story pop up and you shoot it down, think this what slashdot was all about many years ago when it started. News for nerds, stuff that matters. A site made by nerds for nerds but not just about nerds, about the things that affect them. This news story affects people nerds non nerds.
It's a fringe brand in that Ferrari is a fringe brand. I don't think most people wouldn't want one but I don't know a soul who has one. Very few have seen them. They aren't exactly a larger brand. IF they can mass produce a model in a reasonable price range comparable to a modern model of car it will take off. Right now it is in the fringe but I don't think it will stay there. That's exactly what the guy in the article said. He didn't say Tesla was a bad idea or that it won't take off, he said it's not there yet but this next model could very well take it there.
It will be exciting to see where we go from here.
We've been trialing it for about a year here and it's still no where near where it needs to be for an IT person not to crawl under their desk and sob.
Also don't beat dogs. That was just an old saying and it's terrible.
No, the basic idea is that other people won't want to do that shit.
That's not going to work. Lots of the time crimes are committed because the person is mentally ill, desperate, or just crimes of passion. The death penalty never really worked as a deterrent I doubt this would either. The chances of them recommiting after being released when you have probably broken them mentally with this punishment are probably higher. Now the case that she was talking about, where the two adults killed that child. They are probably beyond being rehabilitated, that doesn't mean we get to beat them like a dog for it.
You are right. This solves nothing. What happens when a contributor comes out as being from an embargoed country? Do they remove the code and say oh well? Do they take a heavy fine and possible jail time?
I'm not a lawyer but I find this way of dealing with the problem very dangerous to the community. They need to move the project to a country that will not cause so much problems for it.
Your making it sound like a scam. First of all vapourware is something that never ships this did. Second of all they explained the goals and hardware of the device which they have met the hardware goals, though I don't think the software is exactly where it should be. Basically they want to be steambox with android as the OS. It's not a terrible goal but they needed more titles and backing from developers not just people buying it for a set top box that happens to play games. Which is pretty much what people are using it for now it would seem.
Sorry I didn't think about it. Seeing as the article was based in the U.K., I assumed people would talk about it from either a global or U.K. perspective.
There are two scenarios in forcing someone to hand over information on an encrypted disk.
1) With no evidence of wrong doing they make you hand over information that's encrypted. There is no court order, because there isn't any evidence. It's like passing through security and they want to view secret documents in your locked briefcase. That's not warranted. It's a violation.
2) Court has evidence against you there is an investigation and they court orders you to hand it over. It's the same as asking for the key to your briefcase because they have a warrant to search it. The only difference is, is that if you don't give them the key they can't smash the lock to open it up. If you don't give them the key and they can't open it up they will throw you in jail for disobeying the court. I see that as nothing different than what has happened here.
Now it has been argued I believe successfully that encrypted data should be treated just personal speech which should be protected by the 5th. Now this wasn't the U.S. so this has no barring on the current case. It's quite interesting to think of how this falls. Is it the same as making someone testify or make a statement or is it more like locked files in a cabinet.
So while the scenario in part 1) isn't debatable the scenario in part 2) is. Was this a violation of freedom it's hard for me to say.
They probably made a deal in order to do the interview and they probably dictated the type of questions that could be asked. If they deviated they would most likely have either gave some BS question or ended the interview leaving them with nothing for ratings.
The person doing the interview would have been given questions to stay away from and 60 minutes would be happy to have such a high profile person they would have done what they were asked. It's not news it's a stage show.
OK it cost them money that sucks for them I'm sure.
I just don't get how you are jumping to Net Neutrality being able to allow the gov more restrictions over data. They could impose that under either model really. Without net neutrality the ISP's are going to be able to impose restrictions.
Net Neutrality is already in place so that extra cost to the ISP it's already done with, the only thing they are missing out on is extra profits from segmenting the connection.
Essentially if things stay the way they are now it's fine, so why change it now? You say that Net Neutrality is a boon for the gov. then why put someone into the chairman seat who was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry? It's more likely that the gov. doesn't want Net Neutrality, or more likely doesn't give a shit.
Bottom line who does net neutrality hurt? Possibly consumers in higher prices but ISP's have already admitted to over inflating the price there is no incentive to drop prices without network neutrality. It hurts ISPs because they can't develop packaged internet services for different services.
If you have some numbers on how network neutrality is costing ISP's more money I would love to see it I find that kind of thing interesting.
There were also no problems while the FCC introduced the rule. So what is your point?
Do you know what the ISP's want to do? They want to make teirs for services like cable and have you pay extra for say streaming netflix services. They could block access to youtube unless you pay the bill.
So? That's how markets work you pay tolls to go places and you pay for goods and services.
What this ends up doing is hurting the openess of the internet. You are so worried about having gov. influence in your service that you didn't even consider corp. influence? Your ISP has a streaming service that they want you to buy into. It's not as good as netflix or amazon prime so they can't compete. So instead they mark up the price of being able to connect to those services instead of subsidizing their own. It closes pathways on the internet and even if you do work around it can cause lag time.
It's not to say that it would happen but it has been suggested by the gentlemen at AT&T and Time Warner.
Now having the net neutrality laws in place what did that do? Maybe it jacked up the price that some ISP's offer their services at, though I highly doubt that. But what it did was keep all of those channels open and not filter things out. They couldn't prevent access to competing systems for a toll.
The reason there wasn't a problem before is because they were doing something crazy, like future proofing the internet from ISPs trying to muck up the openess of the internet. Streaming, gaming, facebook and so much more is now a part of our lives that an open internet for all is very important. It would be like having the great wall of china but instead it's instituted by the Corp. and they block or limit content they don't want you to have.
So I might not be Einstein but the implications of removing net neutrality could be very consequential to everyone.
You trolling me? Net Neutrality was preventative to say that it never stopped anything is like saying that stoplight never stopped anyone from T-boning someone. It didn't happen because the FCC didn't allow it to. I believe most if not all the major ISP's were hoping to have a tiered system and have been saying so for years. It's well documented their lobbying on the matter.
As for the Snowden bullshit do you think for a second that just by not having net neutrality corporations are not going to hand over information to the NSA? Government is going to be involved in data traffic regardless of who is the carrier and how they handle it. They could care less in that regard. That will change nothing with privacy at all. So why allow companies to fuck everyone over with their large oligopoly.
Maybe a better description would be stereoscopic video? It would be more accurate than 3D for sure.